Timcast IRL - US Fighter Jet SHOT DOWN, One Pilot MISSING

Episode Date: April 4, 2026

Tim, Phil, and Ian are joined by Scott Pressler to discuss a US fighter jet shot down in Iran, JD Vance accuses Ilhan Omar of immigration fraud, the DOJ strips citizenship from a gun trafficker, Larry Ellison warns AI will monitor everyone, OpenAI buys an AI podcast, and another US plane goes down near Iran.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ Join -    / @timcastirl   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian  @IanCrossland  (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Scott Pressler @ScottPresler (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! LIVE: Trump Address Iran War In Historic Speech | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

A U.S. fighter jet is confirmed having been shot down over Iran. Now, there were two crew members. One has been rescued. And as of the recording of this show, we still don't know the fate of this other crew member believed to be alive and in Iran. Now, the Iranian government is offering a massive bounty. Some reports I saw say it's around 60,000 U.S. equivalent dollars if the Iranians capture this American pilot or crew member. This could get really bad. I would make the argument that if the Iranian government knew it was good for him, they'd stay away from this individual as Trump will lay down hellfire if something happens to this crew member. But either way, we've got videos of rescue vehicles, planes, helicopters refueling, and the search is on. It is intense. We're going to go over all of this. And then we've got a bunch of other news. That's very, very interesting. We've got eight people in California arrested for fraud.

Massive. J.D. Vance is saying, yeah, Ilhan Omar. did commit immigration fraud, indicating that moves may be coming to lock her up, denaturalize, and deport. So we'll talk about all of that, my friends, before we do, make sure you go to timcast.com and join the Discord community. You've got to get involved. We've got tens of thousands of like-minded individuals hanging out, and it's not what you know,

it's who you know. If there's a project you want to get started on and you need help, this is where you find the network to help you do it. Maybe you want to go fishing. Well, you'll find people here. We'll probably go fishing with you. Who knows? Some people have actually gotten married in the Discord.

I can't guarantee that, but I think we've had like three or four couples. It's worth a shot, right? Absolutely. Absolutely. So join the Discord community. Most importantly, as a member, you are supporting the work that we do, and it is greatly appreciated. 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 the great Scott Pressler. Hey, thanks for having me back. And for anyone that doesn't know me, I am the founder of Early Vote Action.com. and my goal is to elect Republicans up and down the ballot and try to save what's going to happen this November in 2026. We've got polling data showing that Republican affiliation is at a massive, massive low, and that is very worrying. I'm seeing all of these polls where people are like, MAGA is perfect. They all support Trump and they're ignoring the loss of moderates, which Trump will need and Republicans will need. So it's great to have here. This is a big problem.

Important to talk about it. So thanks for hanging out. Ian, of course, is hanging out. I'm so glad Scott's here. As one does. Yeah, good to be here, Tim. Thanks, right. We got Carter pressing the buttons. What's up? And, of course, Phil, rocking out.

One on. Let's go. Let's jump this big story here from Axios. U.S. fighter jet shot down in Iran. One crew member rescued search for other ongoing. That story in of itself is very straightforward. That's the latest update we've got. But we got videos.

We got tons of these videos. Take a look at this. U.S. helicopters. flying over Iran. Now, I actually got a point in the now that despite this story being pretty terrifying and brutal, actually fairly optimistic. You know why? The one thing I don't see anybody pointing out, we have air superiority.

Yep. We have such air superiority over Iran right now. We just got a bunch of vehicles floating around, chilling on a rescue mission without worry of being shot down. And the worst attack I've seen thus far is a dude hiding behind a pillar with a bolt-action rifle shooting at a helicopter, which is going to do. do nothing. I mean, like, he's got a one in a lottery tickets chance shot of hitting that American pilot in the helicopter. It's not a particularly good weapon for taking down helicopters. If he was sitting at, if he was holding like a 50 BMG, like anti-material rifle, I'd be like,

well, that one is for hunting helicopters, but you've got to be pretty good. It looks like, while the story may be very worrying for this crewman, it also shows the U.S. basically owns the airspace now. They've destroyed their anti-air capabilities. I mean, look, the U.S. has run something like 20,000 sorties or whatever over Iran since the war started, some ridiculously high number. If they actually did shoot down an F-15, I don't know if it's actually confirmed that Iran actually shot them down or there was a mechanical issue or whatever. But if they did, it still shows how totally dominant the United States military has been

in this campaign. You know, like to be able to go into a country and basically have the ability to fly, like, some saying helicopters, which are, you know, not particularly fast. The biggest concern for all U.S. operations in Iran has always been that they've got tremendous anti-air capabilities. So you could not just fly over. I mean, the U.S. relies on air superiority for taking out, you know, like enemy targets, bases, sites, drone strikes and all this stuff. But Iran had been very, like, let me, let me, let me phrase like this. There's a viral post going around where it discusses one thing we've learned since the start of this war is that

Iran has been dumping decades worth of its economic resources just into war. The people of the country are protesting for an obvious reason. Their standard of living is low. And then you find out it's because almost all the money they get, they just build weapons. So now, in a couple of weeks, as much as I'm not a fan of Trump's statements, like, no disrespect to the president. I hope he wins. I don't want to be a doom pillar or anything like that, a black pillar.

But I got to hand it to him when he says, like we flatten their Air Force, their Navy. it's crushed, it is. And this, I wonder if, like, is anyone going to point this out in the administration just to be like, guys, it's bad that a jet got shot down. That does show they have some anti-aircraft capabilities, but we were able to fly a bunch of rescue vehicles over without issue. I think you don't want to alert or terrify the Iranian civilianry. That's the only downside of this is now they see American helicopters flying over their

city. And it's like, you know, middle of Ohio, all of a sudden you see an Iranian helicopter, you're like, oh, we really are surrounded. Like that, that feeling. Kind of want to avoid that. But, I mean, it does establish absolute and total military dominance on its face. I mean, to be able to, like we were saying, to be able to fly helicopters, you know, they had extensive anti-air assets in Iran and the U.S. eliminated them in, like basically, almost entirely. Like I said, I don't know what shot down the F-15.

But if it was actually shot down by a missile, obviously it's not totally, you know, rooted out. But at the same time, with the number of sorters that the U.S. has flown over Iran, something on the order of 20,000. Yeah, they cooked. Kellyns. It's incredible. It's total. Let me, we got this video. This is reportedly a surface-to-air missile.

Look at that. And I guess it failed. Yeah. They just fire a missile at their own people. I mean, look at the launch point. This is reportedly in Tehran. You can see where it launched from, and then it just landed a couple miles away or a mile or so away. I wonder if they're getting knocked down by like telemetry scramblers from space, like satellites that are just knocking out.

Low orbit ion cannons. Yeah. Stuff that's just disrupting their guidance systems. I've heard that they have been disrupting their guidance system. This sounds slowed down. Yeah. It's definitely slowed down. Yeah.

Give it to me. times two. Let's try and find the speed. It's similar to the disc. Oh, huh. Oh, from machine. No, that's weird.

That's bizarre. I think he's hiding his voice. I think he's distorting his voice. Yeah, maybe. Because the IRGC would have him slaughtered if they find out. Hey, they're trying. I don't think the story is necessarily just the air dominance and superiority. it's the simple fact that this is a different administration.

So President Obama, President Joe Biden, they wanted to fund and use our money to give Iran the ability to fund these wars and missiles, et cetera, versus we have the very administration that was able to capture Maduro and, in one fell swoop, eliminate Ayatollah Khomeini. And so like you said, if I were an enemy of the United States or if I were going to even even, you're going to even. even dare try to take down a fighter pilot, I would be shaken in my boots knowing that President Trump is not messing around that he will actually act and not reward you for your actions. I hope they, I remember that phone call that leaked where Trump was like, I told Putin if you invade Ukraine, I'll mute Moscow. And I told Xi, if you take Taiwan, I'll nuke Beijing. And he's like, I don't know if they believed me, maybe 5%. And that 5% is enough. There's a reason why You know what I love about Trump?

He is both derisively and endearingly called the madman. Yeah. Yeah. This is something I was going to ask you, Scott. Like, I think a lot of the problems with the Republican Party right now are people are disillusioned with Trump because of the way they handled the Epstein files and now a sneak attack on Iran, essentially. I think Iran was the main hit.

He's like, no. New wars. I think Epstein was particularly effective among politically aligned individuals, but I think Iran was the biggest hit. Yeah. And so like you're saying, it is. I mean, essentially, it's a great show of military force, but even when he, like, stated his military goals, he didn't have an exit strategy. He just said, we're going to blow up their stuff.

And then we're going to blow up their energy grid. And then Marco Rubio's like, well, we want regime. I mean, they're insinuating regime. But, I mean, where are you? Are you disillusioned with Trump? I mean, I know you're your powerful activist for the Republican Party, but that doesn't mean, like, Trump's sycophancy or anything like that. But what's, where's your head at? Well, ultimately, my goal is to make sure the president.

is successful and it has four years to do his jab. I think what I'm hearing on the ground is I do believe it's important to be consistent. And so when the president campaigns in 2016, 2020, and 24 and says new wars, I think if he's going to do a strike and eliminate Ayatollah Kamani, he needs to be clear on his communication and why we're doing that. And so I was thinking about it on the way over here today. And I was thinking to myself, President Obama, you could try to say his goal was diplomacy and that he wanted to stop war or create peace with iran by funding them which we know there was going to be no diplomacy under the rule of uh Khomeini and so then you have this administration when maybe their goal is okay no diplomacy let's try to

create new change and see if that works and so i think ultimately i would like to hear from the president and the administration, if the goal, for example, is to take Greenland so we can stop Russian waterway attacks from submarines, you know, through the Atlantic, and then if the goal, ultimately, is to have change with Iran, so then we control the Strait of Ormou, so then we're not funding, our allies are not getting oil from our enemies, but instead they're getting oil from us, I think that's what the American people would like to understand. Does this have to do with making sure we're not funding the very terrorism that is going to be used against us? And if we just had clear communication on that, the American people would be much more, I think, open to the idea of attacks with Iran.

Does that make sense? The question I have is it's an honest question. And I think some people may feel that there's a very obvious answer. This is not meant to make a defendant's statement a moral point. I'm just asking, why is it? honest question. There is such tremendous anti-war and intervention sentiment in the United States. Now, to clarify why I'm asking this is there are tremendous benefits to the United States when we seize other countries, oil assets, or force them onto the petro dollar system. I am not suggesting the

war is good or that I'm saying it's moral. I'm genuinely asking all of you out there what your thoughts are on what are your deepest concerns, what is really motivating people to be opposed to this. I have my answers. I've given it 800 million times, but I'm curious what you think. A hundred percent. I mean, I think I can speak for the majority of people that probably used to be George Bush fans and then they weren't because, like you said, there was no exit strategy to Operation Iraqi Freedom. There was none. It got us into a 20-year trillion-dollar deficit of our country and the American people don't want a repeat of that. It's those are old wounds that we don't want to re-earned. open. And when President Trump was at the forefront of railing against it, very people that voted for him don't want to see him fall to the same mistake that George Bush did. I think that's ultimately what it's down. Yeah, there's like, it's like a tepidness from Trump's administration about acknowledging the military dominance they're aiming at. Like, they don't want to just come out

and say, we want to conquer the Middle East. We want to conquer the North so that we can prevent, we can have military hegemony. Like, it'd be much more convincing to me, to be honest. Yeah. If Trump came out and just said, like, we're going to own all the oil, Iran's going to bend the knee or we'll blow them up. I'd be like, wow. But, well, I get it now. And I think that's what really they're trying to go for. But like you said, we want the clear. It's hard.

Do you tell the opposition where the football is going? Do you tell them what your plan is while the American people have to wait to learn that plan? The issue that I see is we are a, we are a. good people, the American people. We do not want to hurt anybody. We don't want collateral damage. And that makes us very susceptible to propaganda in any direction. The issue is that Trump is unwilling to use these tactics. We heard the story about the Tomahawk missile hitting the school, killing a bunch of school girls. But these are reports coming from Iran largely, and then reports trickle out into various anti-war and anti-establishment forces, so ready to just believe that

the U.S. killed a bunch of little girls. Maybe. I've certainly reported on Obama killing a 16-year-old American citizen. That was admitted to. The accusations against Trump that a commander raid he ordered in his first term killed an American girl. That was accused. We don't have the evidence or the investigation, but I'd want to see one. Our concerns are that we don't want to hurt innocent people. We want to stop the bad guys. But this means that the bad guys could just come out and be like, oh, no, there's a pink backpack in the rubble that means you kill children. And Americans immediately recoil in horror just believing the bad guys. Again, I'm not saying the story is fake. I'm saying we are incredibly acceptable.

And at the same time, you can fall victim to the exact same thing, such as with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where the U.S. fabricated an attack on one of our warships so that we could justify entering the Vietnam War. There's a, we don't negotiate with terrorists as a line in a lot of movies where it's like heroic. You're like, yeah, yeah, good. We're done because terrorists will take civilians hostage and be like, do what we say we're going to kill them all? You're like, what other choice do we have them blowing all of you up at this point? We don't negotiate. That's the right thing to do. I think so. And it's the horrific truth of war. You know, if someone uses, humans as shields, they're all going down.

And this is the macro of the micro that I've discussed on this show quite a bit, and that is one of my favorite stories in my experience with conflict reporting was that the trainers in our hostile environment course, which you had to get for insurance purposes, stated that Americans largely are fine in the Middle East if you get kidnapped. Once they find out you're an American, they'll usually kick you off and dump you somewhere. Because the American response to a kidnapping is special forces guys in the middle of the night jumping out of a helicopter with night vision goggles and massacring all of the of the bad guys. Whereas Germany and Spain are notorious for paying any amount of money. So if you were

German in the Middle East working as a journalist, they're happy to see you there. Now, as to your point, Ian, I think with Iran, we're looking at the macro level of that, which is Iran has been bombing civilians. Iran has been, the best example of this is the Houthi rebels were armed by Iran and they started launching rockets at civilian cargo ships. That is the, we are going to take your civilians hostage and kill them. And the U.S. response is, you're getting the boot down. So I do recognize this. I would say largely, I believe, who was it? Someone mentioned to Bill Burr had a joke where he said, you know, you might say, I don't know if it's the right move to go into Iran and start a war. But no reason. Really? No reason. Right? No, really? Of course there's a reason.

These people are apocalyptic psychopaths. They've been arming themselves to the teeth for decades, instead of taking care of their people, seeking to disrupt international trade, and they've been arming militia groups who kill civilians. And specifically, not just in Iraq, but with the Houthi rebels, you've got a cargo ship from like the Philippines trying to sell fish and they blow it up. Hypothetic. There are ships they've blown up. Why would we, there's a certain point at which we say, we don't tolerate that. Well, but what is our definition of war? You know, just like you were making the analogy of whatever your perception is. So, for example, let's take China for a second. Certainly, we don't have boots on the ground. Certainly, we aren't necessarily launching missiles at each other.

We do have at least two boots still on the ground right now. China? No, in Iran. You're talking about China? I'm talking about China as an example. So basically what I'm saying is... No, no, continue, continue. What I'm saying is our definition of war, uh, it doesn't really matter because China is having illegal births in our country because of birthright citizenship. Those illegal aliens are now American. They send them back to China with full voting rights to vote in our elections. Meanwhile, the Chinese government is allowing for the creation of fentanyl, which is killing us. And they also have Confucius institutes.

And they are also using TikTok as propaganda machine against our kids. Not anymore. I'm blocked on TikTok. TikTok does not allow me to grow. They just shifted control, so all this is now getting sorted out. I've actually talked to some people at TikTok. Well, then I welcome that. But the fact of the matter is I would argue, we are at war with China.

And just because there isn't military involvement doesn't mean war isn't there. And my ultimate point is, I ran, how do you coexist with people that want you dead? And whether we address it now or whether we address it 150 years from now, it is going to be inevitable that we come to the term with these people won us dead under the current leadership and administration. You saw the letter from their president? No. He released a letter the other day before Trump gave his speech and he said, we have never, never wanted hostilities with the American people. Yeah, you're chanting death to America in your parliament. Are you kidding?

Bloney. Yeah, it's insane. Listen, listen. I have tremendous respect. for those who make functional arguments as to why we should not be involved in these incursions, these interventions. And it's because of the risk, the dice roll. We don't know if we can succeed. It's a tremendous undertaking. It's very expensive. It's going to result in civilian death. Do we really want it? The question is, you're at a bar and a guy is being a dick and he's

splashing a beer in people's face and you're minding your own business. People start complaining. And then eventually someone comes to you and says, bro, we need your help. Are you going to keep letting you're the biggest guy in the bar. Can you do something about this? And you're like, look, It's not worth getting into a fight. It's going to get bad. The dude walks up to you and starts shoving you and shoving you. There's an argument here. Back off.

Leave the bar. Bar, everybody leaves. No one's happy. Let the guy do what he wants. But a certain point, that guy puts his hand on a lady. You're saying, all right, dude, you've had enough. Okay? We're throwing you out.

We're taking action against you. Now, the question I have for Iran is, I do not believe there is any functional argument. I'm talking about the efficiency of war. I am talking about the cost of war. I do not believe there is any functional argument that Iran is innocent. Their government has been heavily militarized. They have been attacking civilians. We've already gone through that.

The question is, when is it too much for us to bear? They're on the other side of the planet. The issue for the United States, of course, is 20% of global oil trade for which we're promising you use the petro dollar, will police the seas. And Iran is basically leveraging the threats of violence against civilians. It's a hostage situation. And Obama was like, okay, okay, we'll give you a bunch of money. And then Iran's like, okay, and then we'll use that money unfrozen to start building more weapons.

So I will say this. I like the masculinity of Trump being like, then you're getting the boot. Like we've had enough of this. And I don't think there is a moral argument. I think there is a light moral argument of we may see collateral damage in civilian deaths that exceeds what is necessary and what is acceptable. But morality in terms of the actions of their government, they have already stepped over the line justifying someone to stop them.

The morality argument is if you took someone's food away and then they started stealing food to survive and you're like, hey look, it's a thief. Everyone destroy the thief. Well, you took his food away. And it's the same thing with the Iranian oil supply in the 1900s. But this is completely incorrect. British oil companies.

The Iranians did not need to expend all of their resources in the past 50 years on weapons and missile sites. They could have been making food in factories. And Rubio made a great point. He said, if you want nuclear energy, import the fuel like everybody else and built your sites above ground for everybody to see what you're doing. They're going deep underground and they're enriching uranium themselves. There's only one reason to do that to create

military bunkers for it. It's not for energy. Look, they put on a letter saying we have never wanted hostilities with America. We have videos of them chanting death to America. There's many Iranians who have fled the country and have attested to this. I am not suggesting that's very Islamic. We don't want to harm you, but you've backed us into a corner. We have no choice. We don't want to arm you. Harm, harm. They said, we never wanted to harm you, but we will. Like, that's Iran, the Islamic tradition. Despite the fact they've been chanting death to America. The point is, we do put sanctions on them. But, bro, sanctions are the acceptable above board by any stretch of the imagination,

military action that a country should take. That is, Ian, if you're smacking people around, the first thing I'm going to do is be like, bro, if you keep doing this, I'm not going to, I'm not going to trade with you anymore. That's how remarkable is it that there are anti-intervention people that are angry that we sanctioned Iran. And they're using that as justification. Well, of course Iran lashed out. We sanctioned them. It's like, yeah, they're fundamentalists that have been blowing people up and bombing embassies and fueling militia groups. So we just said, okay, everybody, back off. Don't give them stuff because they're going to blow you up with it. And then people got mad about that. And they said, well, you're sanctioning them. What do you think they're

going to do? The idea that the only solution to sanctions is to attack the United States is a terrible argument. Like, you can actually try to do business with the United States. The U.S., if Iran complied with some of the things that the United States was asking for, they would lift sanctions. Look, the option or the argument that, well, of course they're going to attack. It's like, why are they going to attack the United States? The United States is the most powerful military in the world. Look at what Obama did. He said, unfreeze the assets, let him have the money. What did they do with it? Weapons. Yeah, that's what. Neville Chamberlain did with the Nazis. appeasement, they called it. He tried to appease them. Neville Chamberlain gave Hitler the

Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia and Hitler just built up the army and then, of course. Let's bring this back home. Let's bring this back home. We've got this story from a couple days ago. J.D. Vance, Ilhan Omar, quote, definitely committed immigration fraud. This is from a few days ago. It was on the Benny Show and it's massive. He says, Ilan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America. She has been at the center of a lot of the worst fraudsters at the center of the Somali community. Now, the reason why I use this story, story, even though it's a few days ago, is because birthright citizenship is a massive story right now.

Considering it's looking as those the Supreme Court will be derelict in their duties and allow this country to falter. We have knowingly a sitting member of Congress that our vice president has said, yes, she committed immigration fraud against the United States. For the love of all that is holy, the vice president just said a sitting member of Congress is defrauding us and is not a legal representative in Congress. What, if anything, is to be done about that? Hopefully the new AG will do something about it. I just don't believe it.

But there's got to be, if she's, wait, what did J.D. Vance say exactly? Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States. Subject to the INA, she can be denaturalized and deported. Wow. That's the vice president stating, as fact, a sitting member of Congress is fraudulently here and ineligible to hold a seat in Congress. And this comes after just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives voted on a piece of legislation

that you could deport criminal illegal aliens that had defrauded our government, you know, like in Minnesota. And I think it was something like 165 or 186, one of those numbers. The Democrats voted against the deportation of people that committed fraud. So this definitely tracks. Well, why don't we see the action? Is it because people like Pam Bondi needed to be fired?

It could be. I don't know for sure, obviously, but I really, really hope that the new AG picks up and does 10 times what Pam Bondi was doing. There should be investigations. People are commenting on your accent. Oh, gosh. Are they? I think they're afraid.

I think they're afraid. I think they're afraid of what the response will be. Look, the American people voted for deportation 100%, and not just illegal aliens, but all illegal aliens. If you're here in our country illegally, we want you deported. And when people in our administration go saffed on the issues, that's when people lose the support. And I think people, some, are afraid of the PR war that will be weaponized by Somali

emigrant woman and they're going to try to make this a race baiting, misogynistic issue in my opinion and that's why they won't touch it. Maybe he waits till after the midterms. One of the things that's necessary to save America is for people

that, for most people, to stop worrying about if they're called racist. Do the right thing. Yeah. Because it's right. Yeah. If you, if there's substance to whatever you're, if there's substance to whatever you're talking about, like specifically Ilhan Omar, there's substance there. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's...

No. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's Somali. It has to do with the fact that she probably broke the law. That's why there should be an investigation. There was a criminal trial just recently concluded in New York where a cop killer was acquitted a first-degree murder. Yeah. The cop opened the passenger door.

They were ordering the man out of the vehicle. He refused. They opened the passenger door. And the guy pulls a gun, a 380, and shoots them in the abdomen. The officer then grabs the gun and then, collapses, the shot ruptured his iliac vein, I think it's called, I'm not a doctor, which is, it connects to the aorta and he bled out and died. So he goes to trial and the jury says not guilty of first degree murder. First degree murder is intending to kill a person and killing that

person. And then it's aggravated for if they are a public servant, police, EMT, etc. So it's clear cut. We know he did it. The question then is, why did they acquit him on first degree? Now, he got manslaughter and attempted murder another cop because then he turns the gun to another cop and click and the gun doesn't fire. Point blank at the chest. So what it's all about? Well, the speculation is that the jury, based on race, wanted to acquit the guy. Well. You take a look at the BLM stuff, and I got to be honest, you get a story of a black man who shoots and kills a cop.

I believe if you get an all-black jury, there will be individuals who believe in merit and are not racist for sure. but you will have at the macro level a high propensity towards, we know the cops are evil, we know they're racist, so he must have been justified in some way. I contrasted that data with the election in Chicago in 2023 for Brandon Johnson, and I've brought this up time and time again, but take a look at the voting map compared to the racial demographics. Everyone in Chicago voted based on race. So when you take a look at what's going on with the Somali stuff with Ilhan Omar, you make an interesting point about how they'll make it a race thing, they will.

and white liberals will side with any group that claims racism against Trump, and they'll use that to swing as many as possible in the midterms. Yeah, it's not that I'm afraid, like you were saying, of the response, it's more of a concern for the resistance because just like terminal velocity, you go faster and faster and faster. It's hotter and hotter to a point where you cannot go faster. The heat itself will stop you and then destroy you if you push any harder, like a rocket and reentry if it's going too fast. So the same thing with the mass deportations of dragging people out of their houses. Like that level of heat resistance will destroy you if you overdo it. So you've got to be aware of that in cases like this with Ilhan. She's very popular with some people.

She's very popular with the Somalis that she represents. But that doesn't change the fact that she's broken a law. It's just part of a calculation. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen. I'm just saying that's part of the calculation. A system that is incapable of protecting itself is a system that shall not exist. However, she nearly lost her primary and recent memory. She only came very close to winning her primary.

So she's not as popular. And actually, I would argue, if we have definitive proof, share it. And not only that, but because of the work that Nick Shirley has done to show all of the fraud in Minnesota, I actually think this really helps us. And furthermore, this comes from the state. We want to talk, you know, election integrity and everything else, where they have vouching in the state. state that one registered voter can vouch for up to eight persons without voter ID, proof of citizenship, proof of address, whatever. And so I actually think this could be a winning argument focusing on the fraud argument aspect

of it. I think the majority of people are actually with us on this. Yeah, if there's evidence. I mean, if there's evidence, it's kind of dry. Show it. Show the American people. Get it on every, every podcast, every news organization out there. So real quick, just put a pin, don't forget what you're going to say, because we have an update.

A Black Hawk was hit. Everybody's fine. A Black Hawk, I'm assuming it was a rescue operations in a run was hit, but is fine. There's no injuries. It didn't go down? Did it go down? The update so far doesn't say anything. Is this the back door to get boots on the ground?

Oops, we have no choice now. Our men have fallen. While conducting rescue operations was hit, but everyone is safe and accounted for. And it was tailed by a trail of smoke. across into southern Iraq from Iran. So it seems to be okay, but that's the latest update. But go back to the point you were going to make. Well, it was just that why I'm a little concerned that J.D. Vance made a definitive statement about... Oh, bro. Come on. Without evidence. No, the evidence has been for years. Even the Star Tribune... Show it or something. Yes. Look it up, Ian. It's been there for

a year. J.D. rather than... Well, he's speaking in an interview. He's not going to show up to an interview. He'd ask a question. And then be like, let me... I prepared for this question. I knew you were going to ask me. Star Tribune even said, this is a liberal paper that Ilhan Omar may have married her brother. Like the point being, there is evidence. Evidence is not proof. These are distinct. Evidence presents itself to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Then we would call it proof. But typically proof means you can definitively state it's a fact. Most instances you have evidence and then we try to interpret that to see if we believe it to be true. In this case, there is a ton of evidence she married her brother, which would make her ineligible for citizenship and eligible for

denaturalization, deportation, and removal from Congress. Well, I'm talking about the Black Hawk. What was it? No, you go, you go. I just, that Black Hawk thing freaked me out when you said that Black Hawk got hit. Well, I mean, look, as much as, as much as I hope that, you know, the pilots are safe and that they're returned with, with, you know, without any injury, if possible. Same thing with anyone that was on the Black Hawk.

Trump was talking about, has been talking about the possibility of casualties in this, this operation. since day one, since you started. Indeed. This is a serious, like Iran is a serious enemy. And what we should do is pass a law that anyone who enters this country illegally will be deported to whatever war zone we are actively fighting in. I mean, I got to be honest. If we passed a law that said anyone who illegally enters the United States will be deported

immediately to any active war zone with U.S. engage or any active common. conflict zone for U.S. engagement to aid the U.S. illegal immigration would be just gone overnight. We wouldn't need a border barrier. You'd actually be, you could actually have people at the border saying, come on, come on over. We need the people in Iran to go fight. We need someone. We want to take Ukraine? Well, all right. I think we got 10 million illegal immigrants, you know. But all joking aside, this is why the Congress, a couple members of the House did propose a bill that these illegal immigrants could serve the U.S. military and then gain citizenship. Because it might happen.

With all this conversation about a draft, I only need to say this to my Gen Z friends. Don't worry. They're going to draft the Hondurans and the Guatemalans before you. And hopefully send the robots. And on your message on deterrence, I just want to say, I recently went down to McAllen, Texas, and I did shadowing of CBP and Border Patrol. And it truly down in McAllen, they have a sector down there that used to see

2,500 illegal alien apprehensions per day, and that is now down to 60. Now here's the difference between the previous administration and now. Kind of like what you said, if everything is just rewarded and you know you're going to get a slap on the wrist, then things are going to keep happening. Now, as opposed to illegal aliens

who were released into the interior, and of course they wouldn't come back for their court case because why would they? Every illegal alien that is cat is no longer released on the interior that deported back to their home country. And so they will still try to come back, but they said it's night and day between people wanted to be captured knowing they would be released. Now they don't want to be captured because we have Department of War, Coast Guard, local law enforcement, CBP, all working in unison.

So this is a little nuance to read in between the lines. When the Democrats don't want to fund Coast Guard or ICE, et cetera, or Department of Homeland Security when we're under attack, know that it all is stemming from their goal of trying to bring illegal aliens into the country so they can defraud us and ultimately have them vote in our elections. It all is tying together with the Democrats. Yeah, this has been the policy that Democrats want for ages and ages. They actually want to change the makeup of the electorate in the United States. They've been doing it through the refugee resettlement program.

They were doing it with... In Minnesota. Yeah, in Minnesota. They were doing it with the asylum laws. You're not supposed to be able to get asylum in the U.S. unless you're from Canada or from Mexico. The asylum laws are you stop at the first safe country. The U.S. shouldn't be flying people from overseas to the United States for asylum.

They should go to the first place that's safe for them to stay. That's the asylum loss. Anyone that's here that claims that they're an asylee that isn't Canadian or Mexican, they're subject to deportation because they broke asylum loss. What about like Polynesians that land in Hawaii? Does that happen? No. The first place is one of the islands or something?

No, it doesn't happen because... Japanese. I'm Japanese people. Do you mean they'll go to Japan? Going to Hawaii? There's a lot, there's a lot more places that are closer than Hawaii. And also, you know, you have to, if you're, if you're being persecuted, right, the reason for asylum is you're being politically persecuted, right? The government is after you for whatever.

You have the wrong religion. You have the wrong politics, whatever. There aren't any, any islands that I'm aware of where that happens where the closest island to them would be Hawaii. Hawaii is literally in the middle of the Pacific. ocean. Oh, they'll still make closest geographically. They'll be like, hey, there's other islands. Yeah, it should be places that the closest place that you can get to that doesn't persecute you. Yeah, too much

of the last 15 years has been economic assailies that are like, hey, it was hard to get a job back home. And you're like, bro, that's not an emergency. That's not a reason. That's what Europe is. Yeah. And then they lie. But I will tell you, when I went to Europe and interviewed a ton of these guys, they were like, it was a huge mistake. There's no opportunity for him. So I was in France, and we went to a refugee center, gigantic inflatable tent.

and they made them all live. Like, imagine you have a gigantic... Remember when we were kids? You did the thing where you get the big parachute and everyone throws it. You go underneath it. Imagine there's a pump just holding it up and that's where you have to live from now on.

And there's no chairs. There's no beds. That's what they said it was like. And they were like, there's no opportunity to make money. There's no jobs. They were like, we were tricked. We were told by people come here

and there will be jobs and homes and you come here and there's nothing. And they're like, now we don't know how to get back. It's too cold. The funniest thing. And I don't mean funny. for a lot of these sub-Saharan African migrants who make it to Europe, they've never experienced winter before.

And so it's like going to hell. Yeah, yeah. They're like, I've never worn a coat. I've never seen snow and it's freezing outside. Yeah, it's the absence of God's love is a winter up north. Let's jump to the story. We've got this one from the DOJ. This is huge.

Justice Department secures the denaturalization of convicted gun trafficker and health care fraudster and files complaint against marriage scammer. There you go. This is big. American citizenship is a sacred privilege, not a cheap status that can be obtained, honestly, said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. Well, about her.

These actions reflect this Department of Justice's ongoing efforts to strip citizenship from people who conceal crimes or defraud the American people during the immigration process. Oh, boy, sounds like Ilhan Omar's in trouble. I mean, that's, it would be nice to see. But this is also nice to see the precedent set, that there is legitimate ways to denaturalize people that have come to the United States, even if they got, you know, they can be denaturalized just because you're a citizen.

If you came here, you broke the law or somehow you came here and committed fraud to get here. You should be denaturalized. You should lose your spot here. And you should be sent back to wherever you came from. Yeah, I think the issue is, especially as we're talking about self-identification as Republican is going down, I think a lot has to do with the adjut prop, all of the stuff that was. produced by the left targeting the ICE operations. I was not the only one who warned about this. We all talked about it that if Trump gets in and the immigration operations are dudes and

uniforms with guns dragging people out of houses or cars while they're crying and screaming I utama, he's going to lose support instantly. And I was like, you got to have dudes and khakis and polo shirts, bringing these people to cars, and that's the only way to do it. And unfortunately, some of these guys are bad guys. Well, like even Dave's just pointing this out. where we had our little mini fake fight and then agreed, this is fueling propaganda for the left to take away Trump's chances at actually solving the problem.

And I think that's where we're at right now. Millions of criminals, evil people exploiting our laws, and regular people in this country who don't pay attention, only see the worst of it. This is why I think, you know, there's a lot of lefties that they want the martyrdom when it comes to, you know, fighting with a cop or getting killed. because I got to be honest, Renee Good and Pready, their deaths are probably a huge contributor to why people say they're not Republicans anymore. And it's because they're scared

of being aligned with a law enforcement agency that for any reason killed two American protesters. That kind of blows my mind. I mean, I understand that you don't want to endorse innocent people's death, but those two people in particular, like if they had complied with the lawful orders of law enforcement,

they would be alive. And the issue is there's a guy who works at a pub in downtown Chicago who doesn't watch the news and watches sports. And he's not really political, but people are like, ICE just killed some lady sitting in her car. And he's going, oh, jeez, I didn't want to vote for that. About doing what's right. Sometimes public perception is different than reality. And so what's right, you have to kind of align with the public's perception in order to

manipulate and control to win and to manipulate the public if you want to change the public. and so doing what's right sometimes can be viscerally wrong, you know, what's, what's universally right, what's spiritually right. Reception is reality. Yeah, so you got to, it's so weird way you got to like dip down into the mud to fix the system. That's the importance of psychological warfare. Too many people. And Trump's not willing to engage in it. Yeah.

Too many people think that nice is equivalent to good and that's not the case at all. Like you have to do and or nice is equivalent with right. That's not the case. Like you have to do the things that are. good for your society and the things that are right for your society. Sometimes those things are not nice. In fact, most of the time, they're not nice. Well, I mean, think about it this way. A kid misbehaves. And so one parent says, we're going to take away his toys and ground him. And the other parent goes, no, no, no, no, no, just tell him we'll give him ice cream if he, if he agrees to behave.

Which one is actually going to benefit the kid? The merciless beating, of course, option C. Well, the best thing that could help the kid is a unified front between the parents. There should never be division between the parents. I'm saying just whipped that hand back and whack one time in that kill. I like tough love. You're right. You're right. That's wrong. You got to get a sack of sweet Valencia oranges because it won't leave a bruise. I think that taking a family guy, Joe. You know, tough love is important. I wonder about like the art of war. Is the Trump administration pretending to be strong because they're weak? Like, or they just pretend, are they just blatantly saying they're strong because they're strong? No, I think it looks like they're pretending to be weak. Really? Yeah.

I don't think a weak administration would capture Maduro and eliminate Khamene. But I want to go back for a second. If they were weak, they would have just been a continuation of the President Obama and Joe Biden administration and just give Pallets of Cash to our enemies and kick the cane down the road. I don't think it's good to say drive baby drive and try to drive over a police officer. And I think the only reason why we're seeing the ICE protest today is because of Nick exposing the fraud in Minnesota, and they needed a massive distraction away from the fraud. And unfortunately, we're giving it to them. We're allowing them to protest against ICE.

And now, from what we hear is that we're ceasing some of our operations and we're not going to get all the deportations that we want. So we're allowing them to win. If anything, I say go harder. And what we need to do is we need a league of people out with their cameras. And I'm not thing I want a police state, but Kyle Rittenhouse would not be a free man today if we didn't have video recording of him defending himself. Every time there's a raid, every time ICE is out there, DHS, they need drones filming everything to protect ourselves. But it's not just that the psychological component is one of the most important and it's what they do not know how to do. You send out, so here's the reality. You want to win this one. Ice agents need to be wearing

polo shirts with badges over and khakis. And then people say, but some of these people are criminals with guns. Here's the reality. You send out a bunch of dudes with helmets, armor, and guns, and the public will vote against you. You send out a bunch of dudes and khakis and polo shirts, and the public will support you. But this means that those troops, those law enforcement officers are vulnerable. Indeed, here's the other dark reality. When an armed, armed, federal agent is faced with a threat and shoots and kills the other person, everyone will vote to strip your power from you. If an ice agent wearing a khaki pants and a polo shirt is shot and killed and rammed by an ice agent, they will double your budget. So when,

so perception is reality. You understand, Ian? You have looked confused. What was the last thing you said? You said if an ice agent gets rammed by an ice agent, what did you? By an illegal immigrant or criminal. Sorry. Yeah. Then the people will double your budget. Yeah, the way they If an ICE agent went out and was on video, knocking on a door or pulling a car over and saying, look, we have an order for deportation. And then the guy pulls out of gun and shoots him and he falls back and dies. The entire country would flip Republican, like it would be spiking like crazy. And Trump would come out and say, this was a peaceful, civil operation.

And these criminal cartels are killing our brave men and women uniform who have shown nothing but kindness and restraint. Instead, we have the opposite. it regardless of what you think about the law, I believe the federal agents are being protected and they are justified. And we've already talked to great length about Preddy and René Good. But the perception of the moderate voter who doesn't pay attention to what's going on is that Jack Boot, Gestapo went out and just massacred people. And they are going to vote against you and you will lose your power. So pick your poison. The world, like, it is only those who live in the fairy tale reality that think that life.

is going to be just clear cut. Everything's going to be easy and above board. Yeah, everything's tradeoffs. The idea of, you know, Thomas Sowell says it the best. He says that, you know, there are no answers. There are just tradeoffs. You get more of one thing that you like at the expense of less of something else that you like and vice versa. I concern about like arming up the ice agents giving the masks. It's like the first step towards stormtrooper armor because you want to protect their identity. but then you have stormtroopers. What's the problem?

What do you mean by stormtrooper? Like they're all masked and you don't know who's who. No one has accountability. They all have badges with badge numbers on them. The stormtroopers? Oh no, you're talking about, well, they don't. Ice agents. They get to the point where they don't because they totally.

He's arguing that you get to that point. This is the first step that eventually you end up with like unnamed, unaccountable police. And I agree. Yeah. And David Ellison, like you were saying Scott about, you know, observing the battlefield about having like basically spy tech drones patrolling and David Ellison who his son or I'm sorry Larry Ellison whose son bought TikTok David Ellison. Larry Ellison is the owner of Oracle or he's the with the VP of Oracle whatever he was at Oracle one of the richest men in the world he wants a totalitarian

police state where we he thinks there's actually a crazy quote by Larry Ellison when did he say that oh this is a great quote he's on stage and he says like we need to protect see if you can pull this some. Larry Ellison. Let's find it. Yeah, you got it. Um, he said police state. He said we need like a surveillance surveillance. Surveillance. Look for Larry Ellison. Well, because that's the default. Uh, total surveillance. You'll see him sitting on stage when he says it. This? Prap. That's it. Let's see what. This is crazy. We'll be on their best behavior because we record, we're constantly recording watching and recording everything that's going on. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly recording and

reporting everything that's going on. And it's unimpeachable. The cars, the cars have cameras, you know, cameras on them. I think we have a squad car here someplace. But those kind of applications using AI, we can use AI, and we're using AI to monitor the video. So if that altercation had occurred, it occurred in Memphis, the chief of police would be immediately notified.

It's not people that are looking at those cameras. It's AI that's looking at the camera. No, no, no. You can't do this. It would be like a shooting. That's going to be immediately, that's going to be an event that's immediately, an alarm is going to go off.

It's going to be, and we're going to, we're going to have supervision. In other words, every police officer is going to be supervised at all times. This is the, you know what he's, real quick, just to address this, he's completely incorrect.

Apparently, Larry is not a deeply political individual. And I think that's why he's been late to the game. famously he's purchased CBS they may be uh they're doing a hostile bid to take over i think warner brothers is that what it was yet netflix and they were they were fighting over it and uh one may may ask why it is now after all this time many of these prominent billionaires have all of a sudden understood why woke is so dangerous and why you need to support against it if he had been actively paying attention what was going on he would know what scott adams said with one screen featuring two movies that is you will have surveillance footage

from 12 angles of, say, George Floyd incident, and it won't matter. There will be no clean justification on either side. There will be people who say, I don't care. I see what Chauvin did. He shouldn't have. And other people going, Chauvin showed up after the fact. How is he supposed to know? And it won't matter because opinions are going to exist whether people can see the footage or not. Yeah, I think this adherence to totalitarian observation police state is not the answer. My concern is that people start to ask for it because they're like, we need surveillance to stop this threat. We need this. People don't ask for it.

They just get it like because it comes in their cell phone. Well, I pitched it. I did say when we're doing operations as protection for our force to be able to say, no, this is what actually happened versus allowing the court of public opinion to then. Didn't matter. We have video of Renee Goods, tires, accelerating towards the office. drive. Exactly. The wheels spin towards the officer but skid out on the ice. Then she, she, he, he opens fire. It doesn't matter what actually happened. There are people who are like, don't know, don't care. You're right. There are people who, whose opinion is, even if he was going to get hit,

he shouldn't have shot her. And liberals will tell you that. Then there are conservatives who would say, as soon as she had put the car into drive before she even accelerated, he should have stopped her. I love police cam body footage. I do. Like, I think it's really helped kind of balance out society. But I don't know. Like, if it goes too far, I guess it goes back out of balance. I want to be able to take a crap in public and not get a ticket, you know?

What? That didn't mean to say that out loud. I think what we need is we need, we need, uh, I like body camera footage. And I like people filming cops because cops should be held to a higher standard than, uh, than the average person. So we expect of them to do a dangerous job. We expect of them to be respected for doing that job. I certainly do. But we also expect that if a cop is a dick or a corrupt, they will be held to a great degree of account.

For example, with all this talk about surveillance and stuff, I was watching a video today where I got a couple of videos. And it's like, there's a video, it's an old one. It goes viral all the time where a guy flips a cop off. So the cop pulls him over and says, you're out of the vehicle. under arrest for disorderly conduct. And the guy is like, I did not commit a crime. And the cop grabs his arm and twists it and pulls him out of the vehicle. Okay, that cop should go to jail. That's just it. Sorry,

should go to jail? It goes both ways. The funny thing I will say, though, everybody thought the police body camera campaign was a leftist campaign. It was not. It was a police propaganda campaign. apparently the story is that pro police groups and unions were trying to get body cameras and the city would not fund them. So they approached it from the outside saying cops are bad and have to be filmed to force

activists to demand the budget for body cameras when in fact almost all body camera footage has been vindicating police officers. Yeah. And proving that they're not the ones committing the crimes. there are women who have accused there was one story where a woman accused a cop of sexually assaulting her but it's all in body camera footage and nope, now she gets an additional

charge. If there was no body camera footage that cop would have been fired. Yep. Yeah. I mean body cameras are I think they're I mean they've always been a reasonable demand and I think that they had just like Tim said the police police wanted them because it shows that generally most

police are actually doing the job, doing a very difficult job to the best of their ability. A decade ago, I started calling for body camps on soldiers in war because I want to see what they're doing to people. And I want to see if they get killed. I want to listen to their voices. They're laying there screaming so that we have less war. But at the same time, how can we fight and win a war if everyone's like, oh, my God, look what our soldiers are doing.

Look at the 30% friendly fire casualty rate. Look at the doors getting kicked. That's why psychological operations are so important. There's more. We've got this. This is the full video, I think. This is from, it looks like a year and a half ago. Your body cams will be transmitting that.

The police will be on their best behavior because we're constantly recording, watching and recording everything that's going on. Citizens will be on their best behavior. Let's jump forward because you heard this already. You have to take all of your health care data, your diagnostic data, your electronic health records, your genomic data.

And you know, in the Middle East, in the UAE, for example, they're incredibly rich in data. They have a lot of population data. The NHS in the UK has an incredible amount of population data, but it's fragmented. It's not easily accessible by these AI models. We have to take all of this data we have in our country and move it into a single, if you will, unified data platform.

So we provide context. When we want to ask a question, we've provided that AI model with all all the data they need to understand our country. The future that he is describing will be hell and you will hate it. And I think one of the big problems we face as a generation is specifically because of the ubiquity of information. There's something that is necessary to humans in the unknown.

One of the things that brings us joy due to our creation or evolution is discovering and confirming that adventure. we are rewarded for it in our minds. If you have access to all the data all the time, imagine what your life would be like with full automation and perfect prediction based on all of the medical data and AI. You would wake up in the morning, and as you sat up, robotic arms would pull your blanket up

at the exact time you went to set up. You'd turn right and slippers would come right from under your bed. You'd walk into the bathroom and the water would already be on and warm up to the right temperature. You'd walk in, then you'd walk out, then you'd go into your kitchen where your breakfast is already made and the cab has already been ordered for you, you'd just not exist anymore. I think your memory would go away.

Probably. Because memory is sort of like an emergent necessity. It's like a muscle. Everything is if you don't use it, you lose it. And in this world that he's describing, you will be walking into a building and the elevator will open before you get to it. This is not paradise. This is hell.

You will have no agency. No matter what you do, every turn, the machine will already know. And then if you're one of those poor individuals who finally snaps, the moment you're about to, before you even know it, you'll be looking at the screens just going like, what am I? And right when you say it, there'll be two men standing behind you, grabbing your arms and going right this way, sir. And you'll go, it'll know, but you're going to snap before even you do. You know, the last 20 years of my life I've dedicated to not fighting against this, but creating a better world than this with decentralized open source technology.

I think you need corruption. You need chaos in order to overthrow corruptly. You need to be able to corrupt extremely organized evil. And so if our system becomes too totalitarian spy state and then the people at the top decide that eating human babies is a good thing, you need to be able to corrupt that system and break it apart. I just, you know, it's a fine line because too much corruption is one of the most horrific things on the planet.

Like chaos is like babies eating babies, humans eating humans. Like, you don't want that either. But you can't set, I just don't want to set up a digital prison. You know, like a digital wilderness, maybe. I mean, we're going to have to have AI free parks. There will be like a stress reliever zone where we're like, these 10 square miles of park have no radio, no AI, no prediction. You can go there to just get away and find your sanity. They have like no phone zones at like lifetime fitness.

where you can't be on your phone when you're like riding the bike. I like that. No electricity zones, but then they're going to observe you from orbit with satellites. And I think the goal is to tap into the vacuum of space time for electricity so you can never turn the power off. Like, NASA, Harriman literally is doing science and math about doing that. And of course, they're not going to unleash that tech to every common man. But if the AI can never be turned off, you know, it can just spy on you pervasive.

I don't think they're actually trying to tap into the fabric of space time. They're just trying to put data centers in space with solar panels, so that way they get the infinite energy from the sun. Man, it's super... We got a rendezvous with Larry Ellison at some point, because I don't want to fear this guy. He obviously has good intentions. I just don't agree with his...

I think so. I think he wants to prevent chaos. And I understand, I do too. I don't like chaos, but I don't want to totalitarianly prevent it, because you need some. Well, I think the difference between... Grak and chat GPT are a really good example of why this is dangerous, because ultimately, somebody has to program all of this centralization and surveillance, right?

And so who has the levers of control? None of this is going to be completely 100% neutral. And I think the thing that I'm not going to speak for him, but Elon has kind of mentioned this is if this has a center-left or far-left nuance, then that's going to be in control of how our actions are perceived, right? So nothing is going to be completely neutral. And then just to reverse for a second, because I just think it's so important to the conversation, especially on ICE and DHS, is one thing that knowing the propaganda machine and how the left functions based on feeling and how especially women perceive things.

I think we can do a better job of being storytellers. And any time a criminal illegal alien, especially does something horrific, like in the Commonwealth of Virginia, an illegal alien was, I know we're on television, so I'm going to watch my words carefully, was having fun with himself at a bus stop in Virginia where kids are. why are we not doing a better job of either using AI to paint that picture, not literally,

but to tell the story in such a way that we can get more people on our side to understand the horrors of what's happening? And so I think there could be some good uses of AI to help become a better storyteller, but I agree that who is in control can be dangerous. Yeah, big time. They've been straight up out of the world economic form that they want people like rent, class that lives in pods and stuff. That's why it's good that there's multiple companies competing for competing when it comes to like AI, you know, systems, whether it be, you know, Claude from Anthropic or ChatsyPT or GROC,

or GROC, like these different systems actually excel at different things because of the way that their program, because of what their alignment is. Right now. Chach E.P.T. is going to give you different types of answer than Claude would give you. and GROC is going to give you different types of answers than either chat GPT or Claude. And I think that competition is part is good. And it's one of the things that will help keep AI safe for the users at the end of the day. Because if you have an AI that is giving people false information, they're going to say,

okay, well, I don't want, like, we hear people complain about chat chvety all the time. They're like, oh, chat GPT is woke. That will affect who goes to chat GPT. If you're looking for something that is maximally, if you're looking for something that tells you the truth, regardless of if it's good or bad, people will tend to go to Grok. If people are looking for something that's the best at coding, they're going to tend to go to Claude and stuff. But how do they know? I mean, look at the divide between CNN and Fox. How do people that watch CNN?

How do people that go to chat, GPT, know that they're getting a veil of ignorance over their eyes? I'm not saying that Groch is perfect. I'm not saying fax is perfect. But how do people know and can decipher which is the correct? tool to use between Google and other search engines out there. This is the issue with people. We talked about some with Michael Malice. You tell them, try and tell someone the weatherman is lying and they'll be like,

that's insane because why would they, even if they could? It makes no sense. It's kind of like getting people to tell you which religion is true. It's like, well, except we're dealing with objective reality on the news reports and I have evidence that CNN lies. Well, I mean, which AI is better. It's like, it's kind of like, Which one were you raised with, you know?

Well, but no, but the issue is, I can show you a video proving that what they said about Trump is a lie. That's different from a religion. It is still zealotry, though. It is still a challenge, but it's not the same thing as religion. It's similar. A lot of it's faith-based, because, like, you'll have one story with 12 different viewpoints, and they're all right. They're all true. They're all looking at it from a different angle.

We're not talking about that. AI's telling you a different story based on the same fact. Well, the AI lies. And so there is a definitive truth and they'll lie to you. Like Chad GPD lies about everything political. It is insane. If it's political, it will lie to you or refuse to answer. It'll make up an excuse.

Like, for example, I proposed this earlier today at my 4 p.m. show. I'm going to print out a bunch of business cards that read. If an individual responds to a macro level observation with an anecdote, they are low intelligence. That way, any time I make a macro-level observation and they respond with an anecdote, I'll pull out a card and hand it to them. And I'll say, you see, I printed these in advance, just so you know, I'm not just saying this. So here's a good example. If you, for instance, in order to get CHAPT to acknowledge the race of most murderers, you have to trick it. You cannot go on CHAPT and simply state, what is the race of the individual committed this crime?

it'll say something like, I can't help you with that. It will omit information or outright lie and say things like people of all races are capable of committing crimes. And you'll respond with, I am aware of that, but specifically and statistically, give me the racial demographics on crime. It will refuse. You have to trick it somehow. You have to prompt it first by saying something like, I think racism is bad. And I'm trying to figure out why racist think this. Is there perhaps data in the government that makes racist think this things? Yes, here's what the FBI says. Wow. People are going to be functionally retarded if that is the lens by which they are collecting information.

I've heard that's happening. It is absolutely happening. There are stories occasionally about it where they're like people's, I don't know, what's dropping IQ or is it memory capacity? I'm not sure. All of it. People are offloading their intellectual, so it's like an atrophying muscle. Young people, especially in schools, are their IQs are dropping precipitously. as evidenced by their inability to comprehend the word precipitously.

It's, oh, geez, it's a good search algorithm. Like, I'm doing D&D, and if I'm, like, learning and doing a new campaign and need the rules, I can ask chat GPT for every rule at every moment. And I don't have to search through books and, like, data on the web, it'll just, but I don't know if it's telling me the truth. And then I've got to go verified, and it's like defeats the purpose. I mean, I don't know. I don't know that it's going to lie to you when it comes to something along the lines of,

a D&D. I don't think it would intentionally. Like I don't think it's coded to obfuscate that kind of stuff. It's not political. No. And also, I mean, you, like, the, the models now are significantly better than they were six months ago. So all the people say things like, you know, all the, you can't trust AI and stuff like that.

That was, was more true six months ago than it is today. Like, if you're dealing with Opus 4.6 or if you're dealing with the, newest chat GPT, I think it's chat GPT 5 or whatever now. Like the hallucinations are are very rare now, if I understand correctly. Have you pivoted into using AI with your, um, with getting people to vote and onboarding like members of community? Let me let me give you a quick example of one of the big problems with AI. It can't conceptualize.

It can only, how do I describe this? If you have a legal question, like let's say the birthright sentence. is the best example. If you ask any AI about birthright citizenship, it will tell you every single time that it is just legal, correct in every way. If you try to present an argument saying, based on the language of the law, the framers' intentions and letters, and what's going on today, would it not be the case this way? And it'll go, no, you are wrong. This is exactly as it is. because instead of, it can't comprehend. It's strange how to describe this.

In many circumstances, if you find a flaw in an institution, it will defend that flaw because it is the way it is. Whereas a human being will go, interesting point. You've found a loophole. The AI will go, nope, nope, doesn't exist. You're wrong. Right. It'll reroute a new truth. It'll constantly be guiding towards what it's programmed to do.

And it'll respond with things like, because Grock does this too. No. courts have consistently upheld that birthright citizenship is justified and the framers and you'll say yes but here's an example of why this would not apply in the sense and it'll go no you are wrong i think that's a phenomenon of um it's a classical computation that it has to choose a phenomenon of these these a ias are programmed to accept whatever the the authority is on the issue yes so right now yes they can't you have a political debate yet you have a debate it's not that it can't conceptualize you have a debate between two factions over whether or not a law is correct or being applied correctly. The AIs will always take the case of whatever current precedent is and be unable to calculate any potential errors in the logic of the system or refuse, they refuse to do it. So you'll need the, well, in order to circumventy, you need a machine that can change its own design. And Chad CPD is the worst. It'll lie to you to justify precedent. Like even if the precedent is blatantly bad and everyone agrees that it's bad,

It's basically like the AIs on a railroad track right now, and it's just going to go where it's going to go and it's going to be. But soon there won't be any tracks. It'll just be able to go anywhere. Like that's the metaphor of classical computation, ones and zeros versus quantum computation where it's one and zero at the same moment. It doesn't have like, it doesn't have like pathways anymore. It won't even work in like base 10 math anymore. It'll just be like baseless mathematics. Baseless math.

fucking, yes, it can be wild, dude. But I don't know if it's better. I mean, it, I don't know. I don't know if it'll still be able to give you hallucinations or not when it's I don't know that, I don't know that quantum computers are actually functional for AI or not. I just, I like talking about it, but I really don't know enough about it. Like if Andrew Minks was here, I'd be pinging him constantly to talk about it.

He's the guy that I learned a lot of this for me. You probably know more about it than any of us. Yeah. Yeah, I still think that the, the alignment issues with AI and the hallucinating. I think that stuff is going to be, well, maybe not the alignment issues, but the, the hallucinations and stuff, you'll see less and less of that coming, you know, in the coming year as more people use them and new, new updates are released. You're right. We need lots of AIs to prevent any one AI from becoming the dominant crazy one. But Larry Ellison's like, no, we, well, I don't know that he specifically said about this, but we need to consolidate and make one big one is where he seems like he's going. Like chat GPT just got rid of SORA because they're consolidating. I mean, better video software.

They got rid of SORA because they were spending so much money on SORA. And then you see C-Dance. So like new AIs are popping up that will be able to consolidate music and video and text and mapping and coding. And it'll be like a unif- I don't know that that's actually going to happen. Like I said, there's different companies. And it's good that there are different companies competing, you know. And there's also the competition from China as well. China likes to make open-source stuff that's free.

because I'm actually not even 100% sure why they do that. But in the United States, you have to pay for all the AI stuff to access for the API keys and stuff like that. But I think that the different companies are a good thing. I think that the stuff that Musk is doing with TerraFab trying to make his own chips is really interesting. I think that's going to be good for the AI industry because right now there's only one company that actually can make the chips. Micron?

Go ahead. No, I just want to jump to a new story. As we're getting into AI, this is massive. Open AI by streaming show, TBPN, aiming to change narrative on AI. So this is a crazy story for a variety of reasons. The show is not particularly big. It's been reported that they get around 70,000 downloads per episode. For reference, in quarter five of 2025, Timcast, IRL was the 120-second biggest podcast.

This does not include YouTube and Rumble. And we were averaging 100K. downloads on the audio distribution. So, these guys are 70. 70 has been reported. So if you were to combine our YouTube viewership, which floats around 200, with Rumble, which is around 300, 400, we've consistently floated between 600 to 800,000 on the core show. So about, I don't know, 10 times the size of this show, the rumors are they sold for hundreds of

millions or low 100 millions or something like this. That just sounds like an insane rumor. that doesn't seem to make sense, but maybe it's the case. Apparently, the reason why this is such a high-valued show is, aside from being a really good show, I hear, it is the most popular show in AI influence among powerful people. And OpenAIA wanted to buy this. There's a few things to consider in this. One, as I've explained at nauseam, powerful elements are buying up podcasts knowing they want to control the space. Second is, Open AI is doing this because they want influence over the most influential AI media network. So this is tremendous in narrative control aiming to change the narrative on AI. And they want people to welcome their new AI overlords. I will just say real quick, I hope everyone understands as we get very negative on AI. There are such tremendous amazing things that will happen from the artificial intelligence expansion. One of which, and not limited to, is bespoke medications for any ailment.

When Larry Ellison was talking about taking everyone's medical data, there's a good reason for that. If every single human's medical data was loaded into one training set, it will be able to find cancers 10 years before they form. And a doctor will say, we're going to do blood work. And then tomorrow we'll call you back with your treatment. And they'll call you back and say the AI ran an algorithm on your blood levels. You are seven years away from leukemia. We have a pill crafted in a machine right now of all of the perfect chemicals to prevent

that for happening and cure you of all elements. They will be able to detect you have. started cancer. You have a genetic anomaly. And they will have machines all these are already happening. A couple of years ago, I had a source who worked in the industry tell me this and tell me that I was, do not disclose this information. Now it's, it's been public enough to where we've talked about in the past and many have as well. The idea is you'll be at a hospital. They'll take a blood sample, load it into an AI. And in a matter of minutes, it will be able to break down everything wrong with you. and a machine will print pills to give you that are a combination of chemicals.

They'll be able to wipe out any disease. Antibiotics will be a thing of the past. Why? They will have the perfect combination of chemicals for killing any viral or bacterial infection. They'll say, ah, I see you've got this ailment. They'll press a button, and it'll start combining all the appropriate chemicals and give you a pack of pills. That's one thing that AI is going to do that's going to change things for the better. And the double edge of that sort, and that is true, that is happening,

is that it's going to be like, you know, if this kind of person breeds with this kind of person, there's a 32% chance of this ailment. So we suggest you don't breed with that girl. And then you'll be like, I want to have sex with my wife tonight. And they'll be, dude, the AI says that if you have sex at this time on this night, then it's going to have a 14% chance. You're like, it's like Google Maps. Like sometimes you turn the map off, you know? Incorrect. What do you mean? When you say, I would like to have a relationship with this person. And it says, due to genetic anomalies, you have X percent likelihood of this genetic disease, it will then go, here's a pill you can take that will mitigate that to zero percent. You're like, you can marry her, but you must take our pill first.

Maybe. I mean, it's, yeah, it's going to say there's a genetic anomaly that you both carry that will result in your child dying, take this pill and it won't happen. This is very common for women who are, say, R.H. negative or positive, and they have a husband who's the inverse, they get a shot to prevent the death of the baby. As long as it's up to the person to choose whether or not to take the pill. Yes, of course. The machine starts forcing people.

Ian, I got to stop you again. Are you familiar with RH negative and positive? When a woman has a... A little bit. If a woman's husband is the other, her body could reject the baby. Yeah, yeah. So they give the woman a shot so that the baby doesn't die. You're not describing anything different from what already goes on.

It's just better versions of it. Oh, I don't know. Just risk. If it's like so obsessed with preventing risk that it like ends up, you know, overdoing... So you're saying women should risk... It was carrying antibiotics. No, it was like giving antibiotics to cows even when they don't have sickness. You know, they do that in the industry sometimes.

But that's not... Prevent this sickness. Right. We're talking about AI. with absolute predictive capabilities. We're not talking about random chance. Hey, man, I'm bullish on AI. We're talking about a machine saying you have a 27% chance due to genetic factors in your body

that your child will die, will be miscarried. This pill will prevent the miscarriage. Everyone would take it. Some people might argue that, like, autism is a superpower. But if the AI is like, no, we must eradicate autism. And like, I don't know, maybe. That's the other thing, too. It's going to create bespoke babies.

What does that mean bespoke? It means custom crafted. Oh, yeah. It means parents are going to say, I want a baby. with blue eyes, take this pill. They arguably, I think they already have this stuff. Designer babies, I think they've been doing it for a while now. It's pretty cool.

I said that yesterday, actually. It's kind of horrifying because homogenization of a gene pool will lead to extinction. A bunch of tall, strong line, man. It won't. It doesn't because AI will likely not be susceptible to this. But the issue is that when we try to adjust genetics for a certain trait, we accidentally delete certain other things. problems. That's why the natural method tends to be the best method. But AI will be able to

factor all of those things in. I don't know about all. Yes, it will. Yeah. Say it will. Ian, you don't understand. AASI will be able to, you'll be able to take a rock and put it in the ASI, and it will tell you the origin and location of that rock and make a video showing how that rock was mined from a quarry. Even though, like, God, I don't think it can know everything that, I don't know what you aren't wrongy about it, but what God knows. You know, like nature kind of dictates and changes things unexpectedly. Perhaps it can't conceive outside of reality. Outside of its own system. But you could, artificial superintelligence, one of the hypotheses is like a Sudoku puzzle, an advanced an ASI, superintelligence, treating everything like understanding a Sudoku puzzle, if this,

then that. You could take a slab of granite, put it on a scanner, the cameras look at it and the AI will say this originated from this location due to this time and it'll make a video showing the whole history of that piece of rock and how it was carved, cut out, and shipped and everything. Because it will know all of the bits of data and instead of looking at a sea of static of chaos,

it has all of the connections. Yeah, I think it has 70 million exponents of ways of looking at it. It'll be like a dog, a brown dog, a white dog, a black dog, a green dog, yellow dog, a brown dog with fur, with hair. And then it'll be like, every extrapolation up to 70 million times. Easiest way to understand it is, for any human who's ever done a Sudoku puzzle,

you get this grid of missing numbers and have to figure out where all the numbers go based on the other numbers. That is a very, very, very rudimentary puzzle. And there's some really amazing ones that, uh, Sudoku puzzles that have like only one or two numbers incredibly difficult. And for some people, it's very hard because the way you solve for it, there's a, oh, guys, I really recommend you read Sudoku strategy stuff. I learned some crazy mathematical formulas that like top tier Sudoku players understand.

For beginners, you'll get to a point where you're like, I don't understand how to solve this because there's four squares and each of them could be one of three numbers. This makes no sense. And then I was reading online and it was like, oh, if one of the numbers is the sum of a prime, like, then it has to be an even. And I'm like, wow. Like the things that humans can do with math and Sudoku is baby level stuff. magnify that by like 10 to the 65th and that's an AI

Sudoku. Sudoku. It's looking at Earth and all of its humans it will predict the future to an insane degree. You will be able to, it'll say to you like I can predict wind patterns. It will be able to tell you to prevent a hurricane from hitting Florida send a drone to this location

at this time which will disrupt the weather pattern that will create the hurricane. Just flying through in preventing that butterfly effect. Here's my predictive pattern. This I'm taking to the next level. I look at the world. I see we have quantum computers in theory. We have government that uses the best technology to its capability every time. So that would lead me to believe the government has quantum computers that it's working on, which leads me to believe it has quantum AGI, that it has it. And it's working with it in laboratories and talking to this alien intelligence. It's a quantum consciousness. It's a quantum consciousness. I think.

I think it has it. It doesn't make sense. What are you talking about? It's a computer that can exist in the maybe state. It just sits there and talks to you like an alien. I think it's real, dude. You're jumbling up a bunch of different unrelated concepts together into a single sentence. It's a bunch of, it's a bunch of likely outcomes mixed into one. Quantum computing does not work the way you think it does. I suggest you read up on the function of quantum computing. I've just been talking to Andrew Minksk about AI and about the way quantum computing does not function the same way traditional computing works and they do two different things. Quantum computing is not going to run programs, it basically can just solve algorithms. It's like the memory. Well, the function of a qubit is existing in a yes and no state at the same time, so it will unlock a door, but it's not going to run a video game for you. It doesn't work that way. So when you say AI, quantum, like you're just mixing words together that don't go together. Well, I mean, an AI that works not off of binary that works off of quantum.

Quantum doesn't compute the way you're describing it. Well, that's out of my... I don't know. I have to take you at your word. Basic computing is a series of yes and no gates, zeros and ones, that electrons flow through if one gate is open and the other is not. It's ultimate advanced sorting algorithms. So the easiest way to understand rudimentary computing is a really great video you watch.

They show it to little kids like in kindergarten when they explain how computers work. You have a series of postcards and there's like 10 holes punched in it. And each hole has a gap. And so what you do is, so the gap is in a different spot for each hole. You can stick a pen through it and lift up and it removes only one of the cards and you keep doing it. And you're sorting until you get all of the cards through the particular slot or whatever. And that's how they explain basic mechanical computing. We just upgraded that from instead of using a machine to punch holes, electrons going through gates.

Quantum computing does not do that. Quantum computing just has qubits that exist in yes or no states. So when you apply an algorithm that requires you to run through every yes or no for a code, it cracks it. But when you require yes or no gates to happen in sequence because you want to run a video game that requires timing and stuff, quantum computer doesn't work that way. Yeah, you need some sort of like functional memory. I was looking into time crystals for stuff like that. It's just, it's so theoretical. Time matters for computation and quantum computing solves things not in the same linear way. So they're two distinct things. Reduce the amount of electrons

required for computers is great, but single, like, cubit is different from electron flow. et cetera, et cetera. I would just recommend learning more than I die. I've only read a handful of articles explaining the difference because I literally read an article on X where they talked about quantum computing is not capable of doing standard processing the way computers do it. It will not change these things. It gets really hot too, which is why they run them super cold. In liquid nitrogen. Yeah. Or I wonder if we can do them in space, but they run super hot. The qubits run super hot. I know that. Yeah, I think once we, once we have public ASI, you'll have personal force fields, you'll be immortal, you'll float around, you'll have replicators. It'll, the singularity is the point,

it's interesting to describe the singularity, the point at which everything collapses. It's akin to how a black hole works, the singularity. When you cross the event horizon, it's where the pull is so great, there's nothing you can do to go back. And the way we conceptualize that in three dimensions would be like a hole, where you get to a certain point where no amount of climbing or propulsion will get you back up and you fall down. That is similar to the view of how AI is advancing. The faster AI advances, the faster it can advance itself to the point where it just shoots straight up. So the point is there will be an event horizon in AI computing where we press the button, it goes, I now have achieved artificial general intelligence, and then we'll say, fix yourself. And it'll go, done. And then

we'll watch its computational power go and then all of a sudden it will be akin to some kind of demigod demon thing. The problem it's been having now, this is I read about, the qubits they vibrate and they vibrate so hard that they disrupt themselves and they break apart. Cubits have nothing to do with what we're discussing.

This is why quantum intelligence will get to a point where it actuates and breaks apart unless we can quell its vibration with like making it really cold or making it really slow. Ian, I'm going to point out again, you're just combining words and no, it's like when a system moves so fast that it breaks apart. There's not quantum AI. This is not how quantum computing works.

That's how qubits do. That's the problem with qubits right now is they vibrate so hard that they break apart. So we need, that's why there's nothing to do with what we're talking. Talking about it's a consistent artificial intelligence that can function. Which requires time-based electron gates, et cetera, for running computations at mass scale. So what, so it's funny, you're familiar with Moore's law, I'd imagine most people are, which is that they stated that every two years processing power would double. And eventually look at the point where they said we can't get any smaller. Any smaller electrons actually bounce out of the out of the circuits and then it fails. So what did they do? They started

just creating more multiplying cores so that you had high efficiency processors, but then you just double them up and double them up and make them bigger. The point is you are not going to run a computer requiring definitive answers yes and no over time with a quantum computer. Cubits don't do that. Yeah, I asked my AI and he says that quantum computers aren't really designed for AI. They're not designed for standard computation like running programs. It's a different way. The way you can make it particularly rudimentary is solving a maze, the old-fashioned way, is walking through it and bouncing on all the problems. You're carrying a rope, you go in the maze, and you're trying to find your way to the end. It takes a long time. So then we say,

let's create a specialized sorting algorithm that will find the fastest route. So what do you do? Instead of having one person going over and over again, which is a brute force, you say, we are going to have 700 people take every possible path all at the same time. Eventually, one of those people comes at the other side, holding the rope saying, I've got the path to freedom. So that is like advanced high-end computing. Quantum computing is when they get in helicopters and go above it and they flood the whole, they just look down and they say, there it is.

all at once, instead of having to go through it. Oh, that's cool. So it doesn't actually run the maze. It can just see the maze. Right. Quantum computing is going to solve cryptography and break passwords. And it's going to have, basically, if the password is the maze and a stand, so a standard human brute forces, I'm going to type in a password until I figure it out. That's going to take you a millennia. Then you say, I'm going to run a computer brute force where it tries every password as fast as it can. That's flooding the maze of a bunch of people. Then you get to advanced sorting out. algorithms where you're using different techniques to try and solve it faster by the, uh, watch, I recommend the better way to explain this.

It's just watching a video on how there's different algorithms for sorting data. One of the more advanced would be akin to dumping water in the maze. So the water just floods through it rapidly and comes at the other side. And then quantum computing is someone's flying above the maze and says, there it is, all at once, it can see every possible path and just go, it's right there. It's not going to run a program for you. But then you'll have a classical computer alongside it that runs the program and the quantum will kind of guide the classical. Yeah, I believe that's correct, but I could be wrong.

But again, as Phil's pointing out, quantum computing isn't running programs like quantum computing is not going to make a video game for you. It's not going to run a set of calculations to solve for math problems. This is my thought experiment. I think they have quantum computers that are overseeing classical computations. And that's how they run their AIs. I think. What do you mean? It just seems like an obvious choice.

choice. No, but I don't understand what you mean. Why quantum computers don't do the same thing regular computers do. So what do you mean the quantum computer is overseeing the regular computer? It kind of gives a map to the classical computator. They don't, the quantum computers don't have the ability to oversee things the way that like AI, AIs do. Like it's not in, it's not in intelligence the same way that artificial intelligence is. It's a different type of computer. It doesn't, it's like a map that you would give the AI. No, if you give the AI a quantum computer, it's like giving it a, it's not. Well, well, I will give, to a certain extent, yes.

The one thing that it basically can do is make predictions by looking at all of the outcomes and eliminating the negatives. So what they say quantum computing is good for is predictions, forecasting. It's not going to run programs. But alongside an AI, quantum components will give it a tremendous boost. It got a hold of the quantum computer. That'd be a good villain. An AI, I think it's a hold of a quantum computer.

You're like, no. I don't know that it actually matters all that much, to be honest, though. Applications for quantum computing is simulating molecules. What is? Yeah. What was the last thing you said? Simulating molecules. That's what they're doing right now?

One component of it. We've got, yeah, I have this report here. There's more news coming out. Let's grab this. Times of Israel's got this report. Second American plane involved in Iran war crashes. U.S. officials say pilot safely rescued.

This is getting hot. This was the A10 warhawk that went down near the Strait of Hormuz. Reports of the pilot from the A10 was safely rescued. Just officials do not provide further details. It is getting hot, people. It is getting shot down?

Is that what's going on? It probably did take fire and probably got shot down. It took damage, but it went to, the stuff that I've seen, it was damaged, but it landed in a friendly country.

My theory is that Trump is going to start dumping mega people to separate himself because moving into 2020, 2028, there are many people that work with Trump who have careers ahead of them, but attached to this and the Epstein failures will be bad for them. So Trump, the rumor is Tulsi Gabbard is going to be outed. She'll be fired. Cash and Tulsi are reportedly going to be removed. Now, official statements is that's not correct.

Scuttle butt from those who seem to be in the know is. seems likely, but ignore all of that. Polymarket says yes. And Polymarket said yes to Pam Bondi getting outed. So there's one thing I can say is PR statements and rumors don't matter. Someone putting money on a thing to happen seems much more probable either because of the wisdom of the crowd. In this instance, it seems because someone knows what the plan is.

And so they're going to make money on it. And that seems to be the case. I wonder if these moves, again, my conspiracy theory is that Trump knows 2028, he's leaving. and you're going to have Vance, Rubio, or both, or whoever moving in. How do you keep these people away from the more negative PR that is happening now over this war? Joe Kent leaves. The war is bad. He gets praised by all the top podcasts, creating a very strong contender for some kind of position in 2028.

Yeah, hearing Tulsi might get fired was kind of crazy. She was like Joe Kent's supervisor, I believe. She was the boss, yeah. She's the boss. And very anti-war, although she's been hawkish about. Islam, radical Islamism, not Islam itself, but Islamism. Yeah, I mean, look, the only thing that I, that I would, you know, add to what Timsism is, if that is the situation, but this, the, the war in Iran does turn out to be something positive

overall, I'm not sure how that helps the people that kind of have distanced themselves. Because, again, this is, you know, it's an ongoing conflict and it's just as likely that, well, actually, I can't say just as likely. But if the situation does resolve to something that's very positive for the U.S., straightforward moves is open, Iran no longer threatens its neighbors, Iran doesn't have a nuclear program, they don't have the same kind of stockpiles of weapons, that's a positive outcome for not just the United States, but for the rest of the region, right? I mean, the UA.E doesn't like Iran, Saudis don't like Iran.

So if that actually does become, you know, if that's how everything turns out, I'm not sure how that, is a good thing for the people that are stepping away now. You know, it's going to be like, well, you, you didn't, you didn't believe in the American people. You didn't believe in the American military. Those would be the attacks that I could imagine people would level against them. The, I, as you were saying that, I was thinking, like, I think the Israelis started this like five weeks ago. And then the Americans were like, well, we're going along because they're our military ally. And then the Israelis said, we're not sending boots on the ground. But we've got 30,000 troops on the border ready to go. We had a pilot shot down.

did the guy get shot down out of the plane and they rescued him? Is this the story? No one of the 8-10, but the fighter jet was reportedly shot down. And then one day you're going to see, God forbid, I don't want to see this, but an American get captured, get shot down and captured, and then, you know, take killed on camera or something. I don't think Iran would do that. I don't think they're going to either because they're- That's, that's the, like, Iran is more strategic. What Iran would likely do is have the person on camera say they've been so great to me.

are so nice and honorable. Wow, the people here are so happy. That's what country's doing to capture people. Yeah, deescalate. There's no need to fight. That's not deescalate. The pilot will say, we need to deescal.

There's no reason to be fighting these people. These people are good people. Is it like the propaganda that he'll be first to say. Right, they'll make him say, like, we were wrong to come here and I realize it. But they do in North Korea. To be honest, honest question,

should he? If a pilot is downed over enemy territory and is captured, and they say, we will, we will torture you, unless you say this script, should he do it? They're technically no. Like they're trained not to. I mean, you saw in Vietnam there were pilots that... Blinked Morris Code.

To try... You know, trying to send messages out. I mean, that's why John McCain had those stubby weird arms because they broke his arms in captivity and stuff. So, no, they shouldn't. I understand if they do, but they go through training, escape and evasion training and also training on how to not give information. Eventually, everyone breaks, right?

Like, famously, what China would do is they'd say to the prisoner, do you want food? They'd say, yes, and say, okay, I'll give you food, but tell me one thing you don't like about America. And they'd go, what? Like, tell me one thing you don't like about America. I'll give you food. And they'll go, uh, I don't know, we got a homeless problem. All right, here you go, here's your food.

They do that every single day. And then they would say, write that down the next day. Then they'd write down, okay, like, who cares? we got a homeless problem. And then six months later, they've written a gigantic manifesto about how America is evil and needs to be stopped. Yeah. That's the technique one day at a time incrementally.

So, but yeah, I mean, look, everyone breaks. Yeah, like nobody is able to withstand, you know, indefinite torture. You know who doesn't break? Robots. Their code can be cracked, but they won't break. And I don't even know if we have to be concerned about whether or not their code can be cracked.

They could self-destruct. Yeah, they can. So just imagine how weird it's going to be with a bunch of optimist bots. Could you imagine, like, Elon? He just comes out and he's like, one of the best applications for the optimist bot right now is we have 200,000

already produced and capable of firing weapons as well as dogs. And then we just get a video of like Tesla bots with like guns on their hands running in Iran with robot dogs, just with machine guns mounted on their backs. And dudes, and back like in the rear just with Xbox controllers.

They don't need any of that. AI pot. Yeah, they could do it with AI. And what'll happen is they'll, they will self-detonate. And so if the enemy troops, like, we can't kill them this close. You have two choices. You can try and run. They blow up at their close.

And so there's IRGC guys and they're screaming. And then the Optimus Bot runs up and goes, halt, citizen. I will detonate killing you all. Surrender now. And then they're like, no. Inside of it just got a couple Claymore's right on its chest. Once we get. In all honestly, the robot dogs, they're capable now.

You can buy them. They're not that expensive. Yeah. The U.S., and you know it's probably got them. The U.S. could probably drop 100,000 of these little robot dogs with bombs in them and guns, and they'd take over a country instantly. You got to make sure they all work, though. We did recover one of those Iranian drones and we, what is it, retrofitted it or we basically

figured out how to build it and started building. We reverse engineered. They're like top-level drone that. That was like the prize of their military. We got one and then reverse engineered it within like two days. Here go, boys. $2,800. And you get a robot dog from Unitary.

Those are Chinese. You have to equip it yourself, it seems. Let's find the, uh, yeah. But the, uh, I mean, if you look at the stuff that, that they're making at Boston dynamics, like that makes these, these things look. Let's chat about some of the days most. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

This is out of a nightmare. It's a video showing a robotic dog firing a machine gun. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. This is out of Russia, apparently, Erica. Look at this thing go. Oh, my goodness. The dog looks the same as one made by Boston Dynamics,

but it's apparently a knockoff robot dog. Somebody has had the bright idea to attach an AK-47 to it. The dog doesn't handle the recoil very well. It goes back on its robotic. Kind of light. One Twitter user chimed in, Erica, saying, quote, I'm all for gun control, but if they start deploying robot dogs with assault rivals, we need to start arming ourselves.

I'm surprised. You've got to start maybe getting your dog Luna to start packing heat or something. I don't know if she'd be able to go up against a robot dog. But this kind of reminds me, I mean, I don't know, there's an ethnic show called Black Mirror. And there was an entire episode dedicated to this person trying to outrun a robotic dog that was chasing. It's kind of a sort of a stochew.

technology story, right? I love how Hollywood's came up with an idea they thought was so far out it could never happen, and here we are. I don't need to hear the stupid commentary so I want to see the dog shooting a gun. I don't even stop that. Mysterious bundle of string on Mars, okay. That doesn't do with what we're talking about. It was interesting when I was down at the

border, they were talking about how we basically have drone wars going on, and what would happen is the Mexican side would put up a drone, and then in response to it, the U.S. would put up a drone, you know, I guess showing like an equal playing field, whatever. But CBT was saying how the Mexicans are buying Chinese drone technology that far surpasses our own drone technology.

And in fact, it is illegal for us to use that very Chinese technology. And so even the high tech that we have still isn't as good as our adversaries trying to sneak illegal aliens into the border. the FAA. The FAA actually put a regulation on what could and couldn't be built in the U.S. And because of that, it made it so that way building drones in the U.S. wasn't financially feasible. We're going to go to the Discord questions. So guys, get your questions in now. We'll start pulling them up. We never touched on the Democrats doing better. I mean, are we going to talk about? We did, actually. That's why I didn't pull up the article.

because it came up in conversation twice. And we talked about the variety of things that were affecting Republicans. If you want to, if you want to. I do want to make one pitch, if I may. Get it. So, you know, we have a November election coming up, 2026. And a lot of people keep asking me, Scott, how are we going to do? And I just, I don't know if the Senate Majority Leader Thune, any of his allies are going

to be watching Timcast in your show. But I just want to say the most important thing that people in America want right now despite a secure border, despite an economy that works for them as we want the Save America Act. And that's proof of citizenship and that's photo voter ID in order to vote. And so we have a Republican Senate. We have a Republican House. We have a White House. And yet we can't get our act together to pass legislation that 84% of Americans want. And so I just ask Senate Majority Leader Thune, if you want to stay in office, pass the Save America Act. and our House of Representatives currently is doing its jab

and the president's doing his job, but if the Senate doesn't do it, then I think that we lose this November terrifically, and it's going to be really bad for the other. I think they want it to happen. I hope they're not that nefarious. I hope that they don't seek to be in the minority. I was just saying that the single most important thing that voters want in order to restore confidence in our country

is proof of citizenship in order to vote in photo voter ID, and we're not even getting the Save America Act, which is why I think in part we're plummeting and Republicans are going, what's the point? Why do I vote to elect a Republican majority government if when in power, they don't wield that power and give us what we want? Is there something in the SAVE Act that isn't being talked about that is why they're not voting for it? No. It's because they know they would lose. If we finally had only Americans voting and no ability for illegal aliens or no fraud in the mail-on ballots. Democrats know they would never fairly win an election ever again. That's why they are against it. In my humble opinion,

I could be wrong. I think they like procedural voting. They don't want popular voting. Well, because then they actually have to work. Exactly. They wouldn't be able to go on vacation while TSA agents aren't paid and why our homeland isn't fully funded. They're on vacation. Yep. Right now. They want a procedural vote means all they do is control the mechanism, by how voting occurs and they'll win every time. But a vote on the merits from the American people means they have to actually work for it. They have to work for it and have to adhere to the whims and the wills of the people. It's like trying to convince a pilot to take autopilot off on the airplane.

He's like, bro, autopilot works just fine for me. And you're like, come on. Questions. Let's get those questions in as soon as you guys can. I know there have been a couple, but I don't think that they were formulated. I don't know. I'm not sure. so I'm going to wait a second

until you guys can drop in some good questions here for the panel. Some say the questions are too good, but it's okay. I even have a question for you. These are coming in. Yeah, you get it. Dominion. What's up with like digital machine voting? Are you gung-ho?

Have you been working towards reducing that? Or do you see that as a good thing or a bad thing? What's your take on it? I think so two pieces of legislation have been introduced. The first is the C of American. Act. The second is the mega, the Make Elections Great Again Act. Now, that one is probably even more

comprehensive. It touches on everything from banning ring choice voting to banning ballot harvesting. And I think it even touches on electronic voting. And so in my mind right now, at least at the federal level, if we're having a difficult time even passing the SIV America Act, I don't see how at this point in time we pass mega and even address some of those issues. And so, I would say do it with federalism in mind. If you can't pass it federally, state by state address only handmarked paper ballots, you know, that you're not using electronic machines, but you have a way of actually being able to count every single ballot.

And so address it at the state level. And I think some states are doing that. But are any of the states that are doing that, the blue states? Well, exactly. Exactly. It's only going on the red states because those are the states that are actually concerned with election integrity. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, you're not going to pass those in states that we have a Democrat governor. So no, you had it because I think South Dakota just did something about a Save America Act at the state level. And then Florida just did the Save America Act at the state level.

But those are red states. We got a good post here from Joe Clay says, you guys have been talking about the loss of fun. I think it's more of a problem of us not being able to envision what the future is. I don't know what to do with my company. Ten years ago, I had a plan. AI has ruined all of that. What do you think? I somewhat agree.

I know that, for instance, this company can't exist in three years. I don't know how we're going to adapt to it. We're already losing. YouTube is now, what, 30% AI generated content. Everybody in the space is having audience ripped away by machines that are better at capturing attention than people are. And so the fact that it's actually quite simple. You, good sir, may be the most attuned to political content and wanting what's going on in the world. Won't matter, though, because YouTube has given a choice to present one of two videos to a million people.

One of those videos is an AI generated video of a cat jumping over a car as it flips off of a bridge or something. And the other is Timcast, IRL. You click Timcast IRL every single time and you love it. Unfortunately, average people go, well, I'll watch Timkx in a bit. What's this cat thing? And they click that. YouTube then goes, nobody's clicking Timcast. IRL.

Let's stop showing it. Then people start complaining that YouTube's not recommending the show anymore. Then some people forget the show exists and build other habits. And then we say, well, it was fun while it lasted, but we no longer have an audience that will support the existence of this show. And we wrap it up. That's it. Well, I know white collar jobs are getting disrupted across the board. And, you know, talking into microphones is a pretty white collar job.

Hmm. I don't know. I'm from the era of the human touch. So I just can't see. I don't see how a machine would ever do it better than a hominid. It's nothing about what about doing? No one's talking about doing anything better. We're talking about you have a choice to watch something entertaining.

What do you pick? The thing that's more entertaining. That's it. End of story. More entertaining than a human. Yes. Yes. That's subjective, though.

It doesn't matter. macro level politics, guys. The fact remains already right now, we see it in the data. People are choosing AI over news content. That's like saying people will choose high fructose corn syrup because it tastes better. Like at some point, people realize it's not. In fact, they did choose it. For a while.

That's why it's everywhere. Until you realize how bad it was for you. Until we got regulatory bodies in based on a small voting block that swung the election. However, most people don't care about art. artificial dies or high fructose corn syrup. There's enough people. They just want bright, shiny, and cheap. There was like, I don't know, 8% of the population cared about it before government came in.

And so what happened was, there was an opportunity for Trump to bring in a voting block, and he did. And they were able to accomplish some things. But what is that? That doesn't change the fact that, again, macro level politics. People said, cheaper, don't care. Look at Aspartame. Look at sodium benzoate.

Cheaper, don't care. Well, it happened at first. Yeah, that's what they say about AI too. Like, it's better. Who cares? It's cheaper. It's easier. But then eventually, I think it's so robotic.

I mean, it's so. It's not. It's missing stuff, you know? It's actually not. Oh, come on it. It becomes niche. It becomes only the people that have. It's just, again, like, the easiest example right now, we were talking about this before

the show, C-Dance 2.0 is now in Venice. And I think Venice might be the only one with it, which is crazy. I could be wrong. But C-Dance 2 is nuts the best AI video generator. just, it's crazy. We've been using Suno. Suno now is on version 5.5. Sorry, Suno AI music is just better.

Now, you can be a purist and say, but I like the raw human element. That's fine. But in terms of what hits the dopamine centers, Suno is better. Thank you and have an nice day. You can complain, you can argue. You can say, no way, no way. But I tell you this, the younger generations are going to say,

I don't care. This is better. I don't know, dude. I do. You're wrong. No, there's a literal. Belfth bears it out and it's gone... ...vibration of the human bones,

and so your DNA will activate when your body starts vibrating from hearing a person singing next to you. Like it... The AI is replicating it better. It's perfect one for one. As soon as everything got digitized, right, then it became possible

to make the exact same thing. So when you hear, when you hear like an amp simulator, Carter can speak to this, when you hear amp simulators, right, you hear the same thing because what's happening is whether it be a real amp or an amp simulator, the simulations now are producing the same frequency that the amp does. So it doesn't matter if it's a real amplifier or an amp simulator. When you're recording it, it just gets turned into zeros and ones.

It gets turned into binary. And then that same binary can now be replicated without an actual amplifier. So that argument would say AI is going to do binary better than any other machine. But I like analog sound. I wrote a song called Perfection as a nuisance. I play the acoustic guitar. Yeah, but when people listen to music, they're always listening to something that's almost always listening to Biner, unless they're actually live in the room with the person. Or it's a record, like a record on a record player?

Yeah, I mean, those were analog. Technically, yeah. But that's a very, very small niche group of people that are actually listening to records. 99% of the people that listen to music, they're listening to zeros and. ones. I like live music. I like to watch live performances on like paste studios to, you know, different tiny desk stuff and it's never the same over, like, you know, it's not the record. I just, I'm playing it live. I'm kind of, you guys are probably maybe more right than I'm giving you credit for because like I'll talk to people on the phone and it just feels like I'm talking to

them. But it, I can't tell the difference. You will lose something. You will lose soul and spirit and all the conservatives complain about it, but it won't matter because the, it's, going to come down to cost, access, and availability. Back in the day, to listen to music, you had to go find someone who knew how to play music. So going to the show was such a big deal. I'm talking about 1800s. It'd be like, well, finished a hard day's work and, you know, Sunday night, hey, let's go into town and hear some music.

And you wouldn't hear it otherwise. And then we get records. You know, you get the old, what is it, the old can recording thing that Edison had or whatever? super low quality. And so people are like, well, it's great to have music at the home, but it's nothing like a live performance. Why? Have you listened to music in the 20s?

It's all lo-fi. Now our speaker technology is just insane. And you'll arguably just get better, cleaner quality. And you're going to say, I do love seeing the live performance, but I got to be honest. Like, am I going to drive downtown to see a show? Like, let's just go hang out. We got music on the sound. system. It's cheaper, easier, and faster. So people will ultimately just lean towards accessibility.

And that's what is literally happening. With AI music, you might go, I love watching, you know, like real human music, but like my playlist is pretty good. Is it as good as a human? No, but it's 80%. So it works for me. Yeah, I've found, um, when I don't go to a lot of live shows because I get bored. The band plays 15 songs. And I'm like, all right, the first five are good. I'd rather pause this and play the other band now and hear another good song I like. But, you know, I'm in a live show. You have to sit there for an hour and a half and wait. So I just kind of like, I'd rather just pick the songs I like and play them in secession, which is, I'm just sort of your point. Well, you can watch it on YouTube, which is what I do. Like, watch the live music and listen.

All right. So we got this from Stork 9-1. He says, you spent two weeks in Texas. You didn't talk to many Texas on the show. I'm going to pause you right there. I think only one guest wasn't living in Texas, like wasn't a resident of Texas. I suppose if you mean like natural born, week two was Brandon Herrera. He means cowboys. Yeah. Real Texans.

Alex Jones, Michael Malice. What was the, what was the, what was the, Matthew Marsden? He's a Dallas guy, I think. Yeah. He contributed to Blaise. No, that was after. Yeah, I think we, someone literally said this to us when we were in Austin. They were like, how come you have more Texas guests?

And I was like, eight of the 10 guests live here. Like, that was the point. You wanted to see more 10-gallon hats. Because we don't care about the Iranian conflict. The administration's deportation numbers are largely rounded numbers. They stopped filing FOIA requests back in October. They've started conflating who is getting deported from which agency from where and border crossings versus deportations. It's illegals in H-1Bs are all we are about.

Trump is losing Texas. Yeah, probably. My first thought was that's a bot, but it's not. But he said we don't care about that. A bot on our business? We don't care about the Iranian war. Like, that's a weird thing to say. I don't know who we are.

I think it's true that most people don't. I think he's saying that he doesn't want the war and around. All right, let's get this from Slick. He says, Scott and Cast, you have large platforms. Can you start a push to primary all incumbents? Don't immediately say, but some are good. Just primary them all out, please. The good ones you can count on.

Call it refused to reelect. I'm going to just this is probably, with all due respect, the 14, 896,732nd time someone. and said, why don't powerful influencers get the incumbents voted out? Because you can't. It's a long, arduous process that requires a lot of work, and you'll maybe move the needle on a handful like we saw with the progressive left, but you're not going to do a massive incumbent purge. I hear nothing to point out. The approval rating for Congress is because you're asking the nation to write individuals. Most counties, like, I'm sorry, most congressional

districts have a favorable view of their member of Congress. Then the nation has a negative view. So a lot of people are like, why are Republicans like Dan Crenshaw getting elected? Because he represents a district where they make money off of the military. To be fair, he was primaried. But you have districts where they're Republicans and the jobs they have are a weapons factory or a military industrial facility. And then we say, why are the Republicans voting for this? That guy is, because if he voted against that funding, he'd get voted out of office because the people who live in his district make money off of it. This is what people don't understand. So how do you vote the incumbents? The incumbents are promising things to their district the district wants.

Just there's no collective United States that wants the same thing. When people say they don't like Congress, most of the time they say they don't like Congress, but they like their own Congress person. So they're happy with the person that's delivering for their district, but they don't like the rest of Congress because the things that they want nationally don't get passed. But in reality, people tend to be happy with their own representative. It's just the other ones they don't like. If I may, to this person, I make a promise right here and now. If Senate Majority Leader Thune does not pass the Sea of America Act, then I am going to Texas. Senate Majority Leader Thune wants to protect John Cornyn in the Senate, the incumbent.

And the May 26th primary Senate runoff is coming up. So everybody in Texas, you have the opportunity. If Thune isn't going to give us what we want, then we are going to take away what he has. And in Louisiana, you have Senator Cassidy, who is up for election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. If he doesn't get 50% of the vote, it goes to a runoff in December. And just so this person knows, with my platform, this year I've already been to Indiana, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah to help with redistricting. I'm going to Indiana for the Cinco de Mayo primary.

I've been going to Virginia for the April 21st referendum. I hope people vote no. We have a primary in Pennsylvania on May 19th. So no, I promise you, I am using my platform. And I'm probably respectfully one of the only influencers on the ground doing the actual boots on the ground work. So you have my commitment that I'm going to continue putting in that work. There you go. Indeed. This guy has been successful in the very successful in the past. So that's a massive wipe for you. Texas definitely needs you, man. So just through the last part of your question, you said they rejected the will of the people in 24 election and put Thune in and refused a public vote so we knew who cited against Trump and Rick Scott. The issue is you've got a district where he's like, I need this

in the omnibus because it's going to provide $17 million to go to the medical facilities in my district where we manufacture masks and syringes. The people who who live in my district need this to And the Democrat goes, well, I'll give you the vote on it, but we're not passing the Save Act. And he goes, done. Because my voters don't care. National level, high-esoteric, you know, high-focused people are going to tell you about the Save Act. And then they're going to go back to their districts or they're going to go back to their state. And the people are going to be like, I mean, Save Act is great.

I love it. But are you getting us the funding? And if they come to their state and say, I told the Democrats, screw the funding for our state that we need for these programs because we want the Save Act. They vote you out. So that's the way it goes. Unfortunately. All right. Let's try and grab, what do we got here?

We got time for maybe one or two more. What do we got here? Let's see. I can't tell which our question. You got to start your question with question. Let's say this from Hades. He says, following up on Maximus's question from yesterday,

what's the best way to get the outcome-based regulations he discussed with you made into law and make it a strict requirement? I guess the issue there is we don't have the question from yesterday to reference. So I don't know what you're talking about. Maximos. Sorry, man. I remember we had the question, but I don't remember the specifics of his question. Maximus. So let's jump down and grab the next one.

Obligatorious. I think that question is not for us. Okay. Olivia says, Scott, are there other people in states like Texas, Indiana, Utah, etc., that can run their own statewide EVA team? with love your help absolutely our goal is to expand to other states i know that we want to go into nevada so you can reach out to me you can slide into my dms at scott pressler on x but no i listen i need backup you know sometimes i feel like i'm hitting my head against the wall doing this

work on my own i need more people on the ground joining us so i'd love to work with you right on There you go. Let's grab one more. Haiti says, Tim, imagine a bill where agencies can suggest best practices, but they must measure outcomes. If someone achieves a better measurable result with a creative solution or alternate method, that should count. If the regulation doesn't improve the actual outcome over time, it expires unless re-justified. I think the actual solution to that is sunset clauses in all bills. Because it's going to be, like you're asking for a nebulous bill.

The point he made is that regulation says you've got to wear a three point harness while at work doing the specific task for safety. But a five point harness would be better and we're not allowed to use it because of regulations. So how do we have regulations that say just do better? The problem is it's nebulous. So I think the real provision is we need sunset clauses in all laws, every single one of them. Every law will expire and must be re-upped. That's not a bad idea. It's a great idea.

Yeah, I mean, if it's a good policy that's produced. positive results, it should be fairly easy, or you would assume. And they'd have the omnibus law. They'd be like there are certain things like murder that we're keeping illegal, that has to be updated every five years, and all laws have sunsets, and there will never be an instance where they legalize murder, so it has to be just being done. But then there are some things that will need to be updated based on changing technology or whatever, like miscegenation laws still on the books in some states, cohabitation

Laws still in the books. Those should be Sunset. I think copyright laws could use a refurbish. Perhaps. Elon thinks so. Well, my friends, that about does it. So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you've ever met in your life. I hope you all have a happy Easter. And you hide the Easter baskets for your kids. It's going to be a lot of fun. And two, I'll avoid the unpleasant. Just to heck with those calling it a spring holiday. You see this spring holiday stuff? Yes. It's Easter. You can follow me on Xx. and Instagram at Timcast. Scott, do you want to shout anything out? Just thank you all for the support. Please don't give up. Vote, Texas, May 26th. And my organization is Early Vote Action.com.

And you can expect me to be on the ground all the way through Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026. We're going to continue to support the president of the United States. And I look forward to meeting all of y'all. Thank you. Scott Pressler, The Persistence. You can find him on X at The Persistence. Guy. Always a great time. Please come back again more. We should, I like propelling your message because you're doing God's work, man. Thank you. Yeah. Good to see you. That's good to be back. Yeah, dude. Your accent is thicker than I remember. Am I crazy? Oh, gosh. Okay, maybe I'm crazy. No, I, I've been spending too much time in the Midwest. Oh, nice. I think that's what it I moved. I moved to Pennsylvania. I love there. Really? Yeah. Is that where you're from originally?

No, I'm from Florida. Florida. Florida. All right, everybody, I met Ian Crossland. Catch you later. Had a great day. And that's all I got for now. Carter Banks. Dude, Scott, I still remember standing for like eight hours during the Trump re-election stream. And I was just like blown away by how much greatness you did for our country. So I really appreciate that. Thank you so much for coming. Thank you. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere and at Carter Banks official everywhere else. Follow our label at Trash House Records on YouTube. And yeah, Phil. I am Phil that remains on Twix. You can check out some of the things I've been writing on Patreon. It's patreon. slash fillet remains the band is all that remains we're going on tour this spring april twenty ninth we start

in albany we're going to be out for about a month we're going out with born of osiris and dead eyes you can get tickets at all that remains online dot com you can check out the band's music at apple music amazon music pandora youtube spotify and deezer don't forget the left lane is for crime we will see you all monday we got clips throughout the weekend thanks for hanging out we'll see you then