Timcast IRL - Trump SECRET MISSION REVEALED, It Was A TRAP To Catch BETRAYERS w/ Rafael Mangual

Episode Date: August 12, 2026

On this episode Tim & the crew are joined by Rafael Mangual to discuss Trump's secret evacuation to avoid an Iranian assassination threat Democrats fearing Trump will declare a National Emergency & implement Voter ID Democratic Socialists hating & mocking America Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Rafael Mangual @Rafa_Mangual (X) Daniel Turner @DanielTurnerPTF (X)

Donald Trump reportedly hid in a catering truck to transport off of Air Force One onto an older plane because there was a fear the Iranians were trying to assassinate. And the weird thing is, when they landed in the UK, no one knows how Trump got from the other plane to the main plane. So the question is, did he actually ever get off that plane and hide in this catering truck? Or dare I say, it's the whole story faked by the Trump administration to try and see who would leak the nonsense. because it's a silly story. Somebody gets wind of it.

And a lot of people think a lot of the weird stories that come out are Donald Trump making, or the administration at least, trying to figure out who is leaking by what's called coloring the water. Imagine you have three glasses on your table and there is a pool of water under all of them. You don't know which one is leaking the water. So what you do is you put red in one, green in one, blue in the other. Whichever color, the water turns on the table, you know where your leak is at. So the Trump admin leaks select stories to vary. people, see which one hits the press, and then they know who's spilling the beans.

So we're going to talk about that. And apparently, this is a crazy story. It's Brooke yesterday. We'll talk about it today. Fauci was privately texting that there were red flags over the vaccine use and potential for miscarriages. And then almost immediately public was saying, no, no, nothing to see or everything's fine.

Now, a bunch of women and their husbands are calling for Fauci to be prosecuted to go to prison because they had miscarriages during COVID. Some individuals said even a few days after the first booster, they lost their child and they believe that if Fauci had told them publicly what they knew, maybe their children would have survived. And then of course, of course, Royce White has got his first wig as he announced he is intending. He wants to play in the WNBA in that he is transgender. And now we're going to sit back and wait for the WNBA, which is based in New York City to figure out what is a woman, because they actually have called an emergency meeting

to figure out what a woman is because they don't know. That being said, they're based in New York, so they will be subject to New York human rights law, which means we kind of know where this one's going to go. And this could be it. This could be the end of the fever dream where they are forced to reconcile the insanity of what AOC called woke one.

So we'll talk about that, my friends, and a whole lot more before we do get a great sponsor for you. It's Tax Network USA. Do you owe back taxes or have unfiled tax returns? Have you filed every year but still keep owing? Did you retire and suddenly get hit with a tax bill you didn't expect? Maybe you pulled money from your 401k or IRA early and now the IRS wants its year. However, your tax issue started, the outcome is the same.

Your balance is not going down. Penalties are growing, interest compounds. And many of you are about to owe again for this upcoming tax year with no real plan in place. Stop what you're doing and call tax network USA. The IRS is not waiting. The IRS is forcing collections through wage garnishments. bank levies, and property seizures. They can even file for you without your consent.

This is where Tax Network USA comes in. With over 15 years in the business, there hasn't been a tax case they haven't seen or resolved. They specialize in tax controversies and help taxpayers nationwide get back on track by resolving back taxes and unfiled returns once and for all. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, their team has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt.

And they can do the same for you, but you've got to call now. They're offering a free investigation called the IRS. After that investigation, they put a clear case plan in place to resolve your tax problem and get you back on track. It's about using your legal right to take control before the government sets the terms for you. Do not wait for another IRS letter or frozen bank account. Call 866-686-1535. That's 866-686-1535 or visit TNUSA.com slash 10 or click the link in the description below. Don't forget to go to timcast.com and join us, my friends.

Be the change you want to see in the world by getting in the Timcast Discord with tens of thousands of other individuals sharing stories, hosting their own shows. And you get to call in to the uncensored portion of this show, ask us questions and maybe get some answers. Don't forget to smash the like button. Share the show with everyone, you know, joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else. We have Rafael Menguall. How are you? Thanks for having me. I'm good. Who are you? What do you do? I'm Raphael Mangua. I am a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, which is a public policy thing tank, which basically means that I write about stuff. My particular area of expertise is crime, policing,

public safety, criminal justice. So I have spent the last 10 years talking about why woke one was crazy for policing, the defund period, all of that nonsense. So. But they're still advocating for all of those things. Absolutely. They're on TV right now saying defund the police. Of course. So they have no sees like, yeah, Wokein was crazy and we're still calling for it. That's right. I mean, I don't think think they can actually admit that everything that they did in the last 10 years was complete nonsense because they lose all credibility. I think they want people to forget long enough to elect them and then they can go back and do the same thing. It was all nonsense. Well, it's going to be fun. Thanks for joining us. Daniel Turner's here as well. I am. Daniel Turner, Power the Future,

your favorite fossil fuel advocate and Virginia sheep farmer, great to be with you all. Thanks for having me. And we got DeBois. What's up, everybody? I'm Phil. I think for all it remains. It's up Carter. What's up, everyone? I'm Carter. And thank y'all for coming. Let's get into it. Here's a story from NBC News. Trump took a secret flight out of Turkey in an elaborate plot to hide his location amid Iran war. The operation last month used a catering truck to get the president on a C-32 that flew from Ankara to the Royal Air Force Milden Hall in the UK. They're going to say that he was whisked out of Turkey last month. The Washington Post was the first to report the details. The U.S. official confirmed the accuracy of these details. Trump deplane the C-32 again secretly and re-boarded the U.S.

older Air Force One jet. Now, of course, you've got this image here of this catering truck. People are claiming that it pulled in. Trump sneaks out the back. Then they bring that catering truck to the other plane where he sneaks on that plane. The only issue is that according to the story from the Washington Post, when both planes landed in the UK, no one knows how Trump got from the C-32 into Air Force One. So perhaps Trump never actually left Air Force One, but this story was planted to see who in the administration was leaking details of their security. Because you've got to understand if Trump told someone in the admin, they're going to try to kill me so we are going to do a surreptitious plane swap.

And then a month later, that person reveals that plan to the press. You'd have to imagine Trump would be very, very angry about that because it compromises his life, his security. I don't think Trump ever left the plane. I think this story is stupid and crazy. And the reason it's getting a bunch of traction, you know, with people sharing pictures of Trump, you know, hiding in a catering truck is exactly the point. You make a story that sounds shocking or worth reporting and then you see who's willing to leak it to the press. And then you know, we told that specifically to Daniel.

He was the only one who knew. He's the leaker. Secret Service doesn't share details of the president's security protocol. When I was in the Bush administration years and years ago, I was advance for a couple of events. and you have the little Secret Service earpiece and read in 1,000th of a percent of what they know, but you knew enough in the training that you don't share the things that are happening.

So I agree with you. There's no way in hell the Secret Service is going to willingly say, oh, the president was in danger, so these are all the things we did to mitigate that danger. The only way, though, to explain how he got from plane A to plane B, if that is the case, and no one knows how he did it. I mean, I have seen David Copperfield

in like a glass case, stangling above the stage, and then a minute later, he's, like, sitting next to Carter. And so there are magic tricks that I don't know how they do. Have you ever seen the movie the, what is it, fits the prestige? Yeah, exactly. What a great film. It's a bloody

body double. Exactly. No, I've seen it. It's too good. It's too perfect. They used Joe Biden body doubles. Remember they were looking at the earlobes and that was like, that guy's like three inches taller than Joe Biden. That was Biden. That was Biden. Remember? Yeah.

They called him by Dan. Trump. Trump body double. Are we going to know? Pretty soon if this was a purposeful leak. I mean, someone's going to get fired in the near future, right? It just depends on how much they want the journalists or the press to know. Someone might announce that they're moving and we don't even know that it's a firing. Yeah, that's true. If it's true, I mean, if it is the case that he actually was targeted and they had reliable information,

like the implication is that it's like a nation state actor because they're going to try, they're talking about, you know, getting him off the plane because of anti-air stuff, right? It's not just a situation of, oh, there's a security situation. It's, you know, there's some possibility, no matter how small, that the flight plan of Air Force One was leaked and that a nation state was with, again, anti-air capabilities was looking to target him. But you would think that they would have some kind of, like, plan for that, right? I mean, that's, yeah, get him off the plane. But beyond that, where they could still fly him. And actually, you know, it's not like they told everyone else to get off the plane.

I imagine that there were enough important people there that if that plane went down, it would have been a disaster, right? Like that plane's flying with, you know, F-35s beside it, right? Like, there's got to be some kind of contingency for that. My hunch is right now, the White House, Susie Wiles, someone is saying, right, here's the story we concocted, and we know he leaked it to Tim, and suddenly we see it all over the news. And now they're going to call Tim to the office and be like, listen, brother.

So here's the deal. And now this is what you. you're going to do for us. We're not going to ruin your career. This is what you are going to do for us for the next two years. It's not just about the leakers in the administration. I'm pretty sure that people have tried leaking stories to me to get me to report things that were ridiculous to see if I would take something salacious. Anonymous sources say. I mean, because they're, obviously, we're in the about waiting a lot of people. And I've had people come to me like, hey, I got a big story. And it's just this is a thing. And I'm like, that sounds crazy. I'm not

going to, I'm not going to run with that. And then it never happened. So, you know, I had theories that the administration is like, who's willing to accept leaks? Who can we trust? Because if someone's leaking, what if some of the, you know, like, what if, will Tim Poole go on his show and make and say some crazy story about Trump citing this, this leaker? And then like, if I can't verify it been a single source, I don't go anywhere near it. Well, sad source, though, for this, for the Trump administration since 2015 is they don't

need to have verified sources. You just say, you know, someone told me that he got a bed with a bunch of Russian hookers who peed on it. And they're like, oh, my God, that's the story. You don't have to verify things when it comes to President Trump. That has been- Remember the elevator? 12 years.

Yeah. The elevator story? You remember the elevator story? Refresh my memory. A videotape exists somewhere of Trump doing something in an elevator. What he's doing, no one knows where and when it was. No one's sure, but no one's even sure it exists. And I'm like, what?

And people have reported that. Oh, it's a real story. It's from Huffington Post. Let me see if I can find it. Well, and the woman who's suing him for defamation, you know, and you're, you know, you still have Democrats say like, you know, Trump, you know, graped, we have to use the proper language like this woman. And it's like, no, she's suing him because she couldn't prove it because she said, like,

this was Neiman Marcus at Tuesday at 4 o'clock. Like surprisingly, no one has witnessed this. And so he called you a lying slut. And now, can I, I don't know if that's a bad word, but. This is 2018, right? Like, I want to ask Tate. Tate, like, 25, right? Yeah.

I'm wondering if like, hey, when you were 17, did you read this post? Huffington Post wrote, a tape might exist of Trump doing something in an elevator, know exactly where that somewhere is and what that something might be. No one in media can say. That's because no one in media seems to have seen the tape or is even confident it exists. Look at that story. That's remarkable. That is.

When you think about that, that's horrifying. I imagine when Kamala was learning speech writing, she studied this tweet. And she was like, how do I say as much as, how do I get as much? many words and as possible to say as little as possible. This story may as well say there's rumors of something we're not sure of, so we ignored it. Like, it's not even a thing. Might. As soon as you start using might, it's not a story.

It's not just that. It's that a tape might exist of something. This could be said about anywhere. I know. And like Photoshop an image of Trump in an elevator. You know, this is how, this is the thing. Like, bro, this is eight years ago. Yeah.

There are a lot of people right now. young Gen Z that are getting into politics that don't know this. That don't know this is what we all went through. Yeah. I can't believe they didn't take it down. Or they think this is like the norm of how you do political journalism now, which kind of has become, unfortunately. The hunt for every Trump reporter's white whale, the elevator tape.

All of your favorite media outlets plus Tom Arnold are racing to find a damning tape that might not even exist. Plus Tom Arnold? Yeah. I forgot Tom Arnold was military. That's right. Yeah. Yeah.

I remember him for that movie with Donald Schwarzenegger in the 90s. What was it? True lies. Insane, man. And so I got to just say, like, maybe, just maybe the news is fake. Yeah. I mean, yeah, that news is definitely fake. 100%.

Yeah. But. If you say fake news, right? I mean, that means your persona non grata. You can't participate in the making conversation. It's all fake. I don't know if that's the case anymore. There was a time where that was the case.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, again, the American people are so untrusting of official narratives, of, you know, the establishment institutions in general. The idea that you are going to be punished for saying fake news nowadays, not anymore. Like, people don't believe anything. There are people out there that, you know, particularly, you know, people that are extremely online. Yeah. Like just if you're repeating something that lines up with an official narrative, they just disregard.

Not just what you're saying, but you at all. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if I like, especially in a law enforcement context, if I'm talking about a case and I, like, say anything that even remotely resembles what the official narrative is, it's like, oh, you must be getting paid by the end of me or like, it's like, guys.

Like, it's possible to just like agree sometimes with the official narrative. That is. That is. who runs National Journalism Center, so he teaches young people to be journalists. And it still is a valuable career. But I remember him saying as a trained journalist himself, he said one of the downfalls that he saw of media in recent years was,

do you remember Anonymous, the source Anonymous? And he said when the New York Times was running the saying, it was the most senior official, and everyone was going bonkers. Anonymous is saying all these things, the whole letter in the New York Times. And then it turns out it was like this kind of, of low-level junior staffer and he was like that the New York Times lied to us that blatantly

and said this is a high-ranking Trump official he was like for me that was the end of trusting the Times like their editorial staff has to have looked at that and be like well think let's just lie and say it's high ranking think about this I could or I'm not even anybody but any journalist could say, I have a source in the government that has revealed to me insert negative story about Trump and sue me. Because when you do, I'll say, I won't give up my sources. And they'll say, we're going to hold you in contempt. Then so be it. Because I will never reveal my source. And the truth is, there isn't one. There never was. One of my favorite sourcing techniques is you'll hear a story and it'll say like a source close to Nancy Pelosi's office

reveals that Donald Trump was seen kicking puppies. And the source close to her office is the homeless guy in the alley who was physically close to her office. And they won't tell you that. They'll just say a source close to her office. No, it's insane. I don't think this story is, and quite frankly, I don't really care if it's true. I think the Secret Service does a better job than worrying about these types of little shenanigans. I think it's a much more elaborate plot to keep the president safe. But do what you have to to keep the president safe. What I have enjoyed is some of the media meltdown saying, wait a second, but you still let us board the plane? And like, yeah, because you're not the president. Like, no, there's the president and there's

everybody else, right? Like, even the president's staff was still on the plane. I think the president was still on the plane. I think the story's fake. I think the story is fake. But I get a kick out of them saying, like, well, if the president was in danger, we were all in danger. So we all should have been evacuated. It's like, that's not how it works. Yeah. Like, there's the president, and then there's everybody else. And get your own secret service. Yeah. It's salacious, though. The idea of Trump sneaking into a catering truck and then being whisked away. It's funny. It is.

It is kind of funny to imagine. He went out of the kitchen. But also at the same time, I mean, like, this is a guy who's had multiple attempts made on his life recently. He got shot in the head, literally. Harrison Ford skis in a pod, remember? Harrison Ford got in the pot and then he shut down. He didn't actually get in the pot, though, right?

He stayed on the plane. That's right. You stayed on the plane. And he tried to have a plane. And again, if you're, you know, if we're, if we're, if we're, going to, you know, do the dangerous work of believing the official story. This isn't the first time that, you know, since the Iran war started, actually, maybe even prior, but Trump has alleged to have been targeted by Iran before.

So, and look, whether or not you believe the official story, it's completely within reason to think that Iran is looking to do this. Look at how many of the leadership of Iran, the United States. has, you know, managed to take out in multiple different ways, whether it be, you know, the big strikes that the two, well, since February 28th or last year, or when they got the leader of the IRGC when he was in Iraq, when they shot the ginsu hellfire at him, you know, the one that doesn't have any explosives that just shoots knives out the side, which, I mean, I'm surprised as hell that that exists. But at the same time, it's like if you're looking to reduce collateral damage, if you're not looking to blow things up and you want to have, you want to be able to just target the one person that is as far as war goes, that's probably the most responsible way the United States has ever dropped a bomb in its history, right? Is it a bomb if it doesn't explode? Well, I've got targeted attack. And they have secretly moved the president before.

I remember when Bush went to Iraq during the war, I think for Thanksgiving. And afterwards they said how clandestine operation. He did fly on a Air Force like fighter jet, you know, road shotgun basically and obviously dark of cover. But they told all those details after the fact when the president was back on the white. He flew in a fighter? I don't. Well, he was a pilot. The father was.

Fother was. W wasn't. Yeah, like they flew Air Force one to, I think, like Greenland. And this was all at like two in the morning. And then he took a fighter jet, landed in bag. that or something like that. I wonder if that was his idea. How about if you just fly me over there and fight it?

That's the coolest Uber ride ever. They have done secret stuff for the president, but... Put me in an F-15. Plus, I also don't think they would give away the tactics. You know, like, now we're going to always be targeting... That's something that's always bothering me about reporting like this. There's like, there's something un-American about it where you're reporting on the tactics that we use to maintain national security to keep the president safe, right?

It's like, even if you thought it was a good story, I don't know, there's like, isn't there something that suggests that you should just, keep it to yourself for America's sake? Like, are you not an American first? Yeah. No. What only wonders if the terrorists know about the open vent in the left closet. Right, yeah.

They don't have to reveal all the information. But like, seriously, I could see the New York Times running a story like that, just talking about like, oh, we've discovered this like vulnerability. And then the Secret Service learning about that in the New York Times as opposed to. Yeah. Let's jump to this next story. Trump issues vague response to idea for national emergency head of the midterm. He's being interviewed, and this host on RAV says, in INSV, what was it the, what was it, the, uh,

for Akata or whatever? I don't know. I forgot the name of the case. Let me pull it up, actually, because I feel stupid for getting it. Uh, Wiki, INSV. Basically, he said, it's, uh, Chadha. Sorry, it seems obvious. If Trump would declare a national emergency, there's no veto power of either branch.

They can't just vote to stop it. So a national emergency requires. two-thirds of the House and the Senate to override, which means that if within a month of the election, Trump declares a national emergency on elections requiring voter ID and all of these things, they would not be able to muster up the political capital to actually stop Trump from doing it. Trump said, let me just say, stranger things have happened. Now, my response is that Trump doesn't need to do this because the DSA is burning down the Democrats, four to one. It's something like when polled, the net, like the unfavorability of the DSA for independence is like 74 to 75%.

When asked who they'd rather vote for, they lean Republican over DSA. So with, you know, Zoramandani recently lost his pita tear thing. The judge shot a Democrat judge was like, you can't do this. It's not working. And we are seeing these far lefties win in, you know, New York and now in Michigan, potentially Wisconsin, Colorado. There's a viral video where the guy says, DSA's kryptonite is literally asking them about their campaign positions. And this guy says to this woman, you want to defund the police and abolish prison?

She's like, yes. And he goes, so if my daughter is assaulted and raped, what agency would stop him? And if not the police, what agency would stop him? And if not jail, where would he go? And she's like, well, I don't want to get caught up in these hypotheticals. Because that's never happened. The point is maybe Trump does want to just suspend, you know, like by national emergency. some of these, you know, or I don't know, suspense is not the right word, but implement controls on the

election. I don't know that he would need to do it, but what do you guys think? You think Trump would pull that off? If he made an executive order under a national emergency saying that you must produce an ID that proves that you're an American citizen, I would have zero problem with it. And I think he would get away with it because 80% of Americans believe that the save act should be passed. I think that it would be, I think that most Americans, the people that don't like Trump, they would obviously not like it because they don't like Trump. But overall in the grand scheme of things, I don't think that there would be significant political repercussions because most Americans say we want the SAVE Act pass. The House has already passed the SAVE Act. They've tried to attach to multiple.

The thing that's holding it up is the Senate. And I think that he would be able to get away with it. He would catch hell, definitely, but he would be able to get away with it. The White House updated their election integrity page earlier today when I was working on my morning show covering in this issue particularly. And they've added a lot. Good. It does look like there's a possibility. Love it.

With Trump's address and all of these issues, the White House is laying the groundwork to be able to declare a national emergency saying, look at the evidence we have of non-citizen voters, non-citizens on. state voter rolls, the Oxford comma documents, Merkope data breach, March toll, DOJ and DHS election enforcement actions. When you look at this map they have, of all the enforcement actions they've done, it looks like he might say we have, you know, 47 lawsuits right now over all of these issues that have not been resolved. We must declare an emergency. Otherwise, our election is compromised. You see some of the most vocal opponents to this law. The first one I go to is Michigan, Elise Slotkins, and she won by something like 60,000 votes for her Senate race, but there are some 400,000 fraudulent voter files in Michigan.

So if she is adamant, like we can't have this, women and minorities won't be able to vote. It's like, or the 400,000 people who probably voted for you to make up the delta. So that when you compare the ones who are most vociferous to their level of margin of victory, a victory proportional to their state's electoral fraud. It's like, well, of course you don't want this because this is how you plan on winning. I think the general public, like you said, is going to be okay with the idea of requiring this. I just don't trust the media to sort of allow him to maintain control over the narrative.

I think within 24 hours, people are going to be painting this as him suspending elections, as him taking things over, and people are going to lose their minds. They're going to vote for him anyway. They won't vote for him, right? But it's not him on the ballot in the midterms. So they'll be like to show our opposition to President Trump, we're going to vote for the Democrats. It's like, well, you were going to vote for the Democrats. There are a lot of people on the fence, though, who I think would be turned off by it.

I don't know. It's a risk. All I'm saying is that it's a risk. Oh, definitely. There are a lot of people who I think support that. I think voter ID makes sense. I think it's crazy that I, not only can I, do I not need an ID to go into vote? If I show my ID in New York, it's like cryptic.

Get it away from me. I don't want to see. Right. That's nuts to me. But I also think, like, there's a major political. risk here if he does this. I've said, I've been asserting that we need Donald Trump to be more like Lincoln to do the things necessary to make sure that he basically we save America. Right. Like, no kidding around. No, I'll tell you why I'm laughing when you're done. You know, it's like the,

the, the, the, the far left of the, the Democrat party, they want to do things that are actually prohibited by the Constitution. They want to get rid of the Senate, which you can't do. That's the one thing, and I keep repeating this on the show, but there's only one thing that you can't do via amendment, and that's get rid of the Senate. That's take away the votes of the senators, of the several states. You cannot amend that away. You cannot get rid of that without abolishing the whole constitution. So you have to get rid of the entire constitution to get rid of the Senate. And the DSA has said over and over and over. They want to get rid of the Senate. They want to get rid of the Senate. They want to get rid of the electoral college. They want to get rid of the Supreme Court.

They want to get rid of the Supreme Court? They want to get rid of the Supreme Court? They want to make something like subordinate to Congress. Yeah. So like it's not traditional judicial. Much more the way like European Parliamentary's work that like the Supreme Court is as a branch of the right. It's like the judiciary committee right of the parliament. But the, so the point I guess that I'm making here is these people are a threat to the actual Republican. Okay, they're not just, they're not just looking to make changes around the edges. They don't just want health care for everybody. They're, they, they specifically say in their literature to DSA members to misrepresent,

to lie about what their policies are when you're actually out on the stump talking to voters. They are doing, they will do everything they can to take away the republic that we have and totally destroy it. So we need someone like Lincoln who's willing to do what's necessary to protect the United States of America from what would amount to authoritarian. Liberalism doesn't have a means to defeat authoritarian. But they're getting they're getting flattened. That's the thing. I mean, we are seeing them win locally.

And so that is a problem because, you know, they say act locally, think globally, right? The issue is that when you affect localities, it trickles up. So we do have this issue, but even AOC is trying to distance herself. Abdul Al-Sai-ed is trying to distance himself. I wonder if... He's a DSA member, right? I mean, who is? Abdul-L-A-Member, don't even say he's a D-A-A-N.

Yeah, he's not. But they campaigned for him. Right. So they're trying to get away from this branding. The question is going into the midterms now, will this have enough of an impact to prevent Democrats from winning? Will the Democrats themselves, who are dumping millions of dollars to stop the DSA, succeed in pushing them back.

And more importantly, in 2008, are we going to see with this new Tucker third party and again, the Democrats, the moderate Democrats are launching massive multi-million dollar efforts to stop the DSA? They don't have that money either, which is the remarkable thing. They're going to debt. Will this, I mean, will the Democratic Party just become a shell of its former self? Oldest political party in the world, they don't last forever. Yeah.

No, I think you're absolutely right. They are tearing themselves apart and that's a good and welcome thing. The DSA co-chair was on that video a couple days ago, which was supposed to be a serious podcast, and she's laughing saying how we're all in favor of taxing the hell out of the rich. And the guy says, like, could you explain that? And she's like, well, I haven't really figured out exactly. And he says, but shouldn't you, though, like, you're the co-chair.

And she laughs, like, we're going to tax the hell out of the rich. Big large woman. And you say, looking at that, you just want punishment. Like, you don't have a tax policy. in mind. You just want, it's a whole principle built on envy and hatred. You just, you just hate these people. That's the problem with the DSA.

They're not motivated by any coherent policy. They're picking up on energy of we hate the rich. And you don't want to start a class war in the United States. There are 800 billionaires in the United States. That's it, right? And they control something like seven trillion dollars, which is a lot of money. right, but the whole U.S. economy is worth something like $169 trillion. So the billionaires don't have nearly enough money to fix the problems that the DSA say that they're going to fix.

So you know what that means? You have to go after the millionaires. And then you have to go after the hundred millionaires. So maybe there's a couple more thousand of those. But it doesn't, like the math doesn't work out. And what you end up doing is you take the property from the, or what, they would end up doing is taking the property from the people that provide jobs to the middle class. And you will destroy the economy and destroy the country when you turn the people that are, that are

envious, angry, when you turn those people against the wealthy, the rich people that are the actual people that create the jobs, you will destroy the country that way. And that's the point. Yeah, that's totally the point. Their entire point is destroy the country and then we'll build something. new from the ashes. Right. They want to build utopia in order to build utopia. They have to tear everything else down. But the Democratic Party's biggest problem is that they don't have any real principles that they're defending here, right? They have spent the last generation or two

essentially just chasing power for its own sake, which means that they don't have a career response to the DSA, which actually does have a mission statement that people are sort of getting behind. Yeah. It's inspiring to people. They're building community around these things, right? Even if they haven't thought about the ideas themselves. There's like this sort of communitarian aspect where it's almost like a club of membership and it's fun and people are making friends and dating. And, you know, what's the Democratic Party's answer to them? What exactly are they defending against the takeover from the DSA? And they don't have that real statement of principles that sort of distinguishes. Democrats, they have, they have right now, or for 10 years, their position has been

we are not President Trump. Right. They had their four-year window for Biden. And if there were successes out of that, they would run on it. And when they had the chance to, which was Vice President Harris, even she wouldn't run on it. You know, she talked about what we will do going into the future. I was like, well, this is where we are now and this has been your administration. The borders, the economy. I was like, yes, but time to turn the page. And I forget what interview that was when she said that and the moderator, surprise, look, Tim, there are still a lot of journalists out there. The moderator was like, but turn the page, but this is your, this is your page. And she was so, And she's laughed.

That's the problem is they don't have a message other than we hate President Trump. Now, that may work, but it's been 12 years of that. It's worse. It's so boring. But it's worse than that because it's not just that the Democrats don't have a message. The Democrats have no way to defend themselves from the far left. And they don't have a way to do it without sounding like the right. I mean, what are the – I'm serious.

Like, you know what's the pushback on the DSA's economic plan? if not a free market statement of ideals. That's why they're going to lose. The DSA and the far left are going to take over the Democrats. Mark my words, they are going to be the future of the Democrat Party, unless there's some significant changes to the way that the economics of this country have played out. And that's not going to happen because the boomers have all the property, or the majority of the property, right?

Kids still feel like they can't get house. the wages that people are making have not increased significantly. The dollar doesn't go as far as it did just five years ago, right? Like because of the inflation that happened after COVID. Burritos. Yeah, everything is, I mean, as much as that's a silly thing to talk about. And it was fun to make jokes about. It is legitimate.

Now, look, the American people are more wealthy than any other country. The people in all, like the people in the poorest state in the United States and Mississippi still make more money per capita than the average person in the UK, right? So the average poor person in America is wealthier than the average person in the UK. Not the average poor person, but the average person in the UK. So like this stuff is like you, but you can't make the argument to someone that feels like they're hurting. The DSA are going to take over the Democrat Party because the Democrats don't. have the thick skin that the the the republicans have look you can go back to when george bush or mitt

romney were running and they were being called nazis they were being called races republicans conservatives they we have very very thick skin to this stuff we can just be like whatever we don't democrats don't they've always been the one they've always been the ones to fold as soon as the as soon as the left the further left attack them the people that got recanceled and the people that that that really kind of bent the knee significant in significant numbers it was all democrats you know because they didn't have any way to defend themselves you know it'll be curious to see at the at the federal level at the state at the national level so we have to look at 2028 Bernie twice was going to be the DSA candidate and twice the establishment effed him because they were like we are not letting Bernie say because he

won't win nationally so now it's we have we have DSA on the rise now 2027 28 now we get to the nominating convention, are the super delegates once again going to swoop in and be like it is not AOC? It is Gavin Newsom because we have changed the rules. Like, the party establishment could be the final death now for the DSA. It's good that,

well, I don't think that that'll happen in the short term. Like, maybe it will in the next election, but in the following presidential election, the Democrat, the DSA will have the mojo by then. Because they're having enough wins at a local level where people are looking and

saying maybe these DSA guys are on to something, first of all. But you bring up Bernie Sanders, and that's a great, that's a great segue to this. Like, you look at the way that Bernie Sanders folded when those two women got on stage and were yelling at him and took the mic from him. And he was like, you wait, you wait. And he had no way to defend himself. That's what he had a way. He just didn't have the stones to actually do it.

But the Democrats do. Right. They don't have the, they don't have the courage to stand up and say, no. You're not going to because all of the stuff, the intestinal fortitude that it takes to do that, yeah. Toxic masculinity. Which is why you're a white supremacist. They'll throw all the names at them.

And then the response is going to be like, oh, which is why the Trump line against Hillary when he takes the mic and goes, you be a jail. That's why that was such an iconic moment because it was like, wait, we don't say those things. Like they're allowed to call us Nazis and racists and you just have to stand there and listen to it. that was the first time it was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, people didn't know how to respond to that. Now they are kind of used to it. It's also why, Tim, you were saying how they want to abolish everything, right?

And abolish this and abolish this and abolish that. It's also why abolishing the Electoral College is so important. Because the Electoral College will protect the nation from, but not if it's gone, right? If it's a just popular vote, then the Electoral College is in one more check. Shows you the genius of our founders, right, who thought, like, we could have some crazy, we could have a monarchist populist, movement and we don't want that. So the electoral college protect. No, I'm saying the founders back in 1776. Oh, no, I'm a monarchist. The right person. The right person. That's the right one.

The thing that bothers me about the push to abolish everything is the hubris that undergirds it. Right? Like the DSA types think that they are the smartest people in the world insofar as they believe they've actually discovered the solutions to poverty, economic inequality, predation, all of these things that have characterized every human civilization that's ever existed at every point in history, everywhere on the globe, they think, oh, no, we can figure it out and we can usher in utopia if you just give us enough power. Like, not enough people understand how insane. Do they really think that? I don't think they actually think that.

I don't. I think I spent, because, well, I think we were going to say the same thing. I've been in their planning meetings. I've been at their protests. Yeah. And there certainly are the low-level people, but those are like, you know, orcs and Udukeye. They're not, you know, they're not the Nazgul, still servants, but cognizant of what they're doing.

I am. These people that I've met will explicitly tell you to your face. These are mechanisms by which we can strip the confidence in the system, burn it down, and make something different. No, yeah. I think that's what they want to do. But I think they believe that the different thing that they make is going to be effective. It's going to be good.

it's not going to be characterized by the same problem. Every socialist in history has thought that. Right. I disagree. And the reason why is during Occupy Wall Street, when I was at the planning meetings for these facilitators, they would like to say in the press,

we're going to flip the pyramid over. To the average person, they imagine you have a pyramid, you flip it over, the working class are on top, and the landlords and the bears are all in the bottom. There's very few of them. I was the only one, I guess,

with multi-ordered thinking, and said, when you flip a pyramid over the bricks crumble and it forms it just a shittier pyramid and they were like right but we're on top literally the plan is you have all the working class on the bottom you invert the pyramid

the bricks crumble down and those that can remain on top will be us right they were under no illusions they were going to solve any problems or fix anything it was this is how we become billionaires this is how we become rich it's wild and this is why when people say

like Bernie is a socialist or a communist I often push back and say he's really not. He's a party leader because communism is awful if you're stuck in it. But communism is great if you're the Communist Party officials. At the height of the Soviet decline, which is one of my favorite oxymorons, at the height of the Soviet decline, the party leaders never wanted for vodka or caviar or blue jeans or rock and roll, right? So, like, Bernie sees himself with his four mansions and his private jet use. Like, I want socialism to everybody, but not for me.

like I'm on a private jet. And when he was asked about the private jet, he said, like, do you really think I'm going to be on United Airlines? Like, he was adamant that, like, do you know who I am? I am not getting on United Airlines. So they don't really want even socialism.

They just want. They want power. Self. Yeah. On power. Yeah. Everyone envisions the revolution being like,

we're going to overthrow the czar and take the palace and I'll sleep in his bed. Yeah. Right? I tell you what, they do have a ton of true believers. I mean, because I have been just absolutely floored

by some of the things I've heard. I was at UC Berkeley a couple years ago with the great Heather McDonald. We were debating these police abolitionists. Oh, boy. And it was, I mean, you know, throwing us to the wolves. I mean, we were. We got out alive, though. We did.

I mean, look, none of them lift or eat any protein. So, like, it's fine. They're not all that dangerous. But no, I mean, like, I remember debating these police abolitionists. They literally got up and said, well, look, we're the hopeful ones. Like, if we can just give people everything that they need, no one will ever need to commit a crime. And, like, it just never, they have no grasp, no sense of what. human nature actually is, which is really the divide between left and right when you boil it down.

It's like it's just a fundamental disagreement about human nature. I actually think by modern standards, the way we use the words left and right, it means, are you in the matrix or out of it? Right. So if you are a card carrying communist who says the Biden administration was corrupt, letting an illegal immigrants and Joe Biden himself flew to Ukraine and threatened to illegally withhold loan guarantees so that a prosecutor would stop investigating his son, they go, you're a conservative. You can literally be wearing Mao uniform.

Like if Hassan came out and said true things about what was going on the world, they'd be like, whoa, he's going right wing, what's going on? Because they don't mean conservative values. They mean, do you believe? Yeah. Alternative player. Do you believe? Yeah, are you in the cult or not? Yeah.

That's it. Yeah. And do you measure your successes against some theory? And that's where the left will always have the advantage over the right is because they can. and say, yes, but we could do this. We will do this. If we're able to do this, this is what the future will be. And you say, well, show us an example of where it's ever worked.

They don't want to have those conversations. Well, because it's never really been tried. So we can't show you that example. It's implemented properly. So it's always the benchmark is the idea. And that's why also it tends to be the ideology of very young people and losers. Yeah. Because you live in this fantasy land.

Like, you know what? Man, like one day I'm going to marry this hot chick and live in a man. and that's adorable when you're like 15, but now you're 40. And you're like, one day I'm going to have, well, if you're not getting your hands dirty, it's never going to happen. And then you say, well, you know why? It's because of the systems. Well, yeah.

Everything is stacked against me. That's why it's like, no, you're just a loser. And you always will be a loser. I've made this argument on the show a bunch of times. The reason why America is the greatest country that has ever existed is because we have up until maybe 50 years ago, we always attracted people that believed that they

happen to the world. The world does not happen to them. People that wanted to come to America, they wanted to come here because they believe that they could make something of themselves if they could just get the yoke of the government off of them,

get the Lord or whatever, off their back. They could do something in the world and they would happen to America. And because you when you have a country full of people that are willing to take big risks and and take the chance that they can happen to the world, they can do something great, you're going to have an outnumbered amount of people that succeed at that. When you have when you when you when you have people coming to the United States that

are looking for someone to take care of them, you fundamentally try. change what America is. And people that are on the left are not people that believe, generally, are not people that believe that they happen to the world. They believe the world happens to them. The reason that I haven't been successful is because of some outside force. It's not because that I've done something. Yeah. It's exactly the explanation, right? It's a fixed pie fallacy, right? If I don't have, it's because someone else has that thing that I deserve. But I think a lot of people are just turned off by the fact that they're experiencing downward mobility for the first time a string of generations, right?

I mean, you have people who, for every generation, we always expected to do better than our parents, and now these kids who had everything going into childhood and through childhood to go into school, they're getting degrees, they're checking boxes, but they're not living in, you know, the five-bedroom, three-bathroom house that they... I think that's a myth.

I mean, it's a myth. Why? Because you had a great depression. Then you had two world wars. Then you had the Cold War with multiple proxy conflicts and conscription in the civil rights era. Every generation, in the past, hundred years was going through some violent conflict. No, no, I'm not saying that they're

right. What's really happened, in my opinion, is that millennials grew up in the 90s, watching a massive economic expansion for the fall of the Soviet Union and global and U.S. global new world order dominance. And it was really good for like 10 years. And then things started to retract again. And all of a sudden they were like, how come things are bad now? But if you go back to like, and it's fascinating because I wasn't alive, I'm sorry, I was alive in the 80s, but I was not lucid in the 80s. And what were the interest rates? Like 12 to 20%, like some insane.

My parents bought their health in was like 15%. 18%. Just psychotic inflation. And I know that the DSA people like to look back at and say like the buying ratio, it was like two and a half times your yearly salary to buy a house. And I'm like, yes, yes, yes. But every generation has its principal challenges. So sure.

Oh, but the boomers and the boomers got drafted and went to Vietnam and came back with PTSD. and all of that stuff, and you had the Korean War, and obviously you go back further, you had the World Wars. There was bad stuff happening to everybody the whole time. And what happens is we look back on history with rose-tinted goggles about we only see the beauty of it and we ignore the problems. Now, I would say the problem of the DSA is they're liars. So they romanticize the good economic things they can find and then they demonize the cultural things. And they like to simultaneously play this game where they say, when was America ever great? And the response you should have is when you, DSA, you posted that the price of a home,

on average, was two and a half times a worker's salary. That's what we're talking about. But the problem is when you say, we want to make America great again, they go, you mean like the clan? And it's like, okay, you want, you want to, that is the dark side, right? I live, I always try to look on the bright side of things. You know, you hope for the best, prepare for the worst. So when I say America used to be great, I am not talking about the cultural relations.

I'm talking about the economic stuff. The war was bad. Civil rights stuff was crazy. When the left does it, they invert it. When they say America is, they talk about all the bad things and ignore all the good things. Today, they don't talk about the good things and only talk about the bad things. And the first or anything is you can't have a serious conversation, even on this type of a podcast. Because when you have one of their leaders who is Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez,

and I'll get to her in a second. But when she says things seriously like, well, you know, the Senate is like a remnant of Jim Crow. Wait, wait, wait. Did she actually say this? Oh, God, yeah, yeah, yeah. That was a couple days ago. The Senate is like, or she's at a relic or a vestige

or a product of Jim Crow. And you say, not only are you 150 years off. I was going to say, yeah, 150? I mean, the Senate. Let's go back to the concept of the Senate as the Founding Fathers proposed it to ancient Rome. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're a few thousand years off, lady.

How do I begin to debate with you? Like, the Senate is a product of Jim Crow. Like, I don't, so you would get so caught off guard by the, by the assininity of that. That now she's won. And people are laughing and they're like, woohoo! Jim Crow! And you're like, I don't have a retort because I'm not stupid. The real problem is that we let anybody vote.

Yep. Yes. Which is why we need the executive order. What I was laughing at when you were speaking, I don't want to interrupt you is I've been thinking of my mind of a campaign to sort of reclaim the phrase dictator from the ancient Rome. Like the dictator was a great title. It was a noble title. Chinchinatus, right? We need Jeremy Ryan Slate here to he'll give us the other. Like dictator wasn't a bad phrase and now we've made it this page. He's a dictator. It's like, well, if you know you're ancient Rome, like the dictator came in in these crucial moments for a temporary

period and was like, whatever I say goes, everyone shut the hell up. We're going to fix things. And I'm like, I kind of want to go back just like a little small period of time. That's why I say we need another Lincoln. A lot of people are throwing around some names that people talk about Pinochet and make jokes about helicopters and they talk about like Franco. Franco Friday, Jackson Sobeck was doing that. Look, Franco, Franco stayed in position of authority in Spain until he died. You don't.

And then it just melted into a republic. But he also invited back in the monarchy, though. Hold on, but Americans think of fascism and they think that it's bad, right? And that's not going to change. You're not going to convince your average person that, you know, fascism is good. You're just not. Like, and messaging is everything. There's a distinction between Spain and Italy.

Yeah. Well, Spain, Italy, and to be honest with you, the Nazis were fascists. They were a special, unique kind of fascism, but they were also fascist. I don't agree with that. The American people think of Hitler as a fascism. understand that. The point that I'm making messaging. Agreed, agreed. I'm just saying I think we want to make sure

you know, they also say two plus two equals five you know, on these leftists. Fascism and Nazism were distinct. You know, there's a plethora of right wing ideologies, authoritarian ideologies. But it's like all Mustangs are Fords, but not all Fords are Mustangs. But so the point

that I'm making is we shouldn't be talking about Franco. We shouldn't be talking about Pinochet. We should be talking about Lincoln. Because Every American thinks of Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents that we've ever had, and Lincoln was capable of doing what was necessary to save the union. And that was the way that he looked at it. So if you make the argument, we want Franco Friday, we want Franco, we want, we want Pinochet.

No, we don't need that at all. We need another Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln is on Mount Rushmore for a reason. Americans think of him as a great man And everybody knows that he suspended habeas corpus Everyone knows that he put some some journalists in jail But they're fine with it because he saved the union We need another Lincoln

And that's a message that Americans can get behind The very first Republican The very first Republican That's a message that Americans can get behind Hasn't Trump tweeted a couple times That quote of he who saves his nation breaks no law? Napoleon, right? He's posted that a couple times on his official account. He's right. He is right. 100%.

Abraham Lincoln was nuts. He arrested a third of the Maryland legislature. He suspended habeas corpus. Maryland. I mean, sure. That's Maryland. Because Delaware and Maryland were slave states, he said, iron fist for all of you. He conscripted people. He threatened to imprison a sitting Supreme Court justice. when he suspended habeas corpus, he did so with no constitutional authority. The Constitution reserves that power to Congress.

And after he eliminated his, after he eliminated his enemies in the opposition, he then had Congress retroactively approve what he did two years later. He arrested those who opposed him and then said to Congress, now I want you all to vote that I'm allowed to do it. And they were like, yes, absolutely. And he is the most popular present American history. He did what he did what was necessary to save the union and everybody like I guess I'm going to say it again. I'm going to keep saying it. Messaging is the most important thing. It is absolutely the most important thing because if you get the messaging right and you get the American people on your side, the president can do whatever he wants.

You tell the American people. The times are not analogous, right? I mean like you can't. They're not. They're not. But you're never going to convince Americans that we should have a Franco. I mean, look, the problem is that Trump's not evil. And when I say the problem, it's that for all of the things you talk about with, I shouldn't

say you talk about what we talk about with Abraham Lincoln, Trump's not that guy. And I don't necessarily expect him to be. When we saw this ICE action and they were ramming vehicles and there were, you know, armed individuals, like, you know, the pretty guy was kicking vehicles screaming at him, showed up to a police, to a law enforcement action armed. I'm not suggesting what happened to him was a good thing. of course not. But these ice operations are not community control, you know, where, where dudes come out wearing windbreakers unarmed to fan protesters back. This was armored law enforcement going

after rapists, smugglers, coyotes, cartels, and these activists were showing up to obstruct this. To put this in a way that liberals could understand if it actually listened, imagine an undercover cop tipped off a bunch of SWAT that there are dudes that traffic rifles that traffic women and smuggle cocaine and drugs gangbangers, mafiosos. And they were like, all right, we're going to go in and arrest these guys. And then a bunch of leftists showed up and a couple of them armed screaming at the face of the cops, walking up to them. They don't understand these ice operations are not just like we're going to go knocking a door and arrest some, you know, some storeworker. they don't understand this. I said at this time, if Trump were to suspend habeas corpus along like a particular rail line,

saying we are going to be dispatching ice along these federal highways and these rail lines. And because of the terror that we've seen with the car rammings and the shootouts, we are suspending habeas corpus on this federal jurisdiction exclusively to allow federal forces to go in and stop this from happening. that would be the same thing Abraham Lincoln did. And when I have this conversation with people, they go, it was a civil war, Tim. Incorrect. When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, we had not yet entered the Civil War.

Now let me pause. Historically, when we look back, we say the Civil War began the Battle of Fort Sumter. Not back then. Back then, even after Fort Sumter, they did not believe a Civil War was even possible. Now later on, we say that's when it started. So they have the Battle of Bull Run where people are picnicking. it took over a year before they started saying there was a civil war. Abraham, I'll put it up, let me put it like this.

How could anyone in the United States or the Confederacy for that matter have thought there was a civil war before there was conscription, conflict, and a suspension of habeas corpus? So you have, you have this moment before Lincoln gets in where seven states secede. Lincoln then gets in and says that's not legal. Nobody's fighting. Fort Sumter happens. Technically nobody was fighting. Shots were fired, but only one person died accidentally.

It was largely viewed as just this weird one-off. The Battle of Bull Run happens, and people are getting killed. It's merciless. People picnicking, panic, and run. Even then, it still view largely just like a riotous conflict. One fight make a war does not, right? How could any of the people in the entirety of the United States been like, we are now in a civil war, when you did not have military rising up, armaments, blockades, suspension of habeas corpus, arrest of politicians?

It became wartime because Abraham Lincoln made these moves. To put it simply, there would be no civil war if Abraham Lincoln decided there would not have been one. The war began. There would be no union, too. There would be a northern union, whatever you're called. The war began because Abraham Lincoln said, I am going to rally troops and go and shoot the South so that they bend the knee. Because the South just said, hey, guys, we're out.

There was no fight. Abraham Lincoln had a choice. I will start the war. Now, you can argue the catalyst of the war was the Southern secession and slavery. I got a problem with that. I'm saying fighting only began when Abraham Lincoln said, we will now fight. And the fighting began after the suspension of habeas corpus for the most part. So if Trump were to say we're suspending on federal highways because we need to get our federal units, ICE agents in safely and securely, so we're going to be commandeering this roadway, that would be on par with Abraham Lincoln.

And imagine what they'd say. Look, the left would say if Trump did that. To your point about Abraham Lincoln, or Trump not being Abraham Lincoln, I think you're right. But at the same time, the stuff that's the issue that started this particular part of the conversation here, Trump possibly making an executive order, that's, that. That's the kind of moves that you need that I'm referring to that we, I think that we should see, right? Because again, the DSA is a threat to the, the Republic as it stands. And the Delta is that if Trump were to sign this executive order, it is just an affirmation of upholding principles. Whereas what Lincoln did is like contrary to the Constitution and the Magna Carta.

It's an affirmation that the American people largely, like, largely support. Overwhelming. Well, I think people in general do. The issue is, let's just, let's just cut to the chase. If the United States, the wealthiest country in the planet, had a balanced economy. That is, you felt that you could attain social goals and access to resources. No one would care if Trump was a king. Well, to be fair, the left. The left, is psychotic and would lose their mind over Trump. My point is if a new, a new individual arose and declared himself king, let me let me let me let me let me go the direction. If the democratic socialists burn down the institutions conquered DC with physical violence and we were all like

that's it, we've lost. But instead of gulags, they actually reformed a government so quickly and miraculously that our standard of living skyrocketed. We're all in flying cars with free health care. We'd all be like, wow, wow, I guess we were wrong. If life genuinely was better for everybody and there were no gulags and no prisons and all of the recidivism just dropped to zero when we abolished prisons, the right would larger list be like, okay. And the evidence for this is literally everything the right has done every time there's

been change in a positive direction that has benefited the American. people. Conservatives have eventually just been like, okay. They don't go and smash windows and murder people or anything. This country has changed. Civil rights being a really great example. Well, to be fair, I guess it was technically Democrats, but the more traditional view was, the more progressive view was civil rights. And then once we got it, they were like, no, yeah, it works. We don't want to go back that direction. I don't think the DSA would actually succeed in these regards. But my point is, if we had a king, you know, I got to throw it to Marvel. Because these thoughts and ideas have already been hypothesized by man in our creative works, and that is Dr. Doom.

We're going to have this movie coming out in December, but those are not familiar. You all know who Dr. Doom is, right? I have no clue who Dr. Doom is the bad guy from the Fantastic Four. He's a dictator from an Eastern European country called Latvaria, not real, of course. And initially, when they write these characters, he's a one-dimensional villain. He's a wealthy Eastern European dictator with a scarred face, so he wears a mask. He uses technology or whatever, right? Modern iterations throughout the past several decades have entertained this idea.

A really great storyline from Marvel. Well, this is the Spider-Man show from when I was a kid. They go to a, I think it's a planet. Dr. Doom is conquered. And they're like, we have to free the people from the evil dictator Doom. And guess who tries to stop them? The citizens of that planet being like, are you nuts? He saved us.

Everything's great. We're all rich now. He's fixed everything. And they're like, but he's evil and he wants to take over the world. Like, yeah, but he was good at it. And he was right. I think that's an excellent point. We would all easily if justice was just, if the economy was good, we would not care if we had a dictator king.

And let's just call it patriarchal monarchy with ascension by combat. We would literally just be like, as long as the economy is going, I guess, if you start jailing people for fake reasons, eliminating, you know, dissenters, shutting down speech, then people get mad. If the economy goes south, people get mad. But the principal issue is if people got a place to live and food to eat, ain't revolting. Well, the problem, not the problem. The challenge with that, which is why the left exists, is that if people have food to eat and relative prosperity and peace and freedoms, et cetera, then they begin to question the actual

need for government in general. And you can't do that if you're a Democrat because your entire existence, your race on debt is government, right? So you need people to be in a certain level of misery and stupid because I will fix your schools if you elect me. You need them to be broke because I will give you food stamps if you elect me. Your health care is crap.

I will give you better health care if you elect me. So they have to advocate for misfortune because they are the savior. And I think the opposite of that is if you have happy, peaceful, prosperous, what do I need government for? You would then question, like, aren't you my congressman? What do you do? Like how many you'd go to the county executive office and be like, all 400 of you, what do you do for?

Like, why are you here? Like, I don't need you. Like, I can build my own shed. I don't need your damn permits. I don't need your permission to send my kid to that school. And then the whole structure begins to crumble. So it's essential that people have a certain level of misery because it empowers government and government is all they care about. I'm going to take it to the most extreme of political places I can.

every one of the people watching this show would gladly support lifetime god emperor Ian Crossland. If his graphene-based economy genuinely improved their lives, guaranteed they had disposable income, life was good, their houses all, they added a second floor. If like, imagine for the average worker, and no, let's take this seriously, I'm half kidding, but imagine if I'll keep it in simplistic terms like, then you woke up the next day and you're boss was like, the economy's booming. Where our customers are through the roof, we're doubling your salary. Prices didn't go up with inflation.

You literally just were now like, wow, all of my bills and expenses are only 20% of my income and the rest is disposable for whatever I want to do. And so you have vacations. You have a four-day work week. You work extra on your hobbies. You're building cars in your garage. You go golfing with the buddies. Your kids are all, in fact, they're too fat and happy.

You got to, you hire a personal trainer so that you guys all get in shape. you're like, this is fantastic. And all you have to do is accept Ian's graphene-based economy. People would be happy with that. They would accept dictatorship if it was functional. I mean, I think that that, I think that's probably true because people believe they're voting for a king anyways, the way that people treat the president, the office of the president. Like most of the people that are angry with Trump, right, the people that used to consider themselves form a mag or whatever, they're upset because, Trump hasn't done enough.

Nobody's upset with Trump. Nobody that voted for Trump for Trump is upset with Trump because he's done too much. Right. The only thing that they're, the only thing that you could say that is the war in Iran, right? Well, you know, otherwise it's all he hasn't deported enough. He's not doing, we're not getting the mass deportations. Even though if you, again, this is something that they're going to debate or they're going to push back on and say, well, you can't believe the government's numbers.

It looks like there's about three and a half million people that have been deported. They're deporting like 4,500 people a day, which is the most ever. And at that rate, you're looking at another 2 million or so, 2 to 3 million. It's a start. That'll get out before the end of Trump's term. So one of these big stories that we got right now is that Andrew Wilson and Candice are going to be debating the Charlie Kirk conspiracy theory. And I guess I said PBD is going to be the moderator. And just as an aside, I have trolled Candice's followers mercilessly because they can't read.

And that's kind of the point of what I want to get to in this story and how it pertains to the structure of U.S. government, elections, media, and what's currently happening. So, of course, many of you know I put out these, I put out a trolling tweet the other day where I was like, there's going to be a massive debate with a lot of money in the line and I'm volunteering to moderate. And then bottom of the fold at the bottom of the tweet was the issue of whether you can own chickens in the suburbs is massively important. And instead of actually reading it, all of the Candace people were like, Candice would never let you. and I got 3,000 replies about Candace, which I literally never even tweeted about her. It's fascinating. So then even after I admitted what I did, I tweeted today, I have been chosen to moderate the debate. And at the bottom, I said J.D. Vance's chicken ownership has been contentious, blah, blah,

and still, they're spam blasting. Candice actually had to make a statement where she was like, no, he's not moderating. Yeah, right. And then I did another tweet where I said, despite what you've heard, I am moderating, but I'm literally not even talking about. The point is these people don't read. Here's the point. In the early days, in the late 2000s, I was watching Alex Jones, prison planet Info Wars.

And it was a lot of interesting things that he was right about and a lot of whack-a-loon nonsense. Remember when Alex went on Joe Rogan and talked about 5G towers, animal hybrids, intermensional beings? And he said, they're turning people into chimeras or whatever. That was the whack-a-loon insanity. At the time, what year was this? Was it like 2016 or 17 or something when that interview happened? there is a contingent of people, and this is what Candace is tapping into, the only thing they believe is that the, those in power are lying. That's it. So in the early day, I don't say the early days of Alex Jones because of late 2000s, it wasn't really his earliest days.

He's saying things that somewhat, a lot of it was true, like atrazine, he was right about, he was reading reports on this stuff. He was right about a lot. But when he started getting to the, like, let's just be honest, like the Sandy Hook conspiracy stuff, he captured a massive audience of people. people who just want to believe whatever the machine says is a lie. So now the issue is Trump has become the machine that he's crushed the deep state. He's a shattered USAID scattered to the wind. And it's his team in charge now. And so this same court of people is literally just in conspiracy land. The issue for us and for a lot of people right now that watch this show is that we're in fact land. We don't always get it right. We often get it wrong. I don't care if it's Trump. or Hillary, or Candice or anybody, if they are telling saying something that is true, I will say,

yeah, they're probably right about it. But this contingent of online conspiracy people will just say, no, Trump's wrong now. He is Epstein. And it's like, Trump's the guy who got Epstein arrested in the first place. I'm not suggesting he's done a good job. And Benjino and Cash have done a good job on Epstein. But it was Trump's administration where they actually went to the jail and they got him and all that stuff. Believe whatever you want.

But now that Trump is the power, they immediately, no longer trust him. And anybody who is still with him is part of the conspiracy. This is the issue of in this country. At the time, you have, I think, you know, largely Donald Trump, I would say monetized

to this in a sense. I remember I was at a Best Buy. And this is back in like 2019. And some guy was like, oh, hey, you're Tim Pool. And I was like, yeah, he's like, hey, nice to meet you. I watch you all the time. And then immediately started asking me about child sacrifice and consuming

brain. And he was like, these Democrats are like, they're drinking, like they drink the brain, the spinal fluid. And I was like, you know, I don't think so. I was like, that's not really anything we've ever talked about. At the time, because we were calling out the lies from the establishment for which Trump was the underdog, those people who believed in the creates of conspiracies were aligned. Now that Trump is the upper dog, they still, they now go, aha, it was Trump the whole time. and now anybody who defense Trump is part of it. It's a psychological defense mechanism, though. We see this all throughout, like, sort of the human condition.

People want to believe that they're in control when they feel like their lives are out of control. They, you know, one of the things that they can do to sort of maintain sanity is, like, adopt this view that they are the smartest person in the room, right? That's the only reason that they're in their situation because everyone else isn't as smart as them and they know. And that's why things are the way they are. And it just, it's a sense of comfort for them, I think. I just, I want to stress, there are people who believe that Charlie Kirk had electromagnetic powers. This is not a joke.

I mean, it's, Candace has claimed. He didn't, though, right? He did not. Okay. Well, to be honest, I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know. My general understanding is that most people, most, as far as I can tell, I've not witnessed any electromagnetic powers.

If they exist, I'm certainly jealous. But Candice has claimed that Charlie Kirk had the ability to turn off streetlights, that he would walk up to them and turn them off with his mind. Wow. That he was, that they both have the ability to astral project and that they were both part of- Astro project? Astral project. And what is astral project?

Astral projection is when your spirit can leave your body and explore the world by flying around. No way. You can navigate the spirit around. You can like kind of do a self-advance. That's what a body experience. She claimed that they were both part of the same government experiments as children. Oh, wow.

Oh, that's sad. And there are people that watch every episode, they're like, whoa, that proves it. I did not know she was experimented on it. I think all of those people are mad at me for flock, by the way. They're in my replies right now. What about? Just I'm relatively pro-Flock, and that has pissed the tinfoil hat people off. Well, flock is bad, but the issue is that flock is also First Amendment.

I made this point in a piece I wrote about it. I also think it has potential to do some good. and if we regulate it appropriately, it can do lots of good. Oh, yeah. I think it's, it's already helping fine. I have not thought it through, but I'm going to tell you you're wrong because a cohort of conspiracy people will send me praise and money if I just say. That's right. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, I agree. I think there are some areas. So when we had the shooting, we were, we had pitches come in immediately like install flock cameras because then you'll know exactly who's doing it. And we ultimately decided not to do it. The issue is Flock cameras absolutely will result in Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, and they already have. That's the problem. The woman who the cop went to her house and said, you're getting a summons for stealing a package because Flock said you did. And she said, I was not there.

And it turned out she wasn't there. Right. Because there's a thing. When Flock says confirmed and an administrator says, go issue the summons, the police don't review evidence. Right. But that's on the, is that on Flock, though? It's that on the technology? It is on the technology. Because cops will also get, it's a guarantee that police will violate our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. We just want them to be, we want, we want this to be mitigated. Sure. In some way, um, accounted for. With Flock, you're saying, let's, let's crank it up to, to past 11. We're, it's going to, it's going to happen at scale now.

It's right happening. Did you see the, did you see the auto blogger who got pulled over and accused of stealing car at gunpoint with wife? Yeah, it was like, they could have shot and killed the guy. The car was, uh, was left on a hit list, right? No, no, no, no, the, the, the flock camera misread the license plate. And, no, no, I think it was a typo on the part of the person who entered the license plate. In correct. The flock camera scanned the license plate, which was a temporary plate, which had three big numbers, two small numbers, and then three big numbers. And the flock camera didn't see the small numbers. So it entered the vehicle in as the wrong license plate. They were looking for a stolen vehicle. So when the cops scan the plate, Flock said, that's the guy who stole the car, they draw their

guns on some bumbling white middle-aged guy with his wife. Look, that's bad, but that's not a Fourth or Fifth Amendment violation, right? Like, the police, no, when the police make a mistake, right, that's not a, that's not a mistake. Well, yeah, I mean, no human made a mistake. A machine, sure lagged it. No one was, because the machine didn't pull the car over. The system being, didn't take the action. The system being put in place, that doesn't have the mechanisms by which humans must check and balance it in that way. And it's not possible too. What do you mean? It's not possible.

If you, if a person witnesses a, let's say there's like, young black guy is seen in a white tank top and black shorts, smashed a window out, jumped into a car and took off, and the person says, he stole my car, here's a license plate, here's the car description. Yeah. A human can make a mistake. But we know that human entered it in and a mistake had been made and we can trace that and find accountability.

Sure. Flock cameras as an entirety of its system did this. And no human had the capacity to intervene between the machine deciding someone was a car thief who was a violent, dangerous murderer. The humans all just assumed it was the case. And here's the point. We can hold that one human accountable and say they're not fit for this job. If how many, let me ask you this.

If a police officer inputs the wrong data that results in these things, how many times until you fire that person? Oh, I think, I think pretty soon. I mean, especially if it turns out, if it turns out bad. Three times? Yeah, sure. Okay, then how about we pitch this? When Flock does this three times, we'll shut it off.

But why shut the whole thing? There's so many, like, because it's a singular technological entity the same as a person is. If a person is making a mistake, we fire them. If Flock is making a mistake, we fire them. Right, but technology is going to make mistakes when you, when you begin it, right? So like, but it's also going to do really good things. Like, for example. There was a woman the other day who was driving for Instacart, right, making a delivery.

She had her, I think, a two-year-old child in the back seat. She gets out of the car for a few seconds to bring the groceries to the front door. Carjacker hops into the front seat takes off with the kid. Mm. Right. Frantic 911 call, obviously every mother's worst nightmare. They find that car within a few minutes, recover the child safely because the car got a hit on a flock camera. So this would be, so I would argue that your stance is the Adelvan Bismarck stance,

and mine is the Benjamin Franklin or Blackstone stance. I don't think it's the Blackstone stance, really. The Blackstone stance is that it's better. Indeed. So the idea that we should have a mass surveillance system that does, in numerous instances, falsely accused people of serious crimes because sometimes. The numerous, not sometimes, exponentially more times than that. How many people is it worth being falsely accused of serious crimes jailed for some?

But it didn't get jailed, right? Like, if you're the subject of a felony, stop. I didn't say they were. They weren't. I'm saying how many would you accept? I would not, I mean, I guess as many as we accept now, right? I mean, like, there are innocent people who are convicted under our current system. Yeah.

Right. It's not perfect. So perfection can't be the standard. Let's, let's bring it to scale. But it's already at scale. Like, this is one of the problems I have with the way that the flock debates being sort of running it, the fact that we're even calling it the flock debate, right? Flok is a brand of a product.

The product being ALPR is automated license plate. Right. There's actually other companies, too. Hons of other companies. got protested. They just adopted the right. So, like, these things have, they're not new. Like, ALPRs have been around for a really, really long time, right? Like, the NYPD first launched ALPRs in New York City in 2006.

In 2012, Ars Technica was warning us that, you know, ALPRs were already taking millions of our travel records and we're going to extinguish our privacy. That was 14 years ago. Isn't the issue with the, with the modern version of these ALPRs? Isn't it the AI behind it that makes that causes the biggest problem? I don't think that really changes things for a couple. One, the AI has been integrated into ALPRs since probably 2011-12 in that rate. So that's not new either, number one.

But all the AI helps it do is better identify other vehicle features beyond the license plate, like the Meg model color, a bumper sticker, you know, if there's like a dent in the back right bumper. It just makes it easier to identify the car that you're actually looking for. Now, it is possible that you might end up looking for the wrong car because of human error and it's possible that the technology may in one in however many million correct hits get something wrong. The question is how much of the benefits should we just throw out the window, especially when we're living in a time where police departments around the country are struggling

I think this is the question that we have right now is it's like the traditional liberal argument versus the moralist conservative argument. Whereas we are, you know, so I have to put it like this. aren't a real thing. And consistency is not a real thing. And conservatives tried to play this line for a long time and they were completely wrong and it made their arguments weak. The left's argument is there is no truth but power. They will say whatever they have to and do whatever they have to so that it benefits their worldview and their way of life. So the question that I have to ask people is, do you think that parents should have final say in the health care of their child? Yes. You think

they do. So when the parents, too. So no. Well, I mean, I guess it depends on what, like, do I think that a parent should be able to not take an infant? No, no, no, no. Hold on. Should parents have the final say in the health care of their children, yes or no? I don't think that's an easy yes or no question. I mean, we have to find a difference. No, no, no.

It's actually fairly simple. If you're saying I can't answer that, then you're saying no. Final say is an absolute position. Conservatives maintained. Yeah, but health care isn't defined, right? Like, so do I think that parents should be able to say, like, no, I don't want my kid to be on this vaccine schedule? Yes. Do I think that parents should be able to- You're explaining the point perfectly.

Like, I am asking you if you would take the absolute position that parents have the say over their children's health care. Because conservatives maintained during the era of COVID, the answer was always yes. Right. And then when the issue of children deciding to give their kids sex changes came up, they immediately said no. The government should intervene in that instance. The point is the question of whether or not parents should have final. say in their children's health care is not a yes or no. There is no absolute.

It's depending on your moral worldview. So the question on flock cameras is, you can't quantify benefit versus detriment. The question is on our morality, do we as a nation decide to live in a world where everywhere you go in your car, the government knows? It's not.

We don't live in that world. We're not even close to that world. We want to put flock cameras up everywhere. No one wants to put it. That's like that's not even the term the debate, right? Like, take New York City, which has probably the densest coverage of flat cameras in the country. You're talking about like 1,500 of these things.

And we are talking about the expansion of a program, not the limited implementation sometimes. Sure, but like, why not trying to mitigate the potential downside risk while enjoying the I would say moral worldview? And you're, and what would be the moral, the moral world. Sometimes I want to be able to drive my car and I don't want. the government, local or otherwise, to be able to scan my license plate, and for that matter, my face in other circumstances. Sometimes I just want to go outside and not have to worry about whether or not someone's spying on me or collecting metadata. This is a big question in cybersecurity

in the 2000s pertaining to the metadata searches that Obama was doing with Snowden and all that. The issue was the government claimed we are not watching what you do on websites. We don't know what you're reading or what weird stuff you're going off to. Yeah. But we know the IPs that you're pinging. Because the argument was this. If you walk outside your house, a police officer is allowed to watch you do it because in public you have no expectation of privacy.

Right. And many people were shocked to find that that was the case because they, for the most of human existence, if you looked out your window and there was nobody there and you walked outside, nobody knew. Right. But now we have cameras everywhere. Sure. And so it came to be that the government asserted as fact now, unless you wear a mask when you leave your home, you have no expectation of privacy.

If you do wear a mask, you can argue after the fact for the deletion of that data because it was your intention to retain anonymity. And the issue is when you walk out of your house, these cameras, and this is well before flock, have gate tracking, meaning based on the way you walk, they know if it's you or not. So there was a court case where they said, if you leave your house wearing a mask, you've expressed the intention to obfuscate your identity. After they collect those videos of you on these cameras out of everywhere, you can then file to have it deleted under the expectation of privacy because you're wearing a mask. What we are building now and flock being one stepping stone of this. How would they know it was you? Gate tracking. Right, but you would then have to tell them like, oh, that's me.

No. With the mask. So gate tracking is you walk out of your house not wearing a mask, right? And they see the way you move. Then when you walk out wearing a mask, the computer says... How many people in the country have their gate, like, known to an entity? Does it matter? This was part of the court case.

And the question is, do you want to live in a world where we expand that or not? It's a moral question, not a quantitative question. And I feel the quantitative questioning is a distraction. The point is the U.S. courts ruled, we can take... all of the data from your internet searches so long as it's just the websites you're visiting and not what specific things you're looking at unless we have a warrant here's the problem when they collect three gigabytes of all the all the websites you've gone to they know exactly what you're looking at so it's likened

to I watched you walk out of your house then I followed you until you walked into an adult bookstore and then I watched you walk out with a couple of items I know what you're doing and because I watched you do it I can tell everybody and that's bad for you. And then what happens is the person goes, I, I expected some degree of privacy. I didn't think anybody was going to spy on me. And the court said, listen, you're out in public, people can watch what you're doing. Sure. Have a nice day. We got into the cyber world. And they said when you go website to website, your computer, it's in public when it's pinging these servers. So if people are tracking your metadata,

the government is, and we can then piece together after the fact, we now can build a profile, but that's your fault. You have no expectation of privacy. Sure. When right now in this world, you can walk outside and with a substantially much less expectation of privacy, still to a certain degree expect that if you leave your house and go to the store, most people probably aren't going to know. Okay. Do we want to expand a surveillance state through the ubiquitous use of these license plate readers

so that everywhere you go, a database is being built of everywhere you've been, Yeah, I just don't think that's happening. I don't think it's impossible to happen, though. So let's have the actual debate on the issue and said if you questioning whether it is happening right now. Because the question I asked is, do we want to start building that world? No. Yes or no? No.

The answer is no. Okay. So I oppose the flock cameras for that reason because the snowflake doesn't blame itself for the avalanche. So you oppose flock cameras because at some point in the future we might possibly get to this kind of thing, assuming that enough parties have no, because. No, because. No, because. You're asking. I'm watching a guy laying bricks in front of his house.

And I said, I don't think you should be laying bricks because eventually we're going going to have a wall in front of this property we don't want. And you're going, well, maybe in the future there'll be a wall. The problem is once the wall's built, you can't tear it down. So how about we just say stop building the wall? We may not even get there, right? I mean, like, there's already enough of a, there's already a massive backlash. Which again, isn't the argument.

The issue is, if somebody is building something we don't like, do we say, go ahead and build it. We'll figure it out later. Or do we say stop building it? I think we've kind of already gotten there, brother. I mean, like, your cell phone, right? is tracking exponentially more about where you are. And this is exactly the point I am making. But is there a resistance to the ubiquity of spying technology or do you capitulate?

No, I think there's been resistance. I mean, look at Carpenter, look at Chachry from the last two or Chachry in the last Supreme Court term, Carpenter in 2018, right? Like, there are protections in place that I think will adequately keep us on that. But they have. So let's take a look at like Amazon devices. Yeah. There was a case where police were able to subpoena an active requirement. from an Amazon, I'm not going to say the name because it'll turn on for everybody listening. And then everyone started saying, how was it recording? Because people didn't realize that in order for voice activation to exist, all microphones must be on at all times. I turned it off in my house. You can't turn it off. Yeah, you can. You talk of the microphone?

So, uh, you think you can. So like the speech recognition devices, like Amazon? No, uh, Google Nest. Right. These objects that are activated by voice. Yeah. You can't turn them off because the function is the voice activation. You can turn off the microphone so you can't hear you. You think you can turn off the microphone. If I say, hey, Google. And thus was the issue with the police getting reporting, despite the fact that it wasn't supposed to be recording. So also, did you know that your TV screenshots everything you watch?

Interesting. Yeah. Modern smart TV is like a screenshot of everything you're watching every few seconds and send it to advertiser networks. So like, aren't these things exponentially more concerning? They are all extremely bad. but I tell you this. So my TV, screenshoting what I watch is annoying. Sure.

Cameras being put up around my neighborhood that will put in a database, my license plate, all of the time. And delete it after a few days. For the government. Again, now that's an assumption. No, it's, I mean, the default setting for a flat cameras to delete after 30 days. Most jurisdictions either stick with the default setting or cut it down. I think in New Hampshire, it's down to three minutes. That's a faith argument.

Why is it a faith argument? I hope they do is not the issue that I'm bringing up. Well, it's that they're doing it, right? I mean, part of the reason they're doing it. You don't know that. You're serious. Well, you're hoping that they do that. In the same way that no one knows.

Right. What we do know is people are putting up cameras that automatically track our license plates all over the place. Not a little bit of a place. They're literally all over the place. There are. And again, all over the place is a nebulous argument because we haven't defined the quantity of all over the place. There are 120,000 of them in the whole country. Yeah.

Yeah, I think it's bad. 120,000? Something like that. Yeah. Holy. I mean, there are like 1,500 in New York City, which I think probably has the densest coverage. There are 80,000 street segments in New York City. That's horrible.

And only 1,500 of these cameras. That's bad. I don't think it's bad at all. I think it's fascinating that like, when you're recovering missing kids, when you're recovering stolen vehicles, when you're arresting and apprehending serious crimes. Those who would give up essential liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither and lose both. And I don't think it's an essential liberty. Certainly is liberty. I don't think driving your car.

On a public roadway without anyone knowing it is an essential. One of the greatest... One of the greatest arguments for the problem of the surveillance state is that throughout U.S. history, there have been instances where things that were illegal were made legal. Prohibition being the greatest example. If no one could drink alcohol ever again because of the ubiquity of a surveillance state, how would the people of the United States known that they actually like and prefer having alcohol? It was only through the illicit activities and speakeasies and illegal treas. transfer of alcohol, did the American people know, we want this? It must remain legal and we have to overturn prohibition. And they did. I think they knew. If there was a, if we build this, as we are

building it, mass surveillance state for the purpose of stopping crime, which is what you're describing, the question is, what crime do we eventually see people get arrested for? So let me give you a great example. This is a legit. In some instances, not wearing a mask would get you arrested. Yeah. And so we're going to live in this world where we advocate for the expansion of a surveillance state. And then one day they will declare a national emergency and say, if we catch you fraternizing another person, like during COVID, you go to jail. And then there will be a camera on the street corner and you'll go, oops, why did I advocate for that? Yeah. Well, I just, I think we were already kind of had that opportunity and it didn't happen, which is encouraging to me.

What did happen? COVID happened. Yeah, but ALPRs weren't being used to enforce mass. Now imagine how bad it would have been if we had all of these cameras everywhere. We had them. Utilized by governments. We had them. In mass. We had them in mass. I'm going to, I'm going to, this is, it's difficult because.

Like, that happened. You're not arguing what I'm saying. COVID happened. Do you want to build the world where these cameras are ubiquitous and a COVID scenario happens? I don't think anyone wants to build the world where the cameras are ubiquitous. I don't even think that's a goal for anyone. So do we put, okay, so how about this? How about we say there's 120,000 in the United States, we put a moratorium on any more?

Why? Because we don't, you agreed, right? We don't want to build a world where they're ubiquitous. Right, but I don't think we're anywhere close to ubiquity. 120,000. So what's your number? The countries? I don't know.

I don't know. Well, if we're going to compromise, and my argument is I don't want any of them, and you say, we don't want to build that world of mass ubiquitous surveillance, let's determine the amount that we're okay with nationwide and then put a moratorium on them. I don't know. I think that's a, that's a weird argument to make. I mean, like, what, like, what number would even give you the kind of, I think, like, a lot, I think city should have the kind of coverage that New York has. I think New York has had this number for a really long time. It's probably going to stay pretty close to that. So, so would you be happy if every street corner in the country had one had, had these cameras point in each direction? I don't think it would make sense to have one in every street. That's not what I asked you in the same direction. No, because it would be a waste of money. Okay, so we can count the intersections in this country, and we can certainly say the amount of flogging. cameras should be restricted to somewhat less, to a number of less than that one. Sure. So there is a number by which you'd say we should not legally allow anymore. Fine. And now I'm willing to go there as

opposed to just throwing out the baby with the bath border and saying that we should ban this and let that poor woman just lose her child forever possibly or, you know, let the guy who just shot four people at a house party get away forever. Like, yes, that is a much better debate. You did bring up something good, a really important point though, which is like the one fear that I have with ALPRs, which I think a lot of people share, is not really the sort of mass or really in surveillance state. It's the possibility that they can be used to enforce these nickel and dime nonsense offense. That's what they will be used for. I don't think so. I don't think so. And I think that we can stop that right now by drawing clear regulatory guidelines around the,

I hate speed cameras. And there's a massive backlash against speed cameras all around the country. So one of our drivers stopped at a red light and then made a right turn. Yeah. And got a ticket. Yeah, yeah. And now what are the last? And we got a ticket. And now what am I supposed to do? So the car gets a ticket. The company gets a ticket. In part because the ALP can't actually identify the driver. Am I going to send my driver to court because this automated traffic camera was wrong?

I have to. Right. Because you'll get points. You get points. I don't get points. I don't think the individual gets points. After a certain amount of moving violation tickets, they will suspend your license. And they spend the registration of the vehicle.

And so what we have to do is when we got this, we had to allocate money towards it. Yeah. Because they screwed up. I do not like that world, nor do I think we want to live in what that world will be as we expand these machines. I agree insofar as I do not want to live in that world. I think that we can regulate our way out of that world by drawing clear lines around how you use this technology. I think we can say, yes, you can use this technology to find shooting suspects. Yes, you can use it to recover stolen.

You think that the legislative branch has been successful in their efforts over the past 10 years? I mean, look, some of the legislative branches at the city level, at the state level, are already banning these things just in response to the backlash. The idea that we don't have responsive politics, I think is silly. Like, there is responsive politics. What I want to do is I want to inform the debate in a way that gets us to the best possible policy outcome. I don't think a good policy outcome gets us to a place where the guy who takes the car with the two-year-old in the back gets caught. If I may. That is the, oh, won't someone think about the children fallacy.

But it's not a fallacy. It's a concrete reality that we live. It is a singular. It's a needle. It's a drop of water in the ocean for what the argument is. a child was taken. It's a highly evocated. This is like one out of many similar cases.

And it's an evocative argument meant to scare apparent. No more evocative than the argument that you made earlier about the one instance whence the guy was felon. He stopped at gunpoint with the... And so I expanded my argument to what we have seen through the ubiquity of a surveillance state is that you can't leave your home without someone knowing what you're doing at all times. You can.

And that in the history of the United States, there have been instances where laws were repealed because people were doing illegal things and society determined they wanted those illegal things to be legal. In a mass surveillance state, you don't get it. And so it's one of the reasons why the Soviet Union. You don't get what? The repeal? The ability to repeal things. Why not? Because no one will ever drink a beer. If anytime you crack a beer, they instantly know and arrest you for it. So you look at the Soviet Union. You know how many cops we need to actually instantly arrest people? Not if there are cameras all over the place. So a really great example is public drinking in New York in the early 1900s when they made it illegal,

the city councilman said, let it be known that this will never prohibit a man from having a beer during his lunch break. Guess what it does now? Prohibits a man from making a beer during his lunch break. This is the point. It's a question of the moral worldview, not some idea of consistency or principle.

But do we build mass surveillance systems intentionally or do we block them from being built? I don't, one, I wouldn't categorize ALPRs as a mass surveillance system. Number one. Number two is I think you're ignoring the fact that like despite the fact that we have these things in place that you would call a mass surveillance system none of the things that you are arguing about have come to pass. We've had ALPRs for 20 years. Not only can you drink a beer on the streets of New York and get away with it. You can smoke crack on the street. I don't know why a license plate reader would stop you from drinking a beer on the street.

What I'm exactly. Like what I'm saying is like none of the oppression. You can't drink a beer in New York. You will get a fined or arrested for it. almost certainly not. I mean, like, take a walk on the subway and, like, tell me that that's true. Just because sometimes people break the long get away with it. Almost always. And part of the reason is that's absolutely incorrect. Because one of the biggest issues of BLM is that police routinely go into Harlem and the Bronx

and walk around issuing tickets for public drinking. And one of the biggest issues with BLM was that they were full of it for most of the claims that they were making. That is nothing to what I just said. That's just true. No. Police go to these areas and hand out tickets to people drinking 40s. It is very rare. No, it's not.

Yes, it is. No, it isn't. It happens all the time. No, it really doesn't. You are incorrect. I mean, I guess we're at an impact. One of the biggest stories was that a black cop went to Central Park and started handing tickets to people drinking wine at. Sure, yeah, that happens occasionally.

And then the head of, no, no, no. He went there complaining saying, they come to my neighborhood. Yeah. And they've been handing out tickets. So I'm going to go to their neighborhood. And then he got in trouble for it. I understand that. But that doesn't, that doesn't constitute proof that this is some significant.

portion of what the NYPD's spending. Before the city council of New York passed the law banning public drinking, there were zero tickets for it. Today, they probably generate hundreds of thousands of dollars per month on this. Yeah, I don't think it's anywhere near in the hundreds of thousand dollars a month. But like that that's sort of besides the point. Like you're making the point, you're making the argument that people can't get away with anything anymore. No, I didn't. It's just not true. That's not what I said. You're saying that the existence of the surveillance state is a problem because then you leave your house, you do X, Y, and Z. That's now again, the law and then you'll get immediately arrested for it. And I'm saying like, that's not a real threat.

I think we're having an order of thinking challenge. I am saying that when you put up a single camera, we call it a snowflake. The snowflake is not an avalanche. What that camera does is probably immaterial for the most part to a mass, a massive society like the United States or 330 million people. Then you put up two cameras. At what point do those cameras make a heap? The question is, do we want to find out or not? And the answer is, no, we don't. So the compromise then would be a limit on the amount of cameras that can be put up either nationwide or in localities. Sure. And then after that, there's a moratorium on the expansion of these cameras. I would argue it to be substantially lower. And your argument is it's not going to happen anyway, so who cares?

No. My argument is that we can and should think about limits carefully, constructively, and over time and have that debate in good faith. What I don't want to see is what people are pushing for now, which is saying just get rid of them in their entirety because at some point in the future, this could be bad. I think that is a bad way to make policy. I think it's going to have disastrous outcomes. Like what? Real people. Was life bad before it? Life was worse. Certainly would have been worse for that mom without her kid, right? It certainly would be worse. Where like there are legitimate cases of shootings that result in clearances because the cars to like generate a hit on a ALPR. That's a good thing. Do you think society would be better if just like all crime was tracked?

Anybody who committed a crime, we could catch them. Like, we just see what they were doing. No. Well, like, what's, what, what is the limit that you'd be willing to accept that criminals can get away with crimes? I think we're really far away from that possibility. But I, I don't, I don't know that I have an answer to that. I mean, like, yeah, there's a limit. Like, I don't want every aspect of our lives open to everyone. I don't think that's a real threat or possibility at any point. What do you mean? I mean, there's capacity challenges, right? Like, you need enough people to actually do the enforcement.

You need, you know, for ALPRs. Yes, you do. Who's going to make the arrest? You don't need to make, you get a summons. You get an email that says you've been summoned to court. Okay, and then if, let's say, you know, a million people get summons, it's a 999,000, say we're not paying. And they plead guilty, and then they get a fine for petty offenses. Did you know that if every single person, you know that if every single person, you know,

who was facing a criminal charge opted for a jury trial, the system would collapse. It would collapse. Indeed. How does the system operate? They don't have enough judges or courts to maintain all these criminal trials. How does it operate? Well, people. Plea bargains. Right, because they're guilty. So it's kind of like when the liberals were arguing for Biden's, what is it, 88,000 IRS agents? Yeah. And they said they're just going to go after those who are not paying their fair share, right? Sure. And what did they do? What do the the IRS actually do? No idea. They went after working class people. Okay. So people started getting letters in the mail saying you owe $70 here and there. And these working class people,

whether they did or did not owe it had no ability to fight that. So what did they do? They paid it. Really? And the Biden administration was able to recover a large sum of money from working class people under the guys. They'd go after the billionaires because these systems only ever go after those who don't have the means to fight. Because I'll keep it real simple. I guarantee you when these cameras are up on every street corner in Washington, D.C., and I'm being hyperbolic. When you have a large quantity of them in D.C., I guarantee you. I'll be able to make a phone call and say, any time my license plate comes up in that database, it's immediately deleted, scrubbed, and the machine acts as though it never saw it. It will scan the plate and immediately say,

disregard. I can guarantee I can make that phone call. Can you? Can my neighbor? You know, we were going to have power lines. They wanted to build data center power lines through this area. And my neighbors came to me. This is, you'll love this one. We get a letter in the mail saying they're going to build a new transmission line, has to go through the area, and it's going to go onto your property. And I'm sorry, it has to happen because the constraints of the community require an expanse of power. But you know what the truth was? It was all going to the Northern Virginia instance, the data center mass system they've got built in Northern Virginia. And so I made, so we had neighbors come by and they said, please help us. Has Tim seen this? And so you know

what I did? They made a phone call. And guess what happened? I got a call back the next day. Don't worry, Tim. That line has been has been moved. Can I just make one point about the IRS thing? Yeah. Didn't Trump get elected and then undo a lot of that? I mean, like, a lot of the IRS has been gutted in a sense, right? I don't, did they fire those people that were? I know. They fired all of them, but they've certainly redirected, right? Like, what I'm saying is that there was a point about the IRS agents was not that government agents can't be fired. It was that they bring in these 80-some-odd thousand people under the guise of stopping criminals and they go after regular working class people. Did you make that argument about every government initiative, right, is what I'm saying.

Correct, and it's usually true. I don't... Yeah, I just, I guess that's where we fundamentally disagree. Measus would like a word with you. So... The track record of government handling of metadata in particular isn't great, right? Like, the history has been, hey, we're surveilling these guys overseas, and in the process, Tim's stuff getting mixed up, we're going to put that aside because, of course,

we would have to go to the FISA court. Oh, but by the way, we decided not to go to the FISA court. We're using it anyway. we're leaking it to the press. So I understand everyone's argument. I'm saying like the history of the government. My argument is less government, more guns. But you got criminals. You got criminals. You got criminals in your neighborhood and you're worried about the crime they're committing. We should have a right to keep in bare arms and defend ourselves from criminals. And we need strong men who are willing and strong laws that when I see a dude who robs a house

and he's running down the street and workboats, I can stop him without fear that I'm going to prison for the rest of my life. 100% agree with you. But I think the issue, with the point that you just made is that people are conflating things like metadata with the ALPR. We've had ALPRs for 20 years. We haven't had the AI advanced technology. You've had that for 15, 16 years. As advanced it.

Yeah, the ALPRs and AI got interviewed. No, he's talking about the ability to correlate data. That's new. But these have been networked even back then. It's not what he's talking about. He's talking about AI's ability to correlate data beyond from, you know, from different servers and different data sets. That's new. Yeah, but it's not.

But it's not really changing. In the late 2000s, a company came out that asked people to go and write down the license plates of vehicles in front of their homes. And they would pay you any time law enforcement or repossessors got a hit. You'd get $25. And it went viral on Facebook with people being like, this is an amazing way to make extra money. And then immediately there was this massive like, holy, this is crazy. A company was telling everyone, it was a decentralized surveillance network. And then I don't know if they still exist.

But I remember at the time, everybody on Facebook started attacking it, dislikes, and just comments, and then people stop talking about it. It reminds me that's what happens. These, like, First Amendment auditors who, you know, will, like, go out into a public space with cameras and start filming people only to get the, like, police called and then eventually get the police to have to. That's entirely different from a networked AI system. No, no, I agree. But what I'm saying is, like, the networked AI system is only picking up things that are on public streets where you don't have an expectation. of privacy. You do if you wear a mask. Sure, but again, that's a person. The AOPRs are not looking at people. They're looking at cars. I have an expectation of a limited privacy. Okay. When I drive my car,

there's not always someone staring at me. There's not always a cop on every street corner. I don't want to live in a world where the cop is literally behind you 24-7. But it's not like that. I mean, there aren't enough ALPRs. I don't even think that we have the data storage capacity to get to making a different argument now, because if we agree on a moratorium on the expansion of ALPRs, then we're done. No, but we don't agree on a moratorium because there are places that don't have adequate. So how many would you consider to be a cop behind you all the time? But it's not behind you all the time. I'm asking you how many cameras until you consider the cops to be behind you all the time? When the jurisdictions that want them can achieve the kind of coverage that will give

them the protections that cities with adequate coverage currently have. I think New York is probably are you for that? Are you for that? Am I for? You just described? Are you for it? And my four cities having the kind of coverage that New York has yet. Okay. I don't want to live in a world where the cops behind me all the time. The cops aren't behind you all the time. You just said the cops will be behind you all the time

when cities have the adequate coverage they're looking for. And I asked you, that's a good thing. That's not what I said. I said, I don't want cops behind you all the time. I don't think we're going to get there. And then I said at what point would you consider it to be a cop behind you all the time? Oh, I'm sorry.

I misunderstood. I thought you were asking me what point would I consider it to be adequate? No, no, no, no, no, what cops behind you all the time? Oh, yeah. I mean, like, when most of the streets in a city are covered. And do you want most of the streets in it? I don't think you need that. But that's whether you need it or not, it's not the question.

Well, no, yeah, it is. Like, I think part of the argument is based on, like, I don't want to, are you saying, you like the idea that a flock camera can stop someone from kidney and be child? I like the idea that the flock camera can aid police and someone from kidnapped. But you think there should be at least some blind spots. because we don't want ubiquitous coverage. Right. So the criminals will still be able to map out those blind spots and kidnap these kids.

Yeah, I don't know that there'll be enough. It sounds like a partial surveillance system is pointless because it can't actually spot it. No. No, because like if you put it at the right places, right, it's going to be impossible to not drive past one at some point. I loathe the idea of we should take more responsibility from individuals over the things that happen to them and their families. again just give the responsibility to government. But that's the one thing that we agreed in this country that the government would have responsibility to do, right? The government exists, particularly to protect people. No. Incorrect. Yeah, I mean, that is not the founding father's vision,

the founding documents. In fact, it was quite contrary. Security being the true end of design of government. That's quite the antithesis of what the founding fathers said, such as the quote, those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. I said security being the true end and design of government? I don't know who did. I believe that was Thomas Paine. And was he referring to say like the ability to have a coalition of militia

to stop from a foreign threat? I mean, he was talking about that. Yeah, that's one of the things. And were they, and at the time there were no police. Militia was law enforcement. There were night watchmen. But those were militia. Those were locals who volunteered.

Policing didn't come in until like 1840s. Indeed. So we did not have this institutionalized law enforcement apparatus. No, but you still had law enforcement, right? You still had laws in the books and ability to enforce them. The citizens were undertaking that. It's a different society, right?

Very different. Yeah, yeah. And very localized and very much on the responsibility of the citizens themselves. And what we got in COVID was when the Attilis Gym decided to stay open to violate the ordinance, local police showed up and said, y'all are good. We're not going to interfere. You know why? Because the cops were members of the community.

And they knew they had to answer the people. So you know what the state did? They called some cops from a different town over and said, you come in. because ain't nobody going to stop you and you don't got to worry about it. That was wild. And that's what we will get in these systems. The idea of an expansive surveillance state when we went through COVID is just remarkable. We had an expansive surveillance state when we went through COVID.

And the idea of it being worse is terrifying. Yeah, I just don't think ALPRs make it worse. Like, dude, I am with you on like, you know, ubiquitous coverage of security cameras that are networked with facial recognition. Like, all of that poses significant threats to privacy. that I think we should be genuinely worried about. But ALPR is looking at license plate at strategic points.

What if somebody like borrows your car, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then while they're out driving it, they go 40 miles over the limit. Yeah. They get flagged by a flock camera. Bring your car back and you have no idea. 40 miles over the limit's a felony.

Let's say it was in a school zone too. Then the cops show up, draw guns on you, screaming in your face, throw you to the ground, dislocate your elbow. You get arrested for it. And they say, we have you on camera. they don't. We do. They don't. They have the car. And when they pulled that

auto blogger over at gunpoint and pulled them out of the car, terrified. Yeah. Did they arrest them? I believe they did. I believe that was the issue. He got arrested. I think they put them in handcuffs and detained him until they figured it out. How did they figure it out? By realizing that it was a mistake. They pulled over the wrong guy at gunpoint. Did they change his underpants for them? I bet they had to. That's for sure. You know, like, but but but, but you That can happen without plot cameras, right? I mean, like, Brian Cashman, I think this happened to the general manager of the New York Yankees. Like his car was reported stolen or something like that.

They found the car. No one ever unreported it. A police officer saw it on the street was like, oh, I found the stolen car. When you call an airline when you have an issue, do you prefer the robot or do you prefer the human? The human. Always the human. Great. When it comes to law enforcement, I'm not giving a robot authority over any of it.

But again, the robot's not actually taking enforcement action. It is. No, it's not. It's just telling a cop. It used to be a human would have to verify under oath when he signed those documents that he witnessed you doing a thing. Now the robot does it and you get in trouble for it and then you got to go and prove it after the fact. Like you're these are these are hypotheticals that actually. No, they're not hypotheticals.

People get false speeding camera tickets all the time. It happened to me. Yes. A few months ago. Yeah, yeah. And then and Daniel as well as I reject the world of the automated. AI teller in law enforcement. Daniel Turner with the exact same date of birth as me as we were both living in D.C.

He had a middle name. Literally the exact same date of birth, except he was 5'2 in African American. When I wanted to renew my driver's license, I had an arrest out for my warrant. It took me a warrant out for my arrest. A warrant out for my arrest for murder. It took me three days.

It took me hours in the courts to prove I was not a 5'2 African American. How did that get entered into the system? Glitch. Yeah. It was a glitch and everyone went at the end and I almost broke down in tears on the last day when I found before the judge that I was like you don't know, like when you dismissed me

like you have to go get the police report. I was like if I am walking down the street right now I have a warrant out for my arrest. What am I supposed to do, Your Honor? And they were like without the right necessary paperwork, boom, boom, next case. So I have to go to the police department, walk down the street with a warrant on my arrest.

It was three days of hell. Did you hear it? There's a flock camera story. Never got an apology. Never got a Mr. Turner or so. A flock camera in Florida. This is what scares the crap out of me, is these little AI glitches that are like,

oh, shh, darn, it was a mistake. There was a woman in Florida who lived in the Orlando area who'd never been to the panhandle. A car in the panhandle got flagged by a flock camera and entered her name into a database for having committed a crime. But the database could not determine because it's not a human, this woman's name.

And so next thing she knows, state police are at her house. and they were like, you were up, you know, driving your vehicle in the panel. And she was like, I've never been there in my life. And they were like, nice try, lady. Every criminal tells us this. You're under arrest. And then she got driven up there.

And then she spent, I think, like, I can't remember. There's a couple stories. I don't know if there was a few weeks to a few months where they were like, you, your name, your date of birth, were entered into the system as having committed this crime. It's you. And outsourcing law enforcement to a robot. Yeah, but it's not really. Let me ask you a question. Are you against shot spotter?

I generally understand. It's acoustic gunshot detection technology, right? So like these sensors that are placed strategically throughout cities and they listen specifically for gunfire that are able to like distinguish routine. But, you know, I'm absolutely opposed to that. 100%. Okay. Yeah.

Like, it's unconstitutional. It should not be allowed. Wait, wait, how is it unconstitutional? The rights to keep and bear arms will not be infringed and the government signaling out gun ownership. No. No. How is it singling out gun ownership?

It's only if the gun goes off. Yeah. Triangular position. Right. So gunfire always illegal? No, not always illegal. Then, okay. Well, so then, I will say this.

I think it's bad, but it's a First Amendment issue. And you're allowed to listen to things in public. Right, but you're also allowed to watch things in public. And you can go, indeed. And that's the issue with flock. I think it's bad, but it's a First Amendment issue. You have a right to put up a camera and watch things. Right.

So it is a bad thing, but it's protected by the First Amendment. But you think that ShotSpot is also a bad thing. For the same reason. And yeah. Yeah. I mean, I just, you know, most of the shootings in a lot of, like, high shooting neighborhoods don't have a company. Tell me about the gun laws in high shooting neighborhoods.

They're awful in a lot of places. You mean they're very restrictive? In some places, yeah. And almost all of them. Yeah, less so now after Burund. Probably literally all of them. Less so after Bruin. I mean, Bruins really kind of leveled the playing field.

Yeah. No, like in Chicago, if you have a magazine that can hold more than seven, it's a 10, more than 10. In Chicago, it's seven. I think it's 10. I'm pretty sure in Chicago it's seven. There are places in the U.S. I'm pretty sure because my friends live in Chicago and they had to recently.

I certainly have more than 10 when I lived in Chicago. This is recent. Criminal. I don't think it's. There was a camera that would have caught you. Not in my house. I have to say, and this is going to make me, and I swear I'm a good person. I really am.

This is going to make me sound like an awful person, but this is how strongly I feel about this. I would not give up my rights to not be surveilled. I don't care about the child and the mother. So sorry. The mother is like, oh, no, the child's crime. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry for you, mom.

You should not get out of the car even for a second with a child in the back seat. Let me put it like this. I am so sorry for that mother and her child, but that is how strongly I feel like that. Let me put it like this. I am not giving up my freedom because you're made a mistake as a mother. Do you think that the McMichaels in Georgia deserve to go to prison for the rest of their life? Who's the McMichael? Almond Arbery shooting.

George Floyd. How about George Floyd? No. No. Should Chauvin be in prison? I mean, I think he, I don't know, it's a hard case. No. It's easy. It's answers no. I think it's a hard case. Shoven should not be in prison. He shouldn't have spent a single minute in jail. Yeah, maybe, maybe not. Well, he shouldn't have because he arrived on scene with George Floyd already on the ground. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't think, who's on camera resisting arrest. Right. And Chauvin, according to the prosecutors, opted to use lesser force than the continuum

allowed. So he chose to do a neck restraint with the knee as opposed to an impact weapon. And he went to prison for one reason. He was on camera. The camera created bad press and a mob. Indeed, because he, and why should he have cared? He was doing everything according to his training. Well, this was actually one of the arguments that I made back then that like, you know, the idea that his intent was to kill is belied by the fact that he knew he was. The same thing is true with the McMichaels. A man had been accused of burglarizing several homes. He was on camera burglarizing homes. It is not in dispute that Ahmed Arbery was a suspect in a string of burglaries. One of these burglaries was an auto theft that resulted in the theft of a firearm.

So the police went door to door showing a picture of him saying he's our suspect. One day someone saw him running down the street, made a phone call. The McMichael said, call 911. Police told him not to pursue. They decided to pursue. Here's the thing. The other guy is, I forgot his name's Brian, I forgot his first name, follows filming. Yeah.

He didn't do anything. He just filmed the guy. Yeah. After Ahmed Arbery was killed, trying to fight over the shotgun with the McMichaels, no one cared. It was only when the dude Brian released the footage to a radio host who then published it, did they get prosecuted? Okay.

That is the surveillance state. So there may be an instance. It's not a state. He wasn't. Surveillance state. It's a reference to the ubiquity of cameras and the release of footage, which changes a scenario, which otherwise would have been a non-issue. So the point is there absolutely will be a circumstance where you are driving down the road and, you know, something happens with your vehicle that otherwise no one would care about.

And the locals will be like, hey, man, chill out. But with a flat camera, you get a summons for a felony speeding violation or something. Yes. Well, this is, again, like, we're in agreement on that. I want limits. It's going to happen. I think it will. I think, first of it's already happening in some jurisdictions, right?

I mean, like, there are jurisdictions that have gotten rid of their speed cameras altogether that have gotten rid of their red light cameras that have stopped summoning people for those kinds of violations. I say in my piece on flock that, like, one of the biggest dangers is that we start using this technology in order to enforce these kinds of rules. I think that is bad. I think that will invite a backlash. And the reason I think it's bad is because it will lead to a place where we completely get rid of all of the possible benefits associated with that technology by getting rid of the technology itself. We're going to try and grab at least a couple of super chats from you guys. We'll go a little bit longer. It was fun. It's an important conversation.

So I appreciate it. The Mick Glone code says, Tim, not all candidates fans fell for your trick. I didn't. Context does matter when reading. They didn't read the whole message, but it wasn't unreasonable for them to think what they did. I would argue it's unreasonable to assume that your worldview, your myopic news cycle is what everyone is talking to. Now, what if I, in that tweet about Roosters, which is intentionally, gag said at the bottom, the issue of men competing in the NBA is massive and we're going to be

hosting a culture war show where I will moderate this debate with prominent individuals on the left and the right. It would have been a totally legitimate and serious point about a current news cycle item and the same thing would have happened. So you know what? I'll do it again. To prove the point. I could make a post talking about the WNBA and Candace's fans, there's a disproportionate amount of them that don't actually read anything. Hence, they believe that Charlie was a time traveler, had electromagnetic powers, could astral project, was in a secret experimentation program. Or how about this? That a month after the dude released a video where he begged Gen Z to love the Jews, the Jews killed him. It's just absolute insanity. But you know what? There's a

corridor of people that just want to believe the government is always bad no matter who's in charge. my gripe with the government in the in the trump era was that they were lying in the corporate press and they still are to this day and now that you are being lied to by candis on a daily basis here's an example my brother never tried to kill me there is no reality where i ever had to flee from bullets from my brother candace made that up but her fans believe it because she just says things how about this her lawyers work in a building with federal agents have any of you ever questioned that? Apparently not. Because you don't read below the fold. Because you watch your show, you assume it's true, and you've never checked for yourself. Hence the point of my tweet. People saw the

quotes. They saw the retweets. They never actually clicked read to see what I was talking about. And I was talking about how J.D. Vance got chickens. And the Washington Post argued that they contacted local law enforcement to figure out if he was appropriately raising those chickens. And considering I'm a big fan of chickens, they're fantastic. I thought it would be funny to play this game with the intention, full well-knowing that Candace's fans don't read. They just don't. And that proved the point.

No, don't get me wrong. You did. Congratulations. You know, I respect it. Some do. But guess what? Most of them don't. So Candice can put out a tweet saying the, what did she say?

The gun shots Tim Poole survived were committed by his brother. That's what she tweeted. It is an outright fabrication. and people started posting pictures of my brother because she's nuts. She's just, she's a liar. But it works, it works, because there was a cohort of people, a large amount with low IQs that don't want to read the news that just don't trust the government. My theory, Candice married into the British House of Lords within two weeks of meeting the guy.

They didn't go on a single date. He called her on the phone and said, let's get married. She then hires lawyers at some point that work in a building with a bunch of federal agents. That's very strange as well. Now she's discrediting the movement that helped Trump get elected, and she's lying about me while telling all of you she's the only one to know, despite the fact that big tech won't censor her at all, even though she's broken all of the rules. Just weird, isn't it? But none of you have asked that question, have you? All right, let's grab some more.

El Hefe Lopez says, you're gay if you don't give money to Tim. Seconded. Shadip says, while not directly intended, the electoral college is a check against mass formation psychosis. That is correct. Good point. John Rambo says the fact is police gave away that they are watching you via your cameras. That's the point. Methos says when it comes to flock cameras and their ilk, I am fully prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This is a step towards becoming like the UK. Indeed. Let's see. The Collins effect said, why are their flock cameras installed in parks? Search for the story. Interesting. Mason says, we're not going to get there, but we are already there. Thanks for making Tim's point.

Wait, making time point? Tim's point of it being bad. Let's grab a couple more because we are a little bit over. Osteri says no one mentioned the sheriff that was surveilling his ex and daughter over 600 times. Remember the story? I think it was Snowden. We found out that a lot of these dudes were gooning to images of women in private because they had access to their cameras. Yeah, I remember that one.

Force name change says AL, PR, and flock are definitionally mass surveillance. systems, 120,000 cameras is a pretty ducking massive system. I like the auto correct on that one. Trevor C says, what's the difference between a cop who sees you doing a thing in a camera? I think very little. Ah, but I can correct this. The issue with Flock is the AI component of it, where it registers in a system that you committed a crime despite no human witness.

Under the Constitution's Bill of Rights, I have a right to confront my accuser. What happens when you're a computer when your accuser is code. Then what? We have an answer to that. What do you do? They don't actually allow you to probably. classicate the individual, which is why that registered owner, the vehicle gets the summons, and it's attached to the vehicle. You don't get points on your license. You don't get,

no one gets... Right, the registered owner. And if you don't pay the fine, what happens? Then they'll suspend your registration. Yeah, correct. So there is a, there is a criminal penalty for this violation. It's not a criminal penalty. It's a civil penalty. That's losing your right to drive as the result of a crime and moving violation of crimes. It's losing that vehicle's registration. So a move of violation is a crime. Right? Right. If they can prove that you committed it.

And so taking away your ability to drive is a penalty, right? Right, but they're not taking away your ability to drive. When they take away your car's registration? Right. Like if it gets to the point where they actually suspend the registration. How do you get your registration back? Well, you would have to get a different car and register that one. So you lose your ability to drive your car, right?

That car. Is that a penalty? Maybe yeah. Is that penalty the result of a crime? Yeah. So why are you trying to obfuscate the definition of these words playing some weird game? Well, because we actually have... jurisprudence on this. Like, individuals are not, like, the ALPR captures does not constitute evidence

that you committed. Can they take away your registration? Eventually, if you don't pay the fine, yeah, I think so. So paying a fine, I'm not sure. criminal penalty. This is bad. It's a civil penalty. Is a moving violation of crime? It can be. Okay. Are there moving violations? They're not charging you with the crime when they send you that summons, right? They're giving you a civil summons. Over a crime. Over a crime. over a traffic violation, yeah. Which is a crime. It's called a, it could be a petty offense or a misdemeanor.

Sure, sure. But again, like, they're not charging an individual. They're charging the registered owner of the car for the violation. Like, it's not attached to the person. I don't understand these word games. Yeah. Am I, am I, like, I don't need to even ask you because if a moving violation is a crime and a flock camera automatically accuses you of that crime, putting a penalty on your,

on your vehicle. And then, you. Okay, like you're playing word games. No, I'm not playing word games. You absolutely are playing word games. Crime committed. You must pay money. If you don't pay money, you can't drive car anymore.

That's called a penalty. And the penalty is the result of a crime. It's a civil offense, but yeah. It's a civil offense. A moving violation is a crime. If it's, yes, sure. But they're not. If the fine isn't for this, bro.

No one goes to jail for an ALPR capture. See, you were once again playing stupid word game. No, I'm not interested in this fake garbage. Listen. What AOPRs do. Are you paid by them or something? Does Flock pay you? No, but that's a...

I've got that question a lot, actually. Yeah, because what you're saying is just so factually insane and insulting to the intelligence of a regular person. I mean, I would disagree. Moving violations are crimes. If you get two moving violations under the 21 in Illinois, they suspend your license. It is a crime.

If you're caught driving after that, you go to jail for one year. So when you are driving and your vehicle's in a moving violation, and they take a picture of your vehicle and accuse you of that and you get a citation for a moving violation that results in a penalty. We call that a crime happened.

You were accused by a machine and you can lose your right to drive because of it. That's called a penalty for a crime. Now you can go ahead and play stupid word games but that doesn't matter because it's just, I think it's not going to work for the regular person. The ALPR is not,

it's not being used as evidence of the crime. Right, like if you get a speeding ticket for a speed camera, you're the only person who gets a speeding ticket is the registered owner right like the registered owner can come in and say this person was driving and then they can give that individual the ticket if they can prove it but you're not get the reason that they don't prosecute the individual for this they place the penalty on the registration yes and so as a driver car after the fact yes until when when do you mean at what point do you lose your right i'm not sure as an individual i'm not sure how it works in every jurisdiction I think in some jurisdictions, things can get to a point where you could lose your, yes. You understand what crime means? Yes. So we agree that the flock camera will register a crime was committed, right? Sure. How else are they going to find you unless there's a picture of a crime being committed? Right. Yes. Then they will issue a fine, right? They will issue a fine to the owner of the

vehicle, right, a civil fine, which is a penalty. Yes. For a crime having been committed. Sure. That's a fact. It's not being assessed as a criminal. penalty. That's not what I said. Okay. Well, then we're clear. And then they can take away your right to use that car indefinitely. Maybe in some jurisdictions, I think so. It can get to a point if we don't pay. Penalty for a crime having been committed. Sure. Based on a robot claiming it. Sure. And then what happens if the robot gets the license wrong? Well, then you have a defense. But what happens when the working class guy, the license plate is right wrong, never sees citation or fine drives, then one day gets pulled over. And the cop says, you're driving an illegal vehicle. You're under arrest.

Yeah. That's a Class A misdemeanor. One year in jail and a $1,200 fine. That's a lot of what if, though. That actually has happened numerous times. And the point is, we just had a story of a guy who was accused of stealing a car because the flock camera got the license plate wrong. He was stopped for being in a car that was flagged as stolen.

I don't think he was actually criminally charged. What would happen if he wasn't driving that car and a month went by? And then his 16-year-old daughter drove that car instead. Yeah, that'd be bad. Yeah. We're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show. anyway, but otherwise we'll just keep debating for 27 years. Smash the like button.

Share the show with everyone, you know. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Rafael, do you want to shout anything out? No, I mean, just follow my work. If you're interested in what I have to say on this, you can follow me on X. I'm at Rafa underscore Mangual. Write about this at City Journal, the Manhattan Institute. Check us out.

Well, right on. Thanks for coming. Thank you. Good time. Daniel, what's up? Always good to be here. Daniel Turner, Power of the Future, power the future.com. If you care about energy issues, the communists to run climate change. And if you love sheep and rural farmers, go to Bristol Farm, Virginia, on social platforms and follow our

beloved sheep farm there. Great to be with you guys. Awesome. I am Phil the Remains on Twix. You can check out all the remains music on Apple, music, Amazon, music, Pandore, YouTube, Spotify, and Dezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. Carter. Hello, I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter

Banks everywhere and at Carter Banks official. Everywhere else, check out our record label at YouTube.com. at Trash House Records. Thank you for coming. Daniel and Raphael. Thank you. Let's get into it. We'll see you all over at rumble.com slash Timcast, IRL.

In just about 10 seconds, thanks for hanging out.