Timcast IRL - Trump Signs GLOBAL Tariffs, Trade War Goes NUCLEAR As Market TANKS w/Mark Mitchell

Episode Date: April 3, 2025

Tim, Phil, Ian, & Elaad are joined by Mark Mitchell to discuss Trump signing new tariffs against the entire world, liberals saying we're heading towards a new great depression over Trump's tariffs, Republicans teaming up with Democrats to allow remote voting in congress, and Alec Baldwin saying America is in a pre Civil War culture. Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Elaad @ElaadEliahu (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Mark Mitchell @honestpollster (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump has signed global tariffs and, you know, Democrats and everybody, they're losing their minds. They're saying we are now facing a new Great Depression. The market tanked rather dramatically. And they're reporting that 401ks took a massive hit off of this. Now, Donald Trump says this is to combat tariffs, trade manipulation and trade barriers. So these are reciprocal tariffs targeting other nations with trade deficits and tariffs on us. Either way, Trump's calling it Liberation Day. The Democrats are calling it Recession Day.

And oh, boy, if you didn't check your 401k or look at the market in the past hour or so, bless your heart, it's getting pretty brutal out there. But a lot of people are suggesting on the right that this is short term pain for long term gain. Either way, we'll see how this affects the midterm because we just had a big election in Florida and Wisconsin, and the Democrats won the Supreme Court in Wisconsin. Many Republicans now fear they're going to gerrymander the states and take away two congressional seats from the Republicans. So we'll talk about that. But voter I.D. did win. The Republicans did win in Florida. We've got a bunch of other stories, mind you, and we will get into all of those. Check out Casper.com. We got delicious coffees available. Ian's Graphene Dream is back in stock, selling like hotcakes, as it usually does.

Appalachian Nights, stand your grounds. Don't forget, you got you got two weeks till Christmas starring Phil Labonte as Santa Claus. I know it's been several months since Christmas, but can you believe it's actually April already? That's crazy. And don't forget to join the Discord server at TimCast.com. Be an active participant. Do not just be a passive observer. This is why we lose midterm elections and special elections, because people come in in November, they vote and they say, I'm done.

They watch the news. They know what's going on, but they're not actively participating. So whatever it is you got to do. One thing you can do is you can join us at TimCast.com. Get in the Discord server. Hang out with like minded individuals. Learn, build, share your ideas. That's one way to do it. Don't forget to also smash that like button. My friends share the show with everyone that like button, my friends. Share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Mark Mitchell. Hey, good to be here.

Who are you? What do you do? My name is Mark Mitchell. I'm the head pollster of the nationally renowned independent pollster Rasmussen Reports. Right on. So this should be very interesting. Rasmussen has been, is that how you pronounce it, right? Rasmussen? Yeah, it rhymes with ass-mussen. Ah, okay. I interesting. Rasmussen has been, is that how you pronounce it, right? Rasmussen? Yeah, it rhymes with ass-mussen.

Ah, okay. I always said Rasmussen. Yeah, I did too until they hired me. And now I might as well change my last name. They're one of the most accurate pollsters over the past couple election cycles. It's been pretty interesting. Yeah, we do pretty well. They've been called very biased for the right, though, but they've been correct.

Yeah. There you go. That happens. Should be interesting. Elad is joining us, house correspondent hey good evening everybody i am a lot eliyahu white house correspondent here at timcast happy to be covering the white house happy to be here tonight ian mustache looking fresh let me just say real quick the the anger from the left and the corporate press that elad simply asked a couple of questions in the white house it is is i don't know delicious their tears sustain me it is a great time hopefully more tears to come so yeah what a story man they're gonna make movies and write books about this time in

history so do your best and be one of those great memorable heroic characters in the story of your life and ours i'm ian crossland happy to be here phil labonte hello. My name is Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary. Let's get into it. Here we go, ladies and gentlemen, from the post-millennial Liberation Day. Trump announces reciprocal tariffs on every nation, 25% tariffs on every foreign-made auto. This is massive. Let's play this clip. April 2nd, 2025 will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again. Going to make it wealthy, good and wealthy. For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.

American steel workers, auto workers, farmers, and skilled craftsmen, we have a lot of them here with us today. They really suffered gravely. They watched in anguish as foreign leaders have stolen our jobs. Foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream. We had an American dream that you don't hear so much about. You did four years ago and you are now, but you don't too often. And for many years years and decades even you didn't hear too much about our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years but it is not going to happen anymore it's not going to happen in a few moments i will sign a historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world. Reciprocal.

That means they do it to us and we do it to them. Very simple. Can't get any simpler than that. This is one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history. It's our declaration of economic independence. For years, hardworking American citizens were forced to sit on the sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of it at our expense. But now it's our turn to prosper and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt and it'll all happen very quickly with today's action we are finally going

to be able to make america great again greater than ever before so i'll show you some of those uh reciprocal uh tariffs that we have I think we have it right here. And so this is what they've presented. You can see that they say tariffs charged to the U.S., including currency manipulation and trade barriers, and they've listed it for each country. Madagascar, 93 percent. The U.S. will give a discounted reciprocal tariff of 47. Now, men on the left have started claiming things like this. James Surowiecki, I'm not sure if he's actually, I don't know who he is, what wisdom of the crowd says. Fast Company, is that

where he's at? Okay, so he's a leftist Atlantic. It's important to understand the tariff rates the foreign countries are supposedly charging us are just made up numbers. South Korea, with which we have a trade agreement, is not charging a 50% tariff on U.S. exports, nor is the EU charging a 39% tariff, which he then says he figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn't actually calculate tariff rates plus non-tariff barriers. They said that instead for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided by the country's export to us. So we have $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9 billion dollar trade deficit with indonesia its exports to us are 28 billion 17.9

divided by 28 equals 64 percent which trump claims is the tariff rate indonesia is charging us what extraordinary nonsense this is i don't think you need to look too deeply into it trump is signing tariffs because there are trade manipulations that's a simple way you can put it we also have this banger of a clip from Donald Trump. But likewise, an old fashioned term that we use groceries. I use it in the campaign. It's such an old fashioned term, but a beautiful term groceries. It sort of says a bag with different things in it. Groceries went through the roof and I campaigned on that.

I talked about the word groceries for a lot. It's a bag with different things in it i didn't realize that was a old an old-fashioned term but all right he may not have seen a bag of groceries for a long time who knows i gotta be honest that's probably it trump hasn't seen groceries he thinks it's old-fashioned because the last time i went to the store and actually filled the bag was when he was a little kid i just pictured a big brown paper bag filled up that rectangle with celery sticking off the top. You can tell. Or a baguette if you're in France. A baguette. I'm down.

I looked at my stock portfolio today and I started laughing. I'm, it's down. You know what I mean? It's been down. But I think, you know, I don't know how I feel about global tariffs to this degree. Tariffs on various products, think is i think are generally good and i'm generally a fan of tariffs so i say uh let's roll i don't know what you guys think um as far i mean so if this is a successful policy we're not going to know for a long time the the goal is to you know return manufacturing a manufacturing base in the united states i think that that is extremely important the fact that we

don't have specifically you know things like um like semiconductors right like like chips that you need that to make any kind of modern computers, which is ubiquitous in military hardware and stuff. That kind of stuff has to be made in the United States. We can't allow our military to be shut down because if China decides to take Taiwan or whatever. These kind of things happen. That is national security. It's a national security imperative. We make plenty of food here.

So the idea that you have to make – we have to do tariffs for agriculture or something like that, I don't think that that's necessary. But the goal is to return a manufacturing base to the United States. And people have been complaining forever that, oh, you know, they ship jobs overseas. They ship jobs overseas. The only way you can get companies to bring, if I understand correctly, the only way you can get companies to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. is to do things like tariffs or get rid of minimum wage, get rid of unions, get rid of all the the things that essentially uh provide a a certain a particular standard that the american workers used to so do do americans even know what tariffs are no not at all we just pulled on it not that long ago and um the numbers were just completely

it's like should we charge tariffs or not it was like 33 yes 33 no and then everybody else was just i don't know it doesn't make a cent i'm not sure but his messaging was on point because he talked about grievances he talked about jobs and nobody's looking listen if you've got a stock portfolio you're very likely a harris voter and this is something that he's been prepping people for well you're saying trump voters don't have stock portfolios i'm'm just saying, looking at the demographic signals, older, higher educated, higher income overwhelmingly went Biden-Harris. And so, I mean, Trump, it very much was a working class thing. And this election was about basically the economy in a way that previous elections weren't't even we got we asked are you better off than you were four years ago the the typical question the answer was like 35 percent will

today's children be better off than their parents 22 percent so just absolutely off the chart horrible numbers and so i think this is one of the things that they're going to trust trump on like this is why they put him into office and nothing that's happened so far has affected his numbers. So everybody's happy. It's the best polling of his political career. Yeah, he came in strong and he's got 50, 51 percent approval rating right now. I think it's just going to stay there. People know who Trump is. They've thrown everything at him.

And listen, if anything that we've seen in the last two months isn't going to do it, I don't think this will either. I'm usually a free trade guy. So I usually do have a little bit of beef with these tariffs. But I think what Trump's real move here isn't to ultimately try to bring back manufacturing, because I also don't think tariffs would ultimately do that. I think Trump's trying to do an art of the wind style reduction of tariffs from other countries back onto this. I believe he did this in his first term, too. Obviously, these tariffs from other countries back onto this. I believe he did this in his first term, too. Obviously, these tariffs from other countries onto our economy isn't a good thing. But I feel like for a long time, we justified it because our economy was so powerful. And to these countries

with nascent, you know, different markets developing and want to protect their I don't know, date market, I'm just making something up. They put up a high tariff to try to not get dominated by our very powerful market. And we accepted that because we used to buy out a lot of countries for their essentially allyship with us. And we'd actually sell them arms and kind of have a different trade. But what I think the ultimate goal here, and we'll learn very soon if it works or not, is if these other countries remove their tariffs. I don't think this at all is a play to bring back manufacturing. And if it is, then I think it's actually not going to work. So why do you say why do you say that? Because that's that's essentially the line that the administration

says. I think it's a popular thing to tell people like, hey, we're going to bring back the jobs. But at the end of the day, like even a 25 percent tariff wouldn't make companies competitive in America still for a majority of things. I know we'd love to onshore semiconductor manufacturing here, but when the Taiwan Semiconductor Company tried to do it here, they ended up essentially calling the Americans workers lazy and not being able to keep up with their operations over there. So some societies are specialized to do things and it takes a long time to develop, for example, like a car manufacturing plant. These are huge capital investments initially. It takes 10 years plus to actually develop the field. And I think, again,

this is really more just a negotiating tactic. And it sounds nice, though. Hey, we're going to bring back your jobs to Pennsylvania and one in Pennsylvania, but it'll be hard to make good on that promise. The Teamsters love it, though. I think you're right. Yeah, the cattle ranchers, Trump, they posted about. I think you're right, Elon the uh the cattle ranchers trump they posted about i think you're right elon uh in order for this to be effective trump needs a third term well half republicans are game we asked that i uh i gotta be honest aside from a constitutional amendment what is the actual reason honest question why we limit presidents to only two terms? FDR.

Because the ethical reason? He was bad? They kept voting for him? It was just because people decided that they didn't like the fact that he had three or whatever terms. They said it seemed too much like dictatorship if somebody were to keep getting reelected.

And I guess the idea is the same thing with congressional term limits. Once you become a president for three or four terms i feel like you are so powerful and you're able to already accomplish so much and and benefit from um your legacy and um yeah i think the cap the idea of the it was unofficial for since george washington the two and then fdr broke it during obviously very intense times. I don't know if Trump's serious or just trying to stoke media attention when he suggests that. I personally think that he's only trying to stoke media attention. And also it gives the progressive that really hate him, it gives them something to hate on him for.

And so if it takes the attention off of, say, you know, the stock market or, you know, it basically moves along the news. Have you guys poll tested a third term? Yeah, absolutely. We just asked not that long ago. We said, would you favor repealing the 22nd Amendment? So people know what it is. Well, we said in the question, so somebody can run for another term again. I think it was in the 30s, but 52 percent of Republicans said, hell, yeah. Wow. Yeah. I wonder if they would have said

that before November 4th of last year when Biden was president. Because it means Trump running against Obama. Which is where we're going next. If Trump does run for a third term, Obama's coming back. Yeah, exactly. If Trump sets a precedent that it's okay, the next guy might run for four terms,

and it'll be softened. That's the real conspiracy. Trump is working for obama and he's gonna say i'm gonna run i'm gonna do it again that way obama wins his third term and says the tradition is broken so i i just i looked it up and uh there was a tradition of no more than two terms it was considered honorable and then fdr was like i'm gonna keep going and then people kept voting for him because i guess all right there was a fear that what would end up happening is a president who could run for unlimited terms could use the power of the executive branch to stop any legitimate competition. Strongman basically then says, this guy's actually polling against me. Arrest him.

Charge him with whatever crime and make my opponent this this puppet. And you get what we see in other countries. We would have for sure saw Obama third term Obama. If that was the case in other countries we would have for sure saw obama third term obama if that was the case in 2016 he would have won for sure he was so popular what's that it's kind of what biden was i think putin's been democratically elected allegedly in russia a few times since 99 and and this is this allegedly this is basically the argument if you can run indefinitely and you have no honor like fdr you're just going to keep running even though you're supposed to stop you can just constantly be up against awful candidates that

you prop up. Then you get the DNC and the RNC teaming up and they say, we all have a shared agenda. It'll be your guy this time. And we're going to put up the worst candidate imaginable. So your guy wins as often as he wants to. What ended up happening though, the two term 22nd amendment didn't actually stop what happens. What ends up happening is the DNC and the RNC get together and then say, this time our guy, next time your guy, but we agree they'll do the exact same things. Obama's going to claim to be anti-war, but he's going to blow up a bunch of kids. Deal. That's how it went down. Well, it's funny how it only applies to the executive branch and not the legislative branch.

Oh, they can stay in. However, you know, they're not going to accumulate power. They're not going to accumulate corruption. Yeah, the power, the accumulated power, literally like the connections, the people you know that will do things for you because of who you are, your position, and they know if they know you're going to be there for a long time, it's like, dude, let's make a deal, bro. You got me 10 years down the line.

Let's go. I'd like to show you, we'll jump to this next story, the economic developments in the tariff war. The Wall Street Journal published this a month ago. Tariff war risks sinking world into new Great Depression. International Chamber of Commerce warns the world economy could face a crash similar to the Great Depression of the 1930s, followed by Trump says tariffs could have stopped the Great Depression. Trump has found a bonkers new defense for his extreme tariffs. Well, people like Trump. And if a group, an impaneled group of experts say, dare I say the tariffs are bad. And then Trump goes, you're wrong. Tariffs are good. People are going to be like Trump.

You know, I'm sick of the credentialist class. Oh, for sure. You got to follow the real information. That's the most important thing. Tiffany Cianci was on the show last week if you haven't seen her work she's here tomorrow she'll be here tomorrow she's great and she was basically showing like oh expect another depression coming like 2008 uh she believes there's about to be a collapse economic collapse they might use the tariffs as uh the scapegoat but that people have been packaging ah gosh i wish i could remember

exactly how she's describing it. Packaging mortgages. It might be another mortgage scandal. It's not a mortgage this time. It's in... I don't remember the exact details, but it wasn't mortgages. It was retail. There was a lot of retail.

Yeah, she'll be back tomorrow. Commercial mortgage-backed securities, CMBS. Yeah. What is there? Commercial mortgage-backed securities. I've heard that as well. And I've also heard a lot about municipalities levering up and that stuff getting repackaged into things that get sold back to pensions. Same principle as the mortgage-backed security, though.

The problem is that it's bad debt that was repackaged as good debt. Super high leverage. In 2008, it was like, yo, the economy is about to experience a Great Depression, you guys. We need to bail them out by printing a crapload trillions of whatever to pay fannie mae freddie mac these loan agency company pay them back not only that whatever they they they were they were they were doing quantitative quantitative easing easing for a decade they were interest rates were at zero for 10 years to prevent a recession from 2008 until essentially i think think it was like when Donald Trump got in.

So it was like 2017 is when they actually started to raise interest rates a little bit. And it was all because every time they tried to raise rates, the stock market would tank. This is a direct line to what you just talked about and Trump, because that's essentially corporate welfare. I actually ran, I went to Fred and looked at some statistics and I looked at the median income of America, like just the average person in the middle of America. And I put a ratio of their per capita total government debt over that. And the number was like relatively flat at like 0.5 up until 2008, up until the bailout and quantitative easing. And so you have this

situation where companies have been disconnected from financial downsides. All these MBA class people are getting all these perks and free smoothies and stuff like that. And that number went from 0.5 to 2.5 just over the last 15 years. So your average America is five times less capable of paying down their per capita share of the debt that's why trump's in office and all that money that went into the economy it was being loaned at zero percent or whatever wealthy people were taking that money and they were they were taking loans at super super low interest rates and then buying stock with it so that stock had a much higher return because the stock market,

they didn't want to see the stock market tank. So they kept pumping money in, and people were borrowing money at super low rates and buying stock. So if you went and you had 10 years of essentially if you had some money and you had good credit, and I'm talking about a couple million dollars you get a loan for, take a million dollars, dump it in the stock market. A couple years later, you got a million and a half, two million or whatever. Rich people like when the market crashes for a variety of reasons.

They're insulated from it. They're wealthy, so they can buy what they need when they need it. The price of milk and eggs doesn't faze them. But here's the best part. If you take out a $100,000 loan to buy a house, let's say it's 20 years ago, and you make $100,000 a year. Let's say you saved up 100% of your money. Let's just say you worked for one year and you saved 100 grand, but you financed the house. You say, I want $100,000 loan. You put the 100 grand you saved

actually into the stock market where its value goes up with inflation as the market, depending on how the market operates, you can short, so the rents led from this, but inflation in general or a market crash can be manipulated so that the money they have through shorts or through just general stock and inflation goes up. The value of the house stays at $100,000, or the debt, I'm sorry. And as the dollar inflates, the amount of money the average person has to get paid goes up. That means the amount of labor you owe to pay back the debt of the house goes down over time. The U.S. does this with bonds. That's what quantitative easing basically does. Hey, take a loan from us, the U.S. government says, $1 billion. $1 billion can buy you 100, you know, widget factories.

Then the quantitative fees inflate the currency. And now that billion dollars can only buy 50 widget factories. So the loan was bad, but the U.S. still has them under their financing, right? So I'm butchering this, but the general idea is if you are wealthy, when inflation occurs, the debt you have is the number looks the same to the average person, but to the wealthy person, they're not calculating dollars. They're calculating buying power. That's how it plays out. So for the working class person, that house now is and here's the best part, too. That hundred thousand dollars you owe, the buying power

is diminished. So that means if everything becomes more expensive, you can make that money, you can make more money than that easier because everybody else is, but now the value of the house has gone up to $300,000. And the working class person, they're looking at dollars like dollars. They can't buy that house because it went from $100,000 to $300,000. There was a story I was reading on Reddit where a guy said he was saving up to buy something, a tablet or a computer. And then after he finally got two-thirds of the way to the savings, and he was like, one more month, the price jumped on Amazon. And he was like, I can't get it. I can't buy it.

It's nuts. That's what it's like for the working class when these things happen. But the rich, they don't care. The rich, the only time the rich suffer, well, I don't know about the only time, but the big thing that will cause the rich to suffer in that scenario you're talking about is if they're borrowing and they're investing on margin, which is what you're talking about, Phil, where you take a loan out and then you invest with that loan, assuming that it's going to return. If that stock market crashes while your loan is in that, you lose it,

and then you owe money back to the bank you can't afford to pay back, and they start taking your stuff. And that's what happened in 1929 um people were defaulting on their on they were they were they were they were investing on margin though on their margins yeah they're taking out loans to invest and then when the market so what happened in 08 they're like crap we need to make sure that that market does not collapse because everyone on margin right now will go under so they just print a bunch of money which they couldn't do in 29 they didn't really like this is i've heard that the great depression was that the federal reservists used that as an excuse to

take like you need us so that we make sure you'll never your stock market will never crash again you can't allow just the government and real money because it's too risky that was their you know what you know trump's doing with this i think all the stories are just rbs i think the democrats are getting whipped into a frenzy by saying trump's policies are dumb. I think that the Republicans saying no tariffs, this tariffs that are missing the big picture. Trump with this global tariff move is intending to stab the liberal economic order in the heart. The one of the principal components of the liberal economic order was create a network of international trade agreements that make it very difficult to engage in international conflict. And for whatever reason you want to you want to you want to subscribe to or prescribe Donald Trump doing

this is basically saying we will cut all of those ties if we must. Now, maybe it's for the betterment of this country, whatever whatever it is. But this is a nuclear bomb on what we would refer to as the liberal economic order, the deep state or whatever. It is exactly. Obama was going to sign this thing called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which you guys may have heard of. And there's this thing in it. What's that? The TPP, 2012-ish. There's a sector, there's a thing in it called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Clause. So if you had an investor in a country, the country being the state, it would give the power of the corporation to sue the country if their people were discriminating against their product. And it was in order to give essentially to give Malaysian oil companies the power to sue the United States government if we wouldn't buy their oil or something.

And then we as a taxpayer would have to pay this Malaysian oil company. Obama was signing that. And Trump is eviscerating that monster for better or worse. Like you said, Tim, it could be, could have horrific, you know, geopolitical instability, instability, but it's like,

they say you're going to feel short term pain. And, and well, I'll put it this way. If the liberal economic order was a bunch of well-reasoned captain Picards, I'd have no problem with it, but it's not. It's a bunch of crackpot DEI communists and Robert Barron's and Robert Barron.

So it's, it's, it's not an issue of the method of trying to build a sustainable global network of trade that diminishes conflict on the on paper that seems nice but then you realize a bunch of dei race communists are trying to utilize this system maybe it's because the control went it got out of control or whatever but i'm not so interested in living under the boot of a bunch of psychotic communists. I think this is about he's signaling it's about jobs. I think that's smart.

I think there's going to be short term economic pain. And he knows that. And he's probably trying to get through it as fast as possible. But I came out of retail and I don't know if this stat is still accurate, but I heard as much as 95 percent of all skews on the non-grocery part of your average Walmart are China. And we know what Amazon is doing with China. Essentially, people list a new product, and it's been accused that very rapidly they'll offshore, they'll create their own version, they'll undercut them. And so I think there's this aspect of wealth and power concentration. And to make it even more perverse, like bringing it back to Bernanke, I worked in VC.

And a lot, you'd see these massive venture capital over valuations because assets were trying to seek a return. So it got very risky. And I saw all these companies that had no value getting bid up into like multi-unicorn status. And that's not just rich people's investment money coming out of their pockets. A lot of it's like pension funds and stuff like that. That money trickled into essentially Silicon Valley workers, H-1Bs, MBAs, bank accounts in very massive amounts. So you have potentially the pension money for public employees going to create and then you get this aspect of there was a lot of best practice sharing coming out of technology companies into the major corporates a lot of cross-pollinization of these ideas and i think it's one of the engines that really built like woke into the entire fortune 500 essentially because what silicon valley was doing was cool everybody had to become a tech

company and then it got this political aspect to it. And it all stems back from central planning, a focus on maintaining economic stability. Meanwhile, the middle class gets gutted and all their jobs get stolen. I just want to actually let's let's do this first. I want to I want to pull up this story from media. The Democrats response to Trump's tariffs. It's recession day. Hakeem Jeffries hammers Donald Trump's liberation day warns economy about to crater. Really says we were told that grocery costs were going to be going down on day one of Trump's presidency. Costs aren't going down in America. They're going up. It's actually not true. A lot of things have gone down and the Trump tariffs are going to make things more costly in the United States. House Republicans and Republicans and Donald Trump haven't done a thing to lower the cost of living in this country.

Not a single bill, not a single executive order, blah, blah, blah. That's technically incorrect. But I just want to pull up because, you know, you mentioned Mark Fred. Here's the M1 money stock. Take a look at 2020. So this was during Trump's term. And then take a look at the money supply. So this was largely due this spike when they basically said savings accounts are now checking accounts. The money supply exploded. Meanwhile, economic activity collapsed. So this is the COVID era. If you want to talk about what Democrats had been doing over the past four years fine but they've got no no leg to stand on right now as donald trump is making moves only two months in

and they had four years and only expanded and exacerbated the problem i didn't the doge thing i mean that's the trump's big attempt at writing the the american economy is doge and it's like if if you don't want to see that, if you're not interested in believing that that's possible, that's a form of cognitive dissonance. It really is an attempt to stabilize our deficit to zero. Ideally, maybe it's two trillion. It'll be one trillion next year. And then maybe we can get it down that we're actually are that our debt is going down. That might be possible. That's the that's the biggest plan is that reduction in corruptive spending.

Other stuff. I don't know if Jeffries is pointing out he hasn't like made any big moves with with, you know, making car manufacturing cheaper or whatever. It's just more holistic. I think approach he's taking right now. Let me let me let me just say to the point, Democrats opened up the borders. The country was flooded with low skilled labor that not only was displacing people's jobs, they started using tax funds to supply these people with resources Americans did not have. This strained the economic system, reduced the

Americans buying power, because I know most the challenge with these issues is that, you know, as we already discussed, most Americans don't know what tariffs are. So most people don't understand that if you have, let's say you have a small town with only $100 that exists, it's all there is $100. That means your economic activity and the value of those dollars is tied to that finite, scarce number. If someone comes in and adds another hundred, you do not double your corn or your homes. You actually just increase the amount of trade units, which makes the buying power of the other people cut in half. When they start giving illegal immigrants free housing and government money, what happens to you at home is that your milk

prices go up, your milk prices go up, your egg prices go up, demand for these things go up. But the volume of them does not change. So the prices start rising. This is what Democrats did to you over the past four years. Trump's been for two months and they won't shut up. And they're acting like, well, you know what I love about Hakeem, Hakeem Jeffrey statement? He said prices were going up and Trump did anything about it. It's like, oh, wow, geez. So the prices went up under your watch. Yeah, they're up because of you.

And it's like imagine a guy punches you in the face. And then when you call the cops and the cops are walk up the door is like, look, the cop hasn't done anything yet. How come? How come you're bleeding from the nose? And it's like, because you punched me, dude. That's Democrats. Well, I mean, that's typical politics. The left is always the Democrats.

Well, the party out of power are always going to blame the party in power for whatever negative thing is happening, no matter how long it's been. Like, as soon as Trump the day when Trump was saying on day one, these things are going to happen. And on day two, they were like, look, Trump's a failure already. He said this was going to happen, et cetera. And you kind of expect that when it comes to like the political arena. But it doesn't change the fact that the Democrats have done nothing at all to provide for any of the things that Trump is trying to address here. And furthermore, they're the party that has forever said they are the party of the working class. They are the party of unions. They're the party

of this, the party of that. The reason that unions got behind Trump is because these they believe these things will be good for the working class in America. So I really think there's only one thing that could slow down the President Trump administration, and that's if he hits on a recession, obviously. Allegedly, you're not even supposed to say the word because it'll encourage recession to happen. But there's a lot of mitigating circumstances right now that tariffs might add to a more turbulent situation. So for example, in the Red Sea, world trade is being interrupted right now by the Houthis. We have our stock market that's extremely overvalued right now, particularly the Magnificent Seven or what have you are extremely overvalued.

Now we're throwing the tariffs on top of this. When a time we're seeing political geopolitical conflict around the world, I think if a recession starts happening is what could get people to turn on Trump and prevent him from accomplishing these other things. So I just really hope he knows what he's doing with these tariffs. And I hope to see these actually be rescinded in a few months when these other countries take back their tariffs. I think that'll calm down the market a lot and we won't fall into something like that. But again, there's a lot of mitigating circumstances right now that could push us, push our economy into the gutter. And that's never good for anybody in office. I think we're reaching the extent of the professional class's ability to define things the way they want them to be defined.

Because I can tell you, he's been talking about tariffs for a long time. The stock market's been going up and down a long time. I think these numbers frame late last week. How do you rate President Trump on the issue of the economy? 30 percent excellent, 18% good. I think it was only 33% poor. So that's really great marks. That's higher. I guess what scared me, you heard about the auto tariff tax. So I guess if you're going to be buying a car in the near future, you're going to be hit with what, a 10, 15% price? Well, I'm just saying it's not affecting his numbers. And I think what people have invested in is a major economic rebalancing that's going to break some eggs.

Like if Elon is cutting a trillion dollars out of the deficit, that's like 3.6 percent of GDP. So you can't not have a recession if he's going to fulfill his mission. And then on top of that, I mean, listen, it's just the stock market doesn't define the economy anymore. And the stock market really doesn't hit the middle class and working people because most people that have stocks are, you know, upper to. I think most people don't actually. I forgot what the numbers were. Most people don't actually have much or if anything above like ten thousand dollars in savings. And then I think it's when the markets, you know, the trading at like twenty six times earnings is what it's been trading at, it needs a correction.

This is something that actually a healthy market will do. Normally, historically, it's something like 16 times earnings or something like that. A bunch of companies need to go bankrupt. There needs to be more velocity. But that happening under the Trump administration would be horrible. For the Trump administration. I think it would be bad for the economy. A correction would be very bad for Trump. for the economy we need a correction would be

very bad for trump we need a grand scale universal correction no more here's what i want to stop i want you all to hear me please because i know you agree no longer do i want to hear stories about a buzzfeed reporter getting ninety thousand dollars a year no no longer do i want to hear about unemployed an ngo making million dollars a year doing legal work in Loudoun County, Virginia. I want to hear about pay raises for firefighters, pay raises for people who work manufacturing jobs. And so the funny thing is, as Mark, you mentioned that Harris voters tend to be, you know, higher income and things like that. The media industry is overwhelmingly liberal. Academia is overwhelmingly liberal. These people wouldn't know what a catalyst was if you

showed them your own hands. They would just think you were deformed because certainly that's not a real thing that happens to people. I would like to see a grand correction where everything realigns back to those who do hard work are successful in this country. The man who is buying a nice filet mignon with herb butter is a guy who builds things for a living and works hard and earns that reward, not some uppity liberal moron who's never worked a real job in their life. And they're an aide in Congress or they work for a media publication where their job is to literally complain on camera to millions of people and they make exorbitant sums of money. Could you imagine someone like that? These kind of people, they're permanent children. They probably wear the same clothes every day.

They wear beanies everywhere they go. They skateboard at 40 years old. The people who are making millions of dollars should be first responders, firefighters, police, servicemen and women. Now, that's a grandiose view, but I'll put it simply. And I know there's a joke in there. My point is, when I hear that you've got these liberal journalists at these publications making six figures and a guy who used to work at an assembly line for auto manufacturing lost his job because they sold they sold the factories to Mexico. I'm like that guy. He's building cars that we need. He should be feeding his family. He should be having kids. He did everything right. Yet it is the uppity,

well-to-do liberal working for a company where they produce nothing of value who is reaping the wards of the system. I'll go one step further. It's not the liberal. It's the person with absolutely no moral rudder who's willing to suck up to a game and a system in order to get ahead without considering the moral ramifications. Here's this is what people signed up for with Trump. And I'll tell you just the mass deportation plan, massively deflationary. That's baked into that's what he's going after. That's baked into his platform. And that's one of the best things that you can do to get those people increased wages.

And guess what? It's not going to happen. So I'm calling on Congress today, Republicans, like give us a vote on E-Verify. Let's get E-Verify. It's overwhelmingly popular. The number is like 60 to 70 percent every time we ask. It could go a long way to self-deportations. We don't have to have Tom Homan bust all these people's doors down.

We can have these people leave immediately today. And what I heard from somebody I know, I trust within the Beltway, is that it'll never happen because Republicans love their slave labor. Yep. Well, the MAGA party seems to be a bit different, though. Maybe we'll see something change with Donald Trump. Well, I think in Trump's speech even today, he was talking about more legal immigration. I don't know how that plays into this so um i've run on that actually increased immigration is also astoundingly unpopular like even numbers below 30 percent of democrats want an increased level of legal even among democrats yes really mentioned that we're and this is a deflationary tactic to remove people citizens not citizens people from the country i and i agree we're deflating so the difference between deflation and recession

because i feel like we've been in a recession for since 2008 it's just on paper the number's going up in reality the value is going down so like it feels like our value has been receding and what is it like now we're doing a controlled burn like this? Deflation means deflation is not like the same thing as a recession. Deflation literally means you're taking money out of the monetary supply, like you're reducing the number of dollar zeros on the book. Basically, that's deflation. I mean, now the buying power goes down. In a recession, that's more uncontrolled. That's like, yo, things are happening out of our country.

A recession is very specifically, I think, two consecutive quarters of negative nominal GDP growth. And if you zap 3.6% of GDP, which is government spending by removing $1 trillion, like you're getting a recession on paper. And they'll also inflate the value of GDP by having one guy dig a hole and then they'll pay another guy to fill it back up. And they'll be like, look, gross domestic product. That's not real. What do you call the opposite of recession? That's not real, like, productivity. Yeah, it's not productivity, but even though they'll call it that,

so obviously that's been inflated too. Yeah, I think it's time to just accept that we've been in a recession for a long time, and now we're trying to stem the bleeding, the bleeding being the being inflated the inflation that's been going on let's jump to this next story from cnn ladies and gentlemen i have good news if you are concerned about trump's agenda getting through if you are worried that democrats will obstruct him fear not for the republicans nine of them have joined with democrats to make sure trump never wins because they believe that they deserve special DEI privileges. That's right.

Nine Republicans teamed up with Democrats so that new new mothers in Congress will be allowed to work remotely and vote outside of Congress, which is unconstitutional, I believe is despicable. And it is the epitome of DEI. They are quite literally saying instead of just resigning from Congress to take care of your family, they their voices are a requirement to the diversity in in Congress. And because of their different lived experiences as women, they require special rules that only apply to them. Speaker Johnson suffers defeat as GOP rebels tank effort to block remote voting for new parents. Johnson's pissed. He's saying instead of Congress trying to combat these judges and help Trump's agenda, they are now jammed up because Rep. Annapolina Luna believes she because she had a child, she should get special privileges in Congress. I'm extremely offended by this. I believe that if you want to be in Congress,

either don't have kids for two years and if you want to have kids, simply resign. But here we are now, jammed up, not working on getting through Trump's agenda, after Republicans just lost the Supreme Court Wisconsin, and there's a very real fear that the slim majority will be lost in 2027. This is what we get because nine GOP decided they wanted to be Democrat Marxists. People, it's a privilege to be able to work in Congress. Therefore, you should be there to fully do all of the parts of your job. And that includes voting in person. While some people can argue, oh, it's a person with a newborn, they just had a new family, let them be with their family, let them take maternity and they also included paternity, by the way, leave in this as well. But let them take maternity and they also included paternity by the way leave in this as well but let them take maternity leave let them be with their child the real issue here is that

this also opens the door to have other people vote by proxy for whatever other reason this is also so unnecessarily divisive at a time where uh speaker johnson only has something like what a two-seat majority right now um even with the two elections that just happened in Florida. Unnecessarily divisive. Trump's trying to pass his agenda, but now we're stuck going over stuff like this. The Democrats are taking advantage of Rep. Paulina Luna because I believe in the last Congress, she had a child, and it was annoying for her to bring her child and come vote. And she wanted to have the privilege and the opportunity to vote by proxy but between these nine republicans and and massey last time voting against the cr i don't understand why these republicans cannot get on the same page to pass the trump agenda please guys well massey's a

different story but when it comes to stuff like this lining up with the democrats to be like oh you know we need this specific uh these carve outs for us for because we have children. If you're going to become a public servant, you have to plan. You should have you should expect to plan your life around that public service, whether it be Annapurna Luna having a baby or or another congresswoman having a baby or uh when pete budaj got you know uh became the secretary of of transportation and he decided to take what a couple months off because he went out and he bought a baby right like you can especially budaj like he could plan that far better than than and neither parent actually had the baby yeah exactly well exactly. Like women, you know, maybe they'll accidentally get pregnant or whatever.

At least there's an excuse. Oh, well, we weren't planning it. But whatever. You should be responsible enough to be like, all right, I'm taking this time in my life to be a public servant. So I'm going to make sure that I don't get pregnant, that I don't have small children. It shouldn't be a big ask. Or you let your constituents down and you don't show up for the vote and they'll remember that when they vote again sorry resign or resign do if it was

military command which i kind of see congress i know they're civilians but they're guiding the the military economic force of the world they should treat it like frontline military operations they should be there like clockwork every day they are needed on the duty they should be on duty and i just i mean i could maybe they could have a proxy come in and vote for them no like designate my assistant will be there on this day to vote for me in person it's way better than doing it remote because i wonder what the real story here is because um representative anna paulina luna usually hates the democrats i think former freedom caucuscus goers. So I think there might be something else here. Or I think it's just interesting how Democrats are able to

kind of pull on the heartstrings of some of these Republicans on issues that they have affinity with them on. Well, Democrats ubiquitously vote as a bloc, and Republicans always seem like they can't ever do that. And I don't know all the details. I don't know the backstory. There might be something or might not. I don't really care that much about this issue. But it's like, why are we hearing about this and not a SAVE Act, not about Daryl Issa's bill to try and get rid of judicial overreach? I can tell you that voters, 65% of them love the idea of deporting violent gangbangers. They want this judge impeached by a two to one margin. And I'm not getting the feeling from Congress that it's DEFCON one down there. So it's like, if Republicans understand how existential this election was, and the very beautiful gift that

Donald Trump has given them, which is a platform more popular than Republicans have ever been, if they can't get behind this and break a little sweat, like that's what I'm concerned about. Yeah, it's indeed. It should be an easy, easy decision. Well, Democrats are communists and they're I mean that in the sense of, well, they're a cult. They abide by what the group tells them to abide by. Republicans do not. And so you end up with Democrats winning because all it takes is a couple of Republicans to pull stupid garbage stunts like this. And I'm going to say it again. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of family, recognizing the differences between men and women. And here we are now with nine

Republicans being like, nah, women get special rules. This is this is the this is what happens to this country. Every single time it comes down to the question of duty and responsibility. This country shifts towards giving privileges to special classes instead of equality. And this is what they're asking for right now. The Democrats and the GOP are trying to get special privileges based on on class, based on a class of identifiable persons. That's that's's illegal you should you should not be able to say because you're a woman you get to vote remote or by proxy i'm offended by this yeah it's it's dumb but i i this is maybe even a tangent but like it used to be i've brought this

up before the show the founding fathers the first people that served in congress were all men if there was kids being born they were at home with the mom then at some point women came in and you have to accommodate for they might have a baby how are they gonna how are they gonna lead the military if they're the baby they have the baby on their arm um and obviously congress isn't directly leading the military they're just funding it and deciding how it gets funded and they're mostly the ones that authorize war not it's it's very important that they're there and available for duty. So I mean, especially considering how infrequently they actually have to be there. What were you saying? There was 10 legislative days and 10 legislative days in April. We just lost three of them because I don't know why, but they kicked

the next vote into next week. And I'll tell you again, I just don't know why it came up because my understanding is that almost every vote, they know what day it's going to be. They can plan around it. They, you know, so hire a babysitter. Yeah, exactly. Get a place in D.C. They all have places in D.C. Yeah.

They just got a tighter ship. It's because Congress is a bunch of lazy pieces of garbage. They are lazy people who don't want to do their jobs. The real job of a member of Congress is to fundraise. They get on the phone all day and they say, give me money, give me money, give me money. And then they never actually do their jobs. The only thing they do outside of give me money is they go into the they go on the floor. They stand at the podium and say, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble. Can you give me the clip so I can post it on social media so I can make money? That's Congress. None of them do their jobs i was like there's like five i get and maybe yeah there there i can see

the value of agility of government like the sig they were doing military strike on signal it's easier than hey let's all report to the defense let's all go to the pentagon at 4 p.m so we can sit down talk about something for eight minutes and then get up and leave and then we'll have our battle plans in order. They just do it on signal. They can do it instant, so much quicker. Great for military because you're remote. So there's a value to quickly being able to get a vote out.

It's just, I don't know, it doesn't seem like a secure tactic, but I'm open to the evolution of governance. It doesn't have to always be in person in the same building. It doesn't. Maybe if it's life and death and you have to look at as quickly maybe you have to go remote i like the idea of the representatives having to be there to cast the vote and i think that they should be there to cast the vote like i don't think that they should be allowed to remote vote i don't think they should be allowed to have someone else vote for them you have your job just like tim said the

vast majority of their job is fundraising. Go to D.C. when there are votes because they're scheduled. You know when they are. You can make arrangements. Go to D.C. when you're supposed to be there to vote. That's the whole point of your job is you're supposed to be able to vote on bills. Make sure that you're there. That's not too much of an ask.

There's probably only going to be three of them this year yeah right maybe maybe we should just get look we've got congress that won't do their jobs we have judges that are acting like they have more power than the president i think it's simple we just simply abolish the article two and three of the constitution the united states as an organization or actually i think articles one and three you know and it's a funny thing to hear somebody saying just but i bet there's people thinking that there are people people that are so frustrated they're like all right it's articles one and three silly me of course that's why it makes more sense um article one is congress article three is the judiciary yep just gone all all powers vested in one man the president his family and his kids you know it used to be

like that a government would have their rules. It would get to a point where people couldn't take it anymore and they'd just shred the whole thing and start a new one. Usually they would end up hanging the king, too. Yeah, we've got a system where you can revolutionize the governance within the governance itself. You don't have to tear it down to rebuild. Ideally, you can break pieces and parts off with amendments

and revocation of acts and things like that. So that's the that's the you guys talk a lot monarchy. No, we're joking. Yeah. But we've got a rogue. We've got a dysfunctional Congress and a rogue judiciary. Yeah. So let's just let's just let's just zoom out. According to Democrats, the executive branch has gone rogue. According to literally everyone, Congress is dysfunctional. It doesn't work. And according to the right, the judiciary. No, just the one person. And then according to the right, the judiciary is whacked out of its mind.

Well, actually, the Democrats agree with the Supreme Court being whacked out of its mind. I'll add one more. We have two million unelected people that think they control the government and they're just leeching off of our economy and everybody else. And they're who are those people? The our economy and everybody else. And they're – Who are those people? The fifth column, the deep state, the bureaucracy. That's really the problem. And so, listen, my politics are I'm a pollster. I believe in public opinion. I think democracy makes sense for that. But this – there's aspects of this that doesn't work.

And it needs to change. And I think society will correct the change it's just a question of how and so what i've been following is signs of potentially i'm a believer of the fourth turning um idea of how this is developing and history tells us yeah we've pulled on it a lot i'm worried about really yeah we've pulled on it a lot. I'm worried about it. Really? Yeah, we've pulled on civil war. But I think one of the big signs I think that we're in this is the complete flip of 18 to 39 year olds who went from like 30 to 40 points Harris just a decade ago or Hillary Clinton to now Donald Trump actually had a 60 percent favorability rating with 18 to 39 year olds like a month ago. Like they are now the highest approving people of Trump. And they're also the most likely to say that the country's in the right direction.

So the problem is, is for fourth turning right after a crisis, you have a very high need for order and a high supply and demand of order. Cause you just fixed a major problem like world war two over time because things are good. It's a golden age. The demand for order decreases you just fixed a major problem like world war ii over time because things are good it's a golden age the demand for order decreases but you still have order yeah then it all comes falling apart and so what we have now is maximum demand for order and zero supply let me jump to this tweet real quick so we can carry this conversation we've got this tweet from colin rugg he says alec baldwin declares the uS. is in a pre-Civil War culture. I'm going to pause right away.

Alec Baldwin made a very calm statement on social media. Conservatives are insulting and deriding him. This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can rag on the guy for his attitude. You can rag on him for being a hothead for his politics. But to say that he declares something, he says, I watched a show and they said that we were in pre-Civil War culture. And I kind of think that's the case.

And then you've got the actor took a break from being bossed around by his wife. I get it. You don't like the guy, but we can we can listen to what people we disagree with have to say. Here's what he said. Let my hand to pick up the remote and turn on my television. Sorry. And watch Ken Burns famous, famous miniseries. And boy, you can see now that we are in a pre-Civil War culture now.

They describe things back then politically. There are profound differences, of course, in terms of just history and age and what life was like back then and cotton and slavery and Lincoln and Robert E. Lee and so forth. There's just so many. This incredible story. Awful that this country had to go through that. Awful. But as a story, it's just overwhelmingly powerful and fascinating.

But I look at the politics of it, of where people are in this country today, in the division and how they're holding fast. And no one's going to falter. No one's going to break or compromise. And it's bad. He's not wrong. He said, I watched a series. I saw what it was like in the Civil War. We're in a pre-civil war culture both sides are are dug in neither is going to back down the fact that the response to him saying something that is just blank a blanket statement about the current culture war is met with tribal derision i think exemplifies exactly what he's saying but what he's actually trying to say is we're in a period called civil strife, one that I did.

I did not make this up, though. I talk about it quite a bit. I'm curious. You mentioned that you've polled on this. Oh, yeah. Civil War. What are you seeing? This is what separates us because we just don't do the election horse races. We're actually concerned about, like, the future of America and how people think, because the Overton window moves all over the place on all kinds of topics. And it's been weaponized, especially with all these info ops. So the net effect of the Biden administration was to take the question, how likely is it that a civil war, we'll see a civil war in the next few years from low thirties up to the highest number that we ever saw was 43%.

So that's a pretty big number during the Biden years before Biden before biden it was in the 30s yep and after biden it was in the 40s 43 43 i couldn't find the 43 number this one was like from april of last year 16 very likely 25 somewhat only 20 say not at all likely and uh i mean the republicans are a majority say yeah 54 so you know there was a a there was this poll that was done for each region. There was the northeastern region, the the south, the southwest. There was the Midwest and there was the Pacific Northwest. They polled each region and and by by political alignment, whether they wanted their region to secede to form its own country. And it was hilarious. In the Northeast, Democrats overwhelmingly said we

should secede. In the South, Republicans overwhelmingly said we should secede. In the West, Pacific Northwest and West, Democrats overwhelmingly said we should secede. The only place that was independent and wanted secession was the Midwest. But I actually it's fascinating where we are with AI these days, because what I did was I actually pulled all of the numbers for each region, then normalized for population and created a nationwide breakdown of should our region in general secede from the rest of the country? And the sentiment was something like two to one. Most people in this country believe that their region should be independent from the rest of the country. You see things like that, which are not so much about civil war, but about self-determination. You see efforts to secede in general or break away from their states.

You see the ongoing conflict. And then it's fascinating to me that somebody would look at what Alec Baldwin is saying and call him a moron. They're literally bleeding Kansas right now in Tesla dealerships. They're bleeding Tesla. Like this is how the Confederacy behaved. Well, it wasn't the Confederederacy the bleeding kansas john brown was an abolitionist he brought his children to kansas to murder people and he's a hero abraham lincoln arrested the maryland legislature that was sympathetic sympathetic sympathetic to the

confederacy arrested journalists threatened to arrest a sitting supreme court justice and create a suspension of habeas corpus between pennsy D.C. He's a hero. You know, I was probably crazy. Who was John Brown was probably crazy. He was absolutely what he was a hero growing up to listen. This guy was so dumb. Look, I can sympathize with abolitionism, but this guy took over the Harper's Ferry Armory. And when a train pulled through, he was like, they can go. They're fine. And what happened? The train then went and said, help call the feds. They've taken over an armory and when a train pulled through he's like they can go it's fine and what happened the train then went and said help call the feds they've taken over an armory yeah he would have succeeded in the seizure of the armory if he did not let the train leave that's what people i think sometimes don't understand about like modern war and how things can escalate if you don't go all the way

you die here's a fun modern war and that is the horror of domestic violence here's a fun one. to go fight. Once they were away, the remaining people who weren't fighting said, should we vote to secede and join the union? Yeah, let's do it. So these people who were called to fight in a war. It's beautiful. And it's and look, I think it's around three to five percent of the South were slave owners. So these are people who were just called up by their state for active duty. They came home to find they were no longer part of their home state anymore. It's absolutely wild. The things that went down in the Civil War. Yeah. And the Supreme Court ultimately said to Virginia, after the war, screw you. West Virginia's gone.

What's crazy is how much the calculus has just changed in a year, right? Because you almost feel like if it had happened a few years ago, it would have been like a straw breaks the camel's back. MAGA flips out. There's some kind of violent protest and then the police state cracked that cracks down on it and then it pops off but here it's like pretty easy to say that the military and police would side with trump like very easy to say and so it would not get very far i disagree and and when you look at the history of the civil war in the united states nobody thought the war could happen largely because they were like you you mean all of

these generals from each of these states that were all trained at west point together and our friends with each other are going to fight that's the stupidest thing i ever heard and then what happened yep and it was um i can't remember which general it was, but the Virginia general. Lee? Robert E. Lee? Was he? He's Virginia. Yeah, he was the Virginia guy, I believe.

Well, I believe it might have been him, or it might have been Stonewall Jackson. Oh, Stonewall Jackson? Might have been. But they basically wrote, I am now torn between standing with my friends and my country or my home. And I have no choice but to go to my home. So you've got a cop in California and he gets paid by the California government. Sure, Trump can say, we're going to seize your resources. California says, no, you're not. And this cop is being told by the man standing in front of him. I don't think people understand how this stuff happens. Let's just entertain this concept. Donald Trump's in D.C. You are in California.

You're a cop in San Francisco. Trump announces on the TV police must side with him. He's seizing control. Trump's not here. Your boss says, no, we're not listening to that. We are not going to allow Trump or any of his people to come anywhere near the state. We are a sovereign state. We have a right to defend ourselves. They have no constitutional authority here. What is that cop going to do? He's going to say, look, when I watch police officers arrest innocent people, seize guns from innocent people and go, I'm just doing my job and conservatives defend it. The idea that Donald Trump would decree and police inside with him is laughable to me. I think that's right. I think there's a lot of questions about whether the principle,

and you'd never know until you know what kicks it off. But if there's a rebuttal to that, and I'm not saying it is because I have no idea how this would play out, is that I think states matter less. People move more. People aren't landowners like they were back then. People change jobs all the time. And also in the polling, what I noticed is that your state doesn't really frigging matter that much except for just how left or right you are. Like if I polled Wisconsin this cycle, I was seeing almost as high levels of concern about the border as I was in like Arizona and Nevada. So it doesn't matter that much except for literally the sliding scale of Kamala Harris and Trump. Problem is, all of those blue voters are in cities that need supply chains.

So let's imagine police in the big cities and surrounding suburbs and a conflict breaks out, not a civil war, but there's a conflict. Maybe Texas, you know, when they were securing their border against joe biden maybe something like that maybe we see california completely opens up they tear all the walling all the wall down here's one the feds go in to arrest phil murphy for harboring a legal alien indeed and the police in new Jersey will not side with Trump. New Jersey is now a swing state. It won't happen because in South Jersey, maybe when the National Guard comes, when what would happen is the National Guard would show up and the police would likely say, you know, as a matter of law, the Insurrection Act, we don't intervene in this regard in these matters.

They won't work with Trump. Let's say let's let's let's let's escalate this. Let's let's let's do the scenario of that's an interesting one. I'm not entirely sure how it would play out. Trump going into a deep blue state next to New York. Who would intervene on the behalf of Phil Murphy? Because he did mention that he had an illegal immigrant in his house. The example that I like to use is Colorado and Oklahoma. Using abortion as a as a comparable pretext to war like slavery was, we're dealing with a question of personhood. One Democrats once again are on the side against personhood. Republicans on the side of personhood. Colorado has completely unfettered abortion.

Oklahoma has totally banned abortion. You enter a scenario where you get an underground railroad, the Democrats call it, of women escaping Oklahoma to get abortions. Oklahoma says this is a crime. I can't remember which state it was. We went over this when it happened. But the governor of a southern state, a woman fled the state to get an abortion. And he said that's a criminal conspiracy. So you fleeing a state with others and being aided to go do it is a criminal conspiracy. So let's say conflict breaks out at the border between Oklahoma and Colorado. There's a man who is with a woman. She's seven months pregnant. The baby is viable. She says one night, you know what? I've decided I can't be with this man. It's a bad relationship. He's abusive, emotionally abusive or something. She gets up at 2 a.m., packs her bags, and she flees. The guy wakes up a few hours

later and he looks around. He's like, where's, you know, where's my girlfriend with my baby? Where's my wife? He finds out through a mutual friend she's on her way to Colorado to abort your child at seven months. This is at the point where he's already seen the ultrasound and he's freaking out. One of the leading reasons given by women for abortion is bad relationships. This is true. So this is a potential scenario. She gets to Colorado. He calls his friends crying. Please help me. She's going to kill my son. They drive to Colorado. Colorado police block them and say, you're not going anywhere near this woman. We know what your intentions are. Oklahoma is now at the border. The woman is right there or she's rushing towards the border. It's a crazy scenario. But how does this play out if a woman

were to do this? If this does come to a point where there is a conflict and Oklahoma says she is breaking the law, kidnapping this child, Colorado says, no, she's not. It's an unborn fetus. It's not even alive. The police 100% would be on the side of the woman. Oklahoma would 100% be on the side of the man. The federal government could try to intervene. And then Colorado is going to claim that Trump is trying to overrule the state's sovereign laws violating the ninth and 10th amendment. I don't know how likely that is. I'm just saying, if you entered in a scenario where it comes down to a conflict between the federal government and the state where they actively need to oppose each other, the state is going to side with the state and the federal

government with the federal government. The simple reason is that a guy may be a conservative Trump supporter, not a cop. But when they say you will defy Donald Trump and follow the orders of your department, he's going to look around at every house and say it's 90 democrat either i flee the state with my family right now and i'm homeless and i beg trump for help or i just do as i'm told and do my job for my state well what i can say is you should probably ask chat gpt to make that into a movie script because it would have been a better civil war movie than the one that they put out but i know yeah yeah but i don't i you never know the context like what if it's exposure between the cops and the feds like the fbi i really don't know um but like we've hit there's probably people doing that right now there's there was that whole situation with the

divorced father and the mother was trying to trans a kid i don't know how that played out, but it's like a context of tension, a constitutional crisis or something that sparks it off. And then it just comes down to the details. And I don't know. But I think that one of the mistakes we often make is that we compare now to the U.S. Civil War, which was distinct. There was a strong moral issue and a question of personhood between sovereign independent states under a weak government. People said the United States are. It was not a singular government. The federal government was very weak. Today, we are dealing with something more akin to like the Bolsheviks or the Spanish Civil War, where you have ideological factions that are amassing in rural and urban centers. Or even like the Chilean civil war. Would you call it that with Salvador Allende, where they came in and they just in one afternoon flew bombers over the Capitol. They went in,

they said, Hey, he killed himself. The new rulers in charge. Now they put in Pinochet and a civil war over happened in like seven hours. Well, that's called a revolution.

It was a revolution. And I think we're in the midst of a global revolution. It's technological, it's banking. And we're just, they're trying, they would love to see the U S fall into civil war and destroy itself because we're the biggest ball work against global totalitarian technocracy so i i think that you're on to something there there there are

elements of the left the left people on the left that have the ideology that any populist or any right-leaning people can not be in positions of power. You're seeing it in France, Italy. Le Pen is – they figured out a way to put Le Pen in jail for a couple years. There's a guy in Romania, I guess, that was a populist. There's a lot of right-leaning populist-type politicians that the left is just breaking the law and throwing them in jail. But what will happen is when the population realizes that they that their their democracy is a sham, they will side with the with the autocrats. They will they will side with the people that are the authoritarians

if they can have a reliable system. Yeah, this ties into what you're saying about the fourth turning, that after order decreases, people will just seek the strongman. You didn't say strongman, I'm saying that, but seek order in whatever form that may be at the moment. And if that's like harsh government overreach. I'll have to figure out a way to ask that question. I'm actually really interested

in what the results would be. But it's like a vacuum of leadership that is filled by a new generation of leaders that have different value sets than the existing ones. And they reorganize society around a shared cultural vision. That's what the fourth turning tells us we're going to see in the next five or 10 years. And it'll be a major change that puts 9-11 basically to shame because everybody actually liked George W. Bush.

That's a really big feat. It's like 80 percent approval ratings or whatever. And the whole thing with the Freedom Fries, society was reorganized with a shared cultural vision. It didn't last because none of the values, none of the institutions got changed. But that's theoretically what we're in for. Cultural cohesion doesn't typically lead to civil war. If every single person in this country was watching the same TV show, there'd be a little conflict.

Their worldviews would be similar. If every single person was influenced by only a couple of news channels, and the news channels kept complaining about government spending, Doge would be similar. If every single person was influenced by only a couple of news channels and the news channels kept complaining about government spending, Doge would be a celebration. Yeah. But you have bifurcated culture in this country and there's two parent factions and then subsets within all of them. So you've got libertarians somewhat aligned with the conservatives and post liberals and whatever. And then on the left, you've got the progressives, the socialists, the communists and the Democrats. Overwhelmingly, these are two distinct spheres of influence. Neither will back down. I think if you do a fair assessment, what you'd find is

the Democrat side is authoritarian cult based. Their worldview is adhere to the authority or else this makes society function. They're not wrong. They're just crazy. And their worldview is nonsense. On the right, it's more meritocratic, decentralized, do your thing with a faction that has a strong man. And the reason why the right is only just now turning things around is on the right,

people have finally decided to wield power. So typically what you ended up seeing with Trump's early coalition was people like me and Carl Benjamin, who are classical liberals, who are like, no, no, no, we can't do those things. We must maintain order. And then after getting beaten in the face over and over again by people willing to break the law and violate the Constitution, we went, wow, you can't actually exist in a society where people don't follow the law and their law enforcement will not follow the law. A lot of people bring up why it's how is it so easy to arrest Trump's lawyers? Yet. Adam Schiff and and the and these these FBI agents, these these these intelligence guys who lied, we can't get a single indictment of these people.

Yeah, because they are willing to violate the Constitution. And the right typically is not. Maybe Trump right now will realize his time is short and he's looking at being a lame duck president for two years of his term of the Democrats win in 2020, 2026. And maybe he just says, like he's already been doing, let's go nuclear issue indictments, arrest these people. I'll tell you this. Trump's got to do it right now. Yeah. If Donald Trump waits a year to issue indictments, it will negatively impact him in the election. If he does it right now, this year will not even be no one will remember it. There's going to be no if Trump next month says criminal indictment for Adam Schiff, witness tampering, lying. There was something that came out with Ratcliffe today that I'm blanking on, but a specific reference about him being a fact witness to the case and there being some potential implications

there. If he went after Liz Cheney for witness tampering or Anthony Fauci for lying to Congress, he has to do it now because if he does it close to the midterms, there will be an endless campaign commercial of Trump retaliating as a fascist and arresting people to stop them from being influential or winning. If he does it now, next year, people are going to go, oh, yeah, when was that? You're right. He came in with shock and awe, the days of thunder, whatever you want to call it.

And it was effective. Now, I'll tell you, I don't think it changed his approval rating that much. Like it was just flat at like 52. It went up to 56 once. But what it did do was completely take all the power away from the left. Like they had no idea what to do. Chuck Schumer was out there virtue signaling. People tore his head off on Twitter.

And so he has so much power right now. And I don't even mean to do anything autocratic, but he's sitting on a massive set of information that he knows about the stuff they uncovered in the government. Socialize it. Put it on TV. Don't just do one press release. Make it part of the zeitgeist. And he could do that. You don't have to throw garbage cases out there.

String them out. But they have enough on somebody. And there are people, I'm sure, that have already flipped throw garbage cases out there, like string them out, but they have enough on somebody. And there are people I'm sure that have already flipped. Get it out there. Get the information out there. Just control. Doge transparency day. Once a week,

they publish information on malfeasance. I want them to make the Doge Prentice. I want to have Doge featured on linear television. They should negotiate with CBS to take over 60 minutes slot and a highly produced show where Trump fires, you know, 10,000 people out of the, you know, whatever it is this week. But like something like that, because like people are following this. Doge was more popular than Trump was. It was plus 11 net. And we asked how angry are you with the level of waste, fraud, and abuse in the government that they've seen so far? 70 percent.

Doge was more popular than Trump? That's interesting because I thought Musk was polling so far underwater. So that's Musk. Crazy distinction. Well, first off, other people do OK with the elections, but I'm pretty sure you can only trust my favorability numbers. Everybody else has a sandbag Trump. So they'll show like a Trump 44% favorability rating and then put a poll out that he has them polling at 50. It doesn't make sense.

But we had Trump – when Trump was 53, Doge was 55, net 11. Trump was like net 10. Elon was net 9. But then Elon's dropping. He went from like 52 down to I think 45 in the last poll. So that's the difference between Teflon Don is that, you know, stuff doesn't just slide for the time. It goes up and down a little bit, but it's currently in the spread on RealClearPolitics minus 2.2. He had a honeymoon phase when he first got in. Now his disapproval seems to be going up a little bit. But it's fair to say that when you look at all the aggregate polling, Trump is polling his best. That being

said, how are we dealing with, in the same time period, two polls, RMG and Marquette, having inverted results? RMG says Trump plus seven. I'm sorry, RMG says plus seven, and Marquette says minus eight. Mike, my issue now is, I take a look at these polls in aggregate. In Trump's first term, they were all relatively close they were all minus one minus two minus three minus one and so the average at two and you're like makes sense trump's only minus two because fox news has him at minus two but gallup has him at minus 10 but rmg hasn't met plus seven how could there be so wildly different polls for the same time periods? Yeah, it's especially on the non-election stuff. Well, the election stuff, especially 2020, was all over the place.

You'd have like net zero to all the way like Biden plus 16. That was real horse race polling. And that's what everybody tunes the results to. The truth about polling right now is that nobody's taking an actual random sample. It's impossible. There's literally no way to reach millions and millions of americans anymore even if you had all this money in the world to just spam everybody with sms text messages at the end of the day what you're getting a sample of isn't

the country it's a sample of people who actually respond to spammers so one of the reasons that we think we're more accurate and we do better first we're the only one polling approval on a nightly basis. Nobody's doing it anymore. And then the other is we pioneered the use of landline IVR. We're one of the more prominent people that came out and did that in a time when most people had landlines. But we poll so often that I have 400,000 people

that like to answer our phone and half the electorate is over 50. So it lines up really well. Almost everybody else has gone to online panels or have built their own panels. The industry is sort of consolidating into Ipsos and YouGov. So what Ipsos is, is just a panel of only 50,000, 60,000 people. It's managed by people with pronouns in their LinkedIn bios. It's like one set of people. And they're not picking up those swing voters. They're not getting new voters entering.

They're trying to manage that. And what they're doing is they're creating basically an artificial America. And they and us – and YouGov is another one of the panels. They and us will try and tune the results to the election. But I think I'm getting a politically sophisticated older group of people that are informed and are less normie. And because of that, not only did I have Trump approval higher than everybody else, I actually had for most of the time Biden approval higher than everybody else. Nobody wants to talk about that. Quinnipiac was out with 33 Biden approval. I had him at like 44.

Can I ask you a bigger picture question about polling? So much of politics, media and narratives are driven by these polls. And we're seeing these polls with so for example, like Fox News, CNN, oftentimes run with whatever polls are based on approval rating, how people are feeling with immigration and whatnot. And these really do drive narratives. Do you think the influence of polls is a little bit too stark here with how close politicians are paying an eye to this? How much the media is paying an eye to this, given how fickle they are with how big of a spread they are? You know, a lot of politicians and media people really look at polls like the gospel. I'm not exaggerating. They've really, politicians will look at polls and change their behaviors based on a couple of points spread here. So is this driving our media conversations and politicians' mindset too much? And you can tell me if you think I'm misunderstanding this, but the politicians I know are always paying attention to polls. Polls are always the justification behind media narratives and media stories.

And look, there's gigantic spreads here. You might know better than me about how fickle these are. I'm not a statistics guy, but am I off the path here? And my experience, it always leans one way. I'd love to know who those politicians are. I can't get anybody. I literally had to give our state polling away almost essentially free to sponsors this time, because nobody on the right actually believes or pays for polling. All the money on the right seems captive into this consultant class or Boris of feeding itself. And so what I want is people to pay attention to these polls because it reflects public opinion. E-verify, get it done. Everybody loves it. Photo IDs, everybody's like, oh, wow, look at that. In Wisconsin, the IDs passed,

but the Republican didn't win. Yeah, it's because Democrats like photo IDs for voting. It's very popular. And so I could give them a list of 20 things that are bipartisan wins that they should do tomorrow, and they don't pay attention to them at all. So I guess you don't think we're paying too much attention to polls? You think we should be doing more? Well, no, I think the problem is, is that polls have turned into everybody hates them because they're an information warfare weapon for the election. I don't like election matchups. I don't want to do that crap. I want to get policy in place. And they do. I did a whole hour and a

half show on all the ways a pollster can lie to you. There are many. And the biggest one is cherry picking. Cherry picking is the biggest one. Even if the pollster is not corrupt, the Hill will take your results out of context. They put a Harris plus seven poll headline out in the middle of August when the point of the underlying poll was to prove that when primed with race and gender questions, people were more likely to pick Harris. So they literally had a Harris plus one poll. Then they said, oh, what about all this other stuff? Then they did it again and got Harris plus seven. He'll put that as a headline, Harris plus seven. Here's what I love. Here's my question for you. Would you, in your life, do you think it is right? I want to phrase, is it good

for individuals to try and reduce their carbon footprint or their pollution to be good stewards of the earth? Yeah, we should be good stewards. I'm a Boy Scout. I like conservative. I can't believe it. I got a 90 percent support rate for the Green New Deal. You believe it? Yeah, the way you asked the question.

Here's another question for you. Do you believe that we should have racial segregation or special benefits for people based on race and universities the missing component here is a principled leader i don't know i mean so no do you believe that people should get special privileges in their uh and access to jobs based on their race oh hell no okay so he opposes the Green New Deal. Yeah, because people don't understand that the Green New Deal was nonsense. It included D.E. and I hiring initiatives for race on based on race and the argument that minorities are

affected by climate change more than white people. So you could actually ask that question, which is specific to one portion of the Green New Deal and then claim its support for the Green New Deal or opposite. You choose. We were talking about tariffs. It's the same thing. People have no idea the details. You can ask it any way you want. Get any result you want.

And that's just one of the million ways they can lie. They can do a push poll. They can like, hey, Donald Trump was kicking kittens. Do you approve or disapprove? Then ask the election matchup. Or they can even like only release partial parts of it. They can like, hey, Donald Trump was kicking kittens. Do you approve or disapprove? Then ask the election matchup. Or they can even like only release partial parts of it. They ask this big, long question.

And then it's like, hey, do you approve or disapprove the Green New Deal? You don't know how they prime them. And so, yeah, it can be completely corrupt. So we put out – ultimately it comes down to ethics. You know what I mean? Like I don't put out all of my data and give people access to the underlying information about the people that I poll. But I put out the crosstabs. I put out every question I poll and I list every sponsor that sponsors everything and how I weighted it.

And you have to trust me. And the problem is, is that literally everything's been weaponized. That's why I call myself the honest pollster. I was trying to figure out why we weren't commoditized. And that's literally what it comes down to. There are a few other honest people and I'm not calling all the other ones liars or like, but you don't know because it's the way it's being used. And then they hide behind this veil of transparency or in an ivory tower or in this like artificial assertion that they're unbiased.

Like the first thing I posted on Twitter when I started like tweeting in August, when I got so, I got so mad at all the scummy tactics. Like they, after Kamala Harris got anointed, there were two weeks when nobody released a national poll. There was like three national polls that came out. And I was like, what is this? So I came out and like what I said to the future roles that came after me when I first started

is that people are biased, but polls shouldn't be. And then they shut up. So I don't get attacked by trolls anymore because, yeah, people are biased. So you're going to believe you're going to pretend your pollster isn't biased, right? Like, so anyways, I don't know. It's a mess. Do you when this is I was talking to Michael Mouse the other day and I was saying that I no longer view myself as classical liberal, but more post liberal, which is a reference to recognizing the limitations of liberalism and requiring some kind of strong defense of your moral tradition. Michael is saying, well, but people usually

associate post liberalism with fascism. And so I explained my position and he says, you're he says, oh, so you're where I'm at. I'm at because he's an anarchist. And the gist of the conversation ultimately is nobody. The majority of people are dishonest, unfortunately. I mean, they're honest to certain degrees, but people will lie to get what they want. And so when it comes to polls, most of them, like you're pointing out, are not honorable. We have no more honor in the society. It is people saying, how can I get the result I'm looking for? So in media, you get journalists who will ask leading questions or who will take quotes

out of context. The fact checkers will will add things to a claim to make it false. Did Ian eat ice cream on Saturday? False. It was Sunday. Then they can put a big false on it and they can take down any post they want on Facebook. Facebook got rid of it. But that's what they were doing. And then you have pollsters that will ask questions or prime people in ways that they know will manipulate the results so they can make the claim. So their ideology wins. One issue I have had with polls we talk about on the show from time to time is when a poll polling will go out for 3000 people. Like we're just eyeballing here. Three thousand one here. Rest must in one thousand five hundred fifteen hundred people. But then a news company will make an article and it'll say forty three percent of Americans believe.

And it's like, bro, it's fifteen hundred people. They're it's. Yeah. Tell me about statistics, Mark. OK, I know. of americans believe and it's like bro there's 1500 people they're it's yeah tell them about statistics mark okay i know it's a fact tell them about the numbers so you don't need to have that much statistics to pull but there's this central limit theorem and blah blah blah basically there's accuracy and there's precision and so precision's like i shoot the gun the bullets all go the same place but the target was over there accuracy is like i spray down there, the bullets all go to the same place, but the target was over there. Accuracy is like I spray down there, all the bullets went on the target, but not in the center. And that's one of the tactics they use.

A lot of people say, look at that morning consult poll site. It's like 10,000 results. It's got a 1% margin of error. It's like, yeah, but they're 11 points away from the target. And so what we'd like to do, and there's diminishing returns. I would rather do 10 polls of 1,000 people than one poll of 10,000 people. I learn a hell of a lot more. And that's what we do. We put out more polling than anybody else except Morning Consult this cycle. And I went back and counted of the 28 polls on RealClearPolitics starting August 1st that showed Trump winning a little

red circle, we were 50% of them. So let me ask to try and help Ian understand. You guys were one of the most accurate on every election over the past 10 years or whatever. We've done a good job. You've been very close to the actual results. Yeah. Now, how is it possible that you very accurately reflected the results of the election, but if you only polled 1,500 people? Right, Ian? That makes no sense. How does that work you only polled 1,500 people, right, Ian?

That makes no sense. I polled a quarter million people a year. So, like, we ask all the time. I put out 42 different state polls spread across 14 states. So you get a really clear picture because I'm taking a sample every time. So it's like, hey, I took Pennsylvania and I got a plus one, a plus three, a plus two. I'm pretty sure what the result's going to be. And I'm going to tune it to make sure that the results aren't all over the place. How is it that a poll of 1,500 people could be claimed to represent the country or the

general approval of a president? Statistically, the 95% confidence interval, meaning 19 out of 20 times, if I run it again, the actual population mean will be within that interval. So it's a plus or minus 3%. There's different ways to represent accuracy. And that's just a statistical proof of the central limit theorem. Simply put, in layman's terms, you do not need to ask every person in the country to have a general understanding of what the population thinks. Yeah, right. Exactly. As the sample size increases, you get diminishing returns. Right. And so I don't need a 1% margin of error.

If I get a 3% margin of error, and it's really going to be closer than that, and I'm going to poll a few more times, and that's what I'm going to put out, because I have a limited budget as well. And also on these policy issues, the way i perceive polling is like here's my results prove me wrong ian has struggled for years to understand they just don't understand i guess a thousand random people participating in this is surprisingly representative of what it would be if you were to pull a hundred thousand people The accuracy might become marginally more accurate, but just the 1,000 people would still be surprisingly representative, more than I guess you would expect.

Well, there's no reason they have that much precision anyways, because there's so many other sources of potential error baked in. I could be pulling... My sample method, techniques of getting to these people could have inherent biases built in. I could be picking the wrong party weightings and could be completely off there. So why would I do a poll and get like a 1% margin of error when I could have three points of baked in bias in my party weightings? And that's what the others are doing. Is that what you're saying? There's all kinds of different tricks. I'll tell you like 2018, we didn't do that great.

And I think there's reasons why. But over time, one of the problems is they'll create artificial measuring sticks in order to slander people. So we were told that we were way far right in 2016 just because we showed Trump up a few times. But we had Hillary Clinton winning the national popular vote. We were within, like, a point or two. So we did great. In 2020, our final call was Biden plus one. But three weeks before that, we had Biden plus 12. And the average of all of our polling across September, October was Biden plus six. So we were actually two points to the

left, and they call us a far right pollster. So we'll use underhanded tactics like that. And on the 2018 miss, I really, I'm very eager to see what happens for instance to act blue i think that oh yeah we're gonna find that fraud yeah there's the accusations are coming out but but ian explain what you meant then if you say we don't understand yeah yeah um so it sounds like as a pollster you're very ethical and diligent in the way you poll so i think that i agree like a poll comes out well let me let me finish a poll comes out. Well, let me let me finish. A poll comes out. Here's what the poll said. That's good.

You did your job. Now the news media will pick it up and be like, OK, this poll says 47 percent of these 2000 people believe and then they'll run the headline. 40 percent of Americans believe I find that to be unethical, an unethical distribution of your data. Do you agree? People have unethically distributed our data for sure. But we're kind of in the polling ghetto right now. The question is, when you put out when Rasmussen puts out a approval for the president, is the implication this is a national this is a view of the national population?

Yeah, it is a sample of U.S. likely voters with a plus or minus three margin of error. And if you don't personally think that that represents, then you can prove us wrong in your own poll or do a more expensive... I think Ian doesn't like that everybody isn't being polled and it's being said that all the... You can never poll America ever again. Ian's point is that a poll of 1,500 people is not representative of this country no matter what.

And when the media says it is, they're lying. And so the question for the pollsters is what can you poll 1500 people and are your results representative of america yes scientifically statistically relevant yes relevant i agree relevant yeah but i don't think that it is a direct representation or a reflection of what 330 million people think it's kind of semantics you know what i mean basic common sense no but that's um look at the way these representatives in congress that's how the statistics works 700 000 people you might have to like get a lesson from a pollster but like that's well i just want to sorry interrupt in you are talking to one of the leading pollsters in the world

who is explaining to you how the math and science works i don't understand what you're arguing well it's like if i come up with a result 43 think the civil war is happening in the next five years right the headline should probably say poll colon civil war america like u.s likely voters civil war is happening and then but it's on our site rasmussenreports.com so people know you know it's it's just semantics it is a statistical representation of what americans think well it's like it's not just about this because if i said you know not 80 of the people in this room think that but i only pulled me and and i guess let's see or let's say there were 100 of us in here and i said 60 of the people in that room believe but i only pulled five people and three of them thought it so and then i told them what i'm gonna do that would be unethical and a lie of me to say that and presumptuous so we're

gonna go to super chats because we're going in circles. Yeah. But Ian. Oh, I don't think so. We're spiraling. That's for sure. This gentleman here. Ian's going to take on statistics.

Has explained that you are incorrect and you're misunderstanding. No, he did not. As far as I know, you said you believed it was unethical for a news article to say 37% of Americans. I misunderstood your question. Like people, a poll is a poll. And sometimes people load too much into what the results of a poll mean. But they are statistically relevant. It's an accepted form of journalism, understanding what people think. And they're not the be all end all. In fact, I would look at other data if I really wanted to know what was happening in election beyond polling. Right. When a poll uses a representative sample and asks them their opinions and then publish that when the media shorthands poll shows X percentage of Americans believe this.

That is how we mathematically, scientifically assess popular public opinion. And as he's pointed out, the more people you ask, you get a diminishing return. It doesn't change the results. So there is a mathematical formula for the happy number of people you need to ask in a representative distribution to figure out the likely, within a margin of error of three points, opinion of this country. So the media is not wrong when they say poll shows. Oh, but if a guy sees a poll of 1500 people and they're like oh shit it says exactly what we want the world to think everyone thinks let's make an article and say everyone thinks it that's a total manipulation if they pulled a hundred

thousand people is the point it would show the same thing if you pulled 1500 or 15,000 people just told you how they can take the information and twist it around to say whatever they want not whatever they want but take the information and twist it to say things that are either not true or not the complete truth um so it's not about the polls it's about the people that are taking that are taking the data and the information yes i agree it's not about the polls the polls are gone ethically it started with a really great discussion that you had i think about the redefinition of politics and what the political spectrum is and what it's turned into. I kind of want to just respond.

Like that's an important part of the discussion that I think is happening because people trust me because I talk to them and I show them what's going on and I try to answer their questions. But at the core of it is just my sincere representation of integrity. Like I'm trying to do a good job and I feel bad if I fail. And also our business would probably not exist if I failed. And so we need more of that. And that's – I don't know if you call that right or left politics anymore. But my take on what I think we're seeing is that where the right has gotten to – and they weren't there eight years ago ago is that they're very careful about being intellectually honest and trying to get to an honest answer about things yes and the left is fall in line or get out yeah i mean you can see that with not just

the the stuff that goes on on capitol hill and in congress but even like in the supreme court everyone knows how the left-leaning judges are going to rule. You may be interested in hearing their their how their reasoning goes, but you know where they're going to come down on almost every issue. Very, very rarely do the left leaning justices surprise anyone. The the the you know, the the right leaning or centrist or conservative or however you want to classify them, they're the ones that will actually surprise you. And you can't really be sure. You know, only the most, you know, you could probably come down, you could probably predict where, like, Clarence Thomas is going to come down

and maybe predict where Alito comes down. But even Alito will surprise you sometimes, whereas on the left-leaning, they all fall in line. We're going to go to your chats, my friend. So smash that like button. Share the show with everyone. If you're watching, take that URL, post it wherever you can. Sharing really does help. And tell your friends it's the if everybody watching right now live shared this show with their friends, we would be the biggest new show in the world. That's that's actually true. The reality is getting 70,000 people all at the same time to post on X is not possible because if all 70,000 people watching right now post it with 71,000,

post it on X right now, we will be the number one global trend. So, you know, if you want to support us, but we're going to grab your chats. We got the uncensored call-in show coming up in about 20 minutes. You don't want to miss it at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL. That's where we're going to be live with the show. Don't miss it. Let's see what you got. 3D Nerd Armory says, just found out

my wife's pregnant with our first possibly twins. Congratulations. I just want to say, you know, when Alice and I were expecting, we were hoping for twins. Really? Well, you know. I got twins. Yeah, well, we want to have more kids and we're like, hey, you know when alice and i were expecting we were hoping for twins really well you know i got twins yeah we want well we want to have more kids and we're like hey you know two for the price of one right now considering how much work we realize it is for one kid it's like let's uh let's take the

time no it's totally different do twins your second time the first time it's like oh everything has to be perfect oh we have to take a picture of him with his little two-month-old sticker. Like, oh, when the twins come, it's like, oh. You're juggling them? Yeah, it's a totally different thing. And you're like, oh, this is easier parenting than the prior structure. Was it because it was two at once or because it came after? We just have twins in the family, apparently.

We had our first kid and then like three years later. No. Oh, I know. Why was it easier? Was it because they came after it was your second round around or was it because they were two at once you can't manage it all man it's like and we like my wife breastfed and all that stuff it's like stuff goes out the window you know it's like i don't understand how that's possible like i i have to imagine yeah football football geez wow but wow also i'm imagining just you know being pregnant with twins the amount of food that the mother would have to eat my wife would be laying down 95 to 135 pounds wow it was ridiculous looking but i love her i can't believe i just said that on the

i've heard that this is a kind of maybe wrong but that in times of when humans need to repopulate they'll just start having more twins that there's just more likelihood of it to happen makes sense that's my head cannon now that's cool it's right on heartwarming let's grab some more what do we got amtree says over one trillion is being invested in the usa because of donald trump and the tariffs fact i think it's actually more than that i've heard that there is something like five trillion yeah wow so well it's all good news man jacob paulie says wisconsin gop is kicking out anyone who worked with tp usa and scott pressler milwaukee gop which is mega is being defunded by the state gop and they took elon's money and used it to prop up new establishment

county gop wings state gop gave phone numbers of early voters. Yeah, that's par for the course. I've been railing on this. The number one enemy to American first movement is Republicans, establishment Republicans, heard from so many MAGA candidates who are just like, well, you know, the state party rules everything. There's one or two influencers there. If you want to run, they're going to push you out. They're going to run a squishy moderate candidate because they think that that's who wins. And oh, by the way, it's all about the consulting deals. And then RNC, RGA, and RCC, like nowhere to be found. And then all the things you see on Twitter, all these big names are just a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be built or changed in order to make MAGA the predominant

ideology in Republican Party? It's, I'm surprised that there are still so many, so many of the old guard Republicans in positions of authority and positions of influence. I wasn't surprised after Trump lost in or you know the 2020 election whatever you want to call it whether trump lost or biden stole it i don't care whatever you care whatever you want to say but i wasn't surprised that there that was like a last grasp for power now for after four years of seeing the way the democrats behave and then and the clear victory that trump had it was because of trump and the and the kind of MAGA movement, the the America first kind of people. It surprises me that there are still.

Republicans that aren't like doing their best to get on board. The new Clarence's happy birthday, Ian. You are one of the three other people who I have found that share a birthday. Here's to another trip around the sun. By the way, look up skeletonleton Graphene Super Caps. I will. Thank you. It's your birthday?

It is, yeah. Happy birthday. A little second. Thank you very much, guys. How old are you? 41. 46 today. 46.

Doesn't he look so good for his age? Your skin. Thank you. I think that's why everybody buys the coffee. Rose is Xenial. Buy the coffee. My man. 79 was harsh, baby.

His secret is actually not only does Ian drink Ian's Graphene Dream coffee, he puts the grounds in his bread that he makes and does coffee enemas. Oh, Tim, you're speaking my love language. Hey, what was that person they said check out the Graphene Skeleton thing? I'm sorry? It was purely brotherly love. Skeleton Graphene Super Caps. Skeleton, graphene, super caps. Thank you very much, Super Chatter.

Who was that Super Chatter? That is the new Clarence. Thank you, the new Clarence. Graphene, super caps. Thank you. Let's see what we got going on over here. Esme says, Tim, please read. Please start reporting on the epic city.

Certain local politicians want to bring Shari a lot of Texas. They are trying to keep things quiet. Ab is investigating. more eyes on this. Yeah. Have you guys heard about Epic City in Texas? Yeah, it's like 420 acres or something like that. They've got they purchased now. And what is the plan? They want to do like a Muslim city or something?

Yeah, I don't know. I don't know the details, but I do believe that it's essentially going to be a city full of religious Muslims. And they will be attempting to be as autonomous as they can possibly be uh in texas is this any different than more power to the amish yeah like i mean as long as they're peaceful and within the bounds of the constitution and keeping it kosher or halal you know interesting but i mean if they're doing things like sharia law that are antithetical to our values i think that's an issue well that's that's i think that that is why people are concerned i don't know what their actual plan is but the people that are upset or that are worried

about it they're probably worried about you know you have to wear burka in the street or you know virtue police i think these no-go zones too that um you know that we saw in europe i don't think people want to see happening here hamish places are never no-go zones but i think there might be a fear of these turning into something like that ray jlb says baby crying burn the constitution the meme is uh oh no a child is crying quick burn the constitution crying all right what do we got going on kane abel says phil do not give massey a cop out he voted is, oh no, a child is crying. Quick, burn the Constitution. Oh no, a child crying. Alright, what do we got going on? Cain Abel says, Phil, do not give Massey a cop-out. He voted against

Trump. He has major TDS. He blamed Trump for January 6th and several other things. You are the one with TDS. Thomas Massey derangement? Well, Trump derangement. If you believe that Thomas Massey has TDS, I think that you're the one with the skewed

perspective thomas massey votes no on everything because thomas massey is a principled libertarian in the same vein as dr ron paul was dr ron paul's nickname was dr no because he voted no on everything as well you don't have to like him, but his motivations are not, oh, I hate Trump. He's voting no on the MAGA agenda. Why does he get the pass? Because he's not a MAGA guy. He's a libertarian. It's a continuing resolution, which was the whole topic of debate was, let's not do another continuing resolution.

Then Matt Gaetz left and like, where's that conversation? And Massey's still like, no, I'm not doing another continuing resolution. No. Slide crap in thomas massey gets a pass in my opinion because he's always making the same principled libertarian uh principled votes would he have put these pardon me would he have killed the vote uh i don't think no no it would have passed without no but if it came down to it if he was the deciding vote, I think he probably would have. Yeah. OK, so it was all for self-aggrandizement then.

This was all for. I'm not going to argue. I'm not going to argue what he's thinking. And I'm not going to argue with you about your personal opinion of Thomas Mass. No, I respect people who have, you know, consistent set of principles and they're trying to make decisions based on that. I respect Donald Trump trying to primary him. Well, well not him but encouraging somebody else to that's not gonna happen begging for the government to be shut down just because i wanted to prove i've been saying like people are begging for it they want the government shut down and like how stupid can

you be to like like doge would run rampant through all different branches and they never do it it's like every time no but yeah it's it's a good super chat thomas massey thomas massey's perspective is not because he has some kind of bone to pick with donald trump it's because he has he what he believes are principled opinions and and he stands by them it's not about oh i don't like donald trump there are plenty of things where thomas massey has been like no, I want to work with Donald Trump on this. I want to work with Donald Trump on that. And he's been he's been complimentary. Libertarians are so squishy. Rand Paul also was like anti-deporting people or something earlier to these liberals. All right. I don't want to put the effort into understanding their principles. That's that's on you. All right.

Travis Booth says it was cool seeing the Tim Kess truck on the right on the track at Martinsville last weekend. If you ever want to expand into different forms of motorsports, Timcast would look good on the hood of my drag car. Shout out to Cody Dennison, professional race car and truck driver. And he drives the Timcast machine. So I guess we're going to be in a video game. Which is sick. Oh, awesome. Yeah, you're going to be able to drive the Timcast car in a NASCAR game, I think it is, or something like that.

I don't know. I'm definitely getting it. I love racing games. Awesome. Super cool. We should get one of those wheel, like the whole setup with pedals and like... Yeah, we can set it up in there, and then we can have Cody come and we'll film him and be like, you better win. That'd be sick, actually. Have him drive his own car.

Let's grab some more. Rootless Redneck says, military officers are college grads who largely side with military ink. The junior enlisted aren't going to disobey their officers for better or worse. Yep. Yeah, that's right. I was a military officer, 01 to 06,

and everybody was like, I just want to go over there and kill some. I mean, it was literally like the Team America meme came out, and everybody was saying Dirk. That's what the military was. The officers were very gung-ho. And I think what the problem is— I am not a fan of that. I hate it when people infantilize the troops, though.

Infantry, literally infantilization, that's what that's all about. You have a 40-year-old NCO, and he's supposed to be taking orders from some 23-year-old college grad? Yeah. That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Yeah. There's always a senior. There's also a senior enlisted guy that shadows the young officer. Right, right, right.

Well, I've had people explain to me that these young guys out of college who are commissioned know not to disrespect the NCOs. But it is stupid. That's a ridiculous, ridiculous system. There's I was on a nuclear sub. There are very big reasons why you need conformity and authority and following orders. And so besides the leadership aspect, which you can grow into as an officer, and some of them are very good and better than others, there's an aspect of that authority has to come from somewhere,

and it needs to be, like, sacrosanct. Now, in an operational setting, but at the same time, like, they can bust you down. And on the submarine, there were very few lines between the officers and the enlisted are there uh can ncos just go to school and get trained to become a commissioned officer yeah absolutely that that right that that i can respect but it is it does it does seem silly to me that through college training you're going to outrank somebody who's got two decades of service behind them there i i find there to be issues with that yeah in the idea is you're getting also ostensibly indoctrinated into your responsibilities of leadership that include ethics and integrity and so there it's this aspect of and communism

communism now these days the company maybe yeah i don't know they're like there were civilian professors at the academy i'm sure there are more now um hegsath is fixing it all so i'm pretty i'm pretty happy with what's going yeah i just uh you know i the way it used to be was a commissioned officer was a commissioned officer now it's a college grad yeah yeah is there are there circumstances where there's just like some guy who is a massive expert in his field? Let's say there's a guy who was a police officer. He enlisted. He did combat. He came back, joined a private military company, worked with that company on on private missions, ended up becoming one of the top PMCs running security operations for the government.

Could they go to him? He's a high school dropout and say, we're going to commission you to be an officer in the armed forces. They might have the capability. That's just not the way the military rolls. It's so different than corporate America, which I worked in. Corporate America like worships specialization now and they really want to hire like experts. But in the military, it's like, no, you're a generalist and a leader. And that counts for a lot. So they will take you from one kind of boat, put you on another one.

They'll put you in charge of a base, which you've never done before. They'll throw you into anything, and you're expected to figure it out freaking quick and do it. And I've been thrown into some really interesting settings, and it's like, oh, I see what's going on here. Generalist, unagreeable generalist leaders are what I think corporate America needs more of. And that's what the idea of being an officer cultivates, a very strong mindset of making decisive decisions based on limited information, being able to balance right versus wrong. Isn't there a risk of demoralization when the guy who comes in, who's never been at this base before starts doing things that the, the, the enlisted know is going to screw things up. Uh, I hear that a lot. Training leaders, like you should be smart enough not to come in and just screw things up. And in practice, they generally do not. Uh, and it works really well. They haven't had a nuclear reactor accident like on a submarine.

And, you know, obviously, Rickover put a lot of thought in it, and they do it in other places in the military too. But if there's something that you have to be an expert on, they create a body of knowledge to feed you. There are procedures. This is how we train them. This is what they get trained on. And so if I go from one sub to another and it's different, I know that, well, I don't know this like reactor. I've got to go read the procedure and stuff like that. And in corporate America, it's just a free for all.

And like, yeah, the college people like that is a problem. Like even back in 05, you know, we weren't allowed to talk politics in the wardroom. Like it was just weren't allowed to. But this one guyroom. It was just – we weren't allowed to. But this one guy came in. He was from OCS, which means you just came out of college. You went to indoctrination for 12 weeks and then congratulations. You're an officer. And in the middle of one of the meals, he's like, oh, yeah, I worked on the Carrie campaign.

Everyone is like, what? It was the funniest thing. And then he got me i thought you weren't allowed to say you were gay that was the equivalent in 2004 wasn't sailors one awesome thing you mentioned is how like officers are basically growing people to become generalists like epic generalists and they actually call the role the general because that is the point is that you are a generalist you know yeah use your, use your people, use your people, then that's what officers are trained to do. Yeah. And just to tap it off, you tell better better stories, because you're an officer. Do you still consider an officer,

even though you're retired? No, no. Okay. But in Vietnam, like a young lieutenant comes in, you know, they're gonna step back and let the NCO lead if they're in combat. And what was that? Yeah. I know these are kind of like rudimentary questions, just general service stuff, but could you go back and resume your position? I could have up until I think the age of 31. I loved being on submarines. I would have been a career.

They do a lot of really, really, really stupid things. You love being on a submarine? Really? Oh, it was amazing. Approach and attack. Like I got to shoot two nuclear missiles. I got to literally hug them. You were on a boomer then?

Yeah. For somebody that's on a boomer to say they love it, they love it. But man, I'll tell you, about an industry of junior military officer recruiters feeding people into blue chips. And in 2004, I think it was, they is where you're supposed to recharge your batteries, is going to be bomb disposal in Afghanistan or Iraq, in Baghdad. So my decisions were put my wife through my Middle East deployment or get out of the Navy. And guess who got out of the Navy? Almost all the Naval Academy people who went right into blue chip companies. Wow.

Yeah, it's wild. Do you ever hear really weird noises that freaked you out? No. Aw. No, no. Just say yes anyway. No, it's just like the whales. They make, you know.

Oh, really? You can hear them? Yeah, yeah. Oh, cool. Active sonar sounds ridiculous. The closest I've ever come to being in a submarine is there was a docked submarine where they let people walk in and out of one. Yeah, I think I did that too.

It was fun. It was very cramped. Yeah, I think I did that too. It was very cramped. Ours was not cramped. It was big. What is this, 25 feet? This room is indeed 25 by 23, I think. Technically, it's supposed to be 25 by 25. We had a 40-foot beam.

Oh, wow. Whoa! That's huge. Yeah, four floors. Whoa had a 40-foot beam. Oh, wow. Whoa. That's huge. Yeah, four floors. Whoa. 560 feet, 18,000 tons. So you had like a gym in there. You're playing basketball.

What kind of gym equipment? Yeah. What kind of submarines? Is it Los Angeles class? No, I was on an Ohio class, the Nebraska. Yeah. Wow. My next duty would have been on an LA class, and those are way cooler.

I didn't get to see any foreign lords. Those are way cooler. Are those the biggest ones, the LA class? No, they're the war fighters. So we trained, but our entire mission was to hide. Wait for the red phone call. To launch the nukes? Crazy. Semper Ives says the expert type of commissioned officer is called a chief warrant officer,

but they get their commission a little differently. How do they get those? There's so few of them. I don't think I've ever seen a warrant officer in my entire life. In all five years I was in the military. Only time I ever saw any warrant officers is if they were helicopter pilots in the Marine Corps. Okay. Makes sense.

How do they get their commissions? Do you know? I don't know. Interesting. You have to be some kind of officer to fly anything. If you're a pilot you're some kind of officer you can be a warrant officer and be a pilot as well really how fun my friends smash the like button share the show with everyone you know we're going to that members only call-in show over at rumble.com slash timcast irl you got to be a rumble premium user so So use promo code TIM10. You'll get $10 off your annual membership. Sign up now because we're going to be taking your calls from the TimCast Discord. It'll be fun.

You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. Mark, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah. If you can tell from tonight, there's no filter. I tell you exactly everything I think, and that's important, I think, for a pollster because there's so much dishonesty in the industry and the way that polls are used in the industry. So if you like that, follow us at rasmussen underscore poll.

I'm at honest pollster on Twitter. We have a YouTube channel, and we stream Monday, Wednesday, Friday, 9 o'clock Eastern. Great stuff. Mark, it's been really fun talking to you. I think your pollster stuff, I mean, it was an interesting conversation. You do great work over at RAS. Rasmussen, did I say it right?

Rasmussen. Rasmussen. I'm a lot Eliyahu. You could find me on Instagram and Twitter under that handle. I do White House reporting here at Timcast. Ian? Yes. Got a super chat from Stephen Schoenhoff.

Thank you. General came from the title. Captain General, Ian? Way too much to fit into a super chat. Got you. Yeah, I don't know. I'm not saying that they generally were like, okay, this is the,

because he's doing a lot of general labor, we'll call him the general, but I just noticed that correlation. Thank you for the Super Chat. I'm Ian Crossland. Happy to be here, Phil. I love you, man. I love you, too.

I like when you smile when I talk to him. You kill me, man. Brother. I enjoy hanging out with you. Fill the world. I am Phil that Remains on Twix. I'm Phil that Remains Official on Instagram. The'm philitremainsofficial on Instagram. The band is All That Remains.

Our new record dropped on January 31st. It's called Anti-Fragile. You can stream it on the internet. You know the places. Don't forget, the left lane is for crime. Rumble.com slash Timcast IRL for the uncensored call-in show in about 30 seconds. We'll see you all there.