Lindsay Clancy Jury 11 to 1, Defense DEMANDS Juror Be REMOVED, MISTRIAL INCOMING w/ Cheryl Riley

The Lindsey Clancy trial, uh, deadlocked again. Only this time the defense came out furious saying it's 11 to one. There is one hold out. Now we're not entirely sure. Is this one holdout screaming not guilty or guilty because we don't know the actual breakdown of what is happening? Suffice it to say, this is crazy that anybody would consider this woman to be not guilty. If she's found guilty, she goes away for six months and then they can say, you know what? She's not crazy. And they could let her go if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity. So we're going to talk about that. We got another crazy story. This is, well, there's somebody who works for Tish James in New York, who is saying that they were instructed to seek out crimes against the president. That is everything you thought. That's one big conspiracy. We'll talk about that. We also got Maria Barterama out at Fox news. And we got the report from Tony Ortiz out in Texas about these independent reporters who took a trip to Poland from some pro-Israeli groups. And we'll talk about, you know, what that means. Smash the like button. My friends share the show with everyone, you know, joining us today to talk about this and everything else is Cheryl Riley. Hi. Thanks for having me. Who are you? What do you do? So my name is Cheryl Riley. And I am running for Congress in Maryland's eighth district against Jamie Raskin. It's my second run against trying to oust Mr. Representative Raskin, who really isn't a representative. I'm a third generation Montgomery County native. And I've watched my district and my county go by the wayside for decades. And so I thought, it's time for me to step up. I'm just a normal average every day. American citizen who decided to step in to this race to make a difference. All right. On. Well, good to have you. Certainly. I'm no fan of Raskin. He's lied about me personally. So I'll talk about the boys are hanging out. Yeah. What's going on here? He didn't take stuff. Everyone. They are all indeed the boys share the boys. At least I think I haven't checked. I hope so. Really. So yeah. You never know these days. No, you never know. I can verify before we get started. Guys, check out the new Tim Poole show. Yo, we're about to crack 100,000 subscribes on the new show. It's crazy to think that it's been a month that we've been doing this new interview show. The Chloe Carmichael episodes at 944,000 views. It's going to crack one million very soon. Seriously, thank you guys so much for tuning into all the work that we do. Admittedly, it's been very slow in the news. Congress on recess. So we're not getting a lot of debate. It's all fairly boring to be completely honest because everyone's kind of chilling this summer. And so as part of our plan moving forward, which has this plan in play for a while, you notice we've had the temple channel for a minute. We launched this new interview show. We'll be setting up in DC with a new studio, massive expansion, massive investment, very exciting. Thank you guys for subscribing and watching the new show. Tim Poole show. Let's jump into the news. We got this from the New York Times. Lindsey Clancy Trial Defense blames single juror for deadlock. The judge refused a defense lawyer's request to remove a juror who he said was not heating instructions on reasonable doubt. The jury deadlocked since at least Tuesday was sent home for the day. So this guy made it seem like it's 11 to 1 with one person wanting her to be guilty and 11 saying not guilty. That's what the defense is making. It sound like saying remove this one person going on to say he says he's crushed their case. It looks like they're going to win, but there is just one. Well, the presumption is guy. We don't know for sure. I mean, everybody saying there's one guy in the jury who's pleading with them. She's guilty. Listen to me. If it's the woman who's telling other people they're crazy, I could imagine three guys being like, I don't care. I want to go home. And there could be one woman just being like, absolutely not. So don't jump to conclusions just yet, but still very crazy. This is going to be a mistrile because now it's been the third instruction to deliberate. They can't do it. The next likely outcome is going to be I think tomorrow, right? Is that what it is? And they are going to say mistrile. And if they don't bring a, they may choose not to bring a trial against her again. Just let her walk. Which would be, I mean, that would be devastating to the credibility of women everywhere. Absolutely, absolutely. This is something that's gone around a lot. And I'm not the first person to say it, but you know, when you, when the argument 100 years ago was, look, women, you know, women shouldn't be allowed to bear the burdens that men bear because they, they're emotional, they're hysterical, they're like children, they can't be relied upon to make rational decisions. That was the argument against women's suffrage. It was our argument, you know, against women having full equal rights. And then this court case here sets the exact same precedent. She was for the Salem witch trials. Well, I mean, you do have rules, but I'm joking. I tube calm down. But yeah, like the argument is she, she couldn't control herself. She was emotional. She was postpartum, which isn't even true. But she, you know, the postpartum period of six months and the youngest baby was eight months. But they're making the same argument that the, you know, the people against women's suffrage and against equal rights for women were making 100 years ago. This is going to set precedent. And there's going to be people in the world that are going to quietly say, yeah, I don't want to hire a woman. I don't want to, I don't want women doing this in that. Whether or not they actually say, you know, say it vocally and, and, and with their full throat or if they just quietly, you know, don't hire women because, you know, they, they don't believe that it's the correct course of action for their business or they don't vote for women because they think, well, you know, I don't know. That's what it, that there will be people that are going to say that. This is the, has been described as like, they call it, they're calling it online, the HoJ, Simpson, Simpson, Simpson. Right. I've seen that. Right. Because it is, it's got the same type of, or a similar public attention, or similar amount of public attention. And people are kind of, you know, getting into their, into their corners and, and almost no men are saying, this is, this is acceptable. Or we, we have to understand where she was coming from and, et cetera, whereas almost all of the people that are on Lindsey Clancy side are all women. And they're all saying, well, you just don't understand. And I can empathize with her and, et cetera. And it's like, empathy is not, is not what's being decided here. Just because you can understand, doesn't mean that she didn't do it. She has said she did it. Now, the, the argument here is whether or not the charges were, were, you know, charge of first-degree murder or whatever the actual charges are, if those are the correct charges. But at the end of the day, she has said that she did it. And there are people out there that are even saying because they watch that, one clip of the, the, the judge saying, you know, being very specific about what the law is and, and, and, and what reasonable doubt is, like, oh, she never admitted it. It's like, well, she did say that she did it. Everyone knows that she did it. There's not, that's not what's in question here. So that kind of, you know, that kind of opinion from people and the rest of the world is, or the rest, you know, normal people are looking at those people like, what the hell are you talking about? This is, this is what I wonder when it comes to civil war. Because the political divide in this country is largely male versus female. That is the Democratic Party skews heavily female, the Republican Party skews male. This show news in general skews male. And then, uh, it's, it's fairly obvious. When it comes to issues of structure, control, object, men are watching. When it comes to issues of drama or gossip, women are watching. So the worlds that men and women are occupying are dream, just dramatically different. There is no unified news source. So what is this political conflict ultimately going to be, if it is overwhelmingly gender divided? Yeah. I mean, in this instance, I think this is more evidence that we're entering like the mass psychosis era where people can sort of whip themselves up into a frenzy because, look, I think it was Josh Clemens. He's a great, great patriot over on Twitter. And he was saying that in the AI era, we might have to be, I think this was him that said this is he was saying we're probably going to have to just move to bench trials. Because I mean, like, if we quite literally cannot find, you know, enough normal people to compose a jury that haven't been tampered with by effectively AI in the sense of your social media algorithms being especially targeted for something that you're interested in in this instance. If you're on a high profile case, you're likely going to get targeted, you know, targeted content on the case that you're on a jury for, then we probably need to move on to just having bench trials because if a jury just, we can't rely on them to go through. How do you rely on these judges? This is part of the debate that I was having with Nick Frieda, so I always shout out because he's one of the best, he was the best in Virginia, he's one of the best commentators, but we disagree on when I was arguing. Actually, I think we largely had a semantic debate, but I will stress, we have judges in this country that are ruling in violation of the constitution every day, and they tend to be Democrat appointed ones. I certainly agree that, you know, we have a huge problem with judges, but I still trust your average judge far more than I trust your average jury these days. - Unless you know how to play, look, it's easy. Tape, come on, I'm gonna stop it. You're wrong. You definitely want a jury trial. You want a jury trial, and then you want your lawyer to pay Candace Owens to be on your side. (laughing) - That's a fair point. I think that might be the common ground. - I mean, they could've just sequestered the jury that would've solved a lot of-- - Tap, tap, tap, tap. - But it's just like you're the like-- - Yeah, but they're-- - They're carrying their phones, it's like-- - What do they do? - The old joke about like the problem with juries is the only people who get-- The only people on them are the people too stupid to not get off jury duty. - Precisely, like if you start sequestering juries, like the strongest term is possible, it's going to make it such a pain in the tail to be on a jury that everyone in their right mind is going to just try to get out of-- - I mean, it's not as easy as you think to get out of it though. - Well, jury, I mean, like there's little tricks you can-- - I know, certain words you can say. - It's getting out of jury duty. - No, just be honest. - Yeah, it's so, yeah. - I mean, I think most jury duty you're gonna get is gonna be something super minor and not gonna take a lot of your time. Like most jury duty you'd ever get is not going to be a multi week long high profile TV murder drama. It's gonna be like a dude who claims he didn't actually speed and it's his third infraction, so his license is getting suspended for three months or whatever, so he's fighting and crushing a jury. And you're gonna sit down for like an hour and they'll be like, here's the camera showing that he was speeding and it's gonna be like, that camera don't prove nothing. And then you're gonna be like, guys, can we go home you was speeding? - Oh man, like I remember when I was growing up, my dad had an awesome one. Like you can't obviously do the details, but basically it was just this person who's representing themselves, the defendant, and they were like totally insane. And it lasted for like three weeks. This is in Memphis too, so you know, it's gonna be wacky and wild. And like, I remember he would come home from jury duty and like hold court with the whole family, like, like of what happened that day in the trial. And it was like the most amazing thing ever. So that would be kind of sad if we moved on to bench trials is everyone seems to have like a funny jury, dude. - I mean, yeah, my mom sat on a multi-week murder trial in McKinney and she wouldn't tell my dad anything and he was like going insane. She's like, no, I can't tell you anything until-- - Oh, good for her. - Yeah, she's-- - I would-- - Absolutely. You know, when I was young girl, I was like man, I'd love to be on a jury. - And actually, from what I've heard from friends, it's actually very hard to get on jury duty. That's what I think it's like. People think it's hard to get off. No, it's actually hard to be on jury duty. I think like Ian was telling us about it recently that they brought him in and then they're like, you're dismissed and they all laugh about it without a word. - Yeah. - I mean, I imagine for people that have any sort of profile on their clocked as political, they just immediately looked them up and say, okay, you can go home. - This is also what's getting really crazy is because everyone is an influencer. And I say this with the utmost disdain for all podcasts. And I wanna stress this to everybody listening. When I tweet things like ban being an influencer, people go, you're an influencer. I know, I am aware. Make it all stop. Everyone can go away and I will go fishing and live in a shed, done by the river. I have a family now, so the van's not gonna cut it. - It takes one. - But no one. - My point is, I'm like scrolling the carousel earlier today and I see this woman and she's like a fitness person with 2000 followers and she's like, stop, don't keep scrolling. Like, you're on my page. I'm trying so hard to find an audience and I'm just like, stop, go break rocks for a living. I don't care. It is insane that everybody wants to be an influencer. That being said, every single person is an influencer no matter how few followers they have, they're like, I have a hundred people watching me. I'm gonna dance, you know, and check my ass. Now you're gonna go to jury duty. We can look up every one of these people and see what they're posting. And how much longer until we can see what they're looking at. - Right. - When the judge is like, you're supposed to be sequestered, so we put in a request to meta and we've got the list of all the things you are staring at. We can actually, with the front facing camera and with how long you're on the screen, they know how long you watch things. - Exactly. - So it's gonna be-- - Take your phone weird. Some circumstances, though. - It should lock them in boxes, yeah. - Yeah, it wasn't Josh Clements. Josh Clements is great, but it was someone else, but they laid out the entire case of why it is impossible to find someone in the United States that is truly untouched by the internet. And this is what's so annoying, kind of like a side note, is you see these people, they're usually left wing. And they're like, yeah, whatever you believe, normal people think that's weird. Normal people would think you're a total weirdo as if they have some sort of like, normy oracle that's completely untouched on the internet. It's like, that doesn't exist anymore. Every single person knows what, like, void me. Everyone knows it. You'll see the brand of people that can tell you what looks maxing means and give you different aspects of what that entails. Nothing is untouched by the internet anymore. So again, like this idea that you can find like a truly impartial jury that's gonna like have zero bias, whatsoever, it's just utterly ridiculous. Probably even with most banal cases, people are still gonna have some sort of reason to be slightly partisan. - Yeah, I mean, there's another thing. John Doyle was talking about this on his show, I think yesterday, but like it used to be like, a jury of your peers meant something, it meant something different than it means today, right? - Definitely. - You have a jury of people that are like-minded, probably from the same social class, so that way they understand you better than the average person. But nowadays, a jury of your peers just means any schmo that gets brought in doesn't matter where, doesn't matter what, with social class they are, doesn't matter how much money they have, they're your peers and it's like, look man, there's a lot of people that don't make a ton of money that if they find out the person that's actually on trial, makes a lot of money, they're gonna be like, guilty, or I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that are wealthy, that don't like poor people and they'll look at a guy that was down on his luck and something happens, it was either kind in the wrong place at the wrong time, or maybe broke a law and they're just like, go to, he's a vagrant, he should go to jail. Like you have to have some kind of, like the jury of your peers is more than just another citizen of America and it's like, that's-- - Well, and I think on that note, I mean, we really need, our moral compass is broken. Let's face it, you know, I just remember when I was, of age to be on jury duty, I was, I couldn't wait, I was praying that I would be on jury duty. But now we have sort of a broken moral compass, so people, where's their integrity, their ethics, their morals, their common sense, their sense of right versus wrong. People are easily swayed, they're easily indoctrinated as we have seen, and they're easily bought. I mean, look at our own leadership, if you will, let's take Congress first and foremost. It's palpable, so people look to people that are supposed to be governing us. And I'm not trying to blast, you know, on Congress too much. - It's fine. - But they do deserve a little bit of-- - A little bit. - A little bit of feedback here, because I'm sorry. Where are the morals, ethics? You took an oath or a reason to serve the people as a civil servant, and they are out there acting like rock stars, you know, they're getting money under the table, whatever the case may be. Whatever is floating their own particular personal agenda boat, if you will. So I think that's sort of emanating throughout the country. And that's why I don't, I think it's going to be very hard to find impartial juries. And even if you do get partial, decent jurors, somebody's going to get to them. I mean, so I agree, they need to be like in a box in Antarctica for a week, if you will, literally. No, nothing about what's going on anywhere. I just really hope that we can change hearts and minds and people start looking within, and just learning right from wrong, period. - Well, speaking of that, let's jump to the next story from the New York Post. Federal investigators met with Tish James Whistleblower, who claimed he was pushed to dig up dirt on Trump. It's actually that simple. He was working for this woman, Shamiso Masuoswe, let me give you the quick version of events. This Shamiso woman, apparently she worked for the DOJ. She got fired from the DOJ. When Biden gets in, he agrees to pay her, let me find the actual, $795,000. She was a year before this. She's hired by Latisha James. So again, fired by Trump, hired by Tish James, gets a settlement from Biden for $800,000, and then is instructed to dig up dirt on Trump for the purpose of going after him politically. This is where we've been, and Trump might do. He was not in office, and they were still going after him. They tried putting me down 'cause they knew he would run and win again. So when we talk about the current state of American politics, can you guys just explain to me what happens to a country when you have again? A woman gets fired, gets hired by a political enemy, starts digging up dirt on the man who is the front runner for the presidential election, gets paid 800 grand in a settlement by the opposition political party's government, what's happening to this country? What is this? Banana Republic? That's a compliment at this point. I mean, Banana Republic implies there's some kind of industry that keeps together. Yeah. I mean, this is just more evidence of kind of something that everyone kind of has already kind of already processed and gotten to the place where they're like, "Oh, we know this happened, and we know nothing's going to happen because of it." Yeah. And I mean, that's a shame, but that really is kind of, you know, because of the speed of the news and information, like people have already kind of, they've already processed it. They've already, you know, let out their anger about it and frustration about it, and it only goes towards more cynicism, you know, that's, and I think that's a fairly major problem. People usually go, "Nothing ever happens, nothing's going to happen, nothing's going to change." You know, this is the way it is now. It's not a good thing, but I think that that's kind of where a lot of people are at. So what happens when Democrats take power again? I mean, we saw what they were willing to do in the past 10 years. What do you think they're going to do? Which ones? That's an understatement. Yeah. Which ones were 10 years ago? We just can't let that happen. We absolutely can't. We have to energize people that are apathetic and thinking nothing ever happens. Look, so much has been exposed and is being exposed daily. To me, that's, that's a win. There's just so much of it, but at least it's waking people up that weren't even aware of. There is a big silent majority, I firmly believe, even in my own district, that are going to remain silent, not say what they truly feel, but are definitely against the radical agenda that we're seeing playing out by the Democratic Party. So they're going to keep silent because they're afraid of them. They're absolutely terrified of their own party. So I do believe there's hope. I'm going to throw in a little hope, hopeium there, if you will. But yeah, there's just so much of it. I mean, I would love to see the DOJ hire 200,000 more investigators and prosecutors. Not that I'm a pro like let's just throw everybody in jail. I'm not on that side of the fence either. If a crime has been committed, but definitely should not be walking the streets, that should not be an office that have committed serious crimes that have harmed our nation. Yeah. And again, it has made people more cynical, which I think that's the worst thing about it is when people. Well, more cynical and more, you know, copycat, like, well, geez, they can do it then. Sure. And do it too. Yeah. I mean, the future doesn't look very bright for anyone that's, you know, been a stalwart supporter of the Trump administration. And of course, the Democrats, I, in my opinion, the Democrats are going to use whatever means they can to come after, you know, people that have been in media or what have you promoting Trump or promoting, you know, a mega agenda or what have you. But more than that, they're going to go after the average person. They're going to find a handful of people to make into examples. Because when you see people on TV or you see people that are pundits or what have you, when they're getting hauled up in front of Congress or they, you know, end up, you know, getting Trump to charges and thrown in jail, it's one thing. And when they go after, like, Tom down the street that had makes memes and had a big following on X. But other than that, like, he goes to work every day at the, at the car dealership or what have you, that's when people are like, oh, it could happen to me if I step out of line. And it's far more important to make an example of the average, of a handful of the average everyday people than it is people that are, you know, you know, pundits or what have you. Because that kind of stuff is what makes the average people, the majority of people think, oh, they're going to come after everybody. So I better fall in line. Maybe I won't vote that way or maybe I won't talk about politics that my personal politics with other people. Well, it's fair. It's communism basically. Well, you know, the number one rule, you know, get people in line, get them fearful because you know, government is your God and control is what we're all about. So we don't want you speaking out. Yeah. Yeah. Kate's doomed. He's a plan truster. Well, I'm just saying. Well, that's, that's certainly the case. Yeah. I'm just like trying to ruin it. Shamisa, mass woesway was her and I'm trying to like place. So I'm trying to place where that is, I mean, I think maybe like Southern Africa, like women like Zambears and Bobway might be read here that name. I'm just like, I've just been thinking about that the whole time, like that's such an interesting name. I'm having trouble placing it. I'd be curious. Well, I mean, you know, it's not really a surprise considering Latisha James was running on. I'm going to get Trump. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. The fact that and the fact that that are, you know, the electorate finds that acceptable, right there. I like to think that there was a time where if someone was running for any kind of public office, specifically saying that the reason they're running is so they can imprison a politician right who, who whether or not you like them, the charges that she brought to Trump, brought up on Trump, they were bogus, like the Latisha James stuff, like the, the, the real estate dealings. I think that's a read that they were all trumped up bullshit charges and, and to run an entire campaign saying, we're going to get it. We're going to find something. I mean, that's not how our system's supposed to work. It's not supposed to be showing me the man and I'll show you the crime. Look at Elvin Bragg. Yeah. I mean, and there was a time where that would turn voters off. We are in a totally different world now. There are going to be people, you know, that are going to be running, you know, one, in, in 28 that say once Trump's out of office, put me in and we'll get him, put me in and we'll get him because they did it last time and a lot of people were elected because of it. So it's a bad, bad situation. Yeah. I just, I really do have a sense that, that they're, the, the, the Democrat, you know, Communist Party, as I like to call them now, certainly in mayor, I speak from the state of Maryland. So, you know, they, they, they, they talk a big game and, um, they're so populous. They're not. They're very, very good at their optics and getting their activists loud and make it seem as if they have this huge support system. Well, certainly in the state of Maryland, and I'm not going to just speak about Maryland because it's happening everywhere. The radical Democrats won all the primaries. The radicals, not the moderates because we, again, I have no problem with the Democratic Party. It's what we're dealing with now, which is a far left radical, communist, um, acting party, but they're, they're campaigning all over the state. I mean, it's, it's all over the country, I should say, with, uh, people that ideologies have no place in America. We have people in Congress. Their ideologies have zero place in the United States of America. Anybody that's running for Congress that holds any ideologies that are anti-American value driven should not be eligible to run for office, period. So, that's why I believe we feel we, we get rid of incumbents. Hopefully, I, this is my biggest issue is the fraud that happens, but get the incumbents out, get America first candidates in, period, restore the Congress to the best of our ability. Keep the house, we have to keep the house in the midterms, we just have to, and then build from there and let, let, let, you know, the, the, the democratic party see what their party has become once we are, um, empower again, um, with those that, that are honoring the oath and not just, you know, gatekeepers for their own personal, I don't know, I want to play this clip from, uh, Bill Mars show with Micro where they break down socialism in it. He explains why so many of these people are socialist and it ain't the working class. I shared your monologue from last week. Oh, yeah, um, I thought it was, I thought it was really important, um, because you didn't, you didn't accuse anybody of anything really, just quoted, you quoted, yeah. So I put this up on my little page and I wrote what I wrote and we have over 200,000 comments on this thing. You, you, you hit something that's so primal right now. And, and, yeah, for me, I don't really have a dog in the big socialism hunt specifically, but I've got one in workforce. And when I look at four, five hundred thousand open jobs, and then I look at those seven million able bodied men, not even looking at the jobs at all, and then I look at this whole conversation unspooling. I don't know if you saw this, but the stat that got me within the Democratic Party right now 59% of Democrats who support socialism have college degrees, 40% who support socialism don't. So this thing that's being called a worker uprising, it's really not. It's not. This is happening because a lot of people with a really expensive credential are in the hole in a big way. And they're pissed and I don't blame them honestly. I mean, we can say what you want about it, but we, they took our advice, man. They took our advice. We said borrow whatever it takes. Go follow your dream and then go get your dream job. And that was a bunch of nonsense. Yeah, they don't want to borrow money to get a degree for a job that doesn't exist. And I don't want to lend them money that they'll never be able to pay back to get their credentials for the jobs that know. I mean, you, indeed. So this is a point that we brought up quite a bit. And it's why you hear somebody, the socialist demand debt forgiveness. It's probably their number one issue. The only real issue they have is that they owe money and they don't want to pay it back. Now, I think it's fair to say, Microsoft, correct. Everybody was screaming in my face. You got to go to college. I did the math. It made no sense. I was genuinely, I went online. I was 16 and I was like reading all about all the college stuff. And I was just like, why do people keep saying this? Like, I'm reading financial reports 40,000 in debt, 30,000 in debt. How are you going to pay that off working at Starbucks? So I was like, I'm not going. That's insane. And so the issue now is these people have degrees. There's no guarantee you'll get a job with the degree you have. There's no guarantee that the job you get will pay you enough to pay off those debts. So these people entered the workforce as full grown adults with no work experience with debt they can't pay off. And for that reason, they're going, someone else should pay my bills. That's why they're voting DSA. You will limit this. Why I think we should freeze the interest rates. Anyone who's paid back more than the principal, their debt is cleared and they get a tax credit for everything beyond the principal they paid. And for everybody else, you must pay your principal back. Interest, we can freeze. That's the kind of forgiveness. That's the compromise. Gen Z needs to be able to buy houses, buy homes, have families and they can't do it if they can't afford to do it. Like, this is why young men, a lot of these guys, they're just, there's no light at the end of the tunnel. They're not in the short term. They won't make enough money to have a family to buy house to do anything, especially with their debt. So they say, well, if I'm down here and everyone else is up here, I wouldn't mind bringing them down a pick or two. So they vote for socialists. They vote to burn it all down because they're like, look, if I can't have it, why should anybody else? Yeah. I think like, I think micro is a point, obviously. And I think there's a lot of salience there. But also, I don't know if that's good messaging for Republicans, for people that are entertaining socialism, the message to be, oh, no, you're just not playing the system correctly. The system works perfectly fine and you just must be not navigating it correctly. That's why you're entertaining socials. And that's just not a winning message. Vance understands this. I mean, Vance has been trying to sort of get into the head of someone that is sort of entertaining socialism. And yes, while some of them are just truly these like pampered, you know, yuckies, as we call them, we got to these young urban creatives. I think a good chunk of these people just feel tremendous, economic insecurity. They're very doubtful that they have any future in the country. They certainly don't understand or see any way that they're going to sort of have any stake in the country. And so, yeah, to Tim's second point, I think they're just thinking, well, you know, I'd rather just sort of tear the system apart rather than continue to participate in it if I'm not receiving an ROI. So, I think two things are kind of true here is one, yes, young people maybe have like a poor, you know, economic behaviors, fiscal behaviors, maybe not as fiscally responsible. But also, it is a pretty horrific, it's pretty horrific economic conditions. Yeah, it is. And I think that's why the end to Tim's point. I think that that's why something from the Republicans, not granted, Congress is unreliable in getting Republicans get on board with any kind of anything that it might consider, you know, forgiveness of loans or whatever, like that's not something that the Republicans are likely to get on. But if they really want to actually pull people away from the left from the communist, you know, influences up, you're like, all right, look, you guys got into a bad situation with your debt, but it is worth admitting, or it's it's important to admit that like this was told to you by your elders, and we basically did you wrong, right? We told you, go to school, get a job, spend all this money. Now, maybe you went and got a BS degree, that's possible, fine, fair enough. But when you are in a situation where you can't get out from under your loans, because you've you've paid your principal and you're still paying on interest and the the payments keep going up every or the balance keeps going up every month or six months or whatever, like you need some way out of that. And if they just freeze the low, the interest rates and say, okay, pay off the principal, that would at least alleviate some of the stress. And then Republicans could say, look, we are doing something for young people. That's the message Republicans should have right now for the midterms. Yeah. Trump should come out and say, and he can say that I think Vance might be the messenger for this because Trump, you know, I don't know if he can convey it, but Vance came out and said, one of the problems we have in this country and he can do it in the perfect Vance style is that our young people are struggling and everyone acknowledges this. Now, we've heard a lot of people say they want to just cancel and wipe out student loan debt, but that puts the burden on the working class and some of these people actually are doing well. So we don't want high income earners to get tax, to get relief debt relief from the working class. That's not fair. That's not that's asking the working class to pay more than their fair share. If we say we will suspend the interest rates, I like that. You only need to pay back what you barred from this point forward. And if you are overpaid, we will erase that debt and any overpayment goes towards as a tax credits. What that means is for people who have taken out 40,000 loans but paid back 50,000 and still owe 30,000, wiped clean. You've already overpaid and we're going to apply 10K towards your your federal taxes means bigger refund for at the end of the year. They do that. They win the midterms. Now to be fair, Democrats can still come out and go, what? We'll just cancel it for no reason. And I got to ask free money is a winning platform. Yeah. Well, and there's there's about 120 billion dollars of federal endowments, you know, contracts, grants, et cetera for universities floating around there. 40, 40 billion of that. Let's just, let's just be gratuitous here. Let's just say 40 billion of that is allocate it correctly. That still puts 80 billion dollars. Basically, that for grabs if you see endowments, and if you distribute that into some sort of fun that just goes right back into student loan relief, you know, five people that are just completely under water, that give them a leg up. That goes a long way. There's something about like injecting money into someone's banking out that really buys you. It would encourage you a lot of favor. I mean, I spoke to a lot of people who like saw the stimulus checks during code as like a game changer, and that really like goes a long way. And I mean, honestly, look, Trump should come out and say, I'm calling on Congress. You know, he can do the oil that we've received from Venezuela has been a windfall for the United States. Our economy is doing very good. So we will be giving a dividend to the American people, and I am calling on Congress to vote and pass this right now. And then when the Democrats block it, Republicans come out and be like, we're literally trying to give you guys a thousand dollars from the oil surplus from Venezuela. They're not letting us. That's a message for the midterms. But they're going on recess till the end of the month. Yeah. Okay, maybe fine. October 27. Trump can come out and be like, my new Trump dividend. When I put my name on it, you get a thousand dollar Trump bill in the mail. It's a new bill. It's a thousand thousand Trump's face. And it works. Do that. And you will, you will gain two or three points. Let's roll. And you know, as far as conservatives go, like the, the, the, the institutions like Harvard and these, these schools with these big end diamonds and stuff like that, they're no friends to conservatives. You're not like, it's not like you have to worry about, you know, pissing off people that are going to vote for you. Like, they're not voting for you anyways. They're literally grooming communists. They're making communists at these, at these institutions. Well, I'm not sure the thing. I mean, don't forget whenever we talk about socialism in any form, socialism is just under the umbrella of Marxism, which is the umbrella of communism. It's all the same thing. It's all the socialism is wrapped in a pretty bow. We're going to give you some money. So I love what you said about the industry that I can deal with everything else. No, yeah, because not because we're, you know, there are plenty of students here on visas and whatever. Oh, no, we're only talking about America. We're only talking about Americans. If you're a foreign student, it is your problem. You can't vote. We're not, we don't care. Pay your bills. Go home. Whatever student visas. I just, you know, again, I agree with what Tim said. So that's all he's trying to do. Yeah, I mean, like my estimate for 40 billion is there's some, you know, Universities that whether we like it or not are still a bit of an asset. I think like the conversation I mean this would take decades to remedy, but like the conversation should be expanded of like The scope of universities has gotten way too wide now where like universities used to be to get like a liberal Like liberal arts and the truest sense of the term is like kind of why you would pursue a University degree and we should really like have an expansion of You know trade schools beyond just like you know physical like blue collar trades But like business economics, etc. Um kind of create separate schools for that. You actually see this a lot in Europe And then and have universities for like the elite like that's functionally what they should be for is like the sort of how you How you cultivate an elite and then you can use the federal government to tamper with those universities and sure that the elite are conservative. I mean there are schools. There's universities that do produce Elite capital that are conservative like the University of Chicago comes to mind funny enough You know their law school is infamously rather conservative. You know George Mason comes to mind So, you know, you do have some like beach heads like reward those people make it lucrative for university to Get rid of a lot of these D make it so lucrative that they just can't justify tolerating activists on their campus And like you will solve a lot of your problems cut a lot of the fat that like provides steady income to the universities like my university My alma mater they added a nursing program is it because they like had this sudden interest and like you know cultivating a Medical alumni network. No, it's because like nursing is just a huge cash cow And like they just understood that they're gonna get like a reliable Extrasource income. So it's like you really need to like disincentivize these universities from like expanding the scope of what they offer Well, it's but there's also a cultural element we we're seeing woke Rear its ugly head again Consolations all this nonsense. It needs to be culturally enforced when people do stupid things like Set up a massive camp on a campus destroy the grounds and people up. Yeah, it should be like oh you did what? Yeah, you'll never get hired again. Yeah, you can like you can quite literally like with all the problems not all the problems But a lot of the problems we have in American society you can kind of just like socially engineer your way out of it I mean, it's it's completely possible. I mean, I think it was the last show was on I was talking about ways you can kind of navigate out of the birth rate crunch that we're in I think is him's spandrel on on Twitter. He was talking about how you can basically like allocate Prime parking spots for pregnant women and you know women told you these sorts of things like you can use social and social engineering to like curry favor for Policies or sorry curry favor for like things that conservative want to see happen in this country And this is another example is like there's things you can do to force these universities to A be more tolerant of conservatives and and be like excise these Activist elements because like that's ultimately the problem is that these people These universities promote tolerate leftist activism and then those people manage to pick up a college degree And that gives them a lot of institutional credibility and then they can come into these institutions and take them over Well, if you cut it off at the root, it's going to solve a lot of problems And I mean, there's a lot of bright people working on this But it's unfortunately like a couple decades-long project. You're not going to just there's not like a fix all switch But seizing endowments is a good start and yeah, I like that one. That's Will Chamberlain. Yeah, yeah Will Chamberlain's been on this for a while and Again, I was at a non I forget his name that said well, we should just take those endowments put it into a slush fund to like Because this is the thing that like this is the thing that a lot of conservatives miss like all across the Western hemisphere from Orban to Trump even is you got to like reward your voters. You got to like reward the American people with like actual like fiscal rewards This is what like older empires understood like the British empires if they ever like want to war if they were see something They would like give like they would give goodies back home You know what one thing that I think Trump could do just before the midterms is he could if we did like a big event in DC Like something fun like a circus and then when everyone comes he can get like artisan bread and just like throw it out to the people You know, he's like I'm here for you, you know, I'm taking care of you in these hard times. Yeah, I mean like if we're truly you know People are like oh Trump's like the first post liberal president. Well if that's true like let's let's behave post liberally Like let's actually just bribe people about Like seriously the Democrats do this exactly that I was say that like Democrats literally do that It's like if you vote for me. I will make sure that you're your group gets some kind of benefits from the government Joe Biden's entire reasoning for why he said Mitt Romney's gonna put you back in chains is because he was like threatening to like cut welfare benefits Like it's like they admit it like all the time that like they quite literally just bribe people to vote Democrat and you can't like Donate the player hit the game like if you want if you truly want to break the system right like a lot of people say they do If you truly want to let like escape from this liberal like a social liberal Hellscape that we're in like you kind of just got to play a ball. You got you got to you got to throw your hat in the ring and start quite little Just bribing your voters like providing direct in front of your voters. Yeah, you got to give Who would that quote the famous quote where he says something like democracy? What will stand up until people realize they can Promise that the public coffers for votes or something like that. Yeah, it's very sad up. I mean all I get up I think I know who it is, but I'm not sure Yeah, like yeah, like yeah, like democracy can only work with like a very narrow demographic and as the demographics get more and more diverse It becomes increasingly unlikely that like everyone can put aside their biases put aside their identity interests and actually like be pragmatic It's just completely impossible legal on you like recognize this right away when he took over in Singapore and just basically He kind of put some democratic window dressing than like a democratic characteristics aesthetics, but he he governed varied Was it to toe fill instead of the American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with public's money. Yeah, yeah Was that Tokeville. Ah, well, it's attributed to to Tokeville The statement is actually a variant of a statement fruitly thought so falsely attributed this to Scottish academic Alexander Fraser Tyler. Yeah, I'm finding that too. Yeah. Yeah, so I mean, you know We're just not really in this moment where we can be like we're gonna win hearts and minds. It's like dude That's just not all works anymore. Yeah. No, that's why Democrats have been fighting to win a greater number of melon belts Yeah, like that. Yeah, yeah, exactly Yeah, and like Trump definitely Understands a lot of this that like you can't really just depend on the American voter to be like one over anymore Like you kind of do just have to provide direct incentives, but like we need to keep going down that down that path Yeah, yeah, the people don't don't they're not rational. They're not pragmatic anymore Because the demographic that would be capable of behaving in such a manner is such a narrow demographic now This wasn't the case in you know the 18th century or 19th century argue believe in the first half of the century, but we're here now We are we are barreling towards a governmental system of procedural power I don't I don't know if you can call it communism But it's certainly some kind of authoritarian system with no representation no real democratic institutions and it's through Uh, I wonder you know a lot of people they have the great replacement theory American workers regardless of race to all the wakaloo leftists are being displaced by by new migrants But I'm not sure that the issue is there's a lot of people who think it's like oh, it's about replacing white people No, I think it's about destroying American identity and and destroying cultural cohesion so that no one can ever vote as unified block anymore And thus no one can ever actually win political power. Well, I think it's I think the importation of various groups from the around the world actually creates this system where you have a Wide array a large menu of various ethnic interests that are all petitioning for certain Benefits from the government and that's kind of the situation we're in or if you look around the world There's not a single case of like a successful racial or multi-ethnic democracy basically any country in the world now or historically that oversees Large territory that is multi-ethnic that is diverse They're not a democracy. They're typically quite authoritarian. I mean this has been the case with basically every empire in Europe That was overseeing a very diverse array of people they ruled from the top down They didn't really give people say because they correctly understood that all politics are derivative of identity politics Are you familiar with the what is it the allegory of the puddle? I don't know if allegories the right word There's a hole in the ground and it rains and the rain fills up and the puddle is in is in this hole the what body of water looks around and says wow This hole fits me perfectly it must have been made just for me When in reality, it's the water that filled to conform to the whole not doing around now This is often used as like Evidence of evolution or something that effect, but I think it also does well with politics and that is For a long time the American people looked around and said what do you mean democracy works great in their 95% Christian nation where everybody adhered to the same moral standards and dress code and then that all started to change And now you still have people who've been like democracy is great as you get Islamic enclaves with female genital mutilation and you get you know Islamic or or or What do they call it? They've got Sharia patrols in some areas. They've got Jewish patrols and other areas You've you've got Chinese police departments operating in the United States Right, so this idea of like classical liberal democratic institutions works great Yes, when you have a when you have a socially enforced cultural structure sure Yeah, everybody gets to vote when everybody is a Christian right once your culture starts breaking making down, the Christians are shocked to find the Muslims are voting for things they don't like. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There's a, like, there's a core American population and various people have assimilated into it. I mean, like the, the sort of core of it, I would say, is like kind of this original, like Anglo-Protestant identity that you find at the founding, but a lot of people have like folded into this. I mean, Catholics that have been in this country for a long time, even like their way that they kind of evaluate the world or conduct themselves is kind of reminiscent of that because they have assimilated into this kind of core American identity over time. And this large group, which includes a lot of people, like once again, I repeat, a lot of people that have assimilated into this main kind of American identity aren't I called a, a unified voting block. You see massive divergence and how they vote and they swing, et cetera. But then you have all these various other groups that have not assimilated or are just never going to be part of this core American identity that do vote basically as a unified block and virtually every case vote for the Democrat party unless they get pissed off and they vote for their Republicans at a protest. So that's like, that's my main concern is that as this country continues to grow. I mean, I guess what I'm trying to get at is I think this is why getting immigration to control is absolutely essential. Yeah. And the majority of Republicans understand this and actually the issue that Trump pulls the best on is immigration. I was reading through the Harvard Harris poll that came out, I think yesterday. Though they had all the cross tabs are out the one issue that the issue that Trump performs the best on his immigration, 47% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing on immigration. And this is after a all out blitz from the media basically trying to tear apart his immigration agenda. And so the fact that like Americans are understanding that like immigration is the issue indicates that they understand that once the population is kind of diluted, so to speak, like as less American than ever, then yeah, your liberties, your American republicanism is gone. Let's jump to this next story from the Texas Tribune. It looks like the Trump admin is going after anchor babies. This is a conflicted story that I first heard of it because liberals were screaming. And American citizen has been deported. And of course, I follow the news and I want to know, is this true? The reality is typically when they say something like landish like an American citizen was deported, it tends to be some caveat like it turns out to Maryland father. And then they're actually a gang member who was trafficking trafficking people, yeah, right. So in this instance, I decided to look to the story up and sure enough, US citizen Brian Jose Morales Garcia was allowed to return. The story is that he was working on a construction site cops are ice rated it. I think I might have been I think was ice. Everybody gets wrapped up. They ask him. He says he's an American citizen. He's got a birth certificate. Social Security card. He can prove it. They deport him anyway. He goes to Mexico where he's there for several months, fighting to get back to the United States. Finally, a court says, yes, you can come back to the United States, but they are still challenging his status. Now here's the thing. The guy was born in the US and this is according to the reports, you know, I may be wrong, but this is what the reports are saying. He was born in the US, but immediately brought back to Mexico where he was raised. He came to the United States after the fact and it looks like I would I'm going to make this assumption that the the Trump administration is going after this guy because they view this as a a the challenge right now is birth, right citizenship. Your parents bring you here for Mexico, give birth and then leave right away. You grew up in Mexico and now you get to just come to the United States. That's what I think is that issue here. It's a bit speculative, but what we can say is on the surface, what we know, they're trying to deport a guy who was born here, but did not grow up here. So what do you think that says? Yeah. It's sorry. It says that the the administration is still going to try to put, you know, try to figure out some route to get people that are essentially anchor babies out of the country because it's not like it is a bad situation to have people that are born here only because they're parents got here for a moment and then taken out of the country, grown up, you know, raised in an entirely different country, different culture, different values. People that are born in America and and and live here just see the world differently than people that are born in other countries and and raised in other countries. And there's nothing bad or mean about saying, look, we want people that are that are American citizens. We want them to have experienced growing up in America. You shouldn't be it shouldn't be legal to, you know, get here, have a baby or maybe one of the or take a tourist trip, you know, the birth tourism that goes on to some US territory to like to Guam or something that's something that's popular in China. If I understand correctly, you grab hop on a plane, go to Guam, have your kid and then fly back and you've got a US citizen kid. But that is completely and totally, you know, against what the point of making sure that people that are born here get citizenship automatically, like that's totally born. So. Yeah. I think, you know, denaturalization is an interesting topic because the United States is actually real interesting. It's really interesting. Because the United States is very rare. It's exceptionally rare that we denaturalized citizens. It has to be like over the top, egregious naturalization, like when you became a citizen after the fact you're born. As far as I know, we've never denaturalized a birthright citizen that's never happened. For the just only on birthright, I believe you're right. We've only ever denaturalized people because in every single instance is because we deemed that they concealed something when they were becoming a citizen and then we found it out of the fact. Britain, it's actually surprisingly somewhat common denaturalization. The most common denaturalization is Albanians and Britain and the reason this happened was because like in the 90s and 2000s, a lot of them presented themselves as cosovans, cosovans, cosovans, cosovans, forget the denominium and this came out later that no, they were from Albania and they acquired their decisions. But they have a precedent for denaturalizing people in Britain, which is, they're no longer -- or the reason for denaturalization is conducive to the public good. And this is typically Muslims that are just committing terrorist attacks or whatever they denaturalize them. That's an interesting precedent that would be, I'd be interested in exploring the United States is particularly on birthright citizenship. If you can push this issue far enough or even if you don't get a good Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship, what you already have is if you can kind of push this idea that these are functionally paperwork Americans, then you can start exploring denaturalizing the worst of the worst so to speak like the people that are just committing a exorbitant amount of crime or people that have committed terrorist attacks. People whose presence in the country is not conducive to the public good. I think if you can like start making examples out of those people, you start to cement this idea in the American people's head that citizenship functionally has lost its value in many ways. And honestly, the only thing that separates a green card holder from a citizen in the United States in 2026 is the fact that you can vote and like, who even really cares. So I like, I think you really need to push the envelope on this issue. I don't know anything about this case or what this guy's been up to. But we really don't know other than, but there's a very, very, I mean, you know, you could throw a rock in the direction of most of these states and you will find examples of birthright citizens or paperwork Americans whose parents came out in under fraudulent means that you could maybe explore, you know, they weren't forthcoming or forthright that they were seven months pregnant when they came into the country and they came in and over say to visa had their kid. Then you can go and reevaluate. I think that would probably pass a sniff test for a lot of Americans that they would probably be okay with starting to naturalize those people because that is a law we have on the book. You can watch. There's TV shows from the 2000s where they follow along with customs agents and various countries. And the United States gives instructions to these airlines that, hey, if a woman is a foreign national and she like looks like she's, you know, nine months pregnant, she's not allowed to board this plane if she's coming in on a tourist visa. And you will, you can watch these TV shows and you can watch these gate agents tell these women, no, you're not allowed to travel today. You're too pregnant. So we have these laws on the books. So you're probably going to have to use AI like you were going to have to use some sort of data management system to determine. Now you've lost everybody in the church. I know, but it's like there's no other way we're going to be able to start to naturalizing all of these birthright citizens unless we can like come up with an explanation of why we're to naturalizing them and the explanation is going to need to be the mom came here and she was illegal and had the child. Therefore we need to sort of denaturalize him because his mom shouldn't have been in the country because we're probably not going to get rid of birthright citizenship anytime soon. I know Trump's trying to ram through eos, but, you know, we can't depend on that. We're going to have to get creative here. Yeah. I hope that was concise. Well, I mean, you catch a point across. Yeah. But if by concise, you mean verbose, it was very verbose. There's a lot of meat to the eye. What time is it? No, I'm too. But I mean, look, I mean, obviously, you know, people that are regular viewers know my perspective is anything that we can do to get people that are either here illegally or that are here as like anchor babies. If you were not actually an emerit like raised as an American, you shouldn't be here. Yeah. I guess what I was trying to get at is like we need to create a separate legal classification for anchor babies. Not sufficient just to dub someone an anchor baby, but there needs to be some sort of precedent that says if your parents were in the country under fraudulent, they concealed some sort of information when they came here and they gave birth to your mom, gave birth to you while you were here, your citizenship is up for evaluation. That needs to be said. So this guy, his mom came here in 1999, which was 19 and in 2001, he was born in Denver. She had another son and then went back to Mexico because her father was sick. So they were born here. So she came here legally. Does it say that? We don't have any reporting on their legal status. It just says that she moved to Denver. She was working as a custodian. Morales's father was born. They were both born in Mexico. They both met. He was a cook and then she took the kids back to Mexico about a year after they were born. Yeah. So I mean, this is where you're going to have to have like some large database in order to determine this sort of thing like a, we don't, we don't have the information. We call it entering the country legally. I got an idea. That's the database. Well, hold on. Like we don't have one of the things that we know is that a lot of these people will like drive through legally, but then just overstayed correct. So what if we set up a bunch of cameras that could track their license plates? And then we would have a database just there you go. Yeah. Well, I mean, like, it occurs on them and actually, I mean, yeah, you know, I made, I was, I came out anti-flock. I think a lot of people were shocked by that because I've been shilling for data centers. But um, yeah, I don't understand why people can't like, like, I'm going to say it, everybody is lying about everything all the time. That's just it. Yeah. And I don't mean literally everybody. I'm saying there are a lot of people that are, are, they're influencers. They're not in politics. I would, I would argue that I don't know what, what's the ballpark figure you guys might think? Half of the political people you think are actually just influencers, meaning they, they get paid without so to pop their like, the government wants to stop welfare recipients from drinking Coca-Cola. That's wrong. I think we should be friends. They're, they're so paid way more than half. I, I know many people that came on to social media platforms with good intentions and didn't care if they had 50, uh, followers and would hold spaces on X and we, we, uh, you saw the minute they turned because now they've got millions of followers and tons of money. Well, it's, it's, it's not so much about how they gain followers. It's, if you gain followers, you can make money. I said, a lot of these people, so, so someone reached out to our team saying that they had been offered money to promote flock cameras and they turned it down. We, uh, we also the post from Alex Stein, where he said he was offered money to travel to Poland from Miriam Adelson's group to, to go to the Holocaust museum and stuff. He turned that down. I have no problem with ads, none whatsoever. We do ads. We do ads all the time. Oh, and I love it. I reject sponsors all the time. Yeah, I, uh, you're a decent person. Well, I mean, I'm like, we, we, we, we've been offered like four GLP one companies to promote like crazy money. And, and I just, it was really funny. We got offered one GLP at, and I told our, uh, guys at Rumble, I was like, yeah, no, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't want to do this. And they were like, no, no, they, they, they really do. They love the show. They want you to promote it. And I was like, that's a lie. They don't watch the show. I was like, if they watched the show, they'd have heard what I said about GLP ones and they would not want it. And it's like, okay. Well, I mean, you don't have to do it. And I'm like, I won't, I won't do ads for GLP one. I, at this point, I don't know if they'd want me to do ads, but my opinion has shifted quite a bit because my, my view on GLP ones at this point is I don't like it. I think people should be healthy and eat right and be responsible. But it destroyed the body positivity movement and it's creating, uh, uh, media personalities who look thin at least. So I think what this will at least do is that for younger people, they're less likely to get fat because it's not social, it's not social, it's up to wanting more to be fat. But that being said, these people in politics, uh, when it comes, like, why is it that there are so many people that are anti-data center on its question? What is the issue with data centers? I want a real answer. The. I'm sorry. What was it? Eminent domain? Okay. Eminent domain is an issue, right? In Georgia, we agree. Eminent domain is bad. That's irrespective of data centers. Water consumption. That's not even true. The overconsumption of water is not even a real thing. These things don't like convert water into coal and then the water is gone. So data center in Utah on 40,000 acres in the middle of nowhere negatively impacts nobody. In Northern Virginia, certainly if you're complaining about the issues of data centers and you live in these areas, that's yours to complain about. But these people are enjoying low property taxes and great benefits from the data centers that are coming in. So I'm not saying AI is good. I have complained about AI all the time, but flock is different. Human governmental use of mass surveillance systems for the purpose of criminal charges when there's no real accuser. Bad. Data center allowing us to play video games and if it's in the middle of nowhere and no one's bothered by it, fine. Yeah. Data centers is like, yeah, it's completely incomparable because like data centers yet to your point. I mean, we're just talking about a development, a technological development in the economy. Yeah. Okay, the government utilizes, but they utilize cell phones, I mean, they utilize every technological advancement. They've been around forever. And they've been around forever. And also like every single person uses LM's now versus flock, which has like zero consumer usage, right? These are primarily used by companies like, you know, some companies utilize it and their businesses and whatnot. It's a lot more importantly that I think what people have a problem with is the contracts with sheriff's departments and whatnot. And indeed, it's the law enforcement application because when we got shot at one of the first things that was recommended to us by our security team was a flock camera. Yeah. Yeah. And then we would know exactly who did it. Yeah. And also, if it's a private business and you really have an axe to grind with flock and you know your local Walgreens use is that you can just not patron Walgreens. Like you have that option because people are making comparisons that are like, why do you care about flock? You carry a cell phone around. It's like, I can leave myself on a home. Like I can turn, you know, I can put my cell phone in a fairer day cage. Like I have options to not be surveilled via my cell phone with flock. I don't have that option. Additionally, flock is sort of this TSA mindset where everyone is being treated as a criminal. And so far as there's perpetual investigations occurring like the flock camera is documenting your every move as if you have already committed a crime and are currently being investigated. Gathering evidence on you so they can use it later if they want to. It's gathering evidence on someone that has not been suspected of a crime. And again, I have a principle opposition to that. But secondarily, I might be a little bit more accepting of a flock if our DA is demonstrated like fairness. Consistent. But the problem is there's like two tiered justice in this country where you have like, you know, like three, four percent of the country that seems to be allowed to do whatever they want. You walk around Washington to see you walk around New York City, Los Angeles. There's homeless people everywhere. There's delinquents everywhere and the police walk right past them. And it's not really the cops fault. They understand that if they arrest this person, there's going to be no charges brought forth. And until that can be solved, I don't want to have a conversation that the police are like missing resources. That's ridiculous. The police are not missing resources. The reason that we have these homeless people over the street is not because the police like don't have the resources to get the job done. It's because their hands are completely tied by DA's by, I mean, by Democrat policy, I know it's like very on the nose, but it's like broadly true. San Francisco, you know, these people that are like flocked opponents are citing San Francisco as a shining example. Well, I think the X factor in San Francisco is simply that the DA and the Sheriff's Department instituted a crackdown on car break ins and they actually started making arrests whenever they would catch someone that was breaking into a car they would make an arrest. And the car break in rate in San Francisco just dropped to what it was 20 years ago. 20 years ago, they didn't have flock cameras 20 years ago, the cops just the cops, you ask any police officer, they can tell you the four or five people that are on their beat that are giving them problems every single day. They just need a reason to be able to go after these people and put them in jail and it's going to make everyone's lives a lot easier. And so in San Francisco, that's basically what they did is they told these police officers, hey, if you make an arrest, we're going to bring a charge against them. And they said, sweet. Okay, I'll sort of arrest people and bring them in. What do you know? Car break ins dropped precipitously. Does flock a force multiplier? Yes, I'm not denying that flock led to more arrests. I'm just simply contending that like these cops are completely unable to make arrests without flock. It's like, let's start there first. Let's start with the DA is actually bringing charges against these people and actually like implementing Giuliani style policing. And if they still can't get the job done, then we can have a conversation about encroaching on liberties to get the job done. Like if it truly is that big of a problem, then we can have that conversation, but we're not there yet at all. Yeah. I mean, look, the flock resistance is completely reasonable at the whole idea that because no one trusts institutions anyways, there's already stories of where there are flock cameras, the flock cameras being misused, police following their girlfriends or whatever. So people that have a resistance of flock cameras, that's not just reasonable. That's in my opinion, that's the right position to take. It's coming from two people that are very pro-tech and catch the heat for it. Yeah. I'm very, very pro-AI pro-daticenter, I think that a lot of the concerns people have are going to be solved before they become actual real big problems and stuff. And I think that it's going to produce a lot of benefits for society. So it's like to be like, oh, they're the same. And I see a lot of it coming from libertarians and who are rightly skeptical of government. But it's almost as if libertarians have moved from being skeptical of government because they understand that government and big corporations or large corporations or whatever frequently working hand in hand. They they've become anti-capitalist, anti-technology, anti-tech, anti-big-farma, anti-big-anything. Skeptical of power in general. Which I understand being skeptical of government, but when it comes to, you know, if you're going to call yourself a libertarian, you're supposed to be for free markets, you're supposed to be for free enterprise, you're supposed to be for, you know, pro-business, you know, that's exactly what all the AI companies are. Yeah, they're supposed to be. It's supposed to be. But you're not supposed to be for, you know, anything fraudulent, any waste, any deception, which is. Yeah. What was really easy? In my opinion, oh, sorry, go ahead. That's all. I mean, sorry. I'll just sound like, uh, no, it's um, I mean, it's kind of like, like an individual liberty argument. It's like if you want to have your own flock cameras monitoring your own household. Yeah. That would be crazy. Cool. Like, that's what I would like to do, but I don't want everyone else monitoring me. Yeah. Yeah. I agree with that. Take 100%. And, uh, yeah, flock in my house. It's great. You know, and a vlogger needs one simple way flock. Like, oh, you're so be it. But like, again, it's like, okay, these DAs, all of a sudden need flyers. Like, that's not the government. The problem is not that you can't find these people. These people, when, when there's like a case of like a crazy guy stabbing someone on the train, they have like 40 priors like, we're not having trouble identifying people. If it's three, three, what is it? What is it? Three percent of the criminals or whatever? Like, so, yeah. What's the number? Yeah. Absolutely. No, no, no. If we, if we put, everybody who's committed three crimes in prison forever, like all crimes basically gone. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Precisely. Yeah. Absolutely. Additionally, what the flock discourse, Tim, you're, you're going in the mat on this. And I think you're absolutely correct is there's people that are just earnest, acting in good faith and are just seriously under the conviction, which is fine. Like, it's a debate. That's, that's fine. Like, I think Will Chamberlain is an honest actor. I think he's making a serious case for flock. Even if we disagree. $7,000. I think. Yeah. Like, that's an example. But there's people that are making like completely nonsensical arguments in favor of flock. And like, my only takeaway is someone emailed you what the argument needs to be and you're fumbling it. But the argument then makes sense in the first place because it's like a clearly handed off to you by a company. Oh, you know, like, this is, this is what gets me so offended is the propaganda is so bad. Flock, what are you doing? Here's what you do. $1,000,000 and I will write you the best propaganda campaign you have ever seen. I will have people begging for flock cameras. See the problem is, you know, honestly, it's the incompetence of these influencers. I am offended as a marketing professional watching them try and do this flock. I'm kidding. I'm only half kidding, actually. I am offended at how bad they are at doing this flock promotion. I wouldn't take money to promote flock. The arguments for flock exist and it certainly is not some first amendment argument. There is an argument over catching illegal immigrants, saving children who are being kidnapped, stopping pedophiles. The problem is we tend to be more liberty minded individuals and I prefer to have a bunch of guns. You know what I mean? I would rather live in a society where I get to have my guns knowing full well that sometimes bad people use guns and let me have the responsibility myself. I don't want to create a mass surveillance network passing off the responsibility to a government that I'm supposed to blindly trust will do the right thing with this massive surveillance database. Yeah. Well, if the argument is, look, the composition of a population is just not suitable for liberty and therefore we need a mass surveillance state. I don't think that's an argument for mass surveillance. I think that's an argument for mass deportation. I think that's an argument for how do we get to this? If we truly have a population that just quite literally isn't suitable for liberty and like privacy, et cetera, and freedom, and I'm using all the buzzwords here, then to me, that's a very terrifying proposition. I think they're correct, but I don't think the solution is mass surveillance. I think the solution is, again, let's just conduct mass deportations and sort of remedy this. I don't think I don't want to have to live under a Chinese style system because we haven't done that previously and we didn't have this and we had crime relatively low at certain points in recent history, like even the 2000s. Violent crime is downed quite a lot actually. It's like, you say this to some people, it's like taking candy away from the baby because they want you to think that we have exceptionally high amounts of violent crime. The main problem in the United States is this low-level crime. This is what's causing a lot of problems and it's making people feel very unsafe. Even though violent crime is lower, people feel very unsafe in our cities. Why is that? Because there's so much delinquency that's permitted. Again, there's homeless people everywhere screaming at you and tagging you, pooping on the street. There's needles everywhere. It's like, I don't care if violent crime is down. If that is existing, it's hard to feel safe. It's hard for mothers to push their kids around because they are petrified of them getting screamed at by a crazy person on the street. It's like, I don't know how flock remedies that. I know how you remedy that. Again, you get these DAs to actually start enforcing the delinquency laws that we have on the books already. You also get those that govern police forces in counties and cities to allow the police to do their jobs. To start finding them, stop dismantling them, making them incapable of being able to do their jobs. So, certainly in Montgomery County, the DUI force is now gone, task force is gone. Because we have had an uptick of DUI accidents and this is kind of flock-ish, but it's not really. I just want to point this out. We don't need flock. We need laws to be at least to be able to enforce the laws on the books and people shouldn't have to live with their heads on a swivel wherever they go. So, that's the issue and you look at every county like my county, the executive selects the chief of police and the county council governs every aspect of our police force, Montgomery County police force. They're a budget, what they say, what they do, what they can do, what they can't do, and it's all based around the equity, social justice, equity, equity, equity, e.g., I love these people. It's crazy. And so, when you say violent crime is down, I disagree because I personally believe that the data is being -- We're being censored. In D.C. the police were flubbing the numbers to make it look like most of them. And in Maryland, the same thing, I can't -- in my opinion, I'll cover myself there in my opinion completely because you took Montgomery County, Maryland, I just went into the police scanner all the time. I was just fascinated by it. I don't know if you guys have ever been awake at 2 a.m. and just thought, oh, listen to it. Fascinating. There are two minutes, not because I believe -- you know, I'm happy that there was crime -- but something was happening. And it started to get to the point where they were saying, oh, we need an interpreter. Right. Yeah. Oh, they don't have their license with -- you know, they don't have a -- so it started to come out very obvious in my district alone that I -- I would estimate we have minimum 400,000 illegals in my district alone. It is palpable. Yeah. So -- Yeah, I can't -- I can't talk. I think we need just people that DA's that do their job. Yeah. Yeah. And more resources toward law enforcement and enforcing the laws on the books. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's a great example as San Francisco where San Francisco, again, if you go back to the mid-2000s, you know, they had -- you know, car -- car theft, car break, et cetera, was at the same level it is now, post-crackdown. And then you go starting approaching 2010 around 2008. This one, car jackings shot through the roof. And then, you know, San Francisco became the car jacking capital of the United States. Well, what happened? Well, San Francisco, they abolished their anti-car theft team, right? And so what ended up happening? Okay. Well, the car jackings started because the police couldn't use decoy cars, right? They couldn't use plain clothes, policing, et cetera. The typical traditional police method you would use to crack down on car jackings, or a car theft, et cetera. And then 2023 -- at the end of 2023, the new DA comes in, who was a bit more moderate, a bit more pragmatic. He comes in and he says, "Okay, we're bringing back the crack down. We're bringing back the anti-car theft force, or the team, or whatever you want to call it." And the car jackings went down. Again, it was flocked a force multiplier, sure. But again, the main reason why they dropped is because they started enforcing laws on the books. And I don't know the crime stats in Montgomery County. They could be likely that violent crime has gone up there. I mean, nationwide, it's gone down, you know, New York City in the 70s and 80s, was completely wrong. Oh, nationwide, I think you're right. I think you're right. But people don't realize that you have, you know, bubbles, like hearing a DMV. We all see it. We live it, right? Yeah. It's very in our faces. We live it every day. But then you have people in safe areas like Florida, or people -- or laws are enforced. Yeah. And they live a whole -- they're not being overtaxed, they're not -- Yeah. It's a different world. So I want people to understand there are, you know, states and counties and cities that are very much -- we're communist run, period. I mean, I'm shocked that we're allowed to leave our homes at this point. And violent crime has gotten a bit more indiscriminate, too, where if you look at the 70s and 80s, like New York City, for example, most of the violent crime was -- pretty much within the same demographic. But if you compare it to now, you're seeing more and more examples. I mean, we just saw on time. Square where the violent crime is indiscriminate where it's quite literally a crazy person just you know killing someone in this case But like you know harming someone in some way shape or form where in the 70s and 80s even the violent crime was far higher than it is now It was kind of a narrow demographic that they were just wailing on each other all day long. We're now On a swivel like you never know like people have been shot in the grocery store for no reason. Yeah, that woman in time Square. Yeah, that was insane to me And I guess I I guess I'm kind of over the home mentally ill My heart goes out. It's like I'm a very big advocate for you know helping Those with disabilities in any every way possible But I think that there are too many instances where there are people that are just mean and angry and violent and Now they're labeled mentally ill. No, they just want to go out and do what they want to do and be As violent as possible. Yeah, well that's their culture or that's our ideology or they truly hate You know being in this country, but you know love to live off of the fruits of the land But hate everybody in the country so they want to get rid of yeah, you know, I'm saying I mean I'm kind of rudimentary and well, I think what you're getting a broad stroke, which I didn't mean to use But I think you're right. Oh, and I think what you're getting at is like Okay, the argument that these people are mentally ill therefore we should permit them to stay on the streets makes no sense Right like if someone truly is so mentally ill that they can't help themselves but commit violent crime That should be an argument for institutionalizing them in some way. Exactly for their sake, too Like I think exactly I'm from going to prison enough of using it as a moniker to for people that are just bad people Yeah, yeah, like I yeah a lot of these people a lot of people A lot of these people are just they know exactly what they're doing and they're they want to do it Yeah, there's just an exceptionally increasingly large proportion of the population that's just completely anti-social and that's like a huge problem And I mean anti-social in the actual definition like quite literally Functions in a way that is not congruent with polite society right that is the point of prison the point of prison is the incapacitate those people the prison The point of prison is not like Rehabilitation or the point of prison isn't even as a deterrent like the point of prison is to just ensure that these people That are going to harm the general public are removed from the general public so they don't harm anyone You know like it's like this idea of like if you have a kid, you know, your own son or daughter and they're slamming a car on the table Right, you take the toy away not because you're trying to teach them not to hit the toy on the on the glass table It's not to punish them or enact justice. It's the incapacitate them so they don't destroy the table That's why you take the toy away then maybe later on you explain to them But the way their child their brain works they won't understand that the only thing they want It's not about like teaching a lesson. It's about getting the toy out their hands They don't break the glass table. That's the point of prison. It's incapacitation Primarily. Yeah, we're talking about that last night that the just like you said like the point of When people away isn't rehabilitation recidivism recidivism is Extremely high among among people that have gone to prison and and so you're just trying to make society safer For the people that are not anti-social for the people that can function in society. It doesn't matter if the you know the criminal That's you know got a rap sheet a mile long. It doesn't matter If you believe they can be rehabilitated or not the point is to take them out of general population Because they make general population worse and they don't make it just a little bit worse one Criminal that is could that is consistently causing crimes makes makes it significant like significantly worse So you get like you know if you've got a population of a thousand it only takes like 40 or 50 people to ruin everything and then you put those people in prison So that way the other nine hundred and fifty people can live in peace and and you know have a have a decent Standard of living well and I think conservatives fall into this trap of thinking that the point of prison is deterrence too when it's it's It's not these people that are committing these crimes. They can't conceptualize second-third fourth orders They're their first order thinkers. They have a high-time preference So they're not committing a crime and they're thinking well Maybe I shouldn't scream at this person and stab them because I might go to jail That never comes across their mind but conservatives fall into this trap where we went and and I'm not saying we shouldn't do it I'm not like trying to like you know more like you know perl clutch here But this idea that like if you crank up the brutality in prisons that's somehow going to drop crime and it's like No, because these people aren't thinking like what if I go to jail if I do this it's like no That's why the deterrence is not deterrence is not an ex-factor when it comes to keeping I mean criminals need to be afraid again, but the problem is they won't yeah, yeah, the problem I agree. It's just the problem is they don't have the mental they don't have the mental faculties, too Right, so yeah, I mean that that was that whole the whole meme about if you hadn't eaten breakfast yesterday How would you have felt? When if assuming the study is real to meme, but you ask these violent murderers and their brains cannot process what you are saying Well, that's why they all plead non guilty. I mean part of it is like legal strategy obviously and like they don't want to go to jail But it's not like they get caught and they say all right. Well, I'm getting what's coming to me, you know I I was deterred by you know went forth anyway and committed the crime so you got me I plead guilty They a lot of them plead not guilty arguably the majority plead not guilty because they're literally convinced They don't understand why they're they don't understand why they're in handcuffs right now like the majority of them feel like they should They're entitled to like kill people quite frankly like the majority of people in prison you ask them They think they're being wrong or that's unfair that they're in prison So these people just quite frankly don't have the mental capacity to even comprehend the concept of oh my gosh If I do something wrong, I might go to prison you just need to and you just need to Incapacity them you need to prevent them from committing the crime in the first place Yeah, and just to Tim's point or in your point. That's a mile-long rap sheet. It's pretty easy to figure out who's going to commit violent crime Actually, it's not like you have these model citizens that are you know don't have a traffic ticket and they all the sudden They go into subway and stab someone. No, it's people that have like consistently demonstrated anti-social behavior This is why predictive policing works. Yeah, I mean you ask you ask police in any you know any any Any place that has you know consistent policing by the same people they know who the the shit heads are They know who the shit heads are they know who the people are you saying you see it all the time like when you watch shows like cops and stuff like that Like they get out and they know the guy's name. What are you doing here? You know you can't be here. We told you 17 times. It's a trope It's a Otis and any Griffith where he's like he just blocks himself in a jail like they know who they know Otis is going to probably get You know public IDs in charge So he already knows the drill and that's sort of that's like literally we have a million Otis is on the streets Well, not quite as wholesome as Otis a lot of violent Where I like Otis Otis is a patriot but in so far as like the drunk bear to but in so far as they have the same Relationship that Andy had of Otis, which is like Otis knows that he screwed up and he knows that he screwed up But the one difference is in Mayberry the DA allowed them to put Otis and jail the problem with New York City is Andy Can't put Otis and jail so instead they have this you know this rapport with each other, but it never actually manifests in like an arrest I think it's just it's just sickening that it's intertwined with the whole sanctuary city policies. So you have You know the criminal the homegrown criminals if you will coupled with the sanctuary city policies They're all like we can do whatever we want. It doesn't matter where if we're legal or not If you know if we're Americans or not we can do whatever we want in sanctuary cities We are 100% protected and since I mean Doesn't it just blow your mind that here in America Americans now need sanctuary on our own soil It's just it makes no sense to me other than we have to Win in the midterms period we have to end this period. No more sanctuary at all So the sanctuary city things tough because it's like This is kind of the lesson we learned after the Spencer Pratt debacle or like the entire you know population was The entire Republican You know base was demanding that Trump intervenes and remedies the situation Los Angeles Where I think it seems quite clear to everybody that something was warmsing an investigation of what went down in Los Angeles for the Pratt race, but we all kind of Realized that for better or for worse California can kind of conduct their affairs however they want It's kind of the same thing as sanctuary cities or even sanctuary states now that we have but sanctuary cities is like If you know if the Los Angeles police department is not going to turn to the immigrants over to ICE There's really not much we can do about that besides like you know nationalizing the Los Angeles police department Which would be it's an unbelievable fight and court that would probably never turn in our favor and so it's like It's one of those issues. That's just quite literally I think like your best case might be trying to charge these mayors with treason I mean that like light might literally your best for yeah, you might literally make sure we get the definitions right Yeah, yes edition and that quite literally might be your best You know attack vector because like the sanctuary city thing is like open and shut if the police departments are not turning to legal immigrants over There's not very much we can do about it Well, it's nice to see police forces starting to fight back sheriffs or fighting back so 17 sheriffs out of the 24 counties in Maryland 17 counties are now suing the state. Yeah. Yeah, it's because they want to enforce ICE enforcement. Yeah. Yeah, that's that's the one white pill is so I love that I'm seeing You know Listen, we're in a day and age where we need heroes. We need people to stop kind of sitting in the background, stand up and speak out. And I get it, people are afraid, but help in any way you can to encourage others that can speak out. - The Republicans need to offer something for the midterms, 'cause currently they're just like, "We're going on recess, tell you the end of the month, see ya." Yeah, I mean, Trump-- - Well, I wouldn't be on recess. - Yeah, Trump's-- - Well, it's a matter of the speaker. They tell you there's no votes. Certainly, individual members of Congress are doing a lot of things, like, you know, obviously, Massey's never stopping what he's doing. But this is a time where the Republicans supposed to be telling the American people we have a plan for you. - Yeah, it's this problem the GOPS had since Trump came down the goal and escalator in so far as when Trump's not on the ballot, Republicans don't care. And it's understandable why a lot of Trump voters are just like looking at the Congressional Republican delegation. They're saying, "Why should I reward you?" Trump's been doing any victory we've had in the last year and a half for right wingers has been from the executive. I mean, okay, the big, beautiful bill was great, I guess, but that Trump's fingerprints all over it. We're going in, people aren't happy with Trump over Iran. And then now we're asking, Congressional Republicans are asking, you know, they're Republican, the Trump voter to come vote for them. They're just sitting there like, what have you done? I mean, what's warning this? Like I understand voting for you to keep Democrats out. But unfortunately, like at a certain point, if you're in politics, it's not enough to just be the opposition party. It's not enough to be the anti-party. Eventually, you have to like articulate to the American people what you're in favor of, what you're for. You look at the Michigan race. Mike Rogers, his entire campaign is, at least I'm not like Abdul, and then Abdul's campaign is, here's all these things I want to do. Here's this, that, and the other one. We can disagree with every single of those policies, but it's undeniable that Abdul is communicating some sort of vision, even as, you know, as misguided as it is. He's articulating a vision to the American people. Mike Rogers is just literally saying, vote for me so I can keep the handbrake on for another six years. Sorry, that's not going to cut it. You know, Trump, you know, again, people, it's a very, you know, critical time for Trump, a time where people are highly critical of Trump, but he's articulated something to the American people. He's articulated some sort of vision to the American people and he's been rewarded for it twice, arguably three times. Congressional Republicans, what's their articulation? Vote for us so the Democrats can't get like appointments across the finish line in six years. It's like, sorry, that's way over the heads of the majority of voters and secondarily, kind of insulting quite frankly. I mean, you know, I don't know. I mean, I'll say Ed isn't really, it's not, they're not, they don't have the populist movement they claim to have. Well, he's advocating for socialism and socialism is vision for the country. Even if we think it's bad, it's still like an alternative. It's offering something to people pointing out a problem and saying there's a solution. But I firmly don't believe that people are buying, buying it. They are, he's on five points in the polls. Yeah, so I mean, that's, that's the, I say to people in my own district that have voted Democrat for. Well, it's, it's one third of the Democratic Party is DSA, but where he is, I mean, he's also got a large Muslim population too. Large Muslim population, huge union based in the unions vote and blocks. So, okay, yes, some of the unions swung for Trump. Trump's not in the ballot. Mike Rogers, again, if you're like a union boss, what's more appealing to you? The guy who's going to like continue the gravy train or Mike Rogers? Republicans need to take a long hard look at libertarians. Everyone talks like they're a libertarian, right? Everyone's like, oh, people should be for one either. But people on the conservative side frequently talk like they're a libertarian, oh, people should be free. No one ever votes for libertarians because most people vote because they want the government to do something for them or do something against the people they don't like. And it's, it's kind of ugly to articulate it that way, but it's true. And if Republicans aren't going to use the power that the voters gave to them, then the voters are going to give the power to someone else. That's exactly why libertarians lose. It is not a compelling argument to say, I'm going to get into office and leave you alone when the guy that you're debating against says, I'm going to get you, and I'm going to get into office and give you free everything. Like you're not going to convince anyone with, I'm going to leave you alone. As much as it sounds great to libertarians, nobody votes for libertarians. They get like, they generally get 3% in the voting. And last time they got like one because they put up the worst libertarian in history. Because the Republic, if you watch the average Republican ad, okay, you watch the Democrat ad, it's, I'm going to fight for you, fight being the imperative word. And then the average Republican ad is, I'm going to fight like hell, presumably against the Democrat. And then the libertarian, you know, they don't run TV ads who don't have any money. But like the libertarian pitch is, I'm going to leave you alone. Yeah, I'm going to do nothing. I'm going to do nothing. Get into government and then delete the government. It's like, no, you're not. There have been a single like government program that's been like reduced in size, a single administration has been reduced in size. I mean, even in a Trump like, - And that's not. - Might be the only one ever. Yeah, like there's like a few, but like in so far as the general scope of the government continues to expand, you know, every decade. So, you know, okay, wherever Trump is able to like cut at the edges, and the grand scheme of things, like the debts increasing, you know, and the military just got 500 billion extra dollars. - Yeah. - I don't know, I think people are kind of sick of hearing the same old, you know, incumbent talking points and the political rhetoric. So, I know personally for me, you know, I truly want to be a civil servant, and I want to restore our American values, you know, ensure that laws we have in the books are enacted and enforced. - Well, there you go, law and order. That's far more compelling than I'm going to law. I want safety for everyone. I want, you know, people to thrive and prosper. I want to sort of bring it back to what our founding fathers intended Congress to be. And they've veered so far away from that concept that, I mean, it may sound kind of hokey, but people actually like that. They kind of like that idea of kind of starting over and let's get back to basics. Decent people do, I will say that. So, that's just kind of my take. I don't think that everybody's buying the, oh, everything for free and everybody's buying the, I'll say it or, you know, I guess not on the ballot, but that type of mentality, unless you're here for any reasons and you want free stuff. - I want to make a point because we talked about it the other night. You guys know how many Bolsheviks there were in 1917? - Not many. - 24,000. - Yeah. - You know how many DSA there are right now? - 120,000. - Yeah. - And so the Bolsheviks in early 1917 had a membership of around 24,000 and by the end of the year, they were at 200 to 300,000. In the past year, DSA has gone up something like 70 or 80,000 members. So it is growing and people need to understand that there were 170 million people in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. 200,000 people was all it took to instill 70 years of mass death and communism. We right now have, you know, 330 million or so. So we're just about twice the size. So one could argue that a comparable size of DSA will be once they're at around 400,000, maybe 500,000 is when it's like, okay, you are in literal. So they're about 20, 30% of the way there. - Well, and the scarier proposition here is because we live in a system where you just need to win a primary and then you can basically, the DSA, as long as they can win a Democrat presidential primary, they now wheel the entire weight of the Democrat party. And then additionally, for the Bolsheviks, they had to have a bloody revolution. Again, if you're seeking to take over the United States, if you win an election, you'll instantly legitimize yourself. You're instantly a legitimate government. I mean, you can contest that. But like, you know, like literally speaking, if you've won an election, you are now the legitimate ruler of the United States. So they only need to do it with a revolution. They can quite literally just whip enough votes to win a Democrat primary. They now wheel the most powerful political institution on planet earth and then they win an election. And then they're not a legitimate government. Like a bloodless revolution. - Yeah. - You can't even classify as a revolution. It's just democracy. - Well, that's what's so terrible. - That's Fabian socialism. It's the Fabian method, you know, vote in the socialist so that way you don't have to actually have a revolution. - Yeah. - You know, there are a lot of people that are in the DSA that are actual communists that think that people like AOC aren't extreme enough, aren't far left enough that they actually want to do communism right. But look, if the DSA do get into positions of a political positions power and they have enough people, they will absolutely change the government as much as they possibly can. I mean, I don't know exactly what the method is to expand the court. I might have to look at it and find out. But I could, that'll definitely have the Supreme Court. They will definitely expand the Supreme Court and do their best to, you know, put very activist judges. We'll have three or four more Kajante Brown Jackson on the court. And that, that means the end of the country. Like for all intents and purposes. - I like using the analogy I've used for those that haven't heard it that what happens to our laws and interpretation of the constitution when you get five members of the Supreme Court that are Muslim. And you've not heard this so I'll just give you the quick version but I'll go as quick as I can. Let's say that there's an individual who blasphemes against the law. He gets arrested for blasphemy because he's in Dearborn, Michigan or whatever. He makes the Supreme Court. How do you think a Muslim majority Supreme Court would rule on the question of can you be criminally charged for blaspheming a law? Do you think they would agree that you can be criminally charged for that or no? - Oh yeah. - They would say yes. - Absolutely. - Now let's say in the same instant someone blasphemed Jesus Christ. And that made it the Supreme Court. Would a Muslim majority court say that that too is criminal blasphemy? They'd say no. They'd say a law is God. blasphemy is against God. Jesus Christ is not God. You can't blaspheme against a person. So that's what happens. This is the point I was making earlier that democracy works wonderfully in a morally and culturally homogenous country. But when you are now looking at 30% of the country being foreign born or what's the percent of foreign born in the United States right now? Is it 30% or something like that? - No, I think it's like 18, 15, 18% New York is I think 35% or something like that. When you start looking at large percentages, they do not agree with the American way of life. They don't agree with the idea of innocent until proven guilty. So you will get, it's fascinating because the argument is not that they're trying to take over. Right now in this country, there are communists, there are Muslims, there are high-Christian us, and they vote exactly for their way of life. - Yeah. - The presumption a lot of people have is once the group gets large enough, they'll vote in Sharia law. - No, they're voting for Sharia right now. They're just not the majority. Once they're slightly tilted in one direction, that's when you have a legitimate government implementation of Sharia or whatever it may be. Mosaic law, if that were ever to happen, which I really doubt. So sure, you wanna have democracy, everybody can vote, but these things, it's just not real life. It's just not real. So I don't know where that drops us off though in the United States with the current trend of things. Trump's sort of reversing it, I guess. - Well, I mean, he's done the most of any administration in my lifetime to not just kind of put up barriers, but I actually pull back some wins from the left, you know. How well that's going to work out in the future or how successful he's gonna be, that remains to be seen because you don't know, you don't know that he's gonna have any kind of ability to do that after the midterms. And then furthermore, like whoever gets in in 28, like if you get a Democrat, Congress, and President, I mean, everything he's done, they'll undo. And that's an understatement too. I mean, they're not gonna undo things. They're gonna put people in gool eggs. - They're gonna put people in prison and they will also, like they will codify the laws that make sure that they remain in power. You're gonna have essentially what's going on in California, but it'll be nationwide. You won't be able to get a Republican to win because they'll change the laws, they'll expand the court, they'll get rid of the electoral college. All they need is enough votes and they will do it. The only thing, the only thing that they say they want to do that they can't do with just a majority in Congress is get rid of the Senate. It's the only thing they can't do. Everything else they can do. And if you get a large enough majority, which I don't think they will, but if they got into large enough majority, then I think they might be able to, an amendment has to be ratified by 2/3 of the state, so maybe not, but yeah, you can't get rid of the Senate. It's the only thing you can't amend away and they'd have to get rid of the whole Constitution to get rid of the Senate. But that's something that is on the cards, in the cards for the Democrats, for the DSA, for the left. - Well, we just need to get voter fraud under control period. And I think that it is happening. I think that, again, I'm throwing a little hoping out there. I do believe there's a way to combat that since the Save America Act hasn't been passed yet, which infuriates me. - Yeah. - And again, I speak to so many people that came here the legal way, who are not happy at all with anything that is going on by the radical communist, Islamic, socialist, Marxist. - The Red Green Alliance. - The Red Green Alliance regime that is happening now. So I really don't believe that there is, their populist movement isn't real. It's an optic. I think that there are many more silent that are not speaking out. - I mean. - Unfortunately, we do have people that are just very disenfranchised with all of it, who aren't gonna vote. I pray that they do. And I pray that we start getting some real evidence and solutions to the voter fraud. America, we deserve to have fair elections. - Yeah, I completely agree with you. - And I say, let's bring blockchain in, I don't care. I don't care what we have to do. One day voting, screw the mail-in ballots, get rid of them, period, and let's see what happens. I completely agree with you, but you know. - And get good people in Congress that are loyal. - You're not gonna get America and her values. - Yeah, I mean, like I said, I agree with you totally, but how do you get that when the Senate won't move? And this is the voter ID, just voter ID, right? That's a 80% of Americans think that we should have to show ID to vote. 80% again, all the polls, it's consistent, right? And the Senate doesn't want to do it for whatever reason, whether they don't like Trump or whatever. - Because they got into power and they want to keep. - I mean. - That power. - Yeah, maybe, it could be, but it doesn't change the fact that for the American people. - They've sold out for whatever reason. They're sell outs, sickening. - It is, but. - So we need to restore it. We need to tear it down and restore it. Sans, a few people that I truly do genuinely think are very good representatives for our country and their hearts and souls are in keeping America, America. - Yeah, I mean, like I said, I agree. - Not anything else. - Yeah, yeah, like I said, I mean, I agree. This is why people are so cynical and black-pilled when you look at something. And I think the voter ID is the best example. - I know it's a shire and I get it. Lesson, I live in a county that more mail-in ballots are in Montgomery County, Maryland than anywhere in the state of Maryland, probably in the US, actually, because during the COVID crisis and when they ask people, do you want mail-in ballots in the state of Maryland, they said, "Do you want some forever?" Wasn't that supposed to be an emergency sort of, you know, amendment at the time? Oh yeah, send me a mail-in ballot forever. And no data rolls are handed over. I think we're one of 11 states. I'm sorry, every one of the states that are not handing over their voter rolls, they're hiding something. - Of course. - Period. - Yep. - I don't know. I get it. I understand that people are, you know, afraid to stand up and support, anyway, they can, but yeah, I don't care what you do, just go out and vote. And let's try to make it too big to rig, which, you know, again, with the mail-in ballots, I'm not sure, but let's hope. - Yeah, I mean. - Let's hope, and let's hope that those seven states of DOJ is focused on getting into helping secure their elections. Let's just hope that states like, that are other states like my state, that are also being investigated or will have some leverage on the ground, some oversight on the ground, even though it's not being openly announced. - We're gonna go to your Rumble Rants in Super Chances, smash the like button, share the show. The uncensored portion of the show is coming up in just a few minutes, so don't miss it at Rumble, but let's see what you guys got. Walt The Shark says, "As tradition, "here in the delivery room waiting on second child, "the first son, Jack Wesley." - Let's go. - All right. - Over the world, Jack. - Congratulations. - That's a lot of work to do. - That's awesome. - Come on. - K-O says, "Is it really such a shock "that the more third worlders we have in politics, "the more politics look third world?" - I mean, so true. - There you go. - So true. - And that's appraised. Our sergeant says, "Well, you see, guys, "this is why I had my eggs frozen, "so parsed bottom depression won't be a thing, "because I'm going to wait till I can find "a genetically satisfying Puerto Rican slave girl surrogate." (laughing) That was it. The labby says communism always starts with the intelligentsia, who are also the first put against the wall. You can literally pick up many books and read about this, most commies are dumb. Correct, that's right. - Absolutely. - You get rid of the smart people. - They always think we're gonna do communism, right? All those other places did it wrong, we're gonna do it right, which is-- - Idiots. - Yeah, it's dumb, but still. - Sorry, I just had a third out there. - All right, William, as it says, William, is that what it says? - William Albert. - William Albert, tax the universities to pay the debt or seize the endowments. Let's see. Our sergeant says, "I guess the same question brought up by bicentennial man, humans have rights, animals have rights in America. How long will it be until the robots will inevitably, we inevitably build have rights given to them?" I believe the episode was called Make the Make of a Man, and that was in, I think it was 1990 when Star Trek the next generation did an episode. It might have been earlier than that. It might have been season one, I think it was season two, where they hold a trial to determine whether or not data has rights, because the federation is like, "He's a washing machine, we own him." And they're like, "No, we don't." And so they hold a trial on it, and there's a debate over how you determine whether or not a machine is alive. And good luck, you think her for life says, you all said chess, chess.com monitors for cheating. Chess is a global game. The win pot could be Tim Kestor points for gift cards as previously discussed for swag win-win, givers gain marketing. The way that they tend to track for cheating is by play. So obviously they have trainer trackers, meaning if you are using an app and you open on your same computer and another app that in some way helps you cheat or shows you, they'll be like, "Hey, we detected a cheating app, stop." However, people also will pull up their phones and they'll have two games playing. They will mimic your move to see what the ultimate computer does and then imitate the computer. The problem is that they're also tracking for perfect moves. And if your play is perfect, then they're going to catch you cheating. It's not perfect, some people can get away with it, you know. HS Disturbs has, have you guys been on arcade.gov yet? Indeed. - Yes. - Indeed, did we have that, did we have that pulled up? - Yeah, we're playing a little bit today. I like the Tetris ball, just keeps getting bigger and bigger. - But what? - How does it? But I don't, it's like, what do you do? Here's Tom Homan, arresting illegal immigrants. - The White House said that they want us to, want people to share their high scores. So, I want you to play and share the high scores with the White House. I guess if you get one of the highest scores, they'll probably put it on the White House website. Maybe you'll get to-- - Or deported. - You get to meet Tom Homan. - It's called RIO Run. - Donald Trump. - Yeah. - There you go. - This is a job application for the White House. - Yeah, right. - How are you at vibe coding? - Yeah, but I think they actually, they did the art for this. Maybe, I don't know. Maybe they use like GPT or something. I'm sure they can get access to the new open AI video game model. - Oh, look at Tom. - He's personally arresting these people. - Oh, they all look at duck. - The little orange. - And you notice they got massive asses. - He needs to be behind them, picking them up, right? - Oh, see how big their asses are. - Oh, look at that. They got junk in a trunk. - Oh yeah, and wait, wait, hold on. Yeah, it's like they're the same people. They get in the line, and it's like you can see. It's like the guy I arrest is the guy in the back. - Ah, they just change outfits. - Yeah, orange jumpsuits. - Orange jumpsuits for criminals. - This is what I voted for. - I voted for their orange. - I voted for this too. - Well, that was fun. - Yeah, so. - Teen. - It just disturbs as my problem with data center here in Indiana is they're trying to build it on farms where I grew up. It's us about the data center and more about the location. Completely agreed. The issue of land conversion is not data centers. So that's my point. What is it about data centers specifically? If you're mad about eminent domain, you're mad about eminent domain. If you're mad that somebody's trying to take over a farm and build something on it, that could be an Amazon warehouse, you know? So they're targeting data centers when the issue is unrelated to data centers. - Chris Barnard from the ACA did an interesting proposal where we should be building the data centers in like brown fields, like contaminated land that we can't use for anything else because that doesn't really affect the viability of a data center. I think that's probably the mill ground for just about everyone involved. As we get to utilize land, that's pretty much, can't be used for quite frankly in the old huge data center. Gary Indiana, that could be like data center city, dude. There's a lot of just completely polluted land there that's being unused. - Y'all being mean to Gary. - Scary, well they might get a football team here soon, yeah. - Scary Gary. - They might be the new home of the Chicago Bears. - Well, Hammond bears. - Hammond bears. - And they dare say, we're gonna keep the name of Chicago even though we're in Hammond, Indiana. - Well, that's a nice job always. - It surely only has one NFL team 'cause the Jets and Giants are clearly Jersey football teams. - KC85 says 11 jurors know that violent liberals will hunt them down for voting the wrong way while conservatives will only complain. We actually don't know the direction they're going. They may be trying to convict. They may be trying to acquit, we don't know. Basically, nuclear says if socialists and Democrats want debt forgiveness, they should have to relinquish their degree and credentials too. No, you can't vote anymore. Like, here's proposal. I agree. I will agree to pay off student loan debt and I think every conservative would if in exchange, anyone who has their debt forgiven is ineligible to vote forever. How'd that sound? - There you go. There you go. - And I thought you didn't say that before. - Yeah, no, you can't vote anymore, but we'll pet your debt. - You just said that before, 'cause I would hate to vote. - Just get people off the voter rolls. You or people should be voting. - Belgian says female vote is a serious problem. Not sorry for saying it. Understand women on the panel today are great, but we are in serious trouble in the West. - No, we're not. - Well, women do follow macro level voting patterns and they tend to-- - I mean voters, not. - Is that? - No, voters, not candidates. - Not candidates. - Well, actually candidates, yes, but that's not anything for you as an individual. Like if you, I think the Democratic Party has more women, is that true? They tend to vote in a certain way. - Yeah, that is women over. - Are they women? - Yeah, Democrat. - Yeah. - Yep. And then I think the Democrats have two gender categories, they've got angry feminist women who empathize with criminals and simple guys who are desperate to get laid. And then on the Republican side, you've got greedy corporate narcissists and women who just wanna have kids and not have to be working moms. So those are the distinctions. Like conservative women are the only ones to get any real credit in my morality scale. - Thank you. - Even though I'm joking, I know you are. - A lot of conservative. You know what it is? I'm the right, whatever they call conservative. It's like a guy who's like, I'd like to have a regular job as long as it pays enough so I can feed my family. And the left, they're like, we wanna burn down the entirety of the country and destroy the American way of life. We don't want kids, we think kids are awful. And we want to transition them, give weird books to kids and do naughty things in public. And you're just like, man, I just wanted to have a job. - Yeah. - That's what you get. Sergeant Stowex says, on 85 IQ propaganda, they don't refute it, they just jump on board. Flock has monopoly on surveillance hardware. Data centers is private farmland. It's a push for public demand for legislation against it. Like, you know, I'll say it again, there's a Christmas tree farm in Maryland, a Mount Erie. They wanna build power lines next to it. And they're like, yo, don't do that. That's not data center. That's power lines. And power lines would happen eventually. But I understand why they're mad. I agree, they're trying to do the same thing by us. But again, like, it doesn't matter who's building what, it matters that they're taking your land. So it's not a data center issue entirely. - Yeah, I'm off for the, you know, preserving the environment. Not in the crazy climate change, BS way. But you know what I mean? Like certainly here in Maryland and Virginia, I mean, we have some gorgeous farmland that we can cultivate. - Well, what is it, the three Western counties of Maryland wanna join West Virginia, right? - Yeah. - Yeah. You see, we don't actually live in a democracy when a county votes and says, we wanna do something and the government's like, you can't do that. If we were actually a democracy, we could secede from whatever state we wanted, not from the country, but from any state or local jurisdiction if we wanted to. But we're not a democracy, that's make belief. - You should find like, they should come through, find the border county with the highest population in a blue state that's bordering a red state and then drop every South African refugee and that county to flip it Republican. Then they secede, join the red state and then it gives us more electoral votes for the red state. - There you go. - It's my long-term strategy if anyone's listening. - Good. - Some people, someone's listening. - I kinda listened. - We're gonna go to the uncensored portion of the show, my friends, so smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. Don't forget to check out the Tim Pools show, the new show on YouTube weekly Sunday evenings, the new one-on-one interview show. We just interviewed Matt Miller infiltrating the DSA, but our men don't need therapy as popping off. It's gonna break a million views very, very soon. So I guess men don't need therapy as popping off. like the idea that people tell them they need therapy. Again, subscribe to the Tim Poole show. Cheryl, do you want to shout anything out? Thanks so much for having me on. Vote Cheryl Riley for Congress against Jamie Raskin and Maryland's District 8 and support, donate to me. I'm in it for the right reasons. There you go. Right on. X and Instagram @RealT8Brown. Come give me a follow, Phil. I am filler remains on Twix. You can check out my patreon with patreon.com/filler remains. The band is all that remains. You can check out our stuff at Apple Music, Amazon Music Pandora, YouTube Spotify and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime, Carter. You can follow me at Carter Banks on X, Carter Banks official on Instagram and check out our record label at trash house records there. We'll see you all over at rumble.com/timkestirl. Right now, thanks for hanging out. [BLANK_AUDIO]