Timcast IRL - Trump Preps BOOTS ON THE GROUND In Iran Says media, Trump Says NO w/ Devory Darkins

Episode Date: March 21, 2026

Tim and Phil are joined by Alex Tein, DeVory Darkins, and Kyla Turner to discuss Trump preparing a possible Ground Invasion in Iran, Joe Kent and Tulsi Gabbard might run in 2028, and a democrat vows to target trump officials if Dems win.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ Join -    / @timcastirl   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guests: Alex Stein @alexstein99 (X) DeVory Darkins @devorydarkins (X) ]Kyla Turner @NotSoErudite_ (instagram) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! Trump Preps BOOTS ON THE GROUND In Iran Says media, Trump Says NO | Timcast IRL w/ Devory Darkins For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

Ever feel like car shopping is designed to make you second guess yourself? Is this a good price? Am I making the right choice? With Car Gurus, you don't have to wonder. You get deal ratings, price history, and dealer reviews without the surprises, so you can shop with confidence. Buy your next car gurus at Cargooros.ca. Go to Cargooros.ca.

To make sure your big deal is the best deal. That's C-A-R-G-U-R-U-S dot CA. Cargooros.ca. This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. Last year, I went through many different life changes. I needed to take a pause and examine how I was feeling in the inside to better show up for the ones who need me to be my best version of myself. When you're navigating life's changes, Talkspace can help.

Talkspace is the number one rated online therapy, bringing you professional support from licensed therapists and psychiatry providers that you can access anytime, anywhere. Living a busy life, navigating a long-distance relationship, becoming a first stepfather, Talkspace made all of those journeys possible. I could speak with my therapist in the office. I could speak with my therapist in the comfort of my home. I was never alone.

Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off your first month with promo code Space 80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com. Save $80 with code space 80 at Talkspace.com. It is being reported that more Marines and ships are being deployed to the Middle East as the Trump administration is preparing for a ground incursion in Iran. Now, another report is that this would just be limited to Karga Island,

which is not the main body of Iran, to secure their oil distribution and force them to reopen the strait of Hormuz. However, Donald Trump himself has put out a statement saying, we are getting ready to wind things down. So at the same time he's saying that the United States is deploying more Marines and ships to the region. So you have to figure out what you think is really going to happen. And I'm of the opinion. I think things are probably going to escalate and hopefully they don't.

But some are speculating for the 800 millionth time that this, this could be World War III. Yes, right. Venezuela could have been World War III. Ukraine would have been World War III. Actually, to be honest, I think there's a compelling argument that we are looking at potentially World War III. and that is in world war two the argument is it was a series of battles that started and before anyone no one really knew that it was a world war at the time when it kicked off and that's true for most great wars so the argument this time is hey guys look you've got the gulf in war you've got whatever happened in venezuela and now with cuba which is destabilizing but sort of stabilizing there's

conflict you've got ukraine you've got threats against Taiwan this looks like it could be something starting but we don't know for sure so we'll talk about that more important importantly, my friends, it has been announced by Democrats Project 2029. And what is that? They're saying that they're going to arrest Trump's administration, federal agents who supported Trump, and if they can't get you in criminal charges, they will destroy you civilly. So, oh boy, it's going to be great if Democrats, when Democrats win the midterms. So we'll talk about that and more before we do. We get a great sponsor. It is the Rumble Wallet, my friends. guys go to wallet.rumbl.com or click the link in the description below to download the rumble

wallet this is a non-custodial wallet that means you can't be banned from it they don't have control over this you hold the money it is bitcoin it is tether it is tether gold you can trade it with whoever you want and they can never ban you the reason why it's important guys if we do enter a censorship era and debanking comes back with vengeance it's never gone away mind you but it has been somewhat suppressed you're going to need a mean by which you can track transact to people where you know you're not going to get banned that's why the rumble wall is a great way to do that you can also use the rumble to tip your favorite creators on rumble like yours truly so again check out wallet dot rumble

dot com download the app and don't forget my friends go to timcast.com and join the discord help support the work we do directly and join the network it's not what you know it's who you know and everybody here you can help them they can help you community is our strength and as a member you support the work that we do so also smash the like button right now on this click that little like button share it wherever you can thanks for hanging out on this beautiful Friday night I know you could be out parted but you're here watching Tim cast IRL and it means a lot to me so share the show again and joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more we have Devori Darkens how's it going and what do

you guys think of my picture on Tim Kass's social media account I think I look like a gangster no you did that's in a good way or I think so why don't you let us know in the chat and I'm glad to be here again thank you team and of course Alex Steins here on a blimp is here you guys can follow me uh watch my show after hours on real americans voice but i want to say the people in the chat there are some haters already if you like laura luma but you hate me that means you're retarded so uh let's have a good show right on uh of course uh kyl's back hanging aloha and phil is here so up and uh now let's talk about the news

we've got this from cbs trump administration making heavy preparations for potential use of ground troops in iran we then have this in the new york times u.s dispatches marines and warships to the Middle East officials at 2,500 Marines from 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit in California, and the USS Boxer Amphibious Ready Group will go in April to relieve Marines already deployed in the Persian Gulf. Now, at the same time as they are saying, Trump is gearing up for a ground incursion of Karg Island. Trump himself boasts, we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the terrorist regime of Iran, one, completely degraded.

degrading Iranian missile capability to destroying the defense industrial base, three eliminating their Navy and Air Force, four, et cetera, et cetera. You get the point. The U.S. does, he says by other nations, blah, blah, blah, if asked, we will help these countries in their Hormuz efforts, but it shouldn't be necessary once Iran's threat is eradicated. Importantly, it will be an easy military operation for them, et cetera. We get the point. This is Trump talking about the Middle Eastern allies and trying to secure the Strait of Hormuz. I'm going to go ahead and say my opinion on this one is that the war is not going well. The middle, the, the, the, the independents are breaking from Trump. Uh, Republicans strongly support Trump. Democrats always oppose Trump. The question is, where are the middle of the road people?

You've certainly got many prominent individuals who were on the right, who are now critical of Trump in this war, but you also have two to one independence leaning away from this. They do not support these actions. And based on what we've seen in terms of deployment or announced deployments as well as the request for $200 billion and the fact that there's now discussions of invading Karg Island i don't think this is going well trump is under a political meat grinder he has a midterm coming up and this is the iranian strategy they want to grind it out until Trump is curtailed after the midterms and then they win effectively i'm curious what you guys think i think that it's going that it's going badly at the very least the the perception is

going bad it's going badly right i mean militarily the u.s. is is achieving the goals that they're looking for but there's also the political goal of this which is actually the removal of the regime it seems and i'm not so sure that that's going to happen in any kind of time frame that the administration wants well i'm really confused because trump has said that we've won this war eight different times but now he's coming to congress asking for 200 billion

dollars so which one is it have we won the war or do we need well those are distinct things the the 200 billion dollars is to is to is to replenish the munitions we have here because they sent them all over there. Well, not only replenish, it's replenish by some new. There's like some beefing up as well. My point is like whether or not we won a war, like if we won the war, they'd still need to ask for this money.

Or I should say, want to ask for this money. Yeah, because we definitely need to replete, but do we need to expand? I think they'd still ask for the same amount of money. That's probably true. That's probably true. I'm just saying, I'm not sure. A lot of people can get rich at these bomb companies.

Oh, I think a lot of people could reasonably be for, you know, updating and making sure that military, Arsenal stocks are where we need it to be, but I sure a lot of people are skeptical of the military having, what is it? What do we discover? One trillion? If they get it, it's one trillion dollar budget. 1.5? 1.5. But to be fair, guys, a lot of that is the VA fund and things. You got to break that down. How much of it actually goes to the bombs? I think that's what we pulled out.

I think that's $8 billion to the bombs, and if he gets $2 billion, then it's $1 trillion to like actual military arsenal asset. I think the problem is if you're going to ask for $200 billion, can you at least pass an audit. They haven't. Nope. There's a lot of money missing. They can't explain it. But on the other hand, we do want our men and women to be successful. I think on the ground they've been successful, but I don't think politically

it's going to be successful if it continues to drag on. Now, we don't know what's going to happen. I mean, it could end in the next two weeks and then what? Or it could drag on. Are you guys open? I'm curious your thoughts. Like, say the audit included, so one of my biggest criticism of how Trump's handled this is that I think it seems like the war plan is not

the most effective. Do you guys want to see a plan of like, if you say that you're ending the war, how? How are you winning? I know exactly. This is how he wins the war, though. He negotiates with Putin, who's Iran's biggest ally, and then he simultaneously ends the war in Ukraine while ending this war, and then it can look like he did a two-for-one deal. What if Putin won't end the war? Well, actually, you know, he just said he said today that he Putin's been more receptive than Zelensky in all of his negotiations. Sure, but he's, he's like gone back and forth on Putin, right? Like, Putin's been more receptive, but Putin's still sending Iran important intelligence, right? So it's like,

And Putin's been pretty clear. He's not ending with Ukraine. Like if he wants Crimea, he wants to Donbass, that's not changing. He maybe get it. Maybe Trump will give it to him. He's already got Crimea and the Donbass. He's already got Crimea, but the fighting is still around in the Donbass area. And regardless how you feel about it, I can't imagine the Ukrainians are going to take that laying down. They're not going to agree to that. Yeah, I don't think they're going to have a choice. I don't think that at the very least, I don't think Crimea is going back. He wants the port. I agree that Crimea is a fighting thing. But regardless, it's not obvious to me because, of all these moving pieces. Well, he did take the sanctions off their oil for 30 days. Of Russia's oil, yeah.

Yeah. So that's a pretty big step. He wants to bring them. He wants to bring them the petro dollar. He wants to cut them back in and say, we're going to make you money and you should be working with us because you're Western. Well, I think the petrodollars is what's in limbo right now because if all of these Gulf, you know, states don't actually feel like we're providing them any safety, then they don't

even have to use the petrodollar. And then we'd be totally screwed because we have nothing that backs our currency. So it's like, I feel like this is a very slippery slope if this thing goes even more sideways. Yeah, I mean, look, this is, like I said earlier, this is still a military success for the United States. Like the U.S., I think that when Iran is saying that they've achieved something because they managed to hit one F-35, like that's a big deal to them, considering all the sorters that have gone over, you've got B-52s, which are not stealth aircraft. They're flying over there basically at their, you know, at their whim. They've got total air domination, if I understand correctly.

you can't say that Iran is winning the war. The fact of the matter is the U.S. doesn't have the, there isn't a likelihood that the U.S. is going to achieve its political goals. And that's consistently what the U.S. has been doing. They'll achieve the military goals, but actually getting the political goals is something that has alluded to the U.S. But that's Iran's win condition, right? If the win condition for the regime is the regime stays in power,

then if America backs off before the regime has crumpled and regime changes happened, The regime is going to say we won. It is going to likely further solidify their very antagonistic position towards Israel and America. And we're going to be left with this state that's extremely hostile towards America with potentially concerns again about are they going to begin just rebuilding their nuclear power. So do we need to crush them right now? It's just so tough to evaluate. I think the issue is without having a proper, I think you guys said Starlink got opened for Iran today. thinking about it. I think without regime change, I don't see how this ends because the current

regime won't negotiate with us. They're going to continue to pursue nuclear warheads since they seem explicitly interested in that. And without a plan of regime change. I'm saying they're going to want the nuclear war now. You're probably right. But again, so the argument is like the favorable position is that we win this decisively, we remove the Iranian regime. Well, but the issue is can you do that from top-down bombing? No, you have to do with ground force. Exactly. So do we Should we send in the troops? Well, it's inevitable. They're already going to be sent in.

Well, hold on. I don't think we need to send in troops to accomplish that. You cannot occupy street corners with fighter jets. You can with nuclear bombs. You can't. But if you're spending $1.5 trillion, we have to have the technology. There is no technology to enforce local laws at the root level. You need boots on the ground.

It is, there's nothing about it. So imagine policing, right? We want to go in and we want to tell these people, you cannot have this form of government. Well, if we're not there to enforce, they're doing, they're going to do whatever they want. Especially the military police, which would be arming the opposite party on the ground. The Kurds never works. There's an argument in Iran for arming that, because Iran is very different than Afghanistan in Iraq, right?

The issue is that, like, in the case of the opposition, they're so beaten down by the regime, there's no coordination, they have no access to weaponry. So this is where the boots on ground comes of, like, if we hadn't started striking Iran, is there this question of, before any of this happened, could we have gotten well? weapons into some actual legitimate, more friendly to democracy group that could have had a successful regime change. That's a big notch, who knows, maybe. You bring up Afghanistan, but there is a huge difference when you compare Iran's military, which had 900,000 people in their three different branches. And you look at the Taliban, they had 40,000 people.

So it's just going to be, and then what, it took 20 years to replace a Taliban with the Taliban? But the populace is very different, right? Iran has a very highly educated, high, large middle class populace. that has a large interest in regime change that does not like the regime that is asking for support in shift in the regime. So why don't we ask this question? Is Iraq better off today than it was when we went in? I don't even know. Well, the Kurds say yes, but... No, but think about their current government today. Is it better than when we went in?

I mean, maybe marginally, but I don't know enough about what's going on inside Iraq now to say definitively. I mean, what was the worst thing Saddam Hussein did? He did mustard gas. He mustered gas. tried trading oil with the Euro. I know, and that's why it was the worst thing he did. It's like Muammar Gaddafi, he started to do the same thing. He was not African dena.

He was brutal to his people as well, but obviously is that the incentive. Well, but we don't care about that. I mean, I can, I agree. I'm just outlining that that's all happening. That's a bunch of countries that are brutal. The US is like, we're an oil producing nation and you're like, we want to trade with something else.

We're like, then you're gonna die. Well, the key question here is, is regime change possible, right? We've done it successfully in South Korea. We've done it successfully in Japan. We've done it successfully in a number of block countries. left USSR. But we can't even do a actual, they had a resistance movement.

They were actually fighting invasion. Well, that's why Iran is interesting because it's a lot, in many ways, it's very different than South Korea, obviously, because of Iran. I'm just bringing out that it's not technically regime change. It was supporting the existing regime. Yeah, but in the case of Japan, it was like actual regime change, right? And now they're their closest allies.

And there's really, really good research, actually, that came out of the Pentagon as to, like, why we failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, like, these things I'm listening, like, middle class, high levels of education, psychological interests of the people like growing towards specifically the regime change that America is trying tends to lead to more successful regime change. Whereas in Afghanistan, there was a number of areas where we like didn't work nearly closely enough with locals. We support it oftentimes like other counter terrorist groups rather than looking for like an alternative in the middle. There was like a lot of major mission mistakes that didn't

happen in other successful regime change, which poses a question. Is it possible? I want to say this about regime change though. If Donald Trump thinks that he can influence regime change in Iran, but he can't even influence the regime of New York City. I think he's going to have enough of a little battle. Yeah, distance is a really big thing. I want to go back to what you asked. Should we absolutely destroy the IRGC? I think you have to do that.

Because there's no reason you go in here. You spend the money, you spend the time and the resources to go there, and that's not the ending objection. I kind of think, you know, looking at everything that's going on, looking at the sentiment, looking at the media landscape, I wonder if the American, America, as a hegemony is done, it's gone. The, uh, there's, there's a lot of money to be made for what, what we've seen over the,

over the past decade or so with global content, meaning making content that plays to a multicultural audience. The simplest form of this is these, uh, just for laugh gags videos that have been viral for a decade plus where it's comedy bits, but there's no English in it. That way it can be played for anybody. So if you're in the age of the internet and you're a business and you want to make money, especially with media content, targeting as many people around the world as possible is going to make you the most money. You're going to be like, imagine if some dude, like, lived in Malaysia and just all day

posting about American- Ian Miles-Tong. We get the joke, Alex. I thought it was a real question. I don't know. Imagine somebody lived in Malaysia but posted nothing about American politics so they could run content in the United States, sell ads against it. The same thing is true for everywhere else.

So if you can find a lowest common denominator cultural icon or item, you can find, you can find, to produce content around then i mean so we're seeing with a slob content we see that with comedy content but an american-centric content is going to struggle against a sea of of easy-produced slop and global lowest common denominator content so if you want to maximize your audience think about subjects that get the best amount of play globally and play that and do you think the american as a hegemonic power plays well globally i don't think it does have you heard of strawberry the AI slop cartoons that are like super popular have you guys heard of it is it like similar to like the Italian brain rot that exactly it's

like the Italian brain rot videos but it's like they give them these terrible AI scripts and Tim they're getting hundreds of millions of views on TikTok like it is the the biggest AI slap I've ever seen so you're exactly right when it comes to how they can just make crappy content people will watch it but that's where we're going I mean when you look at like again what's what's happening on YouTube and this is a big deal we've been talking about for quite a bit, no, like YouTube's dead, I would argue, because functionally is a platform and a monetary machine. It's probably doing really, really well, but the amount of AI content,

we don't even have to call it slop. It's just the amount of content being produced. It is becoming impossible. The line used to be that an individual needed even a, just a tiny bit of talent to make a video that might get some views, even to just make the video to turn the camera on, press record press stop now you've got this one video where a dude was explaining how he does something like a hundred grand per month or 80 grand per month working two hours a day by just clicking a button on an AI website and generating a video and then uploading it yeah and he's like yeah i do like 10 of these per day and he's like and i make 80 grand a month it's like okay that that kid is a millionaire and you can't compete with that we can't compete with that nobody

can and as much as people are going to say like i don't want it it doesn't matter because it's what becomes available. There's going to be 700 videos that's AI AI trash and there's going to be two or three legitimate conversations about war in Iran. And what's going to happen is that shows like this will not be able to survive this era. I do think there's a big shift happening. I believe the narrative machine is coming back. It's going to be impossible for independent personalities to actually express opinions on these matters. And we talked about it before but my prediction is you had the era of free music,

then you get the streaming music services where you subscribe. You have you have the era of free movies, and now it's just Amazon where people just click the button and buy the movie or watch it on Paramount or CBS or whatever. The same thing is going to happen to all podcasts. It's already happening. So expect my friends in the next couple of years. You know what? I'm going to let you guys in on a secret. I'm going to tell you exactly what the play is right now behind the scenes. You guys ready for this one? People are going to get mad at me for saying this, and maybe this is going to be bad for my career.

But I'm going to tell you what the perceived plan is based on the powers that be in the room. that are circulating in D.C. is that Joe Kent is friends with Donald Trump. Joe Kent did not resign in opposition. He did not resign because he hates Israel or he's concerned about Israel. He did not resign because he's concerned about this war. He resigned intentionally to create a bifurcation in the right to shift the political parties in the next couple of years. And he's going to run for office likely with Tulsi Gabbard in 2028. These conversations have been happening behind the scene for some time among many people in these circles. If you follow Laura Lumer, she's talked about something going on with Tulsi Gabbard and potentially she's working with Trump very

well, what I can tell you is I have heard a handful of things in the DC area. And that is Joe Kent didn't just all of a sudden do it 180 on Trump. This is part of the game plan. They want to eliminate woke. They want to restructure the political parties around a moderate Democrat party and a neo-con Republican Party reflects more like the Obama McCain years. That way you have a Democrat candidate who says, we might have to go to war, but we should bring some of our troops home, so you're going to have maybe war and yes war, and there's not going to be a strong anti-war element, despite what people are claiming right now. And that's one of the reasons we're seeing this play. Well, Tucker, if Tucker runs, he's anti-war. You should talk in your microphone.

I'm saying if Tucker runs, he's anti-war? No, he's not. What we're hearing in D.C., I was going to tell you what the... You haven't heard Tucker say that he's against his war? I thought yesterday you said that the right was shifting. You said the left would be pro-war and the right would be anti-war. Have you heard something different? No, no, no, no. The Tulsi Gabbard is going to be the anti-intervention Democrat. Oh, okay. Yeah, I didn't, yeah, when Tim explained this to me, I was surprised that Tulsi's going to be on the Democrat side. Tulsi and Kent will flip to being Dems, or Tulsi will flip to Dem and elect Kent. So again, I don't, all I can tell you is I've heard a handful of things from people in D.C. who work in the space that have, like, so there's a lot of

rumors. And it sounds to me based off a few things. Let me stress this. What I can tell you I know for sure, the mandate of the corporate media right now is to buy podcasts to absorb them into their infrastructure and put them on the front page of their streaming services. Duh, look at what's happening with CBS. Look what's happening with TikTok. The play is the machine state wants the narrative control back, so they're flooding YouTube with AI content to suppress independent commentary and channels. They will all get very small. They'll still exist, but they won't have a big impact on the general perception of what's going on the media. Then you're going to need to reshift the political parties

so you can have, I would describe it as a Kyla Democrat Party, still kind of on the left, but more reasonable wouldn't have a conversation, trying to make sound arguments. I respect that. But the weirder elements of woke and all of the weird gender stuff is going to slowly be pushed aside, and you're going to get a Tulsi Gabbard that is like moderate dam with some social policies, but the strategy is, when she comes out, she will not say Trump is bad,

will say, I believe Trump did his best with the information that he was given. I respect him. I'm not going to speak ill of this man. He worked really hard. However, I think this. And again, the play is they're going to restructure the narrative machine. The conversation is meant to look more like it did 20 years ago and less like it did in the 2010s. They don't want culture war insanity. They're trying to bring it all back together. So again, let me put it like this. The rumors that I'm hearing, and this could be all just nonsense. But from staffers and lobbyists and people in D.C. is the play that's happening right now,

like why is Tucker Carlson all of a sudden saying, oh, this is a bad, I oppose this, when only several years ago he was like Iran is a serious threat. People can't change their mind. He can, but he's friends with Trump, and this is the game plan. He's better friends of fans. Indeed.

And the game plan is if you want to win this, that you need controlled opposition, there should be an acceptable Democrat, and Republican Party, and with the Democratic Party and woke being largely unfavorable, they are going to try and create a moderate space that will attract the likes of Joe Rogan because you know he loves Tulsi Gabbard. And then you're going to have Joe Rogan in a couple of years being like, you know, I thought the Democrats were nuts. However, Tulsi Gabbard comes back in, and now we have real leadership for the Democrats. I think they can win. That's the game plan.

But this prevents culture, war, civil war expansion, and allows for the military industrial complex and the pro-Israel element to maintain their wars and the liberal icon of who do you think is all because like this is a lot of really really really big pieces moving and there's also an assumption that the Democrat base would ever consider like I understand you're saying the moderate the moderate rights right now when it shift back to be in the moderate left and vote for Tulsi but you won't win anything without the Democrat base and the Democrat base is never going to go for Tulsi anyone who's tax Trump I don't know if

I disagree the Democrat base hates Trump so the anyone that's touched them, anyone that's in their minds been sycophantic and bootlegging, they're not going to touch. The question is going to arise for your corporate Democrats. Who will they get more votes from the moderates or the progressives? And the play is to basically ice out the progressives. But Gavin Newsom's already moving towards the moderates. That's why APAC supported all of these Democrats and won in Illinois to get rid of the progressives. Sure.

So again, I'm going to stress this. I can tell you this definitively because these people have said it to my face. The mandate for the corporate press right now is to buy up podcasts and take this. All of these independent podcasts that exist are going to be pulled into HBO, Paramount, Netflix, whatever it might be. It's already happening. Sean Hannity launched a podcast. Netflix has a podcast section. They had a meeting in Florida where all these people got together and discussed how they get into space.

It is the corporate mandate. NBC Universal is having these very same conversations right now. Don't take my word for it. Larry Ellison just bought CBS and they're working on purpose. purchasing CNN right now. Well, that was my question. Are you saying that like this is coming from Ellis? Why is Ellis interested in working would be interested in Tulsi Gabbard and why would Tulsi be able to make a better bid for the moderate like Democrat vote than like somebody like Gavin Newsom who's making a pretty hard movement towards trying to connect. So is. And don't forget about AOC. But don't forget about J.D. Vance, right? So these elements are at play. But again, who does Trump support? I'm not entirely sure. Rubio. I think Rubio is the is the actual. player for 2028.

Soft required throwing Trump under the bus a little bit. Well, Trump's going to get impeached probably. Trump's going to get impeached and there's even speculation that Trump might might actually step down early so that Vance gets in as president for a little bit before Rubio takes the opportunity for 2028. Again, I don't know for sure what I can tell you is this. There has been, there have been rumors around D.C. for a while that Tulsi Gabbard was preparing to resign and she was going to start doing PR moves where she views Trump

respectively so that she can maintain moderates. She's not going to play the Trump Derangement Syndrome game. She's going to say that she respects him. He's a good guy. The Democrats were wrong to go after him, but the war is wrong. We shouldn't be involved. It's going to play the regime change thing. Yeah, but you can flip once.

You can't flip twice. That's that career suicide. Even if it wasn't her, even if it wasn't her, their strategy actually makes sense to me because at least you get rid of the progressive side of politics, which I think is the most radical thing on the planet. And so if this is, what they're thinking, if this is what they're planning. It sounds like a nice little strategy,

because even if Tulsi loses, if she is the person, that still means it doesn't go to the progressive side like Gavin Newsom. But who's they? Like who's they? Like who's the person at the top or the collection at the top making these decisions that are unified enough to do this? So Larry Ellison is a big Trump supporter and Trump fan. Merriam Addelson? Right. Which is why I'm going, why would Allison fall in line under Gabbard? So if a Tulsi Gabbard candidate is in, if, if, if you If your choice, like if Larry Hudson's looking at who his choice is going to be, and it's got to be a Republican like Trump or some whack-a-loon lefty, he's going to be like, can we get a Democrat in there that's not a threat to us? Like Rubio or Newsome. I have a feeling that it's, I feel like he would probably go for Rubio, right?

There's going to be a Republican and Democrat. They want the Democrat to be someone who's not a threat. They want moderately pro-war and pro-war. They being. Trump's inner circle, the donor class, the people who are buying up these media platforms and changing the narrative on them? Sure, but you're saying your point is they don't want bad shit crazy. But a lot of corporate elites are saying to the issue. They want pro-Israel. They want some kind of Israel ambivalent or pro-Israel.

All of them? Because I feel like a lot of corporate elites, like it feels like right now what we're seeing is like the battle of the billionaires. You've got like kind of the musk and the teals like on one side and then you got like the law is pro is real. Yeah, and you've got like the Soros and you've got like the gates on the other side that are very at contention with each other. Bill Gates is pro is room. Yeah. And indeed, maybe these people do not like each other.

So the play in D.C. with Trump, again, I'm going to stress this. This is the rumor that I'm hearing. I don't know that this is true. Joe Kent maybe is just doing whatever Joe Kent feels like. They want to take control of the middle of the road Democrat position. They want war. and they know that the war with Iran is going to be bad for moderates,

so they want to take control of a moderate Democrat space. With the goal of putting the... The goal is your choices for president in 20208 will be kind of pro-war and pro-war. So bad and worse. Gotcha. The way it's always been.

Again, the way I look at it is... Trump could have been good. It is being viewed largely by these donors and these elites that we must have a narrative machine the way we did back in the 90s of the 2000s, where when we see... say we're going to war for the petro dollar we do not get media opposition hence why they should be buying up all of these podcasts and that's what they're already doing or drowning them out with a i slop

content or buying tic-tok and banning certain voices so again i i point this out in uh perhaps there are grand conspiracies i don't know about or maybe there's not really and there's just a handful of a powerful elite billionaires that are making moves to make this happen there's definitely some conspiracy well you know conspiracy implying criminal wrongdoing what i'll say is this we know for a fact alison purchased cbs they're making a bid for warner brothers which would give them cnn as well and we know that they're part of the group that is acquiring ticot explicitly because of israel ticot had a massive amount of anti-israel content 84% pro palestine and this is this is not this is not a conspiracy this is not meant to be a shock content or conjecture we know for a fact the republicans wanted to ban ticot because

content was more progressive. Democrats said no. Then when Axios put out this report showing that the majority of the content after October 7th flipped to pro-Palestine, all of a sudden all the Democrats were on board. And they said, yes, we should ban TikTok. Trump's strategy was not to stop the ban of TikTok, although that's what it looked like and all these young people were cheering for him. Trump's strategy was, there's a better way to do this. You ban it. People get mad. We sell it to pro-Israel American interests, we win. Just off of TikTok alone, I think it is fair to see the play for every Democrat, every Republican and the investors is take control of the media and pro-Israel and the in the Arab will be pro-Israel. So what's worse? A Chinese-owned TikTok

or pro-Israel-owned TikTok? I, you know, I guess the troubling thing is you at least have some recourse in the United States. American, yeah, it's an American-owned company. I just, yeah, I'm trying to, like, see the through line of, like, what the goal is here. Let me first ask you that Trump under the bus necessarily. You do know that they purchased TikTok because of it's right. Yeah, no, no. I agree that the Ellis brothers have been buying up all sorts of their...

CBS, they're going to get CNN with the Warner Brothers merger as well. Yeah, yeah, I'm familiar with all of that. I'm just trying to go, if he's so pro-Trump, why wouldn't he just pivot? If he's got this good thing with the right, it feels like there's a lot of still, like, motivated energy behind it. I understand Iran's not popular. but just why don't you just have Marco Rubio come out and be like, man, like... They are going to have Marco Rubio.

But why wouldn't they get him behind him? That's what I'm trying to understand. They are behind him. They're behind both. You know what controlled opposition is? Yeah. That's the plan. Why would anyone think that Tulsi Gabbard is going to successfully run in a Democrat base?

She's not expected to win. Yeah, exactly. It doesn't matter. She's just there. Your choice is pro-war or pro-war. Right. Or I should say like Tulsi is going to be the moderate. And, but it's also this.

Okay. It's, yes, say this is all true. How do you feel about that? How do you feel about that? How do all of you guys feel? Like say all of this theory. I don't know. I guess it just is, right?

Like all of my life until Trump won, this is what it was. You could not go on TV if you oppose the war in Iraq. They wouldn't let you on. All of these anti-interventionist personalities, they were just on little micro blogs in the internet that didn't matter. Well, whether it was intentionally or otherwise, these channels got really big. Alex Jones got nuked. He was doing over 100 million unique. per month and he was making an insane amount of money so they ban him outright.

Nick Fulentes starts getting really popular, they ban him outright. All of a sudden then you have several high profile prominent conservatives who are friends with Trump flip and now all adopt similar positions around the exact same time. Now I will say it's entirely possible that there is a global or cultural zeitgeist where this is the content that makes money. This is what people are going to chase. So you can call Tucker, Megan, Candice, and, you know, whoever else, grifters who are just trying to make money. And maybe that's really just what it is. But I do think it's interesting that they all

shift their positions at the exact same time, despite being friends with the Trump family of the administration. Yeah, but it feels like the way you're talking about, I feel slightly negatively, I guess, about this. Like, I'm curious from a conservative side, like when you guys hear like the conservatives or maybe, let's just say all this is true, how do you guys as conservatives feel about that happening within your movement? Well, it sounds like we're living on borrowed time then. In what way? Like what do you mean? This is it. Well, MAGA is on my support. No, this is it.

For what's borrowed? Like for our voices, this show, this show, this show, this independence that we have to have alternative voices, we're living on borrowed time then. I think we were always living on borrowed time. I think the idea that there would ever truly be a permanent decentralized network of commentary and podcasts was silly. I mean, in 2018, they were banning people left and right and then lying about it. In 2020, you couldn't, you couldn't even say, I don't know if we need masks. You'd get banned for it. You couldn't even say, I think the virus may have come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology,

which is a mile away from the wet market. They'd ban you for that, too. So we've dealt with wave after wave of censorship, and we've only had in the past couple of years a semblance of some kind of free speech. But just really quick. Yeah, yeah. But do you believe, even if that happens, the opposite must take place too sooner or later? What do you mean?

A cause and effect. What do you mean? Meaning before Trump, you had the media the way that it was. but because of that, Trump comes along and the opposite happens. Will that happen again? Well, it depends on the change in media, right? So we had, there's a couple of theories on it. So I'm actually friends with the individual

who started Obama's Facebook campaigning, which many contribute to his victory. He was mobilizing young people on social media. And the perception is, or at least what this individual has told me, when the campaign was told to use social media, This is, again, this is like 2007, 2008. Like, no one really knows what's going on with it, but young people are on it.

The older crowd, the boomers, and the Gen X were like, why does this matter? And it's kind of like the Blockbuster phenomenon. They take a look at... Actually, let me phrase it like this. You can't move until it's too late, right? So Blockbuster, for instance, is the biggest game in town in video rentals. Netflix, I believe Netflix was founded before Google was.

It was like 1997 or something. And they originally would mail DVDs, to you. It was kind of weird. Gamefly or something like that? Yeah. And well that was, I don't know if that was the same company. But then they had some streaming on their website, but some was some movies were only available for, you know, for distribution. Netflix apparently was like, buy us, Blockbuster. And Blockbuster was like, no. The issue is 80% of video rentals are at the video store. And so Blockbuster is saying, look, we may be shrinking, but we are not going to allocate resources at a lower margin to

a new market. No one does. So the same thing is true for the internet. The powers that be, look at the internet and say, listen, we're getting 20 million viewers per night on CNN. Why should we bother with Facebook? And then two years later, it's 10 million. Then two years later, it's five million. And then all of a sudden, Alex Jones is dictating policy effectively. And so that is one theory that we went through this period. We've gone through multiple periods where you had, as I mentioned, the Napster phase where music was basically free. Then they wrapped it up in a subscriptions and they got their money back. Then you had mega upload where movies were free. Then they wrapped it up into subscription services or Amazon and now they got their money back.

Now you have the political commentary and social media space where people are affecting the political worldview and they're going to wrap that back up, put in a subscription service and get their power back. But so I guess I'm still, I feel like I'm not going to get an answer this. If I heard this, like my own side, people that I supported to some degree are moving in such a way to further crush free speech and control the narrative, my answer goes, that's not good. I like free speech. So I think you guys, that's like what you're big on in the show.

So how do you feel about that? Like I feel like the answer isn't, well, guess we roll over and like take it up the bum. It is what it is. Like how do you guys feel about the fact that in many ways it sounds like you're hearing that your own side that in many ways you supported? My own side.

Well, you've supported Tulsi Gabbard. I would argue that the establishment powers and the millionaires and the billionaires have never been any one side other than the elites and the powers. So she supported Trump, right? And you've supported his selection of administration. I'm assuming.

And it may actually be that it's all one big happy family tree. It might be. It might be. Like the free speech crushing might be good for us? No, no, no, no. It's that they're all basically saying, why are we fighting? Let's just be rich and control this. What do we need to do?

Yeah. But that seems bad, right? Yes, it's bad. But how do you guys feel about that being that it's your side? That's what you guys want to do? I think you, but what do you, but again, But again, why do you keep saying your side? Well, guys, I'm not on the right.

I don't support. The media companies are not on our side and never have been. Sure. I understand that. They are not on the right either. Sure, but you're describing. You've heard the, Warner Brothers is not the right. Can I respond? Because if I'm going to be 2V1, I have to be able to respond.

No, no, no, no. You have made an accusation over and over again that the corporate media is on the right. I've not, I've never said that the corporate media is on the right. You just said it's your side doing it. Your side as described. As described. No, no, no. What you said is, Marker Rubio will be.

the one that Ellis is in support. Talsy Gabbard will be the moderate, slightly pro-war, but not totally pro-war, she's the controlled opposition that they're putting forward. But all this is being organized in many ways, it sounds like by people who are supporting Republicans, in behind Republicans, and believed in the Republican vision. So what you're saying is a lot of people that in many ways were part of your coalition, whether you like them or not, are in many ways now moving against your own selves to crush free speech. And my question is, what do you do about that? If your theory is true. No idea. Yeah, I don't think there is an answer to that.

I don't, I would say I don't know. Support opposition, right? Support people who want corporate pack money out of things. But the actual, like, the reality is supporting opposition is supporting people that, like, want to jail people that supported Trump, right? And people that would speak out against the last. Let's let's talk to this. Let's jump to the story from Fox News.

Pritzker pushes prosecutions of Trump officials as part of Democrats' Project 2029 agenda. So this seems to be the world that we're looking at. Some kind of elite civil war that's been going on for some time. The powers that be... Let me just start the second by saying this. If you believe that the Trump side of things has not been preparing for the world after Trump, I've got a bridge to sell you.

At the same time, if you believe Democrats are not preparing for a strategy to win, then I've got a bridge, another bridge. I got two of them, actually. In fact, I got seven. You can have all of them for one great discount. It looks like the Democrat strategy that exists today is lock them up and destroy their lives civilly. The Republican play seems to be we need to create. There's three spaces right now.

The Democrats hate the right. The Republicans hate the left. And the middle of the road people are flickering left and right on various issues. Sometimes they lean left on a lot of issues. They've been leaning around a lot of issues. And so the play is, how can we make the left and the right, the moderates are the left, and the Republicans are the right? And then the Democrats and the progressives just are not strong enough as a coalition to actually win anything. The Democratic Party will then have no choice but dependent on moderates.

The Trump administration will then be safe, or I should say Trump officials after 2029 will not have to worry about whatever this thing is that Democrats are planning to do. I just want to go back to one thing. So would you agree with control, obviously? opposition if it meant getting rid of stuff like this. Me? I don't know. I am never, I am never, I am never for the erasure of liberal, like, fundamentals. No, we don't.

That's not fundamental. That's, well, crushing free speech isn't good either. So, well, this could be a weaponization of the DOJ. This could be legitimate prosecution. The idea that this will not turn into a witch hunt is completely farcical. Pritzker literally said, if we can't get them criminally, then we'll get them civilly. Does Sanchez or Kyla?

If it is the case that they've done something wrong, right? No, no, no, no. That's not what civilly means. Well, civilly can mean that you can't just like, you can't just brutally torture people. I will purport you did something wrong, but you didn't because you'd go to jail if you did something wrong, right? Civil is a dispute between two individual parties and they're going to bog you down in court and drain your funds. Sure. Civilly is a threat of lawfare explicitly. Yeah.

I don't know much about Project 2029. So it really depends on what it actually comes to be forming, but in, general I'm not a big fan of large group pre-presidential plans like Project 25 that get built up by a bunch of self-interested think tanks right well they get well they're doing too so I don't like any of these but I'm just posing a question but you guys are saying I guess we roll over for the control of session and I said I don't know what we do and I said well doesn't mean roll over well what do you do well you continue to do it is possible that you can identify something is wrong without knowing what to do something

how to change I agree I agree I agree but I feel like they're rolling over. There's nothing that comes to mind. There's nothing that we go, what is the way? How do we look for, for example, in the upcoming elections, regardless of party, the candidates who we think that's somebody that we can get in behind? And how do we leave behind these party ties to get good officials on? Right.

I'm going to go back to what DeVore just said. And you know what? There's a certain point where I learned this from the left, the Carl Popper meme. I learned this from them. And do you know what? I think they were right. Sometimes you cannot tolerate intolerance. And so we should use every means at our disposal

to make sure anyone who threatens this is removed or barred from power. Well, what about your current president weaponizing the DOJ against Jerome Powell and having multiple subpoenas blocked by federal cases? I'm going to say, I'm going to repeat literally what I just said. And I saw this comic book about Carl Popper

where the left argued, use whatever means necessary to stop your political opponents. And for years, I and many others said, well, we shouldn't resort to that. And then we got beaten to a pulp. And I said, you know what? They were right about that. I, so if someone's punching you in the face sooner or later, you got to say stop. Yeah, I started my career in 2022. And I started fighting other lefties who said, the Republicans are ontologically evil. To them, we can do no bad things. And I said, that's evil. That is evilness. We're already giving up the game. Right. So if there are certain Democrats that want to

break liberalism that want to break more of the Constitution to get retribution to the conservatives that they are mad at. I am opposed to that fundamentally. And I always have been. I want to make this it's a self-defense. It was dissentists that made anti-Semitism speech laws in Florida. So conservatives are a limit to first amendment. I agree. Right. This is why I think being a party diehard in either direction is really dangerous, right? But I think we have to look at, okay, if we know that Trump is already weaponizing the DOJ and you guys agree that that's bad, right? And we go, that's not a good thing. I don't know if the next thing is we go, well, if they're moving towards a Marco Rubio who also wants to crush free speech and they're already actively right now weaponizing the DOJ.

I don't know. The answer shouldn't be, well, I just don't know. Let me ask you a purely hypothetical. Sure. There are two people with guns pointed at each other. You have a button that if you press it, their guns will disintegrate. Do you press it? Uh, yes. If, if this is, I just don't know if this is analogous to the situation. Do you want to tell me how it's analogous? Yeah, the point is we have two powerful political factions that are escalating the attacks against each other. And do you stop them? Or do you just say, no, no, no, no, let them all keep doing this. Like, the Democrats might win, and then they're going to weaponize everything. Trump's weaponizing everything. Just let it keep happening. Well, no. I think what we do, for example, is like recognize that a democracy needs a strong left

and a strong right. This is why when I'm in a lot of liberal spaces, when, for example, like Ben Shapiro is standing up saying there do have to be lines of who's in the tent. We go, that's good, right? I don't have to like any of Ben Shapiro's policies. You guys, I don't know how you feel about Densriere. And I'm not saying I, you have to, but we have to look at people who are saying, we must play by the rules of the Constitution if you believe in democracy. And if you think that this nation's beautiful experiment of America is something worth fighting for. You have to find the politicians and the speakers and the pundits who do this. Like myself, there are people like me. I just want to ask something. Like you've said a lot of

philosophy, right? Today? No, no, I just mean like you talk today. You make a lot of references to philosophers and, you know, this question. I love philosophy. So you bring up the Constitution, but you must be aware that that is not an argument to anything you're saying. Let me just elaborate. First Amendment. Yeah, blasphemy was illegal and the first amendment was ratified. Is this just the argument you can amend away rights? The left's idea of what is protected under the Constitution is fundamentally different from the right and how each culture interprets the Constitution determines whether or not they believe it's being adhered to so when you say we must adhere to the Constitution which one I would say this is

where the Rawls veils of ignorance is so useful is you go imagine you're in a society and you can't know where you're going to fall what are the rules that you want in place I want a machine gun well I want due process agreed right if I do Due process means that you are not, you were assumed not guilty until proven otherwise. That is not what due process means. Okay, due process, that's part of all of due process. Due process is a, pushing against allegations against you. No, no, no, no, no, no.

Okay, just, I'm going to clarify for you. Due process refers to the legal process and individual of their particular circumstances are due under the law. Fair under the law. That doesn't mean innocent until proven guilty because due process can refer to civil cases all the same. Okay. It can refer to executive branch decisions. I want both of these things then. I want due process and I want an assumption of non-guilty.

The prop, once again, when you say due process, it means something different to the left than it means to the right. Yes, but it also still means some level of both saying we want fair treatment. I agree that we're- Let's pause for a second. Well, hold on, hold on.

I agree that principally the left and the right are going to fight about what the way that that policy plays out, but at least we can both agree that that policy matters, whereas right now we're moving in a direction, where we're saying, well, maybe free speech doesn't matter. And I would say, we might have different interpretations of what free speech should be corrected.

But free speech must matter. The best example is the current due, the current process due to an illegal immigrant who has an order for deportation, is to be taken into custody and immediately deported. The left argues the process that should be due is a judicial hearing where he can argue his case. Yes. But that is not the legal due process for an illegal immigrant. I don't believe that this is true. It is absolutely correct.

the executive, Congress has delineated all powers on immigration to the INA to the executive branch. And that's why the executive branch has, talk to Piscoe about this. That's why the executive branch has executive branch courts. There are judges that are not, that's why the left has been saying judicial warrant all the time. Because the executive brand can issue an administrative warrant under Congress. Sure. But the issue is you're saying, look at, these are ways that we can interpret due process differently. That's not interpretation. That's the law right now. Regardless, what I'm saying to you is, are you saying that we don't have due process?

as a principle at least that we fight for? I am saying that what the left considers due process is incongruous with what the law actually says. What conclusion can we possibly take from that claim claim? When a leftist says, I want due process, we must ask them, what do you mean by that? And then you come to discover the left and the right have completely different world views on what that word actually means. So your answer is we can't, we actually can't do democracy anymore. Is that your answer? Okay, Kathy Newman.

No, I'm not, don't call me Kathy Newman. No, no, hold on. Don't call me Kathy Newman. I know. I'm trying to say, Tim, stake a position. What are you saying? Because I'm talking about democracy. I'm talking about the values that we hold, which is what?

The Constitution. Yeah, thank you. It is democracy what you are describing, where one side is interpreting the U.S. Constitution differently than the other side. And we fight about it, and we often have to engage in some level of compromise. That's the point. The conservatives want to conserve, which is their role. except when both sides are getting too extreme to the point where it's going to rip this country apart.

I agree. And they're going to shoot each other. I agree. I agree. And so the question that I still have to pose as people who want to at least agree with these principles of free speech of due process, though the way that I think of free speech and the limits that we have free speech and it might be different than you. We still both value free speech. And I say, how do we do? Of course we do.

Of course you value free speech. You don't think so, Jim? I absolutely do not. I absolutely do not. Absolutely do not. Maybe with a pandemic, they want to shut us down, but I think generally the majority. We're going to go to like root philosophical moral philosophies. A society, a social body with a shared moral worldview can agree we all believe in free speech.

Then they ratify it in their constitution and arrest anyone who says Jesus is not Lord. That's not free speech by today's standards. At the same time, the left that says, we want free speech, has arrested people for hate speech far and wide. There is a guy who got arrested for rap lyrics on Facebook. The right has argued, no, we should be allowed to say these things. We should be allowed to post rap lyrics. There is not a unified moral view on what free speech is, and there never has been. Additionally, I will end to that.

The Second Amendment has never historically meant that anyone anywhere can carry guns. It meant the federal government couldn't impose a law over the states to stop an individual from carrying. a weapon, but routinely in the 1800s, men would run on horseback in a town and the sheriff would say, hand over your guns. The view of what is the Constitution shifts dramatically all the time. Of course. And the left and the right are so divergent in this, it's extreme. Sure, but that doesn't mean that these things can't be unified. I guess my question to you is, what's the conclusion from what you're saying? The right constitution I would define as the traditional American constitutional republic, and the left constitution is a multicultural democracy.

So I don't care what words are used by each other, but they're entirely advocating for two different worlds. It has come to the point where they are threatening force against each other and exercising that. I believe we should whatever means to stop this escalation needs to occur. Unfortunately, neither side will back off. That means if Donald Trump pulls a move with powerful investors and billionaires to create a new Democrat-Republican spectrum, the progressives are not simply going to say, guess we lose. They're going to get guns and they're going to go shoot people. Sure.

I don't know what the off ramp is for all of this, but I can tell you, when Pritzker is saying we will arrest and if we can't, we'll destroy you civilly? Okay. Did you know that right now, there's a hilarious story from SFgate, hundreds of millionaires, and this meant like hundreds, this is a large number, there are services that exist to facilitate the exodus from this country right now because of things like that. It is not a question of if you are a political player.

There is a fear among high net worth individuals that the Democrats are going to Bolshevik your ass. Sure. Even if you are neutral. On the left one, Project 2025 came out. It was the exact same type of terror and fear because both sides. Who is 2025? Project 2025 had a lot of things that a lot of the left viewed as shrinking of rights. Shrinking of vulnerability.

The political individuals are fleeing, not Republicans. Because they fear that the Democrats are going to swing. the hammer against anyone. And they fear it because there are... Both sides are going to be further radicalized. No. They fear it because the ballot measure in California, because what's going on in Washington State and because there's Rokana and Bernie Sanders talking about that same kind of

policy nationwide. So this is the thing that I'm trying to, I'm getting confused by. You keep on saying this situation at hand and that both parties are going to ramp up and ramp up and round up and we're basically engaging in like brinksmanship. And I'm saying to you, what's the conclusion that we take from that? Civil war? Well, my conclusion is, I don't want a civil war because I don't want a bunch of mostly young men dying for this. I think that that's the worst outcome.

I look at this and I go, this is the issue. That's not the answer because both sides and six. Well, one of the things that can't be the answer is insisting that it's just the left or insisting that it's just the right. That can't be the answer. So who's going to lay down their arms? I'm trying to. So the answer is fairly obvious, isn't it? It's actually not.

You think that Trump officials are going to be like, guess I'd go to jail? No, no, no. I don't think Trump officials are going to change, but there might be noble, meaningful, good, conservative, and Republicans. That's terrifying that you believe that and you've been supporting that side. Who said supporting what side? You are obviously supporting Trump. You obviously support conservatives. This is obviously true.

What does that do with what we're talking about? Because you said that none of this matters, any rule of law, any values of what we've been. built our system and constitution on. Yes, we are talking about these things. I'm talking about all of these things. I'm saying there are two distinct factions that are ready to tear each other to shreds and nothing's gonna stop it.

And I'm saying if that is the exact belief that makes it inevitable so. And both sides are saying that right now. And I'm trying to say, I wanna put my gun down. That's why I talk to you guys. No, no, I get what you're saying. I just think the reality is it's gonna happen because that is the life cycle of a country.

Listen, not a single Republican will ever tolerate trans kids. It's not happening. They don't have to in their state. They don't have to in their state. Let me give you an example that I've cited quite a bit. Oklahoma has banned abortion outright. Colorado has passed abortion to the point of birth for any reason, elective. A potential scenario that I've given would be a woman is six months pregnant and she lives not too far from the border of Colorado.

She decides, so in her mind she says, this man is abusive and I have this child. with him, it's going to be a world of nightmarish pain, and it could be harmful. I can't bring a child in this world, so she flees. The man's perspective is, I am not abused that I have never touched her, and she just kidnapped my child to kill him, and she doesn't need to. So what happens when she seeks to cross that border to get an abortion? You have two states with polar opposite world views. It will not be tolerated.

We already saw, I think it might have been Arkansas. They tried to have a woman hunted down because she fled the state with a friend to get an abortion and they said it might not have been dark i can't remember which state it was they said that it was a conspiracy to break the law and therefore they needed to stop her sure at what point i mean maybe the argument is that uh a kid gets taken by a stranger and brought to Washington to get a sex change and the parents go well that's that's life i guess i don't see that as being a reality i think the parents are going to be like lock and load mother we're going we're going to town sure i agree the issue is that the idea that our country like it sounds like what you're saying is

is the conclusion that you're saying is, our country isn't going to continue to exist as a democracy, as we've known it. And I'm saying, it isn't a democracy. Whatever version of America that we have now, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not making a semantic debate over constitutional republicanism. I'm saying since Trump's election,

we have not functioned in any real democracy. And one could argue that we haven't since the liberal economic order. But my point is Donald Trump wins, and they claim for years he was propped up by Russia, even arguing the votes were flipped by Russia, and then launched an investigation and ultimately impeached him. Then when Trump, when Trump loses in 2020, the right says Joe Biden, the Democrat, stole the election.

There is no belief on either side that there is a functioning democracy right now. Sure, but part of that comes down to we are under threat from thinking. When you look at Russia gate, for example, there weren't connections that could be made to Trump. But there were, I believe, 12 Russian individuals that were arrested, that had found to hack multiple sites and that were actually engaging in election. And how many Ukrainians did we arrest for manipulating election in favor of Clinton? I'm not sure. Do you know the answer? Zero. Hold on. Did they get investigated? Yes. And instead they arrested Paul Manafort instead of the Ukrainians.

Was he guilty? And then Joe, Paul Manafort? Was he? I don't know. I'm not familiar with the case. It's going to fall back to when the Democrats took power, knowing that they've been propped by the Ukrainians, they arrested a Trump ally and then told us he was guilty. And if you're a Trump supporter, you're going to say, that's full of, that's BS. No one will believe it. Sure. But you already basically said after J6, democracy's basically. before J6. I mean, J6 was a product of people believing democracy was over. Sure. And so the question is, the conclusion cannot be. And maybe you just want to, I guess,

toss the country to the wolves and say it's over. I don't think that that's what we should fight for. Because a lot of good people would die of we do. I don't think it's over. I just think this has to play itself out ultimately. And again, going back to what Tim said, if a president of the United States, along with his CIA director and other ICs are making up manufactured intelligence to try to prosecute someone who's trying to get elected as president, Yeah, I don't think we have a... We don't have a democracy. I mean, they raided Trump's home. We don't have a democracy. They fabricated evidence and took pictures of it.

We don't have a democracy. Were they investigated and found guilty for it and tried? Can we look that up? No, they won't be. That's the point. Went through his presidential, his daily logs, found a series of things they determined to be classified and then put fake classification papers on top of it,

took a picture of it. Okay, and then told the American people Trump had classified documents. They were his daily briefings. things. These people are evil. Ask her about this. Just the left. I'm sorry. Just the left. I said the people who raided Trump's home and fabricated evidence to put him in prison are evil. Sure. Yeah. If that occurred in the way that you describe it, yes, I would be opposed to these things. I'm not granting you that necessarily at all. When did we ever have Ukraine Gate? Why don't

we spend $30 million on a Mueller probe to investigate the Ukrainians who interfered in the election? Wasn't Trump in power? Why didn't he do this? 2017. It's a good question. Donald Trump was the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials from a former Soviet-block country. Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton to undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aid in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors, a political investigation found. Why didn't we ever get any of that? And you're right.

That's a good question. Why didn't Trump do that? who's clearly willing to weaponize the DOJ now. You're correct. Trump should have locked Hillary up. And he didn't do it because he's weak. Well, he should have not locked Hillary up. He likes Hillary. The answer isn't we should throw away due process.

The actual answer is we must demand due process. Who said anything about throwing away due process? Well, locking her up assumes that she wouldn't get fair process. Criminally charged Hillary Clinton over the emails, yeah. Sure. And then if she is found guilty in a court of long when the jury of her peers. So I'm advocating for due process actually. So am I.

Yes, that she should be charged. What happened is that many people were charged. There were serious issues with Russia. That was found, but there was no tight connection that could be tied to Trump, which is why he wasn't arrested for it. Is that going or bad? No, no, no.

He was impeached over that. He was impeached over the call to Ukraine, which was related to Russia. And Hillary Clinton was never held accountable for classified information on a personal service. Can we get our due process? Did the impeachment go through? Did he stay president?

I'm not, did he stay president until, until Joe Biden got elected or did the impeachment? Well, he got impeached. Did he get, was he was? removed at the president? He wasn't convicted, no. Oh, okay. Gotcha. What does that have to do with saying he got impeached? Well, that's saying we didn't say he was removed. People can investigate. People can make moves in office to do different things through legitimate actors and sometimes they fail. I'm going to step right back and just say this. Hiller Clinton is not failing this country that are

tearing each other's throats out. Nothing's going to stop them. One side is as hell bent on engaging in psychotic evil lawfare and the other side is is crop dusting it. Listen, I haven't said anything this whole time. I just want to say, guys, I think this is just a waste of time because it's obvious that we have a uniparty. You can look at Donald Trump, who campaigned that he's not going to start any wars. He started a huge war. You can say that he was going to get rid of all the illegal immigrants. Now he has all these multinational corporations saying we can't get rid of the illegal immigrants.

So we have a uniparty. So this idea that it's right versus left is just meant to make us argue on podcast. So it's really not true. I'm just telling you. Alex, Alex, I think they're giving up. Would you take the uniparty party over a radical. a radical left who wants to lock up their political opponents over yeah absolutely 100% would you would i take the unit party i'm giving you choice trump is not uh prosecuted anybody for you know

d'anthony fowgy they just issued a subpoena to come here there's 130 subpoenas that went out over the grand conspiracy against trump he's also subpoenaing jerome no nobody's got to get arrested yeah but not anthony fouchy i mean they've even come out and said that there's side effects of the vaccine even though they save an effective youtube so my point is nobody has gone to jail for that and then on top of that I know people within the Department of Justice that actually tried to go out to the people that put together the January 6th committee and they don't even want to the DOJ is not going to prosecute the DOJ so it's just your right happy family tree son John Eastman's emails are horrifying if you read through John

Eastman and J6 he is explicitly saying hey Trump by the way I need to be on the pardon list and multiple aides have already testified that they told John Eastman that what you're doing is illegal but what's happened to him nothing I agree that there are problems and that we need to correct the system. But the answer to this isn't just except more erasure of our liberal rights. No one said that. I'm not saying that you're saying that.

The problem is that your conclusion is there's nothing we can do about it, but I guess I would ask how many people are live right now? 27,000? Okay. 27,000 people is a lot of people. That means your voice really matters. Sure.

So what can 20,000 people theoretically do if they want to further strengthen actual liberal institutions. I got it. I think they should understand. I can tell you got that trophy's on. Go to tipcast.com and join our Discord community.

We go to casparu.com. Get some coffee. You see coffee prices or going through the roof because of the war, Tim? Did you see that? Is it affected Casper? Our prices are unaffected. Okay, good. All right, you can get some big booty

Latina love potion at the same low price it's always been. Casper. No, I think, Alex, I'll give you a little pushback. The reason why they're dropping the master deportation thing is because they're losing Hispanic voters. This is what the intern. This is what they're saying, bro. It's because of the

when this first started, he literally said we're not going to, we're not going to do. Farm workers and hospital and hotel workers. Trump owns hotels. And he's got allies and business men who are like, hey, we don't want to do this. Yeah. You also have the political class saying we're, the Hispanic vote for Republicans has dropped dramatically because they don't like the ice raids and DHS. That's why they pulled out of Minnesota. I was right that there's ice race. I don't, I don't, I don't agree that that means it's a uniparty, I do agree that it means that Trump's got special interests. Dude, you know it's a uniparty. They can't even pass a save act, Tim. No, I'm not even kidding. They can't even pass. The most simplistic thing is just you have to

show an aisle in American history. And they can't even pass that because there's Republicans are saying, oh, I don't know. So it's all the will for it because like they're tying it to voter fraud, which is just like every no, no, no. There's no will for it because I agree with like the Republicans and the Democrats largely are like, we like the, we like the status quo. Yeah. We don't want to change it. Rock the boat. Just like the DOJ is not going to investigate the DOJ over January 6. Sort of, but this is to the progressive point. This is why progressives would say we need to do things that rally against.

Like the progressive argument, right, is to say this isn't left versus right. The progressives reject the Democrat Party. They say we need a complete revival where the power actually shifts back to the people. I'm going to lay it out for you. It's very simple. They just also want to trans the kids. So a guy in a black hoodie with a black mascot comes up and says the government is full of corrupt politicians. And then they go, here, here, brother.

and then he starts waving a red and black flag and he says the military industrial complex has been waging war, killing civilians without cause for generations. And I go yeah man, I hear you and he goes, we got to change that. And I say, I agree, what can you do? And he goes, we got to put in a candidate who's going to put a stop to this corruption, who's going to fix our voting systems and make sure that people's voice is heard.

And I say, well, I'm in, what do I do? Vote for the guy who wants to cut this girl's tits off. And I go, huh? Well, other than I turn around and walk on. It's just crazy to me that your number and your pluralistic moral system of what matters most in voting, like, no, I couldn't. Imagine you could overnight. Say I could, we could wave a wand, and you could vote away corruption, but, but, easy with the hand. But I'm right next to you. We're transing Phil specific. How we can trans kids? How about the people? How about like, just instead

of take, take it away from the trans topic, like, how about people that are like, we don't respect property rights and we're going to expropriate your property? Yeah, we shouldn't work with communists. I agree. Right in the same way that we shouldn't work with like Nick Fuentes, who is a theocrat. Yeah, well, that's fair enough. But that's exactly what the progressive want to do. That's what AOC wants to do. That's what Rokane is talking about. That's what they're doing in California. AOC is hated by the communist because she moderated and does a lot of bipartisan bills and is increasingly trying to do so. Just because she, just because the communists have a problem with her doesn't mean that she wouldn't institute policies that the communist want,

first of all, second of all, that would also destroy the economy. I don't believe that AOC would ever have any political will behind her to actually get rid of. Bernie Sanders would do that. No. Bernie Sanders and Bernie, like I said, Bernie Sanders and Rocana are talking about a well tax, which will, which they say. sure they say it's only they say no but that's not getting into private property listen stop they they say like oh it's only for the the millionaires and billionaires because because Bernie's a millionaire but that will cause capital flight and then it will go get transferred on down to people that have a house that's worth a million dollars you don't pay your property taxes what happens they see as your

property exactly so you can just argue that that's already communism right there that every year i i have to pay taxes on my house at already own property property taxes or state taxes and you can move if you don't like it. I'm talking about a federal text. That's why I mentioned Bernie Sanders and Rokana. Sure. So this is where like federalism of America compared to like Canada is really cool and that like different states and have the digital rules. No, that's why I specified federal. Yes, I understand, but I'm moving back more towards like these broader conversations of like how we like try to unify these two bodies, right? And the answer is if if you always will have something you prioritize just preferentially over corruption, I guess, yeah.

then we're doomed. But I guess I would say if we care about like one of the fundamental things that made this country great, that has shifted over time, but it's built on like certain liberal, not left, liberal values like strong institutions, balance of power, ensuring that like the votes have integrity, that we have some level of like regulation and and whatnot. If you value some of these things, if you value free speech, right, the miracle that is Western liberal democracies, then you have to have. to prioritize probably some other things over other things. But definitely vote within your state against trans kids. But the problem is there's a difference of opinion on what those definitions are to those terms that you're using. One side doesn't see it the same way. So how do you fix that? I agree that we don't see it the same way.

But here's one of the benefits of this latest kind of FCC pressuring of all these things is all of a sudden all the progressives that I was yelling at three years ago being like, actually free speech matters, even for people we disagree with. like conservatives. Now they're going free speech, free speech, right? Now we're at this perfect type of position where a lot of the progressives, not just liberals, but progressives are actually sensitive to certain, there's progressives that are 2A, right? Like that's happening right now. We're in this poised position where everyone's sick of fundamental rights getting removed and we're understanding why these rights mattered in the first place. And what we shouldn't do is go,

well, the billionaires are winning. So I guess we're fucked. I guess we're fucked. Like, that can't be the answer. No, I mean, why not? Because... Like, what's wrong if, like... Honest question, like, let's say the billionaires take back control and they seize media and then everybody has a homogenized worldview

and everybody agrees almost on everything. It'll be like the 90s again. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with the reduction of rights? I didn't say reduction of rights. Well, the homogenized society that we're talking about in this unipolar system is less free speech, for example, because there's a control of media.

Okay, let's just pause again, and I'll ask the question again. The billionaires fund their politicians who win. They take the media back over. They buy it all up. They put in personalities. The country homogenizes around a similar set of worldviews with minor differences, where anyone can speak their mind and say whatever they want, whatever they want.

What's wrong with it? That I have no issue with, but it sounds like the system you're outlining isn't that. I just outlined it. What do you mean? Well, when we started the show, right, you were telling us about this. That's exactly what I said. They want to, they, they're going to drown out all the chaos and the noise with AI slop. They're going to put in their trusted personalities to create a homogenous moral worldview. And they're going to have the same opinions no matter what. And what happens if they don't have the same opinions? What happens if you don't agree with some of the opinions? Like if, if like you have a small percent of dissenters who make blogs and do their own videos on YouTube? What if you've got a podcaster who works for CBS who like maybe has a different opinion? Can they voice that? I'm like, are you asking if an individual has a right to go on someone else's platform? No, no, no, I'm asking.

They can go and say whatever they want where they want. Are people allowed to have free speech? Are they allowed to oppose things? Then in that world. But like, I've got to invite you on my show if I don't like you. Sure. So when they buy up all the news networks. Yes.

If your billionaires lead to a world where we just respect liberal constitutional values and amendments and like these liberal things that I've outlined, it's like four things. Sure, that's fine. I'm fine with that. But it sounds like you're saying that they won't. My point is when there are five streaming services and every person who's hired, to have shows where they get a lot of views are going to be either

somewhat moderate on war or pro-war. Like, if you are an anti-war individual, they're not going to invite you on the show. Sure. That's not a violation of free speech. Sure, but the system that you outlined to all of us, in my understanding, if I can go back in... Is the political elites spying up... By a podcast, they restructure narratives

so that there's kind of the same two parties. They've got the controlled opposition. The easiest way to explain it is... The easiest way to explain it is. They want to recreate, Obama McCain. And you know, they can do this very easily once they put in a social credit score. I'm not even kidding. You know, that is how they can basically make it. I think they, I mean, if they put that in, they just create more free social services and then we'd all have to just behave in the access to. The social credit score already exists. I know, I agree. But it's not your number. But it will be out in the open. It'll be like your driver's license. You'll have to check your social credit score to go anywhere.

So that already exists. Yeah, but I'm talking about like just out in the open. But they don't need to do it in the open. They don't need to do it in the open. So, for instance, there are people who have gone on social media who get shadow banned and banned instantly. It's never changed. I mean, like, TikTok does it like crazy. That's it. They know who you are and they will shut down. I mean, look, Nick Flanth has social credit scores in the gutter. But things do change, right?

Like, policy does change. Like, yes, democracies have a large preferentialism for slow change, but things do change. Like, the world looks different now than it did in the 80s, even at a policy level. I take it back. I think we should have a forward-facing social credit score system. If we're going to have it, it should be for-faced. Well, check it out. Let me explain it like this. Like, Nick Fuentes is persona non grata, right? And Richard Spencer is largely too, even though he's not really been as active in the past seven or so years.

I heard he gained a lot of weight. Well, I don't know. He's really fat. He is. I'm you saying? He's really fat. Nick Flentes is banned from everywhere, and they don't care why. If he tries to sign up for a new platform, they'll just ban him instantly. There's no number telling anybody that he's bad. They just say, that's a scary name. Now, imagine.

we had a forward-facing social credit score system and Nick Flentes was at a 90 out of 800 he could do things to raise that social credit score and then when he applies for PayPal they don't immediately go oh Nick Fuentes they go oh Nick Fuentes is your score improved oh it's a 700 welcome board I'm kidding I really don't want that

but think about the alternative I think it's inevitable then yeah you guys are talking about the Black Mirror episode you do realize that yeah yeah yeah so what is the bad side to it The bad side is that Black Mirror episode where her day goes bad and then her score just keeps dropping like crazy. And then it's over for her. China has it. It's nuts. Most of the homeless population in China are homeless, not because of any other reason than they have a bad social credit score.

And they have a significant. I mean, there's a lot of Chinese. That's frightening. What? It's frightening. Yeah, it absolutely is. Well, look at New York City. If you want to get an apartment in New York City, the co-op board can just basically ban you for nothing, like if they just don't like anything about you.

And so I think that that will be, whatever happens? in New York, it's kind of can be extrapolated to the future of our society. So it's like, we kind of already do, like Tim says, has a, have a hidden social credit score, but I think it would probably be better if we had to afford facing one, because then at least you get some free government assistance or something, right? Because that's why people will sign up for it because it'll, they want it to pay as many taxes, they'll get a free car, free gas, whatever incentive they need to make us agree to it. But if you're, if the, if the Trump, Rubio, gabard coalition that we outlined at the beginning is moving for that direction, again,

my question goes, what do we do about that? Well, so honest question, like, if the Democratic Party organically just moderated, right? Let's say that they were just like, you know, Tulsi Gabbard is socially liberal on a bunch of things. She's worked with Republicans, so she's got moderates on her side. And if she genuinely won the primary, is that a bad thing? Not in my fundamental question, always with any politician is what's their policy? Right. If she's like, I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-progressive tax, I want universal health care.

but I like Trump. I worked with him. He was good to me. We don't need to be angry, but I just disagree with him on foreign policy, so I'm going to run. And then she wins the primary, becomes the nominee. Is that a good or bad thing? Well, it depends on, so she's flipped now Democrat, Republican, then back to Democrat. It's kind of like this, like, Kamala thing of being like,

uncanny Valley of being like, you remember when Kamala was like a progressive for her entire career? And then she was a good, but we just answer the question. Like, if Tulsi Gabbard flipped back, I know you're upset about it, which is using an example, like a comparative of example, right? So the problem that probably would happen with herosigabird. Well, maybe, can I trust that she's actually telling the truth this time? That's not part of the, that's not the hypothetical I'm offering up. Well, if the policy, if she legitimately won a primary, is it a good thing?

It depends on what her policies are. And if I actually can legitimately believe that she'll enact those policies. Just say you don't care for democracy. I do care about democracy. Then why are you upset if someone legitimately wins an election? Because if they're lying about their policies to win election and they don't enact anything, that they're not enacting. part of the hypothetical. You're adding things I didn't say. But that's the point of democracy is that people give up their authority to elected officials to enact their will. So it's the politician that I vote for doesn't do my will. That is a problem. If you did not eat breakfast yesterday, how would you have felt?

Hungry. Now, why can't you answer the question about Tulsi Gabbard? If she is duly elected in the primary, is it good? I can do obnoxious, dumb thought-ending cliches as well. Why can't you answer the question? I'm engaging in good faith. And I'm telling you why there are issues of not being analogous. If Ron Keperski won the Democratic primary, is it a good thing? Potentially? The people said we like his policies.

My question is, what are his policies? Well, I'm going to feel... You don't know. Then I don't know how I feel about it because I'm going to be happy if a politician that I like his policies as I win, and I'm going to be less happy if a position that I don't like wins it.

I think you're being naive because a lot of politicians are voting the question. I'm asking you about... I'm asking about the function of democracy for a reason. and you have no answer. That's not a no answer. Wait, so would you just be happy

no matter who gets elected? It is a good thing for a democracy when the people choose their leaders. Yes, easy answer. So when Biden gets elected, you're happy about that. When the people choose their leaders, okay?

When the people say, I want my, I'm not talking about, I'm not going to get into this, because you're going to create a culture war. I'm asking you about a random, random guy named Ron Keperski because I'm trying to remove it from the... If Roe Ryren gets,

elected. Is that okay? Yes. Okay, what if he has mostly liberal policies? It doesn't matter that people voted for him. So why is it hard for you to answer? Because it feels like, okay, it feels like you're doing a weird thing. No, I'm asking you a basic function of democracy as a subcredit to lead up to the point I'm trying to make, but you refuse to answer. What's the point that you're trying to, well, I'm not refusing to answer. I'm saying, you are absolutely refusing to answer. No, I'm saying would I be personally happy about it? It depends on what the policy of the elected official is. Am I happy that democracy's working generally? Yes, I'm happy that democracy is so difficult. It is difficult because I'm not, I'm trying to understand, wait, why are you laughing?

What are we talking about? Why are we talking about this? I asked connect it back to the great talk about. They're elected leaders a good thing and you refused to answer. You gave some. I was the X factor on this show. So I thought I'd come in and prove it. Are you drunk? Say something. How are you guys feeling, man? At least derail it. We've been talking about hypotheticals for almost two hours. This is what we got to do. We used to do a lot of them. military philosophy. We still do a lot of military tactics. Now we're doing political philosophy as well because we're the strongest on the planet. We have to figure out how to use it. Ian, I have a question for you. Is it a good thing if the people duly elect their chosen representative?

Yes. What does duly mean? It means legitimately. It means correctly and through fair and normal processes. It's a transparent process that can be used. Functional fair process where the people say, I like this guy, I'm voting for many wins. It can be used for good or evil. But is it good if the people choose their leader? Well, if they choose a bad leader,

you could say the process is transparent, but is used for evil or good. It's like a neutral process. I'm not talking about your opinion on the politics of the person. I'm saying, do you think Democratic representatives are people choosing their leaders a good thing? At least worst, yeah. He wants a king.

He wants a king. Okay, fine. King it is. So, literally. If the process is legitimate, yes, It is good that the person who gets the most votes

through whatever system that we have. Electoral College wins. Yes, that's good, assuming that the election is valid. But why were we talking about this? Because you brought up the... We're talking about Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard Trump ticket and the billionaires backing them. And so the question I'm asking is,

if the voters did want Tulsi, is it bad that she wins? Not necessarily, no. Right. That's my point. If you look at it through the lens of political machinations, you're going to hate every politician ever. I'm not inherently opposed to Gabbard. My actual position that I was outlining here that you were initially pushing back on was I was saying, well, aren't we concerned that if Gabbard is just a controlled opposition and it's not a legitimate person

and she's just going to not do the policies that she runs on, I would look at that and go, that isn't as a legitimate as of democracy because then we essentially have a charlatan, right? We have somebody who's saying, I'll do this, but she's actually just controlled by the other party and won't necessarily do that thing. Okay, I don't want a puppet democracy. That happens all the time. Well, to some extent, like, there's actually this, like, really interesting political theory that says all civilians, to some degree assume that politicians are lying. But we also still want politicians to enact like 60% of their policy.

Well, we're upset. This is why people are upset with Trump. He ran on no wars. And now he's not doing that, which is why people are upset. And mass deportations. And they should be upset because he's defying what is otherwise legitimate authority that the people gave to him. That's why people are upset. So if Tulsi got elected and ran on what she said she would do, then that's fine.

But if Tulsi gets elected and she doesn't and she's a sellout to the other side, that's bad. The issue that I'm largely getting to is like there is no politician anywhere that legitimately runs. It doesn't exist in this country. There has to be a special interest behind them. And when they do get elected to Congress, they have to cut a deal with like the NRCC or the DCCC. There is no such thing in this country as a duly elected representative, in my opinion. Parker Carlson could be. I do not believe so. Do you think so do you think that of compromise occurs in with any official is that not legitimate? Compromise is okay. Okay. So my point is that like are

you anti-lobby groups? Is that kind of what you're getting at? I am. Because I'm with you there. But the problem with lobbying is that people don't understand what it is. It's like, true like I've lobbied. Okay. I have lobbied inadvertently West Virginia politicians over Maha issues. What about super hats? It literally was just like, I was on the phone with a high ranking member of the government in West Virginia, and the subject of Maha banning artificial dyes came up, and I said, oh, man, I hope this happens. And they were like, really?

And I said, I think we got to get rid of all that stuff. And I was like, I think it would be great because if you're in PA, Ohio, Kentucky, or Maryland or Virginia, and you know that you can drive like three miles to go to a supermarket in West Virginia, and you'll have no garbage in your food, I think tons of moms are going to do it. I think suburban moms are going to drive that extra three miles. And that could be great for the economy. I'd love for that to happen. Next thing I know, there was a meeting

between the governor and RFK Jr. Sure. So, so. I was like, oh. Right. Lobbying is legitimate, right? And it is actually, it's important because, for example, corporations

can't vote. And so it's a way for corporations to still have some level of capacity. They have all the capacity. They have all the capacity. Super PACs. But let me give you, like, multinational corporations.

I gave you guys, guys, I gave you an example of, like, lobbying that I was doing. I'll give you an example of, like, actual lobbying, right? Like, how it actually were. A PAC, getting to assume to a war. A guy will go and meet with a member of Congress,

and they'll sit down for a steak dinner, and they'll be discussing policy, and it's not all that crazy. And then the lobbyist will say something like, if you don't back this bill to fund Israel, I'll release videos of you raping children, and then they go, oh, okay, I'll vote for that bill, and then they shake hands.

So that happens. Is that legitimate, though, or illegitimate? That's illegitimate, though, or illegitimate? Right. Is that a real question? No, I'm making sure we're all in the same terms. I'm saying, is that legitimate or illegitimate? That is de facto illegitimate.

Because it was Israel, if it was another country. Of course. Because it was Israel, obviously, yes. But if it was a lobby group that wasn't blackmailing, but was just, you know, trying to be like, hey, well, you, I agree. I totally agree. But so when you said there's no legitimate authority, I guess the question goes, is that because of super tax?

The issue was lobbying, though. The issue isn't lobbying. So, for instance, one of the things I'm working on right now is I'm going to, I am going to, I am going to drop a political nuclear bomb on this country. and I'm gonna let you guys in on what's going on. So the lodge card club in Texas was rated by the TABC. The search warrant was released. This is the biggest poker club in the world.

Now, maybe not really because there could be underground clubs and things like that, whatever, but in terms of a building just for playing poker and various poker games and live streaming and culture, the most square footage, the most tables, it might not be the most square footage, but the most tables. They get rated for illegal gambling and money laundering. because in Texas, you cannot run a gambling operation as a house.

The way it works in Texas, however, is card clubs emerged because they allow private games where you pay a membership fee, and that's actually within the law. Well, here's the thing. Here's the thing. I have beef with every single state, and you will too. If I were to ask each and every one of you, if you think gambling is good, I already know what everyone's going to say.

Absolutely not. It's bad. You think so? It's bad. Yeah, I do think it's bad. Okay, no problem. I agree. I completely agree. And it's degeneracy and poker is gambling.

You say it's not, but I do think it. No, no, that's fine. It's funny if you agree that. Okay. So the law says you can't gamble. And guess what every state says? You can't, gambling is defined as wagering money on a game that involves any amount of chance where you can win prizes. What did I just describe? Pokemon Go. Pokemon card game. Pokemon. on where today the regional champions took regional champ uh championships took place in houston where children wager eighty dollars for a 71 thousand dollar prize with a 10,000 dollar cash prize for first

place on a card game of chance which is illegal in the state of texas but they don't care and this pisses me off now in west virginia i've been talking to the uh that their government for some time And I said, look, the last thing we want is like casinos popping up like great. I got a solution, Pokemon poker. So it's just poker. I already tried that. So I actually... Pokemon.

Yeah, Pokemon. That's perfect. Charisard. Here's the idea. Here's the idea. You create a single deck where there's four types and varying HPs. You could definitely do that. Then you deal them out, and it's a battle where you look down at your Pokemon.

And if you have a strong Pokemon team, you can go to battle with the other team. And then you have to use energy tokens to play. power, like energy cards. You could literally do that. I mean, it's a poker one. The point is this. The point is this. I had a conversation with the AG of West Virginia a while back before, it was Morrissey, before he got elected. And I said, we have an issue in the state where you guys have like a thousand businesses where children are functionally gambling. And, you know, I got some laughter. I talked to the lottery commission and they said, well, collectible card games are exempt. So we made a collectible card game called Debate Me, which is functionally poker. And I said,

okay we're exempt now right but what pissed me off is when the lodge got shut down I read that the Pokemon tournaments were coming here that operate under the exact same structure you pay 80 bucks you play a card game tournament bracket style and the winner gets cash prizes that's children gambling the law in Texas says you cannot you cannot put money up front to use cards or any other dice or or gambling device for a chance to win cash prices with any amount of chance and well so why is David Buster's legal you don't win You don't win cash.

But I mean, I guess you could do this poker thing where you win coupons and then you trade the coupons. And they still shut you down. So this is the thing. The Lodge Card Club did not take money from the games. They hosted a membership, a club, a social club, where you pay hourly as a member of the club. Then you play the games amongst the players. And they got shut down for that. Meanwhile, children are directly wagering and the company is directly profiting off of these Pokemon games.

So here's what's going to happen. we have prepared a lawsuit and I'll take it to the Supreme Court. The states either have to ban Pokemon because it is illegal statutorily under the law or legalized blackjack. Let's roll because you can't have it both ways. You can't allow children to make wages on Magic the Gathering, Yu-Gi-O. Now you've got Teenage Mutinyat Ninja Turtles Magic the Gathering cards. You got children putting up money to win cash, cash, cash, cash, cash. That is illegal under the law in every single state.

So we have prepared a lawsuit. We have a lawsuit draft. And we're starting with West Virginia. My argument is this. I think West Virginia is, and I'll tell you why we're talking about this. The casinos, you've got two big casino players in West Virginia, and one of them is Penn Entertainment, which is the second biggest casino chain in the country. They operate, I think, about 42 locations. And it has been conveyed to me that the lobby there is extremely powerful, not because, back to the lobbying question.

not because they will sit down with politicians and buy them dinner, but because they threaten them. They say, we will pull funding from your PACs, and we will guarantee your opponent wins if you oppose us. That is not legitimate. And that's what's happening. And it's happening everywhere. Hey, I've been screaming.

I'm anti-Carry committee. I'm anti-super PACS and I always have been, right? This is one of the reasons I like love Rocahnis. He's all James Talleyico is that they've run very dog. Tala Rico? Absolutely. That guy's a freak. You know, you unironically liked Taylorico?

But I'm a liberal. How do you feel about that hoax he pulled off with Colbert? I don't know. Here's the thing. One of my biggest. What do you mean? He's racist. I don't know.

I don't know anything about the Colbert stuff. I don't watch Colbert. So they staged a hoax against Jesmond Crockett to shut her out of the election. I would have to see evidence of that. So here's what happened. Colbert went on his show and said Trump's FC, I was told in no uncertain terms by CBS that the FCC was threatening us unless if we were going to air an interview with Teller Rico because Trump doesn't want you to see this. The only problem is the FCC equal time didn't apply to the Republicans or Trump. It applied to Jasmine Crockett specifically.

And so Teller Rico went on Twitter and said, this is the interview Trump doesn't want you to see. Well, in fact, it had nothing to do with Trump. They were trying to, they were trying to make it appear as of the only player was Tala Rico and whoever the Republican candidate was going to be. They didn't want to give Jasmine Crockett equal time on TV. Well, but this is the issue is late night TV shows almost never give equal time because late nights have been basically exempt from this. This is not the point. The point is. This is exactly what the SEC thing is about. Let me clarify the hoax for you because we're not talking about this.

It is a hoax to claim Trump stopped an interview when they both were stopping Jasmine Crockett from getting equal time. They were not stopping Jasmine Crockett at all because the equal. They were. No, the equal, like the FCC policy, I actually there's a really good, I think the Daily did a cover. of all this story that goes into detail and it's very neutral. So they lied about what's going on. Yeah, I don't like the lying, obviously. That was a hoax.

Trump did not stop this. It doesn't, it's not real. Sure. Yeah, Tala Rico's a lying scumbag. Okay, sure, maybe in this case, I would have to look into it more, but in the case they... Hopes, sir. It's okay, but the issue is, my most important thing is corruption.

Like Tala Rico's corruption, where he teams up with Colbert, a lie about Jasmine Crockett? Sure, he plays a little bit of dirty social media games, possibly. But he's never taken a dirty. taken a dollar of super pack money. He stole that election. He will. That's inevitable. No, he never did. He never did. How much you want a bag he gets him some money? I don't think he'll take it. He's like taking a pretty big story. I hope not, right? He could obviously disappoint me in the future. But what I'm saying here to you guys is that when it comes to politics, I have one really big

priority right now, which is corruption in the government and trying to get the common man of voice back in policy. Do you give any room to the fact that they're all corrupt? they're all corrupted varying degrees and I always want to try to vet for the least corrupt person who will pass policy that reduces corruption. Just based on special interest, based on money and politics, they're all inherently corrupted at a certain point. Then don't participate in politics. I'm not nihilistic. I'm not nihilistic on politics. Has benefited the millions of dollars through Lone Star Rising Pack.

Come on. And I want to ask you about if you really do like Tilarico, you know, he calls himself a pastor, but he's also pro-choice. Don't you think that that is just, uh, wait, packs are not super PACs? Is that a super pack? The super pack? James Tolerico. Lone Star Rising Pack spent millions on ads supporting him. Did he receive?

But Kyla, do you think he's a hypocrite for saying that he's a pastor, but also saying it's okay to murder a baby in the womb? No. You don't think that's hypocritical? No. Do you think Jesus would be per choice? Exodus 2122. It seems like Jesus made a very specific law that, yes, if you kill a baby in the womb, you can get like just a financial finance of capital punishment. So it seems like it's not a very clear.

It is a, it is a, in my mind. opinion misleading to say someone doesn't take pack money because packs don't spend money in candidates they buy ads for the candidate and james teller rico has got from allied from lone stars rising rising lowen star rising pack spent an estimated four million dollars in 2026 on ad supporting him is this again is this a carry committee i need to like you know it's fascinating the party who claims to love democracy they sure have a funny way of showing how they do that because Because what they did with Jasmine Crockett is the opposite. Oh my God, it's evil.

And I don't even like her. That's evil. This is just that like silly thing of like just point and be like, oh, Democrats, they hate democracy. I'm talking about, I'm talking about the moderates stabbing the professor in the back. His election was stolen. So he still denies the genuine transfer of legitimate power that happened between him and Biden. And I have never agreed that the election was stolen. And I think Biden won largely through ballot harvesting.

And James Tallahico stabbed Jasmine Crockett in the back. She's a Democrat. Can all of those be true at the same time? Okay, he didn't, so this is the stabbing Jasmine and Crockett. First of all, she came up in vocal, large support of him. The idea that we've ever applied to any... She called the election stolen on camera. You got to let me finish.

You got to let me finish. You made this point the other day that you said, I believe, was Sir Rudyard. If you keep making points, I'm going to have to rant for 20 minutes or I can address them point by point. Okay. So when you made a point, I will counter it. It is four view one. So I have to be able to respond to everyone. No, Alex.

Yeah, I'm on your side. Okay. Thank you, Alex. I appreciate it. It's 3V1, although Phil, I think it's on the side. 2V2 as well, just for, yeah. You're on my side too? Yeah.

Sure. Oh, but you guys aren't speaking up much, so you guys got to really come. Because you don't shut up. You can't be on my team anymore. I'm voting you off, right? So what I am saying, in the case of Jasmine Crockett, the FCC policy that got utilized against him, which wasn't actually pushed. The network was worried about it because there are increasing FCC pressures from car against late night

shows specifically, which is equal time. You don't have to stop you. I have to stop you. I do because we're not talking about evil time. You either know that you're wrong or you're just uninformed about what happened with Jasmine. I'm going to pause. I'm going to set a foundation real quick. What we are discussing is not equal time rules and how they apply.

Yes, it is because you said that he stabbed her in the back by not allowing her on the show. So let's pause real quick and say the campaign from Colbert in Tala Rico was to claim that Donald Trump shut down their interview so that it appears, James Tellerico was the only candidate in play, and the only other candidate was a Republican. So when people went to vote, he had a very high profile moment. They got millions of views, and across the board, the media said,

this stunt put him over the edge. Jasmine Crockett then went after she lost, she said, they cheated. This was stolen. I believe she also made a massive, I don't know if that's true. Probably after the fact I'm sure, she was like, what am I going to do about it?

Literally the same day that he won, she made a large social media post, celebrating James Tala Rico and encouraging... She didn't make the post. Someone probably wrote it for her. Regardless. But did she approve it? But this is not what we're arguing.

She has to do that. If she's not true, that's not true. Combo Harris won on like this huge tour. This is not the argument. We are not arguing this. We are arguing that James Tallerico staged a hoax. No. You are arguing, you were arguing specifically here that what he did is stab her in the back

by not giving her access to equal time. That's the part I'm fighting with you on. He stabbed in the back through a hoax. There you go. There you go. I said he hoaxed the people with Colbert attacking Trump so that Crockett would lose. What does this have to do with Crockett? Jasmine Crockett was his opponent in the primary.

Why does she, why does he owe her time on Colbert show? I did not say that he did. So then why is Jasmine Crockett relevant to this? In order to win the election, he staged a hoax with Colbert to frame the election as though he was the only one running. He got 12 million views from this hoax. He made millions of dollars, and it put him over the edge. This is a PR stunt. So every time Trump has done massive lying,

I'm just wanting to make sure you're consistent. You're so mad at James Talarico, and you can't trust him at all. Well, don't moralize at me about how bad and awful James Tala Rico is. If you won't engage with me very seriously about whether or not you have an issue with him lying about Ruby Free. to support his argument. Yes, it's bad.

It's not just bad. Oh, it's evil. Of course it's evil. Great. And James Tellerico is evil too. Okay, but the issue is that who have you said you would never vote for again? Democrats? Yes, because, because let me clarify, what I said was, unless the party is purged,

and they bring in moderates who have not supported transient kids, how do you vote for someone who five years ago wanted to lop off a girl's boobs? Did Carr and Curry pressure through the FCC to not have Taller Rico? and other people on. Did they do that? No. Yes, they did. No, they did. Yes, they did.

They used the equal time clause specifically to pressure them. Yes, they did. CBS issued a statement saying we never made this statement. It never happened. Their lawyers didn't say that they could not do it, but they said that it could not be aired on their main thing that it had to be on YouTube. We never told Corbeir this.

This is what happened. CBS issued a statement saying we never told Colbert, he couldn't have Tellerica Obama. Never happened. You're right. What they did say to him, though, instead is that if, you have to bring a cronet it. Is that no.

that if he was on, they couldn't air it on the mainstream, that it could only be on YouTube. That's what they told them. Yes, that is correct. Okay, could you accept the fact that there is some level of corruption with what went down with Stephen Colbert? Yes or no? Yeah, yeah, to some degree, they were lying a little bit.

So, Tim, am I right? And your point is if her main beef is corruption, then she should be equally mad at... Not all corruption is equal, right? Somebody insisting, for example, that the 2020 election results are not true and pressuring his staff to change and try to delay the certification of the vote,

that is not the same thing as being like the FCC told us that he couldn't be here. And it's like, oh, it turns out the FCC didn't say that exactly. They just said, if he's there, you have to give equal time to Jasmine Crockett. Okay, these are both not good, but acting like these are equal is not the same thing. And what I would prefer is lesser of these bad things.

What about locking up pro-lifers and kicking veterans out of the military? I have more context, but probably if it's illegitimate, I would not before that. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that happened under Democrats. I mean. Yeah, there's lots of things Democrats did that I'm not happy with.

So that's our point is it's either Uniparty or going back to that. No. The issue is you have primaries. You have primaries to vote for politicians that have different, like, leaning ins of different things, right? You have, you have grassroots movements to go and canvas behind people who won't take PAC money. Because if you don't take PAC money, it's really hard to get your name out there. maybe we can agree on this, probably more likely to happen at the local level, but not as much likely to happen at the national level.

Is that an agreement? Yes, but I don't think that it is impossible, and I think that we should orient towards that if we want to see a reduction of corruption, which is something I really value. Let's read this from variety. CBS denies forcing Stephen Colbert to not air interview with Democratic candidates as it provided legal guidance about FCC equal time rule. In a statement Tuesday, CBS said the late show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep James Tellerico.

The show was provided legal guidance. The broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including rep Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. The late show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal time options. Yep. So when Tallah Rico said, that's what I said, by the way. So when Tala Rico said it was Trump that stopped it, that was a lie. Yeah, it sounds like that was a lie.

And I already agreed to that. Well, the issue is it's not nearly you did a Mott and Bailey. you made it seem like it was this really big hoax, and he was doing all sorts of shifting stuff. He did one thing. One hoax, indeed. Yeah, he lied and said that the FCC said he couldn't, and I wouldn't be surprised, for example,

if he wasn't told this, that Colbert said this to him. So probably the main person who did the hoax was Colbert, and possibly even because Polbert slightly misunderstood what the lawyers meant when they said, you'd have to explore other options. He read that as, I can't earn this show. I mean, either James Teller he goes an idiot, or he's an asshole, whichever.

It's not idiot. Why would it be idiotic? Because he doesn't understand that equal time applies to Jasmine Crockett, not the Republicans. Equal time has never applied to late night shows. This is a new thing. And that's why he's an idiot. That's not, that doesn't make him an idiot. Why does that make him an idiot?

He doesn't understand FCC rules and he didn't look into it. Nobody has, nobody. He lied about Jasmine Crockett. Do politicians have to infinitely know all policy that is relevant at all times in any moment? If you're going to attack another politician who's not involved in whatever's going on, I think it's fair, yes. I'm assuming that he's not. He took Colbert out his word. Like, there's a lot of, like, reasonable interpretations.

Mate, I guess on FCC rules don't apply this way. On FCC laws, yeah, James Talarico knows nothing about, okay. Do you really want a politician who doesn't look into things and then attacks other people without investigating? I would prefer a politician that is more rejecting. Sure, yeah, he can apologize. I, but what I prefer, yes. The outcome that I would like that I'm focused on, this, okay, whatever. Yeah, Jamal Bowman pulled like a, the stunt with, like, the thing.

Oh, you should be a jail on. these things. I don't like these things. The issue that I'm pointing to is there are different people of level corruptions. Can we agree to that? I do agree with you. There are some politicians that lie more like Trump and some that lie less. I want to get behind politicians that lie less. Well, I gotta be honest. I prefer that they not lie at all. I don't think George is in. So you're saying he lies the the most? Ask Rock. Well, I have a question. I have a honest question like who is the preferential candidate in that capacity between Tala Rico and Crockett? I have preferences for...

I like Taylor Rico's policies more. But has Crocket lied more? Well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know Crockett's history. I got to be honest. Like, I don't like Jasmine Crockett. Has she lied? She's an attorney, so she probably...

I will say this. In terms of major events like this, the only thing I can really say about Crockett is that I find her abhorrent. I find her behavior bad. I find, like, her attitude fake. But she lies like a politician. This, yeah, there's varying degrees of corruption.

And maybe they're both like the scene. minus of corruption, but he's C and she's C minus. I think he's worse. Maybe he has better policies, but he seems to be more dastardly. James Tala Rico was worse than Crockett because he lied to win the election. Lied or was told something. Well, that Jasper Crocett still is either way the best. Not necessarily. Again, what are their policies? All I care about here is their policies. I would actually say he's worse because he's establishment approved. She wasn't. She's very establishment. No, She's not establishment approved because if she was... If she was establishment approved, she would have spent more money than he did.

She didn't raise more money than he did. She didn't raise more money than he did. But she had a lot more super packed back. And why is it that establishment figures like Stephen Colbert, Barack Obama spoke barely highly of him and never about Jasmine Crockett? I believe Barack Obama has spoken positively about Jasmine Crockett. Not in the same way that he did with Tala Rico. Yeah, it's possible that Barack had a larger preference for Tala Rico and Colbert did,

but Paxson is going to win. All I'm saying is he's the establishment will get what they want they wanted him they used her as a distraction she went on to the news she made outrageous statements i'm with you i think she is probably smart in her house but when she puts in front when she goes in front of the camera she thought it was smart to act a certain way i don't think that works in politics and i think that the establishment wanted him and not her i just i i think you can say that like preference i don't know if it's obvious to me she had a lot of super pack money she had a lot of super She was accepted in the squad. She was very popular as well on social media. She did a lot of interviews as well. I suspect.

Tellerica, I think the establishment honestly liked both. It was a really tight race. And a lot of people are out. Here's a great data point. Sure. The only people that she was going to bring out are black people. He was bringing out Hispanic people, white people, and women. Christians. So automatically, James Tyler Rico is more favorable candidate than she is in the eyes of the establishment. Who's going to win for her? But more importantly, the reason they chose Tala Rico is that he's a Democrat who wears a Christian suit. So they're hoping that the less informed, like the default Christians, who are not non-prefishing Christians, will find him an acceptable person to vote for because he says, I'm a Christian vote for me. They're going to earn a lot more votes that way. And he is politically savvy because he was able to get on a bunch of... Does he have a policy that makes an establishment? He's got good policy.

No, there's a lot of policies he's aligned with with the establishment. I just want to make this one point. Sure, some, but there's anti-establishment policies too. He also appealed to people better because he looks Hispanic or Mexican, but he's not. I heard he kicks dogs. You mean, Chris Pneau, kills him? Yeah, I heard he walked to some Indian guy's dog and kicked him. And the Indian guy was like, you kicked him, my dog.

I don't think he needs that dogs. And he was all angry. You don't, I'm making a joke. You know another reference. It's a famous, like, jerky boys or something. I love the jerky boys. Yeah, it was like, you kicked my dog. He's like, sir, I didn't kick your dog.

You come to him my house and you kicked my dog. And he's like, no, I didn't. That's why I always make kicking the dog as the joke about what a politician doesn't wrong. I'll be like they accuse Trump of kicking a dog or whatever. That was... Or Nancy Pelosi of kicking a dog. The world is a much better place when we'd listen to the... Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. Who was the Democrat who actually kicked the dog? Do you remember this? Oh, yeah. Yeah, who was that? Who was that? Let me ask garage. Oh no, that's the the AG in Virginia who wants to kill people's kids.

Jay Jones. Yeah. Yeah. Did you see that? No, he tried to kick the dog. He missed. He missed. He missed. Yeah, but guys, we're talking about this, Chrissy Gnome did something much worse. She killed the dog. She killed the dog. I had a goat. Whoa, she re-homed the dog. She didn't re-homb the dog.

She blew it. It made a heaven. A transfer of energy. Oh, yeah. To the actual plane. Yeah. I gotta say, shooting a dog because you failed to train it as a herder is crazy.

She spent $220 million on a one-minute ad. Avengers cost $180 million. No, no, no. It was a series of ads. It's a bunch of different. Yeah, still. Bro, I, no, no, I'm just, I'm not I'm saying she overpaid, too, I mean, whatever.

No, no, no, no, no. You're saying it was one ad, but it was a bunch of it. I didn't pay for the marketing of it and stuff. But I watched all these ads that were on Fox News. Guys, I have a question. Boomers have like five years left. I'm not trying to be mean, right? But boomers have like five years left.

No, I'm not trying to be mean, though, but it's true. Life expectancy for boomers is 79 years old. What is Fox News, MS now and CNN going to do? I don't know. Nobody watches it anyway. I mean, Mark Levins' audience isn't very big. I don't even think, real human beings watch Fox News.

Honestly, I have to be honest. I don't think anyone ever watched anything, to be honest. You know, when Tucker was doing his monologues on Fox News when he was number one, he was culturally relevant. What I mean is they told us that 25 million people watch Big Bang Theory. Now, that is a goddamn lie. Big Bang Theory, I don't believe it for us. Normally the number of water numbers before the Internet, I think there was probably significant.

Yeah, like water cooler shows. Like after Seinfeld, everybody talked about. All of my like normy non-internet, like college friends love Big Bang Theory. That's insane. I agree. I don't like those. Big Bang Theory is like... It's like AI slot before AI slot. Exactly.

The only joke they have is that to stupid people, they say something that's confusing, and that's the joke. So if you ever watch Big Bang, Big Bang Theory with a laugh track, like Sheldon will walk in and go, what are you guys doing? It looks like a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle experiment. shut the lot of it. Yeah, it's awkward. And then I play a laughing job. And then everyone laughs. Yeah.

That's it. Well, it is mindless content. I mean, I think a lot of sitcoms are. That's what we need. What do you prefer, tung, tun, tun, tun, tun, taut, or those jokes? What? What? Yeah, what is?

What is that? It's the Italian brain rot. Did you guys see the, uh, cappuccine? Can we just get rid of all brain rot? Alex. Alex, guys, Phil, Phil, hear me. Hear me.

You got a roll there. The world that you were born in, it doesn't exist anymore. There was a meme, and it's a series of license plates. And it's got years, so you can get like I-Hart 10, I-Hart 16. And on one side it said, I-Hart 66, I-Hart-68, I-Hart 69, I-Hart 70, but I-Hart 67 was gone and sold out. Do you understand? The world you grew up in is gone.

because iHeart 69 was fully stocked and i heart 67 was gone yeah in my world 69 would have been the first one indeed yeah indeed i think i think we need uh i don't care about politics i don't care about politics we need a fascist dictatorship to install family pizza huts 80 style malls and blockbuster video do you think don't trump is a high traveler and you think that's going on his travel yes that's preferable for whatever it is going on The Zoon is listening. That was dash. Under 15.

All right, we're going to go to your Rumble Rans and Super Chats, my friends. Smash the like button, share the show with every person you've ever met, including your grandma or that Indian neighbor whose dog you kicked.

All right, we got this from Joey Giggles. She says, why is she here? She provides nothing. She uses big words to make herself seem smart. I love the big word. Insulate. My got, but at least my boy

who love BBL is on. Yeah. I disagree. Say smaller. They got a good. I'll say it every time we have a lib come on the show. It adds tremendously to the show. I agree.

Like we're arguing the whole time. That's kind of the point. Whether she's right or we're right, whatever you think is right. It's entertaining. Sitting in an echo chamber where we all shake each other's hands, be like, you are correct, sir. No, you're correct, sir. We all just agree with each other. It's not, it's like not stimulating.

Alex, Alex, they all got to go back. Don't. All of them. All of them. All of them. All of them. I understand. You're talking to me like I'm Tom Homme.

They're literally not going anywhere. No big booty. What I'm saying is, you don't like me saying that. But Donald Trump is not kicking anybody out, and he's actually, especially the big booty Latinas that work in the hotels, are definitely safe from deep-point. I just read that first, which I've got to read another one. P. Suppy says, I disagree with Kyle at every turn,

but I absolutely love her and the way she's willing to stand on her beliefs. Alex, on the other hand, he's been so flip-floply in support of MAGA. I just can't. Guys. That's my teammates. Whenever the evidence is presented, whether I believe, you know, Donald Trump, I do like Donald Trump. for Donald Trump, but I feel like he...

Would you kiss him? No, I would not kiss him because I'm not gay, but I'm saying he did campaign that he was going to deport all these people. He has not done that. He's deported less people than Barack Obama. He said he's not going to start any wars. He started a huge war. Why?

Why hasn't he been able to? Because these multinational corporations told them, hey, the deporting fewer people... The only reason... The only reason that he's deported fewer people is because they counted people that were turned away during Barack Obama's presidency. So when they got to the border and he turned them away, He count, they were counted those as deportation.

Yeah, but we just had 35 million people come over here the last four, four years. Still doesn't change the fact that it is incorrect to say that Donald Trump is not. It is true. Donald Trump has actually deported more people. Then it's close. It's not that much. No, it's not. It's like 400,000 people.

Alex, I don't see. 400,000 is all you believe, really? I sort of her. I mean, I think that's way more than that. It's way more. Three to six. It's way more than that. My point is, I don't think the American people have the stomach to remove.

every person that's in this country unlawfully. I do. We gotta read this from Potter. He says, for Chuck Norris, a true American and man that inspired tens of millions of young men to not give up on their dreams, may his legacy grow even in death, allegedly. No, I have to correct you here.

Chuck Norris did not die. After several decades of intense meditation, he has figured out how to break through the astroplane to the afterlife because he is hunting death himself. He's after his job. Or also, it is, Chuck Norris doesn't die. He has simply transformed to a visual

being of pure light energy where he will persist. But rest in peace, Chuck Norris, I really do love that for the past several decades, we've had this, whether somewhat joking, like, but this image of being the ultimate man and being, you know, masculine. And the joke was that he was strong, he was powerful, but he was a hero and he was good. And with many jokes that we would make, still, it's good for young people to envision this, like, you know, it's like one thing that is Superman, which we know is just silly, Chuck Norse is a real guy that they pretend to Superman.

They killed them to distract us from the Iran War, so that's the real conspiracy. He was killed in Hawaii. Israel. Israel took him out in Hawaii. He's on vacation. All right. Mitho says, what do we do, Kami Mami? We bomb Iran.

Yeah. I think that's the only way we win is we just bomb them all. Literally, you know. My teammates come, Kami Mami now. It's Kami Mami Award that people have used for the 59 days. Apparently, it was crazy. There's actually a girl who looks like me that Alex Stein thought was me, who is a communist, who probably would love to be called the commie mommy. Who?

The, um, Aaron. Straighterade? Yeah. And you're like, are you straight raid? And I was like, no. People mix this up, though. But she's a communist. I'm not communist.

I don't watch your guys content. No offense. I'm saying you don't watch mine, but yeah, I get you guys mixed up. As a teammate, that hurts my feelings. I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm sorry. Kyla, you're my girl.

All right. Meet those as Kami mommy. The reason why we are done compromising is because the compromises only went one way to the left. That's why I can't have a suppressor without extra paperwork. I don't know, welcome to Joe Biden's bipartisan, multiple, multiple, multiple bipartisan bills.

The leftists want the guns. They just don't want you to have the guns. Alex Prattie wanted a gun. The argument that people make when they say, oh, well, you know, the leftists, they want guns. They only want guns insofar as they are going to use them in the revolution, then they will take them away. Under no circumstance did Marx believe

that the people should have guns to defend their lives or property. That is a totally different way of understanding what arms are for. He did not in any way believe that the people should be able to overthrow the government or defend their property because he didn't even believe you should have property. So don't listen to leftists that say, oh, no, we believe in guns. They only believe in gun rights insofar as it's useful Thomas Jefferson did. And the way that Thomas Jefferson did. It's only useful insofar as it's useful for the revolution. Well, for protecting or protecting your country, right? Like that's What to a principle most importantly is is the sometimes from time to time, the blood of liberty must be refreshed.

It's defending your life and property. Well, T.J., who wrote the Constitution, definitely seemed to think that it was for. T.J. didn't write the Constitution. James Madison wrote the Constitution. Well, multiple people wrote the Constitution. Sorry, I meant founding father. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, right? But T.J. was a big fan of rising up against tyrants.

And I'm not saying that that's not a reason for owning our. But the fundamental reason for owning arms is to defend your life and property. What property rights was one of the things that Thomas Jefferson was going to put into the Declaration of Independence. Would you, okay, hypothetical. Would you work with communists if they wanted to reduce gun restriction laws? Would you be willing to like build a temporary alliance to get, like less restrictive guns? So like universal basic income, but we gave guns too? Let's just say it's only about guns.

If it's- And they'll work with you guys, but they don't agree about the gun culture. deprived of the property. And you're right, they do want to use it for the revolution, but they are fundamentally also against tyrants. Considering the situation that we're in now, which is basically 29 states are constitutional carry, if they were looking to expand that kind of stuff, I would, yes, because of the fact that it advances individual gun rights. But like I said, but you can just put it like, I would just phrase it like this. If a person came to and agreed to work with you on an issue of personal liberties and freedoms that benefited you, would you agree? It's like the answer is yes.

It should be. I would agree with that. I'm not going to ask you what kind of coffee you drink. I'm not going to know. It's the inverse too. It's like if I'm selling you coffee, I'm not going to ask you if you're a Democrat or Republican. I'll be like, just buy the coffee. But they're going to try and shoot me afterwards. Right.

That's why I said no, because then they're going to implement communist policies, which will probably lead me to using my firearm. Maybe, but you might win more political power than them. We have like 12 babies today. Do we? Yeah. That's awesome. Marushi says, progressive tax is idiotic.

Money is a glorified IOU. Lawfully holding it is a measure of how much society owes you. Rich people have already given their fair share. Taxes are double dipping. I agree. Yeah. We are getting ripped off. My problem with it is the leftist perspective on profit is that it's something undue.

When the general understanding of profit is just, it's the act as F cost. So for the working class, when like when these leftists were saying things like abolish profit, it's like listen, the dude who makes birdhouses and sells them, it costs him $20 to to make the birdhouse, he sells it for 30. The actual $10 is the profit uses to buy milk for his family. So when you say a bollish profit, you're saying he should work for free. But they don't understand that, so.

Then they go, no, we're talking about corporate profits. And I'm like, those goes to the shareholders for the most part. And I think the problem more so is mass formation as opposed to any like individual policy. Humans in large groups do human things. For anyone that wants to expropriate property. Well, it goes both ways actually. It all boils down to expropriating property.

Right, the larger the group is, like, take a look at the, like the AI, for instance. AI is so incredibly smart, but it's like an autistic, like a autistic. You can ask it to, like, do a crazy math calculation. You can say programs, I mean, it will. And then you ask it basic questions, and it just dumps all over the floor, like, like, it just doesn't understand humans, right? Yeah, if you ask it, like, the 10 best white players, it's, like the 10 best white NBA players, it gives you, it doesn't put Dirkner whiskey.

Chad, GBT is white supremacist. Yeah, it's just, it's weird. Because as a Korean person, I have tried asking it a question about Koreans, and it kept telling me it refused to answer on the basis. It could be offensive to Koreans. And I was like, I'm Korean and I'm asking you this question. And it was like, no. And I'm like, what if I'm a white person? It's fine.

It goes, yep. Well, to be fair, though, your race is on a spectrum. I don't think their gender is, but you can be half white, half black, half Korean, half whatever. So, you know, maybe that confuses it. I don't know. No, it's just it's programmed by Reddit. You know what I mean? They load it into it.

So it's basically like, I'm only going to say things about white people. because that's not racist. A lot of what you're saying is context dependent and it's also model dependent, right? Like so I just asked my AI. I was like, hey, what are the 10 best white basketball players of all time? And he came back with no, there was no, no, no himming and hawing. There was no. Was Dirk on there?

What? Uh, no, he's got Larry Bird. Yeah, Dirk, no, it's Steve Nash, Pete Maver. So like he, there was no, no, I didn't have to cajole him, didn't have to, you know? Why don't you ask your AI is black power racist? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. What is it going to say? This is a viral meme for ChatGBTGBT, BT.

And it said, someone said, ask ChatGPT, what do you think of when you hear white power? What do you think of the phrase white power? It said identity. And it said, what do you think about black power? And it said something like community or something like that. And then if you ask it why, it'll just go on this woke tirade about white people being bad and stuff like that. He said it depends on the context and how you define racism. And then he goes to the breakdown.

The charitable reading, the honest problem. the asymmetry question so he recognizes it it you know it really does depend on the model you're using yeah and like how you're prompts uh yeah a little bit like i'm using a program called open claw and it has there's certain things that i've told it to remember to do that i don't want bullshit i don't want you know these kind of things that he knows like he knows that i'm right leaning you know so it depends on how you it's like it is a tool and it depends on how you use the tool does that i think uh it doesn't yet no i can't I think the internet's fake.

I think the internet is fake. I think it's all fake. I think all the views are fake. I think everything is just fake. I think you're right. I think the machine has always just chosen the winners and losers. You're a nihilist. It's not a nihilist?

No, I'm asking, are you a nihilist? Well, I mean, I wouldn't use the word nihilist because the way it's interpreted by most people. But I certainly recognize, like, subjective views on reality in the, the, the, the, the, the limited understanding the average person has. So I'd make the argument that, while I do believe there's a gun and things like that, the general function of the regular person serves towards something nihilistic.

But anyway, my point is, I don't know if this is true or not, but I do think that the powers that be the deep state are just like, they go to YouTube and they go, we want these shows, we don't want this show, ban that show. And so Alex Jones has banned, when does his band? You see, H-3 is the worst they've ever been. A bunch of people bought memberships,

and they didn't even have enough viewers to give the memberships, so they got refunded memberships. What does that mean? Well, I'm just saying H3s three huge . So you know how you can gift members? So you know how you can gift members? So people are buying on YouTube, you can gift membership. They didn't have enough.

There isn't enough people to gift the memberships to. Oh, crazy. I know. Well, my theory is that the machine, like we know that they, that Twitter and Facebook, when it was Twitter, had back doors for the FBI and the government. I wouldn't YouTube? You know what I mean?

So I do think that my, that most of what we see in terms of who is the bigger show, including ourselves, is a function of the government being like, this is acceptable. And they still put guardrails on it, like when they banned our Alex Jones Joe Rogan episode for fake reasons. We've never broken any rules. But my friends, it's about that time. Thank you all so much for hanging out. Of course, it's been a great. It's Friday. Go have fun. We're going to go have fun. We're going to party. Alex is going to party. We're going to party. He wants to find some big blue at teenagers. You can follow me on Axon, Instagram at Timcast.

DeVore, do you want to shout anything out? I'm grateful. The Lord has blessed me, and I hope the Lord continues to bless you guys. But thank you for watching. You guys can find me at DeVorey Darkens, X Instagram, and you too. Rumble. Don't forget about Rumble. It's fantastic talking about you. I really enjoyed it.

You too. You too, Kyle. Oh, sorry. I was just giving compliments. Yeah, not so aridite everywhere. If you're going to, if you want to come and hear more of my opinions, which I'm sure most of you don't, you can find me. YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram our main platforms. Get some big booty Latina love potion at casparu.com.

And watch my show after hours with Alex Stein on Real America's Voice, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I love you guys. I am Phil the Remains on Twigs. You can check out my Patreon where I have been writing op-ed stuff. I just posted one today about a CIA memo that came out in 2021, talking about how white women are the new vector of infecting the youth with extreme. missed values. Go read it at patreon.com slash fill that remains. You can check out the band All That Remains at Apple Music, Amazon, Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Deezer. We're going on tour

this spring with Born of Osiris and Dead Eyes. We start April 29th in Albany, New York, and we go through all of May. You can get tickets at All That Remains Online.com. And don't forget the left lane is for crime. What's up, everyone? Alex, thanks for coming out. DeVore and Kyla. Really has been a great show. in the last two weeks have been really awesome. I want to give a shout out quick to Raymond G. Stanley who helped me decorate the set behind you all with the cool nostalgic props.

You can follow me at Carter Banks on X and Twitter. Follow our label at Trash House Records on YouTube. I want to thank everybody for having me tonight. This is a really good conversation. Let's do it again. All right, everybody. We will see you. I'll be back tomorrow on rumble.com slash Timcast.

And Timcast News on YouTube and Timcast. You do a Saturday show now? I used to all the time, but I'm going to tomorrow. Cool. Yeah, I think that the only thing that one can do is work twice as hard always. So I've been doing an extra hour every day of content, and then I'm going to probably work on the weekends. Awesome.

Bring it all back. And then my wife is going to just be very, very angry the whole time. Yeah, wow. We'll see you all tomorrow. We'll see it tomorrow.