Trump SECRET MISSION REVEALED, It Was A TRAP To Catch BETRAYERS w/ Rafael Mangual

Donald Trump reportedly hid in a catering truck to transport off of Air Force one onto an older plane because there was a fear the Iranians were trying to assassinate him. The weird thing is when they landed in the UK, no one knows how Trump got from the other plane to the main plane. So the question is, did he actually ever get off that plane and hide in this catering truck or there I say, so the whole story faked by the Trump administration to try and see who would leak the nonsense because it's a silly story, somebody gets wind of it. And a lot of people think a lot of the weird stories that come out are Donald Trump making or administration at least trying to figure out who is leaking by what's called coloring the water. Imagine you have three glasses on your table and there is a pool of water under all of them. You don't know which one is leaking the water. So what you do is you put red and one, green and one, blue and the other, whichever color the water turns on the table, you know where your leak is at. So the Trump bad men leaks select stories to various people, see which one hits the press and then they know who's spilling the beans. So we're going to talk about that. And apparently, this is a great story. This is Brooke yesterday. We'll talk about it today. Fauci was privately texting that there were red flags over the vaccine use and potential for miscarriages. And then almost immediately public was saying, no, nothing to see here. Everything's fine. Now a bunch of women and their husbands are calling for Fauci to be prosecuted to go to prison because they had miscarriages during COVID. Some individuals said even a few days after the first booster, they lost their child and they believe that if Fauci had told them publicly what they knew, maybe their children would have survived. And then of course, of course Royce White has got his first wig as he announced he is intending, he wants to play in the WNBA and that he is transgender. And now we're going to sit back and wait for the WNBA, which is based in New York City to figure out what is a woman because they actually have called an emergency meeting to figure out what a woman is because they don't know that being said they're based in New York. So they will be subject to New York human rights law, which means we kind of know where this one's going to go. And this could be it. This could be the end of the fever dream where they are forced to reconcile the insanity of what AOC called woke one. So we'll talk about that, my friends, and a whole lot more before we do get a great sponsor for you. It's tax network USA. Your back taxes or have unfiled tax returns have you filed every year, but still keep owing? Did you retire and suddenly get hit with a tax bill you didn't expect? Maybe you pulled money from your 401k or IRA early and not the IRS wants to share. However, your tax issue started the outcome is the same. Your balance is not going down, penalties are growing, interest compounds, and many of you are about to owe again for this upcoming tax year with no real plan in place. Stop what you're doing and call tax network USA. The IRS is not waiting, the IRS is forcing collections through wage garnishments, bank levies, and property seizures. They can even file for you without your consent. This is where tax network USA comes in. With over 15 years in the business, there hasn't been a tax case they haven't seen or resolved. They specialize in tax controversies and help taxpayers nationwide get back on track by resolving back taxes and unfiled returns once and for all. There you owe $10,000 or $10 million, their team has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt. They can do the same for you, which got to call now. They're offering a free investigation called the IRS. After that investigation, they put a clear case plan in place to resolve your tax problem and get you back on track. It's about using your legal right to take control before the government sets the terms for you. Do not wait for another IRS letter or frozen bank account called 866-686-1535. Or visit TNUSA.com/10 or click the link in the description below. Don't forget to go to TimCast.com and join us, my friends. Be the change you want to see in the world by getting in the TimCast discord with tens of thousands of other individuals sharing stories, hosting their own shows. And you get to call in to the uncensored portion of this show. Ask us questions and maybe get some answers. Don't forget to smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know joining us tonight. Talk about this and everything else. We have Raphael Mengual. Oh, yeah. Thanks for having me. I'm good. Who are you? What do you do? Uh, Raphael Mengual. I am a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, which is a public policy thing tank, which it basically means that I write about stuff. My particular area of expertise is crime, policing, public safety, criminal justice. So I have spent the last 10 years talking about why woke one was crazy for policing the 21 period, all of that nonsense. But they're still advocating for all of those things. Absolutely. They're on TV right now saying defund the police. Of course. So they have no issues. I woke one was crazy and we're still calling for it. That's right. I mean, I don't think that they can actually admit that everything that they did in the last 10 years was complete nonsense because they lose all credibility. I think they want people to forget long enough to elect them and then they can go back and do the thing. It was all nonsense. Well, it's going to be fun. Thanks for joining us. Dan Turner's here as well. I am. I have a great fossil fuel advocate and Virginia sheep farmer, great to be with you all. And we got to voice. What's up, everybody? I'm Phil. I sleep for all it remains. It's a Carter. What's up, everyone? I'm Carter. And thank you all for coming. Let's get into it. Here's a story from NBC News. Trump took a secret flight out of Turkey in an elaborate plot to hide his location amid Iran war. The operation last month used a catering truck to get the president on a C32 that flew from Ankara to the Royal Air Force, Milton Hall in the UK. They're going to say that he was whisked out of Turkey last month to watch the post with the first to report the details. The U.S. official confirmed the accuracy of these details. Trump de-planned the C32 again secretly and re-bored the older Air Force one jet. Now, of course, you've got this image here of this catering truck. People are claiming that it pulled in. Trump stinks at the back. Then they bring that catering truck to the other plane where he sneaks on that plane. The only issue is that, according to the store from the Washington Post, when both planes landed in the UK, no one knows how Trump got from the C32 into Air Force one. So perhaps Trump never actually left Air Force one, but this story was planted to see who in the administration was leaking details of their security, because you got to understand. If Trump told someone in the admin, they're going to try to kill me. So we are going to do a surreptitious plane swap and then a month later, that person reveals that plan to the press. You have to imagine Trump would be very, very angry about that because it compromises his life, his security. I don't think Trump ever left the plane. I think this story is stupid and crazy and the reason it's getting a bunch of traction, you know, if people sharing pictures of Trump, you know, hiding in a catering truck is exactly the point. Take a story that sounds shocking or worth reporting and then you see who's willing to leak it to the press and then you know, we told that specifically to Daniel. He was the only one who knew. He's the leaker. Secret service doesn't share details of the president's security protocol. When I was in the Bush administration years and years ago, I was advanced for a couple of events and you have the little secret service earpiece and, you know, red in one percent, one thousandth of a percent of what they know. But you knew enough in the training that you don't share the things that are happening. So there's, I agree with you. There's no way in hell the secret service is going to willingly say, oh, the president was in danger. So these are all the things we did to mitigate that danger. The only way though to explain how he got from plane A to plane B, if that is the case and no one knows how he did it. I mean, I have seen David Copperfield in like a last case, dangling above the stage and then a minute later, he's like sitting next to Carter. And so there are magic tricks that I don't know how they do. Have you ever seen the movie, the, what is it with? It fits the prestige. Yeah. Yeah. What a great film. It's a bloody, body double. Exactly. No, I've seen it. It's too good. It's too perfect. They used Joe Biden body doubles. Remember, they were looking at the earlobes and that was like, that guy's like three inches taller than Joe Biden. That was, that was by Dan. I remember. Yeah. They called them by Trump. Trump body double. And we're going to know pretty soon if this was a purposeful leak or someone's going to get fired in the near future. It just depends on how much they want the journalists to the press to know. Someone might announce that they're moving and we don't even know that it's a firing. Yeah, that's true. If it's true, I mean, if it is the case that he actually was targeted and they had reliable information, they, like the implication is that it's like a nation state actor because they're going to try, they're talking about, you know, getting off the plane because of anti-air stuff, right? It's not just a situation of, oh, there's a security situation. It's, you know, there's some possibility, no matter how small, that the flight plan of Air Force One was leaked and a nation state was with, again, anti-air capabilities was looking to target him. But you could think that they would have some kind of like plan for that, right? I mean, that's, yeah, get him off the plane. But beyond that where they could still fly him and actually, you know, it's not like they told everyone else to get off the plane. I imagine that there were enough important people there that if that plane went down, it would have been a disaster, right? Like that plane's flying with, you know, F-35s beside it, right? Like there's got to be some kind of contingency for that. My hunch is right now the White House, Susie Wilde, someone is saying, all right, here's the story we concocted and we know he leaked it to Tim. And suddenly we see it all over the news and now they're going to call Tim to the office and be like, listen, brother. So here's the deal and now this is what you're going to do for us. We're not going to ruin your career. This is what you are going to do for us for the next two years. It's not just about the leakers in the administration. I'm pretty sure that people have tried leaking stories to me to get me to report things that were ridiculous to see if I would take something so late. - Not on a source is saying. - I mean, 'cause they're obviously we're in the bad way, we win a lot of people, and I've had people come to me be like, "Yeah, I got a big story." And it's just this thing, and I'm like, "That sounds crazy." I'm not gonna run with that, and then it never happened. So, you know, I had theories that the administration is like, "Who's willing to accept leaks? "Who can we trust?" Because if someone's leaking, what if some of the, you know, like, what if, what if Tim pool go on a show and make and say some crazy story about Trump citing this leaker? And then like, if I can't verify that a single source, I don't go anywhere near it. - Well said source though, for the Trump administration, since 2015, is they don't need to have verified sources. You just say, you know, someone told me that he got a bed with a bunch of Russian hookers who peed on it, and they're like, "Oh my God, that's the story." You don't have to verify things when it comes to President Trump. That has been-- - Remember the elevator? - 12 years. - Yeah. - The elevator story? - Which-- - You remember the elevator story? - I didn't refresh my memory right now. - A videotape exists somewhere of Trump doing something in an elevator. - What he's doing, no one knows where and when it was, no one's sure, but no one's even sure it exists. And I'm like, what? - And people have reported that-- - Yeah. - Oh, it's a real story. It's from Havine and Post. Let me see if I can find it. - Well, and the woman who's suing him for defamation, you know, and you still have Democrats say like, you know, Trump, you know, great, we have to use the proper language like this woman. And it's like, no, she's suing him because she couldn't prove it because she said like this was Neiman Marcus at Tuesday at four o'clock. Like surprisingly, no one has witnessed this. And so he called you a lying slut. And now can I, that's a bad word, but-- - This is 2018, right? Like I want to ask Tate. - Tate, how old is Tate's like 25, right? - Yeah, I think. - I'm wondering if like, hey, when you were 17, did you read this post, Huffington Post wrote, "A tape might exist of Trump doing something in an elevator, though exactly where that somewhere is and what that something might be, no one in media can say?" That's because no one in media seems to have seen the tape or is even confident it exists. - Look at that story, at least. - That's remarkable. - That is-- - When you think about that, that's horrifying. - I imagine when Kamala was learning speech writing, she studied this tweet, and she was like, how do I say as much, how do I get as many words and as possible to say as little as possible? This story may as well say, there's rumors of something we're not sure of, so we ignored it. Like, it's not even a thing. - It might, as soon as you start using might, it's not a story. - It's not just that, it's that a tape might exist that's something-- - A lack of a picture in there. - This could be said about that anyway. - I know, and the Photoshop and image of Trump in an elevator, you know, this is how, this is the thing, like, bro, this is eight years ago. There are a lot of people right now, young Gen Z that are getting into politics that don't know this. That don't know this is what we all went through. - Kamala, they didn't take it down. - Or they think this is like the norm of how you do political journalism now, which it kind of has become, unfortunately. - The hunt for every Trump reporter's white whale, the elevator tape, all of your favorite media outlets, plus Tom Arnold, are racing to find a damning tape that might not even exist. - Plus Tom Arnold. - Yeah. I forgot Tom Arnold was militant. - That's right, yeah, yeah, yeah. I remember him from that movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the '90s, what was it? - True lies. - Insane, man. And so I got to just say maybe, just maybe, the news is fake. - I mean, yeah, that news is definitely fake. - 100%. - Yeah. - But. - If you say fake news, right? I mean, that means your persona non-groddit, you can't participate in the-- - Make news. - Make news. - It's all fake. - I don't know if that's the case anymore. - Oh. - There was a time when it was the case. Yeah, I mean, the, again, the American people are so untrusting of official narratives of the establishment, institutions in general. The idea that you are going to be punished for saying fake news nowadays. Not anymore. People don't believe anything. There are people out there that, you know, particularly, people that are extremely online. Like, just if you're repeating something that lines up with an official narrative, they just disregard not just what you're saying, but you at all. - Oh, yeah. - Yeah, you're time. I mean, especially in a law enforcement context, if I'm talking about a case and I say anything that even remotely resembles what the official narrative is, it's like, oh, you must be getting paid by the entity or like, it's like, guys. Like, it's possible to just agree sometimes with the official narrative that it is. - Somebody who runs a national journalism center, so he teaches young people to be journals, and it still is a valuable career. But I remember him saying, as a trained, you know, journalist himself, he said, one of the downfalls that he saw of media in recent years was, do you remember anonymous, the source anonymous? - Yes. - And he said, when the New York Times was running this saying, it was a most senior official, and everyone was going, bonkers, anonymous is saying, all these things, the whole letter in the New York Times, and then it turns out it was like this, like, kind of low-level junior staff, and he was like, that the New York Times lied to us, not blatantly, and said, this is a high-ranking Trump official. He was like, for me, that was the end of trusting the Times. Like, their editorial staff has to have looked at that and be like, well, let's just lie and say I'm ranking. - Think about this. I could, or not even any, but any journalist could say, I have a source in the government that has revealed to me, insert negative story about Trump. And, sue me. Because when you do, I'll say, I won't give up my sources. And they'll say, we're going to hold you in contempt then, so be it, because I will never reveal my source. And truth is, there isn't one. There never was. One of my favorite sourcing techniques is, you'll hear a story and it'll say, like, a source close to Nancy Pelosi's office reveals that Donald Trump was seeing kicking puppies. And the source close to her office is the homeless guy in the alley, who is physically close to her office. And they won't tell you that, they'll just say, a source close to her office. - No, it's insane. - I don't think this story is. And, quite frankly, I don't really care if it's true. I think the secret service does a better job than worrying about these types of little shenanigans. I think it's a much more elaborate plot to keep the president safe. But do you have to keep the president safe? What I have enjoyed is some of the media meltdowns saying, wait a second, but you still let us board the plane? And, like, yeah, because you're not the president. Like, no, you're not the president, there's everybody else. Like, even the president's staff was still on the plane. - I think the president was still on the plane. - I think the story's fake. I think the story is fake, but I get a kick out of them saying, like, well, if the president was a ninja, we were all in danger, so we all should have been evacuated. It's like, that's not how it works. Like, there's the president and then there's everybody else and get your own secret service. - Yeah, it's salacious though. The idea of Trump sneaking into a catering truck and then being whisked away. - It's funny, you know, it is kind of funny to imagine. But like-- - You went out of the kitchen. - But also at the same time. I mean, like, this is a guy who's had multiple attempts made on his life recently. He gets shot in the head, literally. - Harrison is ordered to get there, but-- - Harrison is ordered to get there, but-- - He's in a pod, remember? - Yeah, that's right. - He's in a pod and then he'll shut down and-- - Well, he didn't actually get in the pod that already stayed on the plane. - Oh, that's right. - Yeah, he stayed on the plane. So he tried to get out of my plane and then he kicked out-- - And again, if we're going to, you know, do the dangerous work of believing the official story, this isn't the first time that, you know, since the Iran war started actually, maybe even prior, but Trump has alleged to have been targeted by Iran before. So I, and look, whether or not you believe the official story, it's completely within reason to think that Iran is looking to do this, look at how many of the leadership of Iran, the United States has, you know, managed to take out in multiple different ways, whether it be, you know, the big strikes that the two, well, since February 28th or last year, or when they got the leader of the IRGC when he was in Iraq, when they shot the Gensu Hellfire at him, you know, the one that doesn't have any explosives that just shoots knives out the side, which I mean, I'm surprised this hell that that exists, but at the same time, it's like, if you're looking to reduce collateral damage, if you're not looking to blow things up and you want to have, you want to be able to just target the one person that is, as far as war goes, that's probably the most responsible way the United States has ever dropped a bomb in its history, right? Is it a bomb if it doesn't explode? Well, I've, yeah, targeted attack on the mission. And they have secretly moved the president before, right? Remember when Bush went to Iraq during the war, I think for Thanksgiving, and afterwards they said how clandestine operation, he did fly on a air force like fighter jet, you know, road, road shot gun basically, and obviously dark of cover, but they told all those details after the fact when the president was back on the white flu, enough fighter. Well, he was a fighter, right? The father was, no it wasn't. W wasn't, yeah, like they flew air force one to I think like Greenland, and this was all like two in the morning, and then he took a fighter jet landed in Baghdad or something like that. I wonder if that was his idea. How about if you just slam me over there and fight? That's the coolest, we'll go right up. They have done secret stuff for the president, but put me in an F-15. Plus I also don't think they would give away the tactics, you know, like now we're gonna always be targeting. That's something that's always bothered me about reporting like this, right? There's like, there's something un-American about it where you're reporting on the tactics that we use to maintain national security, to keep the president safe, right? It's like, even if you thought it was a good story, I don't know, there's like, and there's something that suggests that you should just keep it to yourself for America's sake. Like, are you not an American first? Yeah, no. What only wonders if the terrorists know about the open vent in the left closet. Right. Yeah. They don't have to reveal all the information. But like, seriously, I could see the New York Times running a story like that, just talking about like, oh, we, we discovered this like vulnerability. And then the secret service learning about that in the New York Times is opposed to, yeah. Let's jump to this next story. Trump issues vague response to idea for national emergency head of the mid-serm. He's being interviewed in this host on RAV says, in INS V, what was the, what was it, the, uh, for Akkata or whatever? I don't know. I forgot the name of the case. Let me pull it up actually because I feel stupid forgetting it. Uh, wiki, INS V basically, he said, it's a chata. Sorry. It seems obvious. If Trump were to declare national emergency, there's no veto power of either branch. They can't just vote to stop it. So a national emergency requires two thirds of the house in the Senate to override, which means that if within a month of the election, Trump declares a national emergency elections requiring voter ID and all of these things, they would not be able to muster up the political capital to actually stop Trump from doing it. Trump said, let me just say, stranger things have happened. Now, my response is that Trump doesn't need to do this because the DSA is burning down the Democrats. Four to one. It's something like when pulled, uh, the, the, the net, like the unfavorability of the, uh, the DSA for independence is like 70, 74, and 75%. Yeah. When asked who they'd rather vote for, they lean Republican over DSA. So with, you know, Zomundani recently lost his peter tear thing. The judge shot a Democrat judge was like, you can't do this. It's not working. And we are seeing these far lefties win in, you know, New York and now in Michigan, potentially Wisconsin, Colorado. There's a viral video where the guy says DSA's kryptonite is literally asking them about their campaign positions. Yeah. And this guy says to a, this woman, you want to defund the police in abolish prison? It's like, yes. And he goes, so if my daughter has assaulted and raped, what agency would stop him? And if, and if, and if not, is it, if not the police, what agency would stop him? And if not jail, where would he go? And she's like, well, I don't want to get caught up in these hypotheticals. That's never happened to the point is, maybe Trump does want to just to spend, you know, like, by national emergency, some of these, you know, like, or I don't know. It's a sped is not the right word, but implement controls on the election. I don't know that he would need to do it. But what, what do you guys think? You think Trump would pull that off? If he made an executive order under a national emergency saying that you must produce an ID that proves that you're an American citizen, I would have zero problem with it. And I think he would get away with it because 80% of Americans believe that the save act should be passed. I think that it would be, I think that that most Americans, the people that don't like Trump, they would obviously not like it because they don't like Trump. But overall in the grand scheme of things, I don't think that there would be significant political repercussions because most Americans say we want the Savak pass. The house has already has already passed the Savak. They've tried to attach to multiple the thing that's holding it up as the Senate. And I think that he would be able to get away with it. He would catch hell definitely, but he would be able to get away with it. The White House updated their election integrity page earlier today when I was working on a, my morning show covering this issue particularly. And they've added a lot. Good. It does look like there's a possibility that with Trump's address and all of these issues, the White House is laying the groundwork to be able to declare a national emergency saying, look at the evidence we have of non-citizen voters, non-citizens on state voter rolls, the Oxford comma documents, America, but data breach, March, toll, DOJ and DHS election enforcement actions. When you look at this map they have of all the enforcement actions they've done, it looks like he might say, we have, you know, 47 lawsuits right now over all of these issues that have not been resolved, we must declare an emergency otherwise our election has compromised. Yep, see some of the most vocal opponents to this law. The first one I go to is Michigan Senator Elise Slotkins. And she won by something like 60,000 votes for her Senate race, but there are some 400,000 fraudulent voter files in Michigan. So if she is adamant, like we can't have this, women and minorities won't be able to vote. It's like for the 400,000 people who are probably voted for you to make up the Delta. So when you compare the ones who are most of those ciferous to their level of margin of victory, proportional to their state's electoral fraud, it's like, well, of course you don't want this because this is how you plan on winning. Exactly. I think the general public, like you said, is going to be okay with the idea of requiring this. I just don't trust the media to sort of allow him to maintain control over the narrative. I think within 24 hours, people are going to be painting this as him suspending elections, as him taking things over and people lose their mind. They're going to vote for him anyway. They won't vote for him, right? But it's not him on the ballot in the midterm. So they'll be like to show our opposition to President Trump. We're going to vote for the Democrats. It's like, well, you were going to vote for the Democrats. There are a lot of people on the fence, though, who I think would be turned off by it. I don't know. It's a risk. All I'm saying is that it's definitely there's there are a lot of people who I think support that I think voter ID makes sense. I think it's crazy that I not only can I do I not need an ID to go into vote. If I show my ID in New York, they look, it's like cryptid. I get it away from me. I don't want to see. Right. That's nuts to me. But I also think like there's a major political risk here if he does this. I've said I've been asserting that we need Donald Trump to be more like Lincoln to do the things necessary to make sure that he basically we save America, right? Like, no kidding around. They tell you why I'm laughing when you're done. You know, it's like the the DSA and the far left of the the Democrat party, they want to do things that are actually prohibited by the Constitution. They want to get rid of the Senate, which you can't do. That's the one thing, and I keep repeating this on the show, but there's only one thing that you can't do via amendment. And let's get rid of the Senate. That's take away the votes of the senators of the several states. You cannot amend that away. You cannot get rid of that without abolishing the whole Constitution. So you have to get rid of the entire Constitution, get rid of the Senate. And the DSA has said over and over and over. They want to get rid of the Senate. They want to get rid of the electoral college. They want to get rid of the Supreme Court. I think they want to make something like subordinate to Congress. Yeah. So it's not which is a traditional judicial right. Much more the way like European parliamentary's work that like the Supreme Court is a branch of the right. It's like the judiciary committee of the parliament. But the so the point I guess that I'm making here is these people are a threat to the actual republic. Okay, they're not just they're not just looking to make changes around the edges. They don't just want health care for everybody. They they they specifically say in their literature to the DSA members to misrepresent to lie about what their policies are when you're actually out on the stump talking to voters. They are doing they will do everything they can to take away the republic that we have and totally destroy it. So we need someone like Lincoln who's willing to do what's necessary to protect the United States of America from what would amount to authoritarian. Yeah. Liberals liberalism doesn't have a means to defeat authoritarian. But they're getting they're getting flattened. That's the thing. I mean we are seeing them win locally. And so that is a problem because you know they say act locally think globally right. The issue is that when you affect localities it trickles up. So we do have this issue but you know even AOC is trying to distance herself Abdul else. I just trying to distance himself. I wonder if he's a DSA member, right? I mean who is Abdul else? I mean not even say he's a DSA. Yeah he's not and but they campaigned for him. Right. So they're trying to get away from this this branding the question is going into the midterms now. Will this have enough of an impact to prevent Democrats from winning? Will the Democrats themselves who are dumping millions of dollars to stop the DSA succeed in pushing them back? And more importantly in 2028. Are we going to see with this new Tucker third party? And again the Democrats, the modern Democrats are launching massive multi-million dollar efforts to stop the DSA. They don't have that money either which is the remarkable thing they're going to debt. Will this, I mean will the Democratic Party just become a shell of its former self? Oldest political party in the world they don't last forever. Yeah. No, I think you're absolutely right. They are tearing themselves apart and that's a good and welcome thing. The DSA co-chair was on that video a couple days ago which was supposed to be a serious podcast and she's laughing saying how we're all in favor of taxing the hell out of the rich. Yeah. And the guy says like could you explain that and she's like well I haven't really figured out exactly. He says but shouldn't you though like you're the co-chair like she laughs like we're going to tax the hell out of the rich. Yeah big large woman and you say the looking at that you just want punishment. Like you don't have you don't have a tax policy in mind. You just want it's a whole principle built on envy and hatred. That's just you just hate these. That's the problem with the DSA they're not motivated by any co-herent policy. They're they're picking up on energy of we hate the rich. Yeah. So you and you don't want to start a class war in the United States. There are 800 billionaires in the United States. That's it. Right and and they control. like something like seven trillion dollars, which is a lot of money, right? But the whole U.S. economy is worth something like $169 trillion. So the billionaires don't have nearly enough money to fix the problems that the DSA say that they're gonna fix. So you know what that means? You have to go after the millionaires. And then you have to go to the after the hundred millionaires. So maybe there's a couple more thousand of those. But it doesn't like the math doesn't work out. And what you end up doing is you take the property from what they would end up doing is taking the property from the people that provide jobs to the middle class. And you will destroy the economy and destroy the country when you turn the people that are that are envious, angry. When you turn those people against the wealthy, the rich people that are the actual people that create the jobs, you will destroy the country that way. Don't I understand the people in the point? Yeah, that's totally the point. Their entire point is destroy the country and then we'll build something new from the ashes. Right, they want to build Utopia, in order to build Utopia, they have to tear everything else down. But the Democratic Party's biggest problems that they don't have any real principles that they're defending here, right? They have spent the last generation or two essentially just chasing power for its own sake. Which means that they don't have a career response to the DSA, which actually does have a mission statement that people are sort of getting behind. It's inspiring to people. They're building community around these things, right? Even if they haven't thought about the ideas themselves, there's like this sort of communitarian aspect where it's almost like a club with membership and it's fun and people are making friends and dating. And you know, what's the Democratic Party's answer is? What exactly are they defending against the takeover from the DSA? And they don't have that real statement of principles that sort of distinguish. The Democrats are like, they have right now, or for 10 years, their position has been we are not President Trump. They had their four-year window for Biden. And if there were successes out of that, they would run on it. And when they had the chance to, which was Vice President Harris, even she wouldn't run on it. She talked about what we will do going into the future. And it's like, well, this is where we are now and this has been your administration. The border is the economy. It was like, yes, but time to turn the page. And I forget what interview that was when she said that and the moderator, surprise, look Tim, there's a lot of journalists out there. The motto is like, but turn the page, but this is your page. And she was so like, and she's left. That's the problem is, they don't have a message other than we hate President Trump. Now that may work, but it's been 12 years. It's worth so boring, but it's worse than that. Because it's not just that the Democrats don't have a message. The Democrats have no way to defend themselves from the far left. And they don't have a way to do it without sounding like the right. I mean, that's what are the, I'm serious. Like, what's the pushback on the DSA's economic plan? If not a free market, that's why they're going to lose. The DSA and the far left are going to take over the Democrats, mark my words. They are going to be the future of the Democrat Party unless there's some significant changes to our, the way that the economics of this country have played out. And that's not going to happen because the boomers have all the property or the majority of the property, right? Kids still feel like they can't get houses. The wages that people are making have not increased significantly. The dollar doesn't go as far as it, as it did just five years ago, right? Like, because of the inflation that happened after COVID. Greeders. Yeah, everything is, I mean, as much as that's a silly thing to talk about. And it was, it was, it was fun to make jokes about. It is legitimate. Now, look, the American people are more wealthy than any other country. The people in all, like, the people in the poorest state in the United States and Mississippi still make more money per capita than the average person in the UK, right? So the average poor person in America is wealthier than the average person in the UK. Not the average poor person, but the average person in the UK. So like, so like, this stuff is like you, but you can't make the argument to someone that feels like they, they're hurting. The DSA are going to take over the, the Democrat party because the Democrats don't have the thick skin that they, they were Republicans have. Look, you can go back to when George Bush or Mitt Romney were running and they were being called Nazis. They were being called racist Republicans, conservatives, they, we have very, very thick skin to this stuff. We should be like, whatever. We don't care. Democrats don't. They've always been the ones, they've always been the ones to fold as soon as the, as soon as the left, the, the further left attack them, the people that got re-canceled and the people that, that really kind of bent the knee, re-significant in significant numbers, it was all Democrats. You know, because they didn't have any way to defend themselves. You know, I'll be curious to see at the, at the federal level, at the state, at the national level. So we have to look at 20, 20, eight Bernie twice was going to be the DSA candidate and twice the establishment F Tim because they were like, we are not letting Bernie say, because he won't win nationally. So now it's, we have, we have DSA on the rise now, 20, 27, 20, 28. Now we get to the nominating convention. Are the super delegates once again going to swoop in and be like, it is not AOC. It is Gavin Newsom because we have changed the rules, like the party establishment could be the final death knell for the DSA. It's good that, well, I don't, I don't think that that'll happen in the short term. Like maybe it will in the next, next election, but in the following presidential election, the Democrat, the DSA will have the mojo by then because they're happy because they're having enough wins at a, at a local level where people are looking and saying, maybe these DSA guys are on to something first of all. But you bring up Bernie Sanders and that's a great, that's a great segue to this. Like you look at the way that Bernie Sanders folded when those two women got on stage and were yelling at him and took the mic from him and he was like, you way, you way, and he, he had no way to defend himself. That's what he had away, he just didn't know, well, they have the stones to act, yeah, he don't do it. But the Democrats, no Democrats do, they don't have the, they don't have the courage to stand up and say, no, you're not going to, because all of the stuff, the intestinal fortitude that it takes to do that, yeah, toxic masculinity, which is why you're a white supremacist. They have, they'll throw all the names at them and then, then the, are the, the response is going to be like, oh, which is why the Trump line against Hillary when he takes the mic and goes, yeah, that was such a nice moment because it was like, wait, we don't say those things. Like they're allowed to call us Nazis and racists and you just have to stand there and listen to it. That was the first time I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, people didn't know how to respond to that. Now they are kind of, of, of used to it. It's also why Tim, you were saying how they want to abolish everything, right, and abolish us and abolish that. It's also why abolishing electoral college is so important because the electoral college will protect the nation from, but not if it's gone, right, if it's just popular vote, then the electoral college is in one more check, shows you the genius of our founders, right? Who thought, like, we could have some crazy, think we could have a monarchist, a populist movement and, and we don't want that. So the electoral college, we don't protect, no, I'm saying the founders back in time. No, I'm a monochist. The right person, one of the, the right one, me. The thing that bothers me about like the push to abolish everything is the hubris that undergirds it, right? Like the DSA types think that they are the smartest people in the world in so far as they believe they've actually discovered the solutions to poverty, economic inequality, predation, all of these things that have characterized every human civilization that's ever existed at every point in history, everywhere on the globe, they think, oh no, we, we can figure it out and we can usher in utopia if you just give us enough power. Like not enough people understand how we really see, do they really think that? I don't, I don't think they actually think they think that I don't, I think I spent, because well, I think we were going to say the same thing, I've, I've been in their planning meetings, I've been at their protests, and that there certainly are the low level people, but those are like, you know, orcs in Udokai, they're not, you know, they're not the Nazgul still servants, but cognizant of what they're doing, I am, these, these people that I've met will explicitly tell you to your face, these are mechanisms, mechanisms by which we can strip the confidence in the system, burn it down and make something different. No, yeah, I think that's what they want to do, but I think they believe that the different thing that they make is going to be effective, it's going to be good. It's not going to be carried out. The reason why I disagree, and the reason why is, during my Wall Street, when I was at the planning meetings for his facilitators, they would like to say in the press, we're going to flip the pyramid over to the average person. They imagine you have a pyramid, you flip it over, the working class are on top, and the landlords and bears are all on the bottom, there's very few of them. I was the only one I guess with multi-ordered thinking and said, when you flip a pyramid over, the bricks crumble and it forms just a shittier pyramid, and they were like, right, but we're on top. Yeah, right. Literally, the plan is, you have all the working class on the bottom, you invert the pyramid, the bricks crumble down, and those that can remain on top will be us. They were under no illusions, they were going to solve any problems or fix anything. It was, this is how we become billionaires. This is how we become rich. Yeah. This is why when people say Bernie is a socialist or a communist, I often push back and say he's really not, he's a party leader because communism is awful if you're stuck in it, but communism is great if you're the communist party officials at the height of the Soviet decline. which is one of my favorite oxymorons at the height of the Soviet decline. The party leaders never wanted for vodka or caviar or beans or rock and roll, right? So Bernie sees himself with his four mansions and his private jet use. Like I want socialism to everybody, but not for me. Like I'm on a private jet. And when he was asked about the private jet, he said like, "Do you really think I'm gonna be on United Airlines?" Like he was adamant that like who the, do you know who I am? I am not getting on United Airlines. So they don't really want even socialism. They just want, they want power. They want power, sell, sell power. Yeah, everyone envisions the revolution being like, we're gonna overthrow the czar and take the palace and I'll sleep in his bed. Yeah, right? They do have a ton of true believers. I mean, 'cause I have been just absolutely floored by some of the things I've heard. I was at UC Berkeley a couple years ago with the great Heather McDonald. We were debating these police abolitionists. Oh boy. And it was, I mean, you know, throwing us to the walls. I mean, we were out alive though. We did. I mean, like none of them lived or eat any protein. So it's fine, they're not all that dangerous. But no, I mean, like, I remember debating these police abolition, they literally got up and said, "Well look, we're the hopeful ones." Like if we can just give people everything that they need, no one will ever need to commit a crime. And just never, they have no grasp, no sense of what human nature actually is, which is really the divide between left and right when you boil it down. It's like, it's just a fundamental disagreement about human nature. I actually think by modern standards, the way we use the words left and right, it means, are you in the matrix or out of it? So if you are a card carrying communist who says the Biden administration was corrupt, letting an illegal immigrants and Joe Biden himself flew to Ukraine and threatened to illegally withhold loan guarantees so that a prosecutor would stop investigating his son, they go, you're a conservative. It's like, you can literally be wearing Mao uniform. Like if his son came out and said true things about what was going on in the world, they'd be alive. Whoa, he's going right wing. What's going on? Because they don't mean conservative values, they mean do you believe? Yeah, alternative layer. Do you do believe? Yeah, are you in the cult or not? Yeah, that's it. And do you measure your successes against some theory? And that's where the left will always have the advantage over the right is because they can say yes, but we could do this. We will do this. If we're able to do this, this is what the future will be. And you say, well, show us an example of where it's ever worked. They don't want to have those conversations. Well, because it's never really been tried. It's exactly the example that has been implemented properly. So it's always the benchmark is the idea. And that's why also it tends to be the ideology of very young people and losers. Yeah, because you live in this fantasy land. Like, you know what, man, like one day I'm going to marry this hot chicken, live in a mansion. And that's adorable when you're like 15, but now you're 40. And you're like, one day I'm going to have, well, if you're not getting your hands dirty, it's never going to happen. And then you say, well, you know why? It's because of the systems. Well, yeah, everything is stacked against me. That's why it's like, you're just a loser. You always will be a loser. I've made this argument on the show a bunch of times. The reason why America is the greatest country that has ever existed is because we have up until maybe 50 years ago, we always attracted people that believe that they happen to the world. The world does not happen to them. People that wanted to come to America, they wanted to come here because they believe that they could make something of themselves, if they could just get the yoke of the government off of them, throw, get the Lord or whatever off their back, they could do something in the world and they would happen to America. And because you, when you have a country full of people that are willing to take big risks and take the chance that they can happen to the world, they can do something great, you're going to have an outnumbered amount of people that succeed at that. When you have people coming to the United States that are looking for someone to take care of them, you fundamentally change what America is. And people that are on the left are not people that believe generally, are not people that believe that they happen to the world, they believe the world happens to them. The reason that I haven't been successful is because of some outside force, not because that I've done something. Yeah, exactly the explanation, right? It's a fixed pie fallacy, right? If I don't have it because someone else has that thing that I deserve, but I think a lot of people are just turned off by the fact that they're experiencing downward mobility for the first time in a string of generations, right? I mean, we have people who, for every generation, we always expect it to do better than our parents. And now these kids who had everything going into childhood and through childhood are going to school, they're getting degrees, they're checking boxes, but they're not living in, you know, the five bedroom, three bathroom houses. I think that's a myth, Evan. I think that's a myth. Why? Because you had a great depression. Then you had two world wars. Then you had the Cold War with multiple proxy conflicts and conscription of the civil rights era. Every generation in the past hundred years was going through some violent conflict. - Yeah. - No, no, I'm not saying that they're right. - What's really happened, in my opinion, is that millennials grew up in the 90s watching a massive economic expansion of the fall of the Soviet Union and global and U.S. global New World Order dominance. And it was really good for like 10 years and then things started to retract again. And all of a sudden, they were like, how come things are bad now? But if you go back to like, and it's fascinating because I wasn't alive, I'm sorry, I was alive in the 80s, but I was not lucid in the 80s. And what were the interest rates, like 12 to 20%, like some insane inflation was 15%. - I think they hit it. - Just psychotic inflation. And I know that the DSA people like to look back and say like the buying ratio was like two and a half times your yearly salary to buy a house. And I'm like, yes, yes, yes. But every generation has its principal challenges. So sure, oh, but the boomers, and the boomers got drafted and went to Vietnam and came back with PTSD and all of that stuff. And you had the Korean War. And obviously you go back further. You had the World Wars. There was bad stuff happening to everybody the whole time. And what happens is we look back on history with rose-tinted goggles about, we only see the beauty of it and we ignore the problems. Now I would say the problem of the DSA is their liars. So they romanticize the good economic things they can find. And then they demonize the cultural things. And they like to simultaneously play this game where they say when was America ever great? And the response you should have is when you DSA posted that the price of a home on average was two and a half times a worker's salary. That's what we're talking about. But the problem is when you say we want to make America great again, they go, you mean like the clan? And it's like, okay, you want, you want to, they, that is the dark side, right? I live, I always try to look on the bright side of things. You know, you hope for the best, prepare for the worst. So when I say America used to be great, I am not talking about the cultural relations, I'm talking about the economic stuff. The war was bad, civil rights stuff was crazy. When the left does it, they invert it. When they say America is, they talk about all the bad things and ignore all the good things. Today they don't talk about the good things and only talk about the bad things, right? And the first thing is you can't have a serious conversation even on this type of a podcast because when you have one of their leaders who was Congresswoman Ocasio Cortez, and I will get to her in a second. But when she says things seriously like, well, you know, the Senate is like a remnant of Jim Crow. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Did she actually say that? Oh, God, yeah, yeah, yeah, that was a couple days ago. The Senate is like, or she's at a relic or a vestige or a product of Jim Crow. And you say, not only are you 150 years off? I was gonna say, yeah, 150? I mean, let's go back to the concept of the Senate as the Founding Fathers proposed it to ancient Rome, yeah. You're a few thousand years off, lady. How do I begin to debate with you? Like the Senate is a product of Jim Crow. Like, I don't, so you would get so caught off guard by the, by the acidity of that, that now she's won. And people are laughing and they're like, whoa, the Jim Crow. And you're like, I don't have a retort because I'm the real problem is that we let anybody vote. Yep. Which is why we need the executive order. What I was laughing at when you were speaking, I don't want to interrupt you, is I've been thinking on my mind of a campaign to sort of reclaim the phrase dictator from the ancient Rome. Like the dictator was a great title. It was a noble title. Chin Chinatus, right? So we need to Jeremy Ryan Slade here to help give us, like, like dictator wasn't a bad phrase. And now we've made it this page. He's a dictator. It's like, well, if you know your ancient Rome, like the dictator came in on these crucial moments for a temporary period and was like, whatever I say goes, everyone shut the hell up, we're gonna fix things. And I'm like, I kind of want to go back, just like a little, a little small period of time. That's why I say we, that's why I say we need another Lincoln. Yes. A lot of people are throwing around some names that people talk about, Pinochet and make jokes about helicopters and they talk about, like Franco. Franco Friday, Jack, so it was doing that, yeah. Franco, Franco stayed in position of authority in Spain until he died. You don't, and then it just, it just melted into a republic. Which he also invited back in the monarchy, though. But Americans think of fascism and they think that it's bad, right? And that's not gonna change. You're not gonna convince your average person that, you know, fascism is good. You're just not. Like, and messaging is increasing. Well, because. There's a distinction between Spain and Italy. Yeah, well, Spain, Italy, and to be honest with you, the Nazis were fascists. They were a special, unique kind of fascism, but they were also fascists. [BLANK_AUDIO] - I don't agree with that. - The American people think of Hitler as a fact. - I understand that. - The point that I'm making. - But I'm messaging. - Agreed, agreed. I'm just saying, I think we wanna make sure, they also say two plus two equals five on these leftists. Fascism and Nazism were distinct. You know, there's a plethora of right-wing ideologies. - What is authoritarian ideologies? - But it's like all Mustangs are Fords, but not all Fords are Mustangs. But so the point that I'm making is, we shouldn't be talking about Franco. We shouldn't be talking about Pinochet. We should be talking about Lincoln. Because every American thinks of Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents that we've ever had, and Lincoln was capable of doing what was necessary to save the Union. And that was the way that he looked at it. So if you make the argument, we want Franco, Friday, we want Franco, we want Pinochet, that's it. No, we don't need that at all. We need another Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln is on Mount Rushmore for a reason. Americans think of him as a great man, and everybody knows that he's so suspended habeas corpus. Everyone knows that he put some journalist in jail, but they're fine with it because he saved the Union. We need another Lincoln, and that's a message that Americans can get behind. The very first Republican. That's a message that Americans can get behind. Hasn't Trump tweeted a couple of times that quote of, he who saves his nation, breaks no pole. He has Napoleon, he's posted that a couple of times on his official account. He's right. He is right. Abraham Lincoln was nuts. He arrested a third of the Maryland legislature. He suspended habeas corpus. Maryland, I mean, sure. That's Maryland. Because Delaware and Maryland were slave states. He said iron fist for all of you. He conscripted people. He threatened to imprison a sitting Supreme Court justice. When he suspended habeas corpus, he did so with no constitutional authority. The constitution reserves that power to Congress. And after he eliminated his, after he eliminated his enemies in the opposition, he then had Congress retroactively approved what he did two years later. He arrested those who opposed him and then said to Congress, now I want you all to vote that I'm allowed to do it. And they were like, yes, absolutely. And he is the most popular present in the American history. He did what was necessary to save the union. And everybody, I guess I'm going to say it again. I'm going to keep saying it. Messaging is the most important thing. It is absolutely the most important thing. Because if you get the messaging right and you get the American people on your side, the president can do whatever he wants. You tell the American people-- I think it was time to not analogous, right? I mean, like, you can't. They're not. They're not, but you're never going to convince Americans that we should have a Franco. I mean, the problem is that Trump's not evil. And when I say the problem, it's that for all the things you talk about with-- I shouldn't say you talk about what we talk about with Abraham Lincoln. Trump's not that guy. And I don't necessarily expect him to be. When we saw this ice action and they were ramming vehicles and they were armed individuals, like, you know, the pretty guy was kicking vehicles, screaming at him, showed up to a police-- to a law enforcement action armed. I'm not suggesting what happened to him as a good thing. Of course not. But these ice operations are not community control, you know, where dudes come out wearing windbreakers unarmed to fan protesters back. This was armored law enforcement going after rapists, smugglers, coyotes, cartels. And these activists were showing up to obstruct this, to put this in a way that liberals could understand if they'd actually listened. Imagine an undercover cop tipped off a bunch of SWOT that there are dudes that traffic rifles, that traffic women and smuggle cocaine and drugs, gang bangers, mafiosos. And they were like, all right, we're going to go and arrest these guys. And then a bunch of leftists showed up and a couple of them armed, screaming at the face of the cops, walking up to them. They don't understand these ice operations are not just like we're going to go knock on a door and arrest some, you know, some store worker. They don't understand this. I said at this time, if Trump were to suspend habeas corpus along like a particular rail line saying, we are going to be dispatching ice along these federal highways and these rail lines. And because of the terror that we've seen with the car ramings and the shootouts, we are suspending habeas corpus on this federal jurisdiction exclusively to allow federal forces to go in and stop this from happening. That would be the same thing Abraham Lincoln did. And when I have this conversation with people, they go, it was a civil war team incorrect. When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, we had not yet entered the civil war. Now, let me pause historically, when we look back, we say the civil war began the Battle of Fort Sumter. Not back then, back then, even after Fort Sumter, they did not believe a civil war was even possible. Now, later on, we say that's when it started. So they have the Battle of Bull Run, where people are picnicking. It took over a year before they started saying there was a civil war. Abraham, I'll put it up, let me put it like this. How could anyone in the United States, or the Confederacy for that matter, have thought there was a civil war before there was conscription, conflict and suspension of habeas corpus? So you have, you have this moment before Lincoln gets in where seven states secede. Lincoln then gets in and says, that's not legal. Nobody's fighting. Fort Sumter happens. Technically, nobody was fighting. Shots were fired, but only one person died accidentally. It was largely viewed as just this weird one off. The Battle of Bull Run happens and people are getting killed. It's merciless. People picnicking panic and run. Even then, it still view largely just like a riotous conflict. One fight, make a war does not, right? How could any of the people in the entirety of the United States been like, we are now in a civil war? When you did not have military rising up, armaments, blockades, suspension of habeas corpus, arrest of politicians, it became war time because Abraham Lincoln made these moves. To put it simply, there would be no civil war if Abraham Lincoln decided there would not have been one. The war began. There would be no union, too. There would be a Northern union, whatever you want to call it. The war began because Abraham Lincoln said, I am going to rally troops and go and shoot the South so that they'd bend the knee. Because the South just said, hey, guys, we're out. There was no fight. Abraham Lincoln had a choice. I will start the war. Now, you can argue the catalyst of the war was Southern Session and slavery. I got a problem with that. I'm saying fighting only began when Abraham Lincoln said, we will now fight. And the fighting began after the suspension of habeas corpus for the most part. So if Trump were to say we're suspending on federal highways because we need to get our federal units, ICE agents in, safely and securely. So we're going to be commenting during this roadway. That would be on par with Abraham Lincoln. And imagine what they'd say. Look, the left would say if Trump did that. To your point about Abraham Lincoln, not Trump not being Abraham Lincoln. I think you're right. But at the same time, the stuff that's the issue that started this particular part of the conversation here, Trump possibly making an executive order, that's the kind of moves that you need that I'm referring to. That we, I think that we should see, right? Because again, the DSA is a threat to the republic as it stands. And the Delta is that if Trump were to sign this executive order, it is just an affirmation of upholding principles. Yeah. Whereas what Lincoln did is like contrary to the Constitution and the Magna Carta. It's an affirmation that the American people largely, but they largely support ways or, well, I think people in general do. The issue is, let's just, let's just cut to the chase. If the United States, the wealthiest country in the planet had a balanced economy. That is, you felt that you could attain social goals and access to resources. No one would care if Trump was a king. Well, to be fair, the left is psychotic and would lose their mind over Trump. My point is, if a new, a new individual arose and declared himself king, let me, let me, let me, let me go the direction. If the democratic socialists burn down the institutions, conquered DC with physical violence. And we were all like, that's it, we've lost. But instead of gulags, they actually reformed a government so quickly and miraculously that our standard of living skyrocketed. We're all in flying cars with free healthcare. We'd all be like, wow, I guess we were wrong. If life genuinely was better for everybody and there were no gulags and no prisons. And all of the recidivism just dropped to zero when we abolished prisons. The right would largely be like, okay. The evidence for this is literally everything the right has done every time there's been change in a positive direction that has benefited the American people. Conservatives have eventually just been like, okay, they don't go and smash windows and murder people or anything. This country has changed, civil rights being a really great example. Well, to be fair, I guess it was technically Democrats, but the more traditional view was, the more progressive view of civil rights. And then once we got it, they were like, no, yeah, it works. We don't want to go back that direction. I don't think the DSA would actually, and succeed in these regard. So my point is, if we had a king, you know, I gotta throw it to Marvel, because these thoughts and ideas have already been hypothesized by man in our creative works and that is Dr. Doom. We're gonna have this movie coming out in December but if those are not familiar, you all know who Dr. Doom is, right? - I have no clue who Dr. Doom is. - Dr. Doom is the bad guy from the Fantastic Four. He's a dictator from an Eastern European country called Let Veria, not real, of course. And initially, when they write these characters, he's a one-dimensional villain. He's a wealthy Eastern European dictator with a scarred face, so he wears a mask and he uses technology or whatever, right? Modern iterations throughout the past several decades have entertained this idea. A really great storyline from Marvel. Well, this is the Spider-Man show for when I was a kid. They go to a, I think it's a planet. Dr. Doom is conquered. And they're like, we have to free the people from the evil dictator doom and guess who tries to stop them? The citizens of that planet, being like, are you nuts? He saved us, everything's great. We're all rich now, he's fixed everything. And they're like, but he's evil and he wants to take over the world. Like, yeah, but he was good at it and he was right. Like, I think that's an excellent point. We would all easily if justice was just, if the economy was good. We would not care if we had a dictator king. And let's just call it, let's call it patriarchal monarchy with ascension by combat. We would literally just be like, as long as the economy is going, I guess, if you start jailing people for fake reasons, eliminating, you know, dissenters, shutting down speech, then people get mad. If the economy goes south, people get mad. But the principle issue is if people got a place to live and food to eat, ain't revolting. - Well, the problem, not the problem, the challenge with that, which is why the left exists, is that if people have food to eat and a relative prosperity and peace and freedoms, et cetera, then they begin to question the actual need for government in general. And you can't do that if you're a Democrat because your entire existence, your race on debt, is a government, right? So you need people to be in a certain level of misery and stupid because I will fix your schools if you elect me. You need them to be broke 'cause I will give you food stamps if you elect me. Your healthcare is crap. I will give you better healthcare if you elect me. So they have to advocate for misfortune because they are the savior. And I think the opposite of that is if you have happy, peaceful, prosperous, what do I need government for? You would then question like, aren't you my congressman? Why, what do you do? Like, how many, you go to the county executive office and be like, all 400 of you, what do you do? Like, why are you here? Like, I don't need you. Like, I can build my own shed. I don't need your damn permits. I don't need your permission to send my kid to that school. And then the whole structure begins to crumble. So it's essential that people have a certain level of misery 'cause it empowers government and government is all they care about. I'm gonna take it to the most extreme of political places I can. Every one of the people watching this show would gladly support Lifetime God Emperor Ian Crossland. If his graphene based economy genuinely improved their lives, guaranteed they had disposable income, life was good, their house is all, they added a second floor. If like, imagine for the average worker and let's take this seriously, I'm have kidding. But imagine if, I'll keep it in simplistic terms like then you woke up the next day and your boss was like, the economy's booming. Where our customers are through the roof, we're doubling your salary. Prices didn't go up with inflation. You literally just were now like, wow. All of my bills and expenses are only 20% of my income and the rest is disposable for whatever I wanna do. And so you have vacations, you have a four day work week, you work extra on your hobbies, you're building cars in your garage, you go golfing with the buddies, your kids are all, in fact they're too fat and happy. You gotta, you hire a personal trainer so that you guys all get in shape. You're like, this is fantastic. And all you have to do is accept Ian's graphene based economy. People would be happy with that. They would accept dictatorship if it was functional. - I mean, that's, I think that that, I think that's probably true because people believe they're voting for a king anyways, the way that people treat the president, the office of the president, like most of the people that are angry with Trump, right, the people that used to consider themselves for a mage or whatever, they're upset because Trump hasn't done enough. Nobody's upset with Trump. Nobody that voted for Trump is upset with Trump because he's done too much. The only thing that they're, the only thing that you could say that is the, the war in Iran, right? - Well, you know, otherwise it's all he hasn't deported enough. He's not doing, we're not getting the mass deportation. Even though if you, again, this is something that they're going to debate or they're gonna push back on and say, well, you can't believe the government's numbers. It looks like there's about three and a half million people that have been deported. They're deporting like 4,500 people a day, which is the most ever. And at that rate, you're looking at another two million or so, two to three million. To start, that'll get out before the end of Trump's term. So one of these big stories that we got right now is that Andrew Wilson and Candace are gonna be debating the Charlie Kirk conspiracy theory. And I think, I guess they said PBD is gonna be the moderator. And just as an aside, I have trolled Candace's followers mercilessly because they can't read. And that's kind of the point of what I want to get to in this story and how it pertains to the structure of US government, elections, media, and what's currently happening. So of course, many of you know I put out these, I put out a trolling tweet the other day where I was like, there's gonna be a massive debate with a lot of money in the line. And I'm volunteering to moderate. And then bottom of the fold at the bottom of the tweet was the issue of whether you can own chickens and the suburbs is massively important. And instead of actually reading it, all of the Candace people were like, Candace would never let you. And I got 3,000 replies about Candace, which I literally never even tweeted about. It's fascinating. So then even after I admitted what I did, I tweeted today, I have been chosen to moderate the debate. And at the bottom I said JD Vance's chicken ownership has been contentious, blah blah blah. And still their spam blasting. Candace actually had to make a statement where she was like, no, he's not moderating. Yeah, right. And then I did another tweet where I said, despite what you've heard, I am moderating, but I'm literally not even talking about. The point is these people don't read. You don't read. Here's the point. Or in the early days, in the late 2000s, I was watching Alex Jones, present planet Info Wars. And it was a lot of interesting things that he was right about, and a lot of Wackaloon nonsense. Remember when Alex went on Joe Rogan and talked about 5G towers, animal hybrids, interventional beings, and he said, they're turning people into chimeras or whatever. That was the Wackaloon insanity. At the time, what year was this? Was it like 2016 or '17 or something when that interview happened? There is a contingent of people. And this is what Candace is tapping into. They only think they believe is that those in power are lying. That's it. So in the early day, I don't wanna say the early days about Alex Jones 'cause the late 2000s wasn't really his earliest days. He's saying things that somewhat, a lot of it was true like Atrecy, and he was right about, he was reading reports on this stuff. He was right about a lot. But when he started getting to the, like let's just be honest, like the Sandy Hook conspiracy stuff, he captured a massive audience of people who just want to believe whatever the machine says is a lie. So now the issue is, Trump has become the machine, that he's crushed the deep state. He's a shattered USAID, scattered to the wind. And it's his team in charge now. And so this same court of people is literally just in conspiracy land. The issue for us, and for a lot of people right now that watch this show is that we're in fact land. We don't know if it's gonna write, we often get it wrong. I don't care if it's Trump or Hillary, Candace or anybody. If they are telling something that is true, I will say, yeah, they're probably right about it. But this contingent of online conspiracy people will just say, no, Trump's wrong now. He is Epstein. And it's like, Trump's the guy who got Epstein arrested in the first place. I'm not suggesting he's done a good job and Banjino and Cash have done a good job on Epstein, but it was Trump's administration where they actually rate it, went to the jail and they got him and all that stuff. Believe whatever you want. But now that Trump is the power, they immediately no longer trust him. And anybody who is still with them is part of the conspiracy. This is the issue within this country. At the time, you have, I think, you know, largely Donald Trump, I would say monetize this in a sense. I remember I was at a Best Buy and this is back in like 2019 and some guy was like, oh, hey, you're Tim Poole. And I was like, yeah, he's like, hey, nice to meet you. I watch you all the time. And then immediately started asking me about child sacrifice and consuming brain. And he was like, the Democrats are like, they're drinking, like they drink the brain, the spinal fluid. And I was like, you know, I don't think so. I was like, that's not really anything we've ever talked about. At the time, because we were calling out the lies from the establishment for which Trump was the underdog, those people who believed in the creates of conspiracies were aligned. Now that Trump is the upper dog, they still, they now go, it was Trump the whole time. And now anybody who defends Trump is part of it. It's a psychological defense mechanism, though. We see this all throughout, like, sort of the human condition. People want to believe that they're in control when they feel like their lives are out of control. They, you know, one of the things that they can do to sort of maintain sanity is like adopt this view that they are the smartest person in the room, right? That's the only reason that they're in their situation because everyone else isn't as smart as them and they know and that's why things are the way they are. And it just, it's a sense of comfort for them, I think. I just, I want to stress, there are people who believe that Charlie Kirk had electromagnetic powers. [BLANK_AUDIO] not a joke. I mean, this is a canus has claimed. He didn't though, right? He did not. Well, to be honest, I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know. My general understanding is that most people, most as far as I can tell, I've not witnessed any electromagnetic powers. If things exist, I'm certainly jealous. But canus has claimed that Charlie Kirk had the ability to turn off street lights that he would walk up to them and turn them off with his mind. That he was here, that they both have the ability to astral project. And that they were both part of astral project. Astral project. What is astral project? Astral projection is when your spirit can leave your body and explore the world by flying around. No way. Yeah. Oh, you can navigate this. You can do a self-advance. She claimed that they were both part of the same government experiments as children. Oh, wow. Oh, I know. Oh, that's sad. And there are people that watch every episode and they're like, whoa, that proves it. I did not know she was experimented on. I think all of those people are mad at me for flock, by the way. They're in my replies right now. What about just I'm relatively pro flock. And that has pissed the 10 foil hat people off. Well, flock flock is bad. But the issue is that flock is also first amendment. I made this point in a piece. I wrote about it. I also think it has potential to do some good. And if we regulate it appropriately, it can. Oh, I don't think that's a good. Oh, yeah. I think it's it's it's already helping fine. I've not thought it through, but I'm going to tell you you're wrong because a cohort of conspiracy people will send me praise and money if I just say that's right. Yeah. Yeah. I know I agree. I think there are some areas. So when we had the shooting, we were we were we had pitches come in immediately like install flock cameras because then you'll know exactly who's doing it. And we ultimately decided not to do it. The issue is flock cameras absolutely will result in fourth and fifth amendment violations and they already have. That's the problem. The woman who the cop went to her house and said you're getting a summons for stealing a package because flock said you did. And she said I was not there. It turned out she wasn't there, but there's a thing. When flock says confirmed and an administrator says go issue the summons, the police don't review evidence. Right. Is that on flock though? It's not on the technology. It is on the technology because cops will also get it's a guarantee that police will violate our fourth and fifth amendment rights. We just want them to be we want we want this to be mitigated. Sure. In some way, how accounted for with flock. You're saying let's let's crank it up to past 11. We're it's going to it's going to happen at scale now. And it's happening. Did you see the did you see the auto blogger who got pulled over and accused of stealing a cart gun point with his wife? Yeah, it was like they could shot and killed the guy. The car was uh was left on a hit list, right? No, no, no, the the flock camera misread the license plate. And no, I think it was a typo on the part of the first to enter the incorrectly. The flock camera scanned the license plate, which was a temporary plate, which had three big numbers, two small numbers, and then three big numbers. And the flock camera didn't see the small numbers. So it entered the vehicle in as the wrong license plate. They were looking for a stolen vehicle. So when the cop scanned the plate, flock said that's the guy who stole the car. They draw their guns on some bumbling white middle aged guy with his wife. Look, that's bad. But that's not a fourth or fifth amendment violation, right? Like the police. No, the police make a mistake. Right. That's not a police. That's not a constitution. Well, yeah, I mean, no human mistake. Right. A machine flagged it. No one was but the machine didn't pull the car over. The system being didn't take the action. The system being put in place yet doesn't have the mechanisms by which humans must check and balance it in that way. And and you and it's not possible too. What do you mean? It's not possible. If you, if a person witnesses a let's say there's like, uh, young black guy is seen in a white and a white tank top in black shorts, smashed a window out, jumped into a car and took off. And the person says he stole my car. Here's a license plate. Here's the car description. Yeah. A human can make make a mistake. But we know that human entered it in and a mistake had been made and we can trace that and find accountability. Sure. Flot cameras as an entirety of it system did this. And no human had the capacity to intervene between the machine deciding someone was a car thief who was a violent dangerous murderer. The humans all just assumed it was the case. And here's the point. We can hold that one human accountable and say they're not fit for this job. If, how many, let me ask you this. Yeah. If a police officer inputs the wrong data that results in these things. Yeah. How many times until you fire that person? Oh, I think I think pretty soon. I mean, especially if it turns out if it turns out bad. Three times. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Then how about we, we pitch this when flock does this three times, we'll shut it off. But why, why shut the whole thing out? There's so many like, because it's a singular technological entity, the same as a person is. If a person is making a mistake, we fire them. If luck is making a mistake, we fire them. Right. But technology is going to make mistakes when you, when you, correct, begin it, right? So like, but it's also going to do really good things. Like, for example, there was a woman the other day who was driving for Instacart, right? Making a delivery, she had her, I think a two-year-old child in the back seat. She gets out of the car for a few seconds to bring the groceries to the front door. Carjacker hops into the front seat, takes off with the kit. Right. Frantic 911 call. Obviously, every mother's worst nightmare. They find that car within a few minutes, recover the child safely, because the car got a hit on a flat camera. They were, so this would be, so I would argue that your stance is the out of on Bismarck stance. And mine is the Benjamin Franklin or Blackstone stance. I don't think it's the Blackstone stance really. Blackstone stances. So the idea that we should have a mass surveillance system that does in numerous instances falsely cues people of serious crimes, because sometimes, not sometimes, exponentially more times, than how many, how many people are, is it worth being falsely accused of serious crimes jailed for some, but they didn't get jailed, right? Like, if you're the subject of a felony stop, I didn't say they were. They weren't. I'm saying, how many would you accept? I would not, I mean, as I guess as many as we accept now, right? I mean, like, there are innocent people who are convicted under our current system. Yeah. Right? It's not perfect. Let's, let's, let's, let's bring it to scale. But it's already its guilt. Like, this is one of the problems I have with the, the way that the flock debates being sort of, the fact that we're even calling it the flock debate, right? Flock is a brand of a product, the product being ALPR's automated license plate. Right. There's actually other companies too and lots of a lot got protested. They just adopted the right. So, like, these things have, they're not new. Like, ALPR's have been around for a really, really long time, right? Like the NYPD first launched ALPR's in New York City in 2006. In 2012, ours technical was warning us that, you know, ALPR's were already taking millions of our travel records, but we're going to extinguish our privacy. That was 14 years ago. Isn't the, isn't the issue with the, with the modern version of these ALPRs? Isn't it the AI behind it that makes, I don't think that really changes things for a couple of one. The AI has been integrated into ALPR since probably 2011, 12 in that way. So that, that's not new either. Number one, but the, all the AI helps it do is better identify other vehicle, other vehicle features beyond the license plate, like the make model color, a bumper sticker, you know, if there's like a dent in the, the back right bumper, that's, and it just makes it easier to identify the car that you're actually looking for. Now, it is possible that you might end up looking for the wrong car because of human error. And it's possible that the technology may in one, in however many million, you know, correct hits get something wrong. The question is, is like, how much of the benefit should we just throw out the window, especially when we're living in a time where police departments around the country are like starving. I think this is, this is, this is, essentially, that's the question that we have right now is it's like the, the traditional liberal argument versus the more list conservative argument. Whereas we, you know, so I have to put it like this. Principles aren't on a real thing and consistency is not a real thing. And conservatives tried to play this line for a long time and they were completely wrong and it made their arguments weak. The left's argument is there is no truth but power. They will say, whatever they have to and do whatever they have to so that it benefits their worldview and their way of life. So the question that I have to ask people is, do you think that parents should have final say in the, in the healthcare of their child? Yeah. You think they do. So when the parents, two, so no, well, I mean, I guess it depends on what like, do I think that a parent should be able to not take an infant, no, no, no, no, hold on. Should parents have the final say in the healthcare of their children? Yes or no? I don't think that's, uh, that's an easy yes or no question. I mean, well, if it's actually fairly simple, if you're, if you're saying I can't answer that, then you're saying no. Final say is an absolute position. Conservatives maintained. Yeah, but, but healthcare isn't defined, right? Like, so do I think that parents should be able to say like, no, I don't want my kid to be on this vaccine. Schedule yes. Do I think that parents, you're explaining the point perfectly? Like, I am asking you if you would take the absolute position that parents have to say over their children's healthcare because conservatives maintained during the era of COVID, the answer was always yes. Right. And then when the issue of children deciding to give their kids sex changes came up, they immediately said, no, the government should intervene in that instance. The point is the question of whether or not parents should have final say in their children's healthcare is not a yes or no. There is no absolute. It's depending on your moral worldview. So the question of flat cameras is you can't quantify benefit versus detriment. The question is on our morality. Do we as a nation decide to live in a world where everywhere you go in your car, the government knows. It's not. there's just we don't live in that world when I even close to that world right we want to put flock cameras up everywhere so that no one wants to put that's like that that's not even the term of the debate right like flock take take New York City which has probably the densest coverage of flock cameras in the country you're talking about like 1500 of these things and we are talking about the expansion of a program not the limited implementation some time sure but like why not try to mitigate the potential downside risk while enjoying I would say moral world view and you're and what would be the moral the moral world sometimes I want to be able to drive my car and I don't want the government local or otherwise to be able to scan my license plate and for that matter my face in other circumstances sometimes I just want to go outside and not have to worry about whether or not someone spying on me or collecting metadata this is a big question in cyber security in the 2000s pertaining to the metadata searches that Obama was doing with snow to know that the issue was the government claimed we are not watching what you do on websites we don't know what you're reading or what weird stuff you're you're going off to but we know the IPs that you're pinging because the argument was this if you walk outside your house a police officer is allowed to watch you do it because in public you have no expectation of privacy right and many people were shocked to find that that was the case because they for the most of human existence if you looked out your window and there was nobody there and you walked outside nobody knew right but now we have cameras everywhere and so it came to be that the government asserted as fact now unless you wear a mask when you leave your home you have no expectation of privacy if you do wear a mask you can you can argue after the fact for the deletion of that data because it was your intention to retain anonymity and the issue is when you walk out of your house these cameras and this is well before flock have gate tracking meaning based on the way you walk they know if it's you or not so there was a court case where they said if you leave your house wearing a mask you've expressed the intention to obfuscate your identity after they collect those videos of you on these cameras that everywhere you can then file to have it deleted under the expectation of privacy because you're wearing a mask what we are building now and flock being one stepping stone of this how would they know it was you gate gate tracking right but you would then have to tell them like oh that's me no with the mask so gate tracking is you walk out of your house not wearing a mask right and they see the gate so when you walk out wearing a mask the computer says how many people in the in the country have their gate like known to an entity does it matter this was part of the court case and the question is do you want to live in a world where we expand that or not it's a moral question not not a quantitative question and I feel the quantitative questioning is is a distraction the point is the US courts ruled we can take all of the data from your internet searches so long as it's just the websites you're visiting and not what specific things you're looking at unless we have a warrant here's the problem when they collect three gigabytes of all the all the websites you've gone to they know exactly what you're looking at so it's likened to I watched you walk out of your house then I followed you until you walked into an adult bookstore and then I watched you walk out with a couple of items I know what you're doing and because I watched you do it I can tell everybody and that's bad for you and then what happens is the person goes I I expected some degree of part purpose I didn't think it was gonna spy on me and the court said listen you're out in public people can watch what you're doing sure have an ice day we got into the cyber world and they said when you go website your computer it's in public when it's pinging these servers so if people are are tracking your metadata the government is and we can then piece together after the fact we now can build a profile but that's your fault you have no expectation of privacy sure when right now in this world you can walk outside and with a substantially much less expectation of privacy still to a certain degree expect that if you leave your house and go to the store most people probably aren't gonna know okay do we want to expand a surveillance state through the ubiquitous use of these license plate readers yeah so that everywhere you go a database is being built of everywhere you've been yeah just don't think that happening and I don't think you can see again this is this is so let's let's have the actual debate on the issue instead of you questioning whether it is happening right now because the question I asked is do we want to start building that world no yes or no yes or no okay so I oppose the flock cameras for that reason because the snowflake doesn't blame itself for the avalanche so to your pose flock cameras because at some point in the future we might possibly get to this kind of thing assuming that enough no no because and then make it happen because before any you're asking I'm watching the laying bricks in front of his house and I said I don't think you should be laying bricks because eventually we're gonna have a wall in front of this property we don't want and you're going well maybe in the future there'll be a wall the problem is once the walls built you can't tear it down so how about we just say stop building the wall we may not even get there right I mean like there's already enough of a bet there's already a massive backlash again isn't the argument the issue is if somebody is building something we don't like do we say go ahead and build it we'll figure it out later or do we say stop building it I think we've kind of already gotten there brother I mean like just your cell phone right there's like you're tracking exponentially more about this is exactly the point I am making but is there a resistance to the ubiquity of spying technology or do you actually no I think there's been resistance I mean look at carpenter look at char tree from the last two or char tree in the last Supreme Court term carpenter in 2018 right like there are protections in place that I think will adequately keep us yet they haven't that but they have let's take a look at like Amazon devices yeah there was a case where police were able to subpoena an active recording from an Amazon from I'm not gonna say the name because it'll turn on for everybody listening and then everyone started saying uh how was it recording because people didn't realize that in order for voice activation to exist yeah all microphones must be on at all time you can't turn it off you can you don't have the microphone so you think you can so like the speech recognition devices like Amazon no Google Nest right these objects that are activated by voice yeah you can't turn them off because they are the function is the voice activation and turn off the microphones we can't hear you like I have to try to turn off the microphone if I say hey Google and thus was the issue with the police getting recording despite the fact it wasn't supposed to be recording so also did you know that your your TV screenshots everything you watch interesting yeah modern smart TVs take a screenshot of everything you're watching every few seconds and send it to advertisers networks so like aren't these things exponentially more concerning and they are all extremely bad but I tell you this so my TV screenshot and what I watch is annoying sure cameras being put up around my neighborhood that will put in a database my license plate all of the deleted after a few days for the government that again now that's an assumption no it's I mean the default setting for a flock cameras to delete after 30 days most jurisdictions either stick with the default setting or cut it down I think in New Hampshire it's down to three minutes that's a that's a faith argument why is it a faith argument I hope they do is not the issue that I'm bringing up well it's that they're doing it right I mean part of the reason they're do you don't know that their series well you're hoping they do the same way you know when nose and right like but that what we do know is people are putting up cameras that automatically track our license plates all over the place not only the place that they're literally all over the place there there are and again all over the place is a nebulous argument because we haven't defined the quantity of all over the place I'm saying there are 120,000 of them in the whole country yeah yeah I think it's 20,000 something like that yeah holy I mean there are like 1500 in New York City which I think probably has the densest coverage there are 80,000 street segments in New York City that's horror for only 1500 of these cameras that's bad I think it's I don't think it's bad at all I mean they're fascinating that like when you're recovering missing kids when you're recovering stolen vehicles when you're arresting and apprehending serious crimes those who would give up essential liberty for a little bit of security deserving and I don't think it's an essential liberty certainly is liberty I don't think driving your car on a public roadway without anyone knowing it is an essential one of the one of the greatest constitution says it is one of the greatest arguments for the problem of surveillance state is that throughout US history there have been instances where things that were illegal were made legal prohibition being the greatest example if no one could drink alcohol ever again because of the ubiquity of a surveillance state how would the people of the United States known that they actually like and prefer having alcohol it was only through the illicit activities and speakeasies and illegal transfer of alcohol did the American people know we want this it must remain legal and we have to overturn prohibition and they did I think that you if there was a if we build this as we are building it mass surveillance state for the purpose of stopping crime which is what you're describing the question is what crime do we eventually see people get arrested listen so let me give you a great example this is a little in some instances not wearing a mask would get you arrested and so we're going to live in this world where we advocate for the expansion of a surveillance state and then one day they will declare a national emergency and say if we catch you fraternizing another person like during covid you go to jail and then there will be a camera on the street corner and you'll go oops why did I advocate for that yeah like I will I just I think we were already kind of had that opportunity and it didn't happen which is encouraging to me right what did have in covid happened yeah but ALPRs weren't being used to enforce mass now I'm now imagine how bad it would have been if if we had all of these cameras everywhere, we had them utilized by governments. - We had them. - In mass. - We had them, in mass. I'm gonna, this is, it's difficult because that happened. - And you're not arguing what I'm saying. - COVID happened. - Do you want to build the world where these cameras are ubiquitous and a COVID scenario happens? - I don't think anyone wants to build the world where the cameras are ubiquitous. I don't even think that's a goal for anyone. - So, do we put, okay, so how about this? How about we say there's 120,000 in the United States, we put a moratorium on any more. - Why? - Because we don't, you agreed, right? We don't wanna build the world, whether you're ubiquitous. - Right, but that's what's already worth. - So loose, so ubiquitous. - You don't count. - 120,000. - So what's your number? - I don't know. I don't know. - Well, if we're gonna compromise, and my argument is I don't want any of them, and you say we don't wanna build that world of mass ubiquitous surveillance, let's determine the amount that we're okay with nationwide and then put a moratorium on them. - I don't know, I think that's a weird argument to make, I mean, what number would even give you the kind of, I think city should have the kind of coverage that New York has. I think New York has had this number for a really long time. It's probably gonna stay close to that. - So would you be happy if every street corner of the country had these cameras point in each direction? I don't think it would make sense to have one in every street. - I guess not what I asked you in the same direction. No, 'cause it would be a waste of money. - Okay, so we can count the intersections in this country, and we can certainly say the amount of flock cameras should be restricted to a number or less than that one. - Sure. - So there is a number by which you'd say we should not legally allow anymore. - Fine. - And now we wanna figure out what to go there as opposed to just throwing out the baby with the bathwater and saying that we should ban this and let that poor woman just lose her child forever possibly or let the guy who just shot four people at a house party get away forever. Like, yes, that is a much better debate. You did bring up something good, but a really important point though, which is like the one fear that I have with ALPRs, which I think a lot of people share, is not really the sort of mass or really in surveillance state. It's the possibility that they can be used to enforce these nickel and dime nonsense events. - That's what they will be used for. - I don't think so. - I don't think so. And I think that we can stop that right now by drawing, smear regulatory guidelines around the, I hate speaking. - We gotta take care of that. - And we gotta massive backlash. - And we gotta take it all around the country. - So one of our drivers stopped at a red light. - Yeah. - And then made a right turn. - Yeah. - And got a ticket. - Yeah. - And now what am I supposed to do? So the car gets the ticket. - Right, the car gets the ticket. - It gets the ticket. - And part because the ALPRs can't actually identify the driver. - Am I gonna send my driver to court because this automated traffic camera was wrong? - I have to. - Right. - Because you get points. - No, you don't get points. - On points. - After a certain amount of moving violation tickets, they will suspend your license. - They spend the registration of the vehicle. - And so what we have to do is when we got this, we had to allocate money towards it. Because they screwed up. I do not like that world. - I know or do I think we want to live in what that world will be as we expand these machines. - I agree. And so far as I do not want to live in that world, I think that we can regulate our way out of that world by drawing clear lines around how you use this technology. I think we can say, yes, you can use this technology to find shooting suspects. Yes, you can use it to recover stolen. - You think that the legislative branch has been successful in their efforts over the past 10 years? - Yeah, I mean, look, some of the legislative branches at the city level, at the state level, are already banning these things just in response to the backlash. - Yeah, I did that. - We don't have responsive politics, I think is silly. Like there is responsive politics. What I want to do is I want to inform the debate in a way that gets us to the best possible policy outcome. - I don't think a good policy outcome gets us to a place where the guy who takes the car with the two-year-old in the back gets caught. - If I'm right. - That is the, oh, someone think about the children fallacy. But it's not a fallacy. It's a concrete reality that we do. - It is a singular, it's a drop of water in the ocean of what the argument is. Your, a child was taken. It's a highly. - This is like one out of many similarities. - And there's these. - And it's an evocative argument meant to. - No more evocative. - The argument that you made earlier about the one since the guy was felony stopped at gunpoint with the. - And so I expanded my argument too. What we have seen through the ubiquity of a surveillance state is that you can't leave your home without someone knowing what you're doing at all times. You can, that, in the history of the United States, there have been instances where laws were repealed because people were doing illegal things and society determined they wanted those illegal things to be legal. In a surveillance state, you don't get it. And so it's one of the reasons why this. - You don't get what? - The repeal? - The ability to repeal things. - Why not? - Because no one will ever drink a beer. If any time you crack a beer, they instantly know and arrest you for it. So you look at this so many times. - How many people do you need to actually instantly arrest people for? - Not if there are cameras all over the place. - So a really great example is public drinking in New York in the early 1900s when they made it illegal. The city councilman said, "Let it be known that this will never prohibit a man from having a beer during his lunch break." Guess what it does now. Prohibits a man from having a beer during his lunch break. This is the point. - Again, it's a question of the moral worldview, not some idea of consistency or principle. But do we build mass surveillance systems intentionally or do we block them from being built? - I don't want I wouldn't categorize ALPRs as a mass surveillance system, number one. Number two is, I think you're ignoring the fact that despite the fact that we have these things in place that you would call a mass surveillance system, none of the things that you are arguing about have come to pass. We've had ALPRs for 20 years. Not only can you drink a beer on the streets of New York and get away with it, you can smoke a rack. - I don't know why a light street would stop you from drinking a beer in the street. - Exactly, like what I'm saying is like, you can't drink a beer in New York, you will get it fined or arrested for it. - Almost certainly not. - Yes, sure. I mean, like, take a walk on the subway and like tell me that that's true. - Just because sometimes people break the law and get away with it almost always. And part of the reason is that that's absolutely incorrect. Because one of the biggest issues of BLM is that police routinely go into Harlem and the Bronx and walk around issuing tickets for public drinking. - And one of the biggest issues with BLM was that they were full of it for most of the time. - That is what I just said. That's true when the police go to these areas and hand out tickets to people drinking 40s. - It is very rare. - No, it's not. - Yes, it is. - No, it isn't. - It happens all the time. - No, it really doesn't. - You are incorrect. - I mean, I guess we're at it. - One of the biggest stories was that a black cop went to Central Park and started handing tickets to people drinking water. - Sure, yeah. That happened to people. - And then that had a, no, no, no. He went there, complaining, saying, they come to my neighborhood and they've been handing out tickets. So I'm gonna go to their neighborhood and then he got in trouble for it. - I understand that. But that doesn't, that doesn't constitute proof that this is some significant portion of what the NYPD is thinking. - For the City Council of New York passed the law banning public drinking, there were zero tickets for it. Today, they probably generate hundreds of thousands of dollars per month on this. - I, yeah, I don't think it's anywhere near in the hundreds of thousand dollars a month. But like, that's sort of besides the point, like you're making the point, you're making the argument that people can't get away with anything anymore. - No, I didn't. - It's not true. - It's not what I said. - You're saying that the existence of the surveillance data is a problem because then you leave your house, you do X, Y, and Z, that's now against the law and then you'll get immediately arrested for it. And I'm saying, like, that's not real right. - I think we're having an order of thinking challenge. I am saying that when you put up a single camera, we call that a snowflake. That snowflake is not an avalanche. What that camera does is probably a material for the most part to a massive society like the United States with 330 million people. Then you put up two cameras. What point do those cameras make a heap? The question is, do we want to find out or not? And the answer is, no, we don't. So the compromise then would be a limit. - Sure. - On the amount of cameras that can be put up either nationwide or in localities. - Sure. - And then after that, there's a more torn on the expansion of these cameras. I would argue it should be substantially lower and your argument is it's not gonna happen anyway, so who cares? - No, my argument is that we can and should think about limits carefully, constructively and over time. And have that debate in good faith. What I don't want to see is what people are pushing for now, which is saying just get rid of them in their entirety because at some point in the future, this can be bad. I think that is a bad way to make policy. I think it's gonna have disastrous outcomes. - Like what, real people, life bad before it. - Life was worse. Certainly would have been worse for that mom without her kid, right? That certainly would be worse. Where, like there are legitimate cases of shootings that result in clearances because the cars to like generate a hit on a ALPR. That's a good thing. - You think society would be better if just like all crime was tracked. Anybody who committed a crime, we could catch them. Like we just see what they were doing. - No. - Well, like what's, what is the limit that you'd be willing to accept that criminals can get away with crimes? - I think we're really far away from that possibility but I don't know that I have an answer to that. I mean, like yeah, there's a limit. Like I don't want every aspect of our lives open to everyone. I don't think that's a real threat or possibility at any point. - What do you mean? - I mean, there's capacity challenges, right? Like you need enough people to actually do the enforcement. You need, you know, for eight hours. Yes you do. Who's gonna make the arrest? You don't need to, you get a summons, you get an email that says you've been summoned to court. - Okay, and then if let's say, you know, a million people get summons as in 999,000 and say, and they plead guilty and then they get a fine and they don't have faces. And did you know that if every single person who was facing a criminal charge opted for a jury trial, the system would collapse? - It would collapse. - Indeed. How does this operate? They don't have enough judges or courts to maintain all these criminal trials. How does it operate? - Well, people-- - Lee bargains. - Right, because of guilty. - So guilty. It's kind of like when the liberals were arguing for Biden's, what is it, 88,000 IRS agents. - Yeah. - And they said they're just gonna go after those who are not paying their fair share, right? - Sure. - And what did they do? What did the IRS actually do? - No idea. - They went after working class people. So people started getting letters on the mail saying, "You owe $70 here and there." And there's working class people, whether they did or did not owe it, had no ability to fight that. So what did they do? They paid it. And the Biden administration was able to recover a large sum of money from working class people onto the guys they'd go after the billionaires because these systems only ever go after those who don't have the means to fight. 'Cause I'll keep it real simple. But what happened to you when these cameras are up on every street corner in Washington, DC? And I'm being hyperbolic. When you have a large quantity of them in DC, I guarantee you I'll be able to make a phone call and say anytime my license plate comes up in that database, it's immediately deleted scrubbed and the machine acts as though it never saw it. It will scan the plate and immediately say, disregard, I can guarantee I can make that phone call. Can you, can my neighbor? You know, we were gonna have power lines. They wanted to build data center power lines through this area. And my neighbors came to me, this is, this is, you'll love this one. We get a letter in the mail saying they're gonna build a new transmission line, has to go through the area and it's gonna go on to your property. And I'm sorry, it has to happen because the constraints of the community require an expansive power. But you know what the truth was? It was all going to the Northern Virginia instance, the data center mass system they've got built in Northern Virginia. And so I made, so we had neighbors come by and they said, please help us. Has Tim seen this? And so you know what I did? They made a phone call and guess what happened? I got a call back the next day, don't worry Tim. That line has been, has been moved. Can I just make one point about the IRS thing? Yeah. Didn't Trump get elected and then undo a lot of that? I mean, like a lot of the IRS has been gutted in a sense. Right? I don't, did they fire those people that were? I don't know, they fired all of them, but they've certainly redirected, right? Like they were, what I'm saying is that there was a point about the IRS agents was not that government agents can't be fired. It was that they bring in these 80 some 1000 people under the guise of stopping criminals and they go after regular working class people. Just make that argument about every government initiative, right? Is what I'm saying. Correct. And it's usually true. I don't. Yeah, I just, I guess that's where we fundamentally disagree. Me just would like a word with you. So. The track record of government handling of metadata, in particular, isn't great, right? Like the, the, the history has been, hey, we're far, we're, we're surveilling these guys or seas and in the process, Tim's stuff getting mixed up. We're going to put that aside because, of course, we would have to go to the FISA court. Oh, but by the way, we decided not to go to the FISA court. We're using it anyway and we're leaking it to the press. So I understand everyone's argument. You put part of the history of the government. My, my argument is less government, more guns. But, but you got, you got criminal, you got criminals. You got criminals in your neighborhood and you're worried about the crime they're committing. We should have a right to keep in bear arms and defend ourselves from criminals. And we need strong men who are willing and strong laws that when I see a dude who robs a house and he's running down the street and workboats, I can stop him without fear that I'm going to present for the rest of my life. 100% agree with you. But I think the issue with the point that you just made is that people are conflating things like metadata with the ALPR. We haven't had the AI advanced technology. We've had that for 15, 16 years. As advanced. Yeah, the ALPRs and AI got integrated. No, he's talking about the ability to correlate data. That's new. But these have been networked. Even back when he's talking about, he's talking about AI's ability to correlate data beyond from, you know, from different servers. Sure. Different data sets. That's new. Yeah, but it's not, it's not real. In the late 2000s, a company came out that asked people to go and write down the license plates of vehicles in front of their homes. And they would pay you any time a law enforcement or repossessor's got to hit. You'd get 25 bucks. And it went viral on Facebook with people being like, this is an amazing way to make extra money. And then immediately there was this massive like, holy, this is crazy. A company was telling everyone, it was a decentralized surveillance network. And then I don't know if they still exist. But I remember at the time, everybody on Facebook started attacking it, dislikes and just comments. And then people stopped talking about it. That's what happens. These like first amendment auditors who, you know, will like go out into a public space with kids who start filming people, only to get the like police called and then eventually get the police to have to do it. That's entirely different from a networked AI system. No, no, I agree. But what I'm saying is like, the networked AI system is only picking up things that are on public streets where you don't have an expectation to privacy. You do if you wear a mask. Sure, but again, that's a person. The ALPRs are not looking at people. They're looking at cars. I have an expectation of a limited privacy. When I drive my car, there's not always someone staring at me. There's not always a cop on every street corner. I don't want to live in a world where the cop is literally behind you 24/7. But it's not like that. I mean, there aren't enough ALPRs. I don't even think that we have the data storage capacity to get in that. - We're making a different argument now. Because if we agree on a moratorium on the expansion of ALPRs, then we're done. - No, but if we don't agree on a moratorium because they don't have that equation, how many of you consider to be a cop behind you all the time? - But it's not behind you all the time. I think I'm asking you how many cameras until you consider the cops to be behind you all the time. - When the jurisdictions that want them can achieve the kind of coverage that will give them the protections that cities with adequate coverage currently have, I think New York is probably-- - Are you for that? Am I-- - Have you just described? Are you for it? - Am I for cities having the kind of coverage that New York has yet? - Okay, I don't want to live in a world where the cops behind me all the time. - The cops aren't behind you all the time. - You just said the cops will be behind you all the time when cities have the adequate coverage they're looking for, and I asked you-- - No, no, no, no, no, no, no, that's not what I said. I said I don't want cops behind you all the time. I don't think we're gonna get there. - And then I said at what point would you consider it to be a cop behind you all the time? - Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking me what point would I consider it to be adequate for cops behind you all the time. - Oh, yeah, I mean, like when most of the streets in a city are covered. - And do you want most of the city streets in it? - I don't think you need that. - Whether you need it or not, it's not the question. - Well, no, yeah, it is. I think it's not one I'm asked. Hard of the argument is based on like-- - No, don't want the things that are honest. - You like the idea that a flat camera can stop someone from getting in with your child. - I like the idea that the flat camera can aid police in some sense. - But you think there should be at least some blind spots 'cause we don't want you to be a bit with this coverage. - So the criminals will still be able to map out those blind spots and kidnap these kids. - Yeah, I don't know that there'll be enough - A partial surveillance system is pointless because it can't actually spot them. - No, because like if you put it at the right place, it's right, it's going to be impossible to not drive past one at some point. - I am low to the idea of, we should take more responsibility from individuals over the things that happen to them and their families. And once again, just give the responsibility to the government. - But that's the one thing that we agreed in this country that the government would have responsibility to do, right? The government exists particularly to protect people. - No. - Incorrect. Yeah, I mean-- - That is not the Founding Fathers vision, the Founding Documents. In fact, it was quite contrary. - Security being the true and the design of government. - That's quite the antithesis of what the Founding Fathers said, such as the quote, "Those who would sacrifice "essential liberty for a little temporary security "deserve neither and will lose all." - He said security being the true and the design of government. - I don't know who did. - I believe that was Tom's paint. - And was he referring to say like the ability to have a coalition of militia to stop from a foreign threat? - I mean, he was talking about that. Yeah, that's one of the things. - And at the time, there were no police. - Right, militia was law enforcement. - There were night watchmen. - But those were militia. Those were locals who volunteered. Policing didn't come in until like 1840, indeed. - So we did not have this institutionalized law enforcement apparatus. - No, but you still had law enforcement, right? You still had laws in the books and ability to enforce them. The citizens were undertaking that. It's a different society, right? - Very different. And very localized. And very much on the responsibility of the citizens themselves. And what we got in COVID was when the atillis gym decided to stay open to violate the ordinance, local police showed up and said, "Y'all are good. "We're not going to interfere." You know why? Because the cops were members of the community. And they knew they had to answer the people. So you know, the state did. They called some cops from a different town over and said, "You come in because ain't nobody going to stop you "and you don't got to worry about it." - No, it was wild. - And that's what, but I'm not defending that. - The idea of an expansive surveillance state when we went through COVID is just remarkable. - We had an expansive surveillance state when we went through COVID. - And the idea of it being worse is terrifying. - Yeah, I just don't think ALPRs make it worse. Like, dude, I am with you on like, you know, ubiquitous coverage of security cameras that are networked with facial recognition. Like all of that poses significant threats to privacy that I think we should be genuinely worried about. But ALPR is looking at license plate. That's a strategic point. - What if somebody like bars your car, right? - Yeah, yeah. - And then while they're out driving it, they go 40 miles over the limit. - Yeah. - They get flagged by a flat camera. - Bring your car back and you have no idea. 40 miles over the limit to felony. Let's say it was in a school zone too. - Then the cops show up, draw guns on you, screaming in your face, throw you to the ground, dislocate your elbow. You get arrested for it. And they say, we have you on camera. - They don't. - We do. - They don't. - They have the car. - And when they pulled that auto blogger over at gunpoint and pulled them out of the car, terrified. - Yeah. - Did they arrest them? - I believe they did, yeah. - I don't think they did. I think they did. - I believe they did. - I believe they got arrested. - I think it was in handcuffs and detained them until they figured it out. - How did they figure it out? - I realized that it was a mistake that they pulled over the wrong guy. at gunpoint. Did they change his underpants for that? I bet they I bet they had to. That's for sure. You know, like, but, but you said like that can happen without flat cameras, right? I mean, like Brian Cashman, I think this happened to the general manager of the New York Yankees, like his car was reported stolen or something like that. They found the car. Yeah. No one ever unreported it. A police officer saw it on the street was like, Oh, I found the stolen. When you, when you call an airline when you have an issue, do you prefer the robot or do you prefer the human human? Oh, he's the human. Great. When it comes to law enforcement, I'm not giving a robot authority over any of it. But the, but again, the robot's not actually taking enforcement action. It is. No, it's not. It's just telling a cop. It's, it used to be a human would have to verify under oath when he signed those documents that he witnessed you doing a thing. Now the robot does it and you get in trouble for it. And then you got to go and prove it after the fact. Like, you're, these are, do are, these are hypotheticals that act. No, they're not hypotheticals. People get, get false speeding camera tickets all the time. It happened to me. Yes. A few months ago. Yeah, no false. And then, and, and, and, and, and Daniel as well as I had worked the world of the automated AI teller in law enforcement. A Daniel Turner with the exact same date of birth as me as we were both living in DC. He had a middle name. Literally, the exact same date of birth, except he was five foot two in African American. I knew my driver's license. I had an arrest out for my warrant. It took me a warrant out for my arrest for murder. It took me, it took me three days. It took me hours in the courts to prove I was not a five foot two African American. I didn't get entered in this glitch. Yeah. It was a glitch and everyone went at the end. And I almost broke down in tears on the last day when I found before the judge that I was like, you don't know like when you dismissed me like you have to go get the police report. I was like, if I am walking down the street right now, I have a warrant out for my arrest. What am I supposed to do? You're on on there without the right necessary paperwork, boom, boom. Next case. So I have to go to the police department, walk down the street with the warrant on my arrest. It was three days of, did you hear it? There's a flock got an apology. Never got an apology. Never got a flock camera in Florida. This is what scares the crap out of me is these little AI glitches that are like, oh, show darn. It was a woman in Florida who lived in the Orlando area who'd never been to the panhandle. Yeah. A car in the panhandle got flagged by a flock camera and entered her name into a database for having committed a crime. But the database could not determine because it's not a human, this woman's name. And so next thing she knows, state police are at her house and they're like, you are up driving your vehicle in the panel. And she was like, I've never been there in my life. And they're like, nice try lady. Every criminal tells us this. You're on to arrest. And then she got driven up there. And then she spent, I think like, I can't remember. There's a couple stories. I don't know if it was a few weeks to a few months where they were like, you, your name, your date of birth were entered into the system as having committed this crime. It's you outsourcing law enforcement to a robot. Yeah, but it's not really outsourcing. Like, let me ask a question. Are you against shots, butter? I generally understand. It's acoustic gun shot detection technology, right? So like the sensors that are placed strategically throughout cities and they listen specifically for gunfire that are able to like distinguish routine. But, you know, yeah, I was absolutely opposed to that 100%. Okay. Yeah. Like, I just that's on constitutional. It should not be allowed. What? How? Wait, what? How's it on constitutional? The right to come bare arms on not be in fringe and the government, signaling out gun ownership. No, I wasn't signaling out gunnership. It's only if the gun goes off. Yeah, right. So gunfire always illegal. No, not always. And what then? Okay. Well, so then I will say this. I think it's bad, but it's a first amendment issue in your role. You're allowed to listen to things in public, right? You're also allowed to watch things and you can go indeed. And that's the issue with flock. I think it's bad, but it's a first amendment issue that you have a right to put up a camera and watch things. Right. So it is a bad thing, but it's protected by the first amendment. But you think that shots, butter is also a bad thing for the same reason. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I just, you know, you know, most of the nine, most of the shootings in a lot of like high shooting neighborhoods don't have a company. Tell me about the gun laws in high shooting neighborhoods. They're awful. And a lot of places, you mean they're very restrictive. In some places, yeah, in almost all of them. Yeah, less so now, probably literally all of them, less so after brewing. I mean, brewing is really kind of leveled to playing. Yeah. No, like in Chicago, if you have a magazine that can hold more than seven, it's a 10 more than 10. Yeah, Chicago at seven. I think it's 10. They're pretty sure in Chicago at seven. They're places in the US. Pretty sure because my friends live in Chicago and they had to reason. I don't like more than 10 when I lived in Chicago. This is recent criminal. I don't think it's. There was a camera that would have caught you. Not in my house. I have to say and this is going to make me and I swear I'm a good person. I really am. And this is going to make me sound like an awful person. But this is how strongly I feel about this. I would not give up my rights to not be surveilled. I don't care about the child and the mother. Yeah. So sorry. And the mother is like, Oh, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm in the constitution. I'm so sorry for you, mom. You're right. Let's get out of the car even for a second with a child in the back. Let me put it like this. I am so sorry for that mother and her child, but that is how strongly I feel like that. I am not giving up my freedom because you're made a mistake. I'm sorry. Do you think that they make Michaels in Georgia deserve to go to prison for the rest of their life? It was the big mic. I'll come at Arbery shooting. George Floyd. How about George Floyd? No. No. Should, should Chauvin be in prison? I mean, I think he, I don't know. It's a hard case. No. It's easy. It's answers. No. I think it's a hard case. Chauvin should not be in prison. He shouldn't have spent a single minute in jail. Yeah. Maybe, maybe not. Well, he shouldn't have because he arrived on scene with George Floyd already on the ground. Yeah. I don't think who's on camera resisting arrest. Right. And Chauvin, according to the prosecutors, opted to use lesser force than the continuum allowed. So he chose to do a neck restraint with the knee as opposed to an impact weapon. Yeah. And he went to prison for one reason. He was on camera. Yeah. The camera created bad press. He knew the mob here. Indeed. Because he, and why should he have cared? He was doing everything according to his training. Well, this was actually one of the arguments that I made back then that like, you know, the idea that his intent was to kill is belied by the fact that he knew he had the same thing is true with the McMichael's. A man had been accused of burglarizing several homes. He was on camera burglarizing homes. It is not in dispute that Ahmed Arbery was a suspect in a string of burglaries. One of these burglaries was an auto theft that resulted in the theft of a firearm. So the police went door to door showing a picture of him saying he's our suspect. One day someone saw him running down the street made a phone call. The McMichael said, call 911. Police told him not to pursue, but he decided to pursue. Here's the thing. The other guy is, I've read his name is Brian. I've read his first name follows filming. Yeah. He didn't do anything. He just filmed the guy. Yeah. After Ahmed Arbery was killed trying to fight over the shotgun with the McMichael's. No one cared. It was only when the dude Brian released the footage to a radio host who then published it. Did they get prosecuted? Okay. That is the surveillance state. So there may be an instant state that he wasn't surveillance state. It's a reference to the ubiquity of cameras and the release of footage, which changes the scenario, which otherwise would have been a non-issue. So the point is there absolutely will be a circumstance where you are driving down the road and you know, something happens with your vehicle that otherwise no one would care about. And the locals will be like, Amen. Chill out. With a flat camera, you get a summons for a felony speeding violation or something. Yes. Well, this is again, like we're in agreement on that. I want to happen. I think it will. I think it will. I think first of all, it's already happening in some jurisdictions, right? I mean, like there are jurisdictions that have gotten rid of their speed cameras altogether that have gotten rid of their red light cameras that have stopped summing people for those kinds of violations. I say in my piece on flock that like one of the biggest dangers is that we start using this technology in order to enforce these kinds of rules. I think that is bad. I think that will invite a backlash. And the reason I think it's bad is because it will lead to a place where we completely get rid of all of the possible benefits associated with that technology by getting rid of the technology itself. We're going to try and grab at least a couple of superchats from you guys. We'll go a little bit longer. I you know, it was fun. It's an important conversation. So I appreciate it. The Mick Glone code says Tim, not all candidates, fans fell for your trick. I didn't. Context does matter when reading. They didn't read the whole message, but it wasn't unreasonable for them to think what they did. I would argue it's unreasonable to assume that your world view, your myopic news cycle is what everyone is talking to. Now, what if I in that tweet about roosters, which is intentionally a gag said at the bottom, the issue of men competing in the NBA is massive and we're going to be hosting a culture war show where I will moderate this debate with prominent individuals on the left and the right. It would have been a totally legitimate and serious point about a current news cycle item and the same thing would have happened. So you know what, I'll do it again to prove the point. I could make a post talking about the WNBA and Candace's fans. There's a disproportionate amount of them that don't actually read anything. Hence, they believe that Charlie was a time traveler had electromagnetic powers. Could Astral project was in a secret experimentation program. Or how about this, that a month after the dude released a video where he begged Gen Z to love the Jews, the Jews killed him. It's, it's just absolute insanity. But you know what, there's a quarter of people that just want to believe the government is always bad no matter who's in charge. My gripe with the government in the, in the Trump era was that they were lying in the corporate press and they still are to this day. And now that you're being lied to by can't us on a daily basis. Here's an example. example, my brother never tried to kill me. There is no reality where I ever had to flee from bullets from my brother. Candice made that up, but her fans believe it because she just says things. How about this? Her lawyer is working a building with that of her agents. Any of you ever questioned that? Apparently not, because you don't read below the fold. Because you watch her show, you assume it's true and you've never checked for yourself, hence the point of my tweet. People saw the quotes, they saw the retweets, they never actually clicked read to see what I was talking about. And I was talking about how JD Vance got chickens. And the Washington Post argued that they contacted local law enforcement to figure out if he was appropriately raising those chickens. And considering I'm a big fan of chickens, they're fantastic. I thought it would be funny to play this game with the intention, full well knowing that Candice's fans don't read. They just don't. And that proved the point. Don't get me wrong. You did, congratulations. You know, I respect it. Some do. But guess what? Most of them don't. So Candice can put out a tweet saying what did she say? The gun, the gunshots Tim Poole survived were committed by his brother. That's what she tweeted. It is an outright fabrication. And people started posting pictures of my brother because she's nuts. She's just, she's a liar. But it works. It works because there was a cohort of people, a large amount with low IQs that don't want to read the news that just don't trust the government. My theory, Candice married into the British House of Lords within two weeks of meeting the guy. They didn't go on a single date. He called her on the phone, said, let's get married. She then hires lawyers at some point that we're going to build it with a bunch of federal agents. That's very strange as well. Now she's discrediting the movement that helped Trump get elected. And she's lying about me while telling all of you, she's the only one that knows, despite the fact that Big Tech won't censor her at all, even though she's broken all of the rules. Just weird, isn't it? But none of you have asked that question, have you? All right. Let's grab some more. El Hefe Lopez says, you're gay if you don't give money to Tim. Seconded. Shadepp says, while not directly intended, the Electoral College is a check against mass formation psychosis. That is correct. Good point. John Rambo says, the fact is police gave away that they are watching you via your cameras. That's the point. Meet those says, when it comes to flat cameras in their, in their ilk, I am fully prepared to throw the baby out with the bath water. This is a step towards becoming like the UK. Indeed. Let's see. The Collins effects said, why are their flock cameras installed in parks? Search for the story. Interesting. Jason says, we're not going, we're not going to get there, but we are already there. Thanks for making Tim's point. Wait, making time point. Tim's point of it being bit. Let's grab a couple more because we are a little bit over. Austria says, no one mentioned the shear if that was surveilling his ex and daughter over 600 times. Remember the story? I think it was snowed and we found out that a lot of these dudes were gooning to images of women. Yep. Private because they had access to their cameras. Yeah. I remember that one. Yep. First name, Jane says, Al PR and flock are definitionally mass surveillance systems. 120,000 cameras is a pretty ducking, massive system. I like the auto correct on that one. Trevor sees us. What's the difference between a cop who sees you doing a thing in a camera? I think very little. Ah, but I can correct this. The issue with flock is the AI component of it, where it registers in a system that you committed a crime despite no human witness onto the constitutions bill of rights. I have a right to confront my accuser. What happens when your accuser is code? Then what? We have an answer to that. What do you do? They don't actually allow you to prosecute the individual, which is why that register donor of the vehicle gets the summons and it's attached to the vehicle. You don't get points on your license. You don't get, uh, you find the right, the register donor. And if you don't pay the fine, what happens? Then they'll suspend your registration. Yeah. Correct. So there is a, there is a criminal penalty for this violation. It's not a criminal penalty. It's a civil penalty. That's losing your right to drive as the result of a crime and moving that vehicle's registration. So a move of violation is a crime, right? Right. If they can prove that you committed it, but they. And so taking away your ability to drive is a penalty, right? Right, but they're not taking away your ability to drive when they take away your, your car's registration. Right. Like if it gets to the point where they actually suspend the registration, how do you get your registration back? Well, you would have to get a different car registered that one. So you lose your ability to drive your car, right? That car. Is that a penalty? Yeah. Is that penalty the result of a crime? Yeah. So why are you trying to obfuscate the definition of these words, playing some weird game? Well, because we actually have jurisprudence on this. Like individuals are not, like the ALPR captures does not constitute evidence that you committed. Can they take away your registration? Eventually, if you don't pay the fine, yeah, I think so. So paying a fine, not sure, criminal penalty. This is bad. It's a civil penalty is a moving violation of crime. It can be. Okay. Are there moving violence? They're not charging you with the crime when they send you that summons, right? They're, they're giving you a civil sentence over a crime. Over a traffic violation. Yeah. Which is a crime. It's called a, it's called a, it could be a petty offense or a misdemeanor. Sure. Sure. But again, like they're not charging an individual. They're charging the registered owner of the car for the violate. Like it's, it's not a, I don't, I don't understand his word games. Yeah. Am I, am I, am, like, I don't need to even ask you because if a moving violation is a crime and a flat camera automatically accuses you of that crime, putting a penalty on your, on your vehicle and crime. And then you, okay, like you're playing word games. No, I'm not playing. We're absolutely are playing word games. Crime committed. You must pay money. If you don't pay money, you can't drive car anymore. That's called a penalty. And the penalty is the result of a crime. It's a civil offense, but yeah, a, a, a moving violation is a crime. If it's, yes. Sure. But they're not, but the fact is, you could jail for this, bro. You're not, no one goes to jail for an A L P R capture. See, you were once again playing stupid word game. No, I'm not interested in this fake garbage. Listen, what an A, what A L P R's do? Are you paid by them or something? Just flock, pay you. But that's, is there a, is there a question? A lot. Yeah, because what you're saying is just so factually insane and insulting to the intelligence of a regular person. I mean, I would disagree. Moving violations are crimes. Yeah. If you get two moving violations out of the 21 in Illinois, they just spend your license. It is a crime. If you're caught driving after that, you go to jail for one year. But you're, so when you were driving and could engage and your vehicles in a moving violation, and they take a picture of your vehicle and accuse you of that and you get a citation for a moving violation that results in a penalty. We call that a crime happened. You were accused by a machine and you can lose your right to drive because of it, right? But that's called a penalty for a crime. Now, you can go ahead and play stupid word games. But that's, that's, that's, that doesn't matter. Because it's just, I think it's not going to work for the regular person. The A L P R is not, it's not, it's not being used as evidence of the crime. Right? Like if, if you get a speeding ticket for a speed camera, you're, the, the, the only person who gets a speeding ticket is the registered owner, right? Like the registered owner can come in and say, this person was driving and then they can give that individual the speeding ticket if they can prove it. But you're not, get the reason that they don't prosecute the individual for this. They place the penalty on the red. Your car. Yes. And so as a driver car after the fact, yes, until when? When do you mean at what point do you lose your right? I'm not sure. I'm not sure how it works in every jurisdiction. I think in some jurisdictions, things can get you understand what you can use your, yes, what crime means. Yes. So we agree that the flock camera will register a crime was committed. Right? Sure. How are they going to find you unless there's a picture of a crime being committed? Right. Yes. Then they were to be, right? They were fine to the owner of the vehicle, right? A civil line penalty, which is a penalty, yes. Or a crime having been committed. Sure. That's a, that's a fact. Not being assessed as a criminal penalty. That's not what I said. I, okay. Well, then, then we're clear. And then they can take away your right to use that car indefinitely. And some jurisdictions, I think so. That would be called a penalty for a crime having been committed. Sure. Based on a robot claiming it. Sure. And then what happens if the robot gets the license wrong? Well, then you have a defense. But what happens when the working class guy, the license plate is right wrong, never sees a citation or fine drives. Then one day gets pulled over. Right. And the cop says, you're driving an illegal vehicle. You're under arrest. Yeah. That's a class A misdemeanor. One year in jail and a $1,200 fine. That's a lot of what if so. That actually has happened numerous times. And the point is, we just had a story of a guy who was accused of stealing a car because the flat camera got the license plate wrong. He was stopped for being in a car that was flagged to stolen. He, I don't think he was actually criminally charged. What would happen if he wasn't driving that car in a month went by. And then his 16 year old daughter drove that car instead. Yeah. Yeah, be bad. Yeah. Oh, we're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show anyway. But otherwise we'll just keep debating for 27 years. Smash the like button, share the show with everyone, you know, you can follow me on accident, Instagram, @TimCast. Raphael, do you want to shout anything out? No, I mean, just follow follow my work. If you're interested in what I have to say on this, you can follow me on on X. I'm at Rafa underscore mongual right about this at city journal. I'm in not an institute. Check us out. All right, I'm thanks for coming. Thank you. Good time. Daniel. What's up? Oh, it's good to be here. Daniel Turner. Power the future. Power the future.com. If you care about energy issues and the communist to run climate change. And if you love sheep and rural farmers, go to Bristol farm, Virginia on social platforms and follow our beloved sheep farm there. Great to be with you guys. Awesome. I am Phil remains on Twix. You can Check out all the remains music on Apple music, Amazon music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crying, Carter. Hello, I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere and at Carter Banks official liver or else check out our record label at youtube.com/@trashhouserecords. Thank you for coming, Daniel and Rafael. Thank you. Let's get into it. We will see you all over at rumble.com/TimCastIRL in just about 10 seconds. Thanks for hanging out. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]