Timcast IRL - US Gov EXPOSED Funding Liberal News, Trump NUKES Politico Amid Scandal w/Nuance Bro

Episode Date: February 6, 2025

Tim, Phil, & Ian are joined by Nuance Bro to discuss Trump canceling $8 million in government funding to Politico, federal workers panicking after Trump encourages they resign, Tim Pool explaining why Elon's role in DOGE isn't illegal, and democrats encouraging illegal immigrants to defy ICE. Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Nuance Bro @NuanceBro (X, YouTube) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Man, today was crazy. So it all started when news broke that Politico, a news outlet, didn't pay their employees. And everyone started wondering what could be going on in the world where Politico, a large news organization that is considered to not like Donald Trump. How are they not paying their employees? And so people immediately started looking up government spending on Politico and found $8 million. Actually, the number is much higher if you go back further years. This led to some people tweeting that USAID, a government agency at the center of a lot of big breaking news, was funding Politico.

It's not really. What was actually uncovered is that the government is spending thousands of dollars per person on insane, nonsensical subscriptions to a ton of different media outlets. Some people are pointing out Thomson Reuters, the AP, the New York Times, Politico. Effectively, I'll put it this way. When you guys get a new subscription, you know, you pay 10 bucks, 20 bucks. The government pays two to fifteen thousand dollars for a subscription. That doesn't seem to make sense, does it?

And Politico has accepted a lot of money. Now we're hearing the White House says it's canceling all of these subscriptions, some $8 million worth. And the media is recoiling, claiming it's fake news. None of it's actually happening. Calm down. Oof. Yeah, it's happening. And you know what?

This is all out in the open. Anybody could have looked this up. It's only because of the actions of Doge and what we're seeing that people actually started digging into how the government is spending money on liberal media outlets. And they're spending tens of millions of dollars. In one instance, I think I found like the Department of Fish and Wildlife Service or whatever it's called, was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on The New York Times. And it's like for for why for what to read The New York Times? Well, they argue they have pro subscription tools and things like this.

We'll break all of that down. A lot of crazy news. Of course, we also have the shuttering of USAID. All of the staff have been affected to leave. And yeah, crazy. Donald Trump also signed an executive order banning men from women's sports. And of course, you know, a lot of people are losing their minds over that one. We had CBS released to the FCC the full unredacted raw interview with Kamala Harris. I can't believe people actually watched it, but they did. And they found that there were some alterations, which is very interesting and may impact Donald Trump's lawsuit. So we're talking about all of this stuff, my friends, and we're going to break down the scandal here and how the government is funding the liberal press. Before we get started,

of course, head over to castbrew.com and buy coffee. Unfortunately, you can't buy Ian's Graphene Dream. It's sold out. I don't know how the man does it. He's crazy. But you can get two weeks till Christmas Phil's gingerbreadbread Roast, where the man is dressed like Santa Claus. Absolutely. We also, of course, have Appalachian Nights, Rise of the Proto Junior. And I'll just shout it again. We've got the franchising system set up.

Over 100 location requests, I think in like the first week or so. And so we've been fielding a bunch of calls. A lot of people want to open up their own location. We want you to have your own location. Be a part of the team. Very excited. And of course, click the link in the description below and join Timcast.com to watch the Green Room show.

We've got one. I think today's Green Room we just filmed is probably like one of the best. It's the least consequential, but it was hilarious. And there were inappropriate jokes. We were all just basically hanging out talking about the Super Bowl and Trump and things like this. And it was a lot of fun. But Mary, Mary Morgan had an amazing conversation with Terry Schilling. It's up now and it's getting rave reviews. Everyone's saying it's like one of the best podcasts we've done. And it's literally just Mary sitting in the green room talking uncensored as the cameras were rolling with Terry Schilling. It's really interesting stuff.

And I was there playing Magic the Gathering. But don't forget to also smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know. As I mentioned, become a member. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more, we got Nuance Bro. Hey, thanks for having me. What's your real name? Omid. Ah, okay.

Well, there you go. I just call you Nuance because that's what I know you as. Yeah, that is what it is. What do you do? Who are you? Ah, okay. Well, there you go. I just call you Nuance because that's what I know you as. Yeah, that is what it is. What do you do? Who are you? I shitpost on X mostly about politics and news and all that stuff. Easily explained. You're a guy on X who complains about stuff. There we go.

There we go. We also got Elad hanging out. Hey, everybody. What's up? My name is Elad Eliyahu. I'm a field correspondent here at TimCast. Nuance, bro, what's up? It's good to see you. What's up? Ian, how's it going? Hi. Fantastic, dude. I'm Ian Crossland. I'm a prophet, an engineer. No, I'm just kidding. But the thing about the future and how we sit around, we kind of predict what's happening is we're also creating what's happening. The way that people are, you know, if you study like neurolinguistic programming, the way that people are just ready to like do what you say is going to happen,

it's pretty wild. The power of creation of reality. They call it manifestation a lot of ways. So let's keep doing it. Let's manifest some cool shit, man. Manifest some destiny. Hello, everybody. My name is Phil Levante. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains.

I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary. Let's go. And I want to mention yesterday what happened for many people who aren't familiar. I did address this on my – I did a morning live show over at YouTube dot com slash Tim Cass news. So we're all sitting here having a good old time. And we were about 20 minutes until the show started. I'm not going to get into too much personal information. All that I will say is I am a recently married man with a child on the way.

And we were about a month out from that child, which means don't be surprised if 10 minutes before the show, we have everything set up perfectly with my face smiling in the thumbnail. And then it's Phil instead, because when the wife comes a knocking, we're out the door. No questions asked. We I'll keep it real simple. We just had to go for a checkup. Everything was good, but it was a last minute thing. And anybody who has kids knows exactly what I'm talking about. So it's fun. How about that? But I'm not going to stick around and wait to find out.

I ran out the door. I left my phone. I had no idea what was happening. And Phil just jumped up and took over. So I apologize for not being here, but I'm sorry. My family's more important than, you know, talking about the news for two hours. I can always come back later. So there you go.

There's the explanation. Expect it to happen again, probably several times in the next month and maybe slightly afterwards. Sorry, but that's the way it is. All right, let's jump into this first story we have from CNN. I love it. White House says it will cancel eight million dollars in Politico subscriptions after a false right wing conspiracy theory spreads. Oh, a false one. Oh, no. It all started with this. Max Tanney says staff at Politico did not get paid. And they were basically saying it was a technical glitch resulting in them not getting paid.

I think it was. It's happened to us before. We've had days where like there was a glitch in the payroll system because everybody uses a lot of the same companies. And it's no big deal. And then within a few hours, it's resolved. However, people then started digging in being like, is Elon Musk gutting funding that took money away from Politico? Because there's a question being asked. How is it that Politico of limited audience and consequence is able to fund such a massive operation? Honest question. We here at Timcast rely on you guys to become members. And then if we do ad reads,

we don't really. But becoming members funds all of this. And it's not easy. And we're limited. And we don't have nearly the size and staff of Politico. So how do they do it? Right? Well, so people start digging in. As it turns out, the government be giving them lots and lots of money. Take a look at this from usspending.gov. Let's start with this one. Politico LLC, $862,000. That came from, it was a purchase order, and it's from the Department of the Interior National Park Service from September of 21 until September of 2025. A four-year purchase totaling $862,000. Then we've got another $622,000. This one coming from the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from June of 2022 until June of 2026, another four-year deal. Why are they spending all of this money and what is this? Here's one that's particularly egregious. 172 subscribers for $388,000.

That's $2,300 per person per year for the Department of Energy to have a subscription for one year. Now, of course, the media is trying to cover it up, but it's not just Politico. It's a bunch of other companies. Let me see. We got this from Axios. Doge targets government media subscriptions after MAGA attacks. And they mention the New York Times, AP, Reuters are getting exorbitant amounts of money for products and subscriptions from the government. So my question as we kick off this conversation to the panel, for what purpose? And be honest, maybe nuance broke. Tell us exactly why the government wants to spend between two and fifteen thousand dollars for a subscription to a news company. Why are they doing that? Well, we were talking before the show.

There was something like they were saying that Politico Pro or like these Politico has like this government service where it kind of acts like like Bloomberg terminals do for, you know, people in the investment banking world or whatever, and it allows them to see things with this proprietary software. So it would be like paying any other sort of contractor, like the way the government pays Palantir for their proprietary software that tells them logistical stuff. I don't know. I don't know what the explanation is. But hold on. That's really interesting. Politico has – my understanding is from a government tier. They have a specific subscription for the government for like two thousand seven hundred and fifty bucks.

And then they have this like Premier Plus Pro thing or whatever. That might be, I think, like fifteen thousand dollars. And so they're up. So is this is this an intelligence agency? Are these media companies effectively like Palantir providing intel and data to the government for exorbitant fees? Well, so far, I haven't really seen in any of the articles like an explanation of exactly what the government's paying them to do with this sort of stuff. So I'm pretty confused as well. But I'm also, you know, what percentage of Politico's actual annual revenue is actually coming from government sources? Do we know what, like, their annual revenue is? Because the 8 million is like, but how about like 10? Isn't that like eight or 10 years or something?

It's like nine years. Yeah, the 8 million is over nine years. So they're getting just shy of a million bucks a year from the government, from government subscriptions, which it's still, I mean, it's impactful. And in their lifetime, I think someone posted that they had like 34 million in their lifetime. So, hey, man, I'd love to get a million bucks a year from exorbitant government subscriptions. How about we launch TimCastTrumpPro, where it's $5,000 per subscription, and Trump and his team, they can all buy it from us. They would call it money laundering immediately oh of course well take a look at this now i want to stress this is not usaid funding media outlets except

this one is from the bbc our statement on usaid funding the bbc says they say like many international development organizations bbc media action has been affected by the temporary pause in U.S. government funding, which amounts to about 8% of our income in 2023 to 2024. We're doing everything we can to minimize the impact on our partners. Heavens me. The BBC is literally funded by the U.S. government to a certain degree. All of this stuff is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. There's no legitimate reason for USAID to do the vast majority of the things that I've heard about. So maybe there are other programs that USAID has that are legitimate, that actually do benefit the United States when it comes to foreign policy. But all of the stuff that I've heard being discovered by Doge or whatever,

it's all garbage. It's all slush fund. A lot of it, a significant portion of it, is money being used for one political agenda. That's the American taxpayers' money being used to promote one political agenda against, you know that's that's that a lot of americans are in complete opposition to so that right there alone is is enough reason for me to say you know cut them as deeply as we can make as many significant cuts as possible

and people that are that are screaming and crying against this they're all from one side you don't hear i haven't heard any republicans or conservatives making significant protest about this but the left they're literally out in the streets out in front of congress out in front of uh well yeah i was out in front of congress the other day, screaming at the top of their lungs, threatening to use lawfare, threatening to shut the Senate down, all because these are the projects that the left likes because they promote the left's ideology.

And to keep it, because it's not just left and right, and Mike Benz made this observation, he's been doing a lot of research on USAID, if Bernie Sanders had won in 2016, USAID would be funding anti-Bernie Sanders stuff. They're anti-populist because the populism is a threat to the control of the empire. I disagree because Bernie Sanders has been... But they were anti-Bernie Sanders the whole time. Bernie Sanders at the time was getting attacked relentlessly by

the establishment press and the DNC colluded to shut him out. So, yes. However, Bernie Sanders, he figured out who butters his bread. And, you know, he likes his vacation houses. And he likes being the largest recipient of big pharma dollars. And so he got in line. Yeah, I disagree that they would actually have gone after Bernie. Bernie is one of the biggest cowards in the Senate. And he would have laid down as I mean, he did.

He did. That's automatically basically an establishment Democrat. Now he changed his position on immigration. He said it's like a good thing that the CIA was going into Brazil to help, you know, against the whole Bolsonaro. That might be that might be because of his political leanings, though. If you're helping a socialist, a socialist is going to think, well, maybe this is OK. They decried CIA going into, you know, Central and South America for the longest time.

And now it's like, oh, it's no problem. But the left doesn't. For our guy. The left, exactly. The left's always going to be much softer on it if it's for their guy or for people that have

their political ideology. As far as the government funding for these different news organization goes, I think the most forgiving explanation is that these are essentially a subsidy to different news organizations because the business of news is actually extremely difficult and it's extremely difficult to maintain a successful news business and people then I'm sure they benefit from good coverage back and forth from the people kind of lining their pockets. But they could argue that we have an interest in a vibrant media covering what's going on in our country in an effective manner. When do we get the call? I mean, we have a we have a top global podcast. It's a prominent live show. Perhaps they could fund us, but they don't. Would you accept money? I don't even think

you would. But of course, I would not the the point well it actually depends and i'll break down the nuance on this one but the point is how come it only ever only ever goes in one direction how come right how come the law enforcement that's being fair and democratic is only after going trump supporters and j6ers it's not going after antifa and when it comes to the funding it's always just these big liberal media outlets. Let me break it down for you. I find that the argument that it's the both sides is an argument. I don't find that compelling at all.

Let me break it down, the question of would I accept money from the government? The simple answer is no. But the issue at hand is, let me give you a scenario where a company may start on good standing and good founding and then find itself wrapped around the CIA very easily. We're going to start a news organization. It's called Elad's news dot com. And Elad launches a subscription service, 10 bucks a month. And he says, hey, guys, you know, I go on the ground, I report, I ask questions, 10 bucks a month, and then you can be a member. And then, boom, overnight, he's got a thousand members. And he's

like, wow, I'm actually making a lot of money now. I could afford to hire another, another staffer to help me do this. So he has another person, makes more content. Boom. Now he's got 3000 subscribers. Two years goes by and a lot. It's got 40,000 paying members at 10 bucks a month and he's running an operation. He's got an office, a headquarters. He's hired 30, 40 people. He's like, man, this is, this is, this is amazing what we're able to pull off. Five years later, he's got a staff of 130. He's like, you know, we hear a lot of news. I've been fighting the good fight.

And we got all these people here. And then all of a sudden, CIA knocks on the door and says, we'd like to have a meeting with you. And then they slide over a piece of paper that shows 50,000 of his subscribers are actually government employees that are buying a premium plus plan and they say here's what's going to happen we want you to write that donald trump is a fascist we want this to be your principal coverage and a lot goes hey look we're journalists man we don't do that stuff and says that's no problem we're sorry we asked we'll just get in line with our boss and cancel our 50,000 subscriptions oh is that a large portion of your revenue? I guess that means you're out of

business. Everyone's fired. Or, I mean, you can just accept the truth. Trump's a fascist, right? And so what happens is these companies, some of them do get calls from the State Department. Fact. I can tell you this with experience. Definitively primary source. I have worked for news organizations where the bosses got phone calls from the State Department to talk to them about their news coverage. 100% fact. Now, it's often they try and play it like, hey, look, look, we're not telling you what to do. Yeah. But when the State Department calls you and says, we're really concerned about this kind of story, you know what that means and you

know what's going to happen if you say no you know what the greatest award in journalism is it's not the it's not the pulitzer anybody staying out of jail no you guys don't know the greatest award in journalism no it's called cia assassination Okay. It's not the Pulitzer Prize. That's the meme, at least, that if you actually are going to break down a big story that's going to expose the government, they won't let you do it. And so I think for a lot of these companies, there's the mockingbird argument that the feds have been deeply involved in spreading propaganda intentionally. I think it's much more, look, they want plausible deniability. That's why the way it works is they're going to buy premium subscriptions to the tune of a million bucks a year or whatever. That's going to fund a lot of employees. With $860,000, how many people can you hire? You can hire a bunch of low-level staff at 48,000. hire you can hire a bunch of low-level staff at 48 000 you know maybe

you can hire a handful of staff at 100 maybe a couple of like high-profile journalists for 200 and they're going to report what you tell them to report and that money is coming from government subscriptions but again what percentage of politico's revenue is actually government i can't imagine it's that high. It looks like based on those numbers, they may be getting a million bucks a year or whatever. 7.2 in 2023. Oh, that's a

healthy portion then. That's their total revenue in 2023. I'm reading 750 million. Yeah, that sounds... Wait, Politico made 750 million dollars? This is just made 750 million dollars answer on brave when i searched politico yearly revenue i don't buy that yeah that's they're not a bro that's not true that's 100 not true because how can it go from 7.2 to 750 yeah 7.2 doesn't sound

sounds like it's an error hold on are you saying 7.2 million total revenue from all sources for one year 700 right uh well right? Well, okay. This reads, as of January 2025, Politico's annual revenue reached $750 million. I don't know if that's true. However, earlier reports from 2023 indicated an annual revenue of $7.2 million. That doesn't make any sense. That's just AI being retarded. I think so, which seems to be outdated given the more recent information.

So maybe they were hiding revenue. The revenue significantly increased, reflecting the company's growth and expansion. Maybe they just got paid hundreds of millions of dollars of fee. So they may have 20,000 paid subscribers as of 2017. It's been eight years. Well, that's just paid subs. Like, they probably make a lot through advertising. I don't think they do.

I think that was actually one of the issues of contention with the story is that they don't actually run a lot of ads you go to their website you don't see advertising yeah i don't know i don't know um it's a good point though and and it is fair how much of the revenue of these companies is actually coming from this because i think uh if we pull up the new york times they get a lot of money from the government but it's not i mean the new york times has a ton of money from the government, but it's not. I mean, the New York Times has a ton of paying members. Here's the thing, though. I have an honest question about, say, the BBC and other foreign media outlets that report on the U.S., influence U.S. reporting or otherwise, and USAID accounting for 8% of the BBC's annual

budget is insane. A British newspaper? Yeah, that's a statement from BBC.co.uk saying 8% of their income. Doesn't the BBC get funded by their own government? They're supposed to be. Everyone that buys a television has a license to have a television in the UK. It's a meme. Do you have a license for that TV?

So part of this revenue of Politico, they got bought by Axel Springer for over a billion dollars in 2021. And I think that they're calculating that billion into their revenue over X amount of years. They're owned by someone. Well, that's an error.

That still doesn't make sense. But if a company's generating $750 million in revenue, they're worth way more than a billion dollars. Yeah, so $200 million in 2021, but this is because of the billion-dollar acquisition. Hey, look, far be it for me. I wonder how they're making $200-something million. It must be their premium subscriptions. And then there's questions about is there funding that we're not seeing?

Because I've got to be honest, guys. I do not see a reality, and that's just me, and maybe I'm crazy, where Politico is able to generate hundreds of millions of dollars per year off subscriptions. Yeah. Okay, Axel Springer. So Axel Springer, the company that owns Politico, is owned by Freed Springer and Matthias Doppner, two people. Corporate structure becomes a privately owned and operated news media marketing company. Well, that's why we don't know the 13.5 euro billion billion dollar 13.5 billion euro deal was struck to hive off. I think it's the crux of the issue here is that it's difficult for a media business to survive and thrive as a private business.

The most successful The New York Times is owned by a family and always has been, our edge family, the Schalsberger family. And in that way, they don't need to depend on subscriptions, although I'm sure the New York Times enjoys getting them. And the Washington Post doesn't need to worry about ever actually going bankrupt because they could stay in the red,

but Jeff Bezos will fund them indefinitely. So the shift in the way media is as a business will affect the coverage. Also, something to consider are local news stations in these smaller local news areas where they don't get any business and are completely driven based off of ad revenue and wouldn't be able to exist long term without probably they also get grants. And so they're also not so small and independent. They're like usually isn't it like is it sinclair that owns like a lot of these local stations and stuff but the thing is because they can't make money is why they will get bought out and be further consolidated into sinclair so the whole business behind media is completely in disarray um this whole subscription business model has been uh only been a thing for the past decade before that it was ads and and no that's not i just want to newspapers people

would pay for newspapers i want to i want to i want to just say this so looking at their viewership numbers we are bigger than politico so i'll just i'll just say that. The question then becomes, if we are bigger than Politico, how are we not doing $200 million a year? Maybe I got – look, man. I got to launch this TimCastPro $13,000 a month subscription plan and offer people something. I can't imagine. Insights of AI. I can't imagine what – how that is considered acceptable. Thirteen thousand dollars a month is what the charge and how many they were they were buying two hundred and forty six of them. It doesn't make any sense. But let's do this. Let's jump to this next story, which is still related. Take a look at this from the dispatch. No, Politico did not receive substantial funds from USAID. Various government agencies have purchased subscriptions to its publication since 2016.

The funny thing about these fact checks on this story is that it is fair to say that Kyle Becker and Benny Johnson got this one largely wrong by claiming that USAID was providing $8 million. But I love how they then say the claims are false. According to USA Spending dot gov, an official source for U.S. government expenditure data and the resource used by Becker in his post, Politico received 8.2 million total payments from government departments and agencies between fiscal year 2016 and 2025. OK, well, so they are receiving government funds,

but it is a fair question that Nonspro brings up. And what is their total revenue? And will this actually affect their bottom line? That being said, however, quid pro quo, if the government is spending a million bucks a year, a little bit more on premium subscriptions, is that going to someone's pocket? What's the point of it? I don't see that as making sense or look, I'm sorry, like on the ground, independent media, you go to anybody in the space and say, do you think if you offered up $13,000 subscriptions, that would make sense for anybody? And if they're going to claim that we offer our proprietary technology or whatever, the question then becomes, why is a news organization fronting for an intelligence technology operation. I want to know how much money the U.S. government gives Axel Springer, the owner. So basically, they're a German company that owns Politico. Politico is now a German company, just so you know. It's headquartered in Berlin, is where Axel Springer is. And I wonder if they're in bed with the military industrial, the liberal economic order. It's in Germany, which is basically one of the European capital

of the liberal economic order next to Britain. But I'm wondering if they've broken that. Axel Springer, if you search for Axel Springer, you can see how much donations or purchases have been made by government agencies to Axel Springer SE, which is the name of the corporation. It's interesting that they use this substantial funds language here because, yeah, it's $44,000 and then $8.1 million in that period of time from just

government agencies in general but just for bbc as you were covering earlier just straight from usa id i guess not even from government agencies altogether but they they're eight percent of all their revenue was just from usa id so it's interesting uh you know the substantial funds were going to the bbc but not uh yeah well it's the term substantial funds, the substantial funds were going to the BBC, but not. Yeah, well, it's the term substantial funds is relative. I don't know what they're I don't know. Eight percent's definitely. Well, that's the thing. I don't know what the margins are on on that type of operation, but eight percent could be all of their profit.

Eight million annually feels like a healthy chunk of change. I don't know. Maybe they started advertising. No, no, it's not 8 million annually. It's not 8 million annually. It's over 9 years. It's like 1 million annually. But again, I mean, I don't know. I don't know. A million doesn't seem like a lot of money for Politico when it comes to you.

Yeah, if they're making 200 million in revenue in 2023, then 1 million. We don't know. That's the estimate. The estimate ranges are around there. And I'm just going to say right off the bat, I must be really bad at this if their viewership is lower than ours and they're doing $200 million

and we're nowhere near that. They're a propaganda arm of Axel Springer. They're like, just like Washington Post was bought by Jeff Bezos as a propaganda arm. That thing's not pulling in money. It's Bezos subsidizing it. I don't think that it's so much about the company that owns them as their connections to the administration.

That's really because they're, they're putting out the propaganda that the administration wants. You don't hear Politico have, I haven't heard a seriously critical article come out of Politico about Democrats or, or even establishment Republicansans really in a long time and when they do do something critical on establishment republicans it's very kid gloves so they're they're i mean i don't know anything about axel springer but the the actual collusion

with the government is obvious and that's really that's the actual problem not who owns them what's that website tim that you just had up where you can search by company? USA spending dot gov. I'm going to search for Axel Springer on that USA spending. Now that the lid's blown off of USA ID. Like, I mean, again, I don't think the problem or I think who owns the company is less impactful than their actual connection to the, know the dnc or to the the administration the actual government because it's whoever's whoever's running politico whoever's actually in charge of that having the access to people in the in the democrat party and and putting out

essentially what is official you know press releases that are that are written by the government or that are that are approved by the government that's the the actual problem you know i don't know anything about axel springer maybe they are a bad company um but it doesn't really matter if they're a german company or an american company or what have you because the problem is that politico is is looked at as the serious news organization, and the Democrat establishment essentially feeds them all of the news that they're putting out. Let's do a quick fact check. The BBC Media Action, which is an NGO, is what's receiving 8% of their income from USAID. It says, as the BBC's international charity, we're completely separate from BBC News, literally in their statement.

Wholly reliant on our donors and supporters to carry out our work. And you got to remember, when it comes to these global corporations, they're great at naming things to obfuscate. And they'll put a name in a name and another thing with the same name with a slightly different thing that means something else. Or they'll call it something completely unrelated. And that's who's really in control is this umbrella corp it's called like official strategies llc and remember the panama papers what panama papers yeah yeah we found out all those people were hiding money and that came out

and within six months was like off the radar it was like putin's got his money in panama all these like global oligarchs and i'd say i can hear like silence in the room like how the just the sound gets sucked out do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? Because there's snakes down there. Let's just pause and take a big step back from whatever this story is and respect the point that we don't know the total revenue of these companies. Maybe they're much bigger and better at this than we think. I know the New York Times makes a lot of money.

Good for them. The issue at hand is for the taxpayer. Do we accept that you need to spend $3,000 to $13,000 for a subscription? Why is the government? The issue is it's not their money, so they don't care. If someone said, Elad, you can buy whatever you want. Don't worry. The money comes from Tim.

Elad's going to be like, okay, what is he worried about? It's not his money. That's because Elad's an asshole. If he actually worried about getting fired. But that's the thing. Ass agencies are like i'll spend a million dollars on subscriptions what do i care it's so disingenuous man just like there's a you can't just pay someone a million dollars to sit around and be an admin they you have to the value has to be if this is in the private sector the value of their work has to be market what do they call it market average for like the cost of the value like you can't overpay someone as an

employee it's tax fraud so for a company to to offer a ten thousand dollar subscription for something that should be worth like four thousand or one thousand or an eighty bucks a month well we don't know what it's worth because no one's telling us what the product is i want to know what the product is it's it's it's the one hand washes the other, right? So these companies like Politico is getting money from the federal government via USAID. And so Politico then writes stories that are complimentary about the government. They're literally paying Politico through USAID to write good stories about them and it doesn't matter if they're paying them if they're paying them a a substantial amount of their their their cost of operation or if they're

just paying them a million dollars a year and you know the top four for the top five um people that work there are taking 200 grand each that's what i wonder if they're making 200 million in revenue a million dollars isn't enough to blackmail or persuade them to write articles absolutely is it's not that much it's not they have over a thousand employees yeah but like they have 1,100 employees here's the thing that i think we're overlooking guys i'm reading into political pro and here it says political pro users are able to quickly get an AI-generated summary of federal bills, rapid access to critical legislature coming out, and different articles. So if you put AI into anything, any part of your business,

you will immediately double or quadruple the value of your company. So that's what you need in your company here at TimCast. TimCast does AI scripts. Everything that we're saying was scripted by AI. You could build an AI that's you that answers people's questions, and then you'd have 50,000 people buy that. It's a marketing ploy. I just don't believe it.

I do believe that they make a lot of money off this. They have newsletters, and they sell sponsorships on it. That makes sense. So I don't think their government income is substantial, but I still think the issue at play is the media is freaking out that we're talking about cutting government waste and having government employees spending millions of dollars on these subscriptions at high costs to various media organizations.

That shouldn't be happening. That's it. Yeah, it's not. I think if people get hung up on thinking like this is the bribery scandal, they're going to be wrong. It's going to be a dead end because if you relatively one twentieth of their one two hundredth of their annual revenue is this. But I'm going to say this, guys, there's never going to be a day where you discover that USAID gave ten million dollars to insert news organization. What's going to happen is USAID gave the Defending Democracy super organization in Morocco $10 million. The Defending Democracy organization then said, well, we need access to good, clean information.

So they donated $5 million to the fighting disinformation charity out of the Cayman Islands, who then bought 50 subscriptions at fifty thousand dollars each for sponsorship or whatever you're gonna start finding it's the national endowment for democracy that's basically the on the ground people that carry out usaid's briberies and and you know world building things it's the national endowment for democracy mike is that a specific organization yeah and you know that for a fact mike ben this is what mike ben says a lot he's like he's usaid so you're saying it's been reported the u.s the the national endowment for democracy is probably the next one that's going to be the next usaid lid blown off like oh my god what are they doing these are like

the boots on the ground according to mike ben's well there was um an anti-elon musk and anti-doge protests today in washington dc outside of the Department of Labor. I think there's allegedly supposed to be it's been reported that there's going to be a meeting tomorrow with people inside the Department of Labor and people at Doge. So they are seeing cuts left and right. And I'm not surprised to see any given day what department that the Doge team or the Trump team might decide to cut up. Let's jump to the story from Fortune. I'm scared. Inside federal workers' heartbreak and fury

after Trump administration encourages resignations. They're scared, guys. They're scared. Do you feel bad yet? Should we burn the Constitution? Not one bit. No? Okay. Well, here's a tweet from Shelby Talcott.

The number of deferred resignations has risen to over 40,000 ahead of tomorrow's deadline. A source familiar with the situation tells me the number is still expected to grow. For those that don't know the story, Donald Trump said to all of federal employees, how would you like to get an eight month paid vacation with full benefits? Just submit a response to this email saying resign and then you will not have to come into work and you will get paid in full with benefits until September 30th. The number is now at 40,000. And there's a bunch of Democrats

saying it's a coup, saying it's illegal. Unions are losing their minds. I love this the most. I love it. The unions are like, oh, no, we're about to lose all of all of our tax base because these union scumbags are like, we have 5000 people here who are forced to pay us 30 bucks a month. And Trump's offering them resignations. We're done. So they're freaking out, threatening Trump saying or the administration legally saying, like, you can't do this. It's illegal, but it's happening. And he also offered the CIA employees buyouts. Yeah, but it's not really Trump, it's Elon, because the way this happened is an email got sent out en masse to the various employees that this would apply to. And the title of the email

was a fork in the road, which if people remember, it's the same email that went out to all these ex-employees at the time to give them their severance and said, hey, you can stay with us or you can take this severance. It's a generous severance package and leave if you don't want to go, you know, hardcore or whatever. So in this case, they're doing an eight-month severance. I guess there's something in the law where they can do that through executive action any longer. I think Elon wanted to do like two years initially, but that would require an act of Congress. So that's why they're doing this eight month thing. Interesting.

It's very, it seems on its face, very reasonable. I mean, think about how horrible it would have been if the people had just been fired and left on the street. Like he's given them eight months. Who's going to say no? Well, a lot of people are saying no, apparently. How many? So 40,000 said yes out of how many so far?

Anybody got that number? Two million or something? Yeah, a couple million. But the question is this. How many people would, if I said, said what what's what's would you want to start a business nuance bro sure uh how about i give you eight months of funding to start your business oh it sounds great sounds great doesn't it and benefits health care but here's the thing if you've been working for the federal government for 19 years and you're like, oh, I could get that 20 year pension once I hit that 20 year mark.

You're going to want to be like, I want to hit that 20 years because that's actually more money than eight months of severance. I don't know if people have made if they've been made aware of this, but like taking the offer might be the best option because Doge may just come and get rid of their jobs after like if they don't take this option doge might come you know the doge doge might come after them that's why people are scared yeah and good they they should be like the idea that this is some kind of horrible development for america that that it's a coup or any other stuff it's literally just trying to streamline the government that's all that they're doing is trying to make cuts which any functioning business does this is the most normal thing that that that can possibly happen in a in the private sector you look at the people that are working

you look at the job they're doing if they're not doing a good job you start making cuts and this is something that should have happened i mean it should have happened multiple times in the past 50 years continue there should be a an ongoing uh effort to cut government it shouldn't be just one time that doge comes in there should be every year there should be audits that you have to pass that you have that you have to show where all of the money that you're spending goes. This should be the most normal, mundane thing in the world. And the fact that the left is apoplectic about it and trying to make it seem as if it's an attack on average people, when average people are not going to be significantly affected by

these things. In my opinion, it shows that they're the people that are going to lose because these programs are slush funds for the left and for their agenda. The more government that you have, the better the left likes it. Yeah, the Democrats are making a huge mistake by hitching their wagon to this like USAID cause because the only people who are at these protests or care about USAID for the most part in the United States are people who live maybe within like a two mile radius of Washington, D.C. It doesn't make any sense. People like Axelrod, David Axelrod, and even what's his name? Who's that Democrat strategist that looks like a naked mole rat? He also says like they're making a mistake by like putting all their political capital james carville they're they're all saying that democrats are

making a huge mistake by by by standing up for this instead of the things that really matter like the medicaid especially when you can show that these programs is when you can tie to it like the gender affirming care in guatemala or trans people in blah, blah, blah, in some foreign country. When you're sending millions of dollars, which granted a million dollars when it comes to the federal budget is nothing, but to the average American, a million dollars is a lot of money. If they got a million dollars, it would change their life. So when you can tie a million dollars to this stupid program, a million dollars to this stupid program, and then not only that, it's all stuff that's all like quote unquote woke and things that normal people are like, I'm not okay with that. When you can put those things together, you have a recipe for the worst PR imaginable.

And the Democrats are walking right into it. I think the most amazing thing here is how fast Trump is making all of these moves. And it really has the left in disarray. So in a different season, when Trump was reinvigorating ICE and talking about these mass deportations, that would have led to a whole social movement and Trump wouldn't have been able to do stuff for a month. But here he signs that the left isn't even able to organize around it. One day he's talking about taking over Greenland and the Panama Canal. You could have seen a whole round of protests against that. But since he's moving so quickly, they can't do that. This U.S. aid stuff, so quickly they can't get a response. He said he's withdrawing from UNRWA and withdrawing the U.S. from the Human Rights Council, all of these moves,

talking about taking over Gaza, that it really has all of the left in disarray, the speed that he's able to go through all this stuff and accomplish so much. We're starting to respond slowly. Mark Pocan, Representative Mark Pocan, introduced a bill called, it's the Elon Musk Act. He introduced it this morning. It hasn't been made available to the public, but it prevents special government employees from taking government contracts. We've had, what's this class of government employee called?

Special government employees since 1962. And it lets you hire someone from the private sector without them having to quit their private sector job. And then you can appoint them in the executive or the legislative branch as a special government employee as an administrator. I think it's just posturing. This bill isn't going anywhere.

It's just posturing. It's called the Elon Musk Act. You might as well just be, you know, that's what he's trying to run on. I think it's just posturing. This bill isn't going anywhere. It's just posturing. It's called the Elon Musk Act. You might as well just be, you know, that's what he's trying to run on. I got a question for you guys. Which county has the highest median income in the United States? Loudoun. It's the one that's right next to D.C. The one that's right

next to D.C. It's Loudoun County. And it's lawyers and lobbyists and other people funded through these crackpot government programs. This place would not exist if they were not taking taxpayer dollars and dispersing them in this way. I tell you, man, the age of artificial intelligence is a little bit of a tangent here, but those jobs will be displaced. Lawyers, displaced.

They're not going to have jobs. AI is going to do it for them, for us. We don't need to pay middlemen. Well, let's uh real quick there's already been a bunch of scandals where lawyers were caught drafting up legal arguments using chat gpt oh my gosh manufactured fake precedent and then put in fake cases and judges were like that's not a real case yeah you maybe you call them i don't the parasite class but people that are like trying to profit off of things you should be able to do yourself if you only knew how um

that those people are going to be just, those jobs will be terminated. Say that again? People that are profiting off of doing something for you that you should know how to do yourself. Like what? Like a lawyer. A lawyer. You should be able to represent yourself in court. You're legally allowed to.

And if you knew enough about it, you could. But because of the cost of schooling, and not everyone wants to, I get that, but you still can. Those jobs are going to be terrible. It's largely because the lawyer game is not about what's true and correct. It's about what you can argue. Yeah. And so we in this country, like based on what you're saying, we believe that good men of honor and integrity who are trying to get to the truth should be able to make those

arguments. But then the issue is there's rules in court. There's rules to how you can argue or present a case. There's when is the office open? If you file this paper and get this permit, when does it got to be submitted to this office? And if you don't know those things, you're going to lose. So a person representing themselves, that's why they have a fool for a client, as the saying goes, because they're going to walk in and be like, I'm honest. I have the truth on my side and i'll tell people the truth and then the lawyer is going to say your honor based on this reason and that reason strike that from from the record and then the judge is going to be like your evidence is out and you're like wait what why but with a good artificial

intelligence program that will guide you through the process and let you avoid all those pitfalls you you'll be you may be on you'll be in prison school for eight years for it you'll be in prison and you'll have a cellmate like what are'll be like, what are you in for? And you'll be like, honestly, I didn't do anything, nor was I arrested, but the AI made a miscalculation on my name and put me instead of the other guy who was also named Tim Pool in prison. Maybe at first. I mean, it's not going to be a perfect process, but I think that's the idea is that it is going to displace 40% of the workplace or something within the next five years. I'm a huge AI skeptic. I think we're being sold a false bill of goods. And the market evaluation boom that we've been seeing off of the marketing of AI,

it doesn't hold water in any way. People talk about the applications of AI. I don't think we're going to see them the way that people are panning them out. I think we've been sold false technological advances in the past that haven't panned out. And we're just being sold more and more of them now. I think the chatbots that we see now are wrong

half of the time. With full self-driving. We don't have full self-driving in a meaningful way. What do you mean? I do it every day. Yeah, what do you mean? We have full self-driving in certain parts of the country that isn't completely safe. No, that's not true. That's not true. I have two Teslas, and I push a button,

I put my hands down, and I stare, and it drives by itself. You need to hold the wheel. No, you don't. That's not true. You don't need to I can get in. I have two Teslas, and I push a button, I put my hands down, and I stare, and it drives by itself. You need to hold the wheel. No, you don't. That's not true. You don't need to hold the wheel. It doesn't go wrong. It doesn't ever. No, but here's what he did.

Three years, two years ago, maybe. But right now, if I get into my Tesla, I click the button one time, and it drives straight to my destination. So tonight, we're supposed to have an ice storm here or something. You are going to be willing to go click a button and take you home to wherever you need to drive right now. In these back roads in West Virginia, where you can barely see. Let me pause you right there. Go ahead.

In many circumstances, the car reacts better than I do and a human being does. So actually, when we were driving, it was last year in a snowstorm, I let the car drive itself. Because do you know how to respond to hydroplaning? Tell me what to do if you hydroplane.

You're supposed to brake hard and then let the auto. Negative. You're supposed to very gently tap it. Don't slam the brakes. Hey, you know what? I'm not going to argue with any of you because my self-driving car automatically adapts to hydroplaning and corrects itself. And they have new brakes that will automatically adapt for you if you slam them but the point the point is you can be you can be a

skeptic about ai all you'd like but ai is advancing faster than than you could believe the end of this year the full self-driving unsupervised is alleged to be released if not the end of this year it'll be first quarter or something like that next year which means where you don't have to watch it. Like right now, if you're driving, you do have to keep your head up and look at the road. There will be coming shortly one where you don't.

That's what the Tesla taxi is based on. The autonomous taxi is based on the person doesn't have to do anything. Ramo does it right now. Exactly. You get an attack. We don't have to do anything. Ramo does it right now, exactly. You get an attack. We don't have widespread, effective, as I understand, still on the streets,

self-driving cars. You're wrong. I think with chatbots, if I can continue to talk. I actually agree. You can't agree. I have a Tesla, too, with full self-driving. But here's the thing.

The edge cases are the main. It can do most, like 99% of things it can do. But the problem is if you're going to do it for everyday application and over, you know, long periods of time, it still has problems with edge cases. That's why it's, that's why it's not. Like, no, like what's an example of an edge case? An edge case will be, for example, if a leaf falls the exact way, or there's like a strange object in the street that it doesn't know if it's

like a shadow because it's working purely on vision because Tesla only does vision they got rid of the radar they don't do lidar with just a vision and it doesn't have any gimbals so it can like move around and stuff it's hard for it to completely identify objects the same way humans can in edge cases because it's and let me real quick. There's also a thing called blind spots that's been around since the creation of cars. And humans also can't see 100% either. And humans can do accidents too. No, I think it's safer than humans.

I think like mile per mile right now, it's safer than humans. If you're trying to have it as like a day-to-day, long-term application, those edge cases are still what trips everything up. Remember what started this conversation? a lot is skeptical of ai and the point is ai is progressing faster than most people can say so i don't whereas we can talk about edge cases all all we want and there are going to be edge cases and stuff like that ai is the technology that people say that so phil i don't

think that the ai that we're being marketed right now justifies the doubling tripling quadrupling of a lot of tech stocks that we're seeing right now in the stock market is my point there are bubbles absolutely and there was okay but that's that what's going on in in the in the stock market is different from what's going on well that's what you're talking about if you're talking about the the or the valuation of companies, that's one thing. But this is what happened with the dot-com bubble, too. There were everybody that had a dot-com. The prices went crazy on everything that was dot-com.

I agree with you about maybe there are companies that are overvalued, but it doesn't mean the underlying technology is not great. Okay, so we're not artificial. It's really a marketing ploy because it's not artificial intelligence in any serious way we think of the word these chatbots are next word predictors they're not actual artificial intelligence in the way that we think of a cognizant we were just talking about cars that drive themselves not about llms um it's it's i don't think that's why i don't think that's why amazon and microsoft are quadrurupling their market caps because of self-driving cars. It's this different chatbot technology. That's why Tesla has been going nuts.

Okay, well, I didn't mention them specifically. I'm talking about, you know, maybe three-fourths of the stock market that is, you know, booming because of these AI chips. But these chatbots are wrong half of the time, and these evaluations aren't justified. And I think we'll be seeing the consequences of that. I wanted to kind of wrap back into the end of this talk about Elon and Doge, because I think people's fear, this terror that people are feeling is that what's going to happen is this unelected bureaucrat has been appointed into office and he's going to be able to go into an agency and fire people without any congressional authority. He's not a bureaucrat.

Well, he works with, he's like a CEO of Tesla of X. He owns a billion dollar company. All right, but let's just clarify. He's not a bureaucrat. How do you define bureaucrat? Bureaucrat is like an H.R. administrator who's like, hey, I want to come in here and use this room for Friday. OK, well, Phil, Phil, fill out form H3B, then go speak with John over in administration and he'll get you. That's a bureaucrat. And so the deep bureaucracy that people refer to at the deep state is that, as we saw with the James O'Keefe undercover videos, Trump says, hey, we want to, say, pull all of our troops out of Syria. Or no, no, better. RFK is a better example. The guy said RFK will say, let's get Florida out of water. And they'll go, OK, we're going to put

together the commission to figure out how to do this. These are the people who are hired and basically just create bloat and obstacles to actually doing what RFK says just to do. Yeah. And in fact, Elon made the point that the bureaucracy is a government that is run by the bureau and he wants a democracy or so he wants to bring it or the meritocracy, not a bureauocracy. So he wants to get away from the bureaucrats running, the bureau running the government. I agree with that. But people are afraid that a guy that was unelected

has been appointed. He's a billionaire businessman, and he's going to now have the unadulterated authority to go from organization to department and fire people. It's a lie. It's fake. I don't think he can. That's the thing. I know that the way,

I've been doing a lot of research, and I posted a great post on X, if you want to follow up on this, he's been appointed the Doge. The department was basically U.S. Digital Services. Trump renamed it U.S. Doge Services. It's the same organization that Obama created in 2014. It was legally created. It's legally there. He appointed Elon Musk as a special government employee as the admin is to my I haven't seen an official appointment so as far as I know USDDS used to doge services doesn't have a current administrator I think Elon's acting is de facto administrator he might officially be there but if you search for it they give you the old administrator um and he's doing legal appointments he's allowed to work for 130 days a year in that capacity as the administrator of Doge. He is not the administrator of Doge. I don't think there is one right now, which is concerning me. So let's clarify.

When you said he's allowed to work for a certain amount of time, it's irrelevant because he's not. And why does it concern you? Well, you said someone because if he's doing the job de facto, but he's not technically appointed, that makes me nervous. Why? But why is it? Because you're supposed to follow the law and appoint the person to do the job. If they're doing it off the record, that's very dangerous for our country. Well, he's an advisor to the president.

The president can select whoever he wants as an advisor. He's very concerned with process. That's what it sounds like. Ian wants bureaucracy. I'm like Thomas Massey like this. I'm obsessed with the process and the integrity of the process. Let me ask you a question. Can Trump ask a friend for advice? Of course. so so we're done there's nothing wrong with it

uh if that was all that was happening but elon was actually hired as a special government employee he's not getting paid not even paid but you can hire a special government employee with or without pay he's still a special advisor so he was hired legally to do a legal job i want to know what that and what's happening now is i'm going to to shout out, I was watching The Daily Show last night, right? Shout out Jon Stewart. They literally, in the opening of the show, it says TDS in big bold letters. For real. And they were doing this segment called, Is It Legal?

And they kept saying things that Elon or Trump had done. And then this guy is increasingly with my books and messy glasses going, I don't know if it's legal. And I just want to clarify something for you, Ian. And I want to clarify something for everyone listening. The question is not supposed to be, is it legal? The question you need to answer that has no bearing on what we do or want is, is it illegal? Because the reality is we do not operate in this country upon fear of something not being legal. If it is not explicitly illegal, you can do it. If it is codified in law that is illegal to do or unlawful, then you cannot. So so when Elon Musk does things and they're not

codified in law as crimes or unethical or anything like that, asking the question, is it legal, is a waste of our time and is imposing upon free American individuals some kind of responsibility to the government to check with them if we're allowed to take actions. No, it is the other way around. The government's beholden to us. If Congress wants to pass a law and write it down and say, you can't do this, there's no question of, is it legal? We do things as we see it. And if you've got a problem, what did we find? They're trying to pass a new bill, the Elon Musk Act. That's right. Because what Elon is doing is totally legal and there's no law saying he can't do it. That's what I'm wondering. So the executive order that Trump created Doge with,

it mandates that Doge has an administrator that reports to the White House chief of staff. And I don't know who that administrator is. In order for this organization to function, it needs an administrator. I suppose it would just default to the president until he appoints one. Let's just pause real quick. Who cares about that organization? Well, that's the organization that's credited with doing the work right now. So what? So who's running it? Who cares?

I do, man. For what reason? So should everyone. Because that's the process of our government. If you're going to, through executive order, create an agency that says you need an administrator, but then you never appoint one, what the hell is going on? Where does it say you need an administrator for that? It says it in the executive order in section 2, 3B.

Read down. It's section 2. It order in section 2, 3B. Read down. It's section 2. It's in section 2 of the executive order. We can pull it up. It says, here, I'll pull up the executive order right now. If you were to structure reorganization and read it, section 3. It is not a budgeted part of the United States government, which requires approval from Congress. 3B, section 3. No, let me pause again. Say that again. The U.S. Digital Service, despite its name, is not a budgeted part of the U.S. government, which requires approval from the United States Congress.

Correct. It was created by executive order by Obama. So it is not a budgeted part of the U.S. government. Yeah. So that means it's operating under only executive order, so trump can literally do what he wants as the executive well he signed the executive order that it says the shall report the establishment of a temporary organization that shall there should be a u.s doge services administrator established in the executive office of the president shall report to the white house chief of staff that section 3b of the executive you would feel more comfortable if he did another

executive order saying okay we don't need an administrator or if he appointed someone as the administrator publicly. This is, I gotta be honest, you're arguing like, the door is supposed to be locked, but you have a deadbolt. It's like a deadbolt is locked, and it's not the lock I was talking about. I'm steelmanning the argument that it's illegal.

I wanna make sure that we seal this up so that it can't be broken up in court and undone. I think you're getting into nuance that quite literally not even the Democrats are getting into in terms of their complaints. I don't know, man. Maybe, maybe not, maybe not. I think the're getting into nuance that quite literally not even the Democrats are getting into in terms of their complaints. I don't know, man. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe not.

I think the arguments against Elon Musk is that he has many interests that the government is also involved in. And there's a conflict of interest there. He also has many business interests abroad. So, for example, he has SpaceX here, obviously Tesla here. He also has mega Tesla factories in China. So these are conflicts of interest down the line. That could be an issue. If the government is the best argument I could think. I also do think Doge and Elon Musk is doing a good job. I think there are credible arguments that this is the concern is that if the president by executive order sets up an eight, a department that oversees tech companies, and then they hire a special government employee that happens to be the ceo of a tech company to oversee that

organization that oversees tech companies while he's still the ceo of a tech company you've got a big conflict of interest well what if xi jinping just starts penalizing elon musk's mega factories in china you know then elon musk will feel the pain and he would you know hypothetically try to get trump to work with them to stop, you know, him penalizing him in China. Wait, so you understand that? No, no, no. Say that again.

The issue with Elon Musk is that he has many business interests, domestic and abroad, that could potentially influence his thinking when talking to Trump. So, for example, in China, he has many mega Tesla factories. And if Xi Jinping wanted to penalize Elon Musk, he could hypothetically make it harder for him to do business in these factories. And that could influence the way Elon Musk would try to get Trump to negotiate on Xi Jinping with. Yeah, I'm stopping. Does that make sense here? Am I doing import tariffs from China? But I don't know if that hit the Tesla stuff specifically.

And I guess Tesla doesn't really import from their factories on the international stuff, even domestically. Elon Musk has a lot of business interests with SpaceX, where he has to work closely with the government. So the argument would be that having a close advisor who has so many interests with the government could be a conflict of interest. Yeah, it doesn't mean that it's illegal. No, not illegal, but it's a conflict of interest. It could be a conflict of interest. It is a degree of granular bureaucratic debate that matters nothing to me.

My concern is that we have departments like USAID and was it the National Endowment for Democracy or whatever? We have these activist organizations around the world that are being funded to the tune of massive amounts of money. And so when I see Elon Musk go in and be like, hey, guys, did you realize they just gave like $8 million over the past, you know, $3 million a year to this news organization for bloated subscriptions? I go, oh, wow, why are we wasting that money? I don't care if it's a substantial portion of the revenue of that company. I just think I'd rather give all of that $8 million to a single 9-11 first responder in need of help. Literally, let's just do that. How about that? Let's all agree that instead of spending $30 million or whatever the number is in various media subscriptions,

we just give that to one first responder or one veteran. I think that's just a better use of our time. So anyway, my point is this. Elon Musk is going in as effectively an advisor to the president as a special employee. Trump could do it himself, but he's a busy guy. He has the authority to do it himself, but he's a busy guy. He has the authority to do it himself, but he's a busy guy. So he says, Elon, you've got business experience. Go and find the bloat. And we have found so much insane bloat teaching Moroccans pottery for real. That was a really funny one. I heard thousands of years, right? There's one where it's spreading atheism in Pakistan, I think, or something like that. There was one where it's spreading atheism in Pakistan, I think, or something like that.

There was one where it was doing gender-themed plays in Peru or something. So when Elon's like, hey, this is $40 million of your money going to these programs, I go, that's a really big problem. And then, with all due respect, you come and say, but is he is Elon allowed to point this out? And I'm like, well, Trump could point it out, but Trump asked Elon to do it. So I really don't care about the nuance or the granular bureaucratic debate of how do we, through the parliamentarian process, formalize Elon Musk when not even Democrats care about that. There are times when I think that we talk about this last night, that breaking the law is the only way to move forward. Like suspension of habeas corpus after the Civil War. They just dispensed with the Constitution and were like, we're just going to do what we need to do to establish order.

Well, but it worked. Did it? Apparently. Well, not apparently. It's a question of what did it do? No. What did the suspension of habeas corpus do? It allowed the government to do crazy stuff.

Where and why? I don't know the specifics. Exactly. But I know that they dispensed with the Constitution for a short period of time. The suspension of habeas corpus was a corridor between D.C. and Pennsylvania, specifically because Maryland was a slave state and they needed access to D.C. And they were concerned that the sympathies of Maryland would interfere with their ability to move troops to protect D.C.

So they said from this corridor from here to down here in this in this area, don't mess with the U.S. We are at war. And there was an instance where a random guy got locked up and he refused to play ball and they held him until the war was over and let him go. There was an instance where they went and arrested a bunch of the state representatives from Maryland for having Southern sympathies. These things I don't feel were good. And I don't know that we have evidence that doing that actually improved the efforts. To be fair, you can say the U.S. government is securing this corridor under martial law, but the argument that the general suspension of habeas, by bureaucracy since 1913, the Federal Reserve, these bureaucrats have taken over our country. We need to suspend some sort of metaphorical habeas corpus to get our country back. I mean,

and they're willing to break the law. I'm I'm the jury's out on whether or not that's a good thing, because it's the first step on a slippery slope. If you do it now, the next you think the next president's not going to do it? They probably will. So you've got to be real careful about adhering to every letter of the law. That's why I'm bringing it up. We have long maintained this position of, but guys, the Democrats are doing bad thing. And if we try to stop them, then what happens if later on someone else uses the powers we created to do bad thing as well. What that ignores in the slippery slope argument is that a bad thing is currently happening. So the Democrats are abusing the system, spending money with reckless abandon to burn everything down and spread their crackpot

Marxist ideology. And we go, wait, if we stop them doing evil later in the future, someone else might do evil. And I say, OK, when that happens, we will fight against that evil the same as we fight against this evil right now. That's the only thing I see. Because otherwise you end up with these scenarios where it's like, we better not implement this new policy lest they use it against us. And it's like, but they're using evil things against us right now. This is sort of the argument. We have to just win the culture war. Yeah, like you've got in Dungeons & Dragons, it's kind of a silly metaphor, you've got

law and chaos. You know, you get to pick how lawful do I want to be, how chaotic. You get to pick on that scale. And I'm sort of in the middle. Like, if a law is evil, then you should not do it. The Nazis, for instance, made all that crap they were doing legal in Germany. People should have been, they were. People that were hiding Jews in their attic and stuff

were basically violating the law to do good. So you've got your law versus chaos, and then you've got your good versus evil. You can be chaotic as hell and be really good. That's Robin Hood. Ian, there's breaking news. Good. Elon just announced that he's going to be redirecting

the USAID funds into graphene production so long as Ian stops calling him out. The Robin Hood of graphene. Let's jump to this next story, ladies and gentlemen. We got this from the Post Millennial. Rep Ilhan Omar advises Somali immigrants not to comply with ICE deportations. We then have this video from Libs of TikTok. Rep Dan Goldman is now putting out videos in Chinese

instructing illegal aliens how to evade ICE. Why is he trying to protect Chinese murderers, spies and criminals who are in our country illegally? Well, let me show you this. This is 1907 Title 8 USC 1324A offenses, which includes something called encouraging or inducing, subsection 1324A1A4, makes it an offense for any person who encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to entry or residence is or will be in violation of the law. In other words, Rep. Dan Goldman, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and many other Democrats are quite literally violating a federal law which has a penalty for inducement of up to five years in prison. So I really doubt the DOJ is

going to come after these people and put them in prison, but they're quite literally breaking federal law by doing this. And so my question to all of you as we jump into this story, what happens if we don't enforce this law and we tell Democrats as a large political class, you can break it? Well, it's arguable if they are breaking. So, for example, if they are saying, and this goes out to all my illegal immigrant friends out there, and I'm telling you this, that would probably be breaking the law. But if they're saying, hey, a lot of, you know, people who aren't illegals, people who are maybe asylum people and other various like legal status, you know, migrants are getting caught up in this sort of stuff and they're telling it for those people.

And maybe it could apply to illegals. That would not necessarily be illegal well i mean i'm not sure if that's actually the case or not and i'm not sure exactly how they're articulating what they're actually saying there are people that are saying oh well if they're just informing people of their right to keep to remain silent that's not illegal and I'm not so sure that it isn't because these people are residing here. Good. Let's just take a pause real quick.

If a guy walked into a bank and went to the teller and said, can you please, with expedience, empty out that drawer and fill this sack up for me? When the police show up to arrest him for bank robbery and he goes, I wasn't robbing them. I just asked them if they would give me their money. And they said, yes. Do you think that's going to fly in court?

That particular circumstance, probably not. So the issue at play is the question is going to be, do Ilhan Omar and do does AOC and Dan Goldman know that the information they are giving specifically is aiding and abetting illegal immigrants? And I think any reasonable person would be like, well, of course, they're talking about illegal immigrants. ICE isn't going after legal immigrants. No, but they've been citing cases where that has been the case. And a lot of the people that they're saying, for example... I'm going to pause. Do you actually believe that AOC, Goldman, and Omar are specifically trying to inform legal residents of the United States their legal rights? I think in their opinion, a lot of them are.

For example, the Haitian stuff. I'll give you... No, the Haitian stuff. When Trump was citing the Haitian migrants in Ohio and everything, a lot of people on the Republican side are saying those are illegal migrants. The Democrats are like, no, no, no. Those people came in through legal programs, whatever. I think a lot of us would argue, well, those were under the Biden administration. They like made illegal immigration. I understand that. There is a distinction. Do you actually think that Ilhan Omar in this story specifically is looking at legally residing Somali migrants?

It's not about what you think. It's about what you can prove in court. And that's my point. So when you say it's questionable as to why they broke the law, sure, but it doesn't matter. Because I think any reasonable person knows they're not talking about legal residents who are scared of ICE. Because if you're a legal resident and ICE shows up to you, say, here's my green card, here's my ID, what's the problem?

They say, have a nice day. When they're saying, don't talk to them, that advice only applies to someone who does not have legal status i mean that's that's what i would say i i think they're they're doing it for illegals but i'm just saying from a like a prosecutorial perspective i think anyway well it depends on your jurisdiction if you go to a if you go to new york the jury is going to, can we nullify this because we want illegal immigrants here? But the simple— I'm not so sure about that in New York.

Well, fair point, fair point, fair point. Now it's really this simple. If you had a jury of 12 individuals of regular random people and said, do you genuinely believe that when Dan Goldman spoke Mandarin advising people how to avoid ICE and immigration enforcement, do you believe his intention was to provide relevant legal information to legally residing Americans? No one says yes. I got to push a little on it, even unfortunately, because I'm enjoying this. It's like people saying, don't talk to the cops. Even if you're done nothing wrong, don't talk to the cops. And this might be a similar, like you could argue this is a similar thing.

I think it is not because first, when it comes to telling someone don't talk to the cops, that's a general broad statement that applies to all Americans of all status, whether they've committed crimes or not. When you say specifically immigrations and customs enforcement is coming to deport illegal immigrants. If they approach you, do not talk to them. We are talking about people who are actively committing a crime and you advising them on how to avoid, which is specifically codified in laws inducing them to reside in this country. If you went to someone, so there are other questions in other crimes being committed. If someone had a bag of drugs on them and you said, you've got drugs on you, yo, bro, you got crack and cocaine, that's a felony. They're going to catch you. And when they do, you will go to prison. Let me give you some advice to help you avoid law enforcement. You can actually get in trouble for that. If you're a lawyer and you said,

look, and now actually there's an interesting question about, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know if you guys know this. If a person is actively in the process of committing a crime and you're a lawyer, is a lawyer required to report that? I think I would hope they would. I think there's I don't know. So lawyers are. So if you're a criminal, like a criminal, and you tell your lawyer, yes, I committed that crime. The lawyer can't. I'm pretty sure the lawyers aren't supposed to go out and say, but I don't know, though.

I don't know. That could be wrong. Like, I know therapists have to report it. But the issue at play here, there's specifically a law saying encouragement or inducement to reside illegally in the U.S. or with reckless disregard as to whether it would be legal or not. It's very broad. But I think it's fair to say we understand what these Democrats are doing. Trump is going after violent criminals, people who already broke the law. And Democrats are saying we will provide you with materials to avoid detection, inducing them to reside here. Well, in your drug example, I actually I'm not sure, but I don't think it would be illegal to say, look, like you just inform someone of their rights, even though, you know, they might have committed a crime like you're allowed to inform people of their rights.

But if you said, for example, if your way of helping them is, hey, if you go hide in these specific locations or you do this or that, that's probably illegal. But if you would just inform people of their rights when it comes to dealing with law enforcement. I don't think that would necessarily constitute a crime. I do think lawyers are required to report if their clients are actively committing crimes. Well, I think they're still allowed to represent them. It's just the argument has to change. So it's like if your client murdered someone, you would say, yes, he killed this individual. But you have to like – do you say there's like a mitigating circumstance and you try to get a lower sentence or maybe guilty by reason – not guilty by reason of insanity? I don't know.

The thing here is that I think they're obfuscating really hard with the immigrants versus illegal immigrants. Even in this Postmillennial article, they're saying Somali immigrants. So if they're not talking to illegals, I don't know what the exact argument would be. Here's the thing. None of us are lawyers, but I'll tell you who is one. Dan Goldman, he graduated from Stanford and he was actually one of the impeachment prosecutors, I think, for one of the Trump cases. So I'm sure this guy knows what he's doing.

The thing, too, here is that it's a total virtue signal. I don't think anybody's reading Dan Goldman's Chinese tweet about like who is a Chinese person in Chinatown and using that information to try to avoid police. And I have full confidence in our police and ICE service members that they will be able

to get the job done despite, you know, Ilhan Omar giving hints about, you know, not opening the door or what have you. And what actually helps their defense is how kind of like alarmist they've been with their language like saying trump's gonna deport everyone who's an immigrant like not even stipulating illegal or whatever they're just like if you're if you're

just brown in america they want to deport you and kill you so that would probably help them in a court of law i would need to hear specifics about what ilhan said in this instance for this to see like did she incite them to continue to break the law did she focus on there's a quote right there they have i advise the somalian people that if ice attempts to question you you are not obligated to answer the question that's a legal statement that's like a don't talk to cops type but right and so there is there's a difference in that. It is it is codified as a crime to induce someone to reside illegally in the U.S. That's the distinction. It is not codified anywhere that inducing someone like telling someone drugs are cool or whatever.

I'm pretty sure it's not illegal, you know, giving your opinion on those things. But if someone is not a legal resident here and you are telling them they can stay here's how you avoid detection from law enforcement that may be inducement under the law that's illegal in these instances um it's well i mean everything is maybe you have to prove it in a court well no we actually don't know if doing this particular thing would be like even if it was just outright like i am informing illegal immigrants of their rights uh when it comes to law enforcement i i still don't think that necessarily would be illegal oh yeah but if she said illegal immigrants should reside like if she starts to tell that's an opinion illegal this is why they say when trump is like there's violent criminals who

enter the country illegally they go trump hates immigrants but it was that was one uh eight u.s code one three two four is what you were talking about right tim because i've yes so it says any person who encourages or induces an alien to come to enter or reside in encourages to reside in or that's not that giving someone legal advice when it comes to their rights when it comes to law enforcement, is not you necessarily encouraging them to reside in the United States. It might have the effect of them residing if they're successful or whatever, but it doesn't like that's more of a matter of process. So all the all the NGOs. Here's the thing. Yeah.

The bus drivers in Arizona that were loading up with illegal immigrants and bringing them in. They need to go to prison. Oh, this is interesting because people are terrified of political retribution right now. And we got to be real specific, like prosecutorial discretion. Donald Trump and the DOJ needs to find those bus drivers that were that were ferrying illegal immigrants into the country. And they knew they were because James O'Keefe exposed them and put them in prison. I would, if they were doing it still, I would agree on the spot. But because they were doing it under the authority of a president. No, they knew it was wrong.

Watch the videos from James O'Keefe. They panic when they find out that they have been filmed breaking the law. They knew what they were doing was illegal, and they did it anyway because they got cash for it. Lock them up. Yep. I think Tom Homan should take this as a challenge. Hey, whenever you hear it.

Were they illegal or asylum seekers? I don't know. Well, that's how they try to obfuscate. And then you were spot on earlier when you mentioned how Joe Biden legalized a lot of citizens. I think the pilots of aircraft who knew they had illegal immigrants on their planes should also be charged. I mean, it was definitely an unethical thing to do.

It was a fact during the past four years that there were commercial flights where pilots knew they were faring large amounts of illegal immigrants across the country. You also had the story where into Tennessee, I think it was, they were taking illegal immigrant children, putting them on planes and flying them into various cities. One of the big stories was Westchester, New York. In the middle of the night, illegal immigrants were being ferried into these places, using government taxpayer money.

People flew those planes. You know, it's very similar. People serviced those flights, and they should have said no. Should we criminally charge Greg Abbott for busing all the illegal migrants to new york there's a question about that that's hey that's actually him and desantis bro i don't like what they're doing here so to be fair they were trying to deport them and biden wouldn't

let them hey tish james secure our borders here in new york mayor adams is constantly complaining about this you got to go after the guy the guys what here in new york he's from new york oh yeah he's a New Yorker. It's kind of like after the Civil War, they really did kind of have the authority to imprison all those Confederates. All the ones that fought, they could have been like. Authority? Yeah. They won a war. Insurrection.

You guys all were part of an insurrection. You're all. They could have imprisoned and destroyed humanity across the South. Let's just pause real's just make something clear. The winners of a war do what they want to the losers. And they could have obliterated. This doesn't there's no legal precedent for like it's not a legal codified law issue of when you get to go to war. War happens.

And so what you're really saying is the Confederates were conquered and the union could have done whatever they wanted, as were the words of Ulysses S. Grant when he said, you have a right to revolt, but when you lose, you will be ruled over by your betters. So it's sort of, it's a similar, much less magnitude what we're experiencing right now with people that broke the law, escorting illegal migrants across the country and into the country. They were doing, you know, what you could consider after the fact, a violation of law, but like, do you prosecute and imprison them all?

Because it's similar with the Confederates. You could have really went after them, and they didn't because they wanted reunification. And give them court supervision. We're back to the Civil War again. But here's what happens. They go to court. They stand in front of the jury, their peers. And when they're convicted, the judge says, we're going to give you court supervision and a $50 fine.

You were faring illegals, and that's going to be on your record. Also, you know, the left is going to attempt to impeach Donald Trump again, should they take the House in two years. 100%. There will be continuation of lawfare. All the stuff that was happening under Biden's presidency, if a Democrat wins after Donald Trump, all of that stuff's going to go back into effect. So they'll go after they'll go after the media again.

They're going to go after Trump's family. They're going to go after people that are in the Trump administration. They will go after Elon Musk. This is all all this is all guaranteed. This is an example of you manifesting a future. Let's jump to the story from Vibe. Donald Trump faces first articles of impeachment second term it has begun ladies and gentlemen rep al green he has begun and still i rise

sure does mr speaker and i rise today mr speaker with a to whom it may concern message to whom it may concern ethnic cleansing in g Gaza is not a joke, especially when it emanates from the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, when he has the ability to perfect what he says. Well, I don't care about his grandstanding. In justice, I rise to announce that the movement to impeach the president has begun. I rise to announce that I will bring articles of impeachment against the president for dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done. This is the future. I also rise to say. I don't care what

else you had to say buddy it's kind of vague that gold-plated cane is really this is what american politics are going to be moving forward it's so backwards politics singular or plural uh it's both yeah i thought that same thing i you could say politics is great i think it's that politics is great elon sorry i was gonna say um say the real backwards and ironic thing here is that Trump is trying to bring a historic peace to the Middle East where he's really

taken conventional wisdom and flipped it on his head and he would continue to be a historic figure and be a more historic figure after bringing peace to Gaza and that's what they're going to try to impeach him for. When he said he wanted to buy Gaza. No, buy? He didn't say buy gaza to buy no he didn't say bye no they're not they're not trying to impeach him for what he's doing in gaza they're trying to impeach him because he is the opposition

and the the what he's doing in gaza is simply the excuse they impeached him two times after he was he was elected they are impeaching him because he is actually a representative of the american people and he is not a member of the the approved deep state whatever you want to call it the approved uh elite class it has nothing to do with gaza and it has everything to do with he is doing things to the to the entrenched bureaucracy and the the quote unquote deep state that they find defensive. It is not about Gaza at all. It's not going to go anywhere. The Republicans control the House.

They did. You know, MTG did it with with Biden or whatever. Like, it's not. I mean, look, it may not. But if the if the Republican if the Republicans don't hold the House in the midterms, there will be articles of impeachment drawn up. I bet anything because this is going to be the future. They're drawing them up already. Yeah, but they're not going to make it anywhere. And this guy's done this before. It's good on him politically.

I'm sure he'll be able to go back to his district. There are 450 some odd reps, and he's going to go back to his district and said, hey, I drafted up articles of impeachment against the fascists who's deporting all of our brothers and migrants here in town. The point is, this is going to continue to degrade the quality of our politics and the quality of our representatives, and it will probably end up with the united states becoming another basket case of a country in the long run unless we can prevent these kind of people from being elected but we have an electorate that continues to keep electing them well you got to be responsible with what you're telling people is going to happen i can talk about stuff as i see it you're

assuming right now of course i'm assuming that he's literally saying it, dude. Are you saying that Phil's assuming if the Democrats win the midterms they'll impeach him? Yes.

It's literally what they did in Trump's first term and that's called prediction. Yes. And here's a sumpt of prediction. Yes. And the idea that I should be reprimanded

for articulating these ideas. Just be responsible with what you're saying. That's exactly what I'm doing. If you want that to happen, go push it, man. But if you don't want that to happen, create a better reality. You're out of your mind. And I'm not going to hold my tongue about ideas just because you think things can manifest.

Sorry, homie. What do you think you're doing with your spell and your words? I'm articulating my spell? Yeah, your spell words. Listen, nobody can change the weather, Ian. I cannot make things manifest in the world just because I'm talking about them. That is ridiculous, okay?

I don't believe in that stuff at all, dude. It's not real. Phil, Ian manifested the 51st state of Gaza. Dude, you go on TV and tell 500,000 people something's going to happen? You don't think that they're going to self-fulfill and prophesy that stuff? I don't care how much you don't like what I'm saying. I do not give one crap about you worrying about spooky things going on because I said something. I'm going to articulate what I think is possible or likely, whether you like it or not.

Okay, possible or likely is way better than saying it will happen. Let's just, you know, make a bet. A thousand bucks. It's just, it's up to us, man. You have a microphone, you have the power to change people's minds. Up the stakes, Mitt Romney level, 10,000 bucks.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure that if Polly Market made a market for, if Democrats win the midterms, they will impeach Donald Trump, it would be 100%. It would be 98%. Maybe it already exists. I don't know. Let's look it up. Will Trump get impeached?

Polymarket. Yep. Yep. What's the... All right. So this is not with the... This is not

including winning the midterms, however. And this market... What's the time on this? So right now... This whole term? Will Trump be impeached in 2025?

12%. That's a terrible bet. Oh, yeah. That's this year. Right. That's what terrible bet. Yeah, that's this year. That's what I'm saying. It's not. Let me see if I can do a search on Trump impeachment and see what they what they offer up. Why is this not there?

One for his term? Yeah, there is. I have, but there's nothing here. So let's do impeach. Will Trump? There's only one market and it will be. Will Trump be impeached this year? So they don't have it.

They do not have it. However, it's fair to say that any any reasonable individual based on literally what happened the first time and literally the same guy filing the same articles like he did the first time. If the Democrats win the midterms, they will file to impeach Trump immediately. Immediately. It's very opportunistic for Democrats to impeach Trump because whoever does it, whoever is the prosecutor in that will have political clout after that. So, for example, we're talking about Dan Goldman earlier. He was the prosecutor in one of the Trump impeachments and went on to run for public office. So there's a lot of opportunity here for a lot of Dems to advance their career by going at Trump. When it comes to assuming the future, I think there are a lot of safe things to assume, like the sun will come up tomorrow. I will take a piss later. Like I can you can make basic assumptions that are

caught pretty obvious. And this might be one that like, look, it's just the nature of literally already file. He's already announced he's filing these. And the only thing is missing now is the majority in the House to actually get the vote on it. So but there are things that might seem like, hey, it happened in the past, therefore, but with the power of mass media, like in mass, I do not believe that Democrats are all going to watch this clip of Phil saying, oh, no, they'll impeach. And then they go, oh, my God, Phil's right. We should impeach Trump. If they're getting their political plays from Phil on Tim cast IRL. But the opposite of his point, they're like, whatever Phil says, I'll do the opposite. Oh, he said we're going to impeach. Guess we should. I could I could see a rationale for Dems

to actually not impeach Trump, because I think some of the rationale the first time, you know, is, well, we can prevent him like we could just dirty his name so much that he won't have the political capital to win another reelection. He'll be dead in the Republican Party. MAGA is dead. Well, now that they saw it actually kind of helped him. Yeah. And the American people were kind of pissed that Dems wasted all this time and political capital on the impeachment to to have them do that again, I think would they would lose a lot of support. And I think it might be counterproductive. I hope you're right. I would like to. I kind of think that what we're witnessing

right now is Donald Trump's march to the sea. I think that Trump has routed the deep state and now he is just smashing through the institutions and raising their their farms and raising their fields. It doesn't mean the war is over, but this is the point at which I don't know the deep state recovers from the gutting of USAID, CIA getting mass buyouts, FBI agents getting, you know, the FBI sued Trump. They sued the admin to stop the surveys from going out. And the FBI delivered a list of 5,000 agents who were working on the January 6th. So it's over. The lawsuit's now moot. Judge is going to be like, he's already got the information. Why are you suing? So that's it. This is, this is political scorched earth strategy that Trump is doing. And Marco Rubio a couple of days ago said that in five years we won't be talking about tariffs anymore because the U.S. dollar will no longer have the power that it has anymore. Like we've we've we've we've left the unipolar world now. bricks it's just become so powerful that this whole paradigm is like you know that to think that we're the ones in charge is kind of you know it's losing it's losing its fervor that'd be a dark dark day on planet earth yeah i didn't see rubio say that yeah it's on video

yeah he i saw it a couple days ago can you tell me one more time he said the dollar was going to be dead in five years. We will no longer be discussing tariffs because they won't have any effect. Right, because we're going to be on Bitcoin.

That would be true. Eric Trump tweeted something like, now's a good time to get Ethereum. Yes, yesterday. He said that yesterday? Yeah.

And the interesting thing is they were working in the administration on something about, what did they say? Tax-free American crypto? Yeah, Solana, I think Ripple was in...

I think you said Ethereum, right? Cardano, you didn't mention Ethereum. Cardano was one. HBAR was another one. These American-based cryptocurrencies will be tax-exempt on capital gains. I don't know if that's true, though. I own some Cardano, full disclosure. He said. A conference in the Middle East somewhere.

It was either the United Arab Emirates. Were you able to find anything? I saw it on Twitter. Yeah, it was like part of a speech thing he was giving. Oh, by the way, because that would be that would mean his time in state was a complete failure. If that was the case, you might as well be saying, saying hey i'm about to do the worst job ever and you should probably fire me right now um because you know that's where a lot of american power comes from that would mean sanctions don't do anything um a lot of american power derives

around um the dollar that's what the global reserve always said it's where i think sanctions not tariffs sanctions sanctions i'm sorry interrupt sanctions won't work anymore in five years rubio's upset that u.s will no longer... I'm sorry to interrupt you. Sanctions won't work anymore in five years. Rubio's upset that the U.S. will no longer be able to impose sanctions as they switch from the settlement in dollars to other national currencies. And then, quote, in five years, we'll no longer be able to talk about sanctions. This is the whole reason that I talk about mandatory spending. The reason that the U.S. won't have the reserve currency anymore is too many countries will move to other things

because they don't believe that the U.Ss is going to remain solvent in the long term there's uh we have to fix social security and medicare and medicaid i can't remember which institution but they're predicting in uh in trump's first term bitcoin hits 500 500 000 i don't know that's true i don't know whatever but there's a lot of speculation that what Donald Trump is doing in terms of tariffs and international trade isn't so much about Trump's retribution. It's about Trump rushing in to try and put out a fire that can't be stopped. And there's concern that the movement away from the petrodollar, the BRICS nations, all these things, it's just it's a snowball rolling down a hill. And Trump's coming in. He's trying to throw a rope around it, but ain't going to do nothing. I don't know.

The U.S. debt clock's pretty interesting. They got a Doge clock on it now. How much we're being saved. Yeah, looks like we're accruing about $50,000 a second in debt. And it was funny because Elon was like, I don't know how they figured this out, but it's pretty accurate. Yeah, there it is. And it looks like the Doge is saving us about the same amount the debt's going up. I don't know if that means that the debt has been cut in half.

It's going up half as fast because I don't know if the Doge is like subtracted from the debt. The Doge is how much has been saved, but the debt is still going up. And it's going up. You can kind of calculate it, $50,000 a second, roughly. And the Doge clock, $40,000 a second. If you take the doge clock away the actual national debt just goes up faster does it yeah the national debt is going up the national debt is going up that fast even with doge slowing the rate of i wonder that because two years ago

was still going up 50 000 a second like the doge clock hasn't seemed to slow it down two years ago the interest rate was different and two years ago ago, you had less, less money that was accruing interest. So it might be actually it, it, it is, it's parabolic. And not only does it go up all the time, but it goes up faster and faster and faster because you're adding not only money to it, but the interest rate. Well, I'm not sure the interest rate varies, but you're adding money. That's all accruing interest. So as you add more money to the principal that you've borrowed the interest rate continues to accelerate and the spending goes up the budgets go up yeah i couldn't tell i still can't tell what you're saying is interesting though that's that's the one idea but like before that doge

clock i put on it was basically going up at the same speed a year ago it was going up at 50k a second and it hasn't same is better than faster yeah so i mean if if those are the if the doge clock is not interfering with the debt that would mean that it's basically saving what we're our debt increase and our debt's actually not going up right now no no our debt is going up listen like i was saying the other night or like like i say a lot like the the things that doge is cutting are all discretionary spending so it's it's a small portion of the annual expenditures by the federal government the thing that drives the debt the really big driver of debt is the mandatory spending which is is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those are the things that need to get fixed. Those are the things that are going to make the United States insolvent.

Those are the things that are actually an existential threat to the United States. You could cut all of the you could you could abolish the whole government and have zero discretionary spending. But you'd still have as long as you had the administration of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, you're still insolvent. Do you know what percent it is of our debt is that? Is the Social Security?

Yeah. It depends on if you're including. It's like two-thirds. Are you including discretionary spending or not? Without discretionary spending. Without discretionary, I think it's even bigger than that. Because I think with non-discretionary. Oh, I see.

Oh, wow. It's huge. And it continues to go up. It doesn't get smaller because more people go on to Social Security every day. The baby boomers are retiring. So all these people are being added to the Social Security rolls, Medicare and Medicaid rolls. And you have people that, you know, it's a smaller percentage, but people that have any

kind of Social Security benefit, if they're injured and they can't work and they get government benefits, that all goes under the same thing. That's all mandatory. And to explain the difference between mandatory and non-mandatory, as I understand, mandatory is discretionary and non-discretionary is... Mandatory and discretion-mandatory, as I understand. Discretionary. Discretionary or non-discretionary is... Mandatory and discretionary. Okay. Well, mandatory is where it's written in law that they have to spend it on the specific things.

And the thing, too, about Social Security is that it's very difficult, near impossible to reform. It's kind of the third rail of politics because everybody would vote against you if you chose to reform Social Security. So that's part of the bubble that we are in and increasing in which is true but the op remember the option is either fix social security address it now or there is no social no no the option is run against social security and lose your race or run for uh not against social security and have a chance of winning your race because if you run against it but then we're losing 95 but a lot a lot then in 10 years the dollar explodes then the entire economy goes away i don't disagree and so the point the point that i'm making is yes what you're talking about is practical for people that are running but that's going to keep as long as they

keep kicking the can down the road eventually this is going to destroy the u.s economy yeah and that means no social security so you either fix social security like do something to change it and fix it or it goes away entirely political realities of it is that rolling running against social security will get you will a quick loss you don't have to run against it to say you're going to fix it but also on the medicare medicaid front wait when you say you're going to fix it. But also on the Medicare, Medicaid front. Wait, when you say you're going to fix it, though, you're really talking about cuts to Medicare when you're pushed on it. No, no, but just for example, on Medicare, Medicaid, I think Wall Street Journal reported that somewhere between like somewhere around 15% is just waste, fraud and abuse. So if you cut that out and people still get the same benefits and everything's more efficient. Nobody's mad.

They're happy that you're cutting bad money. That's just going to insurers and stuff like that. The problem is when you're running and talking about trying to fix Medicare, your opponent says they're going to cut your Medicare. They're going to kill your grandma. They're going to blah, blah, blah. Because someone's going to be opportunistic. Fixes are cuts. You'd only fix by taking away the wasteful spending, but I'm sure somebody's going to say,

one person's wasteful spending isn't. No, but I think the best way you do that is you say, we're not cutting Medicare. All the money is going to stay in it in the slush fund, so it's all surpluses. And then once you have a giant surplus, you can be like, hey, we got a giant surplus. We're actually saving money, so it's not even a cut. You're like, hey, we got a giant surplus. We're actually saving money.

So it's not even a cut. You're like, well, we can just disperse this money to other programs. Yeah. I mean, all of these programs obviously need reform. But the political realities on the ground is that the older you are, the more likely you are to vote. And then the older you are, the more likely you are to be getting Social Security benefits. So just the way the interests play out is that it's disastrous for your campaign you're throwing in the towel by running on that even saying you're only going to fix it people will tar and feather you as doing much worse well yeah that that's the thing your opponent's gonna say i think whatever rick scott talks about it or or whatever from florida it's

never because he's one of the guys who's uh in elected office because they run a lot of a lot of these people run on it as like we have to cut this or else we're gonna die instead run on we we need to fix this or else like like not from the cut perspective be like all this money is being wasted and it's gonna go insolvent we need to save the money and make it more efficient for the people who are receiving it so that this program can be there for forever hey everybody wants to make things more efficient and that sounds nice uh in theory but in practice when you get down to it no we need major reforms we need to push the age up if we're actually going to fix this and not go

off of some wasteful spending that they have we need to push the age up to 70 um obviously and we need to be more restrictive with the health care that the government gives out with the gutting of usaid schumer said who knows you know it could be this institution he says health care that the government gives out. With the gutting of USAID, Schumer said, who knows? You know, it could be this institution. He says it could be the IRS next. Oh, no. What if Trump just here? Here's I was talking to Lisa Reynolds earlier and I was like, could you imagine if Trump

just came out, did a press conference where he was very just like, you know, low energy as he sometimes is and says, well, quite frankly, the the IRS is is very bad and we're going to shut it down. No more taxes on anybody. And if you have a problem with that, you can vote for Democrats. So your choices are keep all your money or give it to the government and vote Democrat. Have fun. And he just walks off out of the room.

It's a hypothetical that I bring up because I don't believe that I believe 97 percent of the population would celebrate that. Understanding that it means like government programs, funds, things would end. In the immediate, the average person would be like, so you mean I keep all of my paycheck now? Yay! And then it would only be until later. They're like, wait, where are my programs? You know what I mean? Well, the average person doesn't even pay federal income tax like it's like wasn't it like half of them don't yeah at least yeah 47 or something like that yeah all right everybody back taxes

we're gonna go to super chat so smash that like button share the show with everyone you know and uh more importantly head over to timcast.com right now and click join us we had a really great green room episode tonight we were all hanging out talking about the Super Bowl and Trump. And it was like a kind of off the cuff conversation with some adult humor. I'll put it mildly, which I imagine will end up getting clipped because it's hilarious, but that's OK. So you don't want to miss it. It's a lot of fun. We were all hanging out on the couch and it was it was probably one of the better green rooms that we've done because it was a lot of just I don't know, bro humor, I guess.

We had fun. But I'll read your superchats now, and then we're going to have that uncensored show coming up in about 20 minutes at TimCast.com, where you as members get to call in and talk to us. Here we go. Manifestor says, any chance you could shout out the Fort Bend County Young Republicans? We're having a meeting for the upcoming State of the Union in Katy, Texas. Is it Katy? Yeah. Very cool. Alright. He also says, nine months. Let's go. Can't wait to see what Tim does in the future of this business. Congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Poole.

Let's effing go. That is indeed correct. Her name is Allison Poole. Oh, nice. That's right. So I've been getting the door for her and saying Mrs. Poole. It is very fun. I recommend getting married. You know, you got to find someone you want to get married to. Tacticplaty says, friend shout to SirRankZeroProductions. He's on the web, plays video games, and cooks. Good guy to friend.

Oh, very fun. Very fun. The Sleeper has awakened, says the Gaza Strip once rebuilt and modernized would make the perfect place to move the United Nations. Trump says he wants to make like the Riviera. Yeah, he wanted like a global community there. It's a real vague like what the hell's even when Ian brought up the U.S. seizing Gaza as the 51st state. We all laughed and said that would instantly start World War III. And then Trump just went out and said it. It's been amazing how expansionist the mindset of Trump has been once he took office.

He really started talking about the Panama Canal, Greenland, Gaza. I'm excited every day to see the next thing we might add to the list of potential U.S. territories. I forgot Canada. It was even an afterthought. Jason Nixon says, Tim, ever since the FBI got purged, my online girlfriend stopped responding to me. Oh, man. Sorry to hear. I wonder if those things are related. Yeah. All right. What do we got here? Jason Dixon says, got a guest consideration for you. Join the Timcast dot com discord community network. Romanation. Have you ever considered having someone from the community on as a guest? Roma

lives close to you. We did. We're working on it. I don't know if I should spill the beans just yet, but we're working on... So let me just say this. The Culture War podcast has never been completed. We had plans for what the Culture War show was supposed to be. And the Friday morning live streams are placeholders until we build out the real plan. And so let me just give you a general idea. You know, I'm going to say it and everyone's going to get mad at me because this is how it works. You know, Trump is much the same way. He's like, oh, my team's going to get mad at me. I'm going to say, but I'm going to tell you guys what we're doing anyway.

And then the people behind the scenes are like, Trump, we're not ready. Here's the idea. If you're a member of TimCast.com and you're in the Discord, we are going to be having members-only events. And those events are going to be on whatever day we can do them. Probably a weekend. Sometimes Friday morning. Maybe Saturday or Sunday night. In-person live political debate shows.

The Culture War. Where our members join the debates. The audience will only be our members if you. So here's the idea. We get a venue. We are set up at a table doing the show. We have a bit of the debate, and then we're going to invite people for a few minutes at a time to get in their debate at the same time for a decent amount of time. And so if you're a member, you can sit in the live audience. And if someone shows up and they're like, I really want to come because we really want liberals to show up, become a member. It's a members only thing. And then those shows will be basically our members debating whoever shows up. So we'd have like, let's say it's the fours of the table. And then so and then you guys know, like on nuance, bro is going to be there.

Do that guy so wrong about Israel and Palestine? I want to debate him. You show up, you submit, and then we have members actually join the debates with us for like 10 minutes since. So it's going to be really fun. Yeah, I love it. That's the plan, man. That's the plan. But we'll see how it works out. We got restrictions and limitations on how it could function and, you know. All right. Let's grab some more super chats.

What have we here? Megaglave says, isn't government funding any news organization a violation of the First Amendment freedom of the press? No. There's appropriations from Congress for public news. So basically NPR and PBS, they don't get money directly from Congress. Congress funds some other organization, which then disperses things to local news and radio stations. I'm not a big fan of it. There's also Voice of America, though.

And Carrie Lake is there now. So everyone's super excited for that, right? Did she start there yet? I don't know. I'm going to keep up with that. I think she started in a different news organization and almost made her way into office a few times, but hey. All right. Axophilioma

says, hey Tim, one of my best friends was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer in three organs at age 35. He has two kids and wants to fight. I want to help. I really appreciate a shout out for Give Send Go at Cure for Kirk. Sorry to hear it, man. Hope that helps. Hope that works out for you. And I appreciate using Give Send Go. I think I met one of the executives at Give Send Go recently, and he was like, thank you so much for shouting us out and criticizing GoFundMe. I'm like, awesome.

But it's not a purpose. It's not because we're trying to make you better. It's because GoFundMe literally censored and shut down people who had wrong think and give, send, go is the safe place to raise money. That's just that. You go on GoFundMe, maybe they ban you. Not fun. Cody Johnson says, hey, Phil, the new album is awesome.

It's like going back to 14 and discovering women. I'm obsessed with kerosene. Thank you very much, man. I appreciate that. Cheers. That's one way to describe it. Right. All right.

Jade Joan Clark says, Tim, every time you talk about Israel and Gaza, nobody ever talks about the 1990s discovery of mass oil deposits off the shore of Gaza. Also, the mass deposits of natural gas underneath the Gaza Strip. Thoughts? Is that true? Very interesting. Yeah. There are gas fields on the coast by the Gaza Strip there.

They also discovered huge oil off the coast of Malaysia before the Vietnam War. So I think a lot of that. There's a lot of areas in the Mediterranean Sea, as I understand, that have a lot of different oil reserves, too. So I don't know if we're ever running out of that good stuff. Oil? Oil, yeah. Well, to be honest, once we invade Canada, we're going to increase our supply quite substantially. Lately, I've heard that the Earth makes it, that it's just constantly crushing carbon

into oil. So it's like replenishing. Well, not at the rate rate not close to the rate that we use it but there's i think there's a surplus and then it's also about how economically viable it is to access that oil right so some of it's really really really deep from titanic shift um i just want to stress we have never gotten more death threats in in my career i have never gotten more death threats and the timast organization as a company has never gotten more death threats since I posted jokingly that we were going to invade Canada. Wow.

It sounds like a precursor as to why we need to invade them now. Well, they're engaged in an online harassment campaign, and we can't stand for it. Americans will not be intimidated by violent threats from Canadians. Trump does the tariffs, right? They never want to affect. And then I tweeted, as soon as their economy is destroyed, their will to resist will erode, and then we'll march in and put them in their rightful places of U.S. territory with no political representation.

And we just got inundated with insane death threats. They got that American spirit, man. Defend their territory with their life. They're just a very, very vocal minority. Most of the Canadians will welcome us as liberators. It's funny because so much of Canadian nationalism is centered around being anti-American. And most of the time, us Americans forget Canada is even there.

For example, when I was talking about territories we were going to take over, Canada's an afterthought. So, they're old news. There's no reason to take over Canada, because Canada exists because of the United States. It would be nice to have a few more states. And they speak French. Well, not Quebec or British Columbia. We wouldn't take them!

The French, the Quebecers would actually fight back. I think if we were to invade Canada and we went to Quebec and said, here's the plan, side with us and you will be an independent nation, they'd be like, deal. We could use them as a Trojan horse. It would be like a reverse of the revolution. We'll be the Lafayette.

Yeah. Like encourage Quebec independence. That's how we take over the rest of Canada. Some PSYOP. CIA, you could take that one. What was the last time they actually tried to get independence? Every 20 years they have a vote or something. They're like, we are French.

I thought the vote was in the past 10 years or so. I'm not sure. And it's funny because so many Canadian politicians have to virtue signal to the Quebecers in French. And that's why all the bigwig politicians have to learn French. That's why Pierre Poliev, the supposed conservative future leader of Canada, speaks French. His name's Pierre. It's a super French name. The last time they voted was 95.

Not too long. 30 years. Oh, wow. Narrow margin. 50.6 percent to 49.4 percent to remain wow and and because of this though canada heavily subsidizes quebec that's what the game is in canada to keep them happy they get special benefits uh in quebec as i understand we might need to bring a canadian on to to it down further. If we go in through Saskatchewan and the more red

areas in the center, they'll side with us and then all we have to do is sweep outward towards the coasts and crush the resistance. I think that would be an interesting culture war to have a Quebec national or whatever you would call them that wants independence and a regular Canadian that doesn't.

It's a good idea, but I made it better. We got to bring on some Canadian political commentators and do a D&D-style war game of the U.S. invading Canada. And we'll, like, roll and, you know, you'll be Trudeau and you'll be Pierre. I love Pierre Poullier. And then, you know, Elad will be Bolton. We need to deport all these Canadian-American political commentators. Stephen Crowder, Lauren Chen.

Who's the... There's another girl, some white blonde girl. Lauren Southern? Lauren Southern doesn't live here. Yeah, she's in Canada. She wasn't Canadian? She'll be American soon. She lives in Canada. All right, doesn't make her American for living here. But you can't deport someone who's in Canada. Oh, she's in Canada is She wasn't Canadian? She'll be American soon. She's Canadian, but she lives in Canada. All right, doesn't make her American for living here.

But you can't deport someone who's in Canada. Oh, she's in Canada is what you're saying. Okay. Deported to Quebec from Canada. Viva Frye. Viva, we're coming for you. There's a lot of Americans who pretend. He's American now?

Canadians who pretend they're American too. Jordan Peterson, I think he's actually American now. No, they're deeply ingrained in our society, but nobody ever accuses them of dual loyalty. Ted Cruz, I believe, was also a Canadian who was a citizen while in Congress. He renounced. Is there a Canadian blood libel? No, for some reason. Nor is there an Irish one. What's the biggest Canadian lobbying organization that it's-

I feel like there is. I feel like Canada benefits- They spend like $100 million on three candidates. There is unequal treaties between us and Canada, and Trump is trying to equal the trade relationship. Totally. What does AIPAC stand for? America-Israel Political Action Committee. No, it's Public Affairs Committee.

Oh, so it's ACPAC. Viva Fry is not an American citizen yet. So all these Canadians in American politics, we send them back and then from the inside, they encourage pro-America sentiment. Viva! We have a mission if you choose to accept it. We're sending you in.

Nah, they'd lock him up right away because they know he's a dissenter. I think Trudeau's on his way out. What's up with that? That's official? He said he was quitting and then Pierre's going to come in? I haven't been keeping up. We don't care about Canada. Well, they're going to have elections.

I guess he's just not, like, running again. Okay. You know, he was awfully quiet during the threats from Trump with tariffs and whatnot. You didn't hear a word out of that guy. Funny how that works. Masterful. Trump was so masterful on Trump's part that he threatened tariffs and then immediately got both countries to establish border patrols it was masterful a masterful response from pierre to stay out of the way

all right let's grab some of what we got we got uh common sense fishing says nuance bro say a company like politico makes 50 million a year the government pays at 1 million a year but its profit margins may be slim profits may only may only be a few percent. If they lose that percent, they go in the red. Right. I would say that's substantial. Like 2% of your annual revenue is substantial. Yeah. I don't know. Because especially if, like, that's a really great point. If, you know, whatever the revenue may be, even $200 million, and it's 1%, so we're looking at, you know, half a percent, that's still a lot of money for a single person. That extra million that comes in might go to a handful of people. I don't want to say a lot of political in this

regard, but people might be very unhappy to lose a million dollars, you know? There's a car dealership not too far from here. And I was talking to one of the managers, and they said they do a million bucks a month. Now, you go to the average leftist, communist, and say, did you know that car dealership is making a million bucks a month? And they go, that's wrong, man. Why are they making so much money?

And then if you talk to any conservative or libertarian, they're going to be like, right, and what's their profit margin? They're probably at like 5% or some really small number of in profit. And so the owner has to own, you know, 10 different dealerships to actually make himself particularly wealthy. And so they don't understand that. So if you go to a car dealership and someone's giving a kickback of, you know, the government's buying a ten thousand dollar premium, you know, detailing package for their vehicles when it normally costs 100 bucks, You might say, yeah, but it's only 50 grand a month out of their, you know, million dollars of revenue. That's that's tiny. And it's

like, yes. And that's 500, 600 grand a year into the pocket of the guy who runs it. It's a kickback. All right, let's see what we got. We'll grab a super chat here neil williams says the millennials that were impacted by 9-11 are finally seeing their first win in this administration no one is talking about this yeah that's got to be a big deal it's a big deal for me i'm gen x it's the all the ron paul people like from that era are cheering ron paul cheering. Yeah. The gutting of USAID, the FBI and the CIA. If you like everyone, I know from that time,

all the arguments they were making, Trump is steamrolling this. It's amazing. It like, that's why I said that Trump's the most libertarian president that we've had since Calvin Coolidge, probably possibly the most libertarian since like the founders. Like how do they allow him to continue

that's why i said it was trump's march to the sea because i'm looking at it like the resistance is over i mean they there were people i don't say they but there were people who literally tried to kill trump before he won they tried to put him in prison it didn't work the insurrection stuff it didn't work trump wins and now he's just marching to the sea, scorched earth, over the deep state. Is that it? When you say, like, how are they going to allow him to continue? John Wilkes. If they is gone.

No. Because he gets rid of them. John Wilkes Booth, though Lincoln was able to continue, Lincoln still didn't make it in the end. My concern is for Trump's safety because of the actions he's taking are so heavy handed. Yeah, I think about that a lot. The age of security is upon us. Just be cool. Do what's right.

I hope that he's got, you know, he has people that are competent in charge of the secret service now he it makes it would make perfect sense for him to be like we need to get you know all the people that were in the secret service and get them out or get a significant portion of them out and make sure that we get the you know the the most competent people that are available um or at least on his personal detail you know like maybe maybe he got people that were you know new or had not you know been in the secret service for a long time when when they were taking care of the uh the situation in in pennsylvania but now i i would imagine that it's something at the top of his mind did you see his recent comments about assassination where he said yeah you know, he's like,

well, if Iran goes for it, I have instructions that I've left. And I'm like, dude, you're sending a message to Mossad to like, I'm sorry. Like I thought that too. You have to be careful about that.

That's, that's, that's scary. Someone that way, the way Netanyahu was grimacing when he said he was going to invade Gaza. Yeah. Take it. And he's like,

yeah. Yeah. All right, everybody. If you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button? Share the show with everyone you know. Become a member by going to TimCast.com. The Green Room Show is back. We are ramping up 2025's documentary productions.

I'm hoping to do four per year. Every three months, I have a full-length documentary produced. Members-only content for you guys. And we got a bunch of plans, too. We've got skateboard content with boonies. We've got the vlog is is back. We've already filmed a handful of them. We got a couple of guys joining in. You guys have as members have made this all possible. I want to say one thing. I say to you now. If you're not already a member, I'm just going to tell you right now, I can't say too much, but you want to become a member right now.

You want to sign up to be a member right now. You will not regret it, but I can't say more. Only that if you wait, you'll regret it. I know. Don't worry. Next week, I can give you more definitive reasoning on this, but sign up today. The Members Only Show is coming up right now. Plus, we have a Green Room

episode that was really, really fun and funny, and you will enjoy it. It's something you want to watch while having a beer, and you're going to laugh your ass off. It's a good time. But we'll go to that Members Only show where you as members in the Discord community can call in and talk to us. It's going to be a lot of fun. So follow me on X

and Instagram at TimCast. Nuance Bro, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, just you can follow me on X at instagram at timcast nuance bro do you want to shout anything out yeah just you can follow me on x at nuance bro that's primarily uh where i shit post so nice nuance bro it's been very chill um we usually do we've done spaces a lot in the past so it's nice to have another chat with nuance bro because we haven't done one of those in a while my name is alad eliyahu i'm a field correspondent here at Timcast. You can find me on Instagram, BarelyInformedWithElad, Ian. Yeah, next time you guys do a space, let me know. I'd love to jump in.

That'd be pretty fun. Does Elon even still, or space is still a thing? Is the functionality still there? Yeah, people do them all the time. I just did one, actually, a couple of days ago, a few days ago. So follow me on X. I've become very active on there since the news has been changing and so many things happen. I've been doing a lot of research and keeping up with it on X. So follow me at Ian Cross on X. I'll see you later.

I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is all that remains. Our new record just dropped. It's called Anti-Fragile. You can check it out on YouTube, Amazon Music, Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, and Deezer. And don't forget, the left lane is for crime. We will see you all over at TimCast.com in about a minute. Thanks for hanging out.