Kevin Smith (5:23)

Hey, how's it going, Kevin?

Phil Labonte (5:24)

Who are you? What do you do?

Kevin Smith (5:26)

My name's Kevin Smith. Sorry guys. I know you saw that and thought Silent Bob was going to be on here, but that's the story of my life. I'm an activist from Long Island. I run an organization called the Loud Majority. I'm also an advisory board member of the New York City Young Republican Club and I host a podcast every day, 1:00pm Eastern on LFATV on Rumble.

Phil Labonte (5:44)

Awesome. Well, thanks for being here. Mary is here.

Mary Morgan (5:47)

Hi everyone. My name is Mary Morgan. I co host Pop Culture Crisis here at Tim Cast. We Actually had Phil on the episode today.

Phil Labonte (5:56)

So thrashing Thursdays.

Mary Morgan (5:57)

It's called Thrashing Thursdays when Phil is on. Hi, lad.

Elad Eliyahu (6:01)

Hey, Mary, how's it going? Hey, everybody. I hope you're having a good day. My name is A lot Eliyahu. I'm a journalist here at Tim Cast. Phil, let's get into it.

Phil Labonte (6:11)

I did that on purpose. Elad's great. I love him. So the Senate has decided to confirm Cash Patel as Trump's FBI director. This is something that obviously we here at Tim Cast are very happy about, being that Cash Patel has been on the show multiple times. We consider him a friend of the show. But CNN is reporting the Senate voted on Thursday to confirm Cash Patel as FBI director, installing a staunch loyalist President Donald Trump and conservative firebrand at the head of the nation's top law enforcement agency. The Senate voted 51 to 49 to confirm Patel, with Republican Senator Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski joining with Democrats in voting against his confirmation, which should come as a surprise to no one. Both Collins and Murkowski are from purple districts, I think is a safe way to say. But they're also very independent minded. So maybe if they're, maybe they're, even if they're not specifically Democrat leaning, they're definitely independent and they, they have their own opinions. I think that around the table, we're all generally pro Cash Patel. We like the idea of making changes in the bureaucracy. And the FBI has had significant political bias the past definitely four years, probably longer. If you want to go back to the IRS targeting, well, that's the IRS doing it. But the IRS should have been investigated by the FBI and it was, it would. The, the Eric Holder, the AG decided, declined to investigate the, the IRS targeting of conservatives. But what do you guys think? Do you guys have a fresh perspective on Cash Patel or is it, is it kind of.

Kevin Smith (7:51)

Nah. Honestly, I'm loving it. I'm loving the, the change in D.C. i'm loving the fact that Democrats are getting exactly what they caused. They think that politics happens in a vacuum. I can't believe Donald Trump would someone like Cash Patel. And I'm sitting back here thinking to myself, if you guys hadn't acted the way you did over the last decade, you wouldn't have gotten many of these nominees. But if Donald Trump has shown one thing, it's that the harder you push against him, the harder he's going to push back. And Cash Patel is the, I would say the strongest force forward for Donald Trump. And I can't wait to see what he puts out first what he thinks is the most important. Is it Epstein? Is it, Is it, is it, is it Diddy? Is it all this stuff? I want to know about the aliens.

Elad Eliyahu (8:33)

Did you know he's a Long island boy?

Kevin Smith (8:35)

He is a, you know, when, when you want something done right, you get a guy from Long island, you get a guy from Garden City shout out.

Phil Labonte (8:42)

To Cash Patel and I'm not touching that one. But so I. Now I know that there is a lot of people that are like, oh, the Epstein list, they're, they're very interested in that. They're interested in the JFK files, they're interested in possibly in UFO stuff. But I'm not sure that the FBI would have info on the UFO stuff. Do you guys get the sense that that's the stuff that's going to have impact on Americans generally? I understand that there are people that are extremely interested in this stuff and there are people that want to see the. If you go to Epstein island and you rape kids, I know a lot of people like, yeah, we want to see these people punished, right? And, and absolutely. I'm not in any way saying that that's not a valuable use of, of government resources, but when you hear people talk about, you know, Epstein island or, or the, the JFK files, do those things actually have the most tangible effect on, on an American's day to day life or do you think that there are other things? Because it's my sense that the FBI's biggest or the things that the FBI have done that are the most egregious are when they were targeting people that pray outside of, outside of abortion clinics. Or when they were targeting parents that were going to school, you know, teacher meetings and, and saying that they're, they're likely terrorists because they're worried about what their children are being taught. When, when they were targeting J6ers that were. Granted there were J6ers that did things that, that maybe they, they should have been looked into. But most of the, the vast majority of the people that were arrested and had charges, those people were doing things that are constitutionally protected and the, the FBI were picking those people. I feel like those kind of things are the real tangible, important things that the FBI needs to be, to be. I guess there needs to be changes at the FBI because of those things. Again, I don't, it's not that I don't think that Epstein is, Epstein island stuff is, is important, but that's not going to have tangible effects on real normal Americans. That's Going to be the stuff that may feel good for, for partisans. And it's the flashy stuff.

Kevin Smith (10:55)

Yeah, you know, that's, that's, that's the big stuff. But so much of what Patel could do is less. He could do less of what was being done. He could do less of the school. I mean, we did a lot of work on school boards on Long island. And just to know that there were people out there from the FBI checking people's license plates because overzealous PTA moms yelled at people over. Over masks and over curriculum, that's terrifying to me. Particularly when, look, there are bad people in this country. There are. And they should be going after those people. They should be going after the people distributing bad stuff online. We'll say you can take that however you want. You know, there's so much stuff that they could be doing. Just revert that. And I think that's what Cash has talked a lot about, putting them out in the field and making them actual cops again, arresting actual bad guys.

Mary Morgan (11:44)

Phil, I think you're right that it's hyper partisan to appeal to. Like we're going to uncover who's on the Epstein flight logs and we're going to tell you about Diddy, like what's on the Diddy tapes. Like that's, that's hyper partisan. But it's also chronically online, like normies don't think or care about those things. So I agree with you on that. And something I've noticed, I think ever since the election is that there's been a lot more reporting on school shootings and school shooting plots. Not only ones that ended up being executed, but ones that were stopped. There was a recent one, I forget which state, but there was a plot by yet another trans identifying teenager to shoot up a school. And this is what you hear every time that headline comes out is like, the FBI was aware of this person and foiled the plot. But perhaps they were responsible for grooming that person in the first place into incriminating themselves.

Phil Labonte (12:44)

Can you expand on that? Would you go and articulate what you mean by grooming? Do you think that the FBI is actually involved in trying to.

Mary Morgan (12:51)

I mean, they are. They're interested in convicting people. And to do that, I think they want to get into contact with these people online and probably radicalize them, but also get them to say incriminating things so that they can, you know, stop the, the crime that they were planning, which they never would have planned in the first place had it not been for the influence of well, it's federal agencies who are contacting them.

Kevin Smith (13:13)

I mean, it wouldn't be the first.

Mary Morgan (13:14)

And also offering to supply them with illegal firearms.

Kevin Smith (13:18)

Well, we saw that at things like Ruby Ridge. We saw that at, at the Gretchen Whitmer plot where like what, nine out of the 12 guys were FBI agents. So if they spent a little bit more time, even if we're not talking nefarious known to the FBI. All right, well then maybe you should put three people on them and leave the school boards alone. And then maybe we could stop the foil those plots. Maybe we could get those obviously very sick kids help. Before the plot gets, you know, brought into fruition. And it's. I just feel like the, the allocation of the resources of the FBI have been so used in the wrong way.

Mary Morgan (13:54)

Can they stop like infiltrating right wing groups? Like they're obsessed with it.

Kevin Smith (14:01)

Can they or will they?

Mary Morgan (14:02)

Will they now that Cash Patel is in charge? I don't know.

Phil Labonte (14:06)

So there's. So in response to that, there's something that I've been mentioning on the show lately, and that's that we kind of live in a melee of left, leftism, right. And that the, the air that we breathe is steeped in leftist ideology. And when you hear, oh, the left is infiltrating right wing organizations, the knee jerk idea of right wing for normies at least is. Is bad. Right? There's a, there's an association of right is evil. And I think that if we can, if we do see a change at the FBI in that kind of demeanor, I think that that would be a very good thing for, for the United States. I mean, an organization like Oath Keepers, unless they've actually done something, the only thing they're, they're saying is we're going to keep our oath to the Constitution. The whole premise is we're going to abide by the law. And so to, to conflate that with knee jerk evil or even the left has managed to make a significant portion of the United States associate the word patriot with something negative.

Kevin Smith (15:22)

Oh yeah, absolutely. And, and it's so, you know, we've been talking a lot about this over the last several weeks, not not only with the FBI, but with all the nonprofit stuff that goes on. You know, organizations like the ACLU organizations, Southern Poverty Law Center. I'm on a Southern Poverty Law center list. And to me I'm just like, I don't know what I did to get on it. I don't know why I'm on it, but I've been Denied jobs because of this stuff. It's wild when, when somebody first sent it to me, it was literally over the school board stuff. That's exactly what it was. So I want to know. I know Josh Hawley has talked about this with the splc, like figuring out where they're getting their funding from, who's paying for this, how much of it's coming from a, for example, a USAID that gets funneled through a nonprofit that goes to an NGO that goes to another nonprofit. That stuff. If the FBI was really going look into that, figuring out why it is that a nonprofit tied to Stacey Abrams somehow got $2 billion. If the FBI wanted to investigate those sorts of financial crimes, I think that that would go a long way in letting in, stopping that machine that you're talking about from just equating right wing with bad, no matter what. I mean, the way they smear people just, oh, he's on the right, like a Rogan or Tim or anybody. And it's like, no, they're not. Like, not traditionally not. Mike Pence would not think anybody, anybody in this room is on the right. George Bush wouldn't think any of us are on the right. But sure enough, we all. He might, maybe Elads on the right.

Phil Labonte (16:45)

And, and the argument that I make is, is or has that I have been making is because of the fact that we're so steeped in leftism, anyone that's not left is immediately associated with the right. So that's why you're, that's why this, this, the discourse between Elon Musk or about Elon Musk and Ashley St. Clair and stuff. People, people can have their opinions about that situation, but they' wing. And then the, the conservative right was like, well, these people shouldn't be right. And it's like, well, they're not really right. They're actually center. They're not right leaning. It's just that we live in a melo of leftism. And because of that, anyone not left gets, gets associated with the right.

Kevin Smith (17:26)

But you said that the other day that there's a difference between right wing and not left.

Phil Labonte (17:29)

Yeah.

Kevin Smith (17:29)

And I think the, I think the not left is a lot of people, a lot of people come on this show who just go, you know what? I don't know what that is, but I don't want anything to do with that. So this is my only option here.

Mary Morgan (17:40)

You can say, my point is that it's not the left infiltrating those right wing groups or even groups that are unequivocally like identified as neo Nazi groups. It is the FBI. And the way I see it, the FBI has been engaged in criminal behavior against the American people. So they're not going to investigate themselves. They're not going to incriminate themselves. They're only out to incriminate civilians and get civilians to incriminate themselves.

Phil Labonte (18:09)

If we.

Mary Morgan (18:09)

So you want convictions?

Phil Labonte (18:10)

If we, and I don't disagree with that. But if we do live in a, a melo of leftism, just the FBI saying, oh, we're going to investigate, that means that it is kind of the left investigating, isn't it?

Kevin Smith (18:25)

I don't know.

Phil Labonte (18:25)

Would you say?

Kevin Smith (18:26)

I mean, because if, if the, if.

Mary Morgan (18:29)

The, this is now an arm of the Trump administration.

Phil Labonte (18:32)

Well, now, yes, but I'm, I'm referring to like pre. Cash Patel. Pre.

Kevin Smith (18:37)

Oh yeah, yeah.

Phil Labonte (18:37)

You know.

Kevin Smith (18:38)

Oh, definitely. Then it was, it was the left being invested. It was the left investigating the right. When you had guys like Eric Holder say that he was Barack Obama's wingman. And now they're, and now this CNN article loyalist to Trump. I'm sitting there going, where were you? And that's why you talk about the milieu. And it's so watching it change in real time over the course of the last month, no leader on the left, they are completely listless. They have no idea which way is up. And that's why we're getting some of the most ridiculous things ever, like Margaret Brennan saying that free speech was used to start a genocide. And I'm like, where. What high school textbook did you read? Because you could go back to sixth grade, but because they have existed so long as the norm when they are actually the far left, they can't see that they are losing the world to the center.

Phil Labonte (19:25)

Yeah.

Elad Eliyahu (19:26)

I think the big questions around Cash Patel is how he's actually going to run the FBI and who he's going to choose to go after. And I think how we could tell this stuff is actually what he came up on. So he sort of got his maga bonafides in the Nunez memo where he helped explain and debunk different alleged Trump Russian collusion that didn't really exist. And he helped expose that. That kind of earned him his early maga bona fides. And then he did a lot of press tour on that while doing the press tour for that. One of the things that people fear monger around that he said is that there's this one quote where people on the left and Democrats are mainly concerned about how they believe he will target a media on the war room. He said, we will go out and find conspirators, not just in government, but in the media. We're going to come after you. Whether it's criminally, civilly, we'll figure that out. So I guess that's where the left fear mongers around. I don't truly think, you know, I think he's going to be a fair FBI director. I don't think he's gonna go after people unjustly. I think time will tell that, but I know he has to. He has a lot of bluster when he's on Steve Bannon's war Room, but I don't truly believe he would actually run the FBI like that. Once you have to get confirmed and get in a position of power, a lot of different things change. So, you know, things are different once you're out of the job and kind of once you are in it after you got the backing of.

Phil Labonte (20:50)

So is it your sense that he was not saying that he was saying things that he doesn't believe, but he would. Do you think that when he was in partisan or on partisan podcasts, he was kind of playing to the audience? Is that your sense?

Kevin Smith (21:02)

Have you ever spotted McDonald's hot crispy fries right as they're being scooped into the carton? And time just stands still.

Mary Morgan (21:17)

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Upgrade your business with Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet. Shop pay boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning fewer carts going abandoned and more sales going Cha ching.

Phil Labonte (21:31)

So if you're into growing your business.

Mary Morgan (21:33)

Get a commerce platform that's ready to sell wherever your customers are. Visit shopify.com to upgrade your selling today.

Elad Eliyahu (21:40)

I don't want to make him sound disingenuous. I think he believes what he believes. But once you get in the position to actually have to affect the change that he goes after. So, for example, in this quote, we will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media. We're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly. We'll figure that out. I don't actually foresee him actually coming after NBC or something. So, like, Trump is often also like blusters against the media. I can't, I can. I can't think of a direct quote of Trump, but I'm sure we could find it. But I don't foresee. You know, sometimes you have to bluster a bit and, and that's what I think he's done in the Past on a lot of these issues, I think he'll be a fair FBI director, and I think he said he would judge people based on the facts when he had his confirm hearing.

Mary Morgan (22:25)

There's no righting past wrongs here, in my opinion. Just like with Trump being sworn into office, we have no idea the level of state secrets that he learned past and present, going into that role. Similarly with Kash Patel, we have no idea the secrets that he has already or is about to learn by taking on that role and the level of responsibility that that comes with. It's incomprehensible. And I don't, I don't see any past wrongs being made right, I guess.

Elad Eliyahu (23:00)

What? So like, for example, Democrats in the past have went after Donald Trump when he was running. Would you like to see Kash Patel to just, you know, what's the saying about a prosecutor could indict Iraq? I don't know. I'm the person and I'll find you the crime. Cash Patel can find reasons to go after, I'm sure different Democrat governors. There's a lot of slimy politicians out there. But I guess the question would be, is like, is he gonna go looking for things? Is he gonna apply a different standard of the law to Democrats than Republicans? I don't think he should. I don't think he will. Would you guys like to see that or like, as a form of retribution, for example, I think is how Democrats fear monger. So, you know, they'd say, well, people in Joe Biden's administration went after Trump and different Republicans. Now it's time for retribution.

Mary Morgan (23:46)

Isn't on the word that Trump used, though.

Kevin Smith (23:48)

Yeah, he said he was like, I am your retribution.

Elad Eliyahu (23:52)

But yeah, you know, not Cash Patel.

Kevin Smith (23:54)

Like you were saying.

Mary Morgan (23:55)

So great.

Kevin Smith (23:56)

But like you were saying, we've lived in leftism for so long that if we actually ran things down the middle, the left would accuse us of going after them because they have, they have basically run free for so long. Then when the media goes on tv.

Elad Eliyahu (24:11)

Would you like to see retribution out of cash?

Phil Labonte (24:13)

No.

Kevin Smith (24:14)

But when he, when he goes after someone who libels, when he goes after somebody who slanders somebody, when he goes after a media entity for just making things up about average citizens, it is going to feel like the DOJ is going after the media when really they should have been doing it all along.

Phil Labonte (24:29)

It's not just going to feel like that. That's the narrative that you're going to hear any, any type of, of government action against a politician. You know, they're going to characterize it as if it's politically motivated. I'm innocent. This is just Donald Trump coming after me. Look, he said retribution, et cetera, et cetera, because they want to get the public on their side. And there's a portion of the public, possibly a sizable portion, a plurality that will side with them, no matter the evidence, no matter how damning the evidence is.

Kevin Smith (25:03)

I mean, just take an Adam Schiff, right? Let's say Adam Schiff's been out there lying, making things up. We don't like him. All right? Let's say he's got a nephew who works for a non profit that's doing something wrong and Cash Patel goes and investigates him in that Adam Schiff now has provided himself the COVID to go, look, what did I tell you? He's going to come after us.

Phil Labonte (25:22)

I agree with you. Schiff will say that. But Schiff, I'm pretty sure he was censured as well.

Kevin Smith (25:25)

Yeah.

Phil Labonte (25:26)

So, I mean, he's just one example. Everybody knows that shift, that Schiff is as, as shifty as it gets.

Kevin Smith (25:32)

That was just one example. But there's so many of them. Like if a media outlet goes after somebody and make something up and they're sued and the DOJ goes after them and they've actually done something wrong, everyone is now going to say, look, we told you this was going to happen. We told you Donald Trump was going to come after his enemies when really they're actually just calling balls and strikes. But for the longest time, the umpire was betting on one team, I guess.

Elad Eliyahu (25:55)

Do you think he should be going after Trump's perceived enemies as retribute, you know, not as a fine line? I think he will be fair and an equal opportunist under the law as he should be. And if he doesn't, people actually lose more faith in the FBI than they already do. So the more partizan he will act as FBI director, we could anticipate it in the next Democratic.

Phil Labonte (26:21)

So I would push back on that in that I, I am of the opinion that the left has already, is already going to be so partisan. We know that the left has what they will do because they tried to do it to Trump. They've already imprisoned their political opponents, their people based on politics. The whole January 6th was all because of politics there. They've used the government against, you know, against parents that would, would defy the, the, you know, the Department of Education or, or what have you, the, the, the LGBT stuff in schools. Parents that would go and protest that and they'd have the, the FBI look at them. They've put people that have committed no crime onto the, what is the quiet skies list, which is actually a no fly list or extra screening, basically making it a hassle to, to do things. And I'm referring to Tulsi Gabbard and she was a lieutenant colonel in the, in the reserve. So it's, it's not just someone literally a war hero. Yeah, well, I mean, and ostensibly it was because, oh, she, she might be a risk to national security, but she's already been vetted with multiple, multiple times. She got security clearances like Lieutenant Colonel is not a low ranking officer. That's, you know, that's like an O5 or something like that. It's, it's a fairly high ranking. You'd be, you're in charge of a lot of people. And so that kind of scrutiny based on politics is the standard for the Democrats. So while I think you're right that we shouldn't, I don't want to see the Republicans do it. I don't think that we have a new crop of Democrats that aren't going to behave different, that are going to behave differently.

Mary Morgan (28:01)

Why don't you want to see the Republicans behave that way?

Phil Labonte (28:04)

Because if you. Because I want to see an actually legitimate government because the things, the things that they went after Republicans for, they didn't actually commit crimes. So if there's no crime, then I don't want the government going after people. If there's a crime. Get them, get them and use the full, to the full extent of the law. But like, like, like Tulsi Gabbard committed no crime. You know, the, the J6ers that were just walking around, they committed no crimes.

Mary Morgan (28:34)

Wait, so Phil first who just got pardoned or got their sentences commuted, they should actually receive like financial reparations, but they're not going to.

Kevin Smith (28:44)

Jay just awarded some antifa guys $7 million in Portland. He threw a grenade at a cop, but sure enough he threw an explosive at a police officer. They turned around and you know, did what you would expect they were going to do and then ended up 7 million. For 7 million, please come do like come beat me.

Elad Eliyahu (29:02)

I think it's easy to talk in abstracts, but I will take that. Do you like, for example, do you think Cash Patel should investigate former President Joe Biden, for example, for maybe what was the exact line? 10%, some amount for the big man. So like things like that.

Kevin Smith (29:15)

I mean there's certainly enough evidence there to seek an indictment.

Elad Eliyahu (29:18)

Do you believe so so you think Ash Patel should be going after people like Joe Biden for investigations?

Kevin Smith (29:23)

I think there is no problem with investigations. I do not want anyone to concoct charges. I don't want anyone to, to, to fabricate. I don't want them to find the, look at the person and find the crime. However, I mean the fact that Republicans slow walked this 10% for the big guy and the money coming from the Moscow mayor and all the Kazakhstan stuff and the fact that they slow walked that for four years so that they had talking points to run on rather than actually pursu is I feel.

Elad Eliyahu (29:51)

Do you think Cash Patel should investigate Joe Biden for his alleged crimes with percent for the big guy?

Phil Labonte (29:58)

I don't think so because I think that, that going after Joe Biden is a waste. I think it's a waste of time because he's so old. I would, I would say that he should have gone, that they should go after like his family, but he's pardoned them all.

Kevin Smith (30:11)

Yeah, for me it's more about the truth than the retribution. I want to know exactly how. Because the media sat there and said this, this is not real. Meanwhile we're all looking at the evidence going then what is that? Oh, that's, that' I guess my frame.

Elad Eliyahu (30:22)

Of mind here is that every president's dirty and if we're just trying to sic our current FBI on the former presidents, I think we'll be finding a lot of dirt on a lot of our politicians. I hope that I can understand. I hope they're like serious, I mean all crimes are serious crimes, but you know, serious crimes that the FBI could be preventing, I don't know, some sort of domestic terror.

Phil Labonte (30:41)

I would rather speaking you mentioned domestic terrorism. This is one more thing that I want to talk about about the FBI that, that I don't know if you guys have thoughts on it or not, but I think that it's worth mentioning if the federal government, if, if, if the Trump administration declares that the cartels are terrorists and they actually do start treating them like terrorists and there, there will be some type of effort by the cartels to strike back at the United States, whether they be at the American people or whatever. And I think that the FBI will have or should have a significant role in wrapping up as many terrorists, as many cartel members, which would be considered terrorists here in the United States States as possible to, in order to protect the American people. One of the things that I hear most of the time when we talk about or when I see the conversations on, on X And stuff like that about the administration calling the cartels terrorists is oh, you don't know what the cartels will do. They'll blah, blah, blah. And it's going to be so bad and there will be so many attacks and stuff. And I do think that there will be attempts at that. But I do think that the federal government has a pretty good line on who is and is not not a criminal. And I think that the FBI can wrap them up and, and prevent a lot of the, the, the supposed or proposed more tax.

Kevin Smith (32:02)

More of the designated them as terrorist organizations. I think that's more about federal allocation of resources because that opens up a few more avenues for them to like, you know, I know on Long island it's about airstrikes.

Phil Labonte (32:14)

I str.

Kevin Smith (32:15)

I legit in into Mexico.

Elad Eliyahu (32:17)

Yes, I do support those. I don't.

Phil Labonte (32:20)

Honestly, I don't know that I support.

Kevin Smith (32:22)

It, but I'm gonna think about that one.

Phil Labonte (32:24)

I don't know that I support it, but I do think that, I mean, look, the CIA and CIA and stuff like that has, has dealt with narco traffickers before.

Kevin Smith (32:32)

It's not stuff we're trying to get away from.

Phil Labonte (32:34)

No, it's not.

Kevin Smith (32:35)

I think that's I meddling in other countries.

Phil Labonte (32:37)

That's not that like not meddling in other countries affairs because they're directly affecting the United States. I understand we don't want to send military into the Middle east to decide who's going to be running Syria. Right, I get that. But when it comes to Mexico and on our border and the amount of narcos that are involved in the government, how many, how many people died before they decided that they would let a president live? Was it 36 people that the narcos killed before the president became. Yeah, before the, you know, Shaban got elected or whatever. So you know that the, the reason Shabam got elected or is alive is because the narcos said, okay, we'll let this one go.

Kevin Smith (33:15)

I will say that.

Phil Labonte (33:16)

So if that's the case, then it does make sense that. And that's why the, the United States has said, hey, we're going to go ahead and declare them terrorists. And I'm not. When I say airstrikes, I don't think they're going to be going after Mexican towns. They're going to be like, it's going to be people finding the actual heads of the narcos and taking them out.

Kevin Smith (33:34)

I will say, you think that the media and the left has lost their mind over the course of the last Month, let Donald Trump drone a, like a coca plant in Mexico and just sit back and watch because people will lose their minds.

Elad Eliyahu (33:50)

These cartels are a total powder keg on our southern border. And beyond that, our country is deeply, deeply infiltrated with all of these different cartels and gangs. And I don't know if we'll be able to stomach, if a real conflict arises, the damage that these cartels will do to not only, I mean American, not only law enforcement, but civilians, and then also the damage done in Mexico on our border. The perfect way out of this. I don't know. We, this needed to be nipped in the bud a lot sooner than now. Like, we're kind of really deep in the game of Mexico essentially being a narco state. They're not really run by their government. Their institutions are very weak compared to.

Phil Labonte (34:29)

The, the point is like, I mean the military is on the border now. They put the, the Marine Corps on the border right now. Like there are actual Marines and they are, they are, they have a green light to engage. Should they, should they be engaged by the cartels? It used to be where if the cartels shot the border patrol had to get, you know, duck and cover and don't return fire. The Marines are there.

Kevin Smith (34:49)

See, I'm more worried about that. I'm worried about arms.

Elad Eliyahu (34:51)

But like I've heard some stories in Mexico, it's like when you abduct one of these guys sons, then they, the cartel punishes you by abducting, I don't know, the whole local government, all of their families and children and then they end up like releasing the.

Phil Labonte (35:04)

So that's, so that, that was the reason, that was the reason I brought up the FBI. And, and the FBI. Does the FBI have the ability to actually wrap up that? You said yourself there's, there's a bunch of narcos in the US does the ability, does the FBI have the ability to find these people and protect the American people?

Elad Eliyahu (35:21)

But do we want. Not without regime change and taking over Mexico and literally nation building in Mexico, that no, there's not a way to deal with this unless we were knee deep, even deeper in Mexico because the second they leave, it'll continue to just be a narco state when you have to occupy Mexico. If we wanted to do that, and I don't think that's something we want to do.

Phil Labonte (35:43)

There's 100,000Americans that have died a year from fentanyl and stuff like that. So I mean, do we just say, well, you know, there's narcos and that's just the way that it is now.

Elad Eliyahu (35:53)

Every overdose death is tragic, but I think it's distinct from a casualty, from being shot up by.

Kevin Smith (35:59)

No, but I think it's so different. It's not an overdose, it's a poisoning. And that's the difference because nobody, you know, some guy goes out to a nightclub, takes too much stuff, ends up overdosing. That's an accident. Nobody is out there looking for the crap that's on the streets. No one.

Elad Eliyahu (36:13)

Unfortunately, the crackheads in a lot of different areas of our country are looking for the craziest fentanyl. And actually when somebody OD's on the stuff that's actually.

Kevin Smith (36:21)

What's that new stuff, Mark?

Elad Eliyahu (36:23)

It acts as like an ad to all the other crackheads. It's like, like, wow, he had this good stuff.

Phil Labonte (36:27)

I get what you're saying, but that doesn't really answer my question. So I'm going to go to Mary. Mary, do you think that it should be that the US should do nothing because the, the cartels are too dangerous? Because that's essentially the argument being made here. It's too dangerous to actually take the fight to the cartels because you don't win. If you don't take the fight to the cartels. You either take the fight to the cartels or this continues. I mean, we can build a wall and we can stop it. But like you said, Alad, they're here in the, in the United States. If you don't take the fight to them, you don't fix the problem. Do you think that it's too dangerous?

Mary Morgan (37:02)

Is that actually the risk assessment that you're making?

Elad Eliyahu (37:05)

I don't think the choices were between invade Mexico and nothing.

Phil Labonte (37:09)

Say that I said take the flight to the cartel.

Mary Morgan (37:12)

Yeah, well, what would that mean in your.

Elad Eliyahu (37:14)

Not drone striking them or.

Phil Labonte (37:15)

Well, I mean, well, so, so possibly sending in.

Mary Morgan (37:19)

I mean, it's chemical warfare what they're doing. I agree. It's not. It's not accidental overdoses like that. That is, it is poisoning. It's chemical warfare on, on the American people and it should be met with some kind of lethal force.

Phil Labonte (37:33)

The point that I'm making is we have as a country spent 25 years finding and dismantling terrorist organizations. The argument that's made when I say that is, oh, you can never actually win the politics side. I don't think that we need to win the politics side. If you're spending, if you're sending special forces and, and terror, terrorist, you know, HRT teams and stuff in and finding the bad guys and wrapping them up. That's what they did to Noriega. That's what they did. That's what they did throughout the 80s and stuff. This isn't something the United States has never done. And there were times where the, the violence in the United States was significantly worse. Now granted, it might end up. Ha. We might end up seeing more violence here, but you don't actually defeat an enemy by just saying it's dangerous to fight them.

Kevin Smith (38:22)

Well, that's why I think that label them, labeling them terrorist organizations is more about reallocation of resources. Because I've seen many of these cartels and many of these Central American gangs, I'm talking about take over whole neighborhoods. They've taken over. You know, we saw with the, with the trend, Iraqwa in Colorado, Brentwood on Long Island.

Phil Labonte (38:41)

That should have caused the, that should have caused. That should have caused this. The governor to activate the National Guard and go in and take them out.

Kevin Smith (38:51)

I think there's a big difference between that, which I would totally support. 100 support that then active duty troops in, in.

Phil Labonte (38:58)

I don't, I don't. I'm not talking about bigger. I'm not talking about big army. I'm not talking about artillery. But when it comes to the way that you get those guys, it's. It would be a similar thing to the way that they were dealing with. Dealing with, you know, dealing with terrorists overseas. It would be, it would be like, okay, they did it.

Elad Eliyahu (39:15)

I mean, dude, wait, I don't understand. Do you think taking out a few thousand cartel members would stop the drug trade? I mean, drug trafficking would continue. You'd have to have a sustained presence there. I don't know if troops on the ground is necessarily the answer. We need to figure out a way to embolden the Mexican government. You have to police their country in a proper way.

Phil Labonte (39:36)

Well, the first thing you need to do is get rid of the people that are making the decisions about killing Mexican politicians. If you. And, and it's not.

Kevin Smith (39:45)

It's.

Elad Eliyahu (39:45)

I mean, it's endless amounts.

Kevin Smith (39:46)

I can understand what he's saying. You just keep going.

Elad Eliyahu (39:49)

Gangster, cartel member will just fill in the place. No, because, because the demand is still there.

Phil Labonte (39:54)

I understand the argument that you're making, but the, the. The United States has dealt with cartels like this before.

Elad Eliyahu (40:01)

It doesn't feel like we've dealt with cartels in the past 50, 100 years in any productive way.

Phil Labonte (40:06)

War on drugs was a huge failure.

Elad Eliyahu (40:08)

Yeah, but that's like we did regime change Is that what you want to do here?

Phil Labonte (40:11)

There was no regime change to do.

Elad Eliyahu (40:13)

Noriega, we arrest him and we.

Phil Labonte (40:15)

Yeah, we arrested him. But we didn't have to change governments to do it. To do it. We got the government to allow us to, to. We got the. We worked with the governments of the government of Colombia to do it. We didn't have to go in and take out the Colombian government.

Kevin Smith (40:29)

I think the big problem is that sometimes when you cut the head off the snake, somebody else just pops up. I mean, we got out is never going to end.

Elad Eliyahu (40:35)

The market here isn't going to end. You mean we got El Chapo aspect of this. This and the Mexican government aspect of this. It's funny because I feel like I sound like an isolationist when it comes to this point. I do not want to get into some quagmire in Mexico on our border. I feel like that would be.

Kevin Smith (40:48)

But like you said, I'm more worried about the armed conflict on the border between the cartels and the Marines that are down there.

Phil Labonte (40:53)

So normal was actually. Noriega was actually the. He was the. He was. He was actually the military dictator of Paris.

Elad Eliyahu (40:59)

That's what it was. That's why I thought it was regime change. We did regime change.

Phil Labonte (41:02)

But Norway you mentioned.

Elad Eliyahu (41:03)

So wait, do you want to do.

Phil Labonte (41:05)

No, but no, he mentioned El Chapo and we wrapped him up.

Elad Eliyahu (41:09)

Yeah, but it didn't change anything with El Chapo. Just another person filled his place. The drug crisis didn't end with El Chapo. It's only gotten a lot worse. Actually arresting El Chapo, actually some people would argue made it a lot worse.

Kevin Smith (41:21)

So long as there's a market for drugs in America, someone will get it here.

Elad Eliyahu (41:25)

Well, unless the Mexican government is emboldened to actually enforce their laws. But they're not because they're a narco state. Those I'm sure we've tried to get the Mexicans to do it and they haven't.

Phil Labonte (41:34)

Why are you sure of that?

Elad Eliyahu (41:35)

Because administration after administration has put effort into it, but we need to, we need to incentivize their government to do it.

Phil Labonte (41:42)

Have you, do you have evidence of that or. Because I don't think.

Elad Eliyahu (41:45)

I'm not so sure the Mexican government has tried.

Phil Labonte (41:47)

Well, no, no, no. That the United States has tried to convince the Mexican government because the United States has many, many soft power methods. They could go ahead and. I mean we're talking about. This episode is brought to you by Meundies.

Mary Morgan (42:02)

Underwear drawers are like the Wild West. You never know what you're going to.

Phil Labonte (42:05)

Pull out or what shape it's in. So upgrade your collection with the buttery, soft comfort of Meundies. Meundies signature fabric is as soft as a warm hug from your favorite sweater. Plus it's breathable and oh so comfy, making it ideal for all day wear. Get 20% off your first order, plus free shipping at Meundies.com Spotify with code Spotify that's Meundies.com Spotify code Spotify. Every idea starts with a problem. Warby Parker's was glasses are too expensive. So they set out to change that. By designing glasses in house and selling directly to customers, they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials like impact resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate and they start at just $95, including prescription lenses. Get glasses made from the good stuff. Stop by a Warby Parker store near you right now and tariffs to, you know, that has, is, has made, you know, Mexico stand up and be like, oh, this is a problem for us. There are, there are a lot of, a lot of soft power and actual military.

Elad Eliyahu (43:12)

I think the Mexican government, actually I've conflicting views. It's kind of beyond of repair too at this point. I don't know where that really leaves us.

Phil Labonte (43:18)

So that's to the point. So then I, and that's why I asked you, do you think that we should just leave it as it is?

Elad Eliyahu (43:23)

Keep the powder keg, don't shoot up the powder keg. Yeah, I don't know. Let it keep accusing, accumulating Again, there's no perfect solution here. I know a problem also that we need to consider is how China is heavily involved in this as well because they provide many of the precursor chemicals to the Mexicans. So they're working hand in hand with these other criminals generally. I believe that we need a reinvigoration of the Monroe Doctrine. Trump's kind of doing some of this stuff with what we're trying to do in Panama. Maybe we can make Mexico great again as well.

Kevin Smith (43:49)

You know, it sucks because I think it would be easier to just diminish the demand in America by making things a little bit better and giving 20 somethings a purpose to live rather than going out and doing drones drugs.

Phil Labonte (43:59)

I think that the, the, I think.

Kevin Smith (44:00)

That might be easier than.

Elad Eliyahu (44:01)

I thought you were going to say the legalization card because many people just say legalize.

Kevin Smith (44:05)

You know, something about that don't feel right.

Phil Labonte (44:07)

Look at California. I, I Used to be a very much pro. You know, hey, if we just decriminalize these things and, and stuff that will, you know, it'll have, it'll take care of itself. But there's a lot of things that have to happen in conjunction with that. And you're not going to get a, a government that, to say, okay, nationwide castle doctrine and, and will decriminalize drugs. And if someone is using drugs outside of your house, you can go out there and take care of the problem yourself. And it takes that kind of, of, it takes property rights more than just, oh, we're going to go ahead and decriminalize drugs and then provide needles to people because then you end up with California.

Kevin Smith (44:41)

Yeah.

Phil Labonte (44:41)

And that's, that's, it's clearly a problem in California. So we're going to go on to the, this next story, though. Donald Trump wants to abolish the IRS and replace it with tariffs. Can it work? I like the idea personally, but I'm not exactly the most educated on economics. But I do like the idea of getting rid of the IRS and getting rid of the income tax because I think that the idea of making, making the American people pay for making money is bad. And I think that there are other ways to, to generate income.

Kevin Smith (45:18)

Absolutely.

Phil Labonte (45:20)

From cnn. No one wants to pay taxes and practically every American dislikes irs. But as the saying goes, the only guarantee in life are decks and death and taxes. So the IRS is here to stay, right? Well, maybe not. According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump announces the External Revenue Service. And his goal is very simple. To abolish the Internal Revenue Service and let the outsiders pay, Lutnick said on Fox News Wednesday night. In other words, America will raise so much money from President Donald Trump's tariff plan that the Americans will no longer need to pay income taxes. This sounds great, but it's riddled with problems. Now. I do think the idea sounds great. I would love to see, see tariffs take care of the funding for the American government. I believe that tariffs were the majority of the way that the United States used to raise money prior to the income tax in 1913. Thank you very much, Woodrow Wilson, you bastard burning hell.

Kevin Smith (46:22)

Easily the worst president ever.

Phil Labonte (46:24)

He is the worst president, both in practice and moral. Absolutely. But do you know what do you think? Do you think that there is, do you think this method would work or do you think that it's a pie in the sky?

Kevin Smith (46:36)

Well, I think it's a pie in the sky and that it would work. The reason why is because I want to be clear. If we, we have built so many systems now that rely on such an intense tax revenue that if we just pulled the band aid off, it would absolutely blow out the deficit. It would eventually work itself out over time. But I think you guys were talking about this the other day about income taxes and how the rich don't pay their fair share there and income tax.

Phil Labonte (46:58)

So glad a lot's not here.

Mary Morgan (46:59)

I know he should come back.

Kevin Smith (47:01)

I waited for him to leave actually. But income tax actually benefits rich people because as we know, they don't pay any. They don't take an income. They got dividends and they got, they got holdings and everything. If we got rid of the income tax and brought some sort of a VAT tax, evaluated tax where you pay, you know, we'll use a random number. You pay 10 tax on your milk and 10 tax on your yacht. That's actually a fair tax as opposed to, you know, a guy of Bezos Musk that, you know, they have a $1 salary while all of us are sitting here paying 42% and they're just living the high life. And to me, I'm thinking to myself, this is actually, it's going to make things a little bit more expensive, but it's going to make things a hell of a lot more fair. And you know, I think that would allow people, look, you want to buy your McMansion, I got no problem with that. You're gonna pay for it.

Phil Labonte (47:51)

Yeah, I mean, I, I don't know about a value, I don't know if a value added tax is. I haven't actually, I'm not sure what the definition of value added.

Kevin Smith (47:58)

So it's basically just like, it's basically sales tax.

Phil Labonte (48:01)

A sales tax on every assumption. Tax. Yeah, because I like the idea of, you know, a, a federal consumption tax because then you're not charged for saving money, you're not charged on making money. It depends on how much you spend. And if you want to go out and buy a yacht, well then, you know, there's going percentage of whatever you spend. The US GDP is 29 trillion or something like that gross domestic product. So if you had a percentage of the GDP coming in as a, a tax on sale, some kind of sales or value added or whatever you want to call it. I do think that the government could be funded. I also think that the government could probably cut their actual expenditures by a significant amount if, and hopefully something like Doge is going to do that. But I do think that that's, that's Something that's worth discussing a lot. Do you have thoughts on a value added tax or on getting rid of the IRS or on tariffs or.

Kevin Smith (49:02)

We're just talking about you and you.

Elad Eliyahu (49:04)

I'm not, I'm not sure that tariffs would be able to make for the. Make up for the shortfall.

Phil Labonte (49:09)

Mm. Do you think that. Okay, so Serge is pointing out. So that means tariffs would have to be at least 100% on all imported good for tariffs to replace income taxes. I mean this is CNN and I don't expect CN have a, A positive towards.

Elad Eliyahu (49:25)

I don't think solely tariffs would be able to like fund our government. Look, I don't love taxes. We live in a society.

Kevin Smith (49:34)

Tariffs stance a lot. I don't like taxes.

Elad Eliyahu (49:36)

Also tariffs. It depends on how you view tariffs. Tariffs are actually attacks on you because they make products more expensive for you.

Phil Labonte (49:43)

Well, that, that there's, there's, there's, there's arguments about that. But go ahead.

Elad Eliyahu (49:47)

No, I mean, right, so if, if like, if an item that it's the deincentivize even buying it to begin with. But it's like for example, I don't know, you buy a fancy shirt. If there's a tariff on a fancy shirt from Italy, 500% tariff. That money you'd have to pay for it to buy it and then that money would go to the government. Still feels like a tax to me. Just.

Kevin Smith (50:08)

But here's the thing, is that the person buying that expensive Italian shirt or it's anything, can't afford it anyway.

Elad Eliyahu (50:13)

No, you buy any item abroad because that's what the tariff would be. Right? You'd be.

Kevin Smith (50:18)

I mean, if you look at a picture of Japan and you look at their cars, it's going to be all Japanese cars. And if you look at a picture of Europe, it's going to be all European cars. And if you look at a picture of America, it's all Japanese and European cars. Why is that? And it's.

Elad Eliyahu (50:32)

I feel like that's an argument for America. If anything, because Europe's a dump and Japan, Japan's dying. So if anything, it sounds like the US is more successful importing those Japanese cars and European cars, allowing Americans to buy supermarket cars. I prefer American ones.

Kevin Smith (50:46)

What I'm saying is that Europe with it. Europe and Japan makes American cars more expensive. So they buy Japanese and German cars do the same.

Elad Eliyahu (50:55)

We do the same thing.

Kevin Smith (50:56)

Not on all of them. I guarantee you if you go to Munich right now, you will not see an F150.

Elad Eliyahu (51:02)

So for example, Chinese EVs don't exist in the United States. We could argue about why. Yeah, I mean, no, we don't need to. It's because we banned them and the tariff makes it too outrageous to buy, so.

Phil Labonte (51:12)

So that's China, not Japan.

Elad Eliyahu (51:15)

Sure. Well, I guess I'm kind of explaining to you guys the principle of what's going on here. Our free markets benefit you. Being able to buy goods from people worldwide is a benefit to you. It makes it more difficult for American salesmen who have to compete in American businesses who have to compete on a worldwide market. But it makes it better for the purchaser.

Kevin Smith (51:35)

But what it also does is it also helps the multinational corporation export their jobs overseas because they know they can bring it back in with no tariffs. And, you know, this is a long game sort of thing. This is not going to be an easy fix. But the fact remains is that there are so many companies that have fled flat, even with things like nafta, where all the Detroit motor companies all just made them in Mexico, brought them back over paid slave wages, and they're making big bucks. And this is where I think. This is where I think the populist left and the populist right can actually come together. If you're an American company and you're going out of your way to screw over American workers. Workers, then you need to be punished.

Elad Eliyahu (52:16)

I think it's a nice populist message, but if we get to the crux of the issue, it's affordability. So, I mean, we obviously can't tell what would have happened otherwise. But for example, here, here's my fancy iPhone. I still paid around like, what, 7, 800 for it. And this is from components sourced from around the planet. And it's actually amazing that this product could even exist or do the cooperation of millions of different Americans across the planet. But how much would this cost? If it was purely American made, nobody would be able to have financial access to it. Nobody would be able to afford this.

Kevin Smith (52:43)

They might not be able to afford to get the new one every single time. Time. Maybe you skip an iPhone or two.

Elad Eliyahu (52:47)

No, it would be. It was one of.

Kevin Smith (52:48)

No different times.

Elad Eliyahu (52:49)

Four times. Again, remember the slave labor you were talking about? This was made with Chinese slave labor. Could you imagine how much it would cost if we had to pay for American unions to make parts like this? It wouldn't be comparable. So a lot of the products that we have that we sort of take for granted. Look, that's not to say that there aren't issues with different multinational corporations. And then, you know, shipping different jobs overseas. But I think there's a balancing act of trying to understand the consequences of these policies. So free trade is what allows us to have this tech and other product revolution.

Kevin Smith (53:17)

See, I think there's a balancing act between the corporation and the American consumer where, look, Apple, I love my iPhone. This thing has changed the world. But you know what? Maybe, just maybe, you might have to. Apple as a corporation should take. For the good of America and for moral reasons, maybe the company should take a little bit of a hit on their bottom line on their quarterly earnings and say, you know what, you're right, we probably could make this overseas for nothing. But I think more Americans would buy it if we made it here.

Elad Eliyahu (53:50)

The first. If American phones were made in the first car company, more people would.

Kevin Smith (53:53)

Yes, the first car.

Elad Eliyahu (53:55)

More the American. The iPhone would cost.

Kevin Smith (53:57)

I am telling you right now that if the CEO of Ford came out during the super bowl with a commercial and said, look, guys, we did ship our jobs overseas, Americans don't give a.

Elad Eliyahu (54:06)

Crap about this not being made in America. Every American has an iPhone already and it doesn't matter if it were made here, not more. So we have iPhones less wood because they would be five times more.

Kevin Smith (54:15)

So we'll use cars.

Elad Eliyahu (54:16)

It would be unfathomable.

Kevin Smith (54:17)

The first American car company labor is.

Elad Eliyahu (54:19)

What produces these iPhones.

Phil Labonte (54:20)

Remember, it's not just slave labor. It's the, it's the fact that you can send it over there and have it be made and then send it back. And all of that transport cost is still less than the United States. You could actually take the, you could take a lot of the regulations and get rid of them in the United States. And a lot of the, the, the problems that you get with unions and stuff and the cost of producing these things would go down. But that, that's not something that, that you hear anyone actually discussing very often. Regulations are, are a significant, significant contributor to the cost. And the reason, the prohibition or not prohibition, but the, the. The hurdles to producing things in America.

Kevin Smith (54:58)

I mean, look, the first. I was saying it before, the first car company, the first American car company for GM Chevy to come out and say, look, look, our cars are going to be a little bit more expensive, but we're going to make them here.

Elad Eliyahu (55:08)

And we're going to different era.

Kevin Smith (55:09)

I guarantee you the first company that does that, they'll be, they will. There will be a pickup truck of that company at every construction site. Every soccer mom will be driving around in whatever SUV that company has no, they won't, because they want to buy American.

Elad Eliyahu (55:20)

They won't be able to afford it, unfortunately.

Kevin Smith (55:22)

People want to buy American at three.

Elad Eliyahu (55:25)

Four or five times the price.

Kevin Smith (55:26)

But you're making up that.

Elad Eliyahu (55:27)

No. How much? Again, this technology. You're saying that.

Kevin Smith (55:30)

So let's.

Elad Eliyahu (55:30)

Slave labor is involved.

Kevin Smith (55:31)

So let's start with people.

Elad Eliyahu (55:32)

We have to. We pay them.

Kevin Smith (55:34)

The company is going to have to take a little bit of a hit.

Elad Eliyahu (55:36)

Not a. I mean, no, the people would. Because that's who's going to pay for it.

Kevin Smith (55:39)

It's a give and a take.

Elad Eliyahu (55:41)

Is.

Phil Labonte (55:42)

Look, I really think there are Teslas that are made in the United States. Yeah, right.

Elad Eliyahu (55:47)

There are some BMWs heavily subsidized, both here and when they're also built in China.

Phil Labonte (55:52)

Well, they're heavily subsidized, but they're also. There's also massive regulations and there's unions that you have to deal with as well.

Tim Pool (55:57)

Right.

Phil Labonte (55:57)

So you might. We could probably get rid of the subsidies if you got rid of the same regulations in the union.

Tim Pool (56:02)

Yeah, that's the thing.

Phil Labonte (56:02)

And there's. There's competition. Well, I mean, look, dude, you can smirk and kind of smile.

Elad Eliyahu (56:06)

No, because it's not. I don't think you're doing a fair example because again, Tesla gets a ton of its parts and its workers abroad and like the downstream workers that are.

Phil Labonte (56:14)

Made that are working in America.

Elad Eliyahu (56:15)

You think, Phil. So a lot of the parts that Tesla.

Phil Labonte (56:18)

A lot.

Elad Eliyahu (56:19)

So a lot of the parts that Tesla uses in the building of their, Their cars, it's. It's a global market. These items, these microchips, these. All these processes.

Phil Labonte (56:27)

I'm aware that no one can make a pencil a lot. I'm aware. I'm aware that no one can make a toe. No one person can make a toaster. No one person can make a sandwich. I know that the market. I know that there is a market out there and that it's the market that makes it possible for all the parts to be put together. That's not saying that you couldn't make things in America, though.

Elad Eliyahu (56:49)

I'm saying you can. It would just be a magnitude of order based on.

Tim Pool (56:53)

Based on the current structure of everything right now. You're forgetting that we could change the way things are. We could. I agree with you. I understand your point. I totally do. But I'm saying that I think what he's trying to say is we should change the way that it works around here so that we have the ability to allow for American companies with incentives, which is the correct way to get people to do stuff, not by subsidizing stuff. You subsidize, you kill. Don't do that. You incentivize American business to make things here for cheaper so that like you said, you can have American made cars and you don't have to have all these crazy, send everything across the country, extended across the world.

Kevin Smith (57:21)

Then we don't have to have a.

Tim Pool (57:22)

Navy taking care of everything. I also understand, though, that we need to have a navy there. I also believe in our 11 carrier groups because they're sweet wheat. But I also think that, I see your point. I think what we're trying to say is we don't have to do things the way we always have done. There's a, there's a, there's a bias to want to do things the same way you've always done. You don't have to do that. You can do things differently and we can radically change stuff. Look what we've been doing. So I understand what you're saying it would cost more to do in America if you're basing off the current structure.

Elad Eliyahu (57:45)

Right now, but also paycheck to paycheck. Right now people are complaining. Right. There are issues with the rising prices of eggs. Now we're talking about these tariffs. Again, that would, would affect the consumer in a negative way. I feel like there's a misunderstanding of what the tariffs are because again, I still believe it's the purchaser who ends up paying the tax for it. Okay, I know that was a big whole topic that we were hitting on there. If, if Trump is able to implement it properly. Trump has done, you know, flip the table on a lot of different policy proposals and how we handle things. You know, maybe we could check it. I have faith in Trump.

Kevin Smith (58:19)

I will come back and we will chat about it.

Phil Labonte (58:20)

All right, so we're going to go on to this next story. Donald Trump. The Trump administration can continue mass firings of federal workers. Judge rules, which is something that we have been discussing to some extent on the, on the show lately about whether or not the executive has the authority to, to make, to fire the bureaucracies or bureaucrats, people in the bureaucracy or whether or not the bureaucracies actually are in control of the government. The Guardian report reports the Trump administration can for now continue its mass firings of federal employees. A federal judge ruled on Thursday rejecting a bid by a group of labor unions to halt Donald Trump's dramatic downsizing of the roughly 2.3 million strong federal workforce. The ruling of the U.S. district Court Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C. federal court is temporary while the litigation plays out, but it is a win for the Trump administration as it seeks to purge the federal workforce and slash what it deems wasteful and fraudulent. Fraudulent government spending. Now, one of the. Now, actually, I'm going to try and look this up. I saw Stephen Miller talking today from the, from during the. What's it called? The. The press briefing. And he had a great breakdown of this situation. I'd like to play it for you guys if I can find it. And I retweeted it, so it shouldn't be. Shouldn't take too long.

Elad Eliyahu (59:46)

You have a sick timeline, Phil. In a good way.

Kevin Smith (59:48)

You have a great timeline.

Phil Labonte (59:49)

Thank you very much. Okay, we're gonna go ahead. Here we go.

F (59:52)

For four years failed to cover the fact that Joe Biden was mentally incompetent and was not running the country. It is also true that many people in this room who have used this talking point that Elon is not elected fail to understand how government works. So I'm glad for the opportunity for a brief civics lesson. A president is elected by the whole American people. He's the only official in the entire government that is elected by the entire nation. Right? Judges are appointed. Members of Congress are elected at the district or state level. Just one man. And the Constitution, Article 2 has a clause known as the vesting clause, and it says, the executive power shall be vested in a president, singular. The whole will of democracy is imbued into the elected president. That president then appoints staff to then impose that democratic will onto the government. The threat to democracy, indeed the existential threat to democracy is the unelected bureaucracy of lifetime tenured civil servants who believe they answer to no one, who believe they can do whatever they want without consequence, who believe they can set their own agenda no matter what Americans vote for. So Americans vote for radical FBI reform and FBI agents say they don't want to change. Or Americans vote for radical reform on our energy policies. But EPA bureaucrats say they don't want to change. Or Americans vote to end DEI racist DEI policies. And lawyers at the Department of Justice say they don't want to change. What President Trump is doing is he is removing federal bureaucrats who are defying democracy by failing to implement his lawful orders, which are the will of the whole American people.

Phil Labonte (61:36)

Now, I mean, this is something that used to be obvious to people. The, the idea that the federal government is actually should be led by the people that are elected. And the argument being made now, you know, based on the, these, these hearings that the, that the Trump administration is bringing to courts. And that's, I think, the intent of a lot of the things, whether it be the, for the question about the 14th Amendment, where, where he decided that people no longer had birthright citizenship, which is going to end up in front of a, of the Supreme Court. And this stuff, this is all about getting the power back to the elected representatives. And Stephen Mueller broke it down. Great. The point, point of the elected representatives is if you don't like them, you can get rid of them and a bureaucracy that is protected by unions. And you, when you can't fire people, that means that regardless of who's in office, you can't have any kind of, any, any, you can't satisfy your, your, your gripe. You can't get your, your, your arguments or your problems taken care of by electing someone else because it's the same people implementing the same, same, same policies, regardless of who's actually in charge. So I think this is something that we're all generally in agreement on, but if you guys have any, any input on this, I'd like to hear it.

Mary Morgan (63:04)

Was this his rebuttal to people who voted for Trump saying, hey, I didn't vote for Elon Musk? Why is he in the Oval Office all the time?

Phil Labonte (63:12)

That's one of the things.

Mary Morgan (63:13)

It's like Elon is Trump's shadow now, and I find it very creepy and unsettling. And I think he, he's deeply untrustworthy. So, so that's not the will of the people.

Phil Labonte (63:23)

Well, I, I, I wouldn't, People who.

Mary Morgan (63:25)

Voted for Trump did not vote for Elon. And also, how much money did Elon give Trump?

Elad Eliyahu (63:30)

Like over 250 billion.

Mary Morgan (63:33)

Million billion.

Elad Eliyahu (63:36)

Let me actually look that up.

Kevin Smith (63:37)

I think he's only worth 200.

Mary Morgan (63:38)

It was like something like around $300 million.

Phil Labonte (63:41)

44 billion for Expo.

Mary Morgan (63:43)

Okay, it was a few hundred million dollars. And that was because he could stand to benefit. And his interests are much different from the interests of those who voted for Trump. They were interested in issues like securing the border, mass deportations, getting inflation under control. Those are not the same as Elon's interests.

Phil Labonte (64:08)

So I'll expand on that. You don't think that the, he wants.

Mary Morgan (64:11)

Benefits for his business. Business.

Phil Labonte (64:13)

So how does Doe, how does Doge, the, the work that he's doing with Doge, how does it benefit Elon Musk? How to have fun anytime, anywhere. Step one, go to chumbacasino.com chumbacasino.com Got it.

Mary Morgan (64:25)

Step two collect your welcome bonus.

Kevin Smith (64:27)

Come to papa.

Elad Eliyahu (64:28)

Welcome bonus.

Phil Labonte (64:29)

Step 3 Play hundreds of casino style games for free.

Elad Eliyahu (64:32)

That's a lot of games, all for free.

Phil Labonte (64:33)

Step 4 Unleash your excitement.

Mary Morgan (64:37)

Chumba Castino has been delivering thrills for over a decade. So claim your free welcome welcome Bonus.

Phil Labonte (64:41)

Now and live the temple life.

Mary Morgan (64:43)

Visit tempacasino.com no purchase necessary vgw group.

Phil Labonte (64:46)

Void where prohibited by law 21/ terms.

Kevin Smith (64:48)

And conditions apply.

Mary Morgan (64:51)

Well, I mean, I think that he donated to Trump's campaign so that he could have influence over Trump's decisions for the next four years.

Phil Labonte (65:00)

So you know, you think, well, okay.

Mary Morgan (65:02)

So he wants deregulation in his area of business.

Phil Labonte (65:05)

I do think that, that there's, that he does have the incentive to have deregulation in at least with the FAA and with his ability to send rockets. I agree about that. I don't think that the motivation, I.

Mary Morgan (65:17)

Don'T think that, I think that's why Trump changed his tune on H1B visas.

Phil Labonte (65:21)

That could be. Well, but I do, I don't think that Musk is, I definitely don't think that Musk is controlling Trump.

Mary Morgan (65:30)

And I also mean he has some control over Trump. He gave Trump a few hundred million dollars.

Phil Labonte (65:36)

I mean, just because, why would he.

Mary Morgan (65:37)

Do that if it didn't mean he could have some control?

Phil Labonte (65:39)

Why? Because, just because he like felt influence strongly. Influence. Influence is different from control. They're not the same influence having. No, it's not, it's totally not. Control means you're in charge. Influence means you can actually talk to the person and, and, and get your opinion in their ear. It's totally different. Influence is not controlled. Those are two totally different meanings. And then as for his, his whether or not he wants to change regulation. Yes, I agree about that. I do think that he, he want, he wants to see less regulation on things like on space X and stuff like that. Because he can't get rockets into space at the tempo that he wants to with the way that the FAA looks at, at SpaceX. So I agree with you there. But I don't think that the work that he's doing when it comes to things like this. Right. Firing of, of federal workers and stuff like that, I don't know how that actually benefits Musk personally.

Mary Morgan (66:38)

I don't know how I feel about him trying to cut cost costs in the federal government when he wants the federal government to subsidize his company.

Phil Labonte (66:46)

Yeah, you know, you understand that that.

Mary Morgan (66:48)

Doesn'T make sense to me.

Phil Labonte (66:49)

You understand that he doesn't actually have any power to make cuts. An audit is just making recommendations and then the president has to say, yes, okay, sure.

Mary Morgan (66:58)

I just don't think anyone donates hundreds of millions of dollars to a presidential campaign not thinking it gives them power.

Phil Labonte (67:03)

I think, like I said, I agree.

Mary Morgan (67:05)

That that's real power.

Phil Labonte (67:06)

I do. I agree that he assumes that he has influence, that he's correct.

Mary Morgan (67:10)

That is not just an assumption. That is correct.

Phil Labonte (67:14)

And again, I'm agreeing with you. I'm not disagreeing about that. I don't. But what I'm talking about is stuff like this. Because the topic that we're kind of talking about right here is whether or not the executive has the power to fire people in the bureaucracy.

Elad Eliyahu (67:29)

Yeah, I don't. I don't think that's the real issue at hand here. I think there are multiple true things here at the same time. But before I even get into those details, I wanna say, Mary, I actually think you're completely spot on and kind of brave to say that because now I feel like you can't nowadays, if you say something bad about Elon, he kind of built this people jump down your throat personality around him. But I think everything you said was kind of plain and obvious and like, I don't know how people would debate otherwise. Like, he was Trump's biggest donor. I looked it up. It was $290 million. There's conflicts of interests all across the board. And I mean, he could gish gallop his way into different things. So this affects me. This doesn't. But, like, he won't be able to actually go through all the individual business dealings. I guess the real issue at hand here is that it's a creepy relationship. Wait, if I can finish one second. Elon Musk and Donald Trump have a creepy relationship. It should be concerning. And I think there's some validity to people who are concerned about this relationship. Steve Ben was actually one of the first guys on the right to say something about this. I think there will be a rift in that. Trump does. It's a very odd relationship. There was a recent interview that he did with Sean Hannity where Sean Hannity had both of them on together. There was a weird dynamic. Steve Bannon issued a warning to conservatives and Republicans saying Elon Musk is one of the oligarchs who will abandon us. And I mean, like, on certain top issues that are really important to maga, he already has abandoned on Assange. So, for example, like the H1B visa stuff. So I think there's a lot of valid concerns around Elon Musk and we shouldn't just sweep this all onto the table. There's so many conflicts of interest between SpaceX, Tesla, Tesla, his interests in China. He has so many Tesla mega factories in China. They're like, we, we don't even fully understand the depth of conflict of interest that Elon Musk has. And I feel like way like wading through it is so difficult to a.

Phil Labonte (69:17)

Point where it's, I understand that, that. So you both have a kind of, I mean essentially, for lack of a better term, you both kind of have the ick about it. Right?

Elad Eliyahu (69:23)

And that's, there's, it's kind of a strange relationship that the richest person on planet Earth donated the highest amount ever donated to a political campaign and then, well, he, and he's benefiting from it in one way or another. That's not to say Elon Musk could be doing some good work with things.

Phil Labonte (69:39)

Like in one way or another. It's it, then it loot, then it loses any kind of, any kind of ability to actually debate it. You're just like, well, he's benefiting in one way or another. If you can't articulate how you think he's benefiting. And that's what I'm.

Elad Eliyahu (69:50)

Because he has a conflict of interest.

Phil Labonte (69:51)

No, I'm like, what do you think is a conflict?

Elad Eliyahu (69:53)

He gets interested, gets government contracts and now he's involved in cutting some aspects and not others. And he's getting this sort of influence in the halls of powers, behind the scenes with a lot of these.

Kevin Smith (70:05)

Hold on, hold on. I think that you guys have this all wrong. I think, and look, I want to be clear. I wish we had money out of politics like this. However, I'm going to play the same rules as the Democrats. They want to take hundreds of millions from Zuckerbucks and George Soros. I'm going to take, I'm going to take hundreds of millions from Elon. Until we change the rules, I'm going to play the same rules as everybody else.

Elad Eliyahu (70:24)

What does Elon get for his, his money?

Kevin Smith (70:26)

I have no idea.

Elad Eliyahu (70:26)

What do you think he gets for his money? Do you get anything?

Phil Labonte (70:28)

No.

Elad Eliyahu (70:29)

Wait, what do you. I told you there's a conflict of interest. You don't think he gets anything for the 300 mil?

Kevin Smith (70:33)

I absolutely think he does.

Phil Labonte (70:35)

He gets.

Elad Eliyahu (70:35)

Think there's conflicts of interest with Elon Musk.

Kevin Smith (70:37)

When there is a conflict of interest, I will absolutely call it out. But the fact, but right now I have yet to See any of that. I know that when NASA screwed up and left two astronauts in space, the first thing they did was call Elon and say, hey, can we get your help to go rescue these guys? Guys? So to me, I would rather spend the money on whatever Elon Musk is doing as far as SpaceX or Tesla, which, which, I mean, Tesla's just awesome. I would much rather spend the money on that than the absurd waste, than the comic books in Peru, than the. Any person who's ever worked in a government agency, any person who's worked for the government knows you could cut 20% of the workforce and not notice.

Elad Eliyahu (71:18)

Can all these things be true at once, though? I, I'm so, I agree with these cuts. He might be cutting things in proper ways. There may be good things that he's doing. But I think the conflicts of interest and then the, the political contributions getting.

Phil Labonte (71:29)

The, what's the negative outcome that you're afraid of?

Elad Eliyahu (71:32)

Undue influence by the richest people in.

Phil Labonte (71:35)

Our country influences in an outcome, but that's nothing new.

Elad Eliyahu (71:38)

And the conflict of interests that are downstream from that.

Phil Labonte (71:40)

Like so, but what, what are the, what, what is it that you think is going to. Musk is going to say?

Mary Morgan (71:45)

My main worry is that Elon Musk is a transhumanist technological accelerationist. And I do think that he has a certain animosity toward the American people because he is not American. And that's very clear by the absolute naked vitriol that he threw at Americans who are against H1B visas. The way that he spoke to them in that moment said everything about who he is. I think even the way that he conducts himself in his personal life says everything about the type of person that he is, is, and that he's untrustworthy.

Phil Labonte (72:19)

So okay, the, the, he has the.

Mary Morgan (72:21)

Most influence over the President.

Phil Labonte (72:23)

I agree with you about, I agree with you about all the, the, the transhumanist technology stuff. That's all there. I think that that's, he wants to.

Mary Morgan (72:30)

Shoot us into space so we can live underground in pods on Mars. So, okay, so I don't think grow babies in laboratories.

Phil Labonte (72:39)

So I, I, I, I get what you're saying and I know ex. But Mary, Mary, Mary, hold on, hold on, hold on. I get what you're saying and I understand where you're coming from. I understand, I understand your argument. I understand where it's coming from. The point that I was asked making from a lot was to get some kind of articulation more than I get the ick.

Elad Eliyahu (73:00)

He has conflict of interest. I don't think he actually holds our values and he's just using MAGA as a vehicle for his own interests. So that's how I explicitly believe. And for example, the H1B view visas, this is something that MAGA diehards know are all on the same page about. But for some reason or another, Elon Musk isn't. And then Trump flips on a dime on this issue. Trump. The unfortunate thing is that Trump is actually able to be influenced by money. It's not unique to any politician. And Trump's a politician here. So, for example, another issue Trump flipped on the TikTok ban. Many people have questions as to why he flipped on that. Well, Jeffrey Yassin, he has a large ownership stake in ByteDance, who is the parent company of TikTok. He stopped donating to Trump at one point. They rekindled their relationship. And now Jeffrey Yass's support was donated millions to Donald Trump as well. And then he suddenly changed his tune on TikTok. So I don't think, you know.

Kevin Smith (73:55)

Well, I think on some of those things, I think what Donald Trump does, he puts the idea out there, gauges public reaction and then makes his decision. And so then a lot of people were. I'm talking.

Elad Eliyahu (74:04)

Do you think Jeffrey Yass had anything to do with and his donations to Trump had anything to do with Trump flipping his decision to ban TikTok.

Kevin Smith (74:10)

See, but here's. Here is how I'm going to answer this. And it's not a deflection. It's going to sound like it is until you can prove that no, until there is proof that his donations had an impact. Until there's proof that Elon Musk subsidies are actually.

Elad Eliyahu (74:24)

He wasn't donating to him. And then Trump was for banning. Tick tock. He stopped. He wasn't donating to him. Started donating to it started donating to him and then Trump flipped on this issue that he was outspoken about because.

Kevin Smith (74:36)

I think, I think a lot of people were against it.

Phil Labonte (74:38)

Don't you think that. That Donald Trump is more, more pliable when it comes to stroking his ego than monetarily? Donald Trump is, is unique in, in politics in that I think that you can actually get more out of Donald Trump by telling him that his hair is nice and you stroke his ego with the money?

Elad Eliyahu (74:59)

Trust me, he still likes the I don Million.

Phil Labonte (75:02)

I really do think that the, the, the situation.

Elad Eliyahu (75:05)

Because I do.

Phil Labonte (75:06)

I don't not that, not that Donald Trump doesn't need money to donations and stuff like that. But I really do think that Donald Trump is far more pliable when it comes to getting people to like him than when it comes to actual money donations. If you give Donald Trump money and then you insult him, he's not going to let that.

Elad Eliyahu (75:24)

You're arguing. The issue here is you're arguing in the abstract, and I'm trying to give you guys specific examples.

Kevin Smith (75:29)

But you haven't yet.

Phil Labonte (75:30)

You haven't given any specific.

Elad Eliyahu (75:32)

No. Okay.

Phil Labonte (75:32)

I asked Mary and she was able to articulate point by point.

Kevin Smith (75:36)

I kind of want to hear more about that transhumanism thing.

Phil Labonte (75:39)

That's neuralink, man.

Mary Morgan (75:43)

He literally wants to sew the Internet into our brain.

Kevin Smith (75:47)

There is nothing on Earth I want less than that. I like, like taking this and putting it on the other side of the room for like an hour is.

Phil Labonte (75:54)

The way that he describes it is simply that, like, right now, the interface for your. Everyone's already aside cyborg, and it's just that the interface is slow because your phone is. Is. You're using your thumbs. And he's his. His argument. No, I'm not. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, Mary, but his argument is that. That the interface, if you can speed up the interface by having a chip in your brain, which is what neuralink is that people will be. Will take the next step to become transhuman and cybernet. He's. He's absolutely.

Kevin Smith (76:21)

That there's no way. There's no way that ends well.

Phil Labonte (76:24)

Well, I. I mean, look, I don't.

Kevin Smith (76:26)

There's no way.

Mary Morgan (76:27)

Who wants to conquer human nature? Who wants to basically abolish death and also have complete technological control over human reproduction?

Phil Labonte (76:39)

Do you think that he wants to control it, or do you think that he looks at it like that's what he thinks that human beings should be able to.

Mary Morgan (76:44)

I mean, he is that preeminent figure, isn't he?

Phil Labonte (76:47)

I don't know that he has that kind of desire for control. No, I don't.

Mary Morgan (76:52)

Richest man on the planet. He's the richest, but the rich happens by accident.

Phil Labonte (76:56)

He's the richest man on the planet, but he's the richest man on the planet. By taking like, really, really, really big risks about things that he believes in. Whether or not you agree with him, like, you can. You can totally disagree, and that's fine. But, like, he believes that, you know, climate change is something that's important to worry about, so that's why he started Tesla. And he believes that it's possible for an asteroid to come and wipe out all of humanity. That's why he thinks we need to be multi planetary. He believes that it's important to have. For people to have access to the Internet no matter what their government says. That's why he started space, why he started Starling.

Kevin Smith (77:28)

He believes in free speech, which is why he bought. That's why he bought Extra.

Elad Eliyahu (77:32)

Yeah.

Mary Morgan (77:32)

Now X is just a garbage dumpster fire.

Kevin Smith (77:36)

I think social media, so much more fun now.

Mary Morgan (77:39)

No, it's not. It used to be way more fun back when Jack Dorsey ran it and I stand on that. Yes, it was. It was always more fun when you knew get in trouble trouble for saying something funny. And now everything on X is just brain rot slop.

Elad Eliyahu (77:53)

Damn Mary, your number one Musk hater right now.

Mary Morgan (77:55)

I am. I have Elon derangements.

Elad Eliyahu (77:57)

And you're spot on with your Twitter take and your Musk take.

Kevin Smith (77:59)

So yeah, Twitter is so much more fun now.

Mary Morgan (78:01)

No, it's. It's really not. It's really the exam.

Phil Labonte (78:06)

You're right. You re examine.

Mary Morgan (78:08)

It's a giant dump of bot accounts. Pornography and clickbait.

Kevin Smith (78:13)

And other than those first two, we.

Mary Morgan (78:15)

Can get rid of those people. Engagement farming. That's basically all it is.

Elad Eliyahu (78:18)

Totally.

Mary Morgan (78:18)

And what do you people are getting arbitrarily censored based on Elon Musk's personal taste.

Elad Eliyahu (78:24)

Totally spot on. He's not a free speech. Absolutely free speech when it benefits him.

Mary Morgan (78:28)

And I have whether I should even tweet these certain opinions about Elon in case it throttles my algorithmic reach. That's not a free speech platform in the slightest.

Kevin Smith (78:39)

I think it's better. And look, you're definitely not wrong, but I think it's better than it was where people were arbitrarily booted off and no one knew why from one side. I think Elon. I think Elon said he probably senses he probably boots people, but I think it goes across the spectrum.

Mary Morgan (78:55)

I just wish you had actual human conversation instead of robots.

Kevin Smith (78:59)

I wish that there was more transparency on it.

Phil Labonte (79:02)

You don't feel like you have human conversations now?

Mary Morgan (79:04)

No, I think a lot of people are completely botting their accounts and there are a lot of bot accounts that are promoting Trump and Elon and others.

Elad Eliyahu (79:11)

But yeah, I totally think that there's definitely, definitely foreign and domestic like influence campaigns going on rampant on.

Mary Morgan (79:19)

Other than that it's gambling ads, it's pornography. It's like stupid like power washing videos and like whatever, like AI generated crap.

Elad Eliyahu (79:30)

That's not stolen content ripped from other people's reporting.

Phil Labonte (79:34)

Not my. That's not my experience at all. I mean, I follow a lot of people, so I did my, I don't.

Mary Morgan (79:39)

Know, maybe it's just because a lot of people join Twitter after Elon bought it, so they don't know what it was like before. But I saw way more organic content and organic human conversation than I do now before he owned it. And it was a lot more fun. I, I had a Twitter account as early as 2015 and it was way more fun because people actually, it was people talking. And yeah, you got censored arbitrarily. It happened to me. But even that added a bigger appeal to, to the platform. Honestly.

Phil Labonte (80:15)

You'Re like, ah, let's see if I can, can skirt this issue. All right, well, listen, we're going to jump to this next story here. And it's some international news. It's about Donald Trump. And, and I think that it actually speaks to the, to the thing that I said about how you can actually get along with, with or how what it's like to try to get along with Donald Trump. From NPR Reversing U.S. policy. Trump attacked Zelensky. Zelensky blames Ukraine for war with Russia. Now, I mean, I'm going to say right out front like it's not Zelensky's fault that Putin invaded. The whole thing is Barack Obama's fault for telling Medvedev that Putin could go in after his election. Yep, it was, it was when Barack Obama said to, to Medvedev, he said, tell, tell Vladimir that after my election I will have more latitudes attitude. And after the election, that's when the little green men started showing up in Crimea. That's when, when Putin went into Crimea and took Crimea, it was because he took, he understood Barack Obama as saying the US Will not get involved. You can go in after my election. So it's not because of Zelensky. It's because of Barack Obama.

Kevin Smith (81:30)

And look, I want to, I want to be very clear. I have no doubt who the bad guy is here.

Phil Labonte (81:34)

However, Obama, I feel like that's the.

Kevin Smith (81:37)

Answer to a lot of that. I know who the bad guy is, Barack Obama. But no, look, obviously Putin's not a great guy. Obviously he shouldn't have invaded Ukraine. But I think the Trump angle is just the same way. He looks at everything else differently. We've been doing foreign policy with Russia the same way since the end of World War II and we have gotten virtually nowhere.

Phil Labonte (81:58)

Yeah. Let me go ahead. The NPR replacement reports Washington and Kiev for the past three years. The U. S Has been Ukraine's leading supporter in its war with Russia. Yet with a series of blunt comments, President Trump is now sounding more aligned with Russia than Ukraine. Trump, writing on social media, used his strongest language to date in describing Ukraine's president, Vladimir Zielinski, a dictator without elections. Zielinski better move fast or he's not going to have a country left with limited room for maneuvering. Hoover. Zelensky has said relatively little, but he did strike a nerve when he said Wednesday that Trump seems to be living in a Russian created disinformation space. It's my sense, and I think we talked about this a little bit at the very beginning of the show, it's my sense that Donald Trump wants to see Russia, Europe actually pay for the defense of Ukraine because Europe has the most to lose. European nations have been living off the United States as military, the United States military, military protection for the better part of 60, 75 years, something like that. Since the end Of World War II, the United States has taken the lion's share of role in, in, in making NATO making NATO an intimidating force. There's been a lot of, a lot of it has been intentional because the United States didn't want to see nuclear proliferation throughout Europe. The United States was trying to keep every country in Europe from getting nuclear weapons because they, that's just a recipe for disaster. But the U.S. spends out of our, our GDP is like $29 trillion.

Kevin Smith (83:34)

The U.

Phil Labonte (83:34)

S spends 3.6% of our GDP on our military. I think the NATO agreement is every country in NATO spend 3% of their, is it 2, 2. Yeah, it's 2, 2% of their GDP on national defense, on, on their military, military which in, in, you know, net dollars is vastly less than the United States and they don't even meet their, their, their requirements to be in NATO and they haven't forever. The United States used to spend 15 in 1953, the United States was spending 15 of our GDP and it's been going down ever since. Like I said, now it's about 3.6 or something like that. But the rest of Europe who is the most threatened by, by Russia won't even pay for their own militaries. They won't actually spend the money on their military. They've been Living under the U.S. protection United States protections for all of the Cold War and since, and now it's time for, for the, the European nations to actually spend the amount of money that they're supposed to spend on their own defense. And I think that that's the whole goal now there's personal animosity between Zelensky and, and Trump. When Zelensky went to Pennsylvania with Josh Shapiro during the election, that definitely pissed Trump off. And I don't think that there's anything wrong with him actually having a problem with that. Why a foreign country that we've been sent just shoveling money into, has their president come and actually pick sides in an election? It's a bad look. And I don't think that there's, there's going to be any way to save the personal relationship between Zelensky. It's also worth noting that on Monday, Macron is going to be going to Ukraine to talk to Zelensky. And Macron has said that France will stand with, with, with Zelensky and with Ukraine. And I think that that's a perfect situation. If the French want to go ahead and pick up the tab, fine. I think we're at $70 billion that we've sent to Ukraine. So fine. Far since the war started in, in, in 22 and an additional 70 since 2014 when Barack Obama opened the door for President Putin to invade the first time. So it's time for the US to actually stop paying for this because there's been no changes. It's just a meat grinder and Ukraine's going to run out of people to fight.

Kevin Smith (86:02)

No, and you know what? You are totally right. And just the way Zelensky operates, like, you mean you're not going to give me money? Like, I expect this? Not. Thank you for what you've done so far. When it comes to foreign policy, I have spent my entire life, I'm 35. Why, it happened long before this, that every time there's an international conflict or a crisis somewhere, whether it's an earthquake or a landslide or a famine, something happening, the entire United nations all get together and they look down the road and they go, hey, America, you guys got this, this right? And I'm sitting over here going, we are struggling. We have problems. There are people freezing to death in a tent in western North Carolina right now. And I don't know what the NATO nations have done about it. I don't remember getting a lot from North Macedonia. I don't think we're getting a lot from Slovenia. If we got invaded right now and the Slovenians were like, hey, guys, we're on the way, do you feel safer about that? But no, we're paying for their top line expense and then we get to be lectured to by the Europeans. Well, we have free schools, we have free health care. We have free this, of course, because you're not paying the most. If somebody was paying my mortgage, I could afford to drive a Lamborghini because I'm not. I'm not paying the most expensive thing in my life. And it is so frustrating to see all the other countries lecture America instead of sitting back, shutting up and saying, thank you, Daddy.

Tim Pool (87:24)

Yeah.

Kevin Smith (87:25)

I am sick of being. I'm sick of being the sugar daddy of the world. And I'm sorry it falls on Ukraine right now, but it's. This is just the times we're living in.

Tim Pool (87:33)

It's the truth. I mean, a lot of my lefty friends always remind me, like, oh, I wish I lived in Europe. I wish I lived there. I'm like, yeah, I'm sure you do, because essentially you're living in this little colony of the United States where we give you guys a ton of money so you can live this dream of a lifestyle with all these walkable cities and all this nonsense. Meanwhile, the American guy is working ridiculous hours under all these crazy regulations to get enough money to feed his family. Family. And yet everybody can go and have a wonderful, you know, a wonderful, I don't know, a wonderful evening out in Copenhagen. You know, whatever. It's just not, it's not fair. Copenhagen's a little bit out. They're their own thing. But I'm saying, like, for instance, I want to. I would like to say France, I'd like to say England. But a lot of change there recently. So I don't know. But they, like, see my year anyways. They glow online.

Kevin Smith (88:11)

I see my European friends, they're on vacation in the Canary Islands.

Tim Pool (88:14)

Yeah.

Kevin Smith (88:14)

And I'm like, man, I have a hard time getting to Philly.

Phil Labonte (88:17)

Yeah.

Kevin Smith (88:17)

Like, you know, I'm just sitting and it's like, why? I feel like the first. If you work a 40 hour work week, the first eight hours you work goes to four. That's what it feels like. And it's, it's not 80% of the time, it's not 90% of the time. It's. Every time something happens, everyone just looks around and goes, well, America will take care of it. Meanwhile, like, even in the lefty paradise of California, like, all that money that we've given to Ukraine could be spent to go rebuild the people in California who, if we went, look, if we went $36 trillion in debt and we had like, airplanes that didn't fall out of the sky and roads that didn't have potholes and kids that could read, I probably wouldn't Mind that we were in debt, but the fact that we're borrowing money from China to protect Taiwan from China seems like a recipe for disaster.

Phil Labonte (89:04)

Yeah, I mean, I know you've got a lot of foreign policy opinions. What are your, what are your thoughts on Europe and the spending and the treatment of Vladimir Zelinsky by President Trump?

Elad Eliyahu (89:14)

I think it's extremely commendable that Donald Trump is making an effort to end wars both in Eastern Europe and the Middle east right now. And I, I think this rhetoric is trying to manage the expectations of the Ukrainians in a way with, with rhetoric like this. He's kind of letting them know your aspirations of getting back Crimea and Donbass kind of aren't going to happen.

Phil Labonte (89:41)

And he's been, the narrative that Zelensky's tried to, has been, has been pushing that they're getting back Donbass.

Elad Eliyahu (89:47)

Well, he has to. He'd be extremely unpopular. And guess what? In Ukraine, they want Donbass, the Donbass in Crimea back.

Phil Labonte (89:53)

Sure.

Elad Eliyahu (89:54)

But I do disagree with the specifics of what he was saying. I don't think Ukraine started this conflict. So hopefully it's just a. Here's the thing as we hand off this conflict to the Europeans because we are more interested in what's going on in the Pacific where more of the world is being centered. Now Europe's becoming old news. Ukraine, after a settlement is reached here, I foresee the Europeans not picking up the tab and then eventually actually more of Ukraine getting bitten off. If we didn't support Ukraine to begin with, I think all of Ukraine would have fallen, which were the ambitions of Putin. And thanks to the money spent and the weapons sent over there, the Ukrainians were bravely able to fight themselves. We didn't spill American blood in Ukraine and the Ukrainians proudly fought off the Russians. So, you know, this is a negotiating ploy. If the Europeans do not step up and if the Americans do decide to take a full stop step back, I foresee Putin just steamrolling through Ukraine down the line. It was part of the Russian empire, it was part of the Soviet Union. And Putin is an irredentist who believes that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy of his life, the greatest political geopolitical tragedy of his life. So I think we're going to see more ambitions of Putin as a result of this.

Phil Labonte (91:11)

But here's the quite hold on. Is it your sense that Putin actually does want to move into Europe and like say, get Poland and get the.

Elad Eliyahu (91:20)

Former Soviet states back within Putin's Lifetime. It was a part, Was Poland part of the USSR or the Warsaw Pact? Yeah. So the other country, like I do believe that he wants to claw back as much former USSR countries as he can or former Russian empire countries. Yeah, he, because he lost territory within his lifetime, he's seen his country, country collapse into pieces so totally. I think that's within his ambition to return Russia in his mind to its rightful place in world politics where he sees Russia as a major world power. They've kind of been delegated to kind of an afterthought right now. But the Russian demographics are horrible too. You know, Russia is going to struggle to move forward. You know, I like, I know we like to talk about Ukraine and they're struggling demographics, but beyond the war war, Russia's in a complete demographic collapse. Mary, what do you think about Ukraine?

Mary Morgan (92:16)

Well, what I wonder with looking at the combination of first of all, like Trump's truth social post excoriating Zelensky along with him meeting with Putin, excluding Zelensky to Zelensky's deep dismay. I just wonder like what is the safety safe or not the safe the face saving move for Trump to make this not look like letting Russia win? Basically, I think they're going to get what they want and Putin doesn't actually want to throw his hands up and call it a day. He wants his objectives met.

Phil Labonte (92:54)

Is it your sense that he wants to take all of Ukraine?

Mary Morgan (92:58)

I don't pay close attention, but my sense sense is that he's not going to make compromises in negotiations, especially now that Trump has thrown Zelensky under the bus. It looks like, oh, the, the adults in the room have, have come in to fix this. I just wonder if that really just looks like Trump. I don't know, it makes it look like Russia has, has definitively won in this conflict and that's a terrible look for the U.S. well, in terms of a, a global superpower.

Phil Labonte (93:37)

So I, I disagree that it's a bad look for the US in that it wasn't the United States actually fighting. Right. The US Was supporting and giving money to.

Mary Morgan (93:47)

Also Trump was giving lethal aid to Ukraine.

Phil Labonte (93:50)

Yeah, but, but, but I still don't think that it's actually the United States that's losing here. It is Ukraine. I don't think I, you had, I don't think that, I honestly don't think that that Putin is going to try to take all of Ukraine. I think that there's going to be a peace deal.

Elad Eliyahu (94:07)

Do you think he's satisfied? Do you think Putin's war aims were just the amount of territory in Ukraine that he currently occupies.

Phil Labonte (94:14)

I don't know for sure. I think that he, that the, I think the parts of Ukraine that he took are actually the strategic parts. If I understand correctly. He wanted the warm water port, he wanted the, the, the Donbass because of the actual topography in the land there.

Elad Eliyahu (94:32)

So they made a move on Kiev early on in the war. People say like oh, it's a faint, it's a fake out according to the amount of Russian casualties. So from that part of the invasion, I don't think so.

Phil Labonte (94:42)

So I think nobody. Let me, let me address that. I do think that his initial, his initial impulse was to take all of Ukraine. Yes, I do. I think that because of the stale me, because of the, the support from the rest of the world. I think that he's going to have, have to take, he's going to have to settle for what he's got. And that's why I think, that's why I think that he won't go after the rest of Ukraine. I think that he, I think that there's going to be some kind of deal and that's why I don't think that the US Looks like they lose because the US was never going to get Crimea back to, or never going to invade, get Crimea back from the Russians and give it to Ukraine. Now he, he did take a little more, a little more territory but I don't think that he's going to be able to take all of Ukraine because I don't think that Russia has the. Unless they were to, to, you know, drastically increase or escalate the violence. I don't think they have the ability to take it.

Elad Eliyahu (95:36)

Well, it's a, between us and them.

Phil Labonte (95:38)

Essentially because not, not between us and them. It's between Ukraine and them.

Kevin Smith (95:42)

Yes, but what?

Elad Eliyahu (95:43)

No, but we're de facto funding Ukraine. Ukraine can keep finding. Wait, wait.

Phil Labonte (95:47)

It's not funding. It's about the people that are.

Elad Eliyahu (95:49)

No, it's not. Ukraine will keep fighting until we pull the plug. What's happening first here is not the Ukrainian will collapsing. It's the American will to continue supporting them collapse.

Phil Labonte (95:56)

They have 50 and 60 year old men on the front line.

Kevin Smith (95:59)

Here is the difference.

Phil Labonte (95:59)

They will run out of people before.

Elad Eliyahu (96:01)

That's not the current issue. They will. The current issue with why they would stop the war right now is not because they're running out of people. It's because the Americans would stop funding their arms. Here's the thing though. If I'm a Neocon, Russian addition. What I'm saying is I'm trying to run this back in a decade or two, make the same move on Kiev, and I could take Ukraine and peace. Like, hey, I'm the Russian neocon. Hey, I remember when, you know, this was a part of our country. Kyiv was the first capital of our ancient Russian civilization that goes back centuries. I'm ready to do this all again. Look how successful we were. First. We started with Crimea, right? A decade later, now we took another piece of the dumbass. Now that the Americans aren't even interested anymore, they won't be sending them weapons. We only need to deal with the stupid Europeans. Now they're licking their lips and Putin's about to. To say, I'm gonna send this message all around the world. Donald Trump, the President of the United States, says, this guy's a dictator. Imagine how he's gonna use that as propaganda. Who did Trump say started the war? He blames it on Ukraine. So I think that will be used as propaganda in the future. Also, I think Ukraine has such a maligned influence on all of our politics that has yet to be fully exposed in all of our social media platforms. They're looking to fund different things in different ways. And I think it's very important to stay cautious of Russia. I hate to make it. I'm not saying Trump's a Russian agent, but there's a ton of Russian propaganda out there. And if you don't. You don't think so. I don't think you're paying attention.

Kevin Smith (97:18)

No, I think that the American people are far smarter than to, you know, have the, the, the entirety of their election be decided by a couple hundred thousand dollars Facebook ads. But here's the thing.

Elad Eliyahu (97:27)

I think, I think America could be influenced.

Kevin Smith (97:29)

I think Americans would have a lot more of a taste for this war if they felt like Europe was doing their part. And I think that for this war.

Elad Eliyahu (97:36)

And supporting them not. I don't want. I don't want troops on the ground. Boots on the ground in Ukraine.

Tim Pool (97:41)

Ukraine.

Phil Labonte (97:41)

Well, what's.

Kevin Smith (97:42)

No, no, no.

Phil Labonte (97:42)

What's the. Even financially talking about them?

Kevin Smith (97:44)

Even financially? It seems like, as I said before, Russia invades Ukraine, the UN gets together and goes, ah, don't worry, guys, America will take care of this. Now, Keir Starmer in the UK is saying that he's going to send some troops over there. The UK only has 72,000 active duty troops. Do you know why? Because, daddy, America is paying their top line bill. They don't need to invest in a serious military, because they know that if anything happens to them, here come the Americans over here. And I think that is the, the impediment to the America first idea that Europe, it is time for you to step up. You are, we are not living in the Marshall Plan where every one of your countries is destroyed by World War II. You have rejoined the, the land of the civilized advanced nations. It is time for you to step up. It was different after World War II. Everything was destroyed. So America was the only.

Elad Eliyahu (98:37)

As an American, you should know better. The Europeans will never stand. Stand up.

Kevin Smith (98:40)

Well, then, you know what?

Elad Eliyahu (98:41)

Then they rise up to the occasion, the reason why.

Kevin Smith (98:43)

Just like if you let a child live in your basement and never pay rent till they're 40, they're never going to grow up. And it's time for the Europeans to grow up and start paying their own bills.

Phil Labonte (98:53)

Is it your own, is it your belief that, that the Europeans would allow Russia to take more countries when push.

Elad Eliyahu (99:01)

Comes to shove, if the United States wasn't looking to get involved in, if they attacked a NATO country?

Phil Labonte (99:08)

Well, no, I think, I think a NATO country, I think that the United States would live up to its NATO obligations.

Elad Eliyahu (99:13)

I, I'm, I don't know if I agree with that. Like, I, I don't know how many Americans would hear, oh, Russia just invaded Estonia. Mary. Do you think we should go to war based on the Estonia, Mary? Like, should we go to nuclear, should we go to war with a nuclear power? I know we have the treaty obligation and that's important. And it's an, it's supposed to be dis. Deterrence, but when push comes to shove, they're invading Estonia. I feel, I guess me and you are going to go, you know, I think there's going to be a conversation that needs to be.

Kevin Smith (99:42)

You are.

Elad Eliyahu (99:42)

What do you think of that?

Kevin Smith (99:43)

100%. Right?

Mary Morgan (99:44)

Well, with, with Putin knowing that Ukraine is struggling to even rally like human capital to keep this war going, and also knowing that the war is deeply unpopular in the US and among Trump's own voters. What concessions is he going to make?

Phil Labonte (100:05)

Well, no, but I mean, I mean.

Mary Morgan (100:07)

He has more leverage based on that.

Phil Labonte (100:09)

Well, I think that, I think that what Russia is capable of is limited by the United States. Well, I get what you're saying, but I think that it's limited by the US Whether or not the US Will fund. Right. So if the US Decides, okay, you're not going to come to the table, then we can still make, we can make this a nightmare. Nightmare for you because The US does have that ability and that car, whether or not Donald Trump wants to play that card, that is a card that they're all well aware that the United States does have. Putin knows that the US can print tanks like it prints money. He knows that he, that the US can print advanced weaponry and send it there if he changes his mind. So this is always an option for the United States. Russia doesn't have the ability. They've always done low, lower tech. Not that they don't have some high tech, but lower tech and, and just massive amounts. Right. So whether it be tanks, people, whatever it is, they have a significantly larger population to draw on to send to Ukraine. Ukraine has, has almost exhausted their young men, Their, their young men, their capacity to put young men into the, into fighting positions and stuff. They're, they're bringing in 50 year old dudes, 60 year old dudes that are fighting. Now granted, this is an existential war to Ukraine, so that's going to inspire men of all ages and some women to go and try to fight. But at some point they run out and the United States has the ability to pump money into Ukraine long after they run out of viable fighters. We can keep pumping money into that war until all of the people in Ukraine that could possibly fight die. And Russia has enough people to keep supplying the front lines with people longer than Ukraine. Well, that's why, that's why, that's why, that's why it's about, that's why it's about, that's why there's, there's a incentive for both to negotiate. Now Putin doesn't get what he wants because he did want to go. I do believe that he wanted to take all of Ukraine, but I think that he will, that he's, he's fairly satisfied with what he's got because these, the locations that he has now are strategic.

Elad Eliyahu (102:17)

I don't know if the limiting principle.

Kevin Smith (102:19)

Is he can go back to Russia and say he got a win. Look, he got the one more report that he wanted.

Elad Eliyahu (102:24)

Exactly.

Kevin Smith (102:25)

We can actually say we're not funding this anymore. We're going to stop the dying in Ukraine.

Phil Labonte (102:29)

All right, so we're going to go ahead and, and wrap this up. We're going to go to super chats. Don't forget to smash the like button. Follow this page and share this video. If you with your friends. If you like it, if you want more content. The best way to support, support Tim Cast IRL and the project we do here to share them with your friends. Send the videos to Your friends and stuff like that. So let's bring this super chats up. What do we got here? Can you make these a little bit bigger? Yeah, we can. Where's that button? There we go. There we go. Keep going. One more. There we go. All right, so Pochita says. Oh, now it disappeared. There we go. Zoom it up. There you go. Pochita says, baby beanie Fun. Congratulations, Tim Pool and family. Yeah, the reason that I am running the show tonight, in case you don't know, is Tim and his wife are out welcoming their first child to the world. I have no more updates than that. I don't know if the baby has been born yet or if, if, if the, if, if Allison is still suffering. But, but yeah, it'll ever end.

Elad Eliyahu (103:51)

Allison suffering.

Phil Labonte (103:51)

Oh, I know, but that's why I'm here. I'll be doing the culture war tomorrow and also I'll be running IRL tomorrow night because Tim is going to spend some time with the family. Some well deserved time with the family.

Elad Eliyahu (104:01)

So muscle tough Tim.

Kevin Smith (104:03)

Congratulations, buddy.

Phil Labonte (104:05)

Let's see the, the. What do you got here? Just because I'm free says, want to have your mind blown on what most of the money for Biden's Inflation Reduction act went to go to U.S. spending. Go to U.S. spending site and search the keyword climate Justice. Then look under the grant tabs. Billions are there. The. That is true. The, the Inflation Reduction act was really just a bait and switch. It was the Green New Deal deal. They just changed the name and most of the programs that were proposed in the Green New Deal were in the inflation Reduction Act.

Kevin Smith (104:40)

Well, that's why I'm so inspired when I see EPA administrative Zeldin going we're going to get that 20 billion back.

Phil Labonte (104:46)

I love it.

Kevin Smith (104:47)

We're going to. I mean, look. And the fact that they pushed it all out the door as Biden was leaving just lets you know that this was not well thought out. This was everybody's wish list. Everybody on the way out the door honestly hung their ornaments on that Christmas tree and took as much out as they could the minute they knew it was over.

Elad Eliyahu (105:05)

Is it just me or is climate change as a political issue just completely dropping off the Democrats interest and agenda. I don't know if it's above abortion or transing the kids anymore or like climate change has really fallen off the Democratic agenda.

Kevin Smith (105:21)

It's because they don't have a leader and they don't have anyone to message properly. And that's why you are seeing people going out there who you've never heard of before before, because they are looking for someone, anyone, to be able to move them forward. And unfortunately, I think that if they continue to search for that voice, they are going to come up with some people they do not want.

Phil Labonte (105:41)

I think that the brand, the climate change brand was hurt by Greta a lot. Honestly. I think that when Greta was the, you know, doing the. Her whole shtick at the UN when she was a little kid, it was compelling. But as she got older and people saw her, her in other places doing leftist activism, they started to get the idea that, you know, maybe climate change isn't really the issue that we thought it was. And I also think that part of the reason, I think part of the reason is that, but also part of the reason is that the like, like Kevin said, the. The left is kind of lost right now. They are having a civil war in the left. They don't know if they should follow the extreme left or if they should go back to the. The, you know, Democrat kind of mindset where we're not going to hate people for owning property. We're not going to hate people for doing, for being capitalists. Right now, people like Jeet here, and I just saw this, this post today. People like Jeet here are saying we should go with the ideas that the DSA are talking about. Now. The DSA are the Democratic Socialists of America. That is not social Democrats. That is effing commies. All right, they are.

Kevin Smith (106:50)

I agree more.

Phil Labonte (106:51)

They are absolutely communists. They tweet about Marx and the immortal science of Marx. That, that they were like, we follow the science. We follow the immortal science of Marx. I'll tweet that in just a little bit. But the DSA and the far left are fighting with the reasonable left. The people like, like Rokhanna and people like.

Kevin Smith (107:13)

He's dangerous.

Phil Labonte (107:14)

He is.

Kevin Smith (107:14)

If they listen, if they listen to Rohana. Not that I'm giving Democrats any advice.

Phil Labonte (107:18)

But people like Ronna, people like Richie Torres, people that are actual Democrats, Democrats that are saying things like, we need to get away from the identity stuff, we need to get away from the, the LGBT issues because the idea of taking the marginalized and making that the focus of our party leaves us without an actual center that we. That can rally around this stuff. You can only get so many people to think, oh, these, these minority communities are what we need to worry about when they're actually living through serious problems of their own.

Kevin Smith (107:49)

And it's also the way they do the protesting. I think that laying in the street thing, blocking Traffic people were like, whatever you're for. I'm for the other thing.

Phil Labonte (107:57)

Absolutely. The. I mean, the BLM riots and stuff that did significant damage.

Kevin Smith (108:01)

Throwing soup on like the Mona Lisa. Like, come on.

Phil Labonte (108:05)

Yeah, so. All right, let's see. Alien Starchild said, you guys are forgetting Elon donated to help win an election. What would have happened if Kamala won? To Elon, to business, to us. This is something that's legitimate minute like Kamala Harris. I have some friends that are. That work. That work closely with people in the. In the former administration that had friends in the. In the DOJ there. And there was a lot of talk about going after people like Musk, going after people like Joe Rogan, possibly going after people like Tim because they were. They were considered a threat to democracy. And I think that had Kamala won, the country that we live in would be significantly different. There would be significant attacks on their political opponents, people on the right. It would have only escalated. And it's a blessing that Donald Trump won, not just because of Donald Trump or because of Donald Trump's policies, but because he's tried. The administration that he's put into place is the antithesis of what it used to be. Tulsi Gabbard was on the. On the quiet skies list. You know, Kennedy was actually looked at as. As the, you know, Persona non grata by the. By the. The HHS and by. By the.

Kevin Smith (109:17)

Wasn't he considered for a Obama level position?

Phil Labonte (109:20)

He was, for a minute. Yeah.

Kevin Smith (109:21)

Like a low administrator position.

Phil Labonte (109:23)

He was. He was a candidate. Yeah. Or he was. He was being talked about. So, yes, I do think that it's a very, very, very good thing that she left for. For multiple reasons. Tim. Road rage. Langdon said Elon offered to build a solar field and get electricity to native Australians on his dime because he feels people deserve preserve that basic human right. And the Australian government denied it. The man cares. I think that was directed at you.

Elad Eliyahu (109:49)

Sounds like this guy has a great PR team or something, too. He was trying to help all the starving Africans and. And then, I don't know. The African government blocked it.

Phil Labonte (109:57)

No.

Elad Eliyahu (109:59)

What?

Phil Labonte (109:59)

Sorry, I was talking to Serge.

Kevin Smith (110:02)

Go ahead.

Phil Labonte (110:02)

You were saying.

Elad Eliyahu (110:02)

I just want to do next super chat. No, I just. I think the. We've done enough on. On Elon tonight. It's just. I found it real interesting that Bannon was willing to come out with those comments. Comments about him and Trump's relationships with people who work for him almost never last. So we'll see how long Elon Musk stays.

Kevin Smith (110:20)

I Will say this about the Bannon comments, and I find this interesting, and I like this on the right, is that we all do disagree, but we all like, we actually have the diversity of ideas that the left continues to shut out. And I think that's what this administration is going to show more than anything else. Like you said with Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi and Bannon not agreeing and this one over here going, former Democrats.

Phil Labonte (110:39)

You know what I mean? Well, but that's worth pointing out because I think that that speaks to the.

Kevin Smith (110:43)

You can hate the neocons.

Phil Labonte (110:44)

That speaks to the argument that I made earlier that like the, we have been living in a leftist milieu so long that now the people that are like conservative or save the right or saving the country, they are almost all former Democrats. Elon Musk, Donald Trump, you know, Tulsi Gabbard Kennedy. These people are you.

Kevin Smith (111:06)

I mean, I'm a New Yorker. You know, we start out as Democrats in New York, the majority of people. And then the more you read, the more you learn, the more you go, nothing here is getting better. Yeah, maybe let's try the other way.

Phil Labonte (111:17)

No.

Mary Morgan (111:17)

And that was that for you?

Kevin Smith (111:19)

I would say about halfway through Obama's second term when I started to see that things weren't adding up. Also, I went to college late. I went when I was like 26 and going to college made me a Republican because I was watching 18 year olds who had no jobs and no life experience tell me about, about like effective tax rates and I'm like, so.

Mary Morgan (111:39)

You voted for Obama twice. Damn, dude. Did you vote for.

Phil Labonte (111:43)

Damn, dude.

Mary Morgan (111:44)

Did you vote for Trump the first time?

Kevin Smith (111:46)

Yeah. Yeah.

Mary Morgan (111:46)

Okay.

Kevin Smith (111:47)

I, I, the minute, interesting. The minute he was on that stage and said only Rosie O'Donnell. I remember I was sitting in journalism class when that happened. I just went, oh, this is over. He just, this is over. They're like, what? Like, it's over. He's done. And I'm like, now he's gonna win like, like that because he's a normal person. And I think that's what the last 10 years has really shown is that more normal people are rising to the top than the children are our future.

Phil Labonte (112:17)

Performa20 says. Glad to see you here, Kevin. My wife was your nurse at, at Good Sam a while back. She told me to tell you about your rumble. Good to see you on.

Kevin Smith (112:28)

Well, thank you very much. Hopefully it wasn't the most recent one where I had to have an organ removed, but that was, that's pretty wild.

Elad Eliyahu (112:36)

Happy to see that you're okay.

Kevin Smith (112:37)

Oh yeah. It was a. It was a minor one. So I'm all good.

Elad Eliyahu (112:42)

Minor working.

Kevin Smith (112:43)

I. I can't be stopped.

Phil Labonte (112:45)

Should DAV the Vedmax says. Hey Phil, maybe review how the UAE is doing in regards to their no income tax in vat. UAE doesn't have as much infrastructure as America. America which can mitigate most foreseeable football pitfalls. Take care. I'll have to look into that. I don't know, but I know that the UAE is not some kind of third world hellhole. If I understand correctly, the UAE is.

Kevin Smith (113:07)

That's Dubai, right?

Phil Labonte (113:08)

United. United Arab Emirates. I don't think that's the. That's the. That's Dubai.

Kevin Smith (113:12)

Yeah. Dubai's the city in the.

Phil Labonte (113:14)

Is it maybe could be the capital.

Kevin Smith (113:16)

Yeah, I think it is. I think that's like the most advanced city in the world.

Phil Labonte (113:19)

Right?

Kevin Smith (113:20)

Didn't they build it in like nine, nine months? Meanwhile, it took 60 years to build the Second Avenue subway in New York.

Phil Labonte (113:25)

Yeah, okay.

Elad Eliyahu (113:26)

Yeah.

Phil Labonte (113:26)

Dubai is in the uae. Yeah. So okay.

Mary Morgan (113:28)

Kind of uncanny though. I mean, you see videos of Dubai. Like I would never want to live in a place that looks like that.

Kevin Smith (113:34)

I could never be somewhere it's that hot.

Mary Morgan (113:36)

It's in the middle of a desert and everything's concrete and there's no plumbing.

Tim Pool (113:40)

Let's might remember there's no plumbing. One, they have to take trucks to literally take out all the sewage of every building and lineup truck for miles. It's not, not a wonderful like, you.

Mary Morgan (113:48)

Know, they're doing marketing campaigns for Dubai, trying to convince Westerners to move there.

Phil Labonte (113:53)

Is that where they're trying to build the line?

Tim Pool (113:55)

Yeah, but there's a lot of projects that get funded by a lot of that, by that oil money that are just like wild pies in the sky that may or may not happen.

Phil Labonte (114:04)

So they're doing a lot of excavation. I've seen. Whether or not it actually comes to fruition, I don't know. But they're doing a lot of digging out there. So anyways, Grimwolf says we have to weaken the cartels to the point the Mexican government can establish control, incentivize long term proper governance. Then they can keep a lid on things. They too will have to have a clearinghouse of corruption. Yeah, I think that that goes without saying. But I, I just don't think that saying, well, it's too dangerous for us to try to. To fight the cartels is a good idea option because they're only going to infiltrate the US More. They're Only going to have more cities fall, you know, more areas come under their control. I don't see the, that the, I don't think that the U.S. just saying, well, we'll go ahead and build the wall and then not let anyone else in. I don't think that that's enough. I think that if you're not on the offense, you're, you're, you're losing. So that's, it's not something that I'm hoping for. Like, if, if this. I think the situation could have been handled like Elad said, you know, a lot a long time ago could have been prevented. But now that it's here, I don't think that we have as many options as. As people think. I think that it's. It's kind of like we're gonna have to do. Do some fighting to fix this situation. Malakek Zakav. I hope I pronounced your name right. Says plead. Read this. Phil, Please read this. Phil. You need to speak to Ed Calderon about carte. Previously on Tim Cast irl. Cool. Okay, let's see, what do we got here? Hal Gailey says free trade only exists between free markets. The CCP market isn't free. Our trade is hobbled via a controlled economy. Each US state has free trade with the other 49. It works because it's fair and free.

Tim Pool (115:58)

Versus a controlled economy.

Elad Eliyahu (115:59)

There.

Phil Labonte (116:00)

What does it say?

Tim Pool (116:01)

It's our free trade is hobbled by a controlled economy or our feature is hobbled versus a controlled controlled economy.

Phil Labonte (116:06)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Tim Pool (116:06)

So each USA has free trade and the VER. And the other 49 to 2. It works because trade is fair and free.

Kevin Smith (116:12)

I couldn't agree more. There's only one of us that's trading fairly. There's only, you know, there's only one of us playing by the rules. And we're wondering why China's winning.

Phil Labonte (116:21)

Yeah, I mean, the. China makes. China kind of makes the rules that they're going to, you know, they make their own rules and they're, they don't. I don't consider China to be an honest broker. I don't think that if we're not. Not if we're not able to actually check to see if China's going to be living up to their, their commitments. They're not going to, you know, they're. They're the. They lead the world in piracy and taking existing technology and within. I've listened to this podcast. I listen to the, the all in podcast and they've had people on saying, you know, you'll you'll come up with an innovation and as soon as you release it in China, two weeks later, another company has it because they reverse engineer stuff so quickly. And if you're dealing with, they, they, if you're dealing with that kind of, that kind of disregard for property rights, it's, it's tough for countries like the United States that have to have all the rules that they, that we do have. It's tougher for them to compete. So let's see. A Fuera Media says Toyota makes the cars they sell in North America. America. In North America. They have plants in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Indiana, among others. Good. I like that. I think that, you know, we should, we, I think that we should incentivize making cars in the U. S And I think that the incentives should be things like lower tax rates for the, the companies that make them or no taxes. I think that those types of incentives for, for manufacturers that produce jobs or for companies that make jobs, I think those things are a, a net benefit for the American people and for the country as a whole. Let's see. Waffle. Sensei says if Trump didn't win, the Democrats would have destroyed Elon Musk. He donated to Trump for survival, then went all in. His reward was influenced. I think that that's probably right. The, there are, there were something along the lines of 12 or 13 different investigations into, into Elon Musk's companies. So, and that was under the Biden administration. And the, the administration was clearly hostile to Elon Musk.

Kevin Smith (118:33)

Didn't the federal judge stop him from like, was it buying stocks?

Phil Labonte (118:37)

No, from getting the reward for his stock. So he basically said, hey, I won't take pay at Tesla unless the stock becomes worth this amount of money. And everybody thought that's a ridiculous thing to do because there's no way that that stock is going to become that amount of money. Of money. And then it did. So essentially what he said is like, look, I won't get paid if I get paid. If I do this, I'll make a boatload of money, but I won't get paid unless everybody that owns Tesla stock makes a boatload of money. First he did it, and then a judge in Delaware stepped in and said, no, you can't. So, and that's all politically motivated.

Kevin Smith (119:13)

There is nothing quite like somebody who bets on themselves, you know, says, you know what? I'm going to make this work and if I don't, I go bust or this entity goes bust.

Phil Labonte (119:22)

Yeah.

Elad Eliyahu (119:22)

So many conflicts of interest that are the issue with. So Many governments around the.

Kevin Smith (119:27)

Can you point to one person that doesn't have a conflict of interest?

Phil Labonte (119:30)

He just has the ick.

Elad Eliyahu (119:31)

No, but I think, I mean, if you own X, like, if you work.

Kevin Smith (119:34)

For a campaign because you want to get a job in the White House afterwards, you have a conflict of interest.

Elad Eliyahu (119:38)

Say that it's. I think it's fundamentally different when we're talking about like the richest person on earth.

Phil Labonte (119:43)

So, like, Eli just doesn't like rich people. The argument.

Kevin Smith (119:46)

No, no.

Elad Eliyahu (119:47)

If you don't fundamentally understand this is important that there's like again, Elon Musk donated almost $300 million to Trump campaigns through different PACs. He owns Twitter, SpaceX, Tesla, and so he has a lot of these interests across the board.

Kevin Smith (120:02)

Show me one person who could donate that level of money that doesn't have a conflict of interest. And I would love to get big money out of politics, but unfortunately, this is the world we live in right now. And as so long as we live in it, I'm going to keep playing by the same.

Elad Eliyahu (120:13)

Yeah, I, I think, I think Elon Musk isn't. Do you know, he's saying certain things and I don't think he believes in all of them. And again, I think he's using the MAGA group as a vehicle for his own interests and I think we'll be seeing the effects of that in the near future. So again, I don't think he was never MAGA right before. Trump's been president before. You know, he wasn't MAGA there.

Kevin Smith (120:38)

Maybe we're using Elon Musk.

Elad Eliyahu (120:40)

Trump was against electric vehicles until, you know, Elon Musk started donating a bunch of money to him. And then he actually has a famous quote of when he says, oh, actually, you know, Elon Musk is donating a lot of money now. I guess I got to support EVs and Tesla.

Kevin Smith (120:51)

Well, maybe we used Elon Musk for his money. Maybe we said, all right, we'll be nice, right?

Elad Eliyahu (120:55)

So use him for his money and then tell him to go continue running SpaceX and Tesla and, and, and all these other, you know, companies that he owns. He sounds like he has more than enough work to do. So I think we got. We're going to get burned by us down the line.

Phil Labonte (121:07)

Get back to some super chats here. Lan says Mary said X has less organic conversation and more boded activity with no evidence. I guarantee you there was. There's way less bot post than pre. Elon X isn't perfect, but it's way better now. No question. What say you?

Mary Morgan (121:23)

I don't know. Let's just like, Glaze, Elon. Fine.

Elad Eliyahu (121:29)

Glaze.

Mary Morgan (121:30)

What evidence do I need? Like, what evidence would that be?

Phil Labonte (121:36)

I'm only. I'm only reading the Super Chat for you.

Mary Morgan (121:38)

I don't. I don't have a study for you. No, I'm talking about what it was like to be a user of Twitter versus what it's like to be a user of X. And the user experience has taken a sharp downturn.

Phil Labonte (121:54)

Let's see. Thomas Conservative says Russia was always going to win one way or another. Another. Unless the US Wants to have World War iii. US and Russia are like Greek gods. We can do anything to the low mortal countries as long as we don't fight each other. I mean, there's some substance to that.

Elad Eliyahu (122:12)

Your metaphor is stupid because there's only one God. And so in your metaphor, you know, I'm not going to say anything.

Phil Labonte (122:18)

Yeah.

Kevin Smith (122:18)

You know, gives me not touching that at all.

Elad Eliyahu (122:21)

From that. There's no equal footing of the United States and Russia. And, like, compare the two too. Makes you, like, deeply have a deeply deep misunderstanding of how geopolitics and our economies interact. There's no multipolarity here. We're unquestionably the hegemonic power. And was this a win for Ukraine? Was this a win for Russia? Doesn't really feel like it. They didn't really achieve all their goals and at the cost of under a million deaths in Russia. So if I'm a Russian, I don't know how much pride I'm taking in struggling to take, you know, piecemeal parts of Ukraine. You didn't even get all of it. So not wishing you good luck on the next try.

Phil Labonte (122:58)

All right, we're going to. We're going to do one more. This one glazes me. As Mary says, walkin. Walkin says. Phil, the new record is fantastic. Rip Ollie, by the way, please confirm that the second bridge on Divine is a very respectful nod to Ollie's riff on Not Alone. I know it and you know it, and I love Jason for it. Cheers. Yes, it was absolutely an odd to Not Alone, so. All right, everybody, smash the like button. Share the show with your friends, tell everybody and know and become a member@timcast.com if you become a member@timcast.com I believe you also become a member of Rumble and you'll be able to jump into our after show. There's the Rumble rants, which we're gonna touch. We're gonna. We're gonna Talk about. And we'll take callers every night after the Rumble rants. We'll take a bunch of callers from the the Discord. So go ahead and join that Discord. And Kevin Smith. Where can people find you?

Kevin Smith (123:52)

You guys can find me 1pm Eastern on LFATV on Rumble or I stream on X or on my personal page, Loud Majority us. I want to thank you guys all for having me on. And real quick, Tim, congratulations. Sorry I didn't get to meet you brother, but I guess we'll, I guess we'll take a rain check on that one.

Mary Morgan (124:10)

Yeah, you can find me on Pop Culture Crisis. We go live every Monday through Friday at 3pm Eastern Noon Pacific time. And you can go follow me on Instagram and believe it or not X as well, both at Mary archived.

Elad Eliyahu (124:26)

Mary, it was so much fun. I feel like we were never on IRL together. So I had a really good time speaking to you tonight and others of course. My name is a lot Eliyahu. I'm a journalist here at Tim Cass. You could catch me on X at Elad Eliyahu and then on Instagram is barely informed with a lot. I guess my DMS are available to be glazed. Or is that what you guys say now? Glazed or complimented or complaints. The DMs are open.

Phil Labonte (124:53)

I am fil that remains on Twix. You can subscribe to me there. I'm filler remains official on Instagram. The band is all that remains. Our new record dropped on January 31st. It's called anti Fragile. You can check it out on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify and Deezer. Oh, and on YouTube. And don't forget the left lane is on Is for crime. We will see you tomorrow morning morning with the culture war. And if you are a Tim cast member, stick around because we are going to be right here with the Rumble after show. So see you tomorrow.