Timcast IRL - Trump Tariffs Spark Global PANIC, Countries BEG Trump, CAVE To His Demands w/ Tiffany Cianci

Episode Date: April 4, 2025

Tim, Phil, & Elaad are joined by Tiffany Cianci to discuss countries panicking & begging Trump for a deal after he signed global tariffs, $2.5 Trillion being wiped out from the US Stock Market, CNN accused of making Trump look more orange, and Antifa attacking TPUSA staff. Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Elaad @ElaadEliahu (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Tiffany Cianci @TheVinoMom (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The race is on. As the global markets are in turmoil and there's chaos internationally. We already have the report from the Financial Times that countries are racing to offer U.S. concessions before the tariffs hit. Indeed. Well, we'll see how this plays out. No one is sure. But on tribal lines, it's pretty obvious.

Conservatives are typically saying it's good. Democrats are typically saying it's bad. The market is taking a hit, but we have no idea why. Some are saying that it's a short, that people are selling off because they're trying to sabotage Trump or profit off of what they think will be his failures. Not that it's actually a genuine reaction to trade. But again, others are saying, yo, when you mess up trade like this, your market is going to sell off. So we will see. That's pretty interesting. Now, in this story, of course, CNN being accused of making Trump orange through a filter. Maybe it was the TV screens. We don't know. But we'll show this one. This has gone pretty viral. And then, of course, CNN once again lying about Donald

Trump, claiming he's putting tariffs on penguins when, in fact, he put a tariff on fisheries. Yeah, because the population of an island was zero. But people work there. They claimed he was putting a tax on penguins because they lie. We're going to talk about that. Plus, we got news. The TikTok ban is looming. Will there be an extension? We will find out before we get started. My friends head over to cast brew dot com and buy some cast brew coffee. It's it's the best coffee. Everyone agrees. At least that's what I've been told. Make sure you pick up some Appalachian Nights.

Maybe you like some Rides with Roberto Jr. or Stand Your Grounds. And if you dive in, you can find out we got Misty Mountains. We got Focus with Mr. Bocas. He's our cat. Rest in peace. And of course, Ian's Graphene Dream sells like crazy for whatever reason. Don't forget, join the Discord server. Don't just be a

passive observer of the news, be an active participant. We are launching the Culture War Live, which is our Friday morning podcast, starting May 3rd, where you as members of our Discord will be able to come to the table and actually debate live on camera on the show with our various guests. So if you want to get involved, join that Discord server at TimCast.com. And don't forget, that uncensored call-in show will be coming up at 10 p.m., but you've got to be a Rumble Premium member,

so use promo code TIM10 at Rumble.com slash TimCastIRL if you'd like to watch that show. Don't forget to smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Tiffany Cianci. Thanks for having me back.

Did I pronounce it right? You did. Okay, great. You did on the first try, too. Alright. Who are you? What do you do? I am a small business advocate, primarily. I do a ton of advocacy for small businesses. I talk about the ways that we can support small businesses, how we can save them from private equity erosion and destruction. And

I do that in Capitol Hill and on TikTok and X. And in every place I'm able to go and spread the word. Right on. We had you on, was it like last week, was it? Or was it two weeks ago? Yeah. And it was, we had a guest who just didn't show up and you rushed out the door trying to make it here in time. But you were telling us about the pending financial collapse from all these businesses that are going under now. Hooters apparently is filing bankruptcy and you predicted it. Yep. So this will be really interesting.

We'll dive back into that after we get through all the other news, of course. But it should be fun. Thanks for joining us. I'm so happy to be back. Absolutely. I had a great time. It was great. White House correspondent Elad Eliyahu has joined us.

Good evening, everybody. I am Elad Eliyahu, your White House correspondent. Phil, how's it going? Hello, everybody. 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 to it. Here's the news, ladies and gentlemen. We're starting off with the big bang from the Financial Times. Donald Trump triggers race to offer U.S. concessions before tariffs hit. Nations prepare offers to Washington,

including weapons deals, dropping their own tariffs and moves against China. When does Trump get to say, I told you so? Should he do that now or should he wait until the deals are finalized? Because I got to say all day it was nothing but finance people, Democrats, liberals bashing their faces on the table, screaming that this was the apocalypse and Trump was burning everything down. And now the Financial Times, not a liberal paper, not it's there. They're the Financial Times are saying, all right, these countries are coming out and saying we're going to offer you some deals. They mentioned the EU. Brussels has offered to drop car tariffs 10 percent to Washington levels of 2.5 percent, said officials briefed in talks. It could also increase energy purchases.

They go say they say few of these countries have moved to retaliate in attempt to reduce its 20 percent tariff. The EU instead is prepared to cut the 235 billion dollar trade surplus it racked up in 2024 by buying more U.S. goods and lowering some tariffs. Trump's swing, swinging global tariffs, which sent markets sharply downwards, were introduced despite charm offenses by countries from Japan to Israel, seeking to preempt the charges of moves designed to mollify the president. So we're hearing Israel's dropping their tariffs. Japan is saying they're going to buy more. It seems like Trump's move just just just wins. I don't know. I mean, the market is down. And I think it'd be silly. You know, I we've got to judge Janine on the five saying I don't care about my 401k. Something that in fact, and I'm just going to say, look, there are people who deeply care about their 401ks.

OK, they rely on that. And so Trump making these moves is risky because people are going to get negatively impacted by this. But if it's short term and it results in a long-term gain is it worth it i think yes no um i definitely think yes uh i think this is really nice uh again because if the goal of the tariffs was to onshore so-called onshore manufacturing again i don't think it was going to achieve that goal but if this was an art of the deal style uh maneuver to create some leverage to be able to cancel out some of these trade surpluses some of these countries have with us or to try to make some concessions on trying to deal with china um this is all in our favor we've had bad trade trade deals for with these countries for some time we've been getting the short end of the stick and this is what it

took to kind of bring everything back together. Markets hate uncertainty. And they are definitely it's very Trump is obviously injects a lot of uncertainty into the market. So we're going to see some turbulence moving forward. But I think the ultimate gain here that we're seeing more than justifies that. I think it's interesting to the people who are complaining the most about the market would otherwise again, talk about hating business people and hating big business. So I just think it's an interesting the group of people who are complaining about this the most. I think that we hate big business. I think if you're dealing with political pundits or partisans, the criticism of the tariffs is baked in. I don't think it matters there. If if you're a person that's

been critical of Donald Trump for everything, you're going to be critical of Donald Trump for this. Of course there's so to take partisans opinions on it, um, I think is you take it with a grain of salt because they're going to find a bad, a negative outlook. Um, as far as, as far as the stock market goes, I think I've said this a couple of times but there's been a need for a correction for a while. We've had, you know, you had interest rates at zero from 2008 until 2017. People were taking loans out and they were dumping that money into the stock market. They're taking loans for zero, you know, 0% interest or really, really, really low percent interest.

And so that's artificially inflated a bubble in the stock market that does exist. And this correction is actually healthy and necessary. Now, before people get all worked up about that, poor people and the people that are working class, they likely don't own a lot of stocks. It does matter to people that are on fixed incomes, people that are going into retirement now. I understand that's true. But the people that are the people that are getting fixed incomes people that are going into retirement now i understand that's true but the people that are the people that are are getting hurt are people that do have assets people that have money in the stock market if you're talking about the working class you're talking about poor people they mostly do not have assets so this actually doesn't affect

them the same way that it does affect rich people so maybe trump is just like i don't really care about those people i mean look if the the stock needs a correction, there's a bubble that's not that's not some kind of thing that's debated. And he talked to talk to most of the economists and most of the people that are in financials and they're aware of that. Go ahead. If you had something to add, please. From a working class or populist perspective, my whole thing is small business advocacy. There's no question some small businesses are going to be hurt by this. There's no question that it will be difficult for them. However, however, when you look at what's going on with small business America and how they're being gobbled up by private equity, they have one move that the pirate equity really engages in where they like

buy and then they slash and then they pay themselves and then they dump it. They do that largely by off-sourcing, like labor overseas and buying cheap goods from overseas. So when it comes to the companies that are already on the track to eventual bankruptcy, nothing that's acquired by private equity is ever coming back to the private marketplace unless it goes through an IPO. And even then, it's almost impossible. So if those are already on that conveyor belt to eventual failure, this is going to expedite that for some of them them but it's going to give small businesses that do business with other small businesses and farms and american

manufacturing a leg up so in that regard i actually think from a populist perspective it's going to hurt the finance bros more than it's going to hurt the small businesses and i think that there's there's a claim to be made there that that's what our small businesses need because i don't see a future for the younger generations of america right now like the finance bros but i do see a future for them in entrepreneurship i also think that probably a lot of gen z are looking at this and laughing i remember the 2008 great recession uh i was broke as a joke and i thought it was funny you know because uh you know i went to apply for a job as a dishwasher at a small diner because I was like, I need money. I found it on Craigslist. And there was a guy standing in front

of me in line wearing a suit with a briefcase. And like there's like a counter. And I was walking up to like ask him about the job. And this guy hands a resume and I can hear him say, like, I'm looking for work and I hear that you have a dishwasher position. And I just laughed and I turned around and walked out. And I was like, I mean, how old was I? 20, 22 or whatever, 22 years old. So there's no I was explaining to everybody like, OK, here's the floor, right? Here's me. Here's everybody else.

Yeah, I can't go anywhere. I can't go down more. So right now, with all the moves that Trump is making, he's very popular among Gen Z. I kind of feel like Gen Z is just shrugging and laughing and being like oh yeah my retirement account i'm so concerned about something i will never have that point uh i was listening to the all-in podcast a couple weeks ago and uh the guy chamath was was making that that exact point there has to be uh a correction in the market and the the people that tend to vote for trump being the people that are populist, you know, geared toward populism, like they're not the finance pros generally.

They're not the wealthy people. They're the people that don't have assets. And this actually does give them a chance to get into the market and get some deals on things if they want. Look, I'm not saying that everyone should be in the market. That's not the argument that I'm making. But the point is, this doesn't hurt the average person that doesn't own assets. And most of Gen Z and probably a significant portion of millennials don't own assets. So I think if you want some insight to the thinking of the Trump administration here yesterday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bennett, not Besson, brushed off stock market

losses following the tariff announcement, saying that's a mag seven problem, not Besson, brushed off stock market losses following the tariff announcement, saying that's a MAG-7 problem, not a MAGA problem. When he says MAG-7, he's referring to the magnificent seven stocks in the stock market that are very overvalued. So he's saying that it's a problem for them, not for MAGA. So I don't think they mind seeing some crash in some of these Apple, Amazon, Tesla stocks, if it means they are going to have leverage to negotiate with other countries. And I think we should be thanking Donald Trump for an opportunity to buy in if, you know, stats show that most people don't have any money invested within the next month or so. Maybe you should be looking to invest some. Thanks to Trump. He's

giving you a good entry point. Yeah. And there's never been more opportunity or there's never been more simple ways for the average person to actually get into the stock market, whether there's all kinds of apps you can get to get pieces of of stock. So go ahead, please. It's foolish for us to suggest, though, that the working class and the younger generation are not going to suffer under this while it's being worked through. It's absolutely like insane for us to think that that's not a reality that they're going to have to suffer. And I want to be really honest, for the generation that's like 30 and under, they've suffered a lot. And they're leveraged to the hilt

and they don't have a lot more room to give. So we do need to recognize that they've endured 08 and they've endured 2020 and they've endured endless debt for jobs that are never going to come, that are never going to pay back their school loans, right? There's a lot that's working against them. We have to understand that.

And we also need to find ways to give them mechanisms back for prosperity because they don't have them right now. If that's the case and they are leveraged the way you say, isn't the best thing to do to get interest rates down, get inflation under control and lower interest rates? Because if they're leveraged, they've got a lot of debt. That interest rate is killing them. I mean, getting the interest rates down might make their $1,600 a month student loan payment $1,400 a month, but it's not going to change the

fact they're never going to get a job that's actually going to pay back the education that what it costs them that we told them would pay them back over time. Like I'm lucky I came in two years early on that side of the coin. I got a house just in time. I my my husband got a federal job that paid off his law school loans right after 10 years. What interest rate did you get that house at? I feel like that's the thing you really want to know. I mean, I didn't get it great. I got in at four. Oh, and then I refinanced at two and a quarter. Oh, that's incredibly good. Yeah, that's the thing that I think that's holding back younger people nowadays. I think the best rate you could get is something like 7%.

I mean, two and a half. The price of a house is going to bar them in. You can never move. They don't have the money to put down payment on. So it's not just the interest rates. They don't have 50, 60, 70 grand to put a down payment on a $200 house. There's a viral video from Boy Meets World where the main character is. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. $2.5 trillion from U.S. stock market. And I got to say, ladies and gentlemen, this year to date, I'm down 20%. I'm down 20%.

And you know what? I don't care. And you know why Trump don't care and why I don't care about any of these stocks? Like, I don't want to see the companies harmed. I get it. But I ain't crying about it. Let me give you some stats. So I asked my good friend, Chet GPT, how many people in this country have a 401 401k?

34 percent of Americans have a 401k. So when Trump makes these moves, 34 percent of people are impacted. OK, I don't want to see anybody lose money. You know, bad policy is bad policy. But this ain't the majority. This is only a third of the country. So the majority of the country who don't have these accounts are not feeling this pain. It gets better. I went on to ask our good friend Chad GPT, what percent of a

stock portfolio? It tries to give me these fake answers. So the first time I asked it, what percent of Americans have 401ks? It says 70% of private sector employees have access to 401k style plans. I said, whoa, whoa, whoa. That is not what I asked you. I said, oh, you're right. It's 34%. When I said what percent of a stock portfolio says actually through a variety of different vehicles. No, no, no, no. I said, that's not what I asked you. It said, okay, 58% of Americans have a stock portfolio. Here's where it gets better. Despite broad participation, the top 10% of income earners own 87 percent of corporate equities and mutual funds. So when you see Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet, Tesla, Broad, Broadcom, Walmart, J.P. Morgan dropping and the media is going, oh, woe is me.

Democrats quick. We're in pain. Donald Trump's tariff plans. What they're really saying is quick, wealthy people. We're upset. So I'm wondering if Donald Trump, when he makes these moves and they say in the media, oh, the stocks are tanking and people's retirements and all that stuff. I wonder if Donald Trump is actually just thinking, I got to be honest, I don't care about these people. They're rich. The person who has the top 10 percent of this country, are they really going to be hurt by this right now? They probably didn't even know what the cost of eggs was, to be completely honest. Now, I got to tell you guys, I don't know

and I haven't known for a long time how much a dozen eggs costs because I have my own chickens. And you too can have your own chickens and never worry about those costs again. But the reality is for the top 10% of this country, they don't know what milk costs. They don't know what bread costs. They don't care about this stuff. It's the working class Americans who are going to benefit from this first and foremost. And they're not going to cry about someone's portfolio dropping.

I think this graph also doesn't do a good job of showing how overvalued, obviously, the stock market is. So if you pulled up Apple stock for the past five years, it's obviously very overdue for a correction. Yeah, the Magnificent Seven are holding up the stock market. And also if you... I'm sorry, go ahead. Apple has not innovated or invented anything substantial

in 25 freaking years. Well, I got to pause you there. They don't. They've not invented anything substantial. We can send it to cutoff. Apple is famous for taking existing things and marketing it better. Yeah, but they haven't even done that. He's a genius.

You know, he knows how to market. My favorite thing was how he took Unix, slapped his brand on it, and sold it for a crap load of money when it was a free software to begin with. But hey, bravo to Apple, right? It's those curvy edges that people really like. Those curvy edges and the weight. They like it feeling heavy. Something about how It's those curvy edges that people really like. And the weight. They like it feeling heavy. Something about how they feel in the hands. But he gets it.

He gets it. Now, take a look at this. Ladies and gentlemen, this may shock you. I have for you the Dow Jones Industrial Average. And as you can see, over the past five years, where's the market drop off? No, no, I know I get it. Looking over the past five years and seeing that in five years, the market is up 92.59% doesn't get it what's happening today. But my point is, look at

every time the market drops. We're here. Is there any strong difference from any time we've seen a big market drop? Here you go in 2022 from 33 down to 28. Okay, today we saw 44 down to 40.5. Look, I got to be honest. When you zoom in on today, they go, oh, no, the market's tanking. When you look at it over the past five years, you're like, can't really see a strong difference between today and yesterday. This is the Dow Jones. If you look at any of the MAG7 stocks, the difference

is even more prominent. It's even more ridiculous. Like Amazon, or even Tesla, or I think even Microsoft, all of these stocks. NVIDIA is the most infamous one because they have the most outrageous P.E. It is a big drop today.

Don't get me wrong. 1,679 for the day. Nearly 4% is big, very big in five days, four percent in one month, six percent, six months, three percent year to date, minus four in one year. It's actually up three point six three. So that's obviously the Biden administration. But the point is, when you look at the five years, it's like there's a there's a ton of moments where the stocks dropped it's it's it's ebbs and flows so the question now is going to be will trump's tariffs result in other countries changing their policies investing in america and making trade better for us and it looks like the answer is it's already started it would be very smart of them i suspect within the next month or two we'll see most of these tariffs drop um except for the big countries like china i think there's going to be issues with down the line. I'll tell you the only thing I care about right now, there's two

groups of people in this country that I care about. Working class Americans who are raising children and Gen Z. Gen Z needs to be able to establish families, otherwise we cease to exist. The middle class working families of various ages from Gen Z to elder millennial, even younger Gen X, need money for their children. I don't care about boomers. Sorry, boomers. I don't care about you. I don't care about silent generation. And I don't care about the wealthy. I don't even care about like the middle upper class. If you have money and you have food and you can't eat, we need to make sure that the people who are struggling and suffering are able to work these things through and make it. Now, the problem is you've got people who can't afford to feed of 2024, you need to make one hundred and fifty thousand dollars per year

to be considered a top 10 percent earner in the United States. How many Gen Zers are anywhere near that number? How many of at 22 years old? You're supposed to have a kid and be married. That was the average for for a millennia and in this this period we're at boomers hold a disproportionate amount of wealth and gen z holds a disproportionate amount less and of debt they own a disproportionate amount of debt they will be saddled with the debt that we continue our boomers continue to you guys ask the question are tariffs going to make it better for the working class of this country?

It's going to take a lot more. Let's say tariffs work, and I think that we will see a lot of reciprocal relief. And I'll say again what I said earlier, which I think it's insane that we're upset about applying a 10% tariff to Canada when Canada is putting a 269% tariff on the goods that we're sending there.

We can't send butter to Canada without a 269% tariff. Why would we not reciprocate in some way? I don't know if it should be blanket, but I do think we're going to see some reciprocal relief. But unless we see a serious market correction, and that's going to take pain, a serious market correction. Gen Z and these younger millennials will never own a home. Let's let's let's be real because it's not just debt. It's also the cost. When when you see these Democrats screaming, the stocks are dropping. Do you know what investors are actually doing right now? Buying stocks. That's right. Bargain bin. Get in while you can, because over the past five years you're 100 up 100 percent oh great

now's your chance to get back in because you know these tariffs are going to be temporary or at the very least the ramifications we see today will be temporary and even if the tariffs stick something is going to change stocks go up stocks go up stocks go down i think the real the big question here is if these are long-term tariffs or not. If we see these tariffs come off and other countries decide to come to the table, then this will be a good move, in my opinion. If we have these tariffs on, tacked on for years, I think it'll just slow down the global economy and hurt both sides.

I think free trade's a good thing in most cases. So I think that's what we have yet to see. I suspect he'll take them all off. But if he doesn't, then we're going to start a trade war with most of our trading partners. Why not? Because if we see like a 10% tariff on cars, for example, people can't afford cars already. Come here. Buy American.

Even American cars will still be more expensive. American cars have gotten really exploitative, though. Look at what Stellantis has done. Stellantis has literally driven up all of their prices, cut all of their quality, hurt their union members, and have literally injured their customers by refusing to do recalls on deadly issues with their vehicles. Like, Stellantis is a nightmare right now. The used car market is trash. Yes, they do. And people can't afford cars to begin with, not to mention their insurance and gas.

And now we're going to make them more expensive is obviously i could see the issues here and when you really start hitting consumers um is the issue and also allegedly there are real problems with how they formulated these numbers i'm not an economist but um there's actually not i actually don't think so the the the uh the white house administration actually released a statement on how they calculated the number. The number actually says currency manipulation, trade barriers. And I think this is tariffs. Let me make sure. Yeah. Yeah.

Tariffs charged to the U.S., including currency manipulation and trade barriers. They basically took the trade deficit divided by the surplus or something like that. What they're basically saying is this is the percentage by which we are giving them a benefit. So we're cutting that in half and charging them on their products coming into us. The idea being they don't buy enough from us. So it's not necessarily a tariff. And the funny thing is, there's this great there's this great analysis. This guy, I think his name was Oren Cass or whatever. I think his name could be getting your name wrong, buddy. Sorry. And he wrote in February, Trump's response to trade imbalance will likely be tariffs. This doesn't mean he's saying they tariff me. I tariff you. But economists, of course, are going to make up any reason to say Trump is wrong when the intent is clear. We can buy, we can, we can give them money, but they, they have barriers and blocks on us. So when we try to sell, we try to sell and make money off them, it doesn't work.

That's why I support more of the reciprocity tariffs than I do like just blanket tariffs. I think reciprocal tariffs are actually intelligent for a negotiating perspective. Look at this. It's really funny. He said Nike shifted production from China to Vietnam to sidestep tariffs only to get hit with new, bigger ones. That makes me so happy. So happy. Look at this.

China, 34 percent tariff. And then you've got Vietnam, 46. Nike stock is down 14.44 percent today. I'm good with it. I'm happy about it. They make their shoes in Vietnam. We need products made in America to support American jobs. This idea that we were going to be the capital city of the Hunger Games of the world and that a country could survive with no one being able to do any work or know how to do work, what you end up getting, you want to know what you end up getting when you have a population that doesn't do any work? You get woke. You get communists. You get DEI. No, work is a good thing. People need passions. They need driving to build

things. So when they took it all away and gave it away, like now we're going to get free cheap stuff. Nope. So I just absolutely love, love love how this played out there are a ton of reasons that the working class are being hit from all sides especially in the younger generations okay it is foolish of us to suggest these tariffs are not going to lead to layoffs in the working class they are going to lead to pain for the working class however there are other issues that are at play. Historically, for every $1 that a product went up based on inflation, 93 cents of that dollar increase went back into the economy, either through reinvestment in higher wages or through new factories or through price relief when there was severe inflation. Right now, six cents of every dollar increase in the average product in America is going back into the economy, and all of it's being funneled to the hands of a very few individuals. Okay. There has been a massive shift. And last time I was on here, we talked about Dodge versus Ford. It's a court case, very famous court case that kind of started this spiral, in my opinion, in a lot of ways,

Ford was trying to be a good employer. I'm not going to say anything about how good of a company they were based on some of the things they did. They were trying to be a good employer and a good neighbor. They wanted to increase wages for their workers. They wanted to reinvest in new factories. They wanted to lower prices on their cars. Dodge sued them. And they said, by law, you have to serve your shareholders instead of your employees. So you're not allowed to raise their wages. And Dodge won. And it made the precedent that has governed all court cases ever since that says that all corporations now have a duty to their shareholders and never the communities or their

employees. And that started the spiral of lack of reinvestment into our economy. And then we continued allowing the tax breaks that come on the back of that. But we could have created a circumstance where we incentivized reinvestment through tax breaks. Instead, we gave blanket tax breaks, even negotiated tax breaks for coming to certain areas versus incentivizing the behavior that would reinvigorate the economy. That's a mistake we've made. And if we don't put those guardrails back on, if we don't fix that, we can't fix the way that things need to go. I want to jump to this story. We got a tweet from Mario Noffel. CNN has orange filter on Trump journalism or just manipulation. A social media storm erupted after viewers alleged CNN applied an orange tint to Trump's face during his Liberation Day speech. Critics say it mirrors past accusations that

Joe Rogan's skin tone was altered on air to discredit his views on health during COVID. While CNN hasn't commented, skeptical viewers see it as a reality editing other than objective news coverage, another blow to public trust. Let's try this video. Now, the first thing I want to say is some are arguing that this is simply the TV having its settings changed. I disagree, and I'll explain why. But here's the video. There's actually no audio, so I'll play it for you. You can see here on CNN, Trump looks pretty orange. When you go to Fox, he I'll play it for you. You can see here on CNN, Trump looks pretty orange. When you go to Fox, he does not look orange at all. Now, interesting.

The speculation, of course, is that CNN made Trump look orange. Take a look at the reds on the left on the Fox News lower graphic chyron and the reds on the right on CNN. I don't see that big of a difference. They look pretty comparable. Now that flag reds are the ones I'm interested in. They look pretty comparable to I would actually argue that the flag behind Trump on the left side looks a little more red, but we can't see it more vibrant. But here's the here's the issue. If a filter were to be applied, the reason why I believe it is true they applied a filter, I'll say it one more time. The chyron for breaking news looks like the same red as the Fox News red.

They don't look brighter. I mean, it's a bright orange up here, or it's like a reddish, you know, brighter here. It's brighter here. This is the White House camera feed. CNN wouldn't apply saturation to their own graphics. They would apply the saturation to the White House camera feed. CNN wouldn't apply saturation to their own graphics. They would apply the saturation to the White House feed. What that means is the flag might look more vibrant in some areas. The graphics should look the same depending on which color scheme they use. Maybe these different ones, but that would result in both in Trump looking like a different color.

Considering this is the White House feed, it appears I don't think this is CNN's camera. It looks like it's sourced from the White House. I'm going to go ahead and say my my belief upon observing of the video is that this is not the TV being manipulated. This is CNN manipulating Trump. And I'll also add Joe Rogan. When CNN aired footage of Joe Rogan, he looked gray and sickly. Yeah. And when they talked about how he was prescribed ivermectin, they put a little horse symbol on the screen as they described what it was. These are not honest actors. Yeah. I mean, it's my thought or I could be misremembering, but I thought that CNN had said that they were going to try to move away from this kind of stuff.

You can't stop one producer. But you know what this does? The question then becomes, why? Why do it? Did you see Joe Rogan's interaction with a CNN journalist that came on his show? Oh, yeah. And it was like, I mean, he was aggressively like, why are you okay with this? Why are you okay with these deceptive practices? I mean, he was aggressive. Why? Why are you OK with this? Why are you OK with these deceptive practices?

I mean, he really went for it. The question of for this story is why would they make Trump look orange? When you watch Family Guy and Family Guy satirizes Trump, they made him look bright orange. When you watch SNL, when you watch these these these parodies on the left, they always make Trump look as orange as they can. They're trying to add grains of sand to the heap that Trump is a clown. He's an unserious person. He's laughable and crazy. But when you watch Trump in reality on Fox News, he does not look that orange. This is not the first time we've seen stories. There have been numerous photos

that have been published in the press written where they have a photo attached to it, where Trump has been saturated to look orange. What happens then is a liberal says he's disgusting. Why does he do this? Why do we have an orange clown for a president? But people who have been to Trump's rallies are like, what are you talking about? So I was asked, how do you know it's not Fox News making Trump look better? And I said, because I've met Trump in person and he's not orange. That's fair enough. I'll be honest. The skeptic or the cynic in me feels like this kind of stuff

has just dropped into the news feed intentionally to keep us from paying attention to real issues and to keep us arguing about stuff that is super irrelevant. Maybe. I don't believe that CNN called up Fox News and said, hey, we're going to— No, no, no. I get it.

But it's possible that CNN was like, we'll get clicks. We'll get a lot of attention from. Yeah, that I think is more likely. I mean, that honestly that I yeah, I would say that's that might be a motivation. Otherwise, I mean, just to discredit him, they have. Sure, they could. They have an army of people that get on there and and you know say orange man bad every night and and they have for the past you know 10 years or whatever so uh i i find it

i find it uncompelling or redundant i guess i suppose they're trying to create a perception of trump among the left and they've succeeded in doing it. They're just trying to feed their red meat to their base. No, I think they're trying to make sure the bureaucratic state, the administrative state wants to make sure that people can't be exposed to reality. Like, how is it that Daniel Negreanu, famous poker player, came on the show? He tells a great story. The very fine people hoax. Trump said Nazis were very fine people. He said us a great story. The very fine people hoax. Trump said Nazis were very fine people. He said, I saw the video of it. And his buddy, another poker pro was like, no,

no, watch this video. And he goes, I've already seen the videos. No, watch this one. So what happens is when you see CNN show you the video, the next time someone comes to you and says, have you seen the video? Your response is yes. I've seen it. I've seen it. And then the conservative is like, so then, you know, he didn't say that. Like, what do you mean? I've seen it. He did say it. And it creates this confusion for Negrano.

He said the dude slid him his phone. He said, OK, fine, I'll watch. And then he saw the full video. It's like what Michael Malice was talking about the other day where he said there was I can't remember who the guy was, but he made a comment about slavery. And he had said something about, I'm not going to actually say the quote, but the quote was, he said, slavery wasn't bad because of this. It was bad because of that. And then what I think was the New York Times he mentioned, I don't know. Yeah. He said they took only his quote where he said slavery wasn't bad because of this. And so they cut out

what he actually said to make it sound like he was pro-slavery. This is what the corporate press does all the time. And if somebody read that quote and their friend went to him and said, do you see what so-and-so said? I read it. I read it in the Times. I know exactly what he said. They'll go, really? And you're mad at him for it? But yes, this is what they're doing with Trump when they edit his image or when they lie about what he says. They're making it difficult for those of us in anti-establishment media, those who support Trump to actually get the truth to people. So I'll say this to the people who are like, I just can't convince my liberal aunt, like no matter what. It's because in her mind, she already saw the video. There's a 10 second video where Trump says they were very fine people on both sides.

And that's all she saw. And then you have a 30 second video where he says, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis, the white nationalists. They should be condemned totally. But every time you say, Aunt Ruth, watch the video. She goes, I've already seen it. I've already seen it. I need to watch it. Yeah. The fact that the, I mean, God, that the very fine people hoaxes is still alive and well,

and it's actually kind of remarkable that it has that kind of Biden ran on it. Yeah. That's amazing. Biden ran on. And I mean, there's Kamala Harris was saying, oh, hey, he said there were very fine people. Barack Obama said the same thing. And this was in the in the campaign just this past fall. You know, like they were still making those remarks. Well, that was actually I believe Negrano mentioned that as well,

that once he actually figured out that the video he had seen was fake or was out of context and he watched the full video, then he ends up seeing Obama lie. Yeah. And he's like, wait a minute a minute again i reference he knows yeah i'd reference the the all-in podcast chamath i forget his last name i can't pronounce it but chamath said the exact same thing he had this one he had this notion that donald trump had said all these bad things and then someone got him to watch it might have been david sacks got him to watch the the uh the whole thing and he was like i have to re-evaluate everything that i know about this guy now because this was this is what i would i would have sworn up and down i believed totally that that is what he said because i saw the the edited video and then when i saw the actual whole video it may it

it makes me re-evaluate everything that i thought i believed. You know, I had Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on my live TikTok town hall show four times. And one of the things people wanted me to ask about regularly were the jabs, right? Not the COVID ones, but just in general. A lot of people saw a clip from a podcast he did where they asked him about whether or not he thought there was any such thing as a safe, I'm just going to do this so that there's no censorship over here.

Safe vaccines. But he started to say, I don't believe there's any such thing as a safe vaccine without double blind testing and the strict standard scrutinization of science that we do on all pharmaceuticals. And that podcast cut it down to I don't believe there's any such thing as a safe vaccine yeah he was quoted on that quote more than 10 000 times he quoted him over the course of his entire and over and over again people would get mad at me that i had him on my cast first of all you need to have him on you can't ask the question if you don't have somebody in front of you i'll talk to anybody i don't care how much I disagree with them. But that one quote, I saw the full version and I saw that, and every news

outlet in America took that one half a clip without the rest of it and ran. Factual but not truthful. But you know what? I love this. I want to create some of those moments. I hate Elad when he brings pineapple pizza. Come on, Elad.

You know, I love you, man, but you gotta bring pepperoni. I love you so aggressively. I refuse to pineapple pizza. Come on, Elad. You know I love you, man, but you got to bring pepperoni. I love him so aggressively. I refuse to eat pizza that has broccoli on it. Why would anyone do that? Let's just make as many of those quotes as we can and give the press an opportunity to say Tim hates Elad. Tim refuses to eat pizza. I think ribs are awful when they're soaked in vinegar.

Don't go to North Carolina. What's the, have you heard this RFK Jr. alleged blackmail stuff? I don't keep up with that. Do you think, I don't want to dive into a whole thing, but just since you mentioned RFK Jr., I don't know. Do you believe there's something funky going on there? And based on something more than just conjecture,

because I mean, I know there's been a lot than just conjecture because i mean i know there's been a lot of just conjecture about i don't know everything you know we're just talking about the fine people hoax a moment ago everything on the internet is just people throwing one at another and seeing what's i i don't i don't know anything there's anything to that okay i'm gonna say that i i am somebody that believes that there are institutions that have lots of blackmail on almost everybody that we elect. That's like so unprovable. And it's so it's such like an easy thing to I mean, yeah, I don't know. Like we can't ever prove that. So there's no way for anybody to say, I don't know. Is there blackmail on Tim Pool? And how do you know? So I mean, I think Tim wouldn't care what anybody thought.

You mean a lot. You're blackmailing me? Well, that's why you said you hated me. That's why he's on the show. I have no choice. Well, I'm your APAC handler. He's going to release those photos of me eating vinegar ribs and pineapple pizza. Yeah, I think that there are handlers. I'm actually a deep state skeptic.

I do know that Ian was down in Nashville, I think, today today filming with candace owens on this issue yeah i haven't gotten to listen to it yet tim so this is the funny part so although you're fairly certain that like there's nothing going on our with rfk jr right with that oh you don't you think he's being blackmailed no i well you said i'm fairly certain no it's just because we do hear so much of this conjecture and i think there's just it's interesting how so people are so certain that there is blackmail on him again i don't know if there is or isn't that's why it's a moot point when people go online and say oh i bet there's

something so like okay show me some evidence and we'll talk about it yeah well i think that's the funny part that there are some people who again i mean i gotta be honest when i was trying to buy the daily wear that was the craziest thing that you would... People thought you'd have enough money to buy the Daily Wire. I mean, is that even... Yeah, my dad owns an emerald mine in South Africa. Did you know that?

I've been an employee here for a while, and it's just such a crazy thing. I don't know much about... You've never been an employee here. Not an employee, but a contractor here for some time. It was just such a crazy thing to even fathom. About my dad's emerald line? If you read any of the transcripts of testimony from the cases that were actually brought

about Epstein, Weinstein, or what's starting to come out with the Diddy stuff, I believe there's a lot of people that have blackmail on a lot of people. I'm just going to say that. I've read a lot of the transcripts of the victims, and there's repeated testimony about blackmail tapes. Sounds like somebody with some blackmail on them. look i mean no no they're testifying that they

were abused people that were part of tapes that were being made for blackmail there's a lot of testimony are you saying that about rfk jr specifically or just a lot of people no i'm saying that that there is specific testimony about specific members even of congress where they've talked about congressional members that were brought into the room and forced to do things. And they were part of the victims in that circumstance. I've, I've heard those tapes. I've listened to that testimony. I've read those transcripts. I'm not going to say I haven't seen it. So I can't say that. But there there's been consistent testimony across several victims that makes you think that there might be something to it for me. Well, I don't think it's fair to call it inflation. I mean, a lot just facilitates my Mossad payments so that I can toe the line.

Everybody needs their handler nowadays. Yeah. We need a wrangled Massey backup. That's why he was the one guy who voted no. In other news, I'm really excited that hopefully Thomas Massey is coming on my TikTok town hall in the next couple of weeks. Let's jump to this next story from Mediaite. Quote, we are not kidding. CNN's Dana Bash roasts Trump for slapping tariffs on an Arctic island inhabited solely mainly penguins, no humans, is now subject to a 10% American tariff. This is not a joke. We are not kidding. These penguins who do not trade goods

or services with the United States, as far as we know, are on the receiving end of a new tax. My panel is back. Let's just get some of the headlines up about that. That's a non-tariff trade barrier. Okay, well, that's true. I mean, it's not going to be. They are currency manipulators par excellence. I'm going to say it right now. You are cognitively deficient if you believe anything they're saying.

At least Newsweek is willing to break it down for us. The islands were included because they're Australian territory, setting a White House official. And they also mentioned the tariffs are part of a new plan, blah, blah, blah. Well, here's the headline. Donald Trump puts tariffs on islands inhabited only by penguins. I don't like the headline. However, when they go in to the story, they actually point out, guess what?

There are fisheries. World Bank data shows that in 2022, the U.S. imported $1.4 million worth of goods from Heard Island and McDonald Islands, mostly classified as machinery and electrical products. Despite the fact the island has no buildings or people, however, it does have a fishery. It is unclear what the imported products were. In the previous five years, imports ranged from $ 15,000 to three hundred twenty five thousand dollars. So let's start with the perhaps the people at CNN are just developmentally disabled and they're like, there's no people there. They're terrifying penguins. Or perhaps they're intentionally lying to you. So you think Trump is a buffoon.

But in reality, the Trump administration said, we don't care where you're selling the products from these are islands and territories that have transferred products and machines to the united states you get a tariff too i mean i don't know i i i don't know what the the situation is about the the tariffs to the uh the penguins of the Penguin Island. I only heard the, I guess, the headlines or whatever. But if it's about fisheries, then I don't see why. CNN's lying? Well, I mean, well, we don't. And laughing? And they literally said, we are not joking.

Trump is tariffing an island inhabited by penguins. And it's like. So the fisheries are off the coast. It's Australian territory and people work there.'m gonna what is what i said earlier which is that there is plenty of substantive stuff they could be talking about to educate the american population about tariffs this is a hyperbolic inflated headline that is designed to create division and distract from actual topics that are relevant to the working class of America. They could talk about substantive tariff issues if they wanted to. They're just seeking clicks.

And that's what this is. And I think it's silly. I mean, of course it's silly. But I think that, I mean, I feel like it's just more of the same. You know, it's more of the same just slander of the administration. I can't believe we're 10 years in and they're still doing it. It's just remarkable to me. The man won the popular vote and CNN is still playing this game.

Their ratings couldn't get lower. In fact, the people who watch CNN are probably forced to do it like clockwork orange. It's not just CNN, though. My live stream show has higher ratings than all of the CNN evening shows. Of course. And I'm a nobody. But it's not just CNN. It's the entirety of the Democrat establishment.

They all are doing all of the same things whether it be you know donald trump is uh you know is there's this one democrat uh operative that's making the exact same comments about people on the right she's been making them forever she said that something ridiculous something that jeremy from the quartering said she said that oh that now they're doing doing full-on national, which is just a rehash of their Nazis. I mean, obviously. And it wasn't like Jeremy said something like you don't need the new iPhone. You don't need the new this. And he was basically talking about being something that was kind of anti consumerism. And it's all the same stuff. It's all the same garbage.

And I think that it goes back to the fact that the left doesn't have they're in they're in disarray the democrats and the left they have no coherent message because they have no leadership and because the people have rejected what they're offering and donald trump has taken the working class from them well a lot now that you're best friends with these people i mean what do you have to say for yourself you're hanging out with them in the White House all day. What do you mean? Yeah, what's up with that? Yeah, what's going on? You put in a good word for me.

I've been applying for the new media seat every week for the last month. You might have to drop the RFK slander. I'm sorry, where were we? RFK loves my show. I was asking in all seriousness, you know, you were in the White House. I was there today, yeah. And so you you've been in, you were in the White House. Were you there today?

I was there today, yeah. And so you're actually surrounded by a lot of these people. Would you describe them as smarmy or just evil? Smarmy. They have a monopoly. The White House Correspondents Association, they used to have a monopoly on coverage. And you could tell that all of them are on the same page. Whatever the front page news is of the day is what you can expect the whole front row of people

to be asking and constantly berating Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt with. Despite her answering the question, they'll ask her the same thing four different ways and kind of just waste her time, frustrate her until somebody else can get hit in with another topic. What's the point of the briefing? It's so Caitlin Collinsaitlyn collins could

look like a movie star um on cnn like like they're fighting so they could have one shot of caitlyn collins and then it's like she's arguing back and forth fighting fascism against caroline levitt that that's the idea it's like a tv drama i with the way cnn sets up the cameras too and then if you watch how they um signal it out it's um i would love that job press secretary it's i'm i'm envious of caroline love but it's just a great job there would never be a real answer from that podium while i was working that job the journalists would be like they don't deserve um uh press secretary pool there's this report that donald trump is saying he thinks the market will be fine despite this uh global sell-off.

Does the administration plan to accept this drop in the market? And then I would be like, okay. And then I drew a picture of a cat. There you go. You can have it. I signed it for you. That's all they'd get. And I'd also order DoorDash.

And I'd be like, you, no, no, don't ask the question. What do you want from Chipotle? Would you like the carnitas or the sofritas? Because you look like a vegan. Yeah. Well, you know, the White House is actually addressing this because there there have been reports that they're planning on tossing out the official White House seating arrangement in the press briefing room. They're already changing up who is allowed in on White House grounds to be a journalist and cover it. The White House Correspondents Association used to have monopoly on it, and now they're actually very shook about what the future of their association looks like. Eugene Daniels is a guy from Politico and the current president of the White House Correspondents Association, and it looks like under his watch, we're actually going to see this deteriorate and then become a completely irrelevant association.

Can Carolyn Leavitt choose who gets to sit in front of her can she kick somebody out the white house correspondence association has no actual power that wasn't granted to them by the white house the white house actually has all the power and what they says go the white house correspondence association only has power based on tradition from can carolyn levitt be like you out absolutely she could she could make the seating chart the the white house correspondence association only has a seating chart because they allow them to. It'd just be a party. And what I would do is I would want – are there any windows to the outside?

Yes. I want them all to look in the window while we have like disco lights, music, and we'd have like catering. And we'd just be – and they're not welcome in. That's – I am kidding. But I want people to hear their threat. My point is what I'm describing is how they view it. So when I'm saying we'd lock them out and have a party, this is what the White House Press, the White House Correspondents Association had been doing the whole time. Only they were allowed in and everyone else had to look through the window and watch them have their party.

There's been reporting now that if they are stripped of their seating chart they plan to have a sit-in so they actually plan to take coverage away from independent journalists and different people in the room if they are disallowed so if they change the seating chart they want to actually take my ability to cover the white house from me um based on apply through the correspondence association to get your seat i did not okay so i you apply through the Correspondents Association to get your seat? I did not apply through the White House. Okay, so I have applied through the White House Correspondents Association. I have tried three times. Would you meet... I'm not going to give you access.

I don't think you even need requirements. No, but they said I had to try because I've been invited to CPAC and I've been invited to the RNC. Wait, the White House said you had to? So when I sent my email to the press office and I wanted to go to the RNC, the DNC, I wanted to go to all of the national conventions DNC. I wanted to go to all of the national conventions this year. I was directed to the White House Correspondents Association

and they said that you have to apply here. So I did. I applied. I sent in my metrics. I sent in 60 articles that I've given quotes in. I sent in examples of my op-eds that I've had published. And if I didn't have a credential from one of their current publications. I was not allowed to be considered. And I could not provide them a credential that I had a full-time job with one of theirs because I was freelancing for all of these places. And I had my TikTok show. And I was like, listen, I'm getting, you know, 250,000 views. I'm interviewing all these presidential candidates. I'd really like to be, I'll pay my dues.

Let's go. And they're like, absolutely not. Get out. They exist to protect one another and the powerful interests of their kind of that simple why don't they kick them out um because cnn msnbc um new york times they do actually provide coverage of the white house it's lies i mean look we just showed they lied about penguin island fox defends them because they're you get short no but because they're short.

No, but because they get access. That's why they defend. They protect each other because they all allow each other to get access and keep people like us out, by the way. It's Peter Doocy, right? Yes. In the White House. Because he's got a Zed. I always mix their names up.

He actually asks challenging questions of Carolyn Leavitt. Sometimes. Sometimes, for sure. Sometimes it's funny. But I don't understand why they don't just say uh everybody up uh because it would be an attack on the freedom of the press the first amendment in our country so then trump is a fascist and fascism is coming back that's what they'd say they already say it they're gonna say that they're saying it literally right now hey you should meet with

president trump and pitch him that i hear his meeting with people and trump let me stand at that podium and one by one say uh sir your name jim smith get out that are getting substantially higher views than than standard evening news broadcasts i want actually i will say this is why are they not welcome i want james o'keefe to moonwalk on that in front of that podium while he kicks these people out and says, fake press got to go. I love James. He's great. I just want him to moonwalk while he does it. Have you ever been to one of his parties?

He's DJing. Yes. He's a great DJ. He's actually really good. Yeah. He gave me a whole lesson a couple weeks ago at a party. He let me like stand back there with headphones and learn how to do things. It was so much fun.

Nice. It was so much fun. He's a very kind man. All right, everybody, let's jump to this next story from the Post Millennial. It is the Summer of Love 2.0. It is just kicked off. Antifa attacks TPUSA tabling event featuring Brandon Tatum at UC Davis. Gear stolen and students assaulted.

Check this out. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, Yo, Tatum's not going to mess around. They just stole the gazebo. Do whatever you want. Do whatever you want all the time. They're not even doing anything. I don't get it. They mugged him. They stole his stuff and mugged him. They stole his stuff and left.

Yep, the cops are like, all right. Are they playing that EDM? Do they do that to try to copyright him while he's filming? The last copyrighted music? Aw. Yeah. copyright accuser. Aw. Yeah. I was dancing. Well, I don't know if this means Summer of Love 2.0 definitively,

but I'm hearing from a lot of the on-the-ground riot reporters that it feels like it's getting hot and it's going to be big. I mean, we were talking about this earlier. My inclination or my intuition is that there is not going to be a catalyst like the george like the george floyd situation that in that will involve the normies that's not to say antifa won't be all riled up and doing things like doing things like this but this is this is typical antifa behavior this is the stuff that they normally do go and they are essentially they just go and they harass you know conservatives and stuff

will they attack you know will they be attacking tesla owners individually i don't know um i don't get the sense that they will um that seems more like something that they've done it i'm talking about i mean they're also seeing 20 years a large a large protest happened in front of a Tesla facility and some guy got arrested for flashing the employees eyes with a green laser. And so the police tracked the guy down, arrested him with the green laser. One of the employees, three employees said that they were injured by it. They were there. Their eyes were blurry and that they were having headaches or whatever. One person left because he didn't want to be there while the protests were going on because they had flashed him in the eyes of the laser. Well, I still don't get the

sense that you're going to see large-scale Antifa attacking the way that it was during the Summer of Love. Based on where we are right now, I don't see that. Anything could change at any moment. Any catalyst could happen, but I do believe, and I'm a free speech absolutist.

I'm a Walter Brandeisian-style free speech absolutist that no one ever has a right to go and interrupt somebody else's protest. You want to protest? You go stand on your side with your permit and you scream louder. Nobody has a right to attack anyone that's protesting anything. They firebombed buildings numerous occasions. There's been around 20 or so attacks on Teslas and Tesla charging stations, and there's an untold number of attacks on tesla vehicles already why would it stop i mean people are figuring out that they have 12 cameras facing every angle and they're going to get caught so nope there's a video two videos in fact where a mother and their children

flick the camera off as they vandalize the car i mean then it's going to take the prosecutions that just started pam bondi just announced 20 years sentence she's seeking. So I want to just add to that. These people seem to be doing it on purpose for attention. They know they'll get arrested, but they also know they'll get a million views. Totally possible. I don't agree with anyone ever defacing property. I don't agree with anybody impeding anybody else's ability to exist.

My point is, if it is already worse now than it was in the past years, what is the logic behind, I don't see it happening? I'm not saying I don't see protests. I don't see George Floyd-level protests without a more significant catalyst than we have now. If this was Trump's first administration, there would have been violence in my estimation, but with Antifa coming up like this, I also think the Trump administration is cracking down on different kind of campus protests by withholding funding or trying to strip back funding from different campuses that are allowing stuff like this to occur. Obviously, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been doing a good job getting anti-American, anti-leftist deported out of our country, stripping away visas from people like this. There was something I actually planned on inquiring with the administration about, and that's about mask bans at different protests for different reasons. In New York, on a part of Long Island, Bruce Blakeman actually banned masks at different protest events.

Governor Kathy Hochul is considering this. Donald Trump would have the ability to ban masks at protests on D.C. We've seen people waving anti-American flags, support for terrorism with their faces covered at these different events. And I think that's another avenue Donald Trump could go down to make sure stuff like this doesn't get out of hand. I want to be clear. I again, free speech absolutist. The answer to any kind of speech that is hateful that is unjust that is lies that is that is hurtful is always more speech to drown it out i i don't agree with harming people physically can you add your free speech absolute can you advocate for the murder of somebody else then does that that that is someone say that yeah absolutely they can it's my job to scream louder

free speech absolutists believe you can direct someone to commit a crime. Sure. I just wasn't sure how far you actually go with your absolutism. It's my job to be the louder voice. It's never to censor, ever. And the counter speech doctrine

written by Walter Brandeis still stands today. It's cited by the Supreme Court all the time. The answer is never ever the silencing of hate speech on like ugly speech untruthful speech it is always to be the louder voice to scream louder to say more to be the truthful one to be the kind one slander does that include slander can we slander people i mean if it's a crime that's causing them financial harm they can take you to court there are types of but with my free speech to slander you i i know this sounds i'm a

public figure it would be almost impossible for me to sue you not if he not if he called you a pedophile yeah if i mean sure like if you call if you accuse me of a crime and it caused me harm like there are so that's the limit to my free speech no you could probably do it you wouldn't support laws banning me from doing so i guess so i don't support silencing speech i'm a free speech absolutist what about obscenities i'm a free speech absolutist. What about obscenities? I'm a free speech absolutist. So like someone should be able to walk around a playground with pictures of adults having sex?

That's not the same as speaking, first of all. If they were saying things like that, like to your children, I don't know. Signs are not free speech. Signs are not free speech. If you're holding a sign, I assume you have free speech to hold that sign if you have the permits necessary wherever you are. So someone hold up a a sign that says um no taxes

if there's no loitering there and they don't have a permit no but if they have a permit and they're allowed to be there yes you need a permit on public land you need a permit to do lots of types of protests that's not free speech absolute i'm a free speech absolutist that you should never be able to censor speech never even when i don like it, even when it hurts my kids. I guess the question is— Even when it hurts things I care about, I don't agree with it. Define speech. I don't agree that—

There's one kind of speech I don't agree with. Well, I actually think it is kind of ironic considering TikTok is the most censorious platform available right now. I mean, from what I hear, they're asking us to point out anything we think is being censored so that they can so it's elitist and censorious i don't think they're elitist no i think that they actually advocate for the working class and provide small businesses with more opportunity than any other social media platform from uh the work that you sound like you almost are a lobbyist on behalf of tiktok nope i'm not a lobbyist on behalf of them i'm a small business advocate tiktok banned us because they said our opinions are outside of their shared reality. I don't agree with that.

And I think you should appeal it. And I think you should go talk to them. They told us no. Do you think you're allowed to talk about Taiwan or the Uyghur genocide or Hong Kong independence on TikTok? I talk about crazy issues like that all the time. No, but that specifically, not like that. You talk about Hong Kong independence and and the uighur genocide in china

and they don't buy any on tiktok i have i haven't i have literally spoken to uh dr dill sign and i talked about that when i had her on wow okay because they actually have a history of that i know that but let's just let's let's dive into this for a little bit um so you don't believe in a right to universal assembly meaning certain grounds in the public sphere require permitting from a public source. I mean, if it's private property, not just anybody can come walk into my like, my like home or public property, public property. Say it again then.

So I said, can you hold up a sign? You said you would need a permit. If you need a permit for that location because it's a no loitering area, I would assume you need a permit. So you have to follow the laws. But once you have complied with the laws, you should be able to say whatever you're there to say. Do you think it would be okay for someone to describe graphic sexual depictions

in front of children in a playground? I don't agree with it, but it's my job to scream louder and chase them out of there. So chase them out. I don't agree with it. I don't agree with them doing that, but I don't agree with censoring something

if it's legally allowed. You defend their right to do it. I would defend the KKK's right to march. I don't agree with itoring something if it's legally allowed. You defend their right to do it. I would defend the KKK's right to march. I don't agree with it. I think it's disgusting. You said chase them out. But it's my duty to defend it. You said chase them out.

Do you mean that figuratively or literally? I mean that with my voice. I don't mean that I should chase them anywhere. I mean my voice should be louder. I should bring more people. I should have the louder assembly. Okay. Can a person hold up a sign that says no taxes in public?

Yeah. With children all around him? With no taxes? Yeah. He says no taxes. And he's in front of children everywhere. If they're legally allowed to be wherever the children are. Yeah.

All right. It's a it's a it's Times Square. Yeah. Can he hold up a picture of the Monopoly guy yelling no taxes? I mean, if it's a trademark violation, then that would be a civil issue. But I don't care if he holds up the monopoly guy. But is that free speech? Is that free speech?

I mean, I would think so. Yeah. What if the monopoly guy is naked? Again, I don't have to like it. But if he's legally allowed to be there and it is speech, yes. So that actually is illegal. So again, not legal.

I don't agree. If they're not doing something illegal, I agree with it. But my question is for you philosophically. I mean, can we hold up the Nirvana album with the naked baby under the water? There's a lot of t-shirts. People walk around in it every day. It's true. And it violates in a lot of places.

You will get arrested for that. New York probably wouldn't arrest you for the Nirvana album because it's a baby that's naked. But the issue is people will say they're free speech absolutists, but I tend to find that they're usually not. I am. So we then have to question what you what you mean by speech, because I certainly don't think you would agree with a man holding up a sign showing two adults having sex in front of children. I don't agree with their decision to do it. But I again, would I be the one screaming louder that they're idiots for doing it? Absolutely.

You're screaming at a guy, but he's holding up an image. Okay. And then that's still my. I wouldn't let him do it. I'd say the police should arrest them. I think that should be illegal. I mean, if the police find it to be illegal, they will. Do you think that teachers should be allowed to tell children about gay sex?

Like in that book, this book is gay. First of all all when you're at work that is the not saying not the same thing when you are being paid to do a job you do not have unfettered free speech uh when you're working on behalf of an employee what about putting the book in a library putting a book in a library i don't agree with banning any book so so if the book tells children how to use grinder you're okay with it i don't like it i can control my children i can decide what they see i can see what they bring home from the library. But what if they just read it at the library and you don't know?

If it's in a public library? Yep. Again, I don't agree with banning any book. Because whatever they can ban on one side, they can ban on the other. What about in school curriculums? For whatever side you're on. What about in school curriculums? School curriculums are not the same thing.

Free speech is not the same thing as a school curriculum. So you would say, would you say to a school, do not put those books? Do not put those books, what, in a curriculum? Yeah. It's as a parent, I would advocate. I think it's my duty to advocate for my kids. Would you take your kids out of the school if they were teaching that? If they were teaching what specifically? So in, it was in Illinois. You know, I did take my kids out of a school and move them to a school I'm more closely aligned with. In Illinois, there was a teacher who is showing 10 and 12 year olds a book called, quote, This Book is Gay. It's the name of the book. And in it, it just, it explains how to use Grindr for gay hookups. Again. Parents called the

police on her. And I'm going to say this again and again and again. Nobody has free speech in the course of their, of their work. And so if the school is ordering them to do that, parents should be turning out and screaming loud in their protest. But there has never been any government in the history of the world that was on the right side of history when they censored their people. Do you think the United States was on the right side of history in World War II? Were we on the right side of history? Yeah, but we made huge mistakes.

So you said there was never a country in history that was on the right side of history when they censored their people? Censorship is never the way. Ever. So any country that censored their people was on the wrong side of history? If that's what they were doing to further their agenda, yeah. Like the United States did in World War II? I would not agree with that part, no.

The U.S. Office of Censorship. And most famously, the line, loose lips sink ships. Yes, no, I don't agree. So then it would not be true that any country that censored their people is on the wrong side of history i have never seen any country that has censored their people that was right or just in doing so no matter what the outcome is i'm utilitarian but i don't believe that the outcome can justify the means if you're giving up a fundamental right to get there because they cannot give it back. Just because we got it back in World War II doesn't mean we would get it back the next time.

OK, we wouldn't. Doesn't mean you wouldn't either. Our founding fathers created our Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, when they created the Constitution and the amendments and everything that our country fought for. One, the First Amendment was first because it is the bedrock upon which all of our rights are built. That is wrong. We cannot advocate for any other right without the First Amendment. We lose our ability to do so.

Actually, there were 17 articles first proposed, which were whittled down to the 10 in the Bill of Rights. Some of them were combined. And the first, I believe, was actually was the salaries of the final First Amendment was decided as the First Amendment. And it was stated so because without the freedom of the press, without freedom of speech, we lose the ability to advocate in defense of the rest. Did you know that for almost the entirety of American history, blasphemy was illegal? Obscenity was illegal. Swearing in public was illegal. So the founding fathers did not believe what you're saying. I am telling you that I believe it. Sure, sure. But the argument that the founding fathers said the First Amendment is the most important only applied to the ideas they

deemed acceptable. They actually didn't believe in free speech as you describe it. They thought that if a person went outside and said, I swear that they should be they should be arrested. And in fact, up until the 70s, people were being arrested for swearing in public. Fortunately, they didn't write it in the First Amendment. Thank heavens, because that's what I defend. Well, right. But the First Amendment only applies, as you describe it, in the past maybe 20 years.

No, it hasn't been 20 years. Like Walter Brandeis was decades ago. You couldn't swear on TV. I agree with you. You couldn't swear on TV, but those are privately owned networks. And then those are public airways. No, no, no, no, no, no. Those are public airways.

They governed airways. That's right. And so the government, which shall make no law respecting the establishment of speech, banned certain speech on public airwaves. And we got there. There were lawsuits sufficient to get us there. So for hundreds of years, free speech did not exist in the country. And the statement of the founding fathers did not actually apply.

I believe it. And I'll defend it all the way right no matter how bad it is my only point is that we've constantly had this argument about the bill of rights and um with the way things should be but as we interpret almost all the bill of rights first the ninth and tenth amendments are the least applied amendments in terms of any and every law. Let's just go ahead and say outright the 9th and 10th do not exist because there's no circumstance in which they're upheld. The right of the states. This doesn't happen. The federal government goes in and does whatever they want,

whenever they want, even if they have no right to do it. I think we're seeing a tilt back in that direction. I think that there's possibility there for some landmark cases. I really do. In terms of states' rights? In restoration of states' rights. I really do. In terms of states' rights? In restoration of states' rights. I really do think that we have some possibility there

on some landmark cases that are working their way through. I don't know the specific cases, but it seems as though the needle has only been pushing towards the federal government between states' rights and the federal government.

Actually, right now, one of the things you're seeing with Donald Trump and these tariffs, he talked about eliminating the income tax and going to a tariff-only. When you when you got the federal government and you no longer need to spend money on the federal government, tariffs might actually when Trump

talks about how we used to be very wealthy when we were only in a tariff system. At the same time, the government was it. So Trump may actually mean it when Doge goes in and shuts everything down and fires all of these people and they get the federal budget down to a pittance and then use tariffs to fund it. They may eliminate taxes or something that effect, which then you have a very weak and almost non-existent federal government. A lot of my followers absolutely hate my position on what's happening with the layoffs. First of all, my husband is a federal attorney. I'm somebody that could absolutely have a husband that loses her job to the federal layoffs. Nobody is mad when they look back and they see it in 1996 when Ross Perot ran and got 18.9% of the vote. It was so terrifying to both parties when he said he was going to slash the federal government by 90%

and he was going to balance the budget. Both sides were so scared of the 19% of the vote that he got that President Clinton took office and his first day in office said, fire 125,000 people. And they did. And within three months, 375,000 people. And they did. And that was the last time we had a balanced budget and a surplus. I think we're really missing the elephant in the room here. The reason why we're in so much debt is because of entitlements. And no matter how much Elon Musk cuts a doge or whatever reform, we could cut our the employees of the government by half. But if we keep paying out Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other entitlement programs at the current rate that we are, given our population curve, the math just doesn't make sense. But it's also the third rail of politics.

Donald Trump, President Donald Trump will not touch this because he will sink in the polls as a result of this. So I don't know where that really leads us. But I feel like in the conversation about our debt and people struggling in the future

and interest rates rising, all of this is a function of the debt that we keep adding to. Yeah, I think the end result of where we're going, I don't know what the probability is, but I think Social Security evaporates. It's the argument that I made. So there's the Sam Seder argument

versus the Tim Pool argument. And I'm being somewhat facetious, but that was the conversation we had. Sam Seder's argument, and I hope I'm getting this right because as much as I think the guy is unlearned, his point was that Social Security is an economic driver. His point was not that elderly people need access to funds, but that when you

give money to the elderly, they spend it creating economic stimulus. And that creates jobs and creates industry. So this large group of people basically take the money from them, give it to them, and they'll all spend it. That's the idea. My idea was people should take care of their parents. Parents take care of the babies. The babies take care of their parents when they get older. We shouldn't be relying on the government because the system is dysfunctional and will ultimately become, you know, maybe insolvent isn't the right word.

But Social Security today can't actually help an older person live. There's no way you're living off Social Security. So my view is let's go back to a family oriented society where the children take care of their parents when those parents get old. And if the parents have 10 babies, guess what? They don't got to worry about much because those 10 kids are going to be able to help take care of those two parents. So I think based on what Trump is doing, there's a possibility to try and follow that route, something to that effect where Social Security is gone. I mean, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. And it's if we had a bigger population, it could potentially be fixed. But our population curve is also part of the issue at hand because we have less people contributing.

And it ends up being a huge Ponzi scheme because I'm paying into a program that I will see no money from. I'd be better off holding that money and investing it myself. I mean, it is a Ponzi scheme, but the only way that we can practically take care of the debt and deficit is by growing. We have to have economic growth that's why things like deregulation and tax cut are cuts are so important because you'll never cut enough of the government you're never going to get people on board to cut social security and

medicare and medicaid so you have to manage the debt and the only way you can manage the debt is by having enough revenue coming in and And you will never tax rich people enough. You tax all the rich people out of existence and you'll fund the government for six months. You will never be able to tax enough to pay the debt. You have to grow. You have to incentivize economic activity. That's the only way. I hope that's how we get there.

But I fear that our payments down on our interest is going to, you know, outpace what we spend on defense. It doesn't. Well, I mean, God forbid. I mean, look, it doesn't. It's the it's not whether or not we hope it's the only option. Other options don't exist. We we have like just going with what Tim just said and like the possibility of going back to a family oriented society or a tribal society where we take care of each other. The problem that we have right now with that even being plausible is that we have two generations in a row that can't take care of themselves. They could never take care of their parents. Never. Unless we figure out how to right this ship with the vast and disparate wealth inequality we have in America, with the wrong bell curve,

with the reduction in birth rate, with the inability for people to afford to move out of their parents' house, let alone get a job, get married, have kids, pay off their debt, is that we've got a lot of problems. How do you think we should address income, so-called income inequality? Income inequality is a byproduct of our putting shareholders before people. And we have taken the onus away because of the vast monopolization and consolidation of our putting shareholders before people. And we have taken the onus away because of the vast monopolization and consolidation of our industries. We have taken the onus away. The further we've removed corporations and their headquarters from the communities they serve,

which is a natural byproduct of sort of the crony capitalism we're living under right now. But the more we've removed it, the less onus we have to reinvest anything. I believe that we've incentivized the wrong types of investment in corporations, and we have to right that anything. I believe that we've incentivized the wrong types of investment in corporations, and we have to right that. So how do you want to address income inequality specifically? Specifically? Because I hear this coming from the left a lot. That's why I ask, and I know what they have in mind. I don't know if you're coming from the same perspective. Everybody can say tax the rich. It wouldn't be enough. What I believe is we need to change the way we incentivize corporations. We need to re-incentivize business development at the

small business level. Right now, the SBAivize business development at the small business level. Right now, the SBA is really the only chance that small business has to get equity, and it's actually pretty hard to do. Right now, banks won't give loans to actual small businesses. They give all their loans to big businesses. So it's getting harder and harder to start or create entrepreneurship, which reduces competition. But at the same time, we've incentivized tax breaks for doing terrible things to communities. We've incentivized tax breaks for paying low wages. We've incentivized tax breaks for offshoring labor.

What we should be doing is incentivizing tax breaks for those that reinvest in businesses here, that reinvest in better wages, that reinvest in building Americans. Is that more regulation? That's more regulation or less regulation i used to be an absolute libertarian that didn't believe in regulation i i i have had to learn a lot about the type of like corrupted capitalism we're learning living in i don't like it but i have not had a single meeting with a sit down die hard anti-regulatory libertarian that learned they're not serious in any serious political way government nobody has let me let me finish that you have to

say i have not had a single sit down with a serious anti-regulatory libertarian that didn't learn from me what i have learned about where our crony capitalism is that didn't at the end of that conversation say i hate regulation but we have to fix this. Okay? Right now we have a system that is blind. We don't have a free market. We have a market that has captured the politicians. Capitalism at its core is a math problem. Okay? Capitalism is an economic math

problem. And economic math problems only do one thing, which is serve the mathematical interest. Capitalism at its core unregulated is at all times trying to get as close to slavery as it can return no no no no no no let me finish this thought it's you don't don't cut me off there because i'll end up with a quote like he was trying for earlier okay at all just said capitalism is as close to no i did not say that i said no i did not say that i said is it is at all times as a

mathematical endeavor trying to get as close to slavery as it can, the most production for the least amount of output, okay, financially. That is capitalism's mechanism. It is only through guardrails that suppress the human condition for greed that we keep capitalism on the straight and narrow. And the more regulation we have pulled away, sometimes we've seen benefit. But we've also seen vast amounts of corruption. Coupling that with the amount of money that we allow corporations to use to control our government, we've removed the guardrails that actually protected capitalism in a free market way. I think the regulation that you're arguing for would actually be counterproductive in the market. What's the regulation though?

So she was implying, you were saying essentially like the low wages that people are forced to take. I don't think people are forced to take low wages. I didn't say people were forced to take low wages. I said we've incentivized low wages. Companies want to pay wages as low as they possibly can that people are willing to accept, right? I think that's... Dodge versus Ford mandates it.

Well, I think that makes sense in a capitalistic system. Why would I pay somebody more than my company is able to pay them? And then if you force me to pay them a minimum amount. That is the precedent is a company must work towards the shareholder benefit, not their employees or company or community. That's not. So what that turns into is the company is incentivized, technically required. You can make the argument. I offered $100,000 a year for this job and they took it. The boss then says you could have gotten them for 50. Why'd you pay them so much? And they'll create a report and they'll mention it. And the shareholders can get mad and say, you are intentionally paying above market wages. Stop. And they're

legally required to say, we must be market competitive for the benefit of the shareholders. So the wages are dropped and you're constantly going to have a circumstance where they're going to say 50. How about 45? Well, the market should decide this, not the regulators. The market is blind. No, no, no, no, no, no. The market is not blind. It's not the regulators. The market is blind. The shareholders have the market is people and demand is made up by the people no the market is not blind it's not the regulators is blind the shareholders have the market is people and demand is made up by the people in the market no no no no okay so in free market capitalism free market capitalism requires absolute transparency and the ability of the market to respond to bad behavior but when we hide bad behavior when we hide that accountability

and when we incentivize, when we've over consolidated, because we're not enforcing our antitrust laws, we're not enforcing our anti-monopoly laws. Okay. The market is not free to act when there is not unfettered competition, which we have allowed competition to be squeezed out in most of our industries. Look at the tech sector. Okay. We just talked about Apple at the beginning of this.

And now Apple hasn't had an actual innovation in 20X years. Apple makes a great product. They're a successful company because people buy and like their products. Apple, Microsoft, all of the big... Nobody's forcing them to buy them. First of all, there's a lot of ways that they force people to buy them. Through their walled gardens and the investment they already have. They're holding a gun to your head and telling you you have to buy these AirPods.

No. Again. People choose to buy these Apple products. Right, so hold on. So one thing you are wrong about, Elad, is that universities actually have deals. It's the exception, not the rule. No, it is not the rule. There's actually companies like Apple will, and I'm not going to say Apple specifically,

although I do believe they have instances where they've done this, will go to a business and say, how much do you spend on your electronics? And they'll say, our budget is a million bucks a year. They'll say, we'll get you everything you need. Give us a list at 950. You'll save 50 grand, but your employees have to use our product. And they'll say, done deal. Then the employees are like, I got a job. And they go, but you have to use this product. And they'll go, I've never used it before. I'll be like, well, then you can't work here. And so I've had dozens of people that I know say that they're university mandated Apple products. The Apple products cost 10 times as much as PC products.

And all they've done is rebrand Unix. They've taken free open source software, slapped their logo on it, and they charge a premium. People decide to purchase this overwhelmingly, though. Okay, take it a step further. Universities aren't the people forcing most people to buy iPhones or MacBooks or AirPods. So it's choice. People have the choice to buy these products, and they buy them because they like them. I think what you're preaching now is anti-capitalistic and actually bad for people. It's because you think the regulators know better than the people in the market. You think regulators should be... You think the market has

the information they need to actually act right now. You think regulators who could be elected could be unelected. It's just random people should decide, right? We should have people have fixed prices. I want to finish what I was saying about what Tim said. No, you guys aren't hearing what you're saying. The tech companies right now, the way that they have stifled actual innovation, why we haven't seen real innovation in decades, is because they literally go to the universities and fund their think tanks.

And when anybody has a fellowship to go into their think tanks that's actually creating an innovative product, they have to sign it away with the intellectual property on entry to the think tanks. Everything from the Wharton School to MIT to UCc davis and everywhere in between these people are extremely innovative all these companies are extremely innovative though and they're explaining a situation that's not accurate to this they are acquiring any possibly disruptive technology before it could ever hit the market they're acquiring it they get ownership of the patents they get ownership of the intellectual property before it ever gets there. Look at the case right now that Trump initiated in his first term against Google for their anti-competitive practices and the way that they were stifling innovation. They won for a reason. And now they're probably going to get busted on April 14th.

Their trust bust is coming. I have a question for you. Do you think the FTC should exist? No. You don't think there should be an ftc at all no abolish them let us have a freer market that's insane so uh here's another question when uh you know those balance bracelets are you ever seen one of those oh yes i have actually it's something that kobe bryant used to wear too it's like it's something that yeah completely fake it used the placebo effect to make people think they had better balance yes that would that was the that was the behind the scenes gist of it in fact, they defrauded people. They would use what's called the center-of-gravity

illusion to trick people into thinking it gave them better balance. Sure, and people under the FTC, people still get... The FTC shut them down. A ton of fraud still committed while the FTC is open, and it gives consumers a false sense of security while under them. The FTC shut them down. Who should do it instead of the FTC?

So you want to abolish the police, too? How does the market do it? Do you want to abolish the police too? How does the market do it? You want to abolish the police? People still get robbed. No, I think that's a different case for society's safety. Because the police make sure... All the time? Absolutely, but the police make sure society is running properly.

I think that's... So does the FTC. You just said that the police... I disagree with how the FTC works, and I think it just ends up being a use of people in power. So one final question. One final question. Do you think I should be able to deceive people so that they give me their money?

I don't think. Yeah. Yeah. So fraud's okay. Yeah. Well, fraud's an eye of the beholder, but yeah, and it happens all the time, and the FTC doesn't stop it. They do. They do.

Not enough. Sure, whatever. So you're arguing you want more FTC? No, I'm saying they don't do the job that they purport to do. Ten minutes ago, you were just dogging libertarians, and now you're the guy that's defending the libertarian position against the two people that are saying there should be regulation. Ten minutes ago, you were a dog and libertarian. No, I think this is anti-capitalistic. And I think, like, again, we're spinning down a narrative that I don't think is true.

Actually, our tech sector is extremely innovative. But I think, like, this populist rhetoric is popular. And that's why I think we're talking into it. Let me ask you a lot. You don't know how I became famous on TikTok at all. Let me ask you a question if um if i could if i'm allowed to deceive people in order to make money do you think that that would be a market advantage people say you people allege you do deceive people for money already though but uh can i can i just can

if you so you said you believe it would be okay for me to deceive people so they give me their money yes and the market should dictate that hey Would that, would the use of deception give you an advantage over other companies? Yeah. And people just, yeah. Do you think then in a free market that operates this way, that the biggest corporations would end up being those that use deception? Well, I think the people in the marketplace, yes, but I think people in the marketplace would be able to overcome that fraud because I think people are savvy. I have trust in people. Yeah but I think people in the marketplace would be able to overcome that fraud because I think people are savvy. I have trust in people. Yeah, I think people are savvy in the marketplace and they would sense out fraud and then people would report on fraud.

And I think that's what we're seeing. Report to who if there's no FTC? To each other. Well, hold on. We talked about it already. And most people don't shop at certain companies, not because of the FTC, but because other people tell them not to. Let's keep going. So then why is it that those bounce bracelet companies never stopped until they were shut down by the FTC? I thought that people would dismount the fraud and shut it down.

Can you repeat the question? If people will sniff out the fraud, how come those balance bracelet companies never got shut down until intervention from the FTC? I think if they wanted to sell the balance bracelets and people were stupid enough to buy them and you're a stupid customer then you should be able to buy their stupid balance bracelet actually okay so going back to my point having an advantage in the marketplace companies that operate through deception will likely monopolize they will become the most powerful corporations i don't think they'll become the most powerful corporations through fraud fraud because i think consumers are savvy and they'll be able to see but they couldn't even detect that a rubber a piece of rubber wasn't

giving them superpowers? No, they could, but it's only a small part of the market. You're going to find some morons in every marketplace to sell stupid stuff to. So do you think pharmaceuticals can just, a drug company can be like, sure, this pill will make your dick bigger? I think pharmaceuticals and healthcare is a different... Should be regulated. That's a slippery slope.

Should be regulated, yes. How do you define a pharmaceutical? Drugs that are prescribed by doctors to do so regulates prescription hhs i don't know who i think it's the hhs tell me the distinction between a supplement and a drug supplements are um all supplements are drugs but not all drugs are supplements. Tell me the distinction. Supplements are supposed to be used for nutrition and drugs. Drugs is a very over-encompassing word, but it could be anything that changes the chemistry of how it works in your body. Melatonin, what does it do? I don't know what each and every drug does, but I think melatonin is supposed to help you with changing some brain chemistry, helping you go to sleep. So it's not a nutrition thing it is a hormone regulation thing but aren't drugs

doing the same thing so like i don't know do you think supplements should be regulated more i'm in our current marketplace supplements are largely not regulated i think they should be regulated more yeah but in gnc you could pick up almost i think i used to pick jack 3d up from i think supplements should be regulated to a certain degree and we'll constantly review. But you're the anti-regulation person, which is why I'm asking. Not on drugs in particular, but I think we really go in off track. You mentioned that we need police because people need to be protected. Do you understand that the only laws in the United States, the only laws that our government has decided that are all of our all of our elected officials decided

were so important to the ongoing health safety and economic security of the country that any american is allowed to enforce criminally are antitrust laws no i didn't think that they are the only laws that i'm allowed to take a company to court because they committed a crime in antitrust law that's you know that um no but can you repeat that one more time? Yes. So I could hear it more clearly. The only laws in the United States that have a criminal element that are criminally enforceable that Americans can bring without the aid of a DOJ or anybody else are antitrust laws because

it was deemed so dangerous to our economic model for monopolies to be able to monopolize in the way they are right now because our antitrust laws are outdated and never conceived of the types of digital environment we live in that we are allowed to prosecute

our own antitrust laws. Did you know that? No. It's true. Wow. Now, I want to go a step further because I believe in a free market economy, but we don't have one. If we were starting at a clean slate, I could get behind everything you just said almost. Okay?

But we're not and we can't be because our free market economy has been so blinded and corrupted by the abuse that has infiltrated the regulators that were supposed to keep the guardrails on. But you're suggesting your solution, as I understand, right, is more regulation. You haven't let me finish a single. I know because you go in circles and don't really say anything in what you say. I think I'm trying to get you to say something specific. That's why I'm trying to understand. Let me give you one specific example that would be required for the free market to work that does not exist.

Give me an example of a regulation you want to see changed? Yes. That's what I want. I want to see the Federal Arbitration Act changed. I want to see the Federal Arbitration Act changed. So in order for a free market economy to exist, we have to be able to see the bad behavior. And then the general idea is that if they're doing bad things, defrauding people or they're hurting kids or they're poisoning people we bring massive lawsuits

and that fixes it and people protest and then the company stops because let me know if i'm mistaken we could sue companies for fraud current i'm glad you said that the answer is in most cases right now no is that true yes because i always see the most ridiculous lawsuits against that's because most of them have been suppressed in the free market economy so that we can't bring them anymore. So like, for example, this, I know this will be a ridiculous example, but McDonald's, there's hot coffee once that was spilled on one of the ladies and she ended up suing McDonald's. That was a little bit different because they'd actually overheated it and

it's been sponsored. Exactly. But you're making it sound like we can't ever. They had been warned over and over and over. Hold on. Hold on. Let me finish. Okay.

Our laws have been so bastardized by the removal of guardrails that the Federal Arbitration Act has allowed corporations to do unconscionable things. And we are not allowed to bring a court case that would allow us

to let the free market know that unconscionable things are taking place. It is getting hidden in secret courtrooms where no one can see. They all have class parameters that make it so we can't bring class actions anymore. So we can't work together to afford to bring the cases. And so bad things, terrible things, deaths, horrible maimings are happening every day in America at the hands of these

corporations. And none of us know about it because it is hidden in secret courtrooms and we can't bring class action lawsuits. Okay. I want to see that law changed in secret courtrooms and we can't bring class action lawsuits okay i want to see that law changed and without it we can't have a free market economy because the free market is blind the only people that can bring those lawsuits are the ftc yeah it's powerful stuff i heard a lot i don't know i still hear about lawsuits against corporations all the time. You're not locking them up the right way, maybe. I don't know if I'm missing something here because I see lawsuits against corporations all the time. I want to tell you what happened.

The reason I went to TikTok, the reason I became this person, I used to be a baby music teacher. I was the head of a union that was targeted by a private equity firm and forced into one of those secret courtrooms. In my secret courtroom, I don't know if you know this, the Federal Arbitration Act that is forcing 1.4 million Americans a year into secret court cases that they don't choose, says that these judges that are paid $50,000 a week by big corporations to rule in their favor, these judges don't have to follow the law. In what court? I'm just sorry. Just so I want to understand. They're arbitration courts that are run by two companies,

JAMS and the American Arbitration Association. Arbitration court. And these courtrooms have been so bastardized to not allow Americans to see the bad behavior of corporations without their knowledge that they're being forced into secret courtrooms where they can't talk to the press, where they can't appeal, where they can't actually seek an enforcement of any law. And they're allowed to make up the law. Wait a minute. The judges can make up the law. They don't have to follow the law. And when they do, you're not allowed to go to an appellate court and demand that that judge be held accountable

for breaking the law in their decisions. In my court case, where I was a baby music teacher, a law firm was allowed, and I say this very rarely, I don't bring it up, I became famous on the cover of the New York Times and the New York Post because my arbitration case, a private equity firm called DLA Piper, was allowed to file

motions to force me to have an abortion against my will so I could be produced faster for a deposition. A deposition they could have waited two weeks for. They were allowed to file motions to compel me to expedite the scheduling of an abortion against my will. They compelled you in this court to expedite your abortion. That's out. I've never heard of something like this. I, maybe I need to read it.

Ask why? Because I had a gag order. And they forced you to? I, yeah. By through, Oh, wow.

You can read about me in many newspapers. Under threat of? If you, if you violate a court order, they can hold you in contempt and you can be locked up. They tried to put me in prison last year too. Wow. and so there's no longer a gag order on this obviously i won my defamation case against them after they sent a bunch of letters to people saying i was abusing children and then sent six letters to the new york times saying i was running a drug trafficking ring at my baby gym wow and

still a free speech absolutist after all that free speech absolutely i'm just i think that the challenge i have a lot is that your position makes no sense. And to elaborate, you think there shouldn't be regulations on some products, but some products should have regulation. You said there should be no FTC, but some products should be regulated. So healthcare, yeah, I think healthcare

should be regulated, but most other products by the government, by government agencies. By the FTC? By the HHS? FTC, they handle the trade laws. They're the enforcer of those laws. Right. There are only certain agencies. So there should be an FTC then because of drugs?

For drugs in particular, yes. So then we'll keep the FTC? Just for drugs, yeah. Okay. I think Doge, Elon Musk, we should send you after the FTC. I think they could do some slashing. And the FTC is one of the smallest agencies in the government, and they're deeply underfunded.

How would you define drug? Well, I think more specifically, I think medicine, things that we are marketing to people to help cure different ailments that they have and usually are prescribed by doctors. For medicine specifically. Drugs is over-inclusive. There's a whole bunch of stuff that's not prescribed. That's a drug. Sure. And that should be governed differently.

Yeah. There's a line for. I mean, coffee's a drug, but I don't think you need to have access. So is ibuprofen. Sugar is a drug. No. Yes. Ibuprofen is a drug and it's over the counter.

You can walk up and grab it, walk out. You don't. So drugs are over-inclusive, but I think once you pass a certain amount of harm for a specific drug to do that is supposed to heal you and cure your ailments, that needs to be regulated differently than a bottle of water. What about topical creams?

You know, on the specifics, I'm not too sure. It depends on what the topical cream is because some ointments need to be prescribed. Healing rashes and preventing infections. I guess it depends on the specifics i'm not too sure it depends on what the topical cream is because some ointments are you know need to be prescribed and some healing rashes and preventing infections i guess it depends on the the ointment i guess we need to have a doctor in here to get into the specifics you're not entirely sure not on every example of every right there's probably a bunch of stuff that needs to be regulated that doesn't qualify as a drug i think the ftc could could lay their hands off a bit and focus on drugs more well they don't do a good job at doing it in the drug market either so i again they're lulling people into a false sense of security as part of the issue include like certain ointments and creams that can affect the body and

potentially cause harm if used improperly but aren't drugs i feel like it would have to be a drug to do i'm not sure i'm not Drugs are specifically things that are usually used to treat, prevent, or cure diseases or ailments. And so it's like as an antifungal, for instance. It's something that could like interact with your body's chemistry to do a certain thing. So coffee, for example. Not topical. Real quick. It depends on the topical cream.

So that means some, yes. I'm sure some do, yes. So non-prescription topical creams may need to be regulated despite the fact they're not drugs. Some of them. So again, drug is kind of a spectrum, if you will. So, okay. The point is, Elad, I'm going to say this before we go to our chats. You're literally just saying there are some products that are not drugs that need to be regulated and the FTC should do that.

Which is a contradictor in your earlier position about the FTC. I think the FTC has too much power here and we could do Elon Musk would do would be fine by cutting half of them. I don't think they do half of the job that they purport to do. And I think the regulations that was it Tiffany was it was eluding to are actually counterproductive. That was my main focus here. We're offering more regulation is actually going to stifle the capitalism that we're trying to Was it eluding to or actually counterproductive? That was my main focus here. Offering more regulation is actually going to stifle the capitalism that we're trying to promote here. I guess that was my larger point here. I don't think we should be getting lost on the FTC and the specific examples here.

I think I was pretty clear on what I thought about that. I'm being called to testify right now in a case. He's talking about medicine. I'm going to talk about another example. Because historically, in a free market, this example would be counteracted by the free market economy and the public. I'm being called to testify right now in a case on behalf of a little girl named Mia Hull. She was seven years old, and she went to a trampoline park called Urban Air. Urban Air was in Ahwatukee, Arizona. They're owned by a private equity firm called Unleashed Brands and Seidler Private Equity. And in this case, this little girl went to this park

where they have a zip line that buzzes around the room. Okay. And it's 30 feet off the floor over concrete floors and metal tables. That's three stories, sometimes four stories in some of their parks. Okay. And I'm being called to testify right now in this case, because this little girl fell off this zip line and broke half the bones in her body and got permanent brain damage. The problem is that when her mom took her to that park, she signed her in on an iPad at the front to say, hey, we're here for a birthday party, and they walked inside, not realizing that buried underneath that iPad language

was a waiver of their ability to bring a lawsuit, forcing them into a secret arbitration court, and at the same time, stopping them from bringing a class action with anyone else, while simultaneously giving them a gag order, a confidentiality agreement, and a non-disparagement clause. So she couldn't go to the press, okay? What she didn't know, this little girl or her mom, is that it was happening in dozens of these urban air parks all across the United States. And the reason no one knew is because everyone signed in on those iPads.

You shouldn't need a lawyer to go to a birthday party. I want to be clear. You shouldn't be able to abuse our legal system that way. And so all of these people were being horribly maimed or getting internally decapitated at their kids party swinging around zip lines from the ceiling, like a ceiling fan. Okay. And this little girl, she is permanently changed. She's going blind. She's got permanent brain damage. Can't laugh. She can't cry. And in my court case, I was sent a huge stack of files from a whistleblower that showed their CEO received a warning that this was going to happen.

He was told if you cut those harness checkers to save on your EBITDA for another cash infusion, these kids are going to get hurt. It said it in these documents. And he said, do it anyway. And two weeks later, Mia was the first victim. Okay. And you know what? In a free market economy, the world would have known. People would be protesting outside urban areas all across America and outside Unleashed Brands headquarters in Bedford, Texas, while Michael Browning sat inside worried he was going to lose his business. But they aren't because these kinds of legal agreements that circumvent the free market have blinded it.

And without guardrails, we can never have a free market again, ever. And people like Mia Hall will continue to get penalized and they will lose their lives and their futures. And people like Michael Browning will continue to become multi-millionaires without guardrails. We're going to go to your chats. Do your chats in now while you can. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. And don't forget, the uncensored call-in show

is going to be crazier than this. And that'll be at 10. So go to rumble.com slash timcast IRL and join Rumble Premium using promo code TIM10. And if you want to call in, you have to join the Tim cast discord server, which is over at Tim cast.com. Sign up today and get in that discord server.

All right. Andre to Gillespie says, Canadians stop worrying about becoming the 51st state. Worry about becoming China's 23rd province. Beijing owns comrade Carney. Oh, knee. How is a witty comment?

That was good. That was witty. True. Hello. Says my parents. Mortgage interest rate was like 13% in 1983. The 4% or 2% rates were artificial. I think it got up to the 20s, didn't it?

20% in the late 80s? It got up to like 2021, I think, yeah. Yeah, crazy. But they also had, you know, $20,000 houses, so. CPR says, Boomer here, I just sold all my gold and silver coins today, so I'll have cash to buy into the stock dip oh wow indeed i bought the tesla dip when uh when elon was talking about buying x and

then tesla tanked down to like 113 or something i was like i looked at it and i'm thinking to myself there's no reason for tesla to have dropped this dramatically it's because the press so i bought a bunch and i love the contrarian stock plays. I invested a lot of money into CrowdStrike after there was some outage with their update. They're still one of the best security software. Full disclosure,

yada yada, this isn't financial advice. My comment section says you're never going to let me come back. There's a second time you're back in a couple of weeks. Why wouldn't you? Yell it a lot? Yeah, you can come back whenever you want. You're going to be invited more back more what are you talking about yep kenneth art says if daughter is watching the next generation for the first time and sure she watches star trek 6 the undiscovered country tell her the frozen klingon planet is greenland and that's why trump bought it the drumhead episode for the win star trek the Next Generation is the best show ever. And funny trivia, Patrick Stewart,

his agent, when he pitched it to him, he was like a seven-year deal or something like that, like some multi-year deal. And his agent was like, it's going to get canceled in a year. Just sign the deal. And then he was locked into the highest rated show at the time. Isn't that crazy? And it's the best. He was great. Yes. Alright, where are we at? Stuart Votzberger says, Wow, YouTube isn't even saying you're live, more or less, notifying me. Geez. Well, if you're

watching, make sure you hit that little notification bell. Not that it matters, but I guess it matters a little bit. The number one comment I've had is asking Tim his favorite Pokemon, which I think is an inside joke I've missed. It's Temple. Which one? Temple.

Temple. Yeah, I'm a Pokemon. You're a Pokemon. You didn't know this? Nobody told me. Bro, are you kidding? I'm a Pokemon. I was told to get your favorite Pokemon.

I assumed it was an inside joke. Where is it? Hold on. Pulling it up. For the record, my favorite Pokemon is Blaziken. I'm a Pokemon. Oh, Tidpole. Oh, Tidpole.

Huh? Like a tadpole. He's so cute. He's wearing headphones. See? He's so cute. That's perfect. He's wearing headphones, and it's literally my name.

See? There you go, guys. What does he evolve into? Hold on. Let me show you. I don't know. Some frog thing. Oh, look.

The pronunciation is Tidpole. Yeah. There he is. Tid the pronunciation is Tim Pool. Yeah. There he is. Tim Pool. Tim Pool. Yeah, you should get a fee here. Someone told me to buy like 100 of these and then sign them, and whenever someone recognizes me, hand it out.

That's such a cute idea, actually. They're so expensive. Stuffies are like 30 bucks. I do have to say that I existed before they made this, which proves they based it on me. Yep. Obviously. I mean, look, it is literally wearing headphones, and its name is Tim Pole.

He's so cute, though. There you go. He needs a beanie. A small aquatic tadpole-like Pokemon. And does it evolves into Palpitoad and Seismitoad? Oh, he's the one that has, like, speakers. Yeah. Well, there you go.

Indeed, I am a Pokemon. There's two with speakers, I guess I should say. Is that why they were asking me? I don't know. I don't know. It was a recurring comment on my X feed today. I imagine so. Indeed.

Yeah, I'm in Pokemon, and all the angry lefties can't do anything about it. And I'm going to just let them know, like, that was intentionally me. You know, they are such big fans. It was introduced in Generation 5, which was, do they have the year on what Generation 5 was? Generation 5, wow. What year was Generation 5? What is it five i have no idea okay you know your pokemon stuff huh yeah my son well so when i was yeah i have a much younger brother and when i moved out

of the house when i was growing up that was the one thing we could do was like when games would first start playing on the internet together and so i would play that early pokemon snap game and then we would do like pokemon red and pokemon pro like my my little brother made me like pokemon and now me and my eight-year-old son play pokemon there you go and i i'm really good friends with i should bring you in i'm really good friends with the guys who own tournament city games and frederick okay yeah so i i go down there all the time and hang out with them play pokemon cool michael cicirelli says cicirelli anything on pizza is acceptable be a friend tell a friend something nice to be honest i love pineapple

pizza i like change on my pizza so i like variety no like oh phil how could you just variety is the spice of phil variety is the spice of, you know, whether it's olives or... Never mind. Falafel? Falafel. What if I make... I only like Chicago-style deep dish pizza. I'm not a pizza girl.

Tourist pizza. Elad, I'm going to order a pizza tomorrow. How could he? And I'm going to put Israeli salad on it just for you. I love it when people call it Israeli salad. That's what it's called. Yeah, yeah. No, well, some people...

What do they call it? Offended. And they... Yeah, yeah. An Israeli salad, some people get offended. And they, yeah, yeah. An Israeli salad. Some people call it Jerusalem salad. Because a lot of Arabs started picking up the Israeli salad stuff, and they get real sensitive when people call it that.

I'm going to order a pan pizza with Israeli salad on top just for you. I'd love that. I got to be honest, it sounds pretty good. You know, in Israel, they love olives on the pizza. Those Israelis. Olives are good. On pizza? Yeah, of course. I feel like it's not very common in the States. No, you're wrong. pretty good you know in israel they love olives on the pizza those israelis are good on pizza yeah of course i feel like it's not very common in the states no you're wrong it's supreme supreme

pizza is like what pepperoni sausage green peppers onions and uh pepper yeah pepperonis pepperonis yeah olives you go to any supermarket and you look at their frozen pizzas and they're gonna have supreme with black olives on it indeed now i want pizza yeah we'll order some tomorrow that's the thing missing out here i don't know if i'm just going to the wrong places or i'm spoiled out pizza oven in inward west virginia has the best pizza i'll give it a shot really really they call it deep dish but it's pan and that's fine it's okay i'm not gonna come down on them because it's really good you know i went to chicago i wanted to get a deep dish slice but they said you have to order the full pie and i was like okay i'm not gonna come down on them because it's really good you know i went to chicago i wanted to get a deep dish slice but they said you have to order the full pie and i was like

yeah i'm not doing this i'm sorry i'm just not gonna try it people in chicago don't eat that well i don't either so because i don't want to order a whole pie it is nice it's it is funny though when people are like oh in chicago you have deep dishes like we don't eat that it's it's for you and then people think they're eating chicago food people in chicago don't eat that it's it's for you and then people think they're eating chicago food people in chicago don't eat that we eat little square pizzas little squares tavern style that's the way to do it but this is good you know sometimes like you it's like a maybe a once a year thing you might do well it's like a family thing because you're not going to take a whole deep dish pizza bro i ate a whole pizzeria uno's deep dish like three months ago

i am no problem that's why i'm like that i don't know i'm i am a i am a vacuous pit i can i'm not kidding if we go to uno's give me a pepperoni large deep dish i'm eating the whole thing the only the only kind of pizza i get down with that's not – like I'm not a pizza girl. I'm just not. But I love really thin crust, like really Italian-style pizza. I want it to like fold in my hand but be crispy on the bottom. Like Portnoy. Sure, yeah. Yeah, good undercarriage.

But he likes – yeah, good undercarriage, right? But he likes like a very Americanized version, and I would like it with like very Italian ingredients. Like give me a margarita pizza. There's a there's a place Not too far away um it's Called taste buds They have exactly what you're talking about yeah It's good it's in

Called um what's it called uh Uh oh god I don't even remember god Oh let's grab some more uh chats All right Russell W says my handmade ring biz Has been suffering from cheap import rings from O overseas markets, drowning me out of the market. Really hoping recent events change things. Much love. Carbon district rings. I agree. Now, I will say I think tariffs need to be strategic because.

I suppose a couple of ways to look at it, like castbrew.com, we have coffee, right? Well, the coffee is literally the region. So you can get Guatemala, you can get Colombian, you can get Costa Rican. We have coffee in America. It's Kona. It's expensive, and there's not that much of it because it's just, it's Hawaii. That's where you make it. So if they're going to put a tariff on everything in general, they're restricting things you can't even make here.

So I suppose the argument is it's a specialty product. Just pay more for it, I guess. The tariffs make sense when it was cars, right? That's why I've been lightly concerned, I say lightly, about universal tariffs. When Trump was talking about steel, aluminum, autos and stuff, I'm like, we can do all that here. That's good. Skateboards, we can do that here. That's good. But if it's literally like Guatemalan coffee is the product that exists only from Guatemala, you know, I'm not sure that makes sense. That being said, I'm an adult. I voted for Trump. I stand by his decisions and I will accept what comes with them. And I'm not going to cry about it. I don't agree with everything he does. Never did. And it is strange to me. There was a

really funny exchange between Clint Russell and Michael Tracy on X. Follow them both. Yeah. You saw that one? Yeah. And Russell was like, you know, Trump is doing a thing I'm critical of. And Michael Tracy was like, you're so dumb. You voted for him. And Clint's like, well, Clint said something particularly disparaging about his birth defects. But the general idea I get from the whole thing is, bro, you don't have to just agree with literally everything Trump does all the time. You can be like, he was pretty good. I'd have chosen somebody else. But, you know, he's all right. Particularly in this context, it is completely acceptable to vote against Kamala Harris. Right. I think a lot of Internet libertarians also projected what they wanted to see onto Trump and gave themselves a false sense of reality completely different from what Trump actually is.

So when they see him doing stuff there, they're all confused. But this was Trump all along. And if you paid attention during the first term or paid attention to anything he's really said or done, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. So my first live stream with Trump was at the Libertarian National Convention when he came and spoke. And he said there were several issues he was going to talk to him about. He made a promise he would address like six specific things. One of them was freeing Ross Albrecht, which he did. And libertarians seem very excited about that. But he ignored Gabriel Shipton and trying to address WikiLeaks and all of the whistleblowers.

And I think he made a good pitch to them at the Libertarian National Convention that was convincing on a lot of those issues. And he has changed his mind about some of that. So I get some of it. But you can't be, like, even libertarians know you can't be a libertarian absolutist when you're starting not from scratch and starting from a system that's already imperfect. The dude abides. 95 says, nah, Tim, F those penguins. Yeah, shut them down.

Hale Gailey says, me thinks the islands were used for money laundering. That's a good point. They just use those and they're like, yeah, that's where it came from. You know what I'll say? I listened to Ben Shapiro's show this morning. Even Ben Shapiro was pushing this penguin narrative. Was he really he was yep he was i think that's why i heard it first and i was confused too because i was like there

seemed there must be more to this because there's never any unincorporated unclaimed land so here's what you do if you've got if let's say you're an australian there's a tariff if you import something if something comes from australia to the u.s they're going to pay an import tax so you ride your boat up to Heard Island, pause for a second, fill out a manifest saying equipment from Heard Island and then bring it to the U.S. No tariff. That's why Trump is putting tariffs on these things. He's trying. It's it's it's it's these people are so disingenuous. Even if no product came from these islands, Trump is basically saying we are not going to allow loopholes. That's it.

Because, you know, they would just go make a dock there and then ship it around. Right. Yeah, well, that's right. And they may still do that. They may. I mean, look, if you're if you're going to lose 60 billion dollars over a year because you're China, they're going to say, OK, let's build an artificial island, put the products there, put up a flag and then say the products came from there, not tariffed.

And Trump's going to then go now put a tariff on that, too. That's the point. What did he tariff China china because that's my favorite uh was it 30 i'm getting a lot of questions about tariffs on russia a lot of people are saying what are the tariffs on russia nothing because russia is sanctioned they're sanctioned yeah correct but trump trump is mulling president trump is mulling second-hand tariffs for those who buy oil from russia right there you go so you get this narrative from the press because they're liars where they're like, Trump didn't sanction Russia. No, I'm sorry to say Trump didn't tariff Russia. No, he sanctioned them. So he's actually barring other

people from doing business with them. Or actually, I think they were already sanctioned. And then he imposed. Actually, yeah, I think he's only been in office a couple months. So they are under sanctions already. So you don't need to. And there's a war going on. And, as you mentioned, secondhand sanctions. Anybody who does business with them for oil trades, he's going to put tariffs on them. So, yeah, he's not helping Russia. He didn't have to put a tariff on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. All right.

Sterling Wilson III says, am I wrong in thinking that more manufacturing makes more jobs, which allows more people to get taxed, allowing U.S. worker personnel income taxes to drop. So you can do it a couple of ways. Volume is usually the best. If I was running a business that sold coffee, I would rather sell at a one percent margin a million bags a week as opposed to having a massive margin, but having to sell you know only 100 bags so what happens is for smaller businesses they need to make more money to survive let's say you're you know a little uh israeli salad distributor a lot elihu a lot salads a lot salads and he only sells maybe 15 per week how much does he have to sell the salads for to make a living? Well, he's got to pay his rent. He's got to buy the materials. So he's going to need maybe, you know,

500 bucks at least a week. And that's bare minimum, which is barely going to cover rent in a big city. So if he's working on the razor thin margins for his own personal costs, those salads are going to be expensive. But let's say a lot gets it up to a million salads per week. Well, bro, I got to be honest. If you made only a dollar off each sale, you're making a million bucks a week. You could actually make 10 cents off of each, 100%. Think about it. I have a dollar. I give it to Elad. Elad's got to pay Phil the tax. So Elad pays Phil 35 cents. Now he's got 65 cents. He then gives 65 cents to me in exchange for services. I got to give Phil 30%. So I give Phil 18 cents, 19 cents. The government eventually gets it all. So the more people, the better. Jacob Jones says, perhaps the penguins are highly intelligent in advance and have been very good trade partners to the U.S., hence why it's only

a 10 percent tariff. Well, I don't know if I'm supposed to say this, but in my interview with Trump, he did mention to me off camera that there is an island where a highly advanced civilization of penguins have created a barrier so that no one can see through it. Unfortunately, one of the penguins actually developed a headband which gave him psychic powers to mind control people. And now he's at odds with the Justice League. Yeah. Yeah. You kind of look like you have the penguin colors with your sweater being kind of white

in the right areas and then black. Maybe I'm friends with the penguins. That's why we've been talking a lot about penguins. This is what people don't understand. It's not Mossad. It's the penguins the whole time. Penguins. That's right.

They've been paying for this show. You know it's illegal to communicate with dolphins in our country? What? Did you know that? Did you know that they were in the CIA? Not to touch them, to communicate with them. Go look it up. Did you know that there was a...

Look it up. Were you trying to talk to them? Is that why they came after you? I am telling you it is illegal to communicate with dolphins in our country. So that's why you stopped trying. Did you know that there was a woman that was living in a house that was semi-flooded with a dolphin and the dolphin was trying to get some from her? It's a true story.

Why do you know that? I've seen some videos of dolphins. It's a very famous internet story. I know a lot of internet stories and I don't know that I... I never heard of that. You got to get on X-Men. You gotta get on X-Men. If you get on X-Men, you learn a whole bunch

of stuff you wish you... I don't know if that was a sales pitch. It's like... Oh my God. Remember that line from The Dark Knight where Scarecrow,

the mobsters are like, your drugs are... Look what they're doing to our people. And he says, I told you my drug would take you places. I never said they'd be

places you wanted to go. That's the internet, basically. You go there and then you just... That's why there's the phrase, welcome to the internet. Sounds more like a Rumble thing than an X-Men thing. My friends, smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Become a member of our Discord server.

Don't just be a passive observer. Be an active participant. Join us at TimCast.com. Sign up. There's a couple different tiers, but if you sign Join us, timcast.com. Sign up. There's a couple different tiers, but if you sign up for 25 bucks, you bypass all the barriers. We have that set up because there's crackpot weirdos

trying to come in and cause damage, but it's 10 bucks a month. You get in there, you share your ideas, you hang out with people. Join us, call into the show. That members-only call-in show is starting in just about a minute or so. Use promo code TIM10 at rumble.com

to watch it and get 1010 off your annual membership. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Tiffany, do you want to shout anything out? I just want everybody to keep following along as we work together to save small businesses in our community. Follow me on TikTok and YouTube at Tiffany Cianci and on X and Instagram at TheVinoMom. Tiffany, it's been fun. I'm sure the after show is going to be even more fun. Can't wait. Hey everybody, I am your White House

correspondent. You can find me at Alad Eliyahu on all the platforms. There's a lot of exciting things going on in the White House press briefing room, so be on the lookout for that. Phil? I am Phil that Remains on Twix. I'm Phil that Remains Official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains. Our new record dropped on January 31st. It's called

Anti-Fragile. You can check it out on all the streaming platforms. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. We will see you all in about 30 seconds at rumble.com slash timcast IRL. Thanks for hanging out. you