Leftists Push Trump SECRET LOVE Rumor, Letters DROP | Timcast IRL| Timcast IRL

So these letters get released. At least we believe they're genuine, showing Trump's aide Natalie very affectionately referring to regard it in protector and it's sparking a, I'm not even describe it, but it's like, it's not quite a scandal yet in terms of, you know, inappropriate relationship with the president, but it's, you see, letters are pretty weird. So we'll, we'll talk about it. We'll break it down, but this is the big story today. I'm assuming that if it involves the president, everyone wants to know about it. But this, this story's been bubbling up with Trump's aide, who's, you know, in her 30s. She's a young, attractive woman and people are, I guess they're kind of insinuating there may be something inappropriate going on before I just dump it all in the intro, though, we'll save it for us to show. And of course, new data coming out suggesting Democrats are on track to win the midterms, bought with the rise of the DSA. There's questions about whether or not these polls will actually reflect a general election to turn out. So we'll talk about that and everything else. My friends, smash that like button, all the good stuff on this amazing Friday joined, joining us today to talk about this and everything else. We've got Mason from one hand politics. And thanks for having me. It's good to be here. Who are you? I lived up to your promise. You had you on the show at Jubilee and I'm absolutely. I appreciate that. I will. Who are you? What do you do? Yeah. I do a live show on Twitch. It's one hand politics. My name is Mason. I've done a lot of debates with different right wingers and moderates. Self-discuit moderates. They got mad at that one. There was no description of me that would have made anybody happy. Just Tim Poole. That's why that's why I ended up going with Tim Poole versus 20 progressives now. It was AP tested. It was so that when we were setting up the show, we went with three and one of them was Tim Poole versus Progressives, Modest versus Progressives and Tim Poole won probably because my name recognition is bigger than the idea of like moderate or whatever. But yeah, you're the guy that I ran away from. You're the guy that made you quit it. Great. Well, you talk about it with Stephen Crowder, so I rescind the rage quit. We'll call it like a rage sabbatical. You had to leave. You had to get out of the moment. You came back eventually. So I think everyone was like having a problem with me saying rage quit like you just left entirely from the debate. That wasn't the implication. But to clear up the air, you took a rage, a rage, a rage pause, a rage pause. A rage pause. I think it's like people want the story to be that I stormed off and never came back and like I just walked out. They want the story to be bigger than I walked away from you and then came back. Right. You wanted to end the moment right there. Well, I mean, it's a mixed bag. We can talk about it because I talked about the Crowder. I talked about it on my show. But it was more so like you pull out a beanie to do a camera thing. I said, it's all you. I'm out. Yeah, the thing is like everyone's accusing me of knowing that it was going to be you. But like, there's only so many people who could be when it's a moderate. Like when they're selling it, no, when they're selling it like one moderate versus 20 itives. Like the idea is going to be like as recline or some liberals going to come in here. That's like on the center left. Like it's always going to be like someone who's self-described moderate. I mean, I saw I think you even said to Stephen, you liked the idea of being called moderate, even if you don't fully identify as like dead in the center just because it's like good for your brand and good for advertisement, right? Absolutely. Like, that's why I go on a show like that. But it's not just about the branding of calling myself a moderate. It was that most of the liberals never watch my show and don't hear my opinions. So going on Jubilee, they're going to hear something from me that they don't expect. Because if you only watch clips from progressives, you're only hearing conservative positions and you never hear liberal positions. But if I go into that with much of liberals, I think the best way to exemplify it is when due to the end said, if we agree so much, why are you here? And it's like the real answer is because we don't agree on everything, but we agree on things. Sorry. Yeah, I just, I don't know. I thought the prompts were interesting. Maybe we could get into it after we talked about the news and stuff. But it seemed kind of like, they weren't like super strong positions. And I think that was intentional of like the brand you're trying to go with with moderate was because it was kind of hard and difficult to argue with it if your, your prompt is like the constitution effectively doesn't exist or it's not operational. I forget the specific wording. The first one. But it's like, we've always had like big disagreements on the interpretation of the constitution. So I feel like with you saying like, well, liberals say that Trump is violating the constitution and conservatives don't believe that Democrat presidents follow the constitution. We could say that about like so many areas of American history. I just feel like with the constitution ever meant. So like when you have the DSA's one third of the Democratic Party and they're saying we want a parliamentary system, no Senate, we're not talking about the Bill of Rights. We're talking literally about Article 1. Right. So you think that divide is equivalent with like abolitionists and pro-slavery people saying that the constitution guarantees slavery and human ownership as property. Well, I'm reluctant to get into the full debate as the show is starting. Yeah. Everybody. But I don't want to not answer and just say, I think the issue is that I think this was your argument, which is a good argument that there's always been disagreements on the interpretation of the constitution. Yeah. My argument more so is that we have a growing faction that outright says there shouldn't be one at all and they won't adhere to it. And so, like I said, the DSA is campaigning to eliminate Article 1 of the constitution. Part of amendments is changing what the constitution has, that's why we have 22 of them. Yes, but amending Article 1 of the constitution is substantially different from amending the constitution to include a protection or a function of government. I have thought on the idea of an amendment. Let's get into it. It'll be very good. It's getting too good to say. The fourth amendment. Yeah, okay. We'll keep it under wraps. This violates the fourth amendment. And this is going to be a much better version of the conversation than the everyone pulls you out of the show, but yeah, 100 percent. All right. Well, the point is rage bait might be a better word than rage sabbatical or quit, but what's a filth? Reach pause. It's up everybody. Ian's here. I'll have to make a correction last night. I said RNA proteases, what you used to repair. Oh, no. It's actually RNA polymerase. Oh my gosh. It's the polymerase. All the time. All the time. All the time. All the time. All the time. And then it's actually a funny point because I wasn't here last Friday. And I guess Ian was talking about if a war broke out with China that the U.S. might put Chinese people in concentration camps or something. Yeah. I said that he was wrong. And then he matters rights, Tim Kest, IRL discusses putting Chinese people in concentration camps. And I'm not even there. I'm not at all with happening. I don't think it's a good thing, too, but it happened with the Japanese during World War II. And I could see it happening. I think that's kind of where their combo was about and they're like, he across and discussed it. That's a lot to get into. I'm having fun. All right. Let's talk about the news. Let's jump to the store. We got this from cnn.com, my guardian and protector Natalie Hart letters express her devotion to Trump. I got to be honest, devotion isn't the word that I would use. I'm not trying to really with all my love as the bottom. That's not no. I'm saying more than that. No, more than that. Devotion is too light. Session. Session. Yeah. Yeah. With all my heart. I'm not with all my heart. Not with all my love. Or we're going to, or we're going to, well, that's actually where we do, yes, it does matter. It does. It does matter. It does matter. It does matter. Okay. Okay. Let's go ahead. I was going to say, yeah, I think devotion is too light. Yeah. So here, I'll read some of this. I just want to exemplify that these, there's two letters and let me just read it. Dear Mr. President, I'm sorry. I thought I was the only one left behind last night and no idea Margot's car was also pulled over and sent back to the airport. And so I was alone in the van outside customs that my passport, I panicked and should have just called secret service instead of you. I am. I also am sorry if I was an embarrassment walking the course in Scotland. The first day I was told there were no carts and people walked, which is why I walked. Okay. Keep in mind, she was running, is it the actual port to keep up with the golf club? Wow. So she all, I do think it, it's, I don't want to read the whole thing just because it's worthy and kind of like weird to do. Here's some stuff you got to read in there too. I think people should read this. I want things to always be right between us. I also know I've been distracted all week for getting to eat throughout the days and even for getting asleep and only catching a couple hours at a time. I haven't been myself dwelling on the past and the pain of losing my dad and I started letting the remarks of what other people have bothered me before it gets to me. I'm sorry. Lost my focus. You are all that matters to me. I don't want to ever let you down. Thank you for being my guardian and protector in this life. That's what I wanted to use this card for when you saw me at the cash register and once again did what you didn't have to do and gifted me with me, mementos. Oh, I'm sorry. I was thinking mementos. Mementos of this trip. Okay. Of a lifetime. I thought you was, I thought you was literally buying your mints. I will return a better person and have to sign off for now as the cars are leaving with all my heart. Okay. Now hold on. She's. Sign off. It sounds like an email that got printed, but then it's hand signed and the signature is looked the same. So here's another one. Here Mr. President, now this is the note I wanted to write, but the apology needed to come first. What? I have learned so much about myself on this trip. I always knew coming home to my roots would be enlightening, but I had no idea how much for the first time and I don't know how long you forced me to unplug. We could be out on the course with no machines and even forget what time it was. Okay. She calls herself. She says, I didn't have to be the human printer. I could take time to enjoy good conversation and still got all my work done by the end of the day. Let's see, I had no idea how rapidly I was approaching burnout and started to envy those whose only job seems to be to talk with you and look pretty. I want that job so many times I was just trying to stay afloat with all that's coming for you. Okay. But I don't know. But going after those, I'll solve it self analysis, my conclusion. I need to reunite my past self with my with my current and to a better version. You will make that will make you proud and please when I fail, will you tell me? I'll never forget when you made that promise to me after losing my dad and I know how happy he is right now that I did get to go to Scotland and Ireland as he always wanted for me to modify a classic. I could not have part of it. with you to anyone less worthy. And I will add it is I who is unworthy. Jesus Christ. PS, my hands look worse in Scotland and Ireland because the cold, the cold turns my old scar's purple still on the road to recovery. On the other note, she ends with with all my heart. It doesn't sound sexual, but it does sound obsessive. Yeah, that's mania. It's literally a type of love. Like rope arrows is sexual love, but mania is obsessive love, isn't it? It does sound obsessive love. I think from her part, it could be like a psychosexual obsession, even if they're not like in a physical relationship. Like I honestly, just from Donald Trump's demeanor and the way that he's presented himself, he doesn't really seem like he's really motivated by sex. He's talked about it a lot, especially before he went into like politics, but it's always seemed more of like a power and like status oriented brag than it has been about like, oh yeah, I can't wait to, you know, like I don't even know if sexual pleasure is like something like Donald Trump's like top priority. Well, I actually agree because he's old, right? Yeah. So what you'll probably find is, a lot of older guys probably Trump, they want the testosterone masculine. I'm a strong man. Yeah, they want the perception that women are flocking to him without actually. So as an 80 year old man, you know, look, old people bang, you know, nobody wants to think about it, but they do, but it's just less frequent. And I think an 80 year old guy is probably like, you know, yeah, I mean, regardless, I think the real story here is is again, like she is the closest person to him at all times of the day, 35 year old woman who's transcribing all of his thoughts and filtering information that gets to him. There's also reports that she is filtering like comments from world leaders to what he hears, which is kind of crazy. What if she's the shadow president? Everything happening is her, the tariffs, you know, war with Iran. It's her and she's like, fire the missile. Is she translating messages from foreign dignitaries? I don't think Donald tries to translate. But she's given, she's the one that's given it to him. Well, what do you think, Phil? I mean, so she, she had bone cancer. We were talking about this before the show. She had bone cancer and she credits Trump's right to try efforts with saving her life. It does sound like she's kind of obsessive. But, you know, I don't think that there's the only question I have is about her security clearance stuff. So if she doesn't have a clearance or didn't have a clearance, that's not to go through that might that might cause some kind of problem. But otherwise, look, like you'd mentioned, you said something about elected and the presidents as like AIDS and stuff, they're not elected. It just selects them like that goes for all the presidents. But can't he appoint clearance like as the president? Yeah, yeah. Well, he sent a memo to her, encouraging her. You have to go through with this. And just like if she, if he has to send like a memo for her to fill out a form, it's just, it's weird. It's like go through those channels. Yeah, I mean, like I said, I think I agree. That's a little, that's a little odd. But I don't like if he cannot, he can't actually give her a clearance, but he can decide that the things that he's telling her that she hears are no longer top secret. So can I just, can I just do the stupidest case? She's listening, just first of all for that. She's listening in to the classified meetings. She's 10 feet away without that security clearance. Well, is she still without that security clearance? What did she, what along did she not have one? I think she has it. I don't know what the update is now. Yeah, but the, the big issue that people are having is for the longest time she didn't. And as far as like the bone cancer thing, like she talked about that, I think she did it at the RNC back like in 2020 and for the re-election, but that specific treatment that she got was already FDA approved. And that was reported by the new republic. She had like a spin, not really like Trump's right to try. She delayed completing the standard security clearance, the SF 86 form for more than a year while working at the White House with close access to the president. Concerns on the White House Council's office, security officials and others led Trump to intervene. That's when he sent to the memo saying, please get it. She then completed the paperwork underwent a background check and has received clearance in recent months. There's no official date, I suppose, but I'm going to, let me just, let me just throw out the conspiracy theory. Trump wrote those letters to himself to make it look like young women desperate. I love him. Yeah. So he can be like, well, you know, a friend. Yeah. It would be a pretty great, I am pretty great. This kind of was like, what's the ethics of getting a young hot secretary? And we were, okay, sorry, sorry. It does kind of sound like a guy writing an obsessive woman character, you know, right? Oh, not something that's so stereotypical. Yeah. But I think to your point, I mean, that's probably why this is a real thing. I think that Trump likes to surround himself with people who are inflating his ego like that. Yeah. I think it's Trump. Trump to Ian's question about what's the ethics of it? We've already decided that that's fine. We decided at 35 years ago when Bill Clinton did his escapades with Monica Lewinsky. But like, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, he was not in perjury. Okay. He was not over all your eyes, like, it's some kind of made-up thing. Every single Republican, every single Republican that was pushing for it was talking about family values in the sanctity. It doesn't matter. The thing that he got engaged for was for lying. Yeah, yeah. But we've not, we've, I don't think anybody agrees on what happened with Clinton. No, but, well, nobody's been, nobody has an, at any point been impeached for any kind of sexual, what's the word I'm looking for? I'm not asking. I'm just asking. It's on ethical. You know, like, is it ethical for a 80 year old man to have a 35 year old super sassy secretary? It was ethical when JFK was banging Marilyn Monroe, or we decided that it was ethical, that it was acceptable. Maybe if you're deciding if you're linking with the Galover. What? Or Abraham Lincoln with the Galover. I mean, maybe. I don't know anything about that. I haven't heard. But, but like, look, this is something that the American people have largely decided, look, and this is something that doesn't make a big, big difference to us. There she is. I completely disagree. I think that a large part of why those so normalized was because things weren't as transparent, like without the internet or without constant press. I mean, FDR, the people didn't even know he was in a wheelchair because the press kept that silent. Yeah. But I think now, like, probably since George W. Bush, everything's trying to be out in the open every. Just because it's trying to get just because it's being out in the out or trying to be put out in the open. And people on opposing sides will use it against the people that are running. So the Republicans would do it to Democrats. Democrats would do it to Republicans. Just because it's out in the open, it doesn't mean that the American people actually care. Donald Trump did the whole grab him by the, and I'm not going to say it because we're on the share. And, and the American people elected him twice. Generally, the American people don't really care. At least they don't care enough to say we're not going to live actually in, in. He's what you need to do. Okay. I need you to gain some weight, right? You got to get a, a Trump haircut. You got to learn to arch your neck forward a little bit and stick your chest out and go like this when you talk. Oh, she's single, bro. Well, so you got to do, you see how she's looking at that man? Yeah, with, with you, you need, you need to mold yourself into that symbol of masculinity. Yep. And then you got to, and then you got to, you know, I are a girl that's 45 years younger than you. No, and then you've asked her to date. What do you think? Caroline Levitt is that Caroline wasn't offered the secret plane that Donald Trump left. But Natalie, I don't, I don't actually, I don't actually know if I believe that story that they went on another plane. Because when they landed the, uh, the report, I think Politico said there was, they, they don't understand how he would have gotten back on the Air Force one. So that story may have been a, a misdirection for some reason. You know, I want us to say with, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're quick. Sorry, when they landed in the UK, they stayed, they waited for like 25 minutes, and then Trump declined. Same as everybody else. And so the first report was that Trump switched plans. It didn't happen. Then the report came out recently that he snuck into the catering cart. But the reports about his landing in the UK said there was no catering card. So how did he make it back to Air Force one? Unless he was completely fabricated story. Well, I'm not saying I know for sure, but I'm questioning was there an ulterior motive with lying to the press? And one of the theories is that the story was fake and tended to see who was leaking information of the press. So right, they, they go to some people on the plane and then say, hey, Trump snuck off the plane, he's not actually here. The catering cart took him away. Wasn't the press on the plane? Right. Somebody went and whispered and said Trump's actually not here because they weren't supposed to know. Then when the report came out, but why would there be confusion about a member of the press leaking something when they're jobs? It's not, it's not, it's not the member of the press leaking. It's someone from Trump's staff telling the press things. Oh, oh, I see. So if, so how did the press find out? So here's the theory and I'm not saying it's true. But if the president sneaks off of Air Force one because of a security risk risk to his life, no one should know that, right? That should be like top secret presidents being shuffled away. How did the press find out? A lot of people on the left are saying, isn't it weird that Carolyn let it left right after we're after she found out she was left on the decoy plane. And my response was not that she got mad and quit. But could she have been the one to have told the press about the secret plan? And that's why she's no longer there like a quiet resignation. Well, she's like, I'm right afterwards. She's like, I'm leaving with my family. And then when they land in the UK, I think it was political that reported no catering cart would have transported Trump back to the plane. Trump just de-planned and they don't know how he got back on the plane. So why should I assume that story is actually true in the first place? Interesting. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. You know, it's all speculation to make me like to be honest with in the absence of evidence, the simple solution is Karen Levin had a baby and she wants to be at the same idea with Tulsi Gabbard. I thought it seemed more than just she was leaving to be with her husband. It felt like her disagreements with Trump about the Iran war put forced her out of the administration and that they don't want to say now. Well, she leaked and she leaked information to Congress that completely disrupted the narrative of why we went to Iran in the first place. She said in her congressional testimony, we did not have adequate evidence that Iran was building a nuclear weapon. It was a large part of why Trump said we need to go in there and he still says that to this day. So there was absolutely a conflict there, which is why yeah, she, I don't know if she left or if she was told to leave by the Trump. Yeah. It's not true. I think, I think, so I've, I've spoken to some people like, look, we know people who work in the beltway and who work in these spaces from super close literally in the administration to outside from consulting groups. And the rumors that I've heard as of recent is that she was forced out. Yeah. It was just convenient, but here's the other thing too. I was told back in February and everybody watched those heard me, heard me say a million times, but for Mason, I heard that she was going to resign months ago because they're trying to splinter the Trump base to create a spoiler for the Democrats. Basically moderate Democrats who don't like woke, but hate Trump. That's why you're seeing Tucker flip. They want to create a space where moderates will be like, I'm going to vote for whatever this is. So you take the anti, like the left moderate or anti-Trump elements in the Trump campaign and create a spoiler campaign with Joe Kent, Marjorie Taylor, Greene Thomas Massey and Tulsi Gabbard. I was, I was told that she was going to resign. I talked about it. I was told that people close to her and her family, she would never resign. And then like two months after I talked about it, she resigned. And so now Tucker's launching his third party. So I don't know that I believe the rumors now that she was forced out. I still feel like they're all working together and it's just political manipulation. To say that moderates are going to be voting for Tucker Carlson is so wild. I feel like the only people that would go to him is like a Lincoln project. The what? The Lincoln project. They would not vote for Tucker Carlson. There are a ton of Neocons who went never Trump or invoted for Democrats who would absolutely vote for like Thomas Tucker still works as like an apparatus of the Republican party. And so far as like he's still glazing JD Vance preparing for that 2028 run. Even though JD Vance has been complicit with all of the actions of the Trump admin, I mean, he went on Joe Rogan and gave like this vague sense of criticism. But even then he's like, Hey, I support the president. I'm not going to go against my own administration. And it's just funny to me that Tucker's like Donald Trump has betrayed our base. He's betrayed the movement. But I like JD. I don't know if JD V has done the same thing. Right. Right. But so think about what that does though in a 2028 run with JD Vance. The people who don't like Trump are not going to listen to people who support Trump the same ways they would someone who's criticizing him. But Tucker's going to endorse JD. Of course. That's the point. When there were tons of conservatives that left the Republican party because of Trump specifically, but they didn't change all of their values. They just said Trump is an existential threat. So I will vote for a Democrat Democrat if that means stopping Trump. Tucker crawls and then comes out and says Trump is bad. These people then go, Hey, Tucker's got some sense in him. Then when JD Vance comes in and he sounds vanilla pudding that he might pull in a decent amount of those people back. Look, even if it's 5%. That's enough to disrupt the Democrats to let's put it this way. If they can spoil or 5% JD Vance can win with substantially less votes. JD is going to be forever attached to the actions of the admin that he said about Rubio. I think that Rubio would do better. But I think that everything that's been shown is them gearing towards JD be in the guy because Marco Rubio, let's say he runs in a primary against JD. He loses. He's completely fucked. He has no career left after that, at least running for president again. If he wins and he beats out JD, you're going to have people that are pissed off that they didn't go with the plan because JD is supposed to be the next guy. I don't think that's advantageous for Marco. Calcio currently has Vance at 44 to Rubio's 20. I think Rubio could keep his ambitions to run for president and probably be successful at being the nominee in 32. You wonder what's weird. I just don't think that's going to happen in 20. You know what's really weird? Marco Rubio's name means Marco is a reference to Mars, the God of War. And Rubio means red haired. His name literally means like war. Well, it's like the red planet. It's the red haired God of war. It's like holy shit. You know what Donald Trump means? Donald means world ruler and Trump means the Harold sound, like the trumpets, the trumpet sound. Trump's name literally means the Harold of the world ruler. Do you know what JD Vance means? What does it mean? Vance means dweller of the marsh. It means swamp creature. Like his people's name. That's hilarious. What is Jay, Jay stand for James? James, I think James. But his first name is not his name. JD is not real. What is it? It was like John David. Yeah. Oh, it is. James Trump. I think James is Jacob. So you guys aren't pretty proud. Well, hold on. One. Trump was, Donald Trump was born Donald Trump was dad. JD Vance is not born, you know, John did change it from Fred Trump to his dad to Fred Trump. Let's. Okay. On. Yeah. His name is Donald. I don't know. JD Vance's names was James Donald Bowman. Then it got changed to James David Hamill. Now it's James David Vance. The dude's like the biggest chameleon ever. His name was Donald. Yeah. Right. And then he was anti Trump. Yeah. He was not really anti Trump. Trump's Hitler. And then Peter Teal, like, groomed him into being the candidate that he is today. I mean, because the point was, this is how you win. You, you, when it's, it's, it's redirecting the energy. You don't face the energy head on and try to stop it. You take it and you try and guide it in the direction you want to go. And that's what they're doing. Yeah. Tom. I think Trump just messed up not getting something like Doug Burgham. Doug would have heard. Doug Burgham. Yeah. Doug Burgham. You know what? Michael Knowles is big on Burgham. Tom Cruise had a. But so here's the other question though. What are the Democrats have? AOC is the front runner now. Yeah. I don't know. I think she's going to run for Senate. She's been like for sure posting a lot. That's like getting that engagement. And she had the like famous woke one was crazy, which is trying to distance herself from 2020 a bit. Yeah. I don't know. I honestly think John Ossof's going to pull a, is he up there? He's, he's, he's third right now, but here's the issue saying I'm not going to run. I'm not going to run. But like the dude is charismatic. He's from the South. But, but then moderate in his like running. But he's trying to project more progressive, at least for the anti establishment energy. Right. I think that he'd be a killer. Writing them all on charisma. AOC. AOC. AOC. She has a good. She's. She's the most charismatic Democrat. And there's a lot of weight though. She looks unhealthy. Yeah, I saw that. That's not charisma. That's more beauty. Yeah. As she's gone for a big booty Latina vote. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, charisma is more of a personal fervor. No, no, no. AOC. They work in synergy. AOC has it. Yeah. Gavin Newsom. Some miserable. He's, he's going to fizz a lot. He's wrong to say. I agree. I completely agree. Ossof has more than Newsom and makes a lot more sense. But he has VP energy. AOC has, has, has X factor. I don't see it with Ossof. I don't think yet. I, I think that there's, there's a lot of skepticism on her ability to win over people. But what I will say is her like stunts going down to Georgia and like Trump County. And helping them that are pissed off at the data centers that are literally polluting their water. That signaling that she is trying to do that like crossing the bridge. But I, I don't think that she's going to be the person that like everyone's gearing for for 2020. I think she has a lot of energy though. What's on Ossof is, his height is weirdly debated. It's some sources say five, nine, some say five, eleven. Five, eleven maybe gets you there. What's JD? He's like five, eleven? No, no. JD is like six something. And Mark Rubio is short. Is that right? Yes. Yep. Yep. JD Vance is six, six, two. Little Marco. Yeah. Vance has it in the pocket. And, and this is, this is important. This is why Kamala Harris requested a smaller podium when debating Trump. This is true because the first reception, yep, people because when they do the close-ups. When they do the wide, it's hard to, to figure out size and serally the way they angle the cameras. But if they're next to each other, you can see the podium is smaller. But they don't do that. They do close-ups, which makes her look proportional. And it makes them both look proportionally the same. It's genetic, man. Like are, he's our more commander, our military commander, commander in chief of the military. You need to do that's tall. They can sit on top of a horse behind the troops and see over their heads. Literally, that's where this stuff comes from. You want a tall, strong guy that can maneuver on horseback. I mean, we're kind of past that, but it's still ingrained in our genetics. So we look for these tall men. The one who looks like that. Yeah, like George Washington was super tall, and it helped him in combat. Deep voices and height. The Claudia Scheinberg told me. From a distance. This is the, they have a loud booming voice. This is the challenge that AOC will have. Any woman running against a man is there's, like, and, and, and, and I always say this because feminists get mad at me. But this is literally the feminist position. People inherently will be sexist towards a female candidate. And just choose a man based on. It's military. That's such like the neoliberal interpretation and why I disagree with a lot of Democrats saying Kamala lost because of that. Like America's two racist and sexist to vote for a woman candidate. I think that it's absolutely on the issues. I think it's on the policy. And her running a campaign that wasn't really geared towards any vision. And honestly, capitulated a lot to the right. She tried to, like, almost run to the right of Donald Trump when it comes to things like military strength. Having the most lethal military in the world she kept saying she's going to be the strong woman that make sure that the global order stays in line. I don't think that that's successful. And that's the reason why she lost was she didn't have that vision that people actually saw on a campaign. I think the female factor plays a role in the, in the turn out because we're talking about lowest common denominator. But I would agree with you. There was, did you see that, that mock debate they did where they had a man play Hillary and a woman play Trump? No, I didn't see that. It was a university study out in New York and they had a mock debate, word for word, exactly the same. And a man did Hillary and a woman did Trump and the woman won the debate. The, the people who were in the study was like, they did a bunch of these debates and then served everybody. They said the, the Hillary character while their male or female was smarmy and condescending and off-putting. And the Trump figure, be it male or female, was like righteous indignation and frustration with the system. So they had like a stout woman in a right dress saying, no, you did this and it was wrong. And we are sick of it. And people felt that they resonated with it, even though it was a woman. That's like the president of, of, of, of Italy. What's her name, Georgie Maloney? She's a badass. - Sure, it's a woman, I don't care. - I'm her burlaskoni, huh? - I'm her burlaskoni. - Uh-uh. - Burlaskoni? - Yes, Italy. - I've heard that word before. - And like-- - I've never heard it before. - It was a mean. - It was a person. - It was a person. - No. - And he has like, he was notorious for having like beautiful men all around him and like, we'll see the president in Italian. - Whatever the leader of Italy is, I don't know, prime minister of president or whatever, but it was like, mafioso. - Oh. - You know, machismo. - No, no, I wasn't familiar. - Yeah, look it up. - It's gonna be the one we'd start to see. A lot more, I guess in the next couple months, probably after the midterms. And I think we'd have a better toe. (laughing) - Come on. - Burlaskoni. It was like Tony Soprano. - I mean, this was a long time ago. So I can't tell you, but-- - I was 11 years old, meeting. - When you have Silvio Burlaskoni prostitution trial, you know? - Damn. - Accused and convicted of paying a 17 year old Moroccan. - It's crazy. - Prime Minister. - For sexual services. - The role is prime minister. - Okay. - I wanted to say about the girl from the earlier story before we kind of went away from it Natalie, that I think, I got a lot empathy for this girl, 'cause if she, Trump's kind of seems to be serving as her father figure in her life, like strong male, petrional figure, and like she lost her father. So I don't, I don't think it's weird how she's acting. It's just, it's questionable if you should even put young women in that position as more-- - It's just weird that you're using your employer, your boss as that father figure role. And like clearly, I'm not, like I think that she, she needs a lot of therapy obviously, 'cause she has a lot of trauma in her life. But I just, I don't think it's helpful for the situation for that type of workplace, that your boss, the person that your livelihood is dependent on, you're also viewing as this father figure with all of your heart. - I know, it's a dangerous part of the job itself, because if her obsession for him is a father figure outweighs her duty to do the job, that could become a real problem. - Yeah. - But I think Donald Trump likes that, which is more of a, I think the biggest part of the story is, why is Donald Trump need these sickle fans around him more so than in life? - For the same reason, he needs his name and gigantic gold letters on buildings all over the world. - Yeah, let's go. - And the bit is like, when he was a little kid and he walked into, like his dad's in the study, reading the paper, and he's a little boy, and he walks and he goes, "Daddy look, I solved the puzzle." And he goes, "Oh, it's in here again." And then the maid comes and carries him away. I don't know why Trump would have a British or an ortho-lantic accent like that, but it's a joke. - It's making noise. - It's making noise again. - I'm sure it was. But here's the thing, if you know Trump, you know how to get what you want, and this is what I don't understand about Democrats is all they have to do is butter him up. You butter him. - Well, it's always, I would Zoran Mamdani, like what I'm supposed to be literally the antithesis of Maga and Donald Trump is enamored by him every time that they're together. - 'Cause he says nice things about him. - So, I don't know. Zoran doesn't really say nice things. He's definitely cordial. - No, I mean to him. I don't think he even does that, really. 'Cause he called him a fascist to his face. But I think what Donald Trump likes is winners. I think he likes winners more than anything. That's all on defeating a previous governor in a race where he had one percent, literally eight months before the election. I think Donald Trump sees like, okay, I respect a winner like that. - You're popular. - More than ideology. And I think that it's indicative. - Ball too. - Yeah, well, yeah, Kim Jong-un, great leader, love President-Jee, he glorifies all of these people who are supposed to be like his adversaries. - I think he gets a lot of people off by being nice to Zoran. - Right, he butters them up. 'Cause if you get, he'll, he subverts too. He'll, he'll say he likes you and then backstab you. Like, he's happy to do that shit. - Yeah, I mean, he's criticized Zoran just not to his face. - Yeah. This is, I bring this up because I wonder if what Natalie is doing is actually just advancing her career. She knows that when she says to Trump, I love you with all my heart and you're the great, or not, I love you. But with all my heart, you're such a good person. You're everything, and you know, I'll do anything for you. She knows he's gonna be like give her a promotion, give her a raise. - 100% and how sad is it that professional development is tied to undying devotion? - It's crazy. - Well, I will say it's, I'm glad that it's out in the open. - It's better than sexual favors. - Yeah, but no, I'm like-- - Do you know that's not going on? Like for sure. - But my point is this, like this probably is much more common than people realize. - Yeah. - Just in general. - Of course, yeah. - People being like, you know. - Like buttering up your boss. - I mean, I know that's quite cool as an organean's really important. - With some things, I used to be a worker, and then I realized, oh, if I befriended the owner, I can, I am the show at the top of the chain company. And they'll have me come. They'll be like, can you manage, can you do this? Can you do this? - Hey, hold on, the entire media establishment and DC establishment was basically kissing Barack Obama's ass for eight years. Chris, what's his name? - Chris Matthews got a thrill running up his leg. This kind of, this kind of like buttering up the guy in charge. - Of course. - Whether or not we find it unseemly, it's still perfectly normal. - I would love to find a single letter that says, "With all my heart, I'm so sorry that I let you down. You are the most important thing that matters to me to Barack Obama." Like to find a single letter. - I would not be, I mean, like I said, we already talked about like, she probably is a little bit, like going a little overboard. But the idea of buttering up the boss or kissing someone's ass, that's- - But hold on, hold on. - I gotta say, I bet Obama's got more of those letters than Trump does. - Not from people within his closest circle. - I don't, I agree. - I would love to bring that up. - Because this is a unique case, which I don't believe that. - No, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I agree. I think Trump's the kind of guy where people close to him are butt-sniffing and giving these letters. But I think for Obama, he probably got more of those letters from people just outside the periphery. Obama was a celebrity and he was the media buttered him up, everybody loved him. So for different reasons, I'm willing to bet that a bunch of people wrote letters to Obama where they're like, you're the best. - I mean, he's still has strong influence in the Democratic Party, but it's nowhere near the same level of, again, the cultist status that Donald Trump has built on the right, your career is dependent on how much Donald Trump views you as being loyal. - Yeah, but not anymore. - And Bondy. Chrissy Nome, Wolfsy Gabbard. - Gone, gone, gone, gone. - That's what I'm saying. Because he didn't view them as loyal enough. - Well, just crazy. - I feel like Chrissy Nome never said any criticism. - I don't think it's $20 million on that horse ad or whatever, because she was incompetent. - I don't think it's significantly different than Barack Obama. - Well, I think that this particular case, like I said, I think that she's got the whole father figure thing or dad died. So this case is a little bit different, but overall, people behaving like sick of fans is not some kind of strong thing. - Well, Obama was way more than Trump ever. - But Obama. - In terms of public fervor and love. - Yeah. - Trump has a-- - Approval rating, sure, if we're talking about-- - No, no, no, no, no, no. - Control of the party? - No. - Well, control the party. Absolutely not. - I agree with Mason. Trump's got more commanding control of who runs the endorsements he gets. His endorsements almost always win, but not always. - He's just fucking won and he has every scandal in the book. - But I think as it goes to general population, Obama had way more psychophantic love from the populist than Trump. - That might be true, but Obama, as far as I know, didn't hire 28-year-old hot blond chicks to be his existence. - Agreed. - And so he didn't get it on the inside. - But let's do this. And publicly. So Trump's got, I think the estimate they gave is, there's a 40% base of their public and party that we would call the Trump cult. They don't break from Trump no matter what. They'll, they'll, they can-- - 40, I feel like 33. - It might be. But it's like a third to, I don't know. Let's just say 40, let's say 30 right now, like 32. - No, no, no, not approval rating in general. I'm saying of Republican voters. - There's over Republican voters. - There's, the estimate is about 40%. Don't care what Trump does. They love Trump no matter what. Trump can, like, start a-- - I feel like there's more than that. - No, man, look at it. - Isn't there just like the poll that was like 100% of Mac voters love Trump? - No, no, no, no, no, hold on, hold on, no, no, that's the number. - My point is-- - I'm like, what you guys are saying? - About what? - On Tim Kass. I feel like I saw something where there was like this theory that the Iran war was meant to like strangle China and like US adversaries. - How is that true? Or is that position changed? - How is that solution? - Absolutely, but how is that support of? - Well, isn't that saying that like there's a strategic reason why we need to do this to like hurt our adversaries? - Well, you're interpreting need. - Yeah, trying to understand what's going on is not the same. - See, this is a problem with the internet, right? I have a video where I literally said, this is a failure. I'm sorry, it just is, and Trump's not going to tell you the truth about it. I understand what they're trying to do if you look at the bigger picture, but a lot of people who don't pay attention are going to scream Israel did it. But when you look at every single move Trump has made, and even predates Trump, all of this is lining up the Gulf of America, even the renaming of it, for oil exports to originate from the Gulf, from the port of Houston. That's why you've got Panama, Venezuela, Cuba. That's why you've got the attempts at the North-West passage. And China's oil imports are being cut off. None of that is to say it's good. We did it. In fact, I literally called it a failure. Trump is now draining the SPR to levels we've not seen since 1982 to try and stabilize gas prices because our economy is screwed up. But for some reason, literally starting a video with Trump is failing, and he's going to lie about this. People go, I guess Tim supports the war now. And I'm like, like, I support in a way American military dominance. I didn't use to think war bad stopped. And now I'm like, well, what is it? what's the alternative here? Chinese military dominance? 'Cause it's gonna be somebody militarily dominating the planet. - It just seems like that interpretation is-- - It's correct. - A part of the Trump post-hog justification for-- - It's not because they're lying about it. They won't tell you this, and they're telling you it's because of nuclear weapons, which is a lie because they bombed them last year over nuclear weapons. So the Trump's official line is nuclear weapons, and that's not correct. - It's like a sea. I think Donald Trump wants to be the president that actually went into Iran and took them down and stopped the regime and he stopped in Venezuela. We'll stop it in Iran. I'm a minister of president that establishes dominance. - That's a component, don't get me wrong. But let's start from the beginning. - It's not gonna be economic, strangling China when Americans are the ones that are also gonna take the front. - Let's start from having things that the war is a failure. - What's happening is the war is losing 20%, but because we're so far ahead, our loss is still gonna keep us above everyone else. - They're taking legal suicide in the midterms, and essentially in 2028. - They're hurting everyone. - So look at this way. Okay, okay, okay, let's look at this way. Let's say you've got half take a guess. China's got a quarter take a guess, and you both have to go 100 miles. Trump's like, I'm gonna burn, I'm gonna burn the half tank. - China's getting hurt, but it's not gonna cripple them economically. - It's cut their oil by 44%. And they've implemented controls and emergency energy releases. They've switched their taxi fleets from gas to electric already. - Yeah, they're getting choked down. - So let's start from the beginning. This is important because people can't seem to understand. Let me first like this. Not only was I in some of these countries at the start of these conflicts, but I've been tracking this since I was a teenager and involved in the protests around Afghanistan in the Iraq war. Every day of my life, reading the news about what was going on. So let's go back as far, not even as far as I can go, but we can go, and this is for all the people who might watch this who don't know what's going on, and assume that understanding the conflict is support for it, it is not. First, the Cutter Turkey pipeline, my favorite story, the U.S. went to Syria and said, "We want to build a natural gas pipeline "from the Persian Gulf through Iraq, Syria, Turkey, "into Europe to offset the Gazprom gas monopoly." This is a fact. Bashar al-Assad said, "No, we are allied with Russia "who has a naval base in Tartus. "We are not going to allow you to build a gas pipeline "that would offset our allies' control of energy in Europe." Then, Syria, Russia, and Iran said, "Let's tap the same natural gas field, "build it through Syria and strengthen Russia's gas monopoly." Now, this is where there's a gap because I don't want to make insinuations, but surprisingly, within a year, the United States declares that Bashar al-Assad is a terrorist state, and we enter the conflict on the side of the rebel fighters. - Wow, 2013-ish. - So, this is around 2011, actually, the start of the, it's the Arab Spring into the Syrian Civil War, and the United States says, "We're going to side with the rebels," which ultimately, all of them form an Islamist nightmare, which is ISIS, and they end up with weapons that were delivered by the Obama administration. The speculation, 'cause again, I'm trying to be nice, is that the U.S. needed to remove Bashar al-Assad, so we could build a gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey, because, again, Russia controlled 20% of natural gas into Europe, and Europe was starting to favor Russian interests because they needed the energy. Fast forward to 20, now we're getting into 2014-2016. Ukraine was split between joining, staying in the Russian Trade Federation, or joining the European Union. Russia says, "If you join the European Union, "European goods are going to flood the Russian market, "so we're going to cut you off." Pick one. Unfortunately, for Russia, Ukraine, Ukrainians, were like, "We'd rather be in the EU, we'll be wealthy." If Ukraine joins the EU, the Blacks, Russia's control, or access to the Blacks, he would be at risk, because Crimea, their only warm water port, is Ukraine. So what does Russia do? They annex Crimea, fearing that Ukraine would fall to the European Union. Also, this would compromise Burisma. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Gazprom, Burisma's the next component, which is how they control the price of gas in Europe. Russia's principle, their principle export is energy, they needs free economy. We then get the Nord Stream pipelines from Russia into Germany. One of them blows up, Nord Stream 2. Germany has accused Ukrainians of bombing the undersea pipeline that was delivering Russian gas to Germany. Their speculation that CIA frogmen were involved in this, if it is true that Ukrainians bombed our allies pipeline in NATO, that would trigger Article 5, and the US would be forced to enter the war against Ukraine. That's insane. Germany has issued an arrest warrant for the Ukrainian who they accuse of doing this. The US, I presume, would be on the side of Germany, but for some reason it stayed out of it. Now we get the Ukrainian conflict, Burisma. Joe Biden has his son on the board of Burisma and Energy Company. Why? When we couldn't get the Cutter Turkey pipeline into Europe, the United States shifted its resources to control the Ukraine. If we can get political dominance in Ukraine, we can stifle the gas prom monopoly through Burisma and other energy sources if Ukraine joins the EU. Hence now Russia is invading sealing this land bridge to give them access to Crimea, which is the home of their Black Sea fleet. The Kursan bridge was bombed, so that's not a safe means of access for Russia, and they're not going to spend billion dollars putting up a new base in Russian territory in the Black Sea and give away their naval port. So now we have this war. Currently now we have a problem with Israel bombing Syria, Turkey moving in in Syria, when Bashar al-Assad has been forced to flee and the US interest is in getting the Syrian government to allow us to secure these pipelines. That brings us to everything we've seen in the beginning of the Trump administration. He renames the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, which seems silly. He takes Venezuela, he's pacified the Caribbean by bombing these vessels, and he's surrounded Cuba, cutting them off from all energy, isolating their government, forcing a destabilization. He renegotiated the Panama deal, and he's currently trying to gain access to Greenland, which would give us military access to the northwest passage. Then it brings us to Iran, the straight of four moves, 20% of the world's oil. I do not believe Trump is trying to take out nuclear weapons. I believe the intention is, as Trump just posted, new US territory is to create permanent control of 20% of global oil exports. Trump wants to dominate the world. Everything he's done has centered oil exporting through Houston and the Gulf of America, and now he's shut down the straight of four moves, which is isolated bricks nations. India, China, particularly the four moves. He did shut down the straight of four moves. He started the war, then the strike got shut down, and I believe that is the intended conditional. I think the Israelis started the war, and he joined, and I think the Israelis won. Well, that is nuclear program, but Trump was like, well, now that we're here, we might as well control the oil. You don't think? Israel wants to obliterate Iran, period, because Iran funds the Al Qasamburgades, Hamas, as well as the Houthi rebels in Yemen. So Israel is basically saying, these guys are the ones making the war against us. - Regime change. - We're going to destroy them. We want regime change. The United States also wants regime change in Iran. That's why we got Iraq and Afghanistan, which is a pincer strike on the Iranians. But Iran is a giant mountain. It's not easy to just take it, and the US is struggling. Such a failure is because the only two options left are further escalation, which are taking over the islands in an attempt to do a siege onto the mainland, which is going to fail, unless we're really willing to obliterate most of the Iranian civilians. - Well, let's defer unfairly. - Or it's going to be just a complete surrender and give the Iranians exactly what they want, which is a restoration fund, which is giving them the reparations that they're asking for, allowing them to continue to control the strait. And we've gone from 150 or so ships that were going through or moves to like what, 10 now? I think that's the purpose. - And I believe that's on purpose. - I read that. - Trump. - See, I disagree with you because your argument would be Trump accidentally destroyed the US economy. - No, I think that Trump knew that there were going to be risks, but he was willing to take it because he feels this invincible, I'm the it man, I am the guy. - But that doesn't explain tackle Iran for the last foreign policy. - Well, the last presidential administrations, leading all the way back to Ronald Reagan, wanted Iran to fall, they wanted control, but they were worried of what that would do to the global economy, which is exactly what we're starting to see right now. - And taking this risk and it being a failure. - It's not, did you say it was a failure? - Indeed, and I don't think the issue is that it's a risk, it's that Trump is not going to publicly say, "We knew this would happen." - Imagine if Trump did say that or not, like it's going to be a failure amongst the American people, which is why they're such disdainable. - Which is why he needs a castle's belly, which is, oh, they have nuclear weapons. - But nobody believes that. - I agree. That's why Trump is, what's it going to say? We shut down the strait of hormones to strangle the BRICS nations. - Is it better than a lie that nobody believes? - No, I wouldn't need to say, why wouldn't he just say, "I need American economic dominance"? - No, I don't. - You don't want China to be able to continue to get. - You think Trump would get, would you support Trump if he came out and said? - No. - Who would support Trump if he said we did this on purpose? - Republicans that want to see China crippled. - Yeah, but moderates and Democrats, no Democrats are out, but the moderates are going to be like, screw off, we don't want war. - Yeah, I don't want to guess. The proof of him saying that we're going to get rid of their nuclear weapons. - No, I'm not saying that either. Most people, if you have two people and you have a choice of what you're going to try to sell them on, you sell them the lowest common denominator. The existential threat of Iranian nuclear weapons is understandable by someone who doesn't pay attention. But if you go to them and say, I just choked out 20% of the global oil supply causing a global economic crisis and I'm not draining the SPR to make up for that loss. Why? I want to choke BRICS nations. They're going to say, go F yourself. This is your fault and they're going to say, I'm going to vote for somebody else. So you go to them and lie and say, but they've got nuclear weapons. We have to stop them. And at least some of those people are going to go, I guess so. - Way less than before the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq though, because so many people are keyed into the numbers. - Let me just say this. - Regardless who you're saying is the justification. You're agreeing that this is a strategic failure. - As of this point, this has been a nightmare of a conflict. So the SPR being drained down to what like a hundred, It's going to 170 million - Yeah, barrels. - With the argument of you-- - Worst than Biden. - Seating to that, are you saying that in the future, this is gonna end up being a net positive? - That's a question of America. - We get oil in the gold mirror. - But again, that's like saying, I'll put money down a baseball team to win, and then it's like, well, I make money. Well, if they win. If Trump is able to, let me simplify it. First, as I've said a million times, I've never vote for this war. I won't support this war. But I hope the United States wins in all respect to whatever his United States is doing. The simple way to explain this plan is Trump is trying to center global oil in the Gulf of America, and that's his obsession. That's why Panama, Greenland, all of these things line up. The idea is, I am going to, we're going to cause 70% damage to America, and 80% damage to China. China gets half of its energy imports in the straight-of-formos. The US is an oil exporter. This is Trump's plan, but you're never going to go, especially in a midterm year and tell the American people, you wanna know why you can't afford your gas right now or why eggs cost so much money or why the economy's in a downturn? I did that. They're gonna be like, okay, I'm voting for somebody else. So he's going to come out and lie, and say they've got nuclear weapons. - Yeah, I just think the American people already understand that it is Trump's fault, which is why his disapproval is so large right now. - Agreed, yeah. - But again, he's not going to come out and say, hey, my approval rating should go down. - Right. - Do you want to lie to try and bolster this military failure? - I'm not, like, I don't hate on him for lying 'cause sometimes you're the commander-in-chief of military job is to subvert and lie to the, but the problem is we start lying to the domestic population because the rest of the world's watching, so you have to otherwise-- - Or you say that Americans' financial status does not even take, like, what do you say to the press? He's like, I don't even think about Americans' financial state when I'm making these decisions. I'm the president, everyone has to deal with it. - So here's the important understanding of why I would call this a failure. - Draining the strategic petroleum reserve to try and keep gas down in the United States, that is when you are failing. We have, our strategic petroleum reserve is not for gas prices. It is for when we are threatened, we are at war, and we need energy to fight back. For Trump to have started this war, and again, with pressure from Israel no doubt, to now be at a point where we have to drain what something like, we're going for like 40% of the SPR to the point where they're saying it's gonna damage the caverns. - Looking for the numbers. - I didn't did this. Biden drained the SPR because our oil prices were screwed up, and this is not what it is for. Trump refilled it early on, but now we're draining it again, draining it again to choke out the straight-of-form moves. If, however, Trump's gambit does work, which I'm not confident in, we will be in a down, a down period for some time. Perhaps in four or five years, the United States will see some benefit from this. The simple way that the media likes to say is short-term pain for long-term gain. My response is, no cassis belly, no war. We the United States do not start wars for the purpose of damaging other countries economically to improve our economic situation five years later. This is not what we voted for. It's not what our country should be doing to succeed, and right now it's pissing everybody off, and it's pissing me off, 'cause I can see it in the prices of everything we do. And if the president's gonna come out and lie about what's really going on, I think that is also a big problem. That being said, I understand government's lie, and those with power take power. There is a possibility that in the end, we get substantial economic damage from this, but we destroy bricks. And then we feel good about it 10 years later. Right now, people are suffering. The economy is bad, it is palpably bad, and I do not feel that there's a justifiable reason to be involved in this. There's two principal camps on the surface. Israel forced us to do it, and we had nuclear weapons, we had no choice, both of which are half truths. You have to look at the big picture of the past 20 years with the Cutter Turkey pipeline and all the actions in the Gulf of America, especially with Venezuela. And it's all about, again, we're gonna cause pain to the Americans today in hopes that in the next 5, 10 years, we're energy dominant and China's not. - And technology's advancing so rapidly, they'll be using non-petroleum-based energy fuel sources by then, that's the crazy thing. - I don't think so. - You don't think so. - I think that can show. - No, absolutely not. - Dude, the Chinese are, you are completely wrong in because what you don't understand is that petroleum is the means of controlling populations. If we allow anyone to develop fusion technology, they will get off the petro dollar. We will blow them up. - The weapons is the means to control domestic populations, not, the fuel will give you. - No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. - Forage weapons, but it's-- - No, no, no, weapons are the last resort of conflict that are no guarantee. - I think it's the main thing that you control people. - If everybody needs gas and gas prices. - When is the tipping point? When we're done using non-indulable energy sources. - I don't, I don't think at least-- - Non-indulable. - No, the liberal oil. - The liberal carbon constantly keeps making new oil. - And in perpetuity. - We're not gonna run out. - We continue to expand. - We're not gonna run out because they're also synthesizing it. The issue is, the liberal economic order, the United States hegemonic system is predicated on the petro dollar. There ain't no way Trump or the military industrial complex gives that up. - Right, but the Chinese don't give a shit about that. - Which is why-- - You're not the alternate. - Which is why if they get close to getting off of that, war will start. - Like if they start using hydrogen-- - Thucydides trap, bro. - And also most of your, your most of China's military machine still runs on oil. Like they do have, you know, some electric power drones or whatever, but all their ships and stuff, most of them are, they're diesel ships still-- - I think the things-- - Most of their tanks and stuff like that, they're all run on some kind of petroleum product. - The future of warcraft, just with technological innovation is gonna be so much different. I think even in the next 15 to 20 years-- - Well, that's why-- - I think the advent of AI and just-- - That's why I brought up-- - That's why I brought up-- - That's why I brought up batteries and stuff because drones are gonna run on batteries, right? And so drones are gonna be a major part of, you know, the future of warfare. But still, you're talking about like, if you're dealing with missiles, like, sure there are solid rocket boosters and stuff, but if you're talking about anything that has an engine, it's all running off of, you know, it's always-- - The energy output of oil is better than everything. And you're not gonna get a microfusion reactor for a car. - Well, hydrogen. - Hydrogen is a pretty light way. - They've tried that, though. It's volatile and it's hard to produce and ship. And the underlying energy source for hydrogen is still oil. - Have you seen any-- - Have you seen any significant infrastructure move towards hydrogen? - No, the whole industry is suppressing it. - Exactly, but that's not going to do it. - No, that's why-- - That's why-- - This is a component of why Trump is like, we're gonna burn them to the ground. The United States, the military industrial complex, the Western powers are not going to let bricks run away with energy outside the petrodollar. - We're talking about the future of warfare. The German Blitzkrieg was under-- People didn't understand that you could drive tanks through a mountain three days straight 'cause that had never existed before. - The Blitzkrieg wasn't it? - The Blitzkrieg was through the Ardenne Forest in Eastern France. The Germans came with tanks and they took like him. That means and stayed up for days and they drove these tanks, which had never been seen. - They were all new to Coke, Dub and June. - And then they conquered Paris in like two weeks. The Chinese could attack from-- - Real quick, wait, wait. The Blitzkrieg was a bombing campaign by Nazi Germany and Italy against the United Kingdom. - Look at the Blitzkrieg. - I think, again, you're talking about the-- - The Blitzkrieg. - The book Blitzkrieg. - No, no, Blitzkrieg is a generic term. It Germans use it means lightning warfare. - Yeah, lightning warfare that these-- - The Blitzkrieg talked about the Ardenne Forest attack. It started off the war against France. - It's just a clarify because the Blitzkrieg was against the-- - It was a bombing campaign. - They were a total piece. Sneak attack, the Germans attacked France out of nowhere. They blasted through the woods in undefended area 'cause they thought it was impossible. We can never be attacked here. - Yeah, was it the Maginot line? - Yeah, the Maginot line was their expected attack defense area. But south of that was these dense mountain forests. And they're like, no one's coming through dense mountain forests. But the tanks could. So these drones can come from straight above. They can knock out our oil supply. They can knock out our big cities all at once. If our communication systems go out, who thinks they're gonna-- - You can't win if you're-- if you've just been-- - Did you know that the US has something like 400 fake nuclear silos? - Good. - You know why? - Fakes to get sneak attack on the wrong spot. - Exactly. - It's crazy. Well, so the first-- I think the most important thing I understand is two things. Biological warfare as a component of the future of warfare. But psychological-- actually, I said a great conversation with the AI guy. And that's gonna come out on Sunday at the Tim Poole Show. Check it out. But he mentioned that he had a really great point. He said, if you went back to the late 1800s, 1890, and asked someone to envision the future of warfare, what will the weapons look like? Most people would get it wrong. - You could see-- - The smartest cannons in the sky. - Gigantic cannons, pretty much ever seen. However, they still had it-- at this time, they had a general understanding of Adams. It was very rudimentary. They just knew that they didn't know anything about it. And if somebody could theorize as to what it might look like, they may have gotten it right. In fact, he said, "H.G. Wells wrote about atomic weapons "that were a heat raise." The interesting thing is, the Manhattan Project, a lot of conspiracy theorists think, "Nobody knew." Nobody knew-- it's not true. I got the life magazines, we're gonna read 'em. Everybody knew the US was building a weapon. 300,000 people were working on it, but nobody knew what the weapon was. That's compartmentalization. They were theories that it was a nuclear bomb, an atomic bomb, potentially a heat ray. Nobody knew for sure, but they knew what weapon was being made. A heat ray was one of these things. Now what he said was, one of the areas of science that we, like a laser, like a laser, yeah, like-- They didn't know. They didn't understand, like in the public, they didn't know what atomic technology could do. And then we found out when we blew up Japan. He said, like psychology. Nuclear bombs, kind of. Like neurology. These are the things that we know we're lacking. We don't understand exactly how the brain works. And when AI starts to move, map the brain, we are going to have psychological weapons, literally the ability to program a thought through visual or like audio manipulation. So an example of this. Did you guys know that there is an LED device that is marketed to police that they point at you like a gun and it flashes lights that will make you vomit? Called a dazzler. The dazzlers blind you. Oh okay. No. The dazzlers are high powered lasers that can flash you in the eyes and it it shot like shocked your eyes for about 30 seconds. But there is a device that can flicker LED devices these two. They use the L red devices. Oh red. But specifically in psychology the strobe light somehow causes a nauseates you and then it makes it hard for you to function and some people vomit your LED incapacitato. Yes. And they've been marketing this for a long time. If AI starts mapping out cycles the how the human brain works they could theoretically make sounds that will illicit insane emotions, depression, imagine you're out in a protest and they blast the depression beam and then everyone just falls down crying uncontrollably and they can't they don't understand why. Things like that. Taking out an entire city by playing a sound from a blimp that makes all the soldiers just start crying and collapse or on their own radios or their own TV or their phones start playing a music and everyone's like we I like the point about giant cannons. If you go back because there's this really funny art of the year 2000 that was that was written in like 1908 and firefighters had mechanical wings and it showed them peddling and flapping wings while they flew above building spraying them down because the understanding of technology was was mechanical and steam powered. So when you when you start there and then make something better it's something like a guy peddling wings. Whereas once you understood atomic nuclear energy or whatever computing tech then all of a sudden the door is open. I think it's like technology called miniaturization it's like you know making smaller yet more effective pieces of things weapons and like like gene editing my god if they can go in there and snip your RNA code and replace it with like a sound or a chemical in your food or something or like a bug that's been released into the into the environment. French postcard they're wearing wing backpacks and they're flying around to put fires out they're still trying to make jetpacks and stuff isn't it crazy ladders gone that's the only improvement. Yep. Like there's still a steam engine train but they're like firefighters will fly like there's like a 50 foot hose. Yeah. This is kind of like I understand the near term desire to stifle around and control the petroleum but do they do they not think far ahead or is it just there's no other choice. Like if we don't take evasive action right now in six years the Chinese petroleum based economy will dominate the AI space they have the productions they are poised to take Taiwan for chip production. You don't think that they're trolling petroleum is not going to be a major factor when it comes to AI data centers it's going to be nuclear possibly renewals but honestly I think that if must can get actually data centers into space everyone's going to follow them because there's endless amounts of light they can do radiated heating and stuff get get rid of the heat that way if he can figure it out a lot of companies are going to follow soon. Take this out LED incapacitator a light emitting diode incapacitator weapon design like a flashlight extremely bright rapid well focused series of differently colored random pulses it can cause intercranial pressure headache nausea vomiting disorientation irritability and visual impairment to the target. Yeah I said incapacitator because it was cutting off the RES incapacitator. There's also I lament the the discontinuation of the laser induced plasma channel yeah we got to make more of them to charge the sun at the very least what we got to send hydrogen into the sun so it doesn't keep. We cannot nearly charge the sun with the energy we got to build a big one it's the sun is our battery. So a laser induced just plasma channel uses a suit a high powered infrared laser to super heat the air in a straight line creating a path of least resistance for a high electrical charge effectively it's a lightning gun. So the question is that was asked they were doing this at Picatinny Air Force Base. How can I it's like look I'm sitting right here and I want to elect you that guy over there what do I do. Well the problem is the way electricity works is it go it's it's a net positive negative charge it's going to jump to the path it's going to follow the path of least resistance to bounce the charge so if you have a high powered electrode it's just going to hit the ground. It's going to go straight to the ground. But if you fire an infrared laser first then the supercharged pathway from that laser is the easiest path the electricity just goes straight through it. So you within a split second like a millisecond nanosecond you infrared laser on electrode on and it blasts the target with lightning bolt requires too much power to make it unwieldy you can't transport it and who cares will blow up with the bomb and if they're building it they wouldn't tell us. It's easy. Oh no no no this was a discontinued weapon that's how we know. But you can actually make little ones trust government what's that trust the government they may just continue this project just like they discontinued mk ultra and making that. So what I will just say on the foreign policy thing is one of the one of those difficult things things about this is that most people don't know anything about what's been going on internationally don't understand the cause and effect of the and I'll put it like this the cutter turkey pipeline where I start is still 50 years late in the game. This is it's reductive all the way to the bottom you want to go back to the bridge oil in Iran. I was trying to control. Exactly. This goes back to the shop. This goes back to 79 really goes back to 1920. I mean back to the challenge of course is that I front of my liberal guy just sends me all the stuff all the time and every argument about the war with Iran it's like it started today and I and like we went here because Israel did this like well it's a handful of questions why did Israel do it then there's a handful of questions why did Iran do it as a handful of questions what were we trying to do with oil in the Gulf right the questions go back much much further today this war did not start overnight and the issues that people are citing it's it's like looking at the tip of the Empire State Building and saying that's where the building starts that's the foundation I have on good information that you're a Israeli shill actually take all of your orders from BB himself is names his names Alex Jones what it's going on with that whole of feud when we talk about what I went on I went on Jubilee and my name was trending nonstop and people want to put my name on X to hit the trend and get more action Alex Jones talked about you because of Jubilee absolutely yeah really yeah tons of people what's his criticism of you that it's I mean there's no real one Tim pool is paid by the Russians and Israel Alex Jones cites RT I never do like he they literally put Russian sources on their coverage he's just literally I'm going to post Tim's name as much as possible against me traffic I want to ask you if you agree because what happens is high profile show huge audience do you have a responsibility now because you have a lot of people listen to you I wonder because like we'll talk about this war and the horrors and like the tactics and like if we don't if I don't speak out against what I think the Israelis are doing colonizing Gaza which I have a lot of issues with and I actively supporting it because I'm not speaking out against it and I think that's at what's Alex is like you're not going to stop it would you're just commenting that it's happening and you're not like listen denouncing it yeah and therefore you support it you're you're with that um I think that if you have a political show you should be direct about what your political opinions are but it to what point because two sometimes being too overt can get you killed so what so it's better to stay alive and change the system then get slaughtered because you were too dumb you know what I mean quiet yeah changing systems in the background now but what does I mean as a we're not in the background the allergies that have free software built into the code um building sensors that can detect incoming weaponry that they don't know you have like things like you know people the opportunity to grow their own food we are not a data center we're a megaphone well we're a little bit of both if if we have a responsibility that maybe if you like one more clawed game that could change what you have you seen all the ones I made with like Fauci vaccinating oh no I just saw the one you were playing when I oh no I made I made one where you're Hassan and you'll like to your dog I made one where you're not in your home you for throwing out of Congress you'll execute the dog you'll actually the dog yeah I made one you play not yeah and you got a bright members of Congress by throwing money at him I made I made one where you're Fauci and you got a you got to vaccinate people and then I made one that was a hybrid of all of them where you play Hassan's dog firing vaccines at his asset members of Congress like I'm I'm in one more one more game anyway anyway in the point is this if we are to do our jobs to positively affect the world is speaking about all of it there is no backroom here at Tim cast we do not work in the administration well that's what I'm confused on what your criticism is you're saying that Tim should be more overt about his criticisms of Israel no I'm not saying should I'm wondering that if if you don't become overt about what your deep criticisms are that you become then complicit in allowing it to happen I think that if that's your goal as a show is to change the narrative or change conversations or or get people to think differently then yeah you should be overt about that but you're saying that he's not doing that well I'm I don't sometimes I keep things in because I don't want to become an easy target he's projecting how he feels on a situation completely unrelated yeah like I think maybe that's Alex's criticism I'm trying to feel Alex Jones you'll man what he's what he's concerned about Hassan Piker destiny and Alex Jones did not all decided to talk might be the same at the same time because they just discovered a criticism no it's because it's Jubilee not a video they got a bunch of traffic look at it it was windshield Jubilee is it is it's it's massive also it's been it's been oh my mind a lot about the banality of evil it comes up from time to time and you're projecting that feeling that something one of us are part of complicit of the evil and I understand that philosophy it's not you okay you're misunderstanding the banality of evil is when you do nothing and you just go along with the evil right right yeah when you are ideologically look We are overt on this show and actively involved in the culture war. There's no banality of anything here. Oh, man. Like, I don't know about screaming about how horrible colonization and genocide is could actually help or change it. I don't know if it really can. Like the war machine is in motion. What do you mean? Like being like, "Hey." Israeli. How is the word? How is the word? Are you really murdering young children to take their houses? I don't know. But are you? Like, let's, I want to see it. And if you are, I don't think, like, I don't talk about that every day. Like, even though I think it might be happening, and does that make me complicit in it? No. This, this, this is why, this is why these people are called conspiratars. Does Israel do bad things? Yes, they do. A lot. Are they trying to take the West Bank? You bet. And Trump got a lot of money to that end. Are there bad things happening with China and the U.S. Muslims? Yes. Are there bad things happening in South Sudan with the U.S. involvement? Absolutely. Are we going to, which, which conflict do you want to ignore in to maximize your good? So the point is we on this show have talked about China, we've talked about Burma, we've talked about Kashmir, we've talked about Iran, Israel, Gaza, Sudan, all of it. And you see the issue is people who live in isolated worlds get mad at you if they aren't the center of your world. So if we only talk about Israel twice a month, that's not enough. And if we talk about the U.S. Muslims one time, it's why aren't you talking about Israel? At the same time, if we don't talk about the U.S. Muslims, we can imagine if people, if we talk about Israel too much, they say, who cares about Israel, why aren't you talking about what China is doing? Taiwan's next, the U.S. Muslims are being raped and forced to have abortions. There is no winning with these people. And right now, there is money to be made on these social platforms to join whatever is getting the most clicks. And the reality is, Israel is a hot button issue for most of the world because there's a lot of countries that are Muslim. You are going to get a bigger viewership talking to the world about a conflict they care about than what Americans are interested in. So let me just wrap it up by saying, to the point you're trying to make, Alex Jones, Hassan Piker, and Destiny did not all decide just on Monday, they had criticisms of me. They always did. But why did they all make videos that one day? Could it be that on Sunday, I was on Jubilee and my name was trending on social media? Yes. Yeah, I think so. So you put my name, you're going to get clicks. And next week, it'll go away and they'll be talking about something else. I mean, do you think it's manufactured and artificial or do you think it's just because it's relevant in the news? Well, I'm talking about you as a moderate. I think it's both. So for some people, this is the trending story I'm going to talk about it. So I don't say that derisively. I think if I am the news, then I am the news, right? And that's just what we did right before this, right? It was talked about breaking news and what was relevant. Exactly. So you do on a news show? Completely agree. It seems like you're labeling it as like adversarial, like these people are coming for me just because it makes the money. I'm not saying that all of these people are coming for me. I'm saying, if I'm the news on the news, that's the point. People are going to talk about what's trending. So people like, how come all of a sudden people are just ragging on you on Twitter, Tim? And I'm like, because I'm trending. Like, yeah. I mean, Alex's criticism is very, it's just interesting that you're like taking calls and taking orders from BB. I'm just like, where is he getting that from? He's making it up. Because I don't watch Info Wars or whatever it is now. See Alex is doing the grift game. That's just it. And he's saying he wants a bear knuckle boxing match. This is not real, right? Destiny critiquing my performance on on Jubilee, understood. Hassan. Hassan's destiny was good. Hassan's was just, haha, look at Tim walking off or whatever, which is like the intended condition of a Jubilee show, right? Destiny's was actually critiquing the conversation, which I can respect that. You don't got to agree with me. Alex is just trying to fight me because he knows there's not going to be a fight and he knows it's sensational. He made a video where there's lightning striking behind him and it's like, oh, I'm going to take you down. Oh, baby. I want to find. And then people like entertainment, like watching ultra-poor shirt off. Got it. That's just not real politics. So, yeah. I mean, I've never seen Alex as like a good contributor to the conversation, but I do think that, I mean, I saw it trending on Twitter when he was talking about you, that's like the last thing I saw. And that's a thing. Alex, Alex's pile on is very interesting because I'm not entirely convinced it's just the trending thing because I don't believe that Tucker, Candace, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex all just changed their opinions overnight. Well, I don't see that as real. Aren't they consistent? No. You don't think it's consistent for someone like Tucker to be like, I'm very isolationist in my foreign policy and now that Donald Trump has completely abandoned that, I'm going to be more critical. Wasn't that. I mean, so when Tucker was on Fox News, he apologized for his earlier positions for being pro-war and, you know, yeah, he's a big support or a rock. You know, Miriam Adelson is, um, no, yeah, wait, yes. Sheldon Adelson was a Jewish guy and he was a big, they're big investors, right? He died. I believe he died. Then with the money, uh, it is estimated about 100 to 100 million dollars allocated toward Trump, Trump, uh, Trump victory in 2024 for support of Israel rumored to be the annexation of the West Bank. Right. Tucker Carlson knew this and talked about it quite a bit. Now he's going, I can't believe this is happening. Had I known? I mean, I wouldn't have supported him. I apologize. Like, oh, come on, bro. And then his brother literally says right after this, maybe Miriam Adelson's money was for something and Tucker goes, because he knows exactly what he was doing. It is not sincere. And then, and then Candace is just whatever the woman of Tik Tokwan, you know what I mean? Yeah. I mean, Tucker, it definitely is like, it seems like he's trying to capitulate to a subsection of the MAGA movement that are pissed off right now. Oh, it's not MAGA. Yeah. I think Nick. Nick Juan does his crowd was never MAGA. He's not, he's not just capitulated into grippers. There's, there's a lot of people that were in the MAGA camp that were like, I'm going to support this because anti war. I'm not even a conservative, but the libertarian order than Democrats. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Trump's first term, we don't get any war. No new wars. In fact, we got the Abraham Accords. Now we get war with Iran prolong because no end in sight and he keeps claiming he's winning when he's not. And our prices are in the, are in the gutter. It's not good. And drain yes Cuba. And, and was it? How long till Cuba? Seven months. Oh, not even. I mean, they're surrounding Cuba because Cuba is going to collapse. That's the point. And then they like Venezuela, right? The issue right now, not to read, read, read, read, litigate what we've talked about, but draining the SPR is the greatest sign of oops. That's where it's like, uh-oh. The SPR is not for what they're doing. And so this is not good sooner or later, it's going to be a, yeah, just, I'll leave it at that point. It was, it was Biden did it. It's bad. Biden did it and it was really bad and Biden did it to stabilize prices. Now we have Trump doing it. It is bad. It is, it is a sign of desperation and draining the SPR below 300. This is a crazy story. Yeah. It's not a good thing at all. The, the, and I think to your point, like as much as, you know, you try to give analysis, there are going to be people that are going to say, well, if you're, if you're not telling me what I want to hear or telling me what I, you know, if you're not satisfying my emotional reaction to this, then you must support it. But this, it's all the time. This is, my point ultimately is, I feel like most people are looking at the 70th floor of the Empire State Building and going, that's the foundation. And I'm like, bro, there is so much more underneath that's going on. There's why I can't stand the Israel derangement people. It's like no other region in the world exists, no other conflict, no other financing, no other funding. We've given more to Ukraine in two years than we've given to Israel in 50. To be fair, they're consistent, right? They're like, nope, everything's Israel. And, and when you're that hyper focused on one issue and, and blame essentially everything. I mean, look, the people that are like, oh, I'm anti-Israel, a lot of times they blame all the woke stuff that's going on on, on Israel or on Jews and stuff, ignoring the fact that like the, the revolution, the French Revolution was motivated by the exact same things that are motivating the people today in the, you know, in the, the woke, the, the revolution in the Soviet Union was motivated by the same thing that was, was going on in the French Revolution. This is not just about Jews or Israel, but the way that they characterize it, it's always the Jews. I'm, I'm going to pull in this chat even though it's not a chat point yet because slick, makes a point. It matters because the country in question is unwavering support amongst the majority of those in DC, and it's a result of bad theology gripping a large voting block. So agreed. However, Ukraine has more support, or at least did for the past several years, and Ukraine had its president come to our Congress where they waived Ukrainian flags, and they gave Ukraine more money in two years than we gave Israel in 50. I don't want to give Israel money. Their problems are their problems, and I don't like the U.S. being dragging the wars because Israel's got issues with Iran and they're fighting a war. Let's not be involved. However, if I'm going to triage this, I have to point out if we keep up funding for Ukraine, the way we do for Israel, we imagine, imagine how much money will have dumped into Ukraine if this war persists for a decade. God. It is insane. Yeah. We are at 25 x the expenditure on Ukraine with members of Congress waving their flag with Americans putting Ukraine flags in their bios. Now I will say this, with the expansion of the Ukrainian war targeting Iran, Trump getting us involved in this war, I wouldn't vote for it, I don't want it, but we can't lose. That's just it. For all the problems we have, it's been this way for most of my life, when we got involved in a rocket Afghanistan, when I was a teenager, my position is the same. Bad leadership shouldn't be involved. They lied to us, but we have to get out cleanly and minimize the damage to the country. the US needs to succeed? Well, you're either escalation or we're going to surrender. And the purpose of surrender is if we back off, it's to minimize damage. So if we're going to exit, it should be to minimize damage. And I would consider that at this point, success. But the Iranians are a regime right now that has a million man army that's willing to sacrifice everything for the current regime, the Donald Trump wants to collapse. And what way do we surrender in a fashion where Iran doesn't get everything that they want? Well, agreed. My point is, we have to look at what's on the table and minimize the damage as we get out. My point is, it is going to be possible, the only way that we can, the phrase minimize the damage, even if there's a lot of damage, the phrase minimize the damage means do whatever is going to have the least amount, not saying that there's not going to be damage, not saying that this was a good idea, not saying anything. Just the phrase that Tim's using minimize the damage, there is absolutely a possible way to do it. It's just that it's not going to be good. Most minimal damage is going to be the Iranians get what they want. That's really going to be. That's already, that's already the case. Now what I will say is, yes, but we did kill 50 of their top leadership and the regime still hasn't collapsed. Agreed. Do you have like, starting off the head and the rest of it falls is just completely wrong? Completely wrong. And it was funny because who was it? Was it Eric Prince who warned about this a long time ago? He's like, it's a gambit. You're flipping a coin if you're going for Iran because you don't know. And these people are ideologically fervent. There is no regime change in Iran. It's just not going to happen. You need decades to make something like that happen. It just everyone loses in this scenario. It's been a complete strategic failure. Even the Neal cons are pissed off now. Like the MLU that was proposed is literally just the JCPOA light. Like it's everything that Barack Obama wrote in the Iran deal. They're pissed off. I talked to Will Chamberlain on Pierce Morgan. He's pissed off. He wants more escalation. The people who were anti-war is like, we need to stop this at all costs. We shouldn't have even gone into this in the first place. It's just they've shot themselves in the foot in both angles. And again, I think I don't think it was a mistake. I think that like Hegseth, these guys, they all knew that war meant the Strait of Hormuz got shut down. And I think they like it. You're saying it's not. It was their intention. Is what you're saying. I will say this mistake. They knew it would close the strait and they're happy the strait closed. I do not believe the Iranians are the ones closing the strait. The US has blocked it. It's crazy admission that they're happy for the economic plight of Americans. Completely for their own political. That's not a crazy. And they're happy for their own political. It's not an admission. It's an accusation. Okay. This is what annoys me about politics is like, I say on the Jubilee show, they're, first of all, white supremacists are not a component of their public and platform. But white supremacists did vote for Trump, hoping that ice would kill migrants. And then what do we get from liberals? They post timpool admits. Admits I'm accusing them. I am criticizing them. I am criticizing Trump administration of lying to the American people to engage in a war to cut off 20% of global oil, which is damaging to the US economy because they hate bricks. And it's part of a larger kind. I have a feeling that most of the top brass of the US military did not want this and was like, please, don't, please, don't. Oh my God. No way. No way. The German, dude, when Hittler invaded France, all of his military men were like, do not go into Europe. Do not fight Europe. You will lose. We are winning. You're annexing the East. Do not. And Hittler was like. I have a bone to pick with France because I fought them in World War One, but he was obsessed. In the situation in Germany, what's 80 years ago is not the same as the situation where the military commander had a different motive than all the military command. Yeah, but okay. So hold on a second, but you already said I have a feeling. What evidence do you have to say? Well, it was an unwinnable conflict. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, but one, listen, it can't fill Hitler came to him in a dream. I'm accusing them, Phil. You will use that you said I have a feeling. I'm asking, I have a feeling. Let me finish, dude. You said you have a feeling. What evidence do you have? Because you know that it's spoken up positively about it. Okay. They're all just doing their job with their heads down and the troops are suffering. No military commander is glad that their dudes are losing morale on an aircraft carrier. And that's again, you crane bombing Iranian vessels and people are like, no, this is about Trump and Iran. This is about everything. That's like the beginning of a world war. If the Ukrainians are attacking the Iranians, you know that, right? Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, which is separated by a land, by a massive body of land from the Kaspian, bombed the Iranian ships and the Kaspian. Allying in the allies now, I see. Ukraine was bombing because Iran was sending weapons to the Russians. So Ukraine bombed Iranian ships and the, and Ukraine's work is basically operating under U.S. command. And they've got all this high tech drilling weaponry. The question ultimately is at what point does China enter the fold? How to off from the, if we take Cuba, they'll take Taiwan. They'll try. Well, actually, the U.S. just pulled our last carrier from the Pacific into the Indian ocean because of the Strait of War Moose. And now China could move on Taiwan and we're way too far away. So again, this is a massive gambit, which the rate of success looks like it's going to be single digits of that. I know. So ultimately, back to the culture war point is it is, this is why, so when I'm talking with Jubilee, right, they said, how do we, how do we label this Tim pool? And I said, honestly, I had no idea. If you call me a conservative, conservatives will get mad. If you call me liberals, liberals will get mad. Moderate liberals will get mad, conservatives will say, okay. And so they said, well, A, B tested, we'll put moderate, we'll put Tim pool. And then Tim pool ended up winning. And liberals still got mad. They said, there's no ways of butter it. And then what happens is I can be like the war in Iran is bad. And then Alex Jones comes out, goes, Tim pool wants the war and endorses it. And then liberals go, Tim pool admits it. And I'm like, I've been criticizing it from day one is everybody is fake and they're all lying. It's all faking gay. That's what ecological warfare. It's just people getting clicks and don't care. They don't care about what's true or not. Like I can literally be sitting down. It was really funny. Destiny had a really great take. I actually appreciated this one. He's like, when I, when I don't think it was you, I don't know if it was you as the other guy that, yeah, it was the other guy. When I said white supremacist voted for Trump hoping that ice would shoot migrants. The bus out laughing being like, they have no response to this. They have no idea what to do. And someone like Tim pool says, yeah, white supremacist want to kill migrants because they don't understand they live in this political binary. And I'm like, I completely agree. Yeah. What did you get away from the Jubilee of that? It was interesting. I think that like when you say you're a moderate, is that like in the literal sense or in like, Trump's going to win by like 49 state landslide sense, like which one? So what do you mean by his Trump like like I'm just trying to understand like the language of Tim Cass? Uh, I know you give me the context on the 49 state landslide. Yeah, I didn't you say like Donald Trump's going to win by 49 state landslide. No. I could say is like an exaggeration. I never said that. Never? No. Interesting. See, this is the funny thing about the world you live in. I love to see the juror that I saw. You want to know what I said? Okay. If Trump brought Andrew Yang as economic advisor and Tulsi Gabbard as national security advisor and then legalized pot and pardoned everybody from marijuana, he's going to win a 49 state landslide. And right. And then the people you watch cut out the, the, the insane hypothetical of how to actually win the American people over like legalizing pot and then run a clip you see and you go, Tim thinks he's going to win. And then I said something like Moody's analytics put out a chart claiming Trump would win a 49 state landslide. Wow. That's crazy. And then they run those clips and you go, I can't believe Tim would say that. And then I say things like, and then actually believe that that Trump would win a 49 state landslide. Of course not. Right. But when you bring up something, you're like, wow, that's crazy. So I'm 12 million people. You don't think people are going to walk away. I think in that. No, I think liberals are liars for clicks and then people like you don't look into it. So when you ask questions, Tim, I don't just question, but I'm making the same point. Okay. Do you know what Moody's analytics is? I don't know. Famous forecast for presidential elections. Hmm. They have extremely high accuracy rate in 2019 Moody's analytics forecasted that should certain conditions be met. Trump was looking at Reagan 49 state landslide territory. When Moody's analytics dropped that, every major news publication published it. And I picked the story up and said, here is what they are saying. And then what happens is liberals take it and they run with it. This is, I got the exact quote. You don't have the exact quote because there's like 78,000 of them. Well, this is the first one. You said Kamala Harris has been chosen according to LGBT. Has been chosen to be vice presidential running mate for Joe Biden in the 2020 election cycle. And most of you have already heard by now because the internet can't stop laughing. But the choice may be a gift to Donald Trump of a mass of 49 state landslide. Now you're probably saying to him, by what metric could you even possibly predict a Trump getting a 49 slate state landslide? And I'm, it's actually a good point. There's no real hard data. What I'm actually talking about is the weird ways in which history seems to be repeating itself. From why could they, that wasn't a claim that there will be a 40 and there's also another important point that 49 state landslide as a meme. It doesn't actually mean for the state landslide. It was a meme at the time among the right representing we're going to win. And so they kept posting like the, the retard Wojack and he would be putting a red state into it. Like it's a map map of America that's all red and he's drooling and putting a red state in. And then they're like 49 state landslide. 49 state. Yeah, landslide. This is then later in 23. You said pull himself referred to the phrase differently saying that 49 state landslide was a meme meaning Trump wins handling rather than a literal projection of exactly 49 states. Because for now. It's a reference to Reagan. Hyperbole. Okay. Ronald Reagan. He's moderate though. Like what would you say are some like good attributes of the left? I think I've seen that from you. And maybe I do live in a biased, I do remember, but I'd love to hear from you. It's like when you said that I admitted the war was bad, but we said the entire time. Like the whole whole like political through line for me has always been anti intervention. So let's go for this. Right? Let me ask you a question. Do you think there should be a restriction on abortion? I think it's literally any. Yeah, I think that when most people talk about like late term abortion, they're referring to it as being like elective. Like a woman's going to go through eight months of pregnancy and then just all of a sudden decide, yeah, you know what, I don't want this kid, which typically is not the case. It's not usually when there is medical like necessity, or just restriction in general, like any restrictions at any point. Well, that's what I'm saying. I think that it's a strong man. He's asking you though. I'm not talking about late term. I didn't bring that up. Well, I'm just I'm prefacing. I'm prefacing my answer is I'm prefacing my answer is what you can just say sometimes there might be restrictions. Yeah. I think that but it's just like there are restrictions. I think like create this weird paradox where women that do require it for medical necessity oftentimes have to jump through hoops. It's like the same thing when we've seen in Texas, we've seen in Alabama where people have died because they need abortion and the doctors are scared to they could lose their medical license. Yeah, but that's why I would say I'd say no. No restrictions. Yeah. So that's do you think that a woman wanted to get an elective late term abortion she should be allowed? I think that that is it's just like a strong man. I don't know. Hold on, hold on, this it does happen. It's a couple hundred per year. Is that is that okay? I think that we need to empower doctors to be able to protect women's health and safety. And so if I think that there could be some restrictions, if it's proven that like it's an elective abortion, I just don't know how you prove that. Is the is the is the argument you're making that because there's only a few hundred late term elective abortions per year, we don't want to put the restrictions on it because it could inhibit women who actually need medical intervention. Yeah, I just think the examples of like healthcare professionals that end up becoming afraid to facilitate like protecting the health and well-being of the mother because they're afraid of losing their license. That is that's a greater net negative than like the elective. So if it were possible to say we will make sure there's no restrictions on medical intervention. Yeah, if we could add that in the legal language. Then we completely agree. I think that once the baby can live, there's no reason to kill it, right? If the woman's already pregnant and the baby is viable, then just deliver the baby and put it up for adoption, put it in a Niko, whatever it has to be. The issue, so I would I consider myself what we call traditional pro-choice and the reason is the modern left is Michelle Wolf going abortions, abortions, and acting like it's something to celebrate when it's not. And then the issue is the ultimate question that the left never answers is why should we make unrestricted abortion? So I think that my position is if woman goes to the doctor and there's something related to her medical health, her physical health, that is causing problems to where the doctor needs to intervene, which will result in the loss of the baby and nobody's business. The idea that a woman should be able to use abortion as contraception is wrong. But I believe the answer is cultural. Ron Paul said, "A abortion should not be illegal. It should be unthinkable." And so the issue is not the exercise of law, the issue is exercise of culture. And I actually think written law doesn't really matter. It matters what society is willing to tolerate. Yeah, and I think that the best way to facilitate people excited to start families and give birth is creating economic conditions that allow people to do that. So let me make sure that people have the wages to support a family. No, making sure that we have access to necessary goods. That is how you're going to build the nest. I'm going to make a family. I'm going to make a prediction. I think you're further right than I am. In the actual way, not the tribalistic way. So when we define left and right, we're referring to political tribes. So when you say left, you're clearly referring to even the Lincoln project despite their old curmudgeon neocons. I would not say the Lincoln project's left. The Lincoln project is squarely in the left, even though we don't consider them to be like far left, leftist, I'm talking about tribes. They are anti-Trump and they support the Democratic Party. They're tribal left. That is the tribal left, it is. No, I would say people like Joe Manchin and John Fetterman are right. And you would say that they're for the left. Correct, those are tribal right. We're not talking about economics or culture. We're talking about tribes. John Fetterman aligns with the right on most issues, although he votes with Democrats who is in a weird position. Manchin as well, when they talk, they are, they're fairly middle, but they're leaning tribal right. So, for instance, I'm pro progressive tax, right? I'd imagine you want to tax the rich. Yeah. Do you think that we should have tariffs on goods? And I'm not talking about Trump's tariffs on tariffs on terms. No, well, I think that tariffs can be advantageous in certain sectors, but I think the universal tariffs like Trump would be incorrect. Do you think that the U.S. should have tariffs on goods in any capacity? Yeah, I think they can be helpful in some situation. So, yes. Yeah. Do you think that we should put tariffs on auto manufacturing to force these manufacturers back to the United States? I don't think that we've crossed a line there, and a lot of that was the deregulation of Ronald Reagan that has moved a lot of these industries out of the U.S. So, I think it would be really difficult to bring them back. But I think when you go to places like Detroit and you see just bear in wastelands that used to be thriving communities in industries, it's really difficult to contend with, okay, how are you going to move this back into a thriving position? So, just very simply, there'd be a huge debate on the merits, the metrics, and all that, but you would say no to auto tariffs. I just think it depends on the implementation, for sure. I'm not like anti-protectionist trade policy, but I am anti like. So, middle of the road on the tariff is you. Yeah. I'm to the left of you on that issue. Yeah. I think that we should absolutely implement trade protectionism for the American worker. Well, I'm not like big into like we need to global free trade for these types of industries. I know. So, I said to go moderate, but. You're to the right of me. Okay. You're in the middle. That's fair, right? Yeah. Okay, I'm to the left of you on that issue. What about like migration? Do you think that we should allow illegal immigrants unauthorized image, whatever they call them, when they enter the country to work in the United States? Well, it depends on what your. Well, yeah, if you just want yes or no answers, then yes. Yeah, I think that. That's the right wing position. That is the right economic position. It's not. It's not. It's not. No. Yes, it is. No. Libertarians who want like a cheaper labor force and to increase the labor pool to make sure that corporations are able to pay people less, that is a right position. My position is by legalizing and giving these people amnesty or making sure that they're citizens and that they're actually able to collectively bargain and unionize within their workplace to advocate for stronger positions. That's not a right-wing position. It actually is. No, it's not. Right economics for free trade and free movement is a right economic position. No, no. It factually and academically is. It's not. It's not an opinion statement. So don't want left on immigration? Yes. Okay. So I strongly recommend that you you read about these things, right? So what does left and right mean? There's a few different qualifiers. There's a cultural scale. There's the economic scale. And there's a tribal scale. So typically when we're speaking publicly, they're all used interchangeably and often don't make sense. However, in most arguments, people are referring to the tribal nature. That's why you'll have Jimmy Dore called right wing, despite the fact he's a socialist. And you'll have John Federman called left by some and right by others because they're referring to the particular tribal stances they make. Economics on the left and right scale, right refers to on the on the far on the far right of the economic scale. You have laissez faire capitalism on the far left. You have communism. Like the public. So you're isolating for political ideology or culture. As you move closer to freedom of movement, you are on the right. As you move closer to trade protectionism, you're on the left. The public good and control of these systems. So economically, I am to the left of where you are on that issue. As are many Republicans, this was Bernie Sanders position in 2016. We cannot allow these people to come into work. In fact, the world socialist website called him a nationalist capitalist for that position. They said a lot when Bernie, the socialist called Bernie a capitalist when he took the position of we should not let these people come in. They said he was trying to protect the American worker. But that's actually the left position. You have the cultural scale. And this is nebulous because culture changes. But the cultural scale inverts depending on what period you're in. This is why they talk about the Southern strategy. This is why Democrats used to be the clan, but not the Democrats have more non-whites in Congress. Then Republicans do even the Republicans had the first black members of Congress left and right on the cultural scale is a morpheus and generational. So again, when we are isolating policies based on their appropriate scale, I think it's fair to say that you land to the right of me on some issues. But I know why it's hard to believe. I'm not saying everything. No, but I think it's funny to try to attribute like believing in people's ability for free movement or civil liberties when it comes to them being able to enter the country is a right-wing position. It is a right, economic position. A right position is the nationalist idea that this country does not have ethnic hegemony unless it has a particular culture that's maintained. That's hierarchy. That is the hierarchy that is established by the nationalist worldview. So let's say that Donald Trump is left-wing on immigration is absolutely incorrect. And I wouldn't say Donald Trump's left-wing is more less than most. Have you ever looked at the political compass? Yeah, but I think the political compass is even biased mostly towards libertarian left. I largely agree with that. I think that libertarian right isn't even like a real ideology. I think that the libertarian right isn't even like a real ideology. You're always going to maintain hierarchy whether that's through the government I agree. I agree. I think libertarians are nuts. You think the libertarian right doesn't think of he's disparaging them as faithful thinkers. But so you're saying that the right libertarians don't believe in any hierarchy? No, they do believe in hierarchy. I'm just saying it's more of a corporate like actually capitalist hierarchy than it is with the government hierarchy. He's right. I can't stand the laws if they're capitalist where they're like it's better this way and then you get a monopoly that buys everything and then you get the oil barrens or the East India trading company. - Well, they're just, they're not fine with government tyranny, but they're fine with corporate tyranny. - Exactly. You get unanswerable, like East India trading company, killing 50,000 people for black peppercorn. Like, okay, you just, this idea of like, we'll be more free when we like one corporation buy everything is silly. And then you'll move upwards towards authoritarian when you have a government, I'm saying literal authoritarian, I'm saying you're more authoritarian when the government comes in and breaks these corporations up, but that is anti-free trade. So you're basically saying, we're not gonna let you buy whatever you want, because y'all buy people, you know what I mean? - But that's why I think the political compass is, it's not like the best way to look at different political ideologies. I think that looking at the left and right spectrum as like, how much do you want to preserve hierarchy is a better metric towards establishing what political ideal. - Well, so, but hold on. Like, with the far left, the various far left where you would like, destroy all hierarchy, would be like an anarchy. - But it's not. - And I don't think that that's- - But the ultimate far left is communism. - No, but I would disagree. I think that like the more that you try to dismantle hierarchy, you get to like anarchy where you're dealing with like syndicates or like workers unions. - If you want. - That's what we're talking about, like the furthest life. - So this is actually- - The furthest, right? You would see is like totalitarian fascism. - You're talking about a totally different scale, which is typically top to bottom. When we talk liberty, decentralized, to centralized authoritarian on the compass, that's why I bring it up. The scale that you're using is used by anarchists quite a bit, where they say either they will choose either whether they want to identify as left or right, and then claim the other side. So what right-wing libertarians will do is they'll say the far right is freedom and anarchy, and the far left is totalitarian communists, and what the communists will do is that the far left is equality and distribution, and the far right is corporatist monopolist, but those are personalized to a singular ideology. Let's just break it down and refer to the scales I'm talking about. Economic scale, where on the left, you could have a thwart in your otherwise, no. On the left, libertarian communism is a real thing, the people the right doesn't believe in. - Libertarian communists. - Well, that's like that syndicates worldview. - And it exist. - Essentialize unions. - It exists when you have a hippie's on a farm and they share their watermelon and do the dishes together. There is no one in charge of the farm, they'll just hang out in their friends, and then the, you know, Ian-- - In civil war Spain with workers union syndicates. - Until they got crushed, you know what I mean? But Ian's on a farm and he walks and goes, "Dude, I grew some watermelon, you guys want to share it?" Yeah, man, then they eat it together, and then, bro, thanks for making the watermelon. I'll take care of the trash for you. That's, it works really well at small scale. On the right, it works really well at small scale as well. But then you get a monopoly, you get the easy and a trading company and they kill people over pepper. So, if we're-- - If we could call it death squads and-- - Or banana death squads and, you know, Guatemala, whatever. Banana death squads, this is crazy, right? The banana republic. So, the point I'm making is, if we are talking about non-authoritarian, we're talking literally about laissez faire capitalism to decentralized, you know, communal structures. I would be to the left of you on some issues. But here's what I'm gonna say. I think your issue with it largely is a tribal reaction. You don't want to emotionally accept that I'm to the left you on some things. - Well, I'd be fine if you actually, like, lived up to those left-wing positions. - Like, how do I-- - How do I not? - I think advocating for Donald Trump, who absolutely is not on those left ends of the spectrum. - Like which ones? - Like, he's not left-wing on immigration, which is a complete mischaracterization-- - You're incorrect. - You're tribally. - Sure, but I'm not talking about tribal. - I'm clearly on the right tribe. - It's not even tribally. It's economic as well. Okay, come on. - Establishing a fat, like, a nationalist economy is not a left-wing position. - Then, I'm with Bernie on this one. - Something that is in what you said about being a democratic socialist is more of a international view. - But I think if you take global poverty, that's serious. It leads you to conclusions that in the U.S. are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders, about sharply increasing-- - Open borders? - Yeah, open borders. - That's a code for this proposal. The idea, of course, I mean, that's a right-wing proposal. - Oh my god! - Bernie, let's go! - It's right-wing in the sense that not giving them citizenship will be useful for corporations to exploit them. - You trying to justify what-- - It's open borders is some not-thing. I'm gonna go my boy, Bernie, on this one. That's why I backed him in 2016. - Right. - You're saying, if you keep-- - Do you know what to do with the right-wing? - If you legalize them, it becomes a left-wing position. - Well, keeping them illegal makes them-- - No, that's not true. - Keeping them illegal makes them a more easily exploitable workforce, where not only are they not-- they're not able to collectively bargain, but at the same time, a lot of these corporations threaten ICE or they threaten deportation if they bring up things like wage theft, or they bring up things like unpaid wages or unpaid benefits. That is a right-wing position, which is further establishing a hierarchy where this is a vulnerable class that's easily submitted. - I think, I'm gonna go with my man, Bernie, on this one, and just say, you know, you think that more workers, you think that more workers in a labor pool that build a larger union that can collectively bargain at a higher rate with their employers is a right-wing position. - When they enter the country illegally padding the workforce of that corporation you said do. - It's not about them, it's about reforming the immigration system to make it easier to become a citizen in this country. - Well, that's a different question from open borders. - Well, that's then, that's like, I was my position. - I'm for immigration. - Then why would somebody like Donald Trump? - Well, there's a difference between someone coming to the country legally and someone going through, - Well, if someone goes through the legal mechanism and they're proposing to denaturalize those people in what way is that promoting the legal process? - Who's proposing denaturalizing Donald Trump ordered the DOJ to denaturalize up to 2,000 people a month. You can fact, I feel that. - Or for what? - On things like green cards, on things like permanent residency. - But for what justification? - Because he thinks that certain people from certain countries don't add to the value of this country. - So what is the, what law? - What law, what law grants denaturalization? - What law? - Yes, what law provides for denaturalization? - Well, this was at the command of the executive. So it was a law. - But there's a law. - A piece of legislation that is written into Congress. - It absolutely, there's a law. - It's the INA. And it grants Marco Rubio the authority pending, at his sole discretion to revoke visas and with justification, green cards, meaning for green card holders, they can set justification. Green card holders have a right to judication for naturalized citizens. If there is fraud found in the naturalization process, they can be denaturalized. That's the INA. And that gives Marco Rubio the power. - Yeah, fraud, concealing criminal conduct, terrorism, national security concerns, which is pretty vague, but that's there. - Well, the serious criminal offenses. - The fraud and national security, I mean, what your critical of Israel too much? Now you're going to lose the citizens. - It's just questionable, but that's not what happens. - It's only 100 people per month, 100 to 200 people per month are being denaturalized. - What about it? - She just upwards of 2,000 people a year. - A year, yeah, 3,400 a year. - What does it mean month? - I'm in here, sorry about that. - No, no, you said you said year, I was correcting you. - Okay. - The dude who got his visa revoked for being anti-Israel. I have two things to say about that. Nobody, I really think it's stupid. If there's like a student at a school who's anti-Israel, you're going to pull their visa. However. - That's your thoughts on Mahoo Khalil. - That's what I'm talking about. - Yeah, like, if he was at school and he was just like, you know, blogging and like writing papers. - Well, he participated in a campment, which is, which is where you're getting into the threshold of criminal activity and a question of national interest. - But participating in a protest. - As not an American citizen yet get out. Like why are we letting foreign individuals protest our government in our own resident? - He's not a citizen. - He's a foreign individual resident. - There's a do you make a distinction? Do you make a distinction between people that are permanent residents and citizens? - Do you think that criticizing the government should have allowed me to ask you your paperwork? - Yes, yes, I do. Yes, I do. And I listen, I don't have the same position as Tim, right? I'm full on. - I told him. - Anybody, anybody that's really out. That's illegal, if you're here illegally, you need to go. But do you believe that there is a distinction between a person that is not a citizen and a person that is a citizen? - Yeah, but I think that the constitutional rights should be granted to all persons, as it says in the-- - What constitutional right? You talking about the freedom of speech? - To criticize the government. - I think that people that are here as that are not citizens-- - Actually, I doesn't say that. - The Secretary of State, the State Department, has carte blanche to deport any guest that has paperwork at any time. And I'm perfectly fine with that. - And Dean, I chose for a country-- - It actually to clarify-- - I don't care about your moralizing. - It does not say that. The Constitution doesn't grant the right of any person to speak. - Well, it says of all persons, specifically the language that I was talking about. - It doesn't. - It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free access thereof or bridging the freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for reaches of grievances. - Sorry, the right of the people. - Which is a reference to what? - To the people. - The people means the citizens of the country. - Well, that can be an interpretation that you're taking. - That's the-- - You're taking a hard, right stance on immigration. - I'll go with the right of you. - I'll go with the-- See, you think Bernie Sanders is right-wing? - I think Bernie Sanders, in this, again, is talking about the exploitability of undocumented workers. - And do you think that even if you allow undocumented workers to come into the country, can they be exploited? - Absolutely. - Will they be exploited? - Yeah. - Even if you provide protection. - If you don't want our immigration system, do people in unions ever get exploited? - If we have-- - If you-- - I believe in unions ever get exploited. - Not at the same rate as people. - I didn't ask what right. I said, do they get exploited? - Yeah, of course. - Are they being exploited today? - Yeah. - So you're gonna let corporations exploit workers at a lower rate, and that's still okay? - That's so strong, man. - And we'll call you moderate right away. - Being in the union, being able to collectively organize with fellow workers absolutely increases your ability to withstand exploitation. That's the difference. It doesn't mean that it's gonna end it all right. Becoming in a union makes everything. - What if the union votes to have-- - Absolutely. - What if the union votes to have them deported? - What do you mean? If the union votes to deport the workers that are now citizens in the union? - Like the union. - That means no sense. - Like the unions that backed Trump. - In 2024, a bunch of the unions backed Trump. And they wanted these people removed. - Well, first of all, back in a president that's trying to increase the ability for corporations to union bust is not in the same interest. - And why did they support him? - If you're talking about the teamsters that endorse Trump at the RNC in order to get favorability amongst a presidential administration that is gonna determine how strong their union's able to be, that's a whole different thing than saying union support Trump in full government. - I'm talking about the ones that did. - Which party do you think is more in favor of further unionization? Let's ask that. - The Democrats. - Okay. - So I don't understand where with the issue. - You have an emotional reaction to the statement that open borders is a right-wing proposal. - I have a fact check here. - You have absolutely much, I'm not pro open borders. When did I say that? - I have a fact check for you guys regarding people's right to peaceably assemble. Yes, it does refer to non-citizens as well. The Supreme Court ruled bridges versus Wixen that-- - Stand corrected. - That non-citizens have the right for peaceable assembly. I mean-- - And I also agree that under the INA, the Secretary of State can remove them. - For what exactly? What does it give them? - You think they want this? - Marco Rubio has an unilateral authority to revoke permits under certain restrictions, green cards, and with fraud citizenship. - But not like you looked at me weird. 'Cause you just said yes, okay. - Wait, wait, no, no, no for visa. - For Secretary of State, you looked at me strange. You're not a citizen, you're getting your out. - No, no, no, stop. That's what I asked. - Visa, any reason, green card, certain restrictions, citizenship with fraud. So if a guy is here on a tourist visa or a temporary work visa or an athlete visa, the Secretary of State can say, "I don't care, I don't need a reason, you're gone." - It's just wild to be a part of non-violent expression against like a government action. And your response to that is gonna be like hell yeah, let's remove them from the roots they've built here as a permanent resident. - It's not wild. - Well, no one said that. - If you're a population. - No one said that. - Fills on that. - Oh, sure, I mean, I don't agree with that. My argument was like if he's anti, you're allowed to criticize Israel. You're allowed to come to this country. People come to this country, come from all sorts of countries with all sorts of disagreements in the United States. Organizing and being involved in big protests is where you're on the line of criminality. - It's criminal. That's what I just said. - It's part of expression against a government action. - So was anybody if those encampments are arrested? - Yeah, there were. - So there's a line of criminality. - But what are they arrested for? What's the severity of the crime? - That's why I said it's the line. I'm not saying they're murdering. - But you can like if he's speeding then like a permanent resident can get their residency removed and get deported to a country who they might not have been in for a decade. - And if the plurality of this country votes for immigration enforcement, that's democracy and I may not completely agree on the threshold but I'm not gonna also go on protecting. I'm objecting to the action. I'm not saying that it's gonna happen if a majority of people want it in the current system that we have but we can all agree that there are some laws that we'd consider immoral. - What if you were in charge of the-- - Most of the laws are immoral. - Hypothetic. If you were in charge of the nation's security and you were at war with another country and you found a bunch of their citizens were here without, you know, they were citizens but they were protesting and advocating for the other country to win and for your country to fall and for you to die. Like what would you do as a commander of the military? - Well, it depends on what the actions are. If they're threatening the security and safety of other people that are living within the country what by violent means and absolutely the government. - No, it's all by voice. They're sitting in groups and they're saying we need the U.S. to fall, we need, and more people keep coming to their group. - That's part of having freedom of speech. - The group is growing, growing, growing, and even the government does not agree with. Yes. - Correct. - Your job is the military commander. - I disagree with that. - I disagree with you the nation. You notice that now this group is growing and growing and growing and growing and now you know maybe they're open carrying. Now you know they're growing even bigger and they're louder, like at what point are you gonna do anything? - To take the predictive measure of I'm going to stop crime before it happens is the exact justification for every authoritarian regime. - But it's also not even stopping crime before it happens can also lead to the downfall of your nation. Look, it went to-- - Yeah, so Berlin. - Again, you're saying that the justification is worth it for the government to do that. That predictive crime. - It's never-- - I would say no. - No, it's never yes or no. It's not one of the-- - Here's a thing. - Here's a thing. - The British didn't intervene with the German war machine and because of that the Germans invaded. - Let me ask you some questions. Who's your favorite president? - Yeah, you're gonna say FDR did the Japanese-- - I'm like absolutely, not FDR. I'm asking you what your favorite president was. - I don't know, I don't think that we should look at politicians as celebrities. But I do think that like as far as like the domestic agenda I do like the policies of FDR. - Okay. - And comes to rebuilding the working class and stuff. - Do you know who the most suppression? - You know the most popular president in American history is? - Probably George Washington early on. - I didn't correct. - Who is it? - It's a top contender. - Abraham Lincoln. - Wait, I just grew to that, no way. - When Americans are pulled Abraham Lincoln takes the spot. - Oh no, I thought you were saying at the time. - Who's-- - No, no, no. - No, no, no, no. - That's what I was saying. - No fucking way, we broke up the country. - When they run polls, there's one guy who's won nearly every single time. - Yeah, Lincoln's. - And who removed Habie's corpus and yeah. - And they're like-- - I mean, the things that he did-- - Like the internment campsite. Like at some point, just speaking, yeah, it's peaceful to a point, but you can rally a lot of some verge of danger with just peaceful. - So we got to-- - We think the Japanese internment camps were necessary. - It's hard to tell 'cause there's no control study. I don't know if there would be-- - I don't think Japanese revolts inside of the country if they had to intern them. - I think-- - Tell me how you can reconcile that. - How me? - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - So they, I don't think they were necessary because in the 40s, right, when they were interning them, most of the people that came to the United States-- - Pro-United States. - We're pro-United States and wanted to become Americans. - And there were very, very small and popular-- - Yeah. - The numbers were microscopic. - And so I don't think the internment of Japanese, and we talked about this the other night 'cause he had made some comment about interning Chinese people. The possibility of interning Chinese people-- - Which is like three percent of the population. - But so I don't think the Japanese internment was even defensible because when people came to the United States, in that time frame, they wanted to become American. You saw people saying, no, we're not speaking the old language, we're all gonna learn English, et cetera, et cetera. So I don't think that it was defensible at all. - We ought to grab some questions from the crew here, the Tim Kess discord, and we wanna learn a little long. So I'll try and grab what I can. - So I have some questions after that. There's a couple before we leave. - SWC's is question for Mason. If the constitution gives rights to all people, inside the borders of the U.S., then what is to stop transient non-citizens for purchasing weapons, assembling militias, voting, or creating parallel systems of power? What separates an invasion from an other than legal mass migration? - Well, there's a difference between identifying a threat that can happen within the country and having proper evidence to do that. That's what probable cause is. And so showing that you're organizing a militia that has clear intent to harm U.S. citizens, absolutely the government would have just-- - So then people gathering and saying, look, we wanna tear down the government, or we wanna do-- - Keep doing it. - Hold on, hold on, let me finish. Saying that they wanna tear down the structures of the government, they wanna do all these things that would basically change the government, or say start a revolution. That's not probable cause, that's not intent. - People on a college campus saying, we cannot continue to enable a genocide happening. - I was specific in my question. I was specific in my question. People that are saying we're revolutionaries, we wanna tear down the government, we wanna tear down the existing structures. Those are specific things. That's not probable cause. - If you had the means in order to bring about like violence towards American citizens, that would be probable cause. There's like a billion guns in America. - So what are you saying? - I think it's 650 million. - Yeah, so there's definitely means to start a violent uprising. It's very, I mean, I'm as pro-too-a as it comes. - There's a difference between organized militia that specifically it designed to inflict violence versus those that are against government action. Absolutely. - No, no, but that's not, again, you're changing it because I didn't say against government action. I said, people that say we need to tear down the government, we need to start a revolution. That's not being, I'm against this particular action. That's being against the government, against the United States. - I think saying that, no, well, then I'd say that we're at a difference versus what we're interpreting a lot of these encampments. I'm specifically talking about the encampments. I don't think that deporting people for participating in protest against Israel's continuing to genocide is something that's worth removing citizenship. - I was just thinking clear though. - What about China? - What about China with what? - Like the Fallen Gong. Should we, you know, like, would you defend their right to protest China? - I'm unfamiliar. - Any group that's protesting in any other country, are they allowed to be here, you know what I mean? Like, I'm not talking about the US government actions. I'm saying there's a group of people that are Chinese that hate China. So they're protesting China in the United States. - Yeah, why? - Did you take issue? - No, why would there be an issue with that? - I'm asking you if there's a distinction, you see in the morality of a genocide versus any other country. - No. - That's all the question was. Let me, let's grab this, we don't have a lot of time. Let's see. - Let's say it's artery. - Roton nations is amazing. If artificial wombs existed in mass, what argument would women have about abortion if they had the ability to transfer the embryo safely with hot, out harm? I ask because then everyone wins. Well, let me, let me simplify this question as should women be allowed to get abortions if an artificial woman existed that could preserve the life of the embryo? - I think that our preservation of life is something that's important. And obviously, abortions always gonna be a morality issue of where you necessarily see life. I think that personal autonomy is something that we guarantee within our legal system and we don't prioritize preservation of life over that bodily autonomy. So like in an instance, we're like, if you were in a car crash that you caused because you drunk drive, you initially volunteered to put someone else's life at risk and they require like a kidney transplant, you happen to be a match. No sane person would say yeah, the government should force you [BLANK_AUDIO] to donate, agreed to need to that person. - Now what if you, that's the same thing I'd view with pregnancy. - Let's assume that she's pregnant. 10 weeks pregnant. And she says, I don't wanna be pregnant. For whatever reason it's only your business. - Yeah. - And the doctor says we can remove the embryo and put it into an artificial womb that will survive. - Yeah, I think that that's definitely gonna be interesting conversation when that technology exists because we're getting on track to be there. - It does exist right now. - They just don't, it's not commercial for human use. It's, they've already proven it with animals. - Like lambs and stuff. - Yeah, so it exists. - The question is, and the question needs to be there. - There is a way, yeah, if there is a way to do that safely for protecting the health, then yeah, I think that that could be a compromise. - I think that's the only answer. I mean, 'cause then it's okay, fine. You can term it the pregnancy, but not the baby. And then the baby gets to live and the woman has her choice or whatever it may be, and no one's happy, but. - Yeah, I just, I don't think that. - Everyone's bummed out, means you meet the right choice. - Everyone's bummed out. - Does the woman have to pay for the gestation of the baby in the artificial womb? Or do I have to pay for it as a taxpayer? 'Cause, oh, here we go. There's no answer. I gotta pay for other people's artificial baby wombs. (laughing) - I got enough problems in my life. - That's a good point. That's a good point. - I'd rather pay for the artificial baby wombs than pay for the abortion. - I don't wanna pay for any of it. - All right, well guys, we only have a couple of minutes left and you wanna ask some questions. - Yeah, I saw a lot of the Charlie Kirk portraits and behind you. - I am. - Autographed. - I had a question about who's your source that said that you was stable? - I don't want to, let me put it, let me-- - You don't wanna share who it is. - My security company is friends with Charlie's security company. And so, when all this stuff was going down, the people who work here were in constant conversation, let me put it like this. I don't wanna get anybody fired and I don't wanna make everybody the center of attention. I got a phone call. I was calling everybody and we were told by someone on Charlie's team that he was stable. And I said, can I report this? And they said, yes, and I said, okay. And I wasn't sure, but I'll tell you the reality is, the information that we were getting was basically like, he's not dead. And we were like, please God. And then the next thing we hear is they've got him in the hospital, he's stable. Or, I don't know if he's at the hospital at that point. They were like, he's stable on the way. It was on the way. I think what we were told was that at the time, and this is what's really, really so offensive about so many people, man. I mean, first of all, celebrating his death. And then people like, I don't know if Hassan was doing this, but they're tweeting, like tweeting at me like he was stable, he was stable. These people can go fuck themselves. Charlie had just gotten shot and literally no one knew what happened. Within minutes, we're getting messages saying he's not dead. And I think what happens is, the information we got relayed was not to say that he was in a hospital bed with his heart beating and they were transfusing blood and he was alive. It was that he's in transferred to the hospital and he's not dead. That's what they meant by stable. And so now, in hindsight, nobody asks what happened on that day and they take it and manipulate it to presume. I'm saying, Charlie's laying in a hospital. They've got him on life support and he's okay. - Yeah, I just ask 'cause I think you were like the first person to say, not definitively, but just something. - You know what the sad reality is? Behind the scenes, we're being told he's alive and stable. And again, I think what they're conveying to us in the car is he's in the car and alive and he's not actively dying. - Gotcha. - But the reality is, on the phone, the people crying are like, I think he's gonna die and I'm fucked up, man. Reliving that, I get a phone call, Charlie got shot and the only thing we wanted to believe was that he was not going to die. And then when I get a phone call and they're like, "Damn, I don't think he's gonna fucking live, bro." I think he's gonna die, but they're telling us that he's alive and he's stable. And I tweeted that, 'cause I want it to be fucking true. Man, these fucking demons, dude. We did that Jubilee episode and I said there are white supremacists that voted for Trump hoping that ice would kill migrants. And these mother fuckers wrote stories saying, "Tim Poole says he wants ice to kill migrants." These are fucking demons. I don't want anybody shot. I don't want anyone to die. I don't want you or any liberal or any progressive to be hurt or killed or beaten by cops, but mother, Jesus, these people and the things they say, dancing on stage with fake blood on their necks, we live with demons, man. Just pull it up your tweet about it from Groc. And it says, "Source tells me Charlie is stable, please God." It wasn't, you didn't say he was stable. He said, "Source tells me Charlie's stable." And then you followed up, I received a call from a trustee or the source who told me this. I want to believe and I'm hoping, just pray. That was your response to it. And I had 17 phone calls at that moment where I was like, bro, I had one dude who works in security. So I don't want to say too much, but-- Yeah, I only brought it up just 'cause-- I don't think I ever heard the-- Yeah, no disrespect. So I just wanted to ask since I had the opportunity. I also mentioned that Ben Shapiro said that he was getting updates from Charlie's security team. And that was true for us the same. And Candace is a liar. And all the people lied. So I'll make sure this is very clear for everybody. My security team involves, on the ground guards, the head of the company, secretaries. Charlie's security has very much the same. Charlie's security was not literally just four guys in a van. His security company probably has 100 plus employees. Our security company, they're all friends with each other. So when we need security, our security guy calls them up and says, who you got located in these locations. We've worked with Charlie, not formally, but when we go to TPSA events, we've had Charlie's security working for us. We were at TPSA. Their security did security for us because that's security for the whole event. So when this is going down, the logistics people are getting information relayed by the people on the ground, which is not everybody in the car. And they're talking with other security that includes Benz, that includes ours. Why? Charlie just got shot. And it's not even necessarily a professional courtesy. It's that their friends. Like the guy who runs our security company is friends of the guy who runs Charlie's security company. So he probably is on the phone calling him, and be like, go, what just happened? And they're like, this is what we know, stay tuned. And then all of these conspiracy people are acting like Charlie only had three security guards in the car calling Ben Shapiro. So I'll tell you this. We had about, I probably had like 17 phone calls. One security guy said, before we knew anything, I was driving with my wife and we got on the highway when Alex Stein called me and said, Charlie's been shot. And I said, I'll call you back. What? And I hung up. And that was within like 30 seconds of it happening. I guess, you know, Alex was watching. We're on the highway. We're heading to Winchester. And this is when I started, my phone starts blowing up. People who work here are friends with people who work for Charlie. Like we know all these people. We were at Amfest every year. Literally friends as in, they were literally texting each other about clothes and food and shopping when this went down. As much as we were hearing positive things, I will tell you the secret that nobody said, when I said, I'm hearing he's stable, so our salesman, I hope it's true. I had heard 17 times he was dead. Not that he was like overtly dead, but I get it. One of the calls that's notable is a guy who does security, firearms, specialty firearms training, sniper stuff. Hey, Tim, ain't nobody survived in that shot. And I was like, bro, don't tell me this dude. And he's like, you're saying you said it just in hopes that it was true when I was told no one surviving that shot. It was not definitive. I'm sorry, I was okay. When I got a call and I said, tell me what's going on. He's like, brother, no one's surviving that. It wasn't a Charlie's dead. So I'm not going to tweet, Charlie can't survive. The official statement we got, hey, Charlie's, I think it was, I don't know what time it was, you have to check. And I may have waited to tweet it, but it was, he's stable. And again, 743 general mountain time, which is, no, that's not correct, 'cause I was, that was way, Charlie got shot at like three o'clock or something. Yeah, yeah, I remember like four, I was talking about it. It would've been around four 'cause I was live streaming at four, three, something like that. What it meant is that my understanding was they were saying he's on his way and he's not dying. Like, they're holding his neck or whatever. Like there was no, there was no super specifics. It was just like, he's alive. So I don't know, man. And now, and now, like. Thanks for the context. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You can really live it and everything. That's like I was there, you know what I mean? It's just, what you knew him well. I was just texting with him. Like I had just, like not that day, but like a, like a week earlier, you know, we were texting. I didn't know him super well, you know. I would call him a friend just in that, I put it like this. We weren't bar buddies, we didn't hang out, but if I publicly said, what don't think Charis, my friend, he'd be offended. He'd be like, what? He's like, what are you talking about on the phone? Like, what do you mean? You know, I don't know what it is. So we just live with, people are nasty, you know what I mean? They just, we do, we do gotta go though. It was great to have you, you definitely have you back 'cause I think the conversation was fantastic. Yeah, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Appreciate the team. Your team has been very accommodating. I feel like I canceled like once and maybe twice last night. Oh, I appreciate it. Always, always. I just want to stress like what you get on you believe versus when we actually have time to sit down and have a real conversation is more fruitful. So follow me on X and Instagram. Do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, check out Twitter, I guess, one-hand politics if that's the camera I'm supposed to look at. Or Twitch, I stream like pretty frequently every week. So if you want to check me out there, appreciate you all having me. Yeah, good time, man. I hope that the fact checking help, this was a blast. I'm sorry Ian. Did it say GMT? Yeah, that's Greenwich Mean Time. Oh. That was General Mount. Where the hell is my mind? Oh, the four times those in the US are three. It's the only comment that they're like, "Is it the end thing GMT?" That's General Mount. That's Greenwich Mean Time. General Mount. That's British centric. That's with the center of the universe. Zero, the prime meridian they call it. Yeah. It's all British propaganda. Hey, follow me at Ian Croslin. Let's have this conversation again. I enjoy it. And I'll be back on the fact checking if I can't fill a bond. I am Phil The Remains on Twix. You can check out my Patreon. It's patreon.com/PhilTheRemains. The band is all that remains. You can check out our music on Apple Music, Amazon, Music Pandora, YouTube Spotify, and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime, Carter. Mason, thanks for coming out, man. It's been a pleasure. I hope to have you back. Great conversation, everyone. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere. At Carter Banks official, everywhere else. Full record label on Trash House Records on YouTube. And yeah, that's it. I'm going to say one last thing as we wrap this up. Just to simplify the point on Charlie, what makes me angry. Is that the tweet saying that he was stable. And I'm praying and please God be true. Was a tweet of hope that he could survive. Despite the fact most of us believed he wouldn't. That is currently being weaponized by nasty people. Maybe evil is a better way to describe it. To mock my pain on that day and what hope we tried to preserve. So I get it. It's the internet. This is what the internet does. There you go. But I assume most of you watching already understood all of that anyway. But it feels good to say thank you all for watching. And we will see you all next time. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]