Trump Address Iran War In Historic Speech

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Timcast IRL – Trump Address Iran War In Historic Speech

Date: April 2, 2026
Host: Tim Pool
Guests: Michael Malice, Ian Crossland, Phil Labonte, Carter Banks

---

Episode Overview

This episode covers the anticipation and fallout of Donald Trump’s historic address on the Iran war, alongside a lively roundtable about birthright citizenship (and its Supreme Court challenge), executive powers, the mechanics and ethics of war, American cultural division, and more. The discussion is carried by Tim Pool and his guests, who mix sharp political analysis with characteristic irreverence and banter, touching on everything from legal philosophy to the complexities of alliances in geopolitics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s Iran War Address – Reactions & Analysis

[59:57] – [80:28]

• Summary of Trump’s Speech:
  • Declares overwhelming U.S. military success: Iran’s navy/air force destroyed, leadership dead, military objectives “close to completion.”
  • Nuclear capability of Iran decisively targeted, referencing operations like “Midnight Hammer” and “Epic Fury.”
  • Emphasizes the strategic necessity: Iran “can never be allowed” nuclear weapons because of its record of supporting terror.
  • Claims regime change “was not the goal” but is now de facto achieved; new Iranian leadership seen as more reasonable.
  • America now virtually energy independent through alliances (notably with Venezuela as a “joint venture partner”).
  • Foresees U.S. prosperity and global safety on the horizon if Iran’s capacity for war is reduced to “Stone Ages.”
  • Encourages global allies to take responsibility for oil chokepoints (Strait of Hormuz) and buy oil from the U.S.
  • Asserts U.S. military restraint and moral justification compared to global rivals.
• Roundtable Reaction:
  • Michael Malice: “What are [America’s] military goals? Rubio posted them.” [80:39]
  • Panel dissects the tactical objectives: degrade missile/drone programs, eliminate ability to threaten neighbors, destroy command/control.
  • Tim Pool: “My concerns…with intervention, are functional and not moral...I do not believe the U.S. intentionally targeted schoolchildren…look what Iran did, they targeted hotels and civilians.” [85:41]
  • Phil Labonte: “The U.S. military is the most constrained military in terms of global powers…goes to painstaking lengths to avoid what Communist China does intentionally.” [87:44]

2. Supreme Court & Birthright Citizenship

[00:50] – [21:09]

• Oral Arguments Recap:
  • Key argument from U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer: 14th Amendment (“birthright citizenship”) does not contemplate modern “birth tourism” or children of illegal immigrants.
  • Sauer: Domicile required; “if they are subject to removal at any point, it would be impossible for them to be domiciled here.” [05:02]
  • Ketanji Brown Jackson: “Allegiance can be temporary…if I go to Japan and I steal someone’s wallet, I am subject to their laws.” [11:05]
• Panel Views:
  • Tim: “I would argue he’s correct…The 14th amendment was crafted specifically so that Congress could not intervene in what determines…an amendment.” [08:34]
  • Malice: “I am against birthright citizenship. Period. I want that to be clear. But…the mechanism for remedying this is Congress, the legislative branch.” [07:12]
  • Debate on legal precedent (“stare decisis”), role of Congress vs. SCOTUS, distinction between law and judicial precedent.
  • Malice: “If you agree with a legal conclusion, you might disagree with the legal reasoning…” [07:12]
  • Phil: “I think people on the right often are like, if we don’t get it this way, like, it’s a wrap…[but] Democrats…fight for [their agenda] for decades.” [20:37]

3. Migration, Voting Rights, and Executive Power

[21:09] – [33:02]

• Mail-in Voting Executive Order:
  • Trump EO: Post Office required to only send ballots to eligible citizens, with DHS creating the list [29:01].
  • Malice: “Historically, it’s the states that decide the criterions for who gets to vote. That’s going to be their argument.” [29:37]
  • Tim: “He will have members of the post office prosecuted. If they do.” [30:08] (doubtful this will happen)
  • Discussion on Republicans being “not evil enough” compared to Democrats’ willingness to wield executive power without restraint.
• Immigration Debate:
  • Distinction between legal and illegal immigration, and which is considered more detrimental to American society.
  • Malice: “I think legal immigration is probably a bigger problem than illegal immigration.” [23:09]

4. Asymmetries of Power, Violence, and the Culture War

[33:02] – [61:02]

• Panel reflects on:
  • Difference in how right/left frames and tolerates violence (“left sees it as a tool; right fears it escalating”).
  • Tim: “The left is a cult and the right is a fragmented network…” [31:25]
  • The use of “false flags,” violence as a function of power, and why Republicans don’t fight “dirty” enough.
  • Malice: “Trump’s only there for four years…the left has been systemic for decades. Trump does not have the space to do what the left does.” [59:22]

5. Ethics of War, Regime Change, and Pragmatism

[61:03] – [91:14]

• Operational Objectives:
  • Recap via Marco Rubio: “destroy their conventional missiles and drone program so they can’t hide behind it and finally have to deal with the world seriously.”
  • Questioning “mowing the lawn” strategy: will America continually have to bomb Iran every few years to prevent resurgence?
• Morality vs. Functionality:
  • Tim: “I have moral concerns…however, in war, we try to avoid these…The U.S., as a force for war and a global power, has been the most moral that we have seen…” [86:59]
• Alliances with Evil for Pragmatic Goals:
  • Debates if it’s ever justified to ally with evil parties for a “greater good” (Soviets in WWII, U.S. arming rebels, etc.).
  • Malice: “The more evil you are, the hardest to implement your plans…”
  • Tim: “I disagree. I think the more evil you are, the easier it is to implement your plans. Cheating is absolutely…Good is hard.” [50:44]

6. Philosophical & Legal Digressions

[15:16] – [20:00], [91:14] – [109:48]

• Objective Law, Legal Interpretation, and Anarchism:
  • Malice: “There’s no such thing as objective law…judges exist for a reason.” [17:12]
  • Disagreement on whether anarchism is a gradient or a switch — “anarchism is a personal worldview, a lens on society” (Malice).
• Parasociality and Fame:
  • Discussion of betrayals and dangers of fame, using personal anecdotes and the phenomenon of Internet “crazies.” [98:17]
• Default Liberalism & Media Red Pills:
  • Tim: “A default liberal is a guy or a woman—they don’t watch the news, but when they go to the voting booth, they check Democrat.” [121:01]
  • Topic: Can video proof (like the full Charlottesville clip) actually change minds? Tim is more optimistic than Malice.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The right is a fragmented network…the left is a cult.”
  – Tim Pool [31:25]
• “If you are left wing and the right wins, you are fine. If you are left wing and the left wins, you are fine. If you are right wing and the right wins, you are fine. If you are right wing and the left wins, you will die…normies will always avoid being right wing, because the safest bet will always be just left.”
  – Tim Pool [36:41]
• “The challenge is: do you take the easy path towards comfort and success or do you push the boulder up the hill and suffer for what is right?”
  – Tim Pool [51:02]
• “Political discourse is virtually always pointless, disingenuous, and frankly impossible.”
  – Michael Malice [115:21]
• “No one, not a single person anywhere at any point, is smarter than Michael Malice.”
  – Tim Pool (tongue-in-cheek) [115:32]
• “Why are there never drag shows for, like, senior citizens…?”
  – Michael Malice [109:26]
• “If Iran’s Navy and Air Force are destroyed, how is Strait of Hormuz closed…?”
  – Audience Superchat [111:37]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

| Timestamp | Topic | |---------------|-------------------------------------------| | 00:50–21:09 | Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship | | 21:09–33:02 | Voting, executive orders, immigration | | 33:02–61:02 | Violence, culture war, left vs. right power| | 59:57–80:28 | Trump’s full Iran address + live reactions | | 80:28–91:14 | Analysis: military objectives, regime change, moral trade-offs | | 91:14–109:48 | Legal philosophy, thought experiments, fame, parasociality | | 109:48–119:19 | Audience questions, discourse, media skepticism | | 119:19–end | Final reflections, optimism/pessimism about public opinion |

---

Flow & Tone

• The show flows conversationally, punctuated by bursts of serious legal and philosophical debate interlaced with dark humor, running jokes, and self-aware tangents.
• Notably irreverent and skeptical toward both partisan orthodoxy and the mechanisms of power, regulatory enforcement, and mainstream media narratives.
• Guests (esp. Malice) frequently challenge both the procedural and the moral logic of current and past governance.
• Trump’s address is handled with a mixture of skepticism and recognition of its historic weight, and the roundtable remains divided on the utility and ethics of American interventionism.

---

This summary captures the core content and flavor of the episode. Listeners would come away with a strong sense of the major political arguments of the week, the ideological rifts within the American right, and the perennial Timcast mix of skepticism, banter, and sharp analysis.

Transcript

[A]

In one hour, Donald Trump will address the nation on what is currently going on with the Iran war. And speculation is running rampant. Many people believe that he is going to announce he is winding things down. The Iranian government has suffered a regime change and there's new leadership, and he already announced that they are begging for a ceasefire. At the same time, troop movements still indicate that we may be planning an invasion of Carg Island. So we shall see. And in one hour, we will be here live to hear what the President has to say. In the meantime, oh, boy, we got a lot to talk about. Matt Gaetz claims that there's a secret government program kidnapping illegal immigrants and making them breed with space aliens. That's not a joke. It's not a. It's. It was yesterday. So everybody was like, was this April Fools? And I was like, it was yesterday, actually. So maybe he preempted April Fools or. Sure, I guess, whatever. I mean, Artemis 2 just left. They're on their way to the moon and it was awesome. And all of the moon landing deniers are sweating and gripping their seats.

[B]

Shane shaking most affected.

[A]

Shaking, Shane most affected.

[B]

I love you, Shane. I love you.

[A]

The big news, of course, is the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on birthright citizenship, and it sounds like they are inclined to deny Donald Trump. We're not sure exactly, but it looks like their attitude is, nah, if you're born here, you're a citizen. So we'll talk about that and more before we do. We got a great sponsor, my friends. It is Beam dream. Go to shop B-E-A-M.com timpool and pick up your nighttime blend to support better sleep. I drink this every single night. It's got L, theanine, magnesium, reishi, all the good stuff to help you sleep. Melatonin if you want it, non melatonin version if you don't. And I am not kidding. My sleep score. I have a sleep checker. Has dramatically improved since I started taking Bean Dream before bed. It's low calorie, no added sugar, and I am a massive fan. And it is not a joke and is not scripted when I say I drink it every night after the show. And I feel like it's done wonders for me, especially after having a new child. Many people were asking, how's your sleep? And I'm like, actually, it's been okay. I drink Beam Dream and I'm doing all right now. How's that for an endorsement? Beam Shout out. Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys. I really do love the stuff. You can get it at shop b e a m.com Tim Pool up to 35% off right now. And don't forget to go to timcast.com join now. Click that button to support the show. As a member, you make this possible. But more importantly, you join a network of tens of thousands of people that are hanging out. And it's not what you know, it's who you know. If there's something you're trying to accomplish, a project, a business, whatever it might be, the more people you have in a network, the more successful you will be. So join our community because there are a lot of people that want to help you get started and perhaps you can help others get started. And more importantly, you can help us do the work that we do. So smash that like button right now. Share the show with everyone you know. And if everybody watching shared right now, we'd be the biggest podcast in the world. And considering we're not, it must mean y' all don't share the show. Maybe just as once you might consider doing it. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Michael Malice.

[C]

Happy April Fool's. Tim, how's your favorite day? It gets up there. We had a fun thing planned which fell through, which we're gonna have to do next April Fools. But I'm excited to be here and talk about this. Birthright citizenship.

[A]

Oh, yeah, I'm excited, too. It's gonna be great. Of course, Ian is hanging out.

[D]

Hi.

[A]

We've got Carter Banks producing. What up? And you know him, you love him. Phil labonte, Tomorrow's my birthday for people who are only listening. He was just doing devil horns.

[D]

I don't normally, I don't normally tell people. But tomorrow's my birthday. So let's make a but Tomorrow's your birthday. April 2nd, 4:00am I was almost.

[A]

I thought your birthday was April 20th.

[D]

No, it was the two. You probably got it. Oh, 420.

[C]

Oh, God, no.

[D]

I dated a girl on 419.

[A]

It was actually not a wee joke. It was a Hitler joke.

[D]

Or 18. Talk about speaking of weed man.

[A]

Speaking of Hitler. We have this story from npr. Supreme Court majority seems inclined to rule against Trump on birthright citizenship. I'm just going to come out right away and say it based on what the Supreme Court was saying, it sounds like we cooked like this country cannot stand. And we actually have a one of the arguments. We have a video here which is fascinating. I'm going to play this for you. This is John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general, arguing that the, the framers of the 14th could never have predicted airplanes and 8 billion people coming to this country or 500, 500 birth tourism companies. Here's how John Roberts responds. Apparently there's no audio coming through.

[D]

Quietly at first and then all at once.

[A]

Yeah, why aren't we getting any audios at all?

[E]

Tourism.

[A]

It was my fault. Twitter was, was, was muted that based

[E]

on Chinese media reports, there are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth in return to, to that nation.

[A]

Having said all that, you do agree

[F]

that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?

[E]

I think it's, I quote what Justice Scalia said in his Hamdan dissent where they had, where like their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th framers of this amendment. I think that shows that they've made a mess. Their interpretation has made a mess of the provision.

[A]

Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century.

[E]

No. But of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alita pointed out, to where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen.

[A]

Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution.

[F]

It is.

[E]

And as Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice Alito was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. He said that about statutory interpretation. I think the same principle applies here and I think we quote that in our brief.

[A]

I would argue he's correct. John Sauer, the US Solicitor General, is correct in his assessment that the Fourth Amendment does not address the birth tourism companies and illegal immigrants. Real quick, the principal argument made by John Sauer was that Wong Kim, Arkansas stated a domiciled immigrant in this country who has a child, that child will be a U.S. citizen. And the argument from John Sauer is that illegal immigrants are not domiciled here. And Alito points out correctly, if they are subject to removal at any point, it would be impossible for them to be domiciled here. He then brings up the issue of birth tourism, where they enter here either illegally or under false pretenses, they fly to Guam, give birth and go back. And now those what's up?

[C]

Or California, not even Guam.

[A]

But, but Guam is a big issue because it's so easy for them to get to it.

[C]

They go to lots of places, not just Guam. Yeah.

[A]

So the issue that I see here is I believe John Sauer's argument in this regard is correct, that the Fourth Amendment does not address birthright citizenship in these contexts. And the Supreme Court does need to answer. And if they want to answer, you're wrong, that's fine. But to simply say but you know, the Constitution stays the same so we're not going to do anything does not answer these questions. So it is correct of John Sauer to say you must address this.

[C]

I am against birthright citizenship. Period. I want that to be clear. But I also think if you agree with a legal conclusion, you might disagree with the legal reasoning that get to that conclusion. So if someone is pro choice, it's still fair to say that Roe v. Wade was bad law. A lot of people can't wrap their heads around this, right?

[B]

Yes, yes, 100%.

[C]

His argument about this new world is the same argument every crappy leftist says. With the second Amendment it's going to

[B]

make the exact same argument.

[C]

Yes, absolutely. We had no Internet when the Bill of Rights was passed. The first amendment applies to the Internet. They didn't have AR15s when the second amendment was passed. The second amendment applies to. And to your point about this is going to be deleterious to America.

[A]

Correct.

[C]

I don't dispute that. The mechanism for remedying this is Congress, the legislative branch. That is what their point is.

[A]

Actually, I have to interrupt. The Supreme Court justice said, in fact not correct, that the fourth Amendment was crafted specifically so that Congress could not intervene.

[C]

No, no. I'm not talking about the 14th Amendment. I'm saying if there is a problem legislatively, it has to be solved. Not.

[A]

This is not legislation. This is the 14th amendment being challenged. Right.

[C]

If there. This has been decades of law, which I don't agree with.

[A]

And it's judicial precedent, not. Not codified law.

[C]

But there's also something called stare decisis, which is what John Roberts was voted in on, which is. His point is if something has been around for a long time, it should take a lot to. For the Supreme Court to overcome.

[A]

But my point is simply that Congress cannot remedy this as per the argument from the Supreme Court that the fourth Amendment was crafted specifically so that Congress would not intervene in what determines undo an amendment.

[C]

They can do all sorts of things.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Congress repeal it. Congress through state ratification or. What do you mean, like two thirds?

[C]

It's like with the Prohibition Amendment. If something is not working out, you go through the legislative process.

[A]

Right, Right.

[C]

I'm not, I don't believe in law.

[A]

If your argument is the amendment should be repealed. Agreed. Or my point is clarify. Congress can't pass a law, pass a law clarifying. This was a Supreme Court's argument.

[C]

Right, but they can.

[A]

They would have to repeal the 14

[C]

right or re edit it. You know what I mean? Repeal and replace.

[A]

I would argue this. I would argue exigent circumstances. The idea that we would say the Internet wasn't covered by the First Amendment because the founding fathers didn't understand that. My response is, well, the first. The Internet is an issue of increase in speed of speech, not an, not an issue of foreign adversaries can take control of our country.

[C]

The foreign adversaries use the First Amendment all the time. They run ops on social media every day, every.

[A]

And there's a big difference between a foreigner coming here and speaking or flooding us, which are threats which we can address and a Chinese national becoming the president and dismantling our country.

[C]

First of all, our country has been dismantled. And I would much rather, in a sense.

[A]

But we're not arguing that it is.

[C]

I'd have much rather have 10,000 illegal immigrants become citizens than half the stuff that all these other countries run in American citizenry.

[A]

All these other countries what?

[C]

All these ops that they run on social media. American citizenry.

[A]

So again, including one that stand on

[C]

you that you saw before you started.

[A]

If your, if your argument is that China is attacking us, yes, we can repel these attacks through sound government. We can repel these attacks through focus knowledge and the collective defense, whatever that may be.

[F]

Sure.

[A]

With on the issue of guns, the Founding Fathers actually did know that private individuals had weapons of mass destruction.

[C]

I'm just saying this is something that the lefties use all the time.

[A]

I disagree. It's not.

[C]

They don't use that argument.

[A]

It's not the same argument.

[C]

It is.

[A]

Again, I'm literally, I'm literally, literally addressing when they say the Founding Fathers didn't know about machine guns. Yes, they did. They had repeaters. Like they knew about these weapons. They knew about weapons of mass destruction.

[C]

I'm agreeing with the lefties.

[A]

I'm saying this argument is not an argument on technology. This argument is the foundation of the country, of our governance cannot function because of these new exploits that are attacking it. And all we need now is the Supreme Court to say narrowly, if someone, the Supreme Court can say if an elite, if a Honduran, for example, enters the country illegally.

[C]

Right.

[A]

And seeks to live here and gives birth to a child, that they can say that child is a citizen. However, if an individual comes here through birth tourism, they are not. They could do that more Importantly, I think the end result of this, and that's what's so shocking about John Roberts's argument, is the Supreme Court went leaps and bounds to say even Katanji, Brown, Jackson allegiance can be temporary. And she is correct. Many people are making fun of her for saying this. She goes, if I go to Japan and I steal someone's wallet, I am subject to their laws. They can arrest me. That is temporary allegiance to their system. In fact, if someone steals my wallet, they will remedy that for me, which is temporary allegiance. She is correct. However, she actually just argued why they should end birthright citizenship because the people who intentionally break our laws have shown they have no allegiance.

[C]

I'm not arguing at all that birthright citizens should be ended. I agree with you. That was literally the first thing I said.

[A]

I agree. So in this context, when he says we have these birth tourism things, the argument is if a person intentionally violates our laws for the purpose of exploiting this right, it should not be allowed. And Robert's response is, I don't care. This is the way it is.

[C]

Because first of all, it's the child who's being in the legal. This is not my point of view, by the way. I just want to be clear because people I'm trying to steel, man, Robert's point of view. His point of view is it's the kid who's not the criminal. Because the child cannot be guilty of a crime, they still should be given the rewards of citizenship. I don't agree with that. What I'm saying is it's very nice argument.

[E]

It's.

[C]

Let me finish. It's just very dangerous when you have a president unilaterally deciding the law because in four years. First of all, this other point of this they were pointing out, well, if this is true and you, you vote, you judge the way Sauer wants, you're going to desitizenize or whatever the term is. Many people who have been regarded citizens for years and he's not, he's saying, no, it's just going to go forward retroactive.

[A]

That's not what they argued. Yeah, just, just from now, they're not going to denaturalize.

[C]

Correct. But legally speaking, if you're going to overturn birthright citizenship, it would make much more sense to remove the citizenship of people who are birthright citizens than to just say going forward. Do you not agree?

[A]

Why?

[D]

I don't personally challenge.

[C]

Because if you're saying birthright citizenship is illegitimate and the analysis of the 14th Amendment that's been going on for like, whatever. Eighty years, however, is wrong. Then all those people who had currently been regarded as citizenship through birthright citizenship should retroactively not be regarded as citizens.

[A]

Why?

[C]

Because it was never correct law to begin with.

[A]

That, I suppose the argument is to the Supreme Court asking, the Solicitor General said that would create a massive bureaucracy, which would be impossible. And so if you can't provide the remedy, you can at least provide injunction.

[C]

Are you opposed to. To people who are the citizens as a result of birthright tourism to have

[A]

their citizenship stripped within a certain time frame?

[C]

What's that? What do you mean? What do you mean?

[A]

So if someone's 30 years old and their parents were illegal immigrants, but they've been living here for 30, like, they were born here and they lived here for 30 years. It makes no sense.

[C]

But legally, in a legal sense, how do you make that distinction? If something's wrong, it's wrong because we're

[A]

not robots and the law is not. Is not drawn by mathematical absolutes. One of the biggest mistakes, I love this point that people tend to make is that they think that if the words are written on a piece of paper, it's law and it must be. And then, like, one of the jokes you'll see is there's an old trope where a guy is doing surveys out in the street or he's doing petitions and he's like, we want to save the forests. Can you fill out my petition saying, you want to help save the forest? And they're signing a power of attorney form. And then there are. People go like, oh, man. Netflix did a show where a woman's life was being turned into a TV show. And they said, where. When you signed up for Netflix, the terms of service. That is not real. That's not real. If you go, if I asked Ian, would you like to buy this gavel from me? I'll drop a sales contract. And in it, it said, he's now indentured to me or I own his home. He'd go to court and say, I wasn't giving my home to him. I'll say, I have a contract right here saying he was. The judge will say, shut your. Get on my court case. The contract is dissolved. End of story. That's why judges exist.

[C]

No, that's not okay. There is, actually.

[A]

Yes, it's interpretation.

[C]

Like, you didn't even know what I was going to say.

[A]

You're telling me you said, that's not. And then I responded, it is.

[C]

I didn't finish the sentence. I was going to say that's not a hypothetical. These are real cases. There's a. There's a guy named John Hasness, his essay the Myth of Objective Laws in the Anarchist Handbook. And these are real legal cases. There was a woman, old woman, she signed up for like salsa lessons and it was like a thousand dollars a lesson. And. And he sued her. And she went to the judge. The judge said exactly what you said with the. It's like, this is ridiculous. It's out. However, there's the other worldview. A legal view of what's written is the law. The judge should not interpret it and they should just basically go exactly by what it says. Let me say one point. This happened when Roe v. Wade was overturned in Arizona. When Roe v. Wade was overturned national, nationwide. There had been this law from Arizona, like 1879 or something that said abortion is illegal. And like, what do we do? Cuz now that law is on the books. Roe v. Wade is no longer overturning it. And they just pretended not. They just pretend it wasn't there.

[A]

It is in New York City. It is law that you can wear any clothing you want to work and go by any name you want. And as any individual subject to any public accommodation, you must be accommodated equally as to any other person. Which means. And I called a human rights attorney and asked him this. If I went to Harlem dressed like a southern plantation owner. And when they asked me my name, I said it was massa. Are they legally required to say that name as they say everyone's name when their drink is ready? And he said no. And I said, well, hold on. New York City's human rights law specifically states they must be equal. And massa is an Iberian name. It's Spain and Mediterranean. It's a common name. If they're offended by my culture, why could they deny that? And he said, because it will be viewed as culturally insensitive and they don't have to do it. And then I said, and if I sued, he said, the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom. That's how real life works.

[C]

But Tim, you're talking to two anarchists and I'm agreeing with you. There's no such thing as objective law.

[A]

And my point is what you are describing is that the left lies and cheats for power and we are just subject to it.

[C]

Yes, that's what government is.

[A]

Which is why John Roberts should say no birthright citizenship. Have a nice day.

[C]

I. Fine. But my point is it's a slippery. And I'm not saying it's wrong. I don't want birthright citizenship. But when you have this idea that the president is. Whoever he is, is gonna unilaterally decide things which affect millions of people through executive order, wait until the next Democratic president.

[A]

You mean when they did and already did that with daca, and then we sat back and did nothing. So every time a Republican gets in, who is we? American. The American people. The American people. So the Democrat gets in and bangs a gavel by decree, and we go, okay. And then. But when the Republican gets in, we'll do nothing.

[C]

You yourself just said that you're in favor of DACA. You said if they're here for 30 years, you shouldn't get rid of them.

[A]

That's not DACA.

[C]

DACA is if you're. What's it stand for?

[A]

There were six year olds who have been here for 13 years. They should go, fine, you're just numbering.

[C]

You're just arguing over the number. See, but you're exceeding their point. And I don't think that's wrong.

[A]

The issue is, as human beings, we try to find how to navigate forward when we change the system. DACA is not born here. I said if someone was born here by illegal immigrants, anchor babies, and they've been here for 30 years, it makes no sense. If you were brought here as a child and, and you've been here for 20 years knowing full well that it would be 13 years or whatever, that Obama signed an executive order granting you some kind of temporary status. I'm sorry, it's time for you to go home.

[C]

I think it's a very odd line to draw between you were born here and you came here when you were 4.

[A]

No, it's not. It's pretty simple.

[C]

Okay, I'm not saying it's not simple. I'm just saying.

[A]

And more to the point, the issue is not navigating a solution means you will have imperfect outcomes. But we're trying to find which makes the most sense. It's not a zero sum game. We will not be. It's not physically possible to round up everybody who was born here as an anger baby. So we say that's going to be impossible. What is possible is denaturalizing some people who are probably under the age of 1 and DACA is rescinded. That's easy. We can just say that.

[C]

I don't think it's as easy as you think it is. Specifically for the reason is there's an enormous infrastructure in this country through NGOs and other agencies.

[A]

Well, that's a different argument.

[C]

But you're saying it's just because something is conceptually.

[A]

The Supreme Court says this is how we're interpreting this. Then we start to navigate NGOs. It's not all at the same time.

[C]

But the point is just because something might be conceptually simple does not at all mean it's going to be simple to put into practice.

[A]

Agreed.

[C]

Okay.

[A]

And so the simplest solution would not be, you were born as an anchor baby 30 years ago. We're gonna find everybody who was. That would be extremely. That's bureaucratically impossible to do. We can say all the Chinese birth tourism kids void. And we can do that fairly easily.

[C]

I don't think we can do that fairly easily.

[A]

Well, fairly easily. It's a relative statement. I'm saying it would be substantially easier than finding a 30 year old guy born here and being like, we're taking your citizenship.

[C]

Sure.

[A]

But I think, and we have to, we can't allow Chinese nationals allegiant to the Communist Party to hold office in the United States.

[C]

I agree with you. I agree that there should be no birthright citizenship. My point is the firmer the path there, the more it's going to stick. And I think this is a very tenuous path to abolishing it. And I don't think the justices at all seem inclined to go for this.

[A]

Yeah, because again the, that's my point. The argument from it does look like Kavanaugh is sympathetic to Trump. Thomas and Alito, of course, Roberts is on the fence and Amy Coney Barrett seems to be leaning away. So it looks like it might be.

[C]

I think it's gonna be 6, 3 or 7 2.

[A]

Likely 6, 3.

[C]

And I think the important thing is, I think people on the right often are like, if we don't get it this way, like it's a wrap. Throw the hands in the air. If you look at Democrats, we, whatever issue they had, including the era, they fight for it for decades. They never give up. They're like, let's try this route. Let's try this, let's try this route. So I would tell people who are opposed to birthright citizenship, as I am, if this goes down, as it almost certainly will, don't say like, well, America's done, it's a wrap. There are other mechanisms and there are other things you can do to restrict the capacity of people, become citizens.

[A]

There's two large problems. One, women. Well, don't we know it as they vote and they vote for these things. But all joking aside, as we've already stated, Barack Obama gets in and by decree says these people have permanent status.

[C]

By decree. No, no, let's clarify that by decree. He says, I'm not gonna force the law. He literally. And all the lefty newspapers said, well, it's something called prosecutorial discretion.

[A]

Indeed.

[C]

Sometimes just.

[A]

And then when Trump said, we'll rescind it, this court said, you can't.

[D]

Right.

[A]

So the issue we have is Democrats rule by decree every time they get in, and Republicans are constrained and must sit back.

[C]

It's not that it's not just Democrats. It's that our judicial system is heavily in favor of the democratic perspective.

[A]

Right. So however you want to frame this problem, this problem exists.

[C]

Yes.

[A]

The second problem is that now that the Supreme Court is, is offered up, this conservatives are the people who say, I know that this is destroying my home, my way of life, and the, the, the, the gifts that I will leave my children, but it's the right thing to do. And Democrats are like, thank you for bending the knee and dying for me.

[D]

Well, like, if I had a bunch of like cattle walk onto my property, I'd want to be like, I need to get these cattle off my property. That doesn't mean at any means necessarily. If I just. When you want free cattle, what's that?

[C]

You want free cattle?

[D]

What if I just slaughter. If I just slaughtered all the cattle, that would be like, bro, that's probably illegal, firstly, because they're not yours, even though they're on your property.

[A]

Yeah. So this is old law, bro.

[C]

You can't kill just cows on your property.

[A]

There's, there's, this is one of the most common problems America. One of the most common problems that Americans have faced is cattle going on someone else's property.

[D]

So there's ways.

[C]

Oh, yeah, it belongs to somebody. Okay.

[D]

I think there's ways to remove the wild problem on your property. Like the problem on your property being like non citizens. There's ways to get rid of them that don't imply like, yeah, you can't just slaughter everything all at once. Yeah. Or like, you can't necessarily evict every seven month old. That was so.

[C]

I don't, I got to tell you, as someone who wasn't born in this country. Sorry to.

[A]

Wait, wait, wait. What? Really?

[C]

Out. Look who's talking. I think legal immigration is probably a bigger problem than illegal immigration.

[D]

Why?

[C]

Yeah, because for myriad reasons. Because first of all, there's a universe and I'm saying this is illegal immigrant. There's a universal belief that, like, legal immigration is sacrosanct, that this is something we need more of that. If someone's illegal immigrant, they're like, beyond the pale in terms of criticism. It's crazy.

[D]

No, immigration is a hose valve that you open and close on the situation. America is overloaded with immigrants at the moment. We don't need.

[C]

And I don't vote.

[D]

We got robots coming up, too. So there's going to be another underclass of workers that are robots.

[B]

They're not going to be an underclass. They're just going to be machines.

[D]

They won't even be a class. They'll just be augmented our workforce.

[B]

Well, I mean, that's cars underclass, right? Like, I mean, you get cars replaced. Animals as transportation. They're not an underclass. They're just machines.

[A]

As an anarchist, I just need to stress we must assert our authority, our power over the world that we want and not let other people do so.

[C]

Okay, that's true, but I'm saying I think I have much less power than the Supreme Court does.

[D]

So you think that Congress has to address this?

[C]

I think that is, that is what the Founding Fathers would have.

[A]

Okay, but hold on again, to clarify, what you're saying is Congress should repeal

[D]

the 14th Amendment appeal and change however that works.

[B]

They could just, they can amend it. They don't, they don't have to repeat.

[C]

Clarify it. Here's how you do it. I'm all seriousness. They can clarify it and have the Supreme Court validate that clarification. That's how I would like it.

[A]

I think that, I think this, this, this argument is. The structure of our government is conducive to its own destruction.

[C]

Yes, yes.

[D]

That's the problem. The First Amendment, too, is it's, it should apply to source code. Like, you want to talk about free speech on the Internet. These machines are talking to each other with code like, okay, it's a whole other rabbit hole.

[C]

Can I say one more thing? I also, and I think you'd agree with that.

[A]

Is it about source code?

[C]

No.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

Thank God I'm a boomer that I don't know that I think it's easy. Immigration is a huge problem, especially the numbers we saw during the Biden administration. But there's plenty of American citizens who are also a huge problem.

[A]

Got to go. Yeah.

[C]

The point is, even if you vanished every legal immigrant tomorrow, the idea that America is somehow going to be saved, I think is inaccurate.

[A]

No, but actually, if, if you did, if, if the children of immigrants did not vote, Republicans would win every election. So what if true?

[C]

In order to be president, McCain, we got it.

[D]

What if in order to be a citizen, one of your parents has to be a citizen?

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

End of story.

[A]

So the lie that we see in the corporate press, they said Trump put out a statement saying we're the only country stupid enough to do this. And then cnn, the New York Times, they're like, not true. Thirty countries do, which is a lie. We are the only country. There are a lot of countries that claim a birthright citizenship, but it all has a prerequisite to some form of allegiance. Like they have these stipulations, you legally live here or one of your parents is a citizen.

[C]

I don't just like, I don't like that argument either. Because there are two types of countries. America are s holes. And just because we're the only ones who do it doesn't mean it's wrong. Like, if we're the only ones do, it could be that we're right.

[D]

So if you're.

[A]

So you're saying it's good?

[C]

No, I'm just saying that's not a good argument.

[A]

Against my argument is this. We are beset on all sides by power structures that are intent on destroying us.

[C]

That's true.

[A]

And they exploit every opportunity. And while they're setting fires, we're reviewing the contract.

[D]

Yeah, it does feel like it's an emergency, but it shouldn't always be treated like that's what you're saying about executive orders. Because they'll say, hey, we have to do this now. It's been building up for 25 years.

[C]

We have more than 25. More than 25.

[D]

But we don't have to act now. We just have to act and it has to be done right.

[C]

This is not something that's going to be solved overnight. There has to be a long term systemic approach to this.

[A]

Why are they not like maybe if

[D]

there was some kid is, you have to. One of your parents has to be a citizen. Like, how complicated. That's so simple.

[C]

It's not simple because you have a whole organization in this country for decades maybe trying to keep that from happening.

[A]

Maybe. Hold on.

[C]

That's what you're up against.

[A]

Maybe to realize maybe Trump can form like a specific law enforcement with focus on people who are improperly naturalized that could go seek these people out and we could call it something like the supplemental squadron, like nice.

[C]

We call it nice.

[A]

We'd call them the supplemental squadron that we, they know ss and then you'd put SS on their lapels.

[C]

I think people on the right, I think people on the right underestimate how cultural Left wing America often is.

[B]

Oh, yes, completely. Oh, my God.

[C]

And I was on Fox saying this, that people are in favor of deporting illegal immigrants, but not through force. They can have these contradictory ideas in their head at the same time. With a straight face.

[A]

No, no, no. But this was my argument two years ago during the election cycle. I said if Donald Trump is to have his mass deportations, it must be done by men wearing polo shirts and khakis. Right?

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

I'm not even joking. You're right.

[C]

You're speaking to my point. Exactly.

[A]

The American people do. I said we cannot have soldiers and men in vests with guns loading people into vans and dragging them off. No one will tolerate that. And guess what? This is what happened.

[C]

That's exactly right.

[A]

Trump's approval dropped on this. The Republicans said we have to back off mass deportation. We're hurting in the Hispanic voter bloc.

[C]

And also. I don't know. And also whites. Yes. White women do not like seeing these images.

[B]

No, white Carrie.

[C]

And we knew.

[A]

What did we say every night this came up. We said they are going to make videos of Donald Trump. They are going to say he's Hitler. They're going to say he's the SS and they're loading people into trains and, and it's exactly what they've been doing.

[C]

Everyone saw coming from space.

[A]

From space.

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

You could see from space.

[A]

Right.

[D]

We're talking about it during the Iowa caucus if you want to check it. It was the first time it came up in public discourse, like with us. You see, I'm the first one to fucking bring that up in the world. Sorry, but like, it's frustrating.

[C]

Neo, neo, neo, come down.

[D]

Didn't see that. Didn't understand the optic thing. And they did it anyway. Like.

[C]

Well, I think their point is they wanted people to be scared so they self deported. I think that's the argument for the suits, the military vision.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Because you're going to have to. You're going to. A lot more can have to be self deported than physically removed.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

So their argument is if we make it scary, people are going to be like deuces. I'm out of here.

[D]

Okay.

[C]

You can understand that.

[D]

That's a good. I mean that's a relative.

[A]

Let's, let's go to this story from ABC 7. Illinois Attorney General vows to fight President Trump. Executive order on mail in voting. They say that the President signed an executive order. Now, for those that missed, as we talked about yesterday, it requires DHS to create a list of all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and then instructs the post office not to send out any mail in ballots to individuals who are not eligible. And that is within his authority. Now they're vowing to fight this and sue him over it, which is where things get really interesting. If this works, this is Trump salvo number one. Republicans win everything.

[C]

I don't think this is going to work.

[A]

Why not?

[C]

Because historically, it's the states that decide the criterions for who gets to vote. That's going to be their argument.

[A]

And that's the.

[C]

I'm not, I'm not against him.

[A]

No, no, no. Hold on, hold on. Yes, but he's not telling the states they can't. He's saying the post office cannot deliver them. Now, that is within federal jurisdiction.

[C]

But the result, they're going to argue, and I think they're easily going to win, that there is the consequence of the same.

[A]

They're not going to win legitimately. But if your argument is the judges in the local corrupt. Well, I mean, if that's the argument, the argument is simply corrupt. Democrats will do whatever they want.

[B]

That's what it.

[A]

But here's the argument Trump is making. He will have members of the post office prosecuted. If they do.

[C]

He won't.

[A]

Well, I agree that he won't actually do anything.

[C]

Right, Exactly.

[A]

And it goes back to the problem we presented in the previous segment, that Republicans just complain Democrats are lighting things on fire while Republicans review the contract.

[B]

Even if it tries to get anything. Even, even if they try to do any kind of, you know, prosecuting and whatever. Like the. There's going to be a judge somewhere that's going to put an injunction on it. Immediately.

[C]

Immediately.

[A]

There's the. What is it, Curtis Yarvin quote, that Republicans treat power the way an alcoholic. I'm sorry, Republicans treat power the way a wine snob treats alcohol. And Democrats treat power the way an alcoholic treats alcohol.

[C]

Yeah. And this is why the Democrats are often going to win.

[B]

Yep.

[C]

But I, I don't think, I think, also to your point, I don't think there's the, the MAGA vision. Even though Trump got 51%, not 100 of those voters are MAG.

[A]

49.8.

[C]

Not all those voters are MAGA voters. Right.

[D]

What does it mean to be MAGA Trump supporters?

[C]

I'm sorry, they might have preferred Trump to Officer Harris, but they didn't sign on for all this stuff. They're not ideological dei Officer Harris.

[A]

Look at Joe Rogan.

[C]

So the point is, he's got a lot less wiggle room than people expect. Him to. To enact things. And that's a problem.

[A]

And this is the problem with the right in general. The left is a cult and the right is a fragmented network of various.

[C]

Someone should write a book about that called the New Right.

[D]

If this were to his executive order were to go through and the post office could no longer deliver, would the states there be able to sign up a contract with ups?

[C]

No, there's no way.

[D]

There's no federal.

[C]

Because then you have private people handling ballots and there's no way that that's going to be allowed.

[D]

A private company.

[C]

Yeah, you're not going to be able.

[D]

But our voting machines are private tallied.

[C]

But they're under the jurisdiction of the voting officials. Like they don't. Those voting. They don't have. They're not touching it.

[B]

Mm.

[C]

I also. But I also think like Trump isn't. That these ideas are. Make common sense, but they're not popular.

[B]

No, that's the problem because they. Because they're mean.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Like if we. If we could just get people to be a little mean politically. Only politically mean for like five years, for two. Two presidential terms mean.

[A]

It's actually.

[B]

That would win.

[A]

It's actually simple. The Republicans are not willing to be evil enough.

[D]

Well, the media makes it.

[C]

You can't get.

[D]

Because the world economic order is.

[A]

If the Republicans were evil, use our media to. Well, I said something, then you addressed me, then Ian started talking and then I tried countering what you were saying.

[C]

Okay.

[A]

I said they're not evil enough. And you made a comment. You were going to make a comment. Something that. That wouldn't accomplish it. What was the point?

[C]

I was going to wait for Ian. I'll talk up to Ian.

[A]

Well, I said this, then you responded, but Ian started talking over you.

[C]

That's what I'll defer to.

[D]

Let's go.

[C]

I will defer to Ian.

[A]

Okay, so I will say it again. The Republicans are not evil enough to solve these problems.

[D]

And I was saying that the media, that the people that are overseeing the transition to the New World Order, trying to destroy the United States, you know, Constitution, are making it look evil. They're trying to make it look as evil as possible.

[C]

Right. And we knew that.

[A]

That the Republicans aren't doing anything evil, hence why they're. They're losing.

[C]

But war.

[A]

War is basically in.

[F]

In the.

[A]

What did Noam Chomsky say in their. In the arena of violence, the most brutal guy wins.

[C]

That's right.

[A]

And that's the fact of reality. When you look at the international conflict. I Look at the Iran war functionally. I look at the interventions functionally. Is it going to benefit the American people? Will there be massive moral damage and collateral damage? Will the end result be net positive? And we tend to see these interventions a net negative. That being said, if Trump wins in Iran, the United States will see a massive economic net positive from control of international energy. If we don't, China does. That's not a moral argument, that is an economic argument. Right now in the United States, Donald Trump has many options to win the culture war outright and has not done any of them. He is doing everything above board and procedurally. And by evil I mean false flags. That's the easiest example, right? If Trump got some intel guys to stage a false flag like Lemnitzer want to do with the Cubans, then it wouldn't matter if you're meant to because the American people would beg for the hammer.

[C]

I think there's a big asymmetry and I'm confident you all will agree between the acceptability in our culture of leftist violence and use of power and right wing violence and use of power.

[A]

Do you think that I don't completely agree?

[B]

Do you think that that's a phenomenon because of the fact that the left uses views violence as a knob and the right views violence as a switch?

[C]

I think the right correctly is more scared of the pervasiveness of violence in a culture cuz they know it gets out of control. This is why they're very much for law and order. And I think the left is like, this is one of the tools in our toolbox and we could always blame it on the right.

[A]

Effectively the right does not use violence at all. There's no switch. This is a left framing. The left framing is that when a whackaloon guy claims he's a Christian and murders people, he represents all Republicans and all conservatives.

[B]

Historically there has been right wing violence. So I disagree with that.

[A]

But my point is when we say the left is violent, we're referring to a general acceptance of the diversity of tactics among all liberals. And when you say the right has violence, you're referring only to the fringe crazies that no one agrees with.

[C]

That's right.

[A]

So again, a guy who claims to be a Christian who goes and murders a bunch of people does not represent anyone on the right and the right rejects it. On the left, antifa throws a mouth off at a cop and the left goes, well, we respect their tactics. It's a legit literal quote. Right, respect the diversity of tactics.

[C]

And this is a problem. It's asymmetrical warfare.

[D]

The underdog, they're viewed as the underdog because they're fighting against the system.

[A]

No, no, no, no. I think why I disagree with you when you said we tolerate left and not the right. The tolerance is not due to a perception of the violence. It's due to a fear of the violence. People don't speak up against the left because they'll lose their jobs. During the censorship era, if you were at work, like the guy at Netflix who said, here's a list of racial slurs, not to say they fired him, Right. This censorship period, which we see now at the NBA with this crazy story. If you at work said, f Donald Trump, you're fine. If you said, f lgbtqia, you're fired.

[C]

Right.

[A]

The tolerance for these threats is not because people accept their causes. It's because they're terrified of the violence. Also, if you speak out against the far left, they will beat you to death if you speak out. Again, I called what I referred to this as there's Pascal's Wager, and I made a joke about it, calling it Posobics Wager or something like that, where I said it. So are you familiar. You're familiar with Pascal's course?

[C]

Yes, That's. Scott Adams did it.

[A]

Pascal's Wager.

[C]

Scott Adams did it before he died. Yeah.

[A]

Oh, right, right, right. Which doesn't work. But anyway, we spoke to Christians on the show, and they're like, no, he's gonna go to hell. He's gonna be without God's love. But anyway, the point is, I think I refer to this as Posobis Wager. We can call it Adams's Wager. It goes like this. If you are left wing and the right wins, you are fine. If you are left wing and the left wins, you are fine. If you are right wing and the right wins, you are fine. If you are right wing and the left wing wins, you will die. Which means in this quadrant, normies will always avoid being right wing, because the safest bet will always be just left.

[C]

The average man does not want to be free, simply wants to be safe, as Megan Meghan said. I disagree slightly because I do think a lot of people were in favor of the BLM riots and not simply because of fear. They thought it was coming from a good place.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

That's the leftism in this country. I think it comes from our revolution against the king, because that was the rightists, was the monarchy. And so we had kind of a leftist revolution. And Then Thomas Jefferson saying, like, you know, the tree of liberty must be water, regretted saying.

[A]

And so he wrote, I should not have said that.

[D]

It was sort of a leftist thing to say, like we need to be willing to revolution.

[A]

And then he, and then he wrote saying that was wrong.

[D]

And there's a lot of sentiment now in the United States, like, yeah, overthrow tyranny. We want to.

[A]

Again, I got to stress this. The left did not support the BLM riots. They did not know they happened. Michael Tracy did a great report on this.

[C]

That's fair.

[A]

Highlighting all the small towns where there was massive violence and leftists don't know what happened.

[C]

Ferguson, these other places, there's a lot of belief, I think, in independent and left wing circles that there must be mitigating factors.

[A]

No, no, no, no, no.

[C]

You don't get to view.

[A]

If you go to the average left liberal, they couldn't tell you what happened in Ferguson. There was an article wrote in defense of looting.

[C]

Okay.

[A]

And the perception among liberals was that black people in Ferguson rose up against the oppressive police, busted up all the stores and took back property owned by foreigners. The real story, as I was on the ground, is that the local black people were begging the police for help to stop outsiders from looting their businesses. The left did not know what actually happened. They did not defend what happened. They supported this idea that didn't exist.

[C]

Sure. But my point, that's my point. They are supporting this idea of left, of broadly speaking, violence.

[A]

So the clarification is when you say there's tolerance, reluctant violence, my disagreement is the left is wholly ignorant of the violence that is done in their names.

[C]

Sure. Okay.

[A]

And the people who are aware fear retribution by those who wield the, the violence.

[C]

I think there's people who are aware who don't fear the retribution are in favor of it.

[A]

So if the argument is there are, there are leftist ideologues that support the violence, of course there are. Sure. The average.

[C]

I think there's more left wing ideologues who support left wing violence than there are right wing ideologues who would support right wing violence.

[A]

That is correct. But I would argue this, go to any liberal and ask them about M29 and they'll say, what's that? Ask them about the 150 law enforcement officers that were beaten and attacked during the insurrection at the White House and they'll say that never happened. Yeah, they just don't know. And so they'll say the BLM riots may have been violent, but it was for a good cause. You'd be like, when they mercilessly beat 100 plus cops and set fire to St. John's Church. They'll go, that never happened.

[C]

Or they'd hand wave it away. That's not what I'm. I don't mean that part.

[A]

There's like great examples of this with Billboard Chris. There's a viral video where he asks a guy. Like, the guy comes up complaining, saying, you're bigots. And he says, we just don't think underage girls, prepubescent girls, should get their breast tissue removed. And the kid goes, that's not happening. And then Billboard Chris takes his phone, plays a video from a children's hospital saying, we do it. And he goes, yeah, well, the parents are allowed to decide. And he goes, but now you've changed your position.

[C]

Well, it's Rob Henderson, which is. It's not happening. Yeah, it's not a big deal. It's a good thing, actually. The people complaining about the problem. Those are four steps.

[A]

First it's. You're lying. It didn't happen, right?

[C]

No, it's not a big deal.

[A]

If it was happening, who cares? Not a big deal then. Sure. But it's very few people anyway. And then why do you care so much? And actually it's a good thing.

[C]

And then also you're the problem.

[A]

Yep.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

You're pro.

[C]

You're only bringing this up to promote transphobia or racism. You don't really care.

[A]

Which is why. You know what's really funny is there's this. We've mentioned it a little bit because you brought it up. This campaign where there's clearly AI bots that are attacking me and a handful of other people. So it's like me, Jack Bosobic, Tucker, there is a coordinated effort to sow discontent on the right so that factions can't come together. Right. And the left is just a cult, which is the issue that we have, I suppose. So long as the left is good at this and they are fomenting hatred among right wing factions with each other. They're gonna.

[C]

They also. They've also had a lot more practice.

[A]

Yep. They've been reading a lot more books.

[D]

Years of using the media like.

[C]

And also 40 years of Holland Congress in a row. We do need to forget about that.

[D]

To not hate each other. You know, I try not to use double negatives, but to love each other. It's such a vague thing, but it really is like Tim and Candace sitting down and hanging out and getting over it is the antidote.

[A]

I disagree.

[C]

Yeah. I Disagree.

[D]

Well, the media fervor.

[C]

I like hating people to Haiti.

[A]

No, I think, I think. I think the issue is Ian, you need to understand that evil is real.

[B]

That's right.

[D]

It doesn't mean that you can't ally with it. I agree with you that sometimes people can be horrible people, but you still need to ally with them for an outgoing purpose.

[A]

You.

[D]

Of course.

[B]

No. What do you mean? Just because you say of course doesn't mean that it's true.

[D]

Soviet Union in the United States defeating the Nazis together. I knew you were going to do that. Refusal to ally. I knew it Is signing your own death warrant.

[C]

Could have had such a better example.

[D]

The main one. The main one is you firing mercenaries,

[C]

supporting a politician who's a sociopath. He's going to put policies you like. That's an example.

[D]

That's another we could all agree with or working.

[A]

Candace ran for office, but she was like we're going to end the birthright citizenship day one. You'd be like. Or if.

[D]

If the Israeli government killed 30,000 children and we ally with them for to destroy and take over the Middle east. That's a reasonable alliance. Even though what they did is pretty.

[A]

Wait, who?

[D]

Horrific. If that's what they did.

[A]

You bring up. Who are you referencing?

[D]

If the Israeli government slaughtered Gazans like children in Gaza and we allied with them anyway to over for our goal, that's. That would be like an example of allying with potentially evil. If you want to call that evil.

[C]

I feel like that's another bad example.

[A]

Friendship and alliances are not the same ally.

[C]

How about this?

[A]

How about even the Taliban allying with the Taliban because they were trying to end child rape. So the US fought the Taliban and allied with the child rapists because they wanted to remove the Taliban. Or like I would call that a very bad thing.

[D]

Like didn't. Didn't Obama allied with isa? He helped even create isis.

[A]

Technically, but not directly.

[C]

You know Obama created isis.

[A]

Yes, allowed. I agree. Alliances are just that. Obama did not sign a document saying we're going to create isis. Obama armed rebel factions which were radical Islamists.

[C]

Yes.

[A]

And those powers coalesced into isis. If he did not provide the weapons they would then arguably ISIS would never have gained strength to become as large as they did.

[C]

ISIS preceded Obama.

[A]

No, it didn't. I mean Wahhabi, Sunni Wahhabi or whatever. Isis.

[C]

Am I misunderstand? Am I, Am I being April fooled? I know this only started after. Oh my God. I'm thinking about Al Qaeda. Sorry, Biden moment. Biden Moment. Biden moment.

[A]

Michael, it was.

[C]

Holy crap, I thought you meant Al Qaeda.

[A]

No, no, no.

[C]

Yep. This is on me.

[A]

So what happens?

[C]

You're right, you're right, you're right.

[A]

No, but I'll just explain for people. Syria. Syria falls into chaos and protest.

[C]

Damn.

[A]

Assad is accused of having his security forces shoot armed protesters.

[C]

Right.

[A]

He calls them terrorists. This creates a bunch of splinter factions. There were around 12, the Free Syrian army being one of the most prominent. Obama, his policy was. It was. What was it? Timber, wood, or whatever.

[D]

Sycamore. Timber. Sycamore.

[A]

Yes. Yeah, yeah. Timber. Sycamore. I think it was to provide weapons to rebel factions in Syria because they will remove Assad, and Assad was in the way of our gas pipeline. Well, the problem is these factions were secular and fairly weak. And the Islamic fundamentalists started to take control of these factions and coalesce them into a single group that wanted just the caliphate. That isn't what Obama was trying to do. Arguably, some would argue he was, and it didn't. He didn't make ISIS happen. He provided the means by which ISIS became strong and dominant. So people will hyperbolically say he created isis.

[C]

This is also us supporting the Taliban to fight the Soviets. And this is how we know if we armed the Kurds, we're gonna be fighting them in 20 years.

[A]

Or how about the Azov battalion?

[C]

Yeah, right.

[D]

It's a risk you take. Allying with evil, it's not a.

[C]

A certainty.

[A]

That stupid.

[C]

Whoever we arm, we're going to be fighting in 20 years. It's a certainty.

[D]

But allying with evil, there's a risk because, like, the Soviet Union was super powerful after World War II because we Allied with them and won. But arguably, would any of us leave without.

[A]

But, Ian, I will stress super powerful

[C]

after World War II.

[A]

There are.

[B]

How many Russians died in World War II?

[A]

But there are degrees of evil, and there is a line. So if you know that there is a person who is like, the moment I get a chance, I will commit atrocities, then you say, then it's not worth it.

[D]

Well, if a situation was like your country was being destroyed literally in your last city, and it's like, well, we're all gonna die, or we can ally with that crazy guy you just mentioned. They ally with the crazy guy, and that might be better because you might survive.

[A]

There are certainly circumstances.

[D]

And anyway, the reason I bring it up is because on the right, I feel like there's a fractured alliance that if we can come back together in reality.

[A]

Let us try this. The Reason why, I would say there are certainly circumstances, as the US has its interests in arming various rebel groups which turn on it. However, there also is a line you would never cross even facing existential crisis or death.

[D]

That's very Jesus Christ of you.

[A]

No, but it's truth. If the United States was like, there's the last bastion, one small town left surrounded by. By pedophiles.

[C]

Sure.

[A]

Literally. And then a communist who is holding a child by the head and saying, st. Marx is my king. And he goes, never. And he slits his throat. And then the kid dies. And he looks at and says, join me and we'll fight the pedophiles. You'd be like, no, okay, My point is, what are you fighting for?

[C]

Sure.

[A]

If you would stand alongside someone that literally destroys what you're fighting for.

[C]

Yeah, sure.

[A]

An easy example is Communists are Chinese Communists come to take over America. And American Communists say, when I take over, I'll do the exact same thing as them, but at least I'm American. You wouldn't. You'd be like, but you're. No, there's no difference. To me, these are two evils and I'm not going to accept either of them.

[D]

It's circumstantial. Because if it's like, if we don't ally with the American Communists, we're going to die, then you're like, well, no,

[A]

no, no, no, no. The American Communist is going to kill you too.

[D]

Is there, like, it's just, it's like

[A]

chance of them join me and we'll stop the Chinese Communists. I'll kill you afterwards. You'd be like, no, I'm not teaming. You're evil. You're going to kill my people no matter what. Like, there's a line where there's a tremendous evil. If you are fighting. It's like if you are fighting evil to preserve your way of life and a secondary evil equally as a threat says, join me and we'll kill them. And then I'll kill you. You'd be like, no, no.

[D]

You say, yes, and then you turn on the other people after the battle.

[A]

Point is, you're not powerful enough and you need assistance. Like, my point is simply this. You would not fight alongside a pedophile to stop a communist. Like, if a guy was actively, like, once we win this war, I'm going to go rape a bunch of people. You'd be like, I'm not fighting with you.

[D]

The thing is, if somebody was slaughtering civilians, I'd ally with pretty much anybody to stop them.

[A]

Pedophiles a bunch of short, chubby, mustachioed pedophiles who are begging for children are like, ian, if you and I win this battle right now, we stop the communist threat and we get 100 children and we'll leave. You'd be like, okay. I'd be like, yeah, that's what America.

[D]

And we would win the battle.

[A]

That's what America did.

[D]

The Taliban.

[A]

And I think it was evil and wrong. I.

[C]

During the 2000s, the longest serving US Speaker, Republican speaker of the House in history, Dennis Hastert, was in fact a pedophile. And I'm sure there's lots of people

[A]

listening to this who knew that, who

[C]

would have preferred him as speaker of the House over Pelosi, even given that.

[A]

Sure. I'm not arguing that. My point is, as I said, certainly there are circumstances. I don't agree that's a good wager to make. But I'm saying the US chose to fight alongside pedophiles in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban and the soul. It was a big cover up. And the soldiers were told they could

[C]

not report it was the New York Times from Page. Yeah, yeah.

[D]

Huge news in this situation. It's like the liberal economic, the global technocratic machine wants to, you know, absorb everything. And if we have to fight against that, if we have to preserve American freedoms, I'm willing to ally with evil Americans to make that happen because there's still Americans.

[B]

And I don't know that, that the, the liberal technocratic machine is inherently evil in the first place. Well, the way that, the way that he's talking about it, like if he's, like, if he's. What do you, what do you consider the liberal technocratic machine?

[D]

Like, get in the pot, eat the bugs, be happy, everybody's a rent rental class. If you say fuck online, you get your account demonetized.

[B]

Your talking about some kind of a humorous point.

[A]

This is. No, no, you're not. The reason we don't swear is not because we get censored. It's because there are families who have their kids in the living room watching the show.

[D]

No, but, but we're also talking about like horror.

[B]

So like you don't.

[C]

You can uk.

[A]

Yeah, I won't say.

[D]

But that is the truth is if you say the wrong words, this machine can turn you off and take your bank away. Like that's what we're fighting against.

[A]

Not if you have the rumble [e-mail].

[C]

i think the reason I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around your hypotheses is because I don't think the pedophiles are localized to one group. So I think my work with you. Working with the pedophiles, sure.

[A]

But my point was, take the most extreme, extreme evil you can think of and you'll be like, I would never work with those people.

[C]

It's like, I also think evil is. It tends to be not efficacious.

[A]

Elaborate.

[C]

Meaning that the more evil you are, the hardest to implement your plans. Because evil is.

[D]

That is what.

[A]

I disagree. I think the more evil you are, the easier it is to implement your plans. Okay, well, I guess cheating is. The cheating is absolutely. Good is hard.

[D]

No, good is God.

[A]

That's why it's all so easy, bro. No, being good is God. And that's the challenge he bestows upon you. The challenge is, do you take the easy path towards comfort and success or do you push the boulder up the hill and suffer for what is right, bro, Being evil is the easiest way to go about this.

[C]

I don't think it's easy.

[A]

Let's. Let's talk like, as I was talking about with Trump, Trump wants to deal with antifa.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Okay, you get it. You, you get a US intel asset, drug him up, dress them up like antifa, and blow him up in a town square. Then you say. Then you put on a manifesto and say, antifa is threatening more tax. We won't allow it. And then you start rounding up antifa. Problem solved.

[C]

I don't know that the sacrifice of one soldier in the. In the face of a bigger war is something as evil as you're making it out to be.

[A]

Oh, you don't think that would be evil? Like, I mean, I would consider that evil.

[C]

For example, let's suppose one country is about to go to war with another country, which would guarantee thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention military, are going to die, and you have the opportunity to kill their leader and preempt it. I don't think that's.

[A]

Well, you're just. But that's totally different.

[C]

It's not totally different. It's one murder.

[A]

Talking about deceiving the people into rounding up a political ideology you don't like because a faction of them are over.

[C]

I don't think deceit is necessarily evil.

[A]

Well, agreed, my point. But do you not. You think false flags are not evil?

[C]

I think. I think you have to compare things to the alternative. I'd rather have melanoma than pancreatic. Right.

[A]

Well, but.

[C]

Right, but that's that true. So I think I would rather Have a false flag that preempts a war than a war.

[A]

So your point is some. You'd rather have less evil than more evil, but evil nonetheless. Sure, because cancer is cancer, but some cancers are worse.

[C]

Correct.

[A]

Right. My argument is being evil is easier.

[C]

I don't think being less evil is evil. I think being less evil is good. It's good to choose the less over the worse.

[A]

So if Donald Trump wanted to deal with, if he wanted to secure voting, for instance, for the midterms, sure. The easiest thing he could do is have some, like, Antifa guy blow himself up at a fight.

[C]

I don't think that's easy at all.

[A]

What do you mean?

[C]

Because I don't think the reaction would play out necessarily like you do. Because I think a lot of times, whatever happens, it's going to blow up in his face.

[A]

I mean, that's a maybe. Except the history of false flags or they tend to work.

[C]

Sure, but how often do you have a Donald Trump figure try to run a false flag during 2020? Hold on. We remember this. During 2020, when Antifa was going to burn down that federal building, was that Seattle or Portland? Which one it was? They had. They brought the Attorney General in front of Congress to explain. How dare you defend federal property from being burnt down.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

So the point is, whatever Trump tries to pull, it's going to be looked at eight ways from Sunday.

[A]

Oh, if on, if on May 29th.

[C]

Is that a specific date?

[A]

That's when the left ransacked the, tore the barriers out at the white house firebomb. St. John's Church.

[C]

You never hear about memory hold.

[A]

Because Trump isn't evil. Because what an evil person would do is say, tell me. So the President is evil. And they brief him and they say, sir, you have to go to the bunker, emergency bunker. He goes, why? What's happening? Say there's thousands of protesters outside, they're starting fires. And then he says, brief me. What have they done? Well, they've just set fire to the historic St. John's Church. It's where the presidents pray.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

Okay. Well, Trump says we gotta stop it.

[C]

Right.

[A]

Bill Barr says we gotta stop it. They do. That's the right thing to do.

[C]

Correct. I agree with you.

[A]

However, an evil man would say, no, let it burn. Let the American icon burn to the ground. You know why? Because then in the morning, I will issue a statement that the far left extremists have destroyed a monument to America and we will announce a crackdown. And then Donald Trump could have come out after the Far leftists tore the barricades down in front of the White House. He could have ordered the police to stand down and back off. The leftists would have broken into the White House, started rampaging and ransacking everything. And he could have said, everyone stand down. And then in the morning, you know what he does? He goes on TV and says, america, I owe you an apology. When the peaceful protesters have a Trump voice.

[C]

What you had on Trump voice. Come on.

[A]

I do do it, America.

[C]

There you go.

[F]

See?

[A]

Owe you an apology.

[C]

There you go.

[A]

Last night, we saw terror. The worst this country has ever seen, some say. And what he would say is, when thousands of peaceful protesters came out, we respected the First Amendment and the grief these people felt over the loss of life in Minnesota. But when the extremists joined their ranks, unfortunately, our media reports did not convey the degree of violence that had been undertaken. And for this, I made a grave error. I instructed our law enforcement to stand down as we feared innocent peaceful protesters could be hurt. Well, it turns out that these individuals were, in fact, violent extremists. They have destroyed the historic St. John's Church and they have laid waste to the White House. And for that, I know you may never forgive me, and for that, I will apologize at every opportunity. But mark my words, I will have justice. And the American people will know justice as we seek these violent terrorists down across the country and lock them up. And then he creates a task force and a committee, the M29 committee, and then they start holding hearings, bringing in leftists and saying, did you have something to do with this? They put these people in prison and they all get arrested.

[B]

I don't know why you say this is evil. This sounds awesome.

[A]

Because the point is, Trump would intentionally foment the destruction of American icons and monuments for the purpose of installing a political agenda.

[B]

I don't know that he reformed, at least in this. In this scenario, he wouldn't foment. He would have allowed it. So.

[A]

And also I would argue that's a light degree of evil.

[C]

Everyone would be gaslit into blaming Trump and say, and. Or simultaneously saying that nothing ever happened.

[A]

Well, the White House would be ransacked and St. John Church would be a

[C]

pile of rubble, and they'll say it's Trump's fault and they didn't remove him from office.

[A]

No, no, you're right, they would. And Trump would say, well, you know, I apologize for this. I do. We saw the. CNN was saying that it was peaceful, and we. We believed it, and that was my fault. I should not have believed CNN when they lied.

[C]

Let me ask you a question because I remember 2020 very vividly and I'm sure the people in this room as well. Do you disagree with my contention that if Trump was. Didn't go as far as he did on Covid with many of the restrictions either through his what his decisions and things. He said that he would have been impeached or moved from office if he

[A]

didn't go as far as he did. Correct.

[C]

If he was softer.

[A]

I feel like we need a little bit more specific meaning.

[C]

Like I remember those times, right. And how scared everyone was, especially those first few days.

[A]

And Trump, you're saying if he was like no lockdowns, we're going to let everything roll.

[C]

And Trump wanted things to open up as fast as possible. He's talking about all the time. Well, I was. Hold on, just finish my point. I think people don't appreciate to what extent Congress is against the sky, including Republicans. I would love an excuse to remove him from office.

[A]

And I think people don't appreciate the severe impact Andy NGOs near death experience had on the American psyche.

[C]

People don't know who Andy is.

[A]

CNN was forced to come out and say the left has gone too far.

[C]

Fine.

[A]

That was a massive moment when photos of Andy.

[C]

No, it was just because the right

[A]

never engages in false flags. Right. So when the left crossed the line and left Andy. No bleeding from the ears and drenched with blood and broken teeth, all of the media was like this is too much.

[C]

Steve Scalise got shot. No Democrat defended it, to my knowledge.

[A]

Indeed. And the point is a week after

[C]

that everyone forgot about it.

[A]

People need to see it. But the thing is you can't force

[C]

them to see it cuz they don't want you to show it to you.

[A]

If, if Trump were to engage in a sustained campaign, he would win.

[D]

I don't.

[A]

I think you're wrong.

[D]

I think not. Because the media, it's only if it aligns with what the military industrial complex wants. If they false flag us into Iran, I can understand it.

[A]

But there's nothing to do with domestic conquest.

[D]

They don't want, they want Antifa to run roughshod to sow disstabilities. So I think that they would expose him and throw him away.

[A]

We have, we have seen numerous instances where the left went too far and we got the reaction from the corporate press in a shocking way. It's just that it only happened two or three times.

[C]

Right. But my point is people have been primed for a decade to Be told that in any minute now, Trump is gonna put trans people in concentration camps.

[A]

Agreed.

[C]

So the second there's a hint of that. Aha. Told you so. And he's gonna get removed.

[A]

Except if you shock the American people into a position where the media cannot. Guest light.

[C]

I don't see. That is where you and I disagree. I don't think there's a possibility that people get so shocked that media can't guess.

[A]

If Andy Ngo was beaten to death, the reaction would've been tenfold.

[C]

Ten times one is still gonna be a small number.

[A]

Indeed. It needs to be a consistent plan from Trump to continually lie and engage in false flags and manipulate the public like the left does.

[C]

Sure.

[A]

But if Trump was evil, he'd be doing it.

[C]

Point is, the left doesn't do it through one person. Trump is just one man. This has been systemic for decades. From them, I got it. Trump's only there for four years.

[A]

But that's. That's not addressing what my argument is.

[C]

No, but the point is Trump does not have the space to do what the left does.

[A]

Perhaps that may be. If Trump were to do what the left was doing, he'd win.

[C]

Win what? You mean the culture war?

[A]

Culture war.

[C]

Okay. I don't think the culture war could be one in four years.

[A]

I believe that January 6th was allowed to happen. That we saw videos of police standing down and walking people in the building.

[C]

Sure.

[A]

Nancy Pelosi didn't bring in National Guard and neither did Bowser. And I think the point was they said, no, no, let it happen.

[C]

Sure.

[A]

Because then they got their committees and their insurrection.

[C]

Right.

[A]

Trump could have done the same thing with the White House.

[C]

I just. I don't think there's a symmetry.

[D]

Yeah. The liberal. That establishment like, does false flags, you know, mechanically and industrially. It's not. Not one guy telling a lie.

[C]

There are people who will tell you right now that dozens of cops were killed on January six by that.

[A]

Because. Because New York Times lie.

[C]

I'm just saying that's. But you're not. We don't live in a truth based. Humans aren't truth seeking animals. They're narrative seeking animals. And their narrative for 10 years has been Trump is a Hitler waiting to happen. That's been primed in people's heads. And the second something like that happens, they're activated.

[B]

More people need to understand exactly what you just said. And I don't even. I don't even. And I think because of the way that people are, I don't think that they. They can actually Wrap their heads around it. So it might be, it might be a moot point to even bring it up. But the fact that, like the idea that people have that, you know, if you can just actually have a discussion with people and you'll change their show them video.

[C]

No, there are people who, Tim, we all agree with this. There are many leftists that if you play them, the clip of Trump speaking at the Charlottesville will tell you, yes, I heard him praising white supremacists. There is. They can play that tape from here until they die. They will not hear it correctly.

[A]

So I would argue that that video actually is the greatest red pill for the average person. And I hear so many of these stories where they say, I was a lib until I saw that video.

[C]

But if that video was as red pilling as you say, it would be 100% effective.

[A]

No, 100.

[C]

If people were as mad pretty objective, that video.

[A]

So for the default libs, as Andrew Breitbart called them, it almost is completely effective.

[C]

Is it your opinion that if you played that video in its entirety to everyone in America, they would all become maga?

[A]

Everyone? No, of course not.

[C]

So what percent you think would change

[A]

their minds of default libs?

[C]

Yes.

[A]

60%.

[C]

I think it's 10. That's our disagreement.

[A]

We got Trump.

[D]

10.

[A]

Here he comes.

[B]

Here we go.

[C]

Oh, hey. He's doing a simple impression.

[F]

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. T. My fellow Americans, good evening. Let me begin by congratulating the team at NASA and our brave astronauts on the successful launch of Artemis ii. It was quite something. It will be traveling further than any manned rocket has ever flown and will very substantially pass the moon, go around it and come back home from a distance that has never been done before. Amazing. They are on the way and God bless them. These are brave people. We want to God bless those four unbelievable astronauts as we speak this evening. It's been just one month since the United States military began Operation Epic Fury, targeting the world's number one state sponsor of terror, Iran. In these past four weeks, our armed forces have delivered swift, decisive, overwhelming victories on the battlefield. Victories like few people have ever seen before. Tonight, Iran's navy is gone. Their air force is in ruins. Their leaders, most of them terrorist regime they led, are now dead. Their command and control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is being decimated as we speak.

[C]

It's like he's doing a trump.

[F]

Their ability to launch missiles and drones is dramatically curtailed and their weapons factories and rocket launchers are being blown to pieces. Very Few of them left. Never in the history of warfare has an enemy suffered such clear and devastating large scale losses in a matter of weeks.

[C]

I don't think that's true.

[F]

Our enemies are losing in America as it has been for five years under my presidency, is winning and now winning bigger than ever before. Before discussing this current situation, I also want to thank our troops for the masterful job they did in taking the country of Venezuela will in a matter of minutes that it was quick, lethal, violent and respected by everyone all over the world. After rebuilding our military during my first term, we have by far the strongest military anywhere in the world. And now we're working along with Venezuela and are in a true sense joint venture partners. We're getting along incredibly well in the production and sale of massive amounts of oil and gas, the second largest reserves on earth after the United States of America. We're now totally independent of the Middle east and yet we are there to help. We don't have to be there. We don't need their oil. We don't need anything they have. But we're there to help our allies. Tonight I want to provide an update on the tremendous progress our warriors have made in Iran and discuss why Operation Epic Fury is necessary for the safety of America and the security of the free world. From the very first day I announced my campaign for President in 2015, I have vowed that I would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. This vernacular regime has been chanting death to America, death to Israel for 47 years. Their proxies were behind the murder of 241Americans in the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. The slaughter of hundreds of our service members with roadside bombs. They were involved in the attack on the USS Cole and they carried out the countless other heinous acts, including the blood just horrible bloody atrocities of October 7th in Israel. Something that most people have never seen anything like it. This murderous regime also recently killed 45,000 of their own people who were protesting in Iran. 45,000 dead. For these terrorists who have nuclear weapons with be an intolerable threat. The most violent and thuggish regime on earth would be free to carry out their campaigns of terror, coercion, conquest and mass murder from behind a nuclear shield. I will never let that happen and neither should any of our past presidents. This situation has been going on for 47 years and and should have been handled long before I arrived in office. I did many things during my two terms in office to stop the quest for nuclear weapons by Iran. First, and perhaps most importantly, I killed General Qassem Soleimani in my first term. He was an evil genius, brilliant person, a horrible human being. However, the father of the roadside bomb. And he lived. Just horrible what he did. Iran would have been perhaps in far better, stronger position had he lived. We would have had probably a different conversation tonight. But you know what? We'd still be winning and winning big. And then, very importantly, I terminated Barack Hussein Obama's Iran nuclear deal. A disaster. $1.7 billion in cash. Green, green cash. Took it out of banks from Virginia, D.C. and Maryland, all the cash they had. He flew it by airplanes in an attempt to buy their respect and loyalty. But it didn't work. They laughed at our president and went on with their mission to have a nuclear bomb. His Iran deal would have led to a colossal arsenal of massive nuclear weapons for Iran, and they would have had them years ago, and they would have used them. Would have been a different world. There would have been no Middle east and no Israel. Right now, in my opinion, the opinion of a lot of great experts, had I not terminated that terrible deal. And I was. I was so honored to do it. I was so proud to do it. It was so bad. Right from the beginning, essentially, I did what no other President. President was willing to do. They made mistakes, and I am correcting them. My first preference was always the path of diplomacy. Yet the regime continued their relentless quest for nuclear weapons and rejected every attempt at an agreement. For this reason, in June, I ordered a strike on Iran's key nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. Those beautiful B2 bombers performed magnificently. We totally obliterated those nuclear sites. The regime then sought to rebuild their nuclear program at a totally different location, making clear they had no intention of abandoning their pursuit of nuclear weapons. They were also rapidly building a vast stockpile of Cadillac conventional ballistic missiles and would soon have had missiles that could reach the American homeland, Europe, and virtually any other place on Earth. Iran's strategy was so obvious, they wanted to produce as many missiles as possible, and they did, with the longest range possible. And they had some weapons that nobody believed they had. We just learned that out. We took them out. We took them all out so that no one would really dare stop them. And they're raised for a nuclear bomb. A nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon like nobody's ever seen before. They were right at the doorstep. For years, everyone has said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. But in the end, those are just words. If you're not willing to take action when the time comes, as I State in my announcement of Operation Epic Fury. Our objectives are very simple and clear. We are systematically dismantling the regime's ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders. That means eliminating Iran's navy, which is now absolutely destroyed, hurting their air Force and their missile program at levels never seen before, and annihilating their defense industrial base. We've done all of it. Their navy is gone. Their air Force is gone. Their missiles are just about used up or beaten. Taken together, these actions will cripple Iran military, crush their ability to support terrorist proxies and deny them the ability to build a nuclear bomb. Our armed forces have been extraordinary. There's never been anything like it militarily. Everyone is talking about it. And tonight I'm pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion. As we celebrate this progress, we think especially of the 13American warriors who have laid down their lives in this fight to prevent our children from ever having to face a nuclear Iran. Twice this past month I have traveled to Dover Air Force Base. And it's been something I wanted to be with those heroes as they returned to American soil. And I was with them and their families, their parents, their wives, their husbands. We salute them and now we must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives. And every single one of the people, their loved ones said please sir, please finish the job. Every one of them. And we are going to finish the job. And we're going to finish it very fast. We're getting very close. I want to thank our allies in the Middle East, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the uae, Kuwait and Bahrain. They've been great and we will not let them get hurt or fail in in any way, shape or form. Many Americans have been concerned to see the recent rise in gasoline prices here at home. This short term increase has been entirely the result of the Iranian regime launching deranged terror attacks against commercial oil tankers in neighboring countries that have nothing to do with the conflict. This is yet more proof that Iran can never be trusted with with nuclear weapons. They will use them and they will use them quickly. It would lead to decades of extortion, economic pain and instability worse than we can ever imagine. The United States has never been better prepared economically to confront this threat. You all know that we built the strongest economy in history. We're going through it right now. The strongest in history. In one year, we've taken a dead and crippled country. I hate to say that, but we were a dead and crippled country after the last administration and made it the Hottest country anywhere in the world by far. With no inflation record setting investments coming into the United States over $18 trillion and the highest stock market ever with 53 all time record highs in just one year. It all positioned us to get rid of a cancer that has long simmered. It's known as the nuclear Iran. And they didn't know what was coming. They've never imagined it. Remember, because of our drill A Baby drill program, America has plenty of gas. We have so much gas. Under my leadership, we are number one producer of oil and garment gas on the planet. Without even discussing the millions of barrels that we're getting from Venezuela. Because of the Trump administration's policies, we produce more oil and gas than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined. Think of that. Saudi Arabia and Russia combined. And that number will soon be substantially higher than that. There's no country like us anywhere in the world and we're in great shape for the future. The United States imports almost no oil through the Hormuz Strait and won't be taking any in the future. We don't need it. We haven't needed it and we don't need it. We've beaten and completely decimated Iran. They are decimated both militarily and economically and every other way. And the countries of the world that do receive oil through the hormone strait must take care of that passage. They must cherish it. They must grab it and cherish it. They can do it easily. We will be helpful. But they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on. So to those countries that can't get fuel, many of which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, we had to do it ourselves. I have a suggestion. Number one, buy oil from the United States of America. We have plenty. We have so much. And number two, build up some delayed courage. Should have done it before, should have done it with us as we asked. Go to the strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves. Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done. So it should be easy. And in any event, when this conflict is over, the strait will open up naturally. It'll just open up. Naturally. They're going to want to be able to sell oil because that's all they have to try and rebuild. It will resume the flowing and the gas prices will rapidly come back down. Stock prices will rapidly go back up. They haven't come down very much, frankly. They came down a little bit, but they've had some very good days, days over the last couple of days. We've done actually much better than I thought. But we had to take that little journey to Iran to get rid of this horrible threat with our historic tax cuts where people are just now talking about receiving larger refunds than they ever thought possible. They are getting so much more money than they thought. That's from the great big beautiful bill. Our economy is strong and improving by the day and, and it will soon be roaring back like never before. It will top the levels that it was a month ago. I've made clear from the beginning of Operation Epic Fury that we will continue until our objectives are fully achieved. Thanks to the progress we've made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly, very shortly. We are going to hit them extremely hard. Over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing. Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change. But regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders. Death. They're all dead. The new group is less rapid, radical and much more reasonable. Yet if during this period of time, no deal is made, we have our eyes on key targets. If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously. We have not hit their oil, even though that's the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. But we could hit it and it would be gone and there's not a thing they could do about it. They have no anti aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force. The nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B2 bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the the nuclear dust. And we have it under intense satellite surveillance and control. If we see them make a move, even a move, for it will hit them with missiles very hard again. We have all the cards. They have none. It's very important that we keep this conflict in perspective. American involvement in World War I lasted one year, year, seven months and five days. World War II lasted for three years, eight months and 25 days. The Korean War lasted for three years, one month and two days. The Vietnam War lasted for 19 years, five months and 29 days. Iraq went on for eight years, eight months and 28 days. We are in this military operation, so powerful, so brilliant, against one of the most powerful countries for 32 days and the country has been eviscerated and essentially is really no longer a threat. They were the bully of the Middle east, but they're the bully no longer. This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren's future. The whole world is watching. And they can't leave the power, strength and brilliance. They just can't believe what they're seeing. They leave it to your imagination, but they can't believe what they're seeing. The brilliance of the United States military. Tonight, every American can look forward to a day when we are finally free from the wickedness of Iranian aggression and the specter of nuclear black belt. Because of the action, actions we have taken, we are on the cusp of ending Iran's sinister threat to America and the world. And I'll tell you, the world is watching. And when we do, when it's all over, the United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous and greater than it has ever been before. May God bless the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. And may God bless the United States. States of America. Thank you very much and good night.

[B]

Oh, wow. I'm a little.

[C]

I hope I've got one quick question. Like, I'm not. This is even a sarcastic. I'm not even sarcastic. He said we're close to achieving all of America's like military goals.

[D]

What are those?

[C]

I. I literally don't know what those are.

[A]

Rubio posted them. Oh, you did? Yeah.

[C]

What are they?

[A]

It was, it was, it was basically annihilate their ability to wage ground war.

[E]

Okay.

[A]

Anti air and naval. And they were like, I don't know, it might have been like seven points or something.

[C]

We pulled that up because I think that. Yeah, yeah, because that's the big question. I think people are having you.

[D]

Blowing up their arms and legs doesn't stop the brain's desire.

[A]

So that's.

[B]

Well, the, the argument that's being that Marco Rubio made is that there's, there's. They want to degrade their ability to have missiles. You got that? Do you have it, Tim? I found it.

[A]

Okay, Grab it.

[B]

Just put it in the slack or.

[A]

Yeah, it was Rubio, right? Yeah, yeah.

[F]

He.

[A]

People like was like a bullet point thing or something.

[B]

Two minute thing right there.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

He wanted our objectives.

[G]

Americans are asking why did the United States have to attack Iran now? Well, let me explain. Iran wants to have nuclear weapons. Of that there is zero doubt if what they truly wanted, which is what they claim is nuclear energy. Well, they could have nuclear energy like all the other countries in the world have it, and that is you import the fuel and you build reactors above ground. That's not what Iran has done. They build their reactors and their facilities deep in mountains, away from the public glare, and they want to enrich that material. The same equipment that they could use to enrich material for energy they could use to quickly enrich it to weapons grade. So it is clear that they've been offered every opportunity to have a nuclear program that allows them to have energy, not weapons. And every single time, they have turned it down. But why the attack now? Well, what was Iran trying to do? Iran was trying to build a conventional shield, in essence, have so many missiles, have so many drones that no one could attack them. And they were well on their way. We were on the verge of an Iran that had so many missiles and so many drones that no one could do anything about their nuclear weapons program in the future. That was an intolerable risk. Under no circumstances can a country run by radical Shia clerics with an apocalypse vision of the future ever possessed nuclear weapons. And under no circumstances can they be allowed to hide and protect that program and their ambitions behind a shield of missiles and drones that no one can do anything about. This was our last best chance to eliminate that conventional threat, that conventional shield that they were trying to build, and the President made the right decision to wipe it out. Now, that is the goal of this operation, to destroy their conventional missiles and their drone program so they can't hide behind it and finally have to deal with the world seriously, about never, ever having nuclear weapons.

[C]

That's so much more coherent than what Trump said.

[A]

Well, of course it is.

[C]

Saying of course I didn't know, I'm

[D]

sorry, implies that I have to get the Iranian regime to allow inspectors into the country, basically capitulate, and become the point servants of.

[B]

One of the points that I've heard a lot of people making is that the reason that we couldn't do anything about North Korea getting a nuclear weapon is because of the location of Pyongyang. Right. They're within artillery range of the. Of North Korea. So if they tried to prevent what,

[A]

China's backing North Korea, we can't go in.

[C]

No, no, but.

[B]

But the point that I'm.

[C]

The point that I'm making is going in the iae. They kicked them out.

[B]

Yeah, but the reason they could.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

The reason they could. The main reason they couldn't, because they couldn't even gamble on trying to. Is because if they tried to strike North Korea, North Korea can just use artillery and wipe out what, 10 million people in, in Seoul.

[A]

They kill 10, tens of thousands with just.

[B]

So what. What the, what the, what the goal is here is to prevent Iran from achieving that kind of weapons capacity with conventional weapons for making it, making it too costly for the US or someone else to go and actually attack them. Because I so much.

[C]

April fools. Like, why didn't Trump say what you just said?

[A]

Because he's Trump. Are you kidding? Come.

[C]

People are writing these speech I've seen.

[A]

I think Rubio should have added the Ruby should have said this, everything he said. And I want the people of this country to understand that while the safety of the region, our allies, our troops are paramount, understand that the threat from Iran would also destabilize the economy here in the United States, right Abroad, as we are seeing now with the shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz and gas prices going up. If we waited and they aimed nuclear weapons at us or our allies, gas prices would have gone up $4 a gallon. This is just a small factor. Right. But understand, it's a big, It's a big picture. And the safety of the, of the people in the lives is the, you know, most important.

[C]

That would be a very coherent. And then go, not just gas prices go up, but the cost of literally everything. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Yeah.

[B]

And none of us talking about this is an endorsement of the, of the attacking. I know they don't understand, but it's only.

[D]

He's still. Ruby only gave us half or part of an equation because you blow up all their conventional weapons, their missiles and drones, and then wait four years, they're going to have another round of conventional weapons.

[A]

It's called mowing along.

[D]

Yeah, exactly. So is that the plan is every three years we're going to.

[A]

That's why they want regime change.

[D]

Well, he didn't say that, but I agree.

[A]

He did.

[C]

He did. He didn't.

[A]

Trump, you know, Trump.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

Rubio didn't mention regime change as part of the tack.

[A]

I want to say this to strategy because my concerns, as I mentioned earlier, with intervention, are functional and not moral. I have moral concerns. Like there's a report that the US May have launched Tomahawk, which hit a school, killing a bunch of children.

[D]

Horrifying.

[A]

And moral concerns matter, however, in war, we try to avoid these. And I believe the United States as a force for war and a global power, has been the most moral that we have seen in the past. I don't know, in our history, in the history of the planet. Certainly you can look at The Nazis. And everyone goes, oh, certainly you can look at Napoleon and go, really? You can look at Russia and China and go, good God. And you go to America and you go, well, they did do a lot of bad things. But all things considered, my argument is, I sit online, I see these activists from left to right or otherwise, and they say the US Is the worst terrorist on the planet. The US Is evil, all of these things. And that is just not true. It may not be correct, functional or moral, what they're doing. Those arguments are always allowed. But my point is China was threatening to destroy one of the largest aquifers in Central America so they could compete with the Panama Canal. They have no regard for human life and what is moral or good. Certainly one could argue the US does bad things. And I would argue, welcome to war and global conflict. So by all means, criticize the war. I'm not saying not to. I'm just saying don't come to me and claim that Iran is morally just don't come to me and say China is morally just our good or that Russia is. Because I will tell you, the United States is infinitely, infinitely better and more moral than all of those countries very

[D]

good at not turning on its own people because of our decentralized legal systems where like local police basically trump essentially the exterior forces. So the US it's moral in that way that it hasn't genocided its own people. But, like, we're not at war in Iran. So you're saying, like in times of war, you might blow up a school of children, but we're not at war. A guy just said, let's go blow up that school of children.

[A]

We're doing war kind of things.

[C]

We killed.

[A]

The point is the Karami war, the American military is the most constrained military in terms of global powers. Hearing, hearing the things that our men and women in uniform go through when they're like, we're getting shot at, we're not allowed to return fire because of the risks. Like, the US Military goes to painstaking lengths to avoid what Communist China does intentionally.

[C]

I think that the point people make, and I'm not saying you disagree with this, isn't that the Iran or Chinese are good people, but that they're acting in certain ways that make rational sense. And you can understand other countries. Look what happened with Iran being like, you know what if I get nukes, this isn't going to happen to me. Look at Pakistan, Pakistan harbor, bin Laden. No one brings them up.

[A]

That is, that is, I would argue, functionally correct. And then we can take a look at what the US Response was with Iran right now. Iran, Trump, I would argue embarrassed, humiliated Even, because the 12 Day War was a failure. He said, we got their nuclear capabilities. What did we see from satellite photos? It looked like they got all of the enriched uranium out before it was blown up. And guess what? That's true. Trump failed in that regard. I bet Trump. Trump was pissed and now it's like, okay, well, if we're going to shut him down, we're going to do it.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

I believe it has more to do with just the, with uranium protests or whatever. But I will stress the US Says we will target your military. There may be accidental collateral damage. I do not believe the US intentionally targeted schoolchildren. That's a waste of $1 billion missile or a $50 million missile. You're not accomplishing any goals with doing that. Look what Iran did. They targeted hotels and civilians. Iran threatened to target critical infrastructure of our allies, uninvolved, like Trump mentioned, as well as civilians. Because the threat of terror makes an honest person scared. The criminal at the bank points the gun at the innocent woman, knowing the police don't want her to die and would rather the criminal escape with all of the money than the innocent person die. That's evil and that's what Iran is doing. So I'm not justifying that we go into this cuz again, moral arguments are allowed and we can have them. Functional arguments are mostly where I stand, but moral matters to me. But you take a look at what Iran's been doing in the region. Arming rebels who blow up civilian cargo ships, which they've been doing for years, and we're supposed to just sit back and be like, well, you know, we can't do anything about it. I reject that. Now, again, my principal concerns are the moral expense. Like this school that was blown up. We should have investigation. My, my concerns are the function. If we do this, will we actually succeed? And even Eric Prince said, it's a roll the dice. But I will stress on Venezuela while skeptical, because my fear is the function. Morally, we are 100% justified. And I am glad that Trump succeeded in Venezuela. The Venezuelans stole our assets and we had a treaty with them. We shook hands, we built oil infrastructure and smiled and said, thank you, we'll get rich together. And then the communists in that country stole it all from us and gave us the middle finger. And Trump, what did he do? He took one guy and got our stuff back. And there's no war. And I respect it.

[C]

I think that's fair to the extent that Maduro and a few of his henchmen got. Got taken out. So the damage was so minimal, people didn't even know how to freak out about it.

[A]

Agreed.

[C]

But if he's sitting there talking about who knows if it's bluster about targeting, you know, electricity, which is going to affect a lot of civilians at a certain point, like, you can't just say it's just war.

[A]

I think the. The principal issue is, you know, the scenario I like to give. And I'd love to get your thoughts on this thought experiment. I may have asked you this already, but I'm gonna ask you again.

[C]

Is this the naked slave being whipped?

[A]

No, no, no. That was fun though, right? This one is. You're in the middle of the woods, far from civilization.

[C]

Okay? How would that ever happen?

[A]

It's called a hypothetical. But even if you didn't have breakfast, Michael, I wake up at 11.

[C]

I never have breakfast.

[A]

Let me ask you a question. And it's not necessarily just for you, but. Yeah, I got you a thought experiment. I like to ask people, when it pertains to war is you're in the middle of the woods, you're lost. You have a small satchel of food and a canteen. It'll last you about a day. And you have a rifle, okay? You're trying to find your way to civilization. And let's just say that you're in an unknown country, and as you're walking, you see a man in the distance, looks just like you. Rifle, small satchel, looks like food, canteen of water. What do you do?

[C]

Wait, does it matter that he looks like me?

[A]

Like, he looks like. He's wearing the same gear as he.

[C]

Okay, I think he's like my clone, Okay? I would approach him and say, hey, I'm lost. Can you help?

[A]

Bang. Now he's got two days worth of food and you're dead.

[C]

You don't know that.

[A]

Indeed you don't. And you don't know that he'll greet you either. And this is. This is the thought experiment. Andrew Branka said I'd shoot him on the spot. I'd aim my rifle and take him out.

[C]

I think it would depend on what country you're in.

[A]

You're in an unknown country.

[C]

But I would depend, because if you're, like, in Canada, like, it's not going to end well for you.

[A]

Well, I said you're in an unknown country, lost from civilization with limited food. You see a man

[C]

I'm very loathe, even hypothetical Let me give you another thought experiment. This actually happened.

[A]

Let me just finish this one point on the thought experiment. There is no right answer, and no answer you give will ever be adequate. That's the point. If you say I would call out to him, he responds in a foreign language. If you say, I approach him, he shoots you. If you say I shoot him first, okay, then he's dead. The point is, when we're in situations of war, especially as citizens watching a government, we don't know everything.

[C]

Exactly.

[A]

Right. And there's only one question that matters. Do you trust this administration?

[C]

Right.

[A]

But throw yours out.

[C]

This is one of the things I learned was writing the white pill before he was President. Reagan was take. Or maybe during, I don't remember, was taken down to a bunker and giving a simulation of nuclear reciprocity. And they like, all right, press this button. And he goes, wait, wait. If I press this button, millions of Russians are going to die. And they're like, yes. And he's like, huh? And his aides are like, he knew he wasn't going to press that button, that he was not going to. And what's amazing is Gorbachev had. The USSR was taken to an actual mock room and they walked him through it. He goes, I'm not pressing this button. Even in a simulation, neither of them knew it.

[D]

Wow.

[C]

So both of them during the Cold War were like, I'm not doing anything retaliating. But they both thought, that other guy is going to kill millions of us in a second. That's kind of what ended the Cold War.

[A]

There's the famous story.

[C]

I just can say my point, even in hypothetical. I'm loathe to say I'm going to shoot someone because my brain doesn't work like that.

[A]

I suppose the.

[B]

The ease depends on the context.

[C]

Also this context, like a context around

[A]

automatically the thought experiment we. We've elaborated on. You are alone in the middle of the woods, walking. You have a rifle and a satchel of food and water, and you see a man in the distance who looks just like you.

[C]

Right.

[A]

And you're only alone because you just left your two children and wife to go find food.

[C]

Okay.

[A]

What do you do?

[C]

Shoot the wife and kids? Three days of food. Are you stupid?

[A]

That's three days of food. And you can eat the people and

[C]

you can make more kids.

[A]

Yeah. So the point is, it was funny because the point of the thought experiment is just for you to envision being in a scenario where you're approaching an unknown.

[C]

Sure.

[A]

And Andrew Branka was like, I'd shoot him. And I was like, I pull my rifle and shoot him. I was like. And he's like, now I got food. And I'm like, okay.

[C]

It's like, Andrew's been stuck in an elevator for an hour.

[A]

And I was like, that's an answer. But there's no wrong answer. There's no right answer. It's just imagine being in a scenario.

[C]

I also think it's easy to have hypotheticals, but we don't know what would be like in that situation.

[A]

Right.

[C]

A lot of people say, as soon as some come to my house, I put a bullet.

[A]

There's that. There's a. There's a story that happened in Texas where a guy gets rear ended and he gets out of his car angry. He just got rear ended. And so he gets out of the car, starts screaming. The other guy gets out of his car and he sees the guy screaming and ranting, walking towards him. So he puts his hand up and puts his hand on his hip. The guy walking towards him sees him reaching for his gun. So he grabs his gun and draws it. Then the other guy sees him drawing his gun and points his gun. And then they both shoot each other. And it was simply an escalation that neither understood. The presumption was the guy who got rear ended was just pissed off. He got rear ended, wasn't going to shoot anybody. But the guy who rented him sees an angry guy screaming and walking towards him, and he just meant to ready himself. The guy sees a hand going to a gun.

[C]

But in that snowball, in that hypothetical in the woods, why wouldn't it make sense for me to point the gun, let's say Phil, and be like, hey, who you know, before you shoot him. So, right, there's an escalation process. That's why Brian's thinking like, I'm gonna shoot him.

[A]

Because the point of the experiment is that there's no right or wrong answer. You say, I draw my rifle and say, freeze. As you're grabbing your rifle, he aims rifle and shoots. He sees you reaching for your gun, so he shoots you. Or the other example is people will say, I yell hello. And he yells, flabo. And you go, I have no idea what he just said. So with foreign countries, Flavo means. Well, I do. But the point of the experiment is imagine you're in these scenarios where there's no right or like you don't know what's going to happen. You have no idea how to address a stranger who's armed. Is this person you're lost in the woods and you're starving, you're hungry, you have one day left of food. And this guy might be thinking, I don't want to. He might knife me in the back.

[C]

I feel like human beings are much more neighborly and friendly, having traveled different places.

[A]

It's true. There was a couple that went biking around the world because they wanted to show everybody how peaceful it is. And then they. A car pulled over, jumped out, and slipped and chopped their heads off.

[C]

But how many places did they go before they went to that car?

[A]

A couple dozen.

[C]

Right. So that means the odds are a couple dozen.

[A]

Or the two women who went hiking in Morocco and then the Islamists dragged him up onto a mountain, raped him.

[C]

Stories because they're the outliers, not the norm.

[A]

I didn't say it was the norm. I'm making a point. Like, it's a half joke. You're like, people are not crazy. My argument is, I've traveled the world.

[C]

The person.

[A]

No.

[C]

Oh, okay.

[A]

No. Two people working together, substantially more effective.

[C]

Okay, thank you. Yeah.

[A]

I've traveled the world and many people have asked me, aren't you scared going to favelas or going into riots? And I said, no, because people are all the same. Some people are crazy. In America's, it's crazies. Most people want the same thing. They want food, shelter, and their families. The. The ideologues who wage war are rare. And so I've been like, when I walked around Nasser City in Egypt, I wasn't scared any one of these guys was gonna attack me because that doesn't serve their interests in any way. They were praying. They were. They were Muslim Brotherhood guys. No. In all likelihood, when they find out an American journalist is there, they're gonna say, please tell my story.

[C]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

So I'm like, there are crazy people, and we've been threatened and freaked out by it, but they're gang bangers in Chicago. Freak me out all the same.

[D]

A lot of that metaphor of being in the woods with a dude looking at him is like communication levels. If communication is in total breakdown, anyone that doesn't speak your language that's out there is probably an enemy combatant. At least that's the way you got to think. But if you have communication lines open and you can either speak to him or radio him ahead of time, you'll know, like, if. What the threat levels are.

[A]

See the thing. Let me tell you about the simulation. One thing that I think high net worth people understand that low net worth people do not and it's not meant to be derisive or humble bragging, but it's true. The amount of knives that get placed in your back when you have money are orders of magnitude greater than when you don't. When you are working class, you have betrayers and you have backstabbers because everybody does. But when you have money, there are people who will kill you for no reason. There are people you thought your friends who will leak private messages from you. There are people that you would claim to be your friend and when you die, will leak private messages to exploit to make money on the Internet.

[D]

I was thinking, like, turning, like, yeah, friendships are cool. People are great. But if you have a stockpile of food and they don't, you're kind of.

[C]

You guys know who Big Frida is? No, I didn't think I was going to bring this up on the show. Can you pull a Big Freeda? F R E E D I A. Big Freeda is the biggest singer of bounce music from New Orleans. Total gender fluid. Yeah, pull up the. Pull up an image. Big Frida. That's Big Frida. Big Frida got stabbed in St. Louis because someone wanted to say, I'm the guy who stabbed Big Frida.

[B]

Oh, my God.

[C]

To your point, when you become a certain level of status, people want to take you down just so they could say I'm the one who stabbed.

[A]

But it's not about strangers.

[D]

Thinking about more about.

[A]

I know. Let me tell you. I probably have three former best friends who have tried to destroy me and threaten my family's Life.

[C]

And there's 4 and 5i.

[A]

And you have no idea. Every day after the show, Phil tackles me, and then you're going to be the one.

[B]

You got to keep, man. You got to keep.

[A]

Phil's trying to take. Just kill me, but he always wants to. He calls it wrestling. She's got to keep pretty good. So there's a guy that I knew. We. We were probably best friends for a few years. Deadpool, he does there. There was a dude I knew, and we were probably best friends for a couple of years. And a few years ago, he started posting on X fake stories about me using pictures that we had and, like, proof that he knew me to try and try and build clout. He would go on X. There was a guy that I knew that I considered a pretty good friend who hacked into one of my servers and then started leaking, like, inane messages between Discord, you know, members.

[D]

This is.

[A]

This is a long time ago. For no reason other than to Attack me and profit off of knowing me. The amount of people who will betray you when you have things regular people just have not experienced this Tim Ferriss

[C]

had this great essay about 10 things that happen to when you're famous. And Tim Ferriss obviously a huge name and one of them was you're going to have, he's like imagine you have a village of a million people. Right out of that million people, 100 of them are going to be crazy. And I don't mean crazy like weird like crazy like they think they're married to you.

[A]

Yes.

[C]

And he goes when your audience reaches I have, when you. I just got named someone, just a stalker. Mine just filled out their living will in Canada and made me the beneficiary over their parents and brother.

[A]

What's their net worth?

[C]

I have access to the bank accounts and their gametes which is currently the Oasis Fertility Clinic in Calgary. I met this person once 10 years ago point being to Tim Ferriss point when you have a million people in your audience, 100 of them are going to have these relations with you. They aren't just like oh, I like Phil, I like his music. It's like Phil and I went to high school together and now he's not returning my calls.

[A]

No, I, I do hear that and I've experienced that. Obviously. The distinction I'm drawing however from the phenomenon of crazies who know you like I always talk about I'm not scared of antifa. I'm scared of the guy who thinks I stole his spoons.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

And is like hunting me down.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

There was a woman on X who said I broke into her house at 2 in the morning and turned her TV on, waking up her family. And there are people on the left who are responding like it was true.

[B]

The guy that.

[A]

But, but real quick. My point is there are people that I would consider, would have considered to be very good friends who I'm still friends with on social media who found that they could exploit their connection to me to profit and promptly knifed me in the back. And I was shocked the first couple of times it happened. The lengths people were willing to go to do it. And so I, I, I, I we talk about the guy in the woods. Let me put it like this. You are in the woods and you have a stack of food that is going to last you for three months and a man is approaching you with a rifle. It changes things.

[C]

Oh yeah, for sure.

[A]

That guy's not going to stop to ask questions. He's going to be like I'M going to live or die and I'm taking that guy's food.

[C]

Yeah. That guy's called a cop.

[A]

Yes.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

I mean, look, to your point, about. About crazy people doing things. Like the guy that killed Daryl Abbott, guitar player from Pantera. He was a band called Damage Plan at the time. He. He got. Got on stage.

[F]

Yeah.

[B]

And shot him because he believed that it was Daryl and his brother Vince that caused Pantera to break up. Now, this is not true at all. Even if not what happened. Yeah, yeah, sure, but.

[C]

But someone going after Yoko, it was

[B]

totally fabricated in his head.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

What about Selena's? She was the head of her fan club.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

In there, I've got a couple of

[A]

women who claim they're married to me, including Allison. She claims it. Yeah, but. But there are people that have threatened my whole family because people I've never met who claim that they married me and then I ran away or something. And it's just like no idea who this person is. They're from a place I've never been to, man. Parasocial.

[D]

Since Internet, the worst really, since video and radio, you start to fall in love with the vibe of this other. Like before radio.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[D]

You didn't really have the parasocial love like we do now.

[C]

And if you disagree with. If your opinion is disagree with some person on something, they act like you're a boyfriend, girlfriend who cheated on them.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

The rage. And you betrayed me and it's just like, I have no idea who you are. Yeah, I'm entitled to my opinions.

[D]

Those are the best conversations.

[C]

They're not those people on the phone

[D]

and talk to them for an hour. I've been wanting to tell you this for years, Michael.

[A]

All right, we're going to go to your Rumble Rants and Super Chat. So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. And of course, the uncensored portion will be coming up at 10 o'.

[F]

Clock.

[C]

And save the curse.

[A]

Rumble.com Timcast IRL before we do, guys, go to Timcast.com. join now. Get in our Discord server. It's not what you know, it's who you know. If you want to start a business, start a band, make a movie, whatever it is you want to do, the more people that you know, the more likely you are to succeed. We've got tens of thousands of people in our Discord community. You'll pop in and say, guys, I'm trying to make a comic book. And someone's going to be like, I can help. And you'll get that project started. Or maybe you can help someone else get their project started. But more importantly, as a member, you support this show and make it possible. Without you as members, the show would not exist. That's a fact. But let's get to your rumble rants and super chats. Let's grab it. We got cabbage rolls. He says when a child is born in the us the child should get the same status as the parents. Agreed. Temporary visa for three months or permanent resident or citizen.

[C]

Right. A lot of these things would be solved if there was a legal residency program that's permanent. Like your kids can't become citizens. You can't become a citizen. But it would solve a lot of the stuff in the bud.

[A]

Omega resets. Who says, until Michael Malice can answer and prove how anarchism can work without collapse or being subjugated by outside powers, I cannot take anything this clown says seriously. Total joke. But he called you a clown.

[C]

I'm perfectly fine. I have no idea who you are.

[D]

I imagine anarchy is a gradient. It's not like an on or off switch.

[C]

It is an honor. Off switch. Personal. But it's just. This is what we're talking about. Parasocial relationships. It's like, okay, someone out there doesn't take me seriously. Fine. There's lots of them.

[A]

You say there's lots of them.

[D]

Is an on or off switch. It's not more of a gradient where you can be like, mostly anarchistic.

[C]

I don't think it's. I think it's an on or off switch. What do you think, Phil?

[B]

I do think that it's probably an on or off switch. But it's worth noting the way that. The way that Michael, if I understand correctly, not to speak for you, but the way that Michael understands it, it's very much a personal thing. That's right. It's about the way that he interacts with not just government, but with the world.

[A]

But. But that's right.

[C]

I agree with that.

[A]

My point is most people don't know what anarchism is.

[C]

Correct.

[A]

And most conservatives think anarchy means violence and chaos.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. And then when you try to explain the root origin of the words anarchy. Would you like to explain the Latin root?

[C]

No, but I would like them to read the anarchist handbook and learn more. Because just. Even though they still are not going to hear it, the Latin root doesn't really matter to them.

[A]

Archie. Coming.

[C]

I can explain in one. I can explain in 30 seconds.

[A]

You can explain in two words.

[C]

It's not. That's not that's not explaining anything without rulers. Yeah, but people don't understand how that's possible.

[A]

But, but, but I suppose the issue is philosophical anarchism does. It doesn't matter if there's rulers or not, Right.

[C]

If you have to. It's a personal view. So here's exactly in the same way that people say the joke is everyone's an anarchy atheist, with one exception. You don't believe in Zeus, you don't believe in Thor, even if you believe in your one God. If all of us went to another country where alcohol was illegal and someone was passing around a beer at a party, we would ask ourselves, do we want to drink? What are the risks? But at no point in our head are we like, well, the government says it's wrong, so we're not going to do it. So anarchism is that approach to every government, including your own. That's it.

[A]

Yep. And I think a component of kind of the discussion we were having earlier about how the law is never the letter of the law.

[C]

It's what is willing to essay in the anarchist handbook. It says the myth of objective law, which addresses this exact point.

[A]

So a perfect example of this is how Pokemon cards are gambling.

[C]

Oh, you mean because you're investing in them? Is that legally.

[A]

No, no. Because I've been, I've been basically making this point that one of the big stories I think is happening right now with Gen Z is the expansion of gambling and casinos across the country.

[C]

That's true.

[A]

Miriam Adelson is a huge donor of Donald Trump and has been trying to get the Sands Corporation into Texas for opening casinos.

[C]

Right.

[A]

And what the point I've been making with this is, here's a better example. We don't got to talk about Pokemon, is that in West Virginia, by the letter of the law, cohabitation is illegal. A man and a woman cannot be roommates. They cannot share a domicile if they are not married. That's a crime. No cop is going to arrest you for it, even though the law says it.

[C]

And even if they arrested you, no prosecutor is going to take it out, throw it out.

[A]

So when they were doing the child drag shows, I pointed out it's already illegal. It says lewd behavior in public is a crime. It is aggravated if children are present. And I said these drag shows are lewd behavior by any stretch of. If we're looking at the letter of the law when it was written, even

[C]

the spirit of the law.

[A]

Right. If you go back to the, you know, the whole point of drag is

[C]

to be offensive and provocative.

[A]

But why won't they enforce the law in West Virginia? Well, apparently they have stopped doing the child drag shows because I made these threats. So when I came on the show and said berkeley County's having child drag shows, and they were doing it next door, like, literally on the street at my property, they apparently canceled it and stopped doing it, saying they were scared that I was gonna get the governor or someone, because I actually complained to the AG Morrissey when he was Attorney General. I went to him and said, you're the Attorney General of the state. Why are there child drag shows in Berkeley County? Jefferson county banned it outright by county decree, like ordinance or whatever. And he said, that's the prosecutor's is like, I'm the ag. I don't do that. He's like, I'm the lawyer for the state. And so we look at the DOJ and the ag and we assume she's going to direct these things. We assume the states do it, too. But apparently, just by saying I did, they stopped having them.

[C]

Okay, good.

[A]

And then they complained locally and went on forums online saying, tim Pool ruined our fun. And I'm like, I'm happy. Yes.

[C]

Why are there never drag shows for, like, senior citizens right there? They're bored. They're okay. Teach them to not be so bigoted, is the argument.

[A]

Snozberry says, first I get locked in California, now I get my citizenship removed by Michael Malice. What a week Yesterday.

[E]

No regrets.

[A]

Yesterday we said we should build a wall around California and just. Sorry, if you're there, you're trapped.

[C]

I had said during 2020 that if Trump threatened to nuke California, he'd win all 50 states, including California.

[A]

He'd be like, finally.

[C]

He's tough but fair.

[A]

Same old man says Tim and crew. Do you think we need a tyrant devoted in and control of our government for eight to 10 years to get things done? I don't think we need anything. I think the point is might makes. Might doesn't make right, but might makes,

[C]

I think that the president. This is one of the big issues. I think in America, the president has a lot less power than people think he does in our system.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Oh, yeah.

[C]

Yeah, people. Because the campaign. And I'm going to change everything. You're really handcuffed. Many.

[A]

I half agree. Functionally, it's true. But if it was more like a Machiavellian thing, they certainly have a lot

[C]

of power, but not as much as people think. That's what I'm saying.

[A]

Like, Trump could go to powerful billionaire interests and say, we're going to waive that fee for you. You're going to put money into my packs. Yeah, you know what I mean?

[C]

That's true.

[A]

There's things like that that are not real, like authority.

[C]

But, but it's also kind of, to me, it's kind of insane. People act like he has this huge majority in the House and he has no functional majority. So his, he's really hands are tied many ways.

[B]

One of the things that people give me the most crap about when it comes to like talking on, on this show is I'll be like, you know, look, nobody likes the way the sausage is made. The federal government is supposed to act slow, is supposed to work slowly. It's actually not supposed to do most of the stuff that, that it does. And people get so upset.

[C]

Shut up, Liberal.

[B]

Yeah, exactly.

[C]

You're communist. You're, you know, you want this to happen.

[B]

You're a cuck or whatever, you know, and it's like, just because I'm not, not even saying like it, I'm just articulating this is what the, this is the reality we live in.

[C]

But if you articulate that, that means you're endorsing it in their minds. They cannot process.

[B]

Which is exactly why I have, have such an, such an affinity for your worldview when it comes to the way people.

[C]

You are welcome.

[A]

We got this from Dowie says if Iran's Navy and air force is destroyed, how is Strait of Hormuz closed to us?

[D]

I had the same question.

[A]

How does it open up naturally? Hate to say it, but he seems delusional or in denial because missile launchers are different from an air force or Navy.

[D]

Yeah, that land. That land. What, what city is it?

[A]

So they have missile launchers, which is another component of the objectives, to remove their anti. Their missile launcher sites, which are SAM sites, Surface to air missiles as well as surface to surface.

[B]

They've been shooting missiles at Israel, which is like a thousand miles away or whatever. And homies, like, how are they gonna shoot missiles at the Straight hormones and they've laid mines.

[C]

The other question, question I have is whoever Iran puts in charge, they're going to have an enormous incentive to not cut a deal because you just killed our top guys. Like if someone killed Trump and Vance, God forbid, because I don't want to wish harm on anybody. And someone's like, all right, let's cut a deal. We're not going to be like, yeah, you know what? Like, we're friends now. That's not a thing.

[A]

No but sometimes you surrender.

[C]

But. Okay, but I don't think they're anywhere close to the point where they need to surrender.

[A]

But I do think that there is a point where you flatten a country and then, like, look at Iraq. Not like, we're good friends with Iraq now, but we certainly install the government.

[C]

But I don't think we're in a position to install a strongman in Maduro.

[F]

No.

[A]

We look at Venezuela, Maduro has. Yeah, Venezuela's bent the knee.

[D]

I think that Iranian.

[C]

We don't know if Maduro was in on that deal.

[A]

No, he's not. They captured him and the rest were like, no, no.

[C]

I think Maduro could have easily been like, look, here's your choice. We're going to take you out or we give you a nice vacation. And he took the vaccines.

[A]

I disagree. I think. So you're familiar with Tales from the Economic. From an Economic hitman?

[C]

No, I think we talked about this, though.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah, we did. When we were in Austin, there's a book where a guy Sundays, basically, the US plan is like, first we bribe you. If you don't do it, we try to. If that won't work, we kill you. Right. And if we can't kill you by, you know, through assassins, then invasion is the way we do it. I would believe just from a business perspective, you call up Maduro and say, listen, you're going to be fat and rich. Your people are going to be fat and rich. We're going to let you do your thing. Okay. Which is going to give you a bunch of money from oil. So I use the oil. And he went, no. And they went, if you don't, we're going to take you by force. And he went, try me. We got a discombobulator, bro. And they took him. The rest of the Venezuelans, like, we're just, like, we just want to be rich.

[C]

That's right.

[A]

We'll just. We'll just take the money.

[D]

The Iranians, they're so new, the new government, I think. I think their Internet's out. I think it's been out for plus days.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Oh, yeah.

[D]

So when they get Internet and they see that the civilian actually wants a new government, that's when they'll capitulate.

[A]

I don't believe. There's no way.

[C]

They don't care.

[D]

There's no internal pressure right now.

[A]

I do not believe the majority of Iran wants a revolution. So the way I've explained it is imagine what Iran is doing to the people in Iran. They're showing videos of BLM protests and ICE protests saying the people of America are desperately fighting an evil regime and they're calling for Trump to be removed. And Trump killed two innocent people because

[C]

he won't give up power and soleimani everything out of him. Exactly.

[A]

But we know it's a fringe element that is protesting and it was two people, which was bad, but there were circumstances involved in that. So we see these, these big stories of mass protests and we are told by our government, the people of Iran want a revolution. And I say, sure, play the propaganda game. I do believe there's probably a decent percentage, double digits that want a revolution. Of course the overalling majority are probably like we're being attacked by America. F them.

[C]

Right.

[B]

What I've heard is like 25% of the people are actually pro Iranian regime. 25% are very, very anti Iranian regime. And 50% of the people are like man, I just want to go to war.

[C]

And a lot of these Persians fled. That's the ones who would be the most likely to be in favor of this revolution. They're not in Iran anymore.

[A]

This is a good one. Quantum strange quirks. As I asked Michael this question and his answer saved my sanity. Oh, what is the most important political lesson you have learned? Answer. Political discourse is virtually always pointless, disingenuous and frankly impossible.

[C]

Oh well, you're welcome. But it's useful. It's just like what utility does it have for you to convert someone to your political point of view? Are they going to be there when your mom passes away and you could call her what's well into you?

[A]

The most important political lesson that I learned is that no one, not a single person anywhere at any point is smarter than Michael Malice.

[C]

But I don't think that's true.

[D]

You're pretty smart.

[C]

Yeah, but there's way people who are way smarter than me. I think it's called the President.

[A]

Yeah, it's called everybody in Congress political discourse.

[C]

Everybody in Congress, I mean including Nancy Mace.

[D]

Political discourse can get a little like self serving that but educating the young people so that when you're retiring.

[C]

I don't regard that as discourse.

[A]

I want, I want to say this. We had Kyla not so airdite on a couple days for three days when we were Austin.

[C]

She's a lefty.

[A]

She's a super lefty and but she's nice to us and she's willing to have conversations and I respect that. So we invited her to come out and come on the show. However, probably the biggest point of contention was when we brought up the story about Kathy Hochul saying we have to go to Palm beach to get the wealthy back. She said, that didn't happen. And I said, here's the video for saying it. And she goes, it's the New York Post. It's wrong. And I said, here are 13 different stories explaining that wealthy people are leaving New York because of taxes. And she goes, it's fake news.

[C]

Tim, we earlier brought up.

[A]

I get it.

[C]

I'm just going for the audience that Charlottesville tape. And I said, if you played it to lefties and she seems to be an honest lefty, broadly speaking, way to describe her. Okay, let's put safety argument. What percent of them would be converted? You said 65.

[A]

That's incorrect. I said default liberals as described by Andrew Breitbart.

[C]

Okay, I. What are you categorizing? Default liberal?

[A]

A default liberal is a guy or a woman. They don't watch the news all that much.

[C]

Okay, that's very different.

[A]

Okay, but they believe Trump.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. That's very different.

[A]

Right. Lefties are going to be like, I'll say whatever I have to say for power.

[C]

And just. We saw that with the guy with the children getting the trans surgeries is like, nope, nope, nope, nope. There's nothing you could show them that's going to change.

[A]

My favorite example is one of the greatest poker players of all time.

[C]

I'm sorry, I don't want to move. So she just said it's not. Just not true. Even if she saw the video.

[A]

And then she, she asked. I believe it was ChatGPT that said less than. Said around 2% of people flee due to high taxes. And I said, that's fantastic. For a general nationwide study in New York. The, the, the public budget is showing. They are. They lost. Was it like $10 billion in revenue?

[C]

Holy crap.

[A]

Maybe it was like California seen the same. No, no, it's 10 billion in income. Which would have translated.

[C]

I mean, yeah, that's, that's still.

[A]

But I want to, I want to give. This is a really great example.

[C]

What was her reaction, though?

[A]

She said, first of all, she had the New York Post as a bad source.

[C]

Fine.

[A]

And then I said, here's a bunch of other sources. She goes, this is not true. And I said, do you think they're all fake news? And she said, yes, 1%. And I said, do you think that Kathy Hochul believes fake news? He goes, yes. And I said, okay, if we can't agree on what is simply being reported from a right. From a State where we're going to go.

[C]

Where are we going to go?

[A]

But I want to make this example because one of the greatest poker players of all time, Daniel Negrano, it was. He's a liberal dude, a Canadian vegan guy.

[C]

Oh, God.

[A]

And he's a raging. He was a raging lib. Right. And there's another of the greatest poker players ever, Mike Mattisau, okay. Who was friends with Daniel and who's a Trump guy. And he would try to explain to Daniel when he's wrong, and they would argue until one fateful day when Mike Madison said, I took my phone, pulled up the video of Trump speaking, and I said, you are wrong. Watch. And he pressed play and slid it across the table. And Daniel went fine and looked.

[F]

And.

[A]

And then after watching the video, he went, wow, I didn't know that. And instantly said, tell me more. He is very liberal in many ways. Sure, he's a vegan Canadian guy. But he said, wow, I was wrong about that. But that's what a smart, normal person does. The default libs might be very excitable because they don't pay attention to the news.

[C]

Low propensity. What's the low something voter?

[A]

Low propensity. Voter. Low information frequency. Think about high information.

[D]

Low wisdom is you think you know the truth, and it's hard to see how you could be wrong.

[A]

But hold on. Michael makes the best point ever. Why would the weatherman lie to you?

[C]

Right?

[A]

And so for someone like Daniel Negrano, he's not a news guy, he's a poker guy. So he passively hears news, he sees the tv and he's thinking to himself, I just saw that report. They're not lying. Someone's trying to convince him that's all fake. It's just like, bro, I'm not gonna trust you over the news. And then you show him the video, and then he went, wow, Michael, that.

[B]

That. That point that you made, like, trying to explain this to someone is. Is trying. Like trying to explain to a person that not only is the. Not. The weatherman is not wrong, he's lying to you. That's what it sounds like. It's such a great way to articulate it, because that seems like such an absurd.

[C]

You're a lunatic.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah.

[C]

You're literally a lunatic. Why I'm talking to you.

[B]

What do you mean?

[C]

Right.

[B]

You know, like, the weatherman is lying.

[C]

All of them. Yeah. How would they. How would they even have a job?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Truth be told, most of them are not giving you adequate, like, but they're not lying.

[D]

Right. I think they're telling you the truth. They just don't have the information.

[C]

Here's the reason.

[A]

They're trying to tell you to the best of abilities, but they're speculating.

[C]

Here's where you and I disagree. Like the number of people. I think that ceiling for people who could become like, oh, crap, is much lower than you do.

[A]

I'm not. We have no way of leftists.

[C]

No, I'm talking about even default liberals. I still think it's a minority.

[A]

There's liberals, there's conservatives.

[C]

Right.

[A]

And there's default liberals.

[C]

I'm talking about default.

[A]

Default liberal doesn't mean someone who waves the Ukrainian flag.

[C]

I understand.

[A]

It means a regular, uninitiated person.

[C]

I agree.

[A]

And they vote liberal because they don't know better.

[C]

I agree. And I'm saying that number is lower. My guess as to what number that is is lower than yours.

[A]

I don't think so. I think the default libs are the people who watch Joe Rogan.

[C]

I hear you, but I still think it's a low point because a lot of it also is who you surround yourself with.

[A]

That's true.

[C]

Because if you're going to be like, trump's not that bad for people, for many people that F's up their whole life.

[A]

The point Breitbart was making is that there are people who don't pay attention to politics in the least, but when they go to the voting booth, they check Democrat.

[C]

Correct.

[A]

These people can be convinced by arguments.

[C]

Correct. My point is the percent of them that can be convinced. If I had to guess, guess the number is lower than the percent you would guess. Perhaps.

[A]

We're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show right now. So smash that like button, share the show and head over to rumble.com timcast IRL, where we're going to say naughty words and make jokes that are not so family friendly. Yeah.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Follow me on X and Instagram. Timcast. Michael, you want to shout anything out?

[C]

Yes. Please. Follow me on Twitter. Michael Malice. And thanks for all the support for my graphic novel. You're talking about helping with comic books. Unwantedbook.com We've got sample pages up now. I've been working on it for 20 years, so I'm very excited it's coming out.

[D]

I want to hear about it. Michael Malice, you've been taunting me all evening. I'm looking forward to unleashing on you in the after show.

[F]

Bring it.

[D]

Love you, Michael Malice.

[C]

Love you more.

[D]

Phil Labonte, Carter Banks Talk me out. I'm Ian Crossland. You probably already know Carter.

[A]

What's up? I'm Carter Banks. Michael, thanks for coming back. I'm excited also to talk naughty with you in the after show. You can find me at Carter Banks

[D]

everywhere and everywhere else at Carter Banks.

[B]

Official Phil I am Phil that Remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. We're going on tour come this end of April starting starting April 29th. We're starting in Albany. We're going to be out for about a month. You can get tickets at all that Remains online dot com. If you want to read some of the stuff that I've been writing on Patreon, it's patreon. Com. Phillip Remains. You can check out the band on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime.

[A]

Right on, everybody. We'll see you all [e-mail] Timcast IRL right now. Thanks for hanging out.