Trump SLAMS Amazon Tariff Pricing, Billionaire WARNS Shortages Coming Amid Economic Collapse
01:54:57 Share

So when I ask what is Odoo, what comes to mind? Well, Odoo is a bit of everything. Odoo is a suite of business management software that some people say is like fertilizer because of the way it promotes growth. But you know, some people also say Odoo is like a magic beanstalk because it grows with your company and is also magically affordable.

But then again, you could look at Odoo in terms of how its individual software programs are a lot like building blocks. I mean, whatever your business needs. Manufacturing, accounting, HR programs. You can build a custom software suite that's perfect for your company.

So what is Odoo? Well, I guess Odoo is a bit of everything. Odoo is a fertilizer, magic beanstalk building blocks for business. Yeah, that's it. Which means that Odoo is exactly what every business needs.

Learn more and sign up now at Odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. I'm no tech genius, but I knew if I wanted my business to crush it, I needed a website now. Thankfully, Bluehost made it easy. I customized, optimized, and monetized everything exactly how I wanted with AI. In minutes, my site was up. I couldn't believe it.

The search engine tools even helped me get more site visitors. Whatever your passion project is, you can set it up with Bluehost. With their 30-day money-back guarantee, what do you got to lose? Head to Bluehost.com. That's B-L-U-E-H-O-S-T dot com to start now.

A new report says that Amazon is planning to launch, quote, tariff pricing on products so you can see exactly how much more you have to spend when you're buying a product made outside the U.S. Now, the White House has called this hostile against the U.S. and against the Trump administration, a hostile act indeed. But but Amazon is denying it.

They're saying that it's not true. This report is false, but it does highlight a serious concern that has been in the news this morning, and that is will we face shortages? Now, one story that's come up quite a bit is a rumor circulating over a conversation Trump had with several CEOs in the Oval Office some weeks ago when he announced these massive tariffs on China, 145 percent in total. Several CEOs met with the president to say there will be empty shelves.

That's so much of what we get is made in China, not just core goods, but also components of goods, even manufactured in the U.S., that this will cause supply shortages across the board. And it's not just the tariffs on China. It's the tariffs across the board. You're going to walk into a target. Shelves are expected to be empty now.

Donald Trump's approval rating is down, and it's not just from these. Look, you know, I read like ABC News and Washington Post polls. I don't believe those for a second. But Rasmussen, we learned to pronounce it correctly, by the way, has Donald Trump down four points. It's not the worst approval rating in the world. And Rasmussen has been pretty dang accurate as it pertains to these elections. But it does show that Donald Trump's approval rating has declined this month,

as tariff concerns, economic concerns continue to grow.

Now, Ray Dalio, billionaire, he appeared on Tucker Carlson some weeks ago and he said that we're in some kind of civil war. Something is happening. He's now put out another warning saying it's too late. It cannot be stopped. The tariffs that Donald Trump has put in place are going to result in a new global economic order, the likes of which we have never seen. Now, we don't know what that means. It could be very bad for us. Could be very bad for everybody. We're

One proposed hypothetical is that nations around the world are going to start building economic ties with other countries, largely with China, as the U.S. is viewed as an unstable trading partner. That being said, we don't really know exactly what will happen. One thing I can say.

is that if we do see shortages in food production or any kind of core consumer good, Donald Trump will face a revolt. Absolutely. You can say anything you want about deportations, about a Brego Garcia, about Maryland men. None of that matters. The protests that we see in response to Doge, nothing. They don't have any real impact.

But if it becomes nigh impossible for regular people to access food, if there are shortages, then you're going to see anger in the streets. You're going to see demands for change. And this may, depending on how long it goes, upset the midterms. But wait, there's more. You see, elections, they happen in month cycles, not year cycles. If everything gets really bad right now,

Then as people adapt to a just bad enough, but not bad enough to where they revolt. If Trump turns things around right before the midterms, look, I know it may sound a little jaded and cynical.

But people are going to vote for Republicans in spades. If Trump improves things for people right before the midterms, then they're going to vote Republican. And it seems really dumb, right? Like you could have a standard of living that is OK. Someone comes in and acts policies which are damaging to that to that standard of living. People get really, really mad and they're upset you did it. But then right before the election, you bring everything back to normal and people will feel uplifted. They'll feel relieved. It's called the big ask. Now, whether or not

Donald Trump is trying to pull off a big ask on the entirety of the American population remains to be seen.

I'm not entirely confident that is the case, but we're going to break down the news we've got for you. I want to give a shout out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club for rating this stream. Shout out to everybody. This is the Rumble Morning lineup. I have your noon hour. My name is Tim Poole. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Joining us today at around 1230, so about half an hour in, we're going to have Jason Fick, who is about to go to the Supreme Court over Section 230, and it's debated, hotly debated,

But this could be an end to the immunity protections of big tech platforms. And a story we covered the other night, this may seem like it's inconsequential. Someone running for city council in Charlestown, West Virginia, Courtney Nill. It's a city of 7,676 people, I believe. Small number, right? Facebook banned her deleting her account and locking her profile, her campaign account, for no reason whatsoever.

Now, she's a conservative and she's running in a conservative city against a progressive. Why is Facebook interfering in such a small election? It makes no sense. And there's no reason why she would have gotten banned. They said she was impersonating herself.

Right before the election has take place. Now, this story may seem inconsequential. Who cares about city council in Charlestown until you realize Facebook's probably doing this in every small town, in every city. They are manipulating the political landscape to help the far left win. We've known about it. We know it now and it is still happening.

So we'll talk about that. Before we do, my friends, head over to castbrew.com and buy some delicious castbrew coffee. Two weeks till Christmas. And more importantly, Alex Stein's Primetime Grind 2x Caffeine is being discontinued.

That's right. We've sold out of nearly every bag, and I believe there may be around 100 or so bags left. If you go to Casper.com and want to get this crazy bag of Alex Stein's crazy face coffee, drink responsibly, of course, we will not be making any more. We will, however, be launching something new with Alex Stein. But in the meantime, if you want to get your hands on this bag, this is your last opportunity. It will be going away. And then we've got, of course, everybody's favorite Appalachian Nights, low-acidity graphene dream. Check it out. Support the show. Use promo code RUMBLEGRAPHINE.

10 and you guys get 10% off every purchase. Let's jump into that story from the New York Times. They say White House attacks Amazon over idea of showing tariffs cost. The White House press secretary, Carolyn Leavitt, attacked the retail giant over a report that suggested Amazon would highlight tariff related price increases. Amazon said it was not going to happen.

Karen Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said it was hostile and political, citing a report disputed by Amazon from Punchbowl News, saying the company would start displaying the exact cost of tariff related price increases alongside its products. Displaying the import fees would have made clear to American consumers that they are shouldering the cost of President Trump's tariff policies rather than China, as he and his top officials have often claimed would be the case. And an Amazon spokesman.

So the company had considered a similar idea on part of the site, Amazon Hall, which operate, I'm sorry, which competes with Timu, a Chinese retailer. Timu primarily ships directly to consumers and has begun displaying import charges to reflect the end of a customer's customs loophole that had exempted low priced items from tariffs.

Teams discuss ideas all the time, the spokesman Ty Rogers said in a statement. He said it was never under consideration for the main Amazon site, adding this was never approved and is not going to happen. Standing beside Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett during a briefing at the White House to White House on Tuesday morning, Ms. Levitt tore into the retailer. She said that she had just been on the phone with the president about the report, and she asked why Amazon hadn't done such a thing when prices increased during the Biden administration because of inflation.

Ms. Levitt said it was not a surprise coming from Amazon as she held up a copy of a 2021 article from Reuters, the headline Amazon partnered with China propaganda arm. Now, I'll tell you what I think. Maybe you all agree with me. Maybe you don't. I think that Amazon was intending on doing this because they're, of course, going to be losing money on the deal. And then when Donald Trump calls Carolyn and she calls it out, Amazon says, whoa, we're not doing that. That's a fake news report. We were never planning on doing that. I bet they were.

And I bet it's only because Karen Leavitt came out, called him out that they stopped. And I think that's exactly why the White House wanted Karen Leavitt to hold this press briefing at 830 in the morning. Look, last night we're on Tim Castile. We got a lot Eliyahu on the show. He is our White House correspondent. Love him or hate him. It is a good job in the White House.

And he says, I got an email. There's going to be an 830 a.m. press briefing. I think the White House was intentionally preempting this move that that Amazon was going to make because listen, when Donald Trump makes these moves and I largely agree with selective tariffs, I don't know how I feel about universal tariffs is going to get interesting. But when Donald Trump makes these moves, it costs a lot of people money, dirty people, evil people, and they don't like that.

So they, of course, want to pass the brunt and the blame on to Donald Trump. Now, putting tariff pricing on Amazon won't do anything for Amazon. If a pair of shoes costs 100 bucks, but now the tariffs, it's 245. You're either going to buy them or you're not putting tariff pricing literally just says it's Trump's fault. Your shoes cost more money. Now, I've been tracking this stuff.

I've seen a bunch of reports from small business forums and users that don't seem overtly partisan, but probably default lib. I saw one story. It was a forum written by an individual, and maybe they're fake. I don't know. Excuse me. Where they were saying that when an online shopper places an order, how that package arrives matters. I'm Al Coe, the CEO of ShipStation. Our promise is to make that process as easy as possible for you.

ShipStation provides a robust platform to manage everything you sell, automate manual shipping tasks, and get the lowest possible carrier rates. Keep your team and your customers happy. Go to ShipStation.com to sign up for your free trial. That's ShipStation.com.

Hi, I'm Chris Gethard, and I'm very excited to tell you about Beautiful Anonymous, a podcast where I talk to random people on the phone. I tweet out a phone number. Thousands of people try to call. I talk to one of them. They stay anonymous. I can't hang up. That's all the rules. I never know what's going to happen. We get serious ones. I've talked with meth dealers on their way to prison. I've talked to people who survived mass shootings.

Crazy funny ones. I talked to a guy with a goose laugh. Somebody who dresses up as a pirate on the weekends. I never know what's going to happen. It's a great show. Subscribe today. Beautiful Anonymous. The normal cost for a good they sold as a reseller who takes supplies. And let me clarify. This was a forum post from someone who says some of the components we get come from China.

not the core goods. So this wasn't a company that's buying a product made in China and then reselling it. It's a company that assembles a product in America, but gets certain components of the product from China. I'm not sure exactly what the product was. The point they were making was

With the tariffs on these goods, it's going to increase the cost of everything they're doing, not just like by not just a 145 percent increase, but substantially more than that. A $200 product could go up to 700 because of the various components they have to get. Understand this.

If in China they take if they purchase resources from the US, so let's say they're going to buy steel in America. I mean, maybe they don't, but let's just say something like wood. OK, let's do this. They do buy wood from us. Skateboarding is the example I always use. It's the easiest because I actually know it. So you've got North American rock maple. It's in the Pacific Northwest and Canada. In China, they will buy the wood from us.

Make skateboards, send them back to us. It's the stupidest thing imaginable. It seems like a huge waste of time and effort, but that's what they do. Why? The labor is so cheap. But hold on. That means China, which is a tariff on the U.S. about 100 and some odd percent, when they buy that lumber from the U.S., double the price. Then they make the skateboard, send it back, double that price again.

That cost will be massive. A skateboard that costs 60 bucks is going to end up, let's say it's $30 to manufacture. So first you've got the wood costs. So if it was going to be 30, now it's 60, then you're sending it back at 145, not 80, 90 plus the margin on top, a $60, $70 skateboard might jump up to 150 to $200 a piece. You know what's going to happen? They're going to stop making them. Now, to be honest, I am absolutely in favor of that. And I love that Trump is doing it.

But universal tariffs literally on everything. Some things can't be sourced solely in the United States. I understand what Trump is doing, but here's the fear. CBS News reports China exports to U.S. plunge as tariffs hit, leading some experts to warn of product shortages. I'll tell you now, I'm not going to sugarcoat this.

This is bad news for Trump if he doesn't have a plan. Now, I will respect that Donald Trump seems to and often has a plan, but it may be loose. Who knows? He seems to know what he's doing to a certain degree. But, you know, people like to play this game where they think a plan means, you know, exactly what will happen when it's going to happen. No, a plan means you have contingency contingencies in place in case a variety of things happen. Right now, an aggregate Donald Trump's approval rating is minus seven.

I roll my eyes at this because you've got NPR, ABC, CNN, The New York Times and CBS all for some reason for this time span having Trump double digits negative. The corporate press shocker has Donald Trump negative.

But if you take a look at Qantas, Rasmussen, RMG Research, Trump's doing much better. To be fair, Economist also has Trump minus nine. But Rasmussen, I trust him. They're at minus four. And that's not good for the president, but it's not the apocalypse. And when you actually do these these focus groups, you find that Trump ain't doing that bad. Now, here's what I here's why I tell you I largely think this is complete insanity and I don't care.

I don't care about the polls. And I'll tell you why. I will respect, to a certain degree, polls in aggregate. Some polls I find are interesting only relative to themselves. The reason I cite Rasmussen. Newsweek says Donald Trump approval rating dropped seven points with GOP pollster. Apparently, Newsweek doesn't know how to do math because they say this. On April 1st, 51% of respondents said they approve of Trump's job performance. Today, it's at 47%.

Okay. That's not seven. Okay. Let me, from 51 to 47 is four points. See minus four. Yeah. He's down four, not seven, but short. The reason why this matters because rest mustn't uses the same system.

So if so, all that really matters is polls relative to themselves and potentially aggregate polling. So if Rasmussen consistently does a poll every week or whatever, and they give you those numbers, you can trust the movement of those numbers because they're polling in much the same way each time. So you will see a general shift in public perception of Donald Trump, whether they approve of him. But for one poll, it makes sense.

Russ mustn't had Trump up the beginning of the month. By the end of the month, he is down by four points. Again, not the apocalypse. But what's insane is that RMG might have Trump up one. And then literally in the same time period, Fox News has him down 11 points.

I'm sorry. That just doesn't make any sense. You can have Daily Mail showing Trump up eight and then for the same time period, Daily Mail. I'm sorry. Daily Mail has him up eight. And for the same time period, Daily Kos and Civics has a minus seven. That's a massive swing. OK, that makes literally no sense. So I stress this again. We really don't know.

What I can't say, my friends, is that we are in an administrative civil war, a cold civil war. Call it whatever you want. Conflict is happening. And there are people who are trying to seize power. If Donald Trump does take action that results in shortages or he cannot alleviate shortages that are not his fault, whatever fault might be, he's in trouble.

Really is food shortages are major components in conflict. And you will see a lot of people in this country livid if they can't buy their milk, bread and eggs. Now, I go back to that rumor, that rumor that was circulating about how the CEOs warned Trump. Big box stores like Walmart and Target, even even places like Lowe's and Home Depot are going to have empty shelves because of these tariffs. So we'll see.

CBS News says leading experts are warning of product shortages. Take a look at this from Reason. How tariffs could cause shortages in American stores. A sharp decline in ocean freight from China during April is a sign of the supply chain issues that will begin hitting in May.

The question is, what is made in China and what do we make from those products? Food we largely produce here. California is a massive food producer, but we do import some things from other countries. Not so much China, but we do get vitamins and drugs manufactured in China, which is absolutely insane. So we'll see. Now, Ray Dalio, the billionaire, has issued a warning. The international world order is on the brink of breaking down.

Billionaire investor Ray Dalio is once again sounding the alarm. The international order is on the verge of a breaking point, and President Donald Trump's aggressive use of tariffs is accelerating the unraveling of global trade and capital flows, according to the billionaire investor. You know, I think I actually have his post on X right here, and we'll read it directly. It's titled, It's Too Late. The Changes Are Coming. I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. I think that this problem has been bubbling up for some time.

Let me warn you of this, my friends. They're calling it the demographic cliff. There are not enough 18 year olds about to enter the market to sustain colleges and new rentals, provide low skilled labor. The system is going to implode. Now, whose fault is it? Well, I'd say partly it's our fault. We, the American people, sat by as these problems were were brewing. And I don't think people realize this is still a product of the housing crash.

Around 2007, 2008, people stopped having babies because the economy imploded. Whose fault was that? Yeah, it was the banks. It was the Federal Reserve. It was the destructive political class that was extracting from us and just sitting back as the Titanic was about to slam into an iceberg. The problems of that of that year of those years have not gone away.

We are looking at a fertility crash. So let me tell you something. When Democrats for 30 years have opened our borders, given away our manufacturing base to foreign countries while encouraging young people not to have children, to get abortions, to fight climate change by never having kids, by claiming the world is overpopulated already. They have created a recipe which spells disaster.

The millennial generation didn't have enough kids. And so and additionally, as they were supposed to be having kids, millennials and hey, I'm right in this camp, too. I only had my kid this year and I'm thirty nine. I'm an old man. I know all the older people are saying, Tim, you're not old, but no, come on, let's be real. Thirty nine is way old to be having a kid.

And so you've got millennials who are supposed to be having kids in their early to mid 20s. They didn't do it. So 20 years ago, when millennials were supposed to be having kids, they stopped. So with this demographic cliff coming, there is a shortage of labor. Democrats try replacing the lost labor with mass migration of low skill immigrants. But it doesn't work. It wasn't working. Even Ro Khanna, a Democrat, said it did not work. So what do we end up with? It's too late.

The changes are coming. Now, I see Donald Trump making these moves not because he's a crazy man who wants to burn down the global order. I mean, maybe he does a little bit, but he is reversing this trend. He is trying to encourage people to have babies. It's called the what is the woman bonus or the baby bonus? Have a kid get five grand. Not enough. Not enough. You need to say we are cutting income taxes for married couples with two kids. No more income tax at the federal level. Do it.

But I fear it's too late because even having kids today is not going to be enough to alleviate the fact that there is not enough labor. Even in Charlestown, West Virginia, I was mentioning this. You got stores closing down, not for lack of sales, but for lack of labor. They can't find anybody to do the job. Nobody wants to work. Nobody wants to do the job. So nobody does. So they can't be open.

People want to eat the delicious food at these various restaurants, but they don't have anybody who will do the work. Now, Ray Dalio says the changes are coming and he says it's Trump's fault. But I think this shows the ignorance and the short term thinking of many of these individuals. That is, these problems have been brewing for a very long time, a very long time. And now they're about to hit.

Dalio says some people believe that tariff disruptions will settle down as much more negotiations happen and greater thought is given to how structure how to structure them to work in a sensible way.

However, I am now hearing from a large and growing number of people who are having to deal with these issues that it's already too late. For example, many exporters to the United States and importers from other countries that trade with the U.S. are saying they have a greatly they had to greatly reduce their dealings with the U.S., recognizing that whatever happens with tariffs, these problems won't go away and that radically reduced interdependencies with the U.S. is a reality that has been planned for.

Most obviously, American producers and investors in China, Chinese producers and investors in China that deal with Americans, American producers and invest and investors in the United States that deal with the Chinese and Chinese producers. OK, we get it. We get it.

Regardless of the next round of trade negotiations are like, while this need to minimize U.S.-China interdependence and worry about conflict is now broadly recognized, this view is now becoming more commonly believed by most people in most countries who are dealing with most issues related to trade relations, capital markets relations. My guy, Ray, you're not a writer. OK, that was convoluted to say the least. But let's continue, though not yet fully realized. It is also increasingly being realized that

OK, that the United States role is the world's biggest consumer of manufactured goods and greatest producer of debt assets to finance. Its overconsumption is unsustainable. So assuming that one can sell and lend to the U.S. and get paid back with hard dollars on their U.S. debt holdings is naive thinking. So other plans have to be made. He says, more simply, enormous trading capital imbalances are creating unsustainable conditions and major risks of being cut off. So they must come down.

Excessive imbalances, deglobalization, smaller trade and capital imbalances. I love this narrative. You know why? Because if my good friend here simply listened to Alex Jones 10 years ago, 15 years ago, you'd know all of this. I got to give a shout out to my boy AJ over here. I remember 15 some odd years ago, prisonplanet.com, whatever, Infowars. He was talking about exactly these issues. Here's the problem.

The U.S. makes nothing, okay? Not literally, we do make stuff. We export culture and we make movies. But the U.S. is buying products on credit cards with places like China. China then says, we're going to hold U.S. dollars, effectively debt against U.S. labor that we can use at some point. Hold on there a minute. The U.S. government then with the financial crisis devalues the dollar. So if we buy 10 hours of labor from China,

Which for us is cheap. China then says we have let's just say they charge, I don't know, a dollar an hour. China then says we have 10 bucks to spend in the United States. 10 bucks can buy me one Big Mac meal. Right. That's what I got. I give you 10, 10 hours of labor from Chinese peasants and I get a Big Mac. Sound good. Sound good.

Well, while they are holding on to that debt, the U.S. devalues the currency. So within a year or two, China's going, whoa, whoa, whoa. This $10 bill can't even buy a cheeseburger anymore. I traded you something for something, but this dollar is worthless. Every year becomes worth less and less. So what's the point of having it? So instead, what do they do? As the U.S. over consumes and buys on credit cards, China turns around immediately and buys our land from us.

This system is completely unsustainable. And at the same time, you've got progressives telling Americans don't have babies. You're a white supremacist if you do. And now we have a demographic collapse. We've got a population collapse, a labor shortage. And the Democrat and the progressives response, open the borders, let everybody come in. OK, so their responses cause problems that the U.S. It's you know, it's funny is Alex Jones called the problem reaction solution.

The Democrats created the problem. The progressives created the problem. And then with the reaction, these devastation in the labor market, they they offer their solution, which is mass migration, unfettered mass migration, which ultimately results in the collapse of the American moral tradition and history. We start seeing statues get torn down. Laws get changed. Street names get changed. And Trump is trying to reverse course. But maybe it's too late. Dalio says.

We're on the brink of the monetary order, the domestic, political and international world orders breaking down due to unsustainable bad fundamentals that can be easily seen and measured by anybody with eyes to see who's been paying attention, mind you. He says, too, the progression of events leading to these increasing disorders is similar to those that have progressed many times throughout history. Indeed, three, there's a growing risk that the U.S. imposing these challenges to deal with will increasingly be bypassed by a world of countries that will adapt to separations.

If these circumstances are managed in the best ways, the outcomes will be much better than if they are managed in the worst ways. He says,

to produce the beautiful deleveragings and rebalancings that need to take place. For example, as explained in my new book, How Countries Go Broke, The Big Cycle, there is a three-part, 3% solution to dealing with the U.S. government debt problem that would lead to much better results in the path we appear to be on.

Unfortunately, thus far, we haven't seen the better ways and have instead seen disturbing fighting and volatility that are teaching lessons that are leading to irreversible bad consequences. For these reasons, I fear that we are moving beyond the ideal time to be knowledgeable about and properly plan for these big changes in the world order and believe that investors, policymakers and other decision makers need to stop undulating their views and

and positions in reaction to the day-to-day market moves and policy announcements, and instead deal with these big fundamental changes in the world order calmly, intelligently, and ideally cooperatively. I'm going to say this.

I hope you all are preparing for the worst. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Because this problem was coming whether Trump did anything or not. Clearly, the Democratic Party, the liberal economic order is collapsing. That is the system by which the U.S. has maintained global superiority. It was never going to be permanent. Donald Trump's emergence is not the cause of this. It is a symptom.

People were upset with the loss of manufacturing jobs going way back. Look at NAFTA. Michael Moore made a documentary about how he gave away our auto manufacturing to foreign countries and destroyed the Rust Belt. And this led to the populist uprising. It should have been predictable to everyone. And you know what? They largely knew. When you take a look at 2007, 2008, and they outright say, they say it explicitly, that

People are not having children anymore. Fertility rates are collapsing. There will not be enough 18 year olds by 2025. What was done to mitigate this? They say Barack Obama was the deporter in chief. Kind of. I believe what the explanation going around is that he was the Turner around her in chief. They'd call the deportation if they caught someone at the border and sent him home right away. Just kicked him right out of the country. Expedited removal. OK, technically true. Trump's deportations are a bit different. He shut the border down.

So now they're saying he's not deporting enough. Well, I mean, the border is shut down, so ain't nobody coming in. They are arresting people internally and deporting them. Democrats argue this will be the end. And I tell you, this is why Joe Biden and so many other Democrats, when they were asked on the debate stage, would you make crossing the border a civil violation, not a criminal one? They all raised their hands. They know that they have set this country on a course for collision, for disaster.

When you look at COVID, when you look at fractional reserve banking, it was impossible for this system to be permanent. I think Donald Trump's trying to save this country. I don't think he's trying to save the global liberal economic order. I think Donald Trump's view is the system is breaking down and we will save of America what we can. Now, people ask, what is it going to look like? With all due respect, Detroit.

collapsed houses, abandoned neighborhoods, crime, poverty, extremely high infrastructure costs, dirty water. It'll be in its own essence, some kind of dark ages for the U.S. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do feel that it is largely political. So we'll see. Now, my friends, we do have another story that I want to get to because we'll be joined by Jason Fick in just a moment.

Facebook blocks Charlestown West Virginia City Council candidates page with no further appeal. This is the censorship machine that is currently going on. So let me let's see. We got a new system that we are just setting up right now. So this will be our first use of this system. And I want to make sure we have it all working properly. So I believe we have Jason currently standing by. I'm going to be pulling him in now. Let's see if we can get this this working properly.

Get this up and running. And I believe we are loaded up. I believe we are just about ready to go. Jason, can you hear me? Jason, you're there. There we go. Jason, can you hear me now? Nope. It appears we have Jason. Could not start the video. And this is what we get when we try and do new systems like this. Let's try and get it going again. Jason, are you able to hear me now? Nope. Completely broke. Let's see. It says it cannot be run, unfortunately. You want to try it? We'll try and get a producer here to fix it.

Did you know what the problem is? All right. Well, y'all can see him. Jason can't hear me, though. I'm no tech genius, but I knew if I wanted my business to crush it, I needed a website now. Thankfully, Bluehost made it easy. I customized, optimized, and monetized everything exactly how I wanted with AI. In minutes, my site was up. I couldn't believe it.

The search engine tools even helped me get more site visitors. Whatever your passion project is, you can set it up with Bluehost. With their 30-day money-back guarantee, what do you got to lose? Head to Bluehost.com. That's B-L-U-E-H-O-S-T dot com to start now. If you're running a retail business, don't let disorganized order fulfillment cause chaos. Use ShipStation instead. From running a business out of your garage to multiple warehouses, ShipStation is ideal for every phase of your growth.

Save time with one login for all your stores and by automating tasks. Plus, you'll get the best shipping rates from global carriers. Calm the chaos with the shipping software that delivers. Start a free trial at ShipStation.com slash audio. That's ShipStation.com slash audio. Oh, weird. So it defaulted that? Jason, can you hear me now?

I can. Hey, all right. We figured it out. What's going on, man? Yeah, but I can hear you. Well, I don't think you'll be able to see me because the way we got things set up. But welcome to the show. You're the first live formal interview that we're doing. And I know that you've got a big Supreme Court challenge coming up. We were just talking about Facebook censoring a conservative city council member who's running for election. Do you want to tell us what's what's going on with the Section 230 stuff?

Yeah, so yesterday it became official. We were docketed in the United States Supreme Court. We filed a petition for RIT-A-CERT. It's number 24-1116. And to summarize the petition, because everybody, some people know what Section 230 is. For those that don't, it's the law that protects these companies from civil liability.

That law has been misapplied by the courts for almost two and a half decades. It was a mess. You know, we had the one show that came in and I explained a lot of it, but it's

We figured out that and see this, people need to understand how this translates, right? My case was about business, right? It's an antitrust. And the case basically Facebook came in and they wiped me out because they take money from my direct competitors to essentially manipulate the algorithm anti-competitively. Now, the thing is, is that that's essentially a viewpoint discrimination, right? It's just based on money.

The translation here is that viewpoint discrimination, even built in the algorithm or product design or however it is, yes, it is their First Amendment right to do so, but when they do so, they actually have to justify it under Section 230. The problem is that hasn't occurred. A lot of people are completely unaware that the courts are applying Section 230 as an immunity from suit, right?

What I mean by that is, is that you don't get into court at all. They say you cannot be treated as a publisher, meaning the platforms, and you're done. That's it. And that's essentially what they said. They said that everything Facebook did is irrelevant because they can't be treated as a publisher because it was my content. Well, that's wrong. And it's wrong on so many levels that we can prove it in so many ways. For one thing,

Back in 2007, Judge Trauger out of Tennessee actually determined that Section 230 doesn't provide immunity from suit. It's supposed to be a justifiable protection. The thing is, if there's no justification, they can do anything they want. Well, there you have it. If these platforms can do anything they want with absolutely no accountability because the courts won't hold them accountable,

They can censor any way they want. So let's start at the beginning real quick. This is section 230. It's the Telecommunications Decency Act. Is that right?

Yes, the communications, these communications. It's been a long time since we covered this, but this was a huge story, you know, eight or so years ago when it was this immunity was basically being used by big tech platforms to censor conservatives. The media lied about it the whole time and they were trying to stop Donald Trump from having support. They were banning tons of individuals. They were proposing ideological rules. This was, of course, I had the moment on Joe Rogan where we talked about the misgendering policy.

But this still exists. So is it my understanding that your lawsuit could do away with that perception of immunity? It could change the world. It could change it. And that's that's actually not an understatement. It's probably one of the most consequential lawsuits that nobody's paying attention to. And that's the reason why I'm dealing with so much opposition is because it will change the entire economy. And here's why.

If all of a sudden they are actually accountable for their own conduct, which is procedurally correct, it's based on the text, that's correct. The Ninth Circuit won't do it, right? So California, there's a problem in California courts, which, of course, you know, is always implied. We always kind of know it. But no, we've actually proven it. And here's why. We're not coming back to the Supreme Court this time with just our hat in hand and saying this is how it works. No, no.

In fact, the Third Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Fifth Circuit have all said exactly what we have been arguing since day one in 2018. We were right. The court just won't do it. So the only, obviously, the only court that can deal with a circuit conflict like this is, of course, the Supreme Court. That's why we're here. What's the elevator pitch of your argument to the Supreme Court for the layman?

Elevator pitch. OK, so there's four reasons that the courts are doing this wrong. Right. Well, so let's start with like what is wrong? How should this work on the Internet? What should be happening for the average person? OK, so this is how it should work. Right. The platforms are supposed to be a neutral public forum.

And what I mean by that is that they are supposed to act evenly across all boards, but if they censor, if they take down any content, they're supposed to be doing so in good faith. Everybody knows that, and people argue it's the terms otherwise objectionable. No, it doesn't matter because if they don't actually get to court, meaning it's immunity from suit, you never have to prove that they acted in good faith because

Meaning they can do anything they want. So so good. Real quick. It sounds like if so, here's how it's basically been operating. Facebook will create rules where they're like, if you support, you know, American natalism, right? If you think white people should have babies, you're a white supremacist and we will ban you.

And so they've enacted policies much like this. And we saw that we see this, you know, frequently, especially in the past eight years on Facebook. And the story today, of course, that I'm showing is they've banned a conservative running for city council in Charlestown, West Virginia, under false pretenses. And they can argue we have the right to ban anyone we want and push forward any rule base we want and determine that anything we want is objectionable. So, OK, so let me interject something here. This is a good point.

Who are they going to argue that to, Tim? To the courts. Oh, you're right. To nobody. They don't have to argue it to the courts because you never get in the door. Exactly. They never consider the facts of the merits. That right there is the fundamental problem. They don't have to argue that they did anything in good faith or that they did anything legal or otherwise because they simply, the courts truly believe they cannot be treated as public. So this is really interesting then.

The problem we have right now with these big tech platforms is that while they do have some – correct me if I'm wrong. They do have some kind of protection, but you can never challenge whether they broke the rules because the protection is –

Absolutely. It's absolute immunity. And the strange part is, is not only did the Tennessee court say that it wasn't immunity, the Ninth Circuit itself in Barnes held that 230C1 is not an immunity from suit. They're doing it procedurally wrong, continuously, meaning…

They're doing it on purpose. So they're not applying it correctly and immunizing them when they want. So with the ramifications of your Supreme Court suit, be not that a company would lose Section 230 protections as they're written, but they would be subject to lawsuit to determine whether or not it does fall under Section 230 protections.

You nailed it. The point is it changes the idea that they can get out of suit entirely. It means procedurally, and this is proven. I mean, case law proves this. You are supposed to, and this is the formal way, so any attorneys that are listening to it, it is to go from a 12B6 dismissal immunity from suit, meaning you never consider the merits or the facts. It's supposed to convert to summary judgment rule 56, which

That was never done in my case at all. They never considered the merits. They didn't care what happened. If it converts to a summary judgment, then you get into what happened. Well, you're saying, well, they're arguing with somebody that they can do this or that or the other. With who? You never get to court. I never once saw a court. When is your hearing taking place with SCOTUS?

All right, so this is the process. It is now formally docketed. Like I said, this is a monster. This is, we have, and it's not to be discussed today, but I think you're going to see, we're going to have a lot more support this time around because a lot of people have recognized throughout the seven years I've been in the legal battle, we're right. The question is, if we go to the Supreme Court, right, and the Supreme Court, you know, has to decide whether to hear our case. That's what's vital here, right?

Everybody should be supporting what I'm doing. Everybody should be talking to everybody about it because if the Supreme Court takes this case, our argument's indisputable. It's not whether we're right or wrong. We're right. All the court has to do, and this is as simple as it gets, Tim. I'm not even kidding. One sentence. If the court affirms that 230C1 is not an immunity from suit and does not protect any first-party conduct at all, it resolves everything.

Everything. It fixes the entire internet. It converts 230 back to the original way that it's supposed to apply, meaning they don't lose 230 protections. They will still have liability protections. What it does mean is they will actually have to do it in good faith. They will have to go after otherwise objectionable content. And if they don't and break a law, they go to court. And guess what? Then they have to prove it, as you said, wrong.

but to an actual jury of their peers. Now all of a sudden they're responsible. - It's fascinating. You know, I deal with defamation all the time, as I'm sure you do too.

And even with Times v. Sullivan and anti-SLAPP laws, you still get to go to court. You still get to sue. These are just protections they have. So for those that aren't familiar, let's talk about, like, Times v. Sullivan is a precedent that says that if you're— I'm paraphrasing, so bear with me. I'm not a lawyer. If you're a public figure and someone defames you, you have to prove that they either knew they were lying or they were reckless. They had a reckless disregard for the truth.

However, either way, if I were to sue someone for defamation, I get to file in court. I get to go to court. They just have the opportunity to issue a dismissal under that precedent, but they still have to send a lawyer in. So with anti-SLAPP, it's very similar. States...

have created what's called strategic anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation. And the argument is if you're suing a newspaper or suing someone for defamation, they can file anti-slap to get the case dismissed. It sounds like what you're saying with Section 230 is they don't even give you an opportunity to argue. They just say outright Section 230, your suit's gone and we won't even hear what you have to say.

Correct. It is the equivalent of coming in there, then you saying that they defamed you. And as you said, a lawyer has to go in, you have to have a hearing. It converts to a summary judgment. Now it can be dismissed early under summary judgment, meaning if it's facially non defamatory, all right, we don't need to go to court, right? It's essentially failure to show cause. However, in this circumstance, what I'm saying that occurred, I mean, it occurred in my case, it happened to me.

The court said, we don't care about any of the merits. We don't care what happened. You cannot treat them as a publisher for their own publishing condo. Goodbye.

So they didn't even let you make an like the argument that is no section 230 applies under certain conditions. And I argue they have not met those conditions. And the court basically said, we don't care what you think. We don't care. Bye. Dismissed. Can't sue. Correct. You can't be a publisher. So that this is that inherently is the argument that everybody's struggling with is are they a platform or are they a publisher?

They are both. They are a platform, right, the dominant party, but they are also acting as a publisher. In other words, they're exerting their own First Amendment rights, but the court doesn't believe that they can be treated as a publisher simply because content originates from a third party. What if they change it? Let's just say, what if they recommend it, right? That's one that's confusing to everybody.

Well, if they're recommending it, they're developing that information, right? Meaning they're picking that this information is good to advance or restrict. Well, as soon as they start to develop the information, they are exerting the First Amendment rights. They become an information content provider. That's the actual definition of it, which is a publisher. And meanwhile, the court says we can't treat them as a publisher. I just want to say, Jason, I—

I just want to say it's amazing how interesting you make Section 230. You know, we had you on IRL before and I was getting messages after the fact. And they were like, this is it's like it's a court drama. It's really interesting stuff. I'll give you I'll give you two examples of where I see the big problem, Section 230. And this is even outside of your argument. Yours is just, hey, let me sue. And a judge can figure out if I'm right or wrong. Yeah, let me in court.

The first thing is exactly as you said, they pick and choose winners. So they've created an editorial guideline for people. If if I made the joke before, I was like, how about I make a website, a news website? We'll call it the best news page in the world. Everyone agrees dot com. And then I'll let anybody write articles. But I will only put on the front page things that called Democrats evil.

Right. OK, so that's content development that is deciding what stays, what goes, what's advanced, what's recommended, what's restricted. That's content provision. Imagine if The New York Times said we're going to let anybody write articles for The New York Times. We won't pay you. And then we'll pick some of you to appear on the front page of The New York Times. They would then argue, nope, third party, we're protected. We can we're not a publisher. Somebody else said it. We're not responsible for actually publishing it or putting it on or choosing it.

And it's like, yes, you are. And the problem is the courts still believe that no, they're not. And it's yes, as soon as they affirmatively act, meaning as soon as they get involved in the publication process.

They're publishers. And the funny thing is, and this is really interesting for those that want to get critical. First off, I would suggest go to socialmediafreedom.org. Look at the last petition. I'd read it if you really want to understand this. But here's the thing. The Fifth Circuit Court just in December. So this is recent.

determined that just because publication exists in the chain of causation does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff is seeking to treat the defendant as the publisher or speaker of that content. They recognize the nuanced flaw there. Just because publishing happened, it's a publishing website. Of course it happened.

As soon as they do something, though, and you're saying that they did something, doesn't necessarily mean that you're trying to hold them accountable for what that content is.

No. In fact, actually, in the Third Circuit, in a case called Anderson versus TikTok, they recognized, like, for example, they said the, what was it called, the Blackout Challenge? They said that, no, the plaintiff's not attempting to treat TikTok as the publisher or speaker of the Blackout Challenge.

The plaintiff is attempting to hold the defendant responsible for recommending that challenge, which is its own negligence, its own publishing, its own First Amendment. And the negligence to push that forward as a recommendation. What was the result of that? They understood the difference. What was the result of that case? They beat dismissal.

Really? They beat the dismissal that I can't beat. The Fifth Circuit beat the dismissal. The Third Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit all beat the dismissal that I cannot overcome in California. Now, the craziest part, Tim, you'd think is because – and people argue, well, he's wrong. The courts have already determined this. No. The courts use things like, oh, I was untimely or –

The argument was, what were some of their arguments? Oh, it's irrelevant. They just completely ignored the case law. It's like, oh, it's irrelevant. So they used procedural hyper-technicalities that were completely wrong, and they ignored their own decision in Deep versus Apple decision.

Essentially, the Ninth Circuit is sidestepping, correcting this, because as long as it remains ambiguous, now think this through. For your audience, Tim, think this through. The fact that it remains ambiguous in California, which is the main court that deals with this, right? They deal with 95% of social media law. The fact that they can apply it ambiguously, meaning they can hold you completely immune from suit,

Facebook, Google, Twitter, they just can't be treated as publishers. Or they can get it right in other circumstances and hold them accountable, meaning they have a leverage point. If big tech doesn't do what the government wants, it will hold them accountable. And if it does what they want, they'll immunize them from suit.

Until the Supreme Court fixes that in place, that it can't be manipulated back and forth based on who the judge is or whatever, the censorship industrial complex will always continue to gain ground. That's how it occurred. This is fascinating because it basically means – I mean immunity is not going to change. If Rumble, for instance, if you get sued, you're not –

You can file and say, I file a Section 230 dismissal or dismissal under Section 230. You'll get a hearing. The judge will then determine whether or not it does qualify as Section 230 or not and can move forward. There will be a lot more lawsuits, but you shouldn't be able to not get sued. You can't circumvent law. Right. That's not right. One of the most fascinating cases, in my opinion, which clearly shows Section 230 law is completely broken, is Wikipedia.

Because I think we've talked about this before. Wikipedia is not like X or Facebook or YouTube. You know, YouTube's going to make the argument, hey, that video that says Donald Trump is a donkey or whatever, we didn't publish that. Life can be chaotic. If you're running a retail business, don't let disorganized order fulfillment add to the chaos. Use ShipStation instead.

With ShipStation, you never have to worry about shipping and fulfillment again. Whether you're running a business out of your garage or you have multiple warehouses, ShipStation is ideal for every phase of your business's growth. Save time with one login for all your stores and by automating repetitive tasks. Plus, you'll save money with the best shipping rates from global carriers.

ShipStation's industry-leading features help you deliver a better customer experience. They'll get accurate and faster shipments along with automated tracking updates with your branding. And with up to 88% off UPS and USPS rates and up to 90% off FedEx rates, ShipStation is the fastest and most affordable way to ship.

We just allow people to publish whatever they want, so take it up with him.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, allows you to submit information to Wikipedia and then Wikipedia moderators and people they've chosen with special abilities can determine if that appears on the front page of that article, which states a byline from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Imagine if the New York Times said we're going to publish a front page article on why Donald Trump sucks. Anyone can submit to us anything they want and we will include it if we choose. Ha ha. You can't sue us now because John Smith is the one who said Trump sucks, not us. That's laughably insane. But you can't sue Wikipedia because of Section 230. Here's the important factor in your suit. I've talked to numerous lawyers about specifically Wikipedia.

Not that I don't think it applies to me. I think my Wikipedia entry is there's nothing in it that's over the top, defamatory and damaging, although it's not perfect and get something's wrong. But James O'Keefe's is a really great example. It is ridiculously bad. I talked to a lawyer and said, what if James sued Wikipedia because that's their byline? And the response from every lawyer is it will be dismissed instantly without argument because of Section 230. You won't even get a foot in the door.

Right. How do you challenge?

It's done exactly that. It's turned it into an immunity from suit when it's not immunity from suit. And my court, my circuit, when I was in the Ninth Circuit, they won't touch it. They will not let me in the door to fix it. So that is why we absolutely need the Supreme Court to step in here because until the Supreme Court does – I mean the judge even – ironically, the judge even said that until the Supreme Court weighs in on this, this is the final say on this matter, meaning –

Even the court said until the Supreme Court fixes this, we can't get it fixed in California, meaning forget everybody's due process rights and their First Amendment rights. The courts are just circumventing them. So that's a constitutional violation, too. I think, you know, in California, they're just cutting a sweetheart deal for these big tech companies. Yeah. So we'll see. But I got a couple questions for you. Do you think you're going to win?

If I am heard by the Supreme Court, it is indisputable the argument is legally correct. There is no doubt about it. Anybody that reads it, you don't even need to be a lawyer. It's real straightforward. It defies the procedure. So civil rights – rules of civil procedure, it defies that. It defies the actual text. Remember last time I believe we talked about a versus the, changing the definite article? Yeah.

The actual language of the text, which you have to follow the laws, actual text, defies what the courts have done as immunity from suit. That was an issue they went to. Section 230 doesn't mention immunity from suit. If it is immunity from suit, it means that the Good Samaritan General Provision, meaning Congress's mandate, you have to be a Good Samaritan to gain protection, is completely defeated, meaning it actually violates the congressional intent.

And lastly, if you cannot get legal remedy for someone restraining your individual civil liberties, which is exactly what they're doing, if you have no legal remedy as immunity from suit, that's a violation of the Fifth Amendment due process rights. I have a right to go after Facebook, and the courts are preventing me from engaging in that right. It is an unconstitutional mess. That was a really interesting point you made last time you were on TimCast IRL was that

The A versus the A publisher and the publisher mean two completely different things. You can do a publisher of the content, meaning there's more than one or the as the sole responsibility of that content, which makes for an interesting legal case. Now, a lot of people have said, oh, that's silly. But I think that will be interesting to get clarification. One last quick. It's the text. You're supposed to follow the text. Real quick. We've got about two minutes. If you win, what happens? How will the landscape change?

This is up there with Brown versus Board of Education. This will fundamentally change America. Censorship will die down dramatically. It will still occur, but it will occur in good faith if they seek legal protections. The companies that are not engaging in this kind of

overt censorship don't need to worry because they won't be held accountable. More lawsuits will occur. I mean, that's going to happen. And many of them are going to have to supersede a summary judgment hearing. The thing is, we've at least got to get to a summary judgment hearing. So if this gets sorted out, it means that those lawyers that are saying you'll just get thrown out are wrong. And I'll actually add this. If you want to go after Wikipedia, and James knows me, even yourself, if you want to go after Wikipedia, oh, yeah.

The thing is, I act as an expert consultant for other lawyers that want to break through this because although it has not been unified by the Supreme Court yet, we know it's right. We know how to fight it. And if you get a decent judge—

You can actually get through this. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Circuit has set precedent, meaning if you get to sue in those jurisdictions, you will make it through Section 230 now. It's just unfortunate the lawyers are just not aware of how it actually works. Yeah. I'm surprised it's gone this far with Section 230 as long as it has because it defies logic. It really is.

What's really strange is Justice Thomas himself has put out three different decisions in which he's calling for a case that is identical to mine. Mine nails it. It has – this is the third time we're going to the Supreme Court. It's indisputable. We need the Supreme Court to take this, period. It affects literally millions, if not billions of people worldwide because it will change free speech in America overnight. Interesting. It's huge.

So it's been docketed, but I suppose the issue is they may reject it. They could say we're not going to take this up. Yep. And then meanwhile, the Supreme Court – and it's funny because there's lots of decisions that they go after and they take up cases. This one affects more people than any other case out there because literally everybody uses the internet. And this affects everyone because –

Behind me, everyone else is sitting there going, we can't sue because the courts won't let us in because lawyers won't even take it. It's basically a violation of due process because it chills due process. It stops people from even holding them accountable. That's a problem. That's a big problem. The scary thing, I suppose, is Supreme Court, they don't like taking up these big cases that have massive ramifications very often. So...

I suppose we'll see. Nobody else can fix this. Yeah. The California courts won't fix it, and no other court can settle when we have a three – here's where we're at. Three circuits against the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit conflicts with the Ninth Circuit. The lower court district court under the Ninth Circuit conflicts with itself. It violates the constitutional rights. It's violated my constitutional rights, and it affects every single American that is using the internet.

We do. We do. There is no other court other than the Supreme Court that should be dealing with this. I look forward. I hope they do pick it up. Jason, it's been awesome to have you. We got to bounce. But where can people find you? Social media freedom dot org. You can contact me through there. I'm also on Twitter at Jason F.Y.K. My last name, Jason F.Y.K. All right, man. Well, thanks for hanging out. I really do appreciate it. And we'll hear from you next time. All right. Thanks, Tim. Take care.

Ladies and gentlemen, absolutely incredible. And I look forward to what they're going to end up with. I wonder I look forward to seeing where he goes with that one. I think we need it. Section 230 is clearly busted and it's high time we get some accountability. Now, if what he's saying is correct, that all that really happens is you are now allowed to sue and they can seek a dismissal under Section 230. That will be tremendous because it means everybody

You will get a wave of lawsuits and there will at least be some concern from these companies. If we censor these people, we may win. But a lawsuit still sucks right now. They're basically saying you can't sue us no matter what. So what do we care? I look forward to seeing how that plays out. In the meantime, my friends, we are going to be sending you all over to hang out with our friend Russell Brand, who I believe is gearing up to go live right now.

I believe Russell is just about up and we're going to initiate that raid. Make sure to follow me on X and Instagram at Tim cast at Tim cast. That was our first live live interview. And I saw some people saying test live at your own, you know, peril. We actually did multiple tests, not live. And there's nothing you do about it. You know, the first run is always going to be that way. You see, we did have the system set up. It worked perfectly.

But we're going to improve it. It actually is surprisingly more complicated than people realize to do these calls. I kid you not. It is stupid weird how hard it is. So, my friends, smash that like button. Share the show. I believe tomorrow we are – I don't know how much I can say or should because I don't know if we have confirmed everybody. But we're hoping to get Ben Davidson on to talk about the atmospheric phenomenon that caused massive power outages in Europe.

Because he's been warning about this. And then when these things start happening, you kind of want to ask him a little bit more. So we'll see. We'll be back tomorrow. We've got more segments coming up throughout the rest of the day. Then, of course, we're back at Timcast IRL 8 p.m. My friends smash that like button. Share the show with everyone, you know. Thanks for hanging out. And we will see you all in the next segment.

The results from the Canadian election are in and the conservatives lost. The liberals won. They're going further left. And it's Donald Trump's fault, apparently. Now, many Trump supporting personalities are saying, no way. Pierre Palliev, he's the conservative guy, blew this. Because instead of acting like, I don't know, a sane, rational contrast to the far left, he simply went anti-Trump, creating a race between conservatives

Far left anti-Trump and nothing anti-Trump. Some are calling him Canadian Mitt Romney. And it is pretty sad because he was getting a lot of traction when he had that video where he was eating an apple and roasting the press. It's actually a pretty great video. A journalist is asking him, you know, you're pulling a page out of Trump's book. He's eating apples. What does that mean? It's like, well, you know, you're acting like Trump. What is what is acting like Trump mean? And it was pretty fun to watch.

However, you've got Vox.com. You've even got Trump's own words. So, my friends, I'll put it this way. While the conservatives have lost in Canada, I largely don't care. But the story that connects us to America is obviously our neighbor to the north. And they're obsessed with going far left and burning themselves to the ground with all the problems they've seen so far. Well, so be it.

You reap what you sow. But Trump himself has said he caused this drop off. He said that before he came in, there was a 25 point conservative lead. And then after he started talking about it, now it's a close race. And of course, shortly after this interview, it's done. In fact, Polyev did so poorly, so poorly, he lost his own seat. Man,

After what, about 20 years in office and the leader of the conservatives, he ain't even in the party anymore. Okay, he's in the party, but he ain't even in office anymore. So let me start by showing you the current results so you can understand that there's 323, I think the number is. I'm not big on Canada.

I don't know the Canadian, what's going on up there. Liberals won 168 seats. You need 172 for a majority. The Conservatives won 144. Bloc Québécois, those are the French, by the way, won 23.

The NDP has seven. Green Party has one. The funny thing is the conservatives can join with the Bloc Québécois. And I guess they still wouldn't get their majority, though. But it could be it would be funny if they if they formed a conservative left coalition. I don't know. It's never going to happen. Now, the funny thing is Pierre Palliev. OK, if you don't know this guy, he was supposed to be the the answer to Trudeau.

He's not really a conservative. They call it the Conservative Party. But even the conservatives in Canada are far left. He lost his own seat. Do they have the data? They just bring up the story. The leader of the Conservative Party was unseated. As the parliamentary representative of his Ottawa district is in a stunning upset that could put his leadership of the party in question.

Mr. Polyev was first elected in 2004 as a member of parliament, representing Carlton, a largely rural district bordering parts of the Ottawa River. Bruce Fanjoy, the liberal candidate who is a well-known community volunteer, but was initially considered a long shot, won the race. OK, so Mark Carney, who is what is he like a central banker and super far left, got a trans kid and all that stuff, ends up winning. And the CBC says the election was upended by Trump.

I love it. Here's the New York Times. New York Times. Mark Carney's liberals win Canada's election and they've got four takeaways for us. Not that I care all that much about what they think. He's promised to face up to Trump and the far left. There you go. The results were close indeed. The conservatives made gains, but their leader lost his seat. That's crazy. Carney will have to make big decisions quickly. Now, let's start here.

How Trump lost Canada. And this story just from this morning from Vox.com. Trump's 51st state talk brought Canada's liberals back from the dead and undermined a key American alliance. No, it didn't. Most of us don't care. I honestly don't even really...

OK, so here's how I do. Here's here's how I pick segments. If I care about a story, I will talk about it. And I would say that the Canadian story only crosses that line because of Trump's statement here in the Atlantic. So were it not for Trump saying he did this, then I would likely be talking about, I don't know, Russia. Do I have the story? Russia threatens NATO with nuclear strikes. Seems to be much more prescient. But anyway, here's the story from the Atlantic.

Donald Trump gave an interview to Jeffrey Goldberg and a couple of people from the Atlantic, which is dumb. But, you know, Trump likes to do these things. So go ahead. And we've got this right here talking about tariffs in Canada. And Trump says, look, it'd be easy for me to just not respond when you say that I could just go on. But I'm a very honest person. I believe I don't believe I know the election was rigged. Biden didn't get 80 million votes and he didn't beat Barack Hussein Obama with the black vote in swing states.

Only in the swing states. It's interesting. We have lots of other things. I mean, we have so much information from the 51 agents that was so cooked to the laptop from hell to all those different things. And it goes on to say, and this is going somewhere, because I believe in the fact it was a bad four years for the country. The country was beaten up. We had a president truly didn't have it. I left some very smart people from other countries today. And I have all them. I have them all the time. And I think maybe one of the things I'm most successful with is foreign relations.

to which Goldberg says, I think the Canadians would disagree. Indeed, he says,

Here's the problem I have with Canada. We're subsidizing them to the tune of $200 billion a year, and we don't need their gasoline. We don't need their oil. We don't need their lumber. We don't need their energy of any type. We don't need anything they have. I say it would make a great 51st state. I love other nations. I love Canada. I have great friends. Wayne Gretzky is a friend of mine. I mean, I have great friends. I said to Wayne, I'm going to give you a pass, Wayne. I don't want to ruin his reputation in Canada. I said, just pretend you don't know me, but they're great people.

You know, they do 95% of their business with us. Remember, if they're a state, there's no tariffs. They have lower taxes. We have to guard them militarily. Goldberg says, you seriously want them to become a state? Trump said, I think it would be great. And Goldberg responds, a hell of a big democratic state. Trump responds, a lot of people say that, but I'm okay with it if it has to be. Because I think, you know, actually, until I came along, Goldberg interrupts. I'm no political genius, but I know which way they're going to vote. They have socialized medicine. Trump says, you know,

Until it came along, remember, the Conservative was leading by 25 points. Parker says it's true. Then I was disliked by enough of the Canadians that I've thrown the election into a close call, right?

I don't even know if it's a close call, but the conservative, they didn't like Governor Trudeau too much. And I would call him Governor Trudeau, but he wasn't fond of that. That is my friends, Donald Trump, the man himself saying this in the interview that Canada flipped because of him. Hey, well, there you go. So I've seen a lot of conservatives saying it's not Trump's fault. It's Polyev's fault. And I will say technically the truth.

Trump is saying actions he took resulted in this. But if Polyev was a good candidate, he could have navigated this. To be fair, it's a very difficult position to be in. It basically rallied all of the liberals against anything Trump against the right. But maybe that's what Trump wants. Have y'all considered that to all the conservatives out there saying, no, it's not Trump's fault. It's Polyev's fault. Have you considered maybe Trump knew he was tanking the conservative party and that's what he wanted?

You might ask, well, Tim, why would Trump want the far left to win in Canada? Well, I will say you could make up a million and one reasons. I'm just saying that Trump knew what he was doing. He said in an interview, because of me and the things he was doing, it resulted in this. He said, because I've thrown the race because they hate me so much.

That doesn't mean Trump intentionally did it. It means that he knew what he was doing had an impact. Then he posted on Truth Social and a support for the conservative party when he knew that was rallying the far left. So I personally think Trump was well aware. He was cognizant of the fact that he was hurting the conservatives. But again, have you considered that maybe that's what Trump wanted to happen now?

In Vox, they say how Trump lost Canada. And they want to mention that liberals pulled off one of the greatest upsets in modern history, blah, blah, blah. Trump has single handedly created the greatest surge of nationalist anti-Americanism in Canadian history, blah, blah, blah. There's a lot of reasons why Trump may actually want them to win. I know a lot of people don't want to accept it. They want to act like it's Polyev's fault purely. Viva Frye says it took a lot of ish for the criticism I gave to Polyev.

There was no vote splitting with the PPC. Pierre did exactly what he said he shouldn't do in his interview with Peterson. He compromised his values to move more to the center, taking the vote of his base for granted. Pierre alone lost this election. Canada will suffer as a result of the cowardice of the so-called opposition leaders of Canada. I apologize for nothing. His campaign should have listened to me from day one of my constructive criticism, which ironically started four years ago. Now, I'll give him that. Polyev could have won if he was a good candidate, hands down.

And it did feel like he was trying to back off of Trump. He was criticizing Trump. And I don't see how that's going to going to going to help you out. I don't know if I have this. Here we go. At Othman on access, 100 word summary on why Pierre lost the Trump factor in the election had nothing to do with tariffs or 51st state.

The it's American contrarianism. It's Canadian left wing hatred of Trump and the right wing ism he represents. Polyev also does a terrible emulation of Trump, which exudes rudeness and abrasiveness instead of charm and charisma. That and also the fact that Pierre's 2024 majority was precipitated by 40 percent of CPC voters being voted motivated by anti-incumbency bias towards Trudeau.

Even in Pierre's best supermajority polls, the combined left wing vote NDP liberal was still neck and neck with CPC support level. We lost because Pierre isn't charming. He fails to sufficiently exhort the right and Canadians en masse are left wing Tories. Carney was the perfect credentialed, charismatic, trustworthy paternal figure to replace the unfavorable Trudeau and seduce previous LPC voters that defected to the NDP, GPC, CPC. I will do a full right now, blah, blah, blah. To put it simply.

Trudeau bowing out basically saved the day. And then Carney had the opportunity to rally the left. But maybe Trump wants an opposition in Canada. Maybe he wants them to burn themselves to the ground. Accelerationism? I'll put it this way.

Maybe. And this is just speculation. Like, I don't know. Maybe Trump's just a buffoon who is laughing because he doesn't care about Canada. Maybe he's thinking like, I don't care what Canada does. It's funny that these people are so nuts. Possibly he was just trolling. Or maybe he's thinking when I negotiate with Canada, Polyev is going to play hardball. He's going to capitulate. He's going to offer up conditions and they're going to be hard to reject.

When Polyev gets in and says, Trump, let's negotiate these tariffs because we want to be cooperative. Trump's going to meet him halfway and he's not going to be able to play play hardball like he would with Carney. And I'll tell you why. If Trump negotiates with Carney and says, we're putting a big tariff, we're going to tariff your cars. Carney is going to be like, we oppose Trump no matter what he does. And he's going to be unreasonably negative on Trump.

He will reject whatever Trump offers, even if it is middle of the road. Trump can then say to the American people, it's not our fault. Carney is shutting me down. Let me let me explain this just like one more time. I'm speculating. I have no idea. Maybe I'm crazy. This is a maybe what if I think there's a strong probability, nay, the the great majority probability that Donald Trump simply thought it was funny that Canada's in turmoil and he didn't care. But again,

If Trump enters negotiations with Polyev and Polyev says we are offering Trump a great deal, whatever he wants, please work with us. What does Trump say to the American people when they're like, why are you shutting down trade with Canada? We want their lumber. We want their oil. We want all of these things. Polyev has offered you a compromise. He's working with you. Going to be tough for Trump, right?

Trump's going to have to then maintain these this open trade with Canada because people are addicted to it. Now, Trump says we don't need it. You see, he said it. We don't need it. So imagine what happens. Carney wins and Trump says, we're going to work with you and compromise. And Carney says, no compromise with Trump. I'm going to stand up to him. And Trump goes, OK, fine.

Trump turns around and says, hey, American people, I know you wanted to buy and ship materials from from Canada. It's not my fault. The Canadian government is refusing to work with me on these issues. Guess we have to have massive tariffs on Canada now. And it's not my fault. Maybe or maybe Trump, as I said, isn't really playing chess. He really just playing checkers. And he thought it was funny. He doesn't care. Canada is not not that big a deal for us. I don't know for sure.

What I can tell you is I do think it is silly to say that Trump played no role in this when Trump himself says he did. Sorry, Canada. You do it, Canada. You do whatever you want. I'll leave it there. We got more segments coming up for you throughout the day. Stay tuned. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast and we will see you all then. They're calling it the demographic collapse.

When we see that fertility is way down, most people assume this means maybe in 10, 20, 30 years, we're going to see a slow tapering off as the economy shrinks, the customer base decreases. But that is not how it's going to happen. It will be, my friends, as they describe it, gradually, then suddenly. We have a story from Hetching Report.

Hedgering report, sorry. The number of 18 year olds is about to drop sharply, packing a wallop for colleges and the economy. Elon Musk is correct when he talks about the disaster that's heading for us. And there is no way to stop it because this problem started 20 years ago. Millennials 18 years ago were supposed to be having kids. This is traditionally how the system operated and they didn't.

When we look at the fertility rate, which is around one point six on average, it needs to be two point one. That number includes individuals who are slightly older, probably already had kids and not millennials who barely had any. The numbers do not accurately represent reality. They are not breaking down the nuance in what will happen. So let me give you the short version as quickly as I can. There are no 18 year olds.

I mean, there are. Don't get me wrong, but there's substantially less. Gen Alpha right now is I'm sorry, Jen. Yes, Gen Alpha right now is at around 42 million people, 40 million or so. And that is a massive drop off from millennials who should be having children in Gen Alpha. Millennials, there's 71, 72 million. There should be substantially more.

Now, when you take a look at the current number of Gen Z, it looks like they're just around at replacement relative to Gen X. Gen Xers and younger boomers were having Gen Z. The issue is without 18 year olds. And this is the this is the key number, specifically this number. You're not going to have college enrollments. You're not going to have a variety of services. And that will cause a rapid collapse. It's not going to be gradual. It is going to be instantaneous, right?

Let me put it this way. If you have one business that sells shoes, everybody going to buy shoes from that one business. Obviously. Right. So let's say the economy grows and now there is 10 times as many people and there's 10 times as many shoe stores. Still, supply meets demand. Each shoe store remains open. But what happens when that population pops overnight?

We see a mass decline in the number of individuals who need to buy shoes, which is hypothetical market scenario. Each store sees, let's call it a 10% decline in sales, but their overhead costs are fixed. So almost simultaneously, they all go out of business. Now, the people who are remaining have nowhere to buy shoes.

Of course, then when they all go to business, there will be a period where people are going to thrift. They're going to find old things. They'll start making their own. That's the depression, the correction. And eventually someone says, I'm going to start making shoes for other people and we might see it come back. The problem is you will never see that growth completely because the number of young people collapsing means not that we will get back to our roots. It means there will be a dark ages happening.

It means the system as we know it cannot hold the weight. The infrastructure that we built has a fixed cost. Bridges will collapse. Cities will fall apart. I implore you all to go take a look at Gary, Indiana, not to rag on Gary, Indiana. But when a population leaves an area and I mean just literally just migrates, you can see what happens. There's abandoned buildings everywhere, abandoned schools. The buildings are falling apart.

And it once was hustling and bustling. Now, that's just in migration in this country. People leave looking for jobs. What happens when there's no there's not enough people anywhere? I've seen some people suggest, you know, this is a good thing because we're overpopulated. But I don't think they understand just how bad it's going to be. Let's read the story. The number of 18 year olds is about to drop sharply, packing a wallop for colleges and the economy. Colleges are going to crumble.

They've built up massive infrastructure. They're not going to have enough people to enroll. So they will raise tuition. Then these students will seek out insanely expensive loans thinking they have to go to college or they just say, this is nuts and I refuse. How then will these universities maintain all of the buildings on their campus? They won't. Maybe they'll try and sell them, liquidate them in some capacity. Who's going to buy them?

No one needs the property, especially with digital communications technology on top of a declining population. They're going to say anything else. I'm sorry. Pick up trucks and trails with cars, yawning trunks pulled up to untended lawns in front of buildings. Anything else of value had already been sold by a company that specializes in auctioning off the leftover assets of failed businesses. At least one of the buildings was soon to be demolished altogether. It was red brick walls dumped into its 1921 foundation.

This was the unceremonious end of Iowa Wesleyan University, a 181 year old institution that closed in 2023 after financial losses due in part to discounts it gave out as it struggled to attract a shrinking pool of students. Let me just add that also you've got get well, go broke going on. So when your school sucks, doesn't give anybody anything and there ain't enough people to attract, you're in trouble. I suppose the good news is Merritt will come back.

But it'll get dark, indeed. I'm no tech genius, but I knew if I wanted my business to crush it, I needed a website now. Thankfully, Bluehost made it easy. I customized, optimized, and monetized everything exactly how I wanted with AI. In minutes, my site was up. I couldn't believe it.

The search engine tools even helped me get more site visitors. Whatever your passion project is, you can set it up with Bluehost. With their 30-day money-back guarantee, what do you got to lose? Head to Bluehost.com. That's B-L-U-E-H-O-S-T dot com to start now.

Attention sports enthusiasts. Keep the adrenaline pumping and elevate your game day with Chumba Casino. It's completely free to play. No purchase necessary. Whether you're cheering from the stands, on the move, or relaxing at home, Chumba Casino brings the thrill of social casino directly to your fingertips. Experience the ultimate social casino adventure with reels of casino-style games, offering hundreds of exciting options to choose from and fresh new releases every week. There's always something new and thrilling to explore. From everything

action-packed social slots, and classic blackjack to engaging bingo and solitaire. The fun never stops. Plus, enjoy generous daily login bonuses and a fantastic free welcome bonus to kickstart your social gaming journey. Dive into the excitement. Discover a world where you can play for your chance to redeem some serious prizes and have a blast along the way. Don't miss out. What are you waiting for? Join now and immerse yourself in nonstop fun and adventure with Chumba Casino. Get in on the action today at chumbacasino.com and make everything

Every day at Chamba Day. No purchase necessary. VGW group void. We're prohibited by law. 18 plus DNC supply. All the things that are mementos of the best four years of a lot of people's lives are sold to the highest bidders. When a college closes, said Doug Moore, founding partner of a firm that has shut down four of them in the last few years. There will soon be many more such scenes. A preponderance of evidence suggests that because the current class of high school seniors is the last before a long decline begins in the number of 18-year-olds, the traditional age of students when they enter college changes.

This so-called demographic cliff has been predicted ever since Americans started having fewer babies at the advent of the Great Recession around the end of 07, a falling birth rate that has not recovered since, except for a slight blip during COVID. Demographers say it will finally arrive in fall of this year. That's when recruiting offices will begin to confront the long anticipated drop off in the number of applicants from among the next class of high school seniors.

But the downturn isn't just a problem for universities and colleges. It's a looming crisis for the economy, with fewer graduates eventually coming through the pipeline to fill jobs that require college educations, even as international rivals increase the proportions of their populations with degrees. My friends.

We have this article that came out around the same time. You can't stare down reality. Population collapse has begun. The reason why Democrats were largely flooding this country with illegal immigrants, it wasn't necessarily just a cheat. It was because the system is breaking. It is crumbling. Donald Trump's view is we need Americans to have kids, to stay America, to maintain its moral tradition. I largely agree with Donald Trump. Have babies. It's too late.

I'm not saying it's too late to save the country, but at least in the short term, it's too late. Creating a fresh batch of human beings to run a country, yo, it takes 18 years. A little bit longer, actually, maybe around 20 years. And if you want these people to enter peak workforce, 30. This means we are going to be looking at a massive struggle coming soon.

I did the math. Let me first show you this, right? Top economies face population collapses, fertility rates drop, and something's got to give, study says, also from January. But I want to stress this. The time to address that problem was 20 years ago. Now universities are going to crumble. I ain't going to shed a tear over it. But these young people, they're not going to be, there's not enough to fill jobs. We were just talking about this the other day with Courtney Nill, who's running for office in Charlestown, West Virginia.

Some of the local businesses are shutting down. And I was there's one that I'm you know, I don't want to call them out or anything, but we we we eat there. It's a restaurant. And I said, how are they going to business? They have like the best food. Should they can't find labor? They can't find labor. What's the answer? Flood millions of illegal immigrants, including criminals into this country, never deport a single one. Yeah, that's not the answer. That's just creating a different kind of collapse. But we don't have the young people take these jobs. Either they're at home. They have anxiety disorder.

You know what I think? I think Democrats did it on purpose. I have to be completely honest. I really do. You can't simultaneously advocate abortion and feminism, having it all, and mass illegal migration. You can't.

You're basically just destroying this country. And I feel like Republicans sat on their hands for the most part and said, so what? Democrats gutted the machine and encouraged this antisocial behavior, which is destroying us. And now we're at a point where Democrats are trying to ensure the complete evisceration of this country. I asked you at GPT.

List the generations by date of birth. Interestingly, silent generation is 28 to 45. Boomers, 46, 64. Gen X, 65 to 80. Gen Y, 81 to 96. Gen Z, 97 to 2012. And Gen Alpha is 2013 to 2025. It said, would you like to list the current or projected population size? I said, yes, give me the population of each. Now, the one thing I found strange is that Gen Alpha is actually only 12 years. It's very short.

And they explain this, that Gen Alpha is largely calculated in this way because it's about, generation is about technology, culture, and way of life. And technological hurdles are rapidly altering this. That being said, I do think it's fair to break down the math as if Gen Alpha was going to be 15 years or so. But take a look at this. The silent generation as of right now, 2025, is around 20 million. And it's because they're old and dying. Baby boomers are at 69 million. It is down. It used to be a lot more. And they are getting old and they're dying.

Gen X is around 65 million, which is kind of shocking considering Gen X is still very alive. Millennials, 72 million. Gen Z, 69. Gen Alpha, which they're projecting to be over, they say around 48 million. I've seen estimates between 40 million and 48 million. That's the high end. So they say, here's what I ask. Considering decline in fertility and current population size, calculate the total population by generation in 2035. Now, the reason I asked this

It's not just that population is shrinking, but fertility rate is going down still. So even though we know that people aren't having babies and the average on one point six, we also know that fertility at one point six is actually expected to decline to one point two, maybe in the next few years. It is going to continually decline, meaning you will see a parabolic curve of people without children.

As time goes on, less and less people are having kids. So population growth is going to slow more than we realize. We are not taking today's fertility rate and then multiplying it over 10 years. We're taking today's fertility rate and comparing it each year with the projected decline in population and fertility. So take a look at this. The projection is that Gen Alpha is going to wrap with around 50 million people way down.

From Gen Z's 70 million or millennials Gen Y. Now, I will add the number is very stupid and Chet GPT is very dumb. So I want to stress this because it makes no sense that Gen Z actually went up in generation from the from 10 years prior when Gen Z ended a long time ago.

But they're projecting Gen Beta will see a boost to 58 million from Gen Z. Why? Because Gen Z is a bit more conservative. Indeed. That being said, however, Gen Alpha is small. And that means there will be a period where there is going to be a train crash. When a freight train crashes, it doesn't just stop.

The momentum of that machine can't just stop on a dime. If a train car in the front abruptly stops, everything will keep going, flipping over, derailing and buckling. That's what happens. This isn't that we have. It's way bigger. I mean, it's abstract, but you get the point. We need more people every generation. Now, here's where it gets real interesting. So I asked it.

Why is Gen Alpha so short? It goes into mention that it's based on cultural shifts and faster cultural cycles. So they actually do project Gen Z will be about 12 to 13 years instead of 15. Interesting. Doesn't really matter. What matters is the time span between people entering the workforce. So we can argue that that 50 million number, if we're looking at two and a half to three million, might actually be 56. Still really low and still a shortfall. There's Charlestown Racist.

It's a casino in Charlestown, West Virginia. And they used to have this really awesome restaurant that is like stadium seating indoors. And you can watch the horses order a cheeseburger. That's so fun. It's gone. They don't have it anymore. They do special occasions. But for the most part, it's gone.

I asked them why it was. I said, this is so amazing. I would come here every weekend for lunch or not lunch because they do the races at night. But I come on Saturday night. We have dinner and watch the horses race. You bet like a dollar on the horse, the funny name. And then it's fun. You watch the race. They take only a couple of minutes and they get good food. They said they couldn't find anybody to do the job. That's it. Nobody wanted to work. They tried rehiring. They couldn't do it. You know, that's crazy.

Nobody is around to do the job. Again, this is why Democrats are flooding the country with illegal immigrants.

Now, here's what I asked. How many 18 year olds will there be by year for the next 10 years? And I want to give you the context as it gives it to me, right? Because it doesn't seem that bad. However, by 2030, there will have been a 7.4% decrease from 2026. 2026 is expected to be the peak period, they're saying right now, though many are pointing out the demographic collapse is about to hit because of population decline, which rapidly accelerated at the end of the 2000s. So these numbers are conflicting.

I don't trust Chet Chepiti on this, though. What it does say is we are going to see a general decline substantially. Seven point four percent is significant. This means small businesses that are already strained for low skilled labor will be further strained. The demographic cliff, they call it a significant decline in the number of 18 year olds projected after 2026, largely attributed to the decrease in birth rates following the financial crisis.

We're going to see higher education collapse and regional variations. Now, right now, they're saying you need 2.7 workers each for Social Security benefits in the United States. In 1960, it was 5.1. Benefits actually made sense. The system was designed for a much larger amount of workers. It's projected to fall by about 2.3 in 2035. So I asked, what will happen? Only 77% of benefits will be paid out to recipients.

It won't go bankrupt, but there will be a 23% benefit cut and Medicare is expected to be insolvent completely by 2031. I said with the cost of living in a decline in benefits plus an already low payout, what does it mean? The system is going to break. It's going to completely break. So when I say something like it's going to implode, the average monthly benefit around 1900 today would drop to 1460 in 10 years. Add inflation. And what does that mean?

It's in today's dollars, by the way. It means already you don't have enough to live off of. So what does Social Security actually do for the elderly? Right now, very little. They still have to work or do something or be supported by somebody. I think we're in trouble. And with people living longer, it's there's going to be less young people and more old people. This is going to get crazy. Elon Musk is completely correct about population collapse. The

And I will stress, it's going to look like Detroit everywhere. Now, there's a lot of people who think it'll be good. I believe this is the fault of the progressive left, the Malthusian Ishmael types. They want the world to revert back to cave Native American, you know, tribal nomads and things like this. They say life was better. You cared for so little. Maybe, I guess I'd like humanity to expand and go to the stars.

This system is only buckling because of a psychotic ideology that tells women not to have kids because of climate change, not to have kids because you can have it all and go to work. Then seeks to mass import illegal immigrants in violation of the law, destabilizing everything. That's the that's the combined reality.

I could talk on this subject for a million years, so I'm going to wrap it up because we got to keep working throughout the morning. But I'll have more segments for you coming up. Stay tuned. Thanks for hanging out. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast, and we'll see you all then. The Last of Us Season 2 is out. Episode 4 is the latest, and it is bombing. The Last of Us was plagued by complaints of bad casting. And The Last of Us 2 is not faring much better. But here's the best part.

Well, I'll tell you the reason why the show is doing bad. Some people are arguing that it's overly woke and cringe, and they've argued that since the beginning. The Last of Us season one was very popular and the video game was very popular. And then they decided to kill off the main character, bring in a lesbian romance, and people thought it was bad storytelling. It was like a complete shift in the narrative.

But in reality, I think the bad casting choices and bad acting probably is what's causing problems for the game of the show season two. And the boomers who don't play the video game are complaining. This is what's funny about it. Last of Us season two's review bombing isn't limited to rotten tomatoes. I kid you not.

This is from Collider. And what they're basically arguing is somehow racist, misogynistic trolls are going to every website and giving a bad review to this show. I just I can't even with these people. How about if every review aggregator website is showing that the audience doesn't like the show? The reality is the show is just bad. Have you considered that? Well, let me show you what Collider says.

And then I'll show you what people are actually saying in the reviews. Now, I'm a fan of The Last of Us. I thought season one was pretty good. Yeah, it's got a lot of gay stuff in it, you know, and it's kind of cringe when I force it, but whatever. You know, one of the complaints from season one was that a character who's gay is

Wasn't particularly prominent in the game. And they gave him this big story, this big arc they didn't need to because they really wanted to ham up the gay sex scenes. I'm not kidding. So the bigger issue, in my opinion, that makes this woke is the casting choices of. Well, let me put it this way.

They don't make sense. I think Pedro Pascal, I know that he's like a weird, woke liberal guy, but I do think he's a really great actor and I actually enjoy him. His his movie with Nicolas Cage was so good. So I can respect that. I said it before for like Chris Evans. It's like they're so woke in real life, but I can separate separate the art from the artist within reason. I think it's fair. So I'm not going to go out there and be like, oh, wow, the new Pedro Pascal movie. I'm going to go watch it. I don't know if he's in a movie and I watch it. I do.

But it is kind of cringe, the political stuff. Bella Ramsey, she's fine. But she does not. She's a terrible casting choice. And Pedro Pascal, they now cast him as Mr. Fantastic. Terrible choice. He was great in The Mandalorian. Anyway, check this out.

They say it's time. It's about time to revoke some people's Internet privileges. Anybody who targets targets minorities and women online needs to check themselves anyway. Despite the efforts of certain platforms to prevent review bombing, trolls still seem to be getting away with it. The latest victim is The Last of Us, which the video game is based on, has been targeted by individuals who seem to have a problem with women being spotlighted.

The second season of the show, which premiered less than a month ago, immediately started attracting negativity from a section of the audience. This was reflected in its fast declining audience score in Rotten Tomatoes. But trolls can't be contained to just one platform. They've also matched the show on Metacritic. Really? Okay, first of all,

You take the first game that people really like and it's there's a guy, a fungus takes over people's brains, making them mushroom zombies and, you know, cordyceps. And then his daughter dies or whatever. So then he ends up taking care of this girl, Ellie. And then spoiler alert for this 20 year old game. In the end, when this group of scientists say she's immune to the virus and we can autopsy her brain to make a cure.

He kills them and says, no, it's better that she just lives and society fails. And it really is like, man, what a brutal story. You know, it is what it is. How do you handle it? It's like it's tough, right? Because he loves and he cares about her.

Then they were like, OK, second game. Actually, Ali's a lesbian in a lesbian relationship. Kill off Joel, the main character. Now it's about her. Then we're going to create an antagonist who's upset over the killing of the scientists. And she's this super ripped woman. She's so jacked, in fact, that people thought she was transgender when the game came out.

They they cast a thin, frail woman to play Abby. And people were like, make up your minds. OK, in the game, you had her as a as a buff female. And then in the show, you cast a woman who's not going to train or exercise to fit that role. Incredible. They just didn't care about casting. You do not see the characters you liked represented on the screen. That's one of the problems. Don't get me wrong. There's a lot of people who are complaining that the game was gay.

And the show in the first season had a gay sex scene. So, you know, I don't know. Don't watch it, I guess. They're going to mention that review bombing famously the all-female Ghostbusters reboot was targeted so viciously. Dude, the movie sucked. It sucked so bad they rebooted it and everybody loves the new movies. The new Ghostbusters they made. They had Frozen Empire and I... Is that the only one they did? Or no, they... How many... They had two new Ghostbusters, right? How many new Ghostbusters did they do?

They did Frozen Empire was 24. Didn't they do one before that? Ghostbusters Frozen Empire. And I don't know how many Ghostbusters movies are there? Ghostbusters franchise. Afterlife. That was it. Yeah. Ghostbusters Afterlife was 2021. And then Frozen Empire. See, people like those. They really like they didn't like your weird, creepy, like garbage feminist one. OK, let me do this.

Here's the Rotten Tomatoes. We're going to click the ratings. Okay, it's got 95% critics. The critics love it. 50%, according to the audience. Here's a review. The second season is very weak compared to the first. They are remaking an Ellie that doesn't exist and leaving aside things that make her one of the greatest game characters of all time. Very sad. Okay, so here's a guy who clearly liked The Last of Us 2 and is not complaining about her being gay or woman. They're saying the show is doing bad.

Here's one that's five stars. Es Increble. Muestra la Realidad and Cadena. And I don't know Spanish, so Brent M gave it five stars. The trouble with media content created from other sources, such as books and video games, that certain people expect exact replication of the story. The Last of Us is fantastic fan fiction with an engaging story. Let's take a look at the negative reviews.

This person said, as a huge fan of the Last of Us universe, it's genuinely frustrating to watch the TV adaptation unfold. Technically, the show is absolutely excellent. The cinematography is stunning. The sets are incredible, incredibly detailed. The music, blah, blah, blah. It's clear a lot of love and effort went into making this. But here's a but. The casting and acting have been a constant source of disappointment for me.

Agreed. This person, Alexis, probably a female, is not saying, I don't like women are minorities. They're like, what's with this casting choice? Here's a half-star.

After watching the third episode, I realized the entire story of the series moving forward won't be remotely truthful, faithful to the video game. Every now and then they throw in a random scene to give the impression they're sticking to the original tracks, but it's obvious they're telling a story that has nothing to do with the one we know. They have to. They expect to make more seasons, I'd imagine. Last of Us 2 game was trash and the season followed suit. This is probably the only time I can think of where I wish the film adaptation didn't follow the game. This person gave it four stars. They like it. Ellie ain't taking a grown man down jujitsu or not.

First season, here's one with Halfstar. First season was wonderful. First episode of the second season, great. Then you killed off everyone's favorite character and expect us to start rooting for the one that killed them? I get following the game, but this is a reason nobody bought Last of Us 2. I don't appreciate all the agendas they're trying to push. Walking Dead veered away from the comics and did a great job. This is just bad. Indeed. Here's, look, they're all basically saying this. There's, I, where is the comment where they're saying woman and black person bad? Gay person bad? Doesn't exist.

What they're going to argue is, well, they're only review bombing it. They're lying. The reality is it's a bad show. And I think the cast did it. Lazy and poorly written script. They could have made a very well-crafted second season, keeping the two characters from the first. Then they invented a senseless forcing of the sexual aspect and took the focus off the series, which is the world ending zombies evolving and Ellie with the cure weak script writer and director without opinion. I love this.

I guess that many of the boomers who didn't play the game didn't realize this was the game, right? Like the story arc for the game. Absolute trash. You know what I love? There was this game called, um, what was that game called? Uh, life is strange.

You ever played that one? The main character is a college. It's like a freshman in college, like an 18-year-old female. And she has the ability to rewind time. It's very fun. And so it's like, what is it? I haven't played in a long time, but it's like a murder mystery or something. And you're trying to solve puzzles. And when bad things happen, you rewind time and you can teleport basically because...

What you do is there will be like a puzzle where you have to like flick a switch, but then you only have a second to get to the side before, you know, the door closes. So you hit the switch, walk to where the door is, then rewind time to right after you flick the switch. But you're standing somewhere else and the door is open now. Cool stuff like that. Then they made another game following up on it that has the same name, but is nowhere near the same game and is stupid and boring. It wasn't worth playing.

This is what Last of Us 2 was. The first game was cool. You're a dude and you've got this young girl with you. You're protecting her and you're fighting zombies. Then the second game is dude gets killed instantly. Totally different game. Big ripped female wants to murder you. You play as the big ripped female for real. And people were mad about it. Like, what is this? And they were like, it's to make you understand other people's perspective. It's like, okay, dude, I don't engage in escapism through video games for a moral lesson.

But I can tell you this because I don't need to go on for 20 years about this, but it's hilarious. Read the reviews. They're not saying that this is like a problem of women. They're saying the story is bad. And what's funny is these are the exact same comments from Last of Us 2 when the game came out. People who liked the first game were like, wow, you butchered the story. This sucks. Now the people who watch season one are like, this is great. Put on season two and went, what? This sucks.

You know what? But hey, spend your money how you want to spend it. The first thing I will say is I am personally offended all the time, the whole time with their casting choices here. Pedro Pascal does not look like Joel. They could have got a bunch of other actors to play Joel. And the same thing with Ellie. What you end up seeing from the fans of The Last of Us is they show cosplay of Ellie from random people. There's one where it shows a cosplayer who looks exactly like the character,

Then an actress who kind of looks like the character, completely unrelated. And then they show Bella Ramsey and they're like, that's what they went for. Why? Because they don't care about the source material. They don't care about the fans. And this is what you get. It was a compelling story in the first game. Second game, meh. So it is what it is, I guess. It ain't review bombing. Show just sucks. I'll leave it there, my friend. Stay tuned. We got more segments coming up in a bit. Smash that like button. Follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. And we'll see you all in the next segment.

The White House held some kind of briefing for new media specifically, and I'm a big fan. That's basically what I was asking for or asking about when I was there, because they've opened up this big room with all these seats to the White House Correspondents Association. It's elites. They ask stupid questions most of the time. No disrespect to the ones that are actually trying, but largely it's a I'm going to argue with the Trump administration moment.

Well, at this special session, Winston Marshall, a Grammy award winning rock star, requested or I should say asked whether or not they would consider asylum for British shit posters. I kid you not. And of course, the most famous one.

shit poster that comes to mind is Count Dankula. The moment we saw the story, I was like, oh, we got to do Dankula. We got to do an opening bit showing Dankula getting arrested. Because in the UK, they don't have free speech. And if you post naughty words on the internet, they will lock you up. Now, check this out. From the New York Post, Grammy-winning rock star stuns Carolyn Leavitt with free speech question.

Interesting. They say Winston Marshall, the former banjoist with British folk group Mumford and Sons, called on President Trump to grant asylum to his fellow countrymen and women who faced prosecution over hate speech in the UK.

Let's go. I say not even grant asylum. I say mandate kept like, OK, Trump. I want special forces capturing several British individuals and bringing them here. OK, so we're going to get the Lotus Eaters podcast, Carl Benjamin by force, just forced relocation here to the United States. Congratulations here, American Count Dankula. We're in the troops. We're bringing you here.

And of course, Tommy Robinson should be granted asylum. That's more serious. I mean, I'm kidding about, you know, kidnapping Carl and Dank and sending him over. But Tommy Robinson legit needs asylum over what he's talking about, because this is no joke. They're going to mention that Marshall left the band in 2021. He claimed that people in his country faced extensive prison sentences for tweets, social media posts and general free speech issues before ramping up to his question. Quote,

Would the Trump administration consider asylum for British citizens in such a situation? Asked Marshall, who now hosts his own podcast, The Winston Marshall Show, for which I recently appeared on. Winston Marshall is a scholar and a gentleman. He is a he's a smart guy. He stood up for himself. I believe the issue with Winston. He read Andy Ngo's book, Heaven's Me, and the band booted him out.

Or he ended up leaving. I don't remember the specific details, but it's a messy story and it is BS. But dude has not backed down and he's continually asked these questions and pushed forward.

Levitt appeared taken aback by the question. I have not heard that proposed to the president, nor have I spoken to him about that idea. But I can certainly talk to our national security team and see if it's something the administration would entertain. Let's go. Who do I got to call right now? I'm going to call the White House, call somebody and be like, let's create that pathway. First and foremost, Tommy Robinson has been maligned, defamed, smeared,

And he's not done anything in his political career. Look, by all means, if you want to argue that he got into a fight with a guy, those things are bad. Yeah, but come on. Locking the dude in solitary confinement for his political activism. And you know, that's what they're doing. You know, that's what they're doing. I say, let's give this guy an opportunity to speak his mind free from the confines of the corrupt British system.

Trump should absolutely. If there is someone in the UK who is facing criminal prosecution who wants asylum, I say yes. Now, understand, this does not mean you're going to get a whole lot of them. A lot of these people in the UK, they'll post something like, oh, no, the Pakistani rape gangs were targeting children and they get arrested for it.

I doubt they're going to want to give up their homes, their money, their resources and everything over what may be a relatively light but still bad jail sentence. And I know people are going to say light. I look somebody who gets like a year in jail in the UK may not be willing to give up their entire life, their country and everything they believe in. But there are some people I do believe should be given the opportunity to live freely in these United States. That's what it's all about, baby.

Telling the British you are welcome here in these United States because your country is oppressive. That's the tradition, ain't it? They're going to mention that Marshall 37 was kicked out of Mumford and Sons over his criticism of COVID lockdowns he previously wrote. He shared his support for the book Unmasked by Andy Ngo in March of 2021. Over 24 hours, it was trending with tens of thousands of angry retweets and comments. He wrote for a column. His former bandmates headlined a swanky $50,000 per ticket fundraiser for the Democrats in the Hamptons last August.

in Tim Waltz's first appearance in the campaign trail. Wow. Marshall left music and wanted to create a podcast, Marshall Matters, for The Spectator, a conservative British publication owned by his father, Sir Paul Marshall. Wow. Wow. That worked out really well for him. The Spectator? That's a big publication. I'm a fan.

When an online shopper places an order, how that package arrives matters. I'm Al Coe, the CEO of ShipStation. Our promise is to make that process as easy as possible for you. ShipStation provides a robust platform to manage everything you sell, automate manual shipping tasks, and get the lowest possible carrier rates. Keep your team and your customers happy. Go to ShipStation.com to sign up for your free trial. That's ShipStation.com.

He appeared in the White House briefing room on Monday as one of the recipients of the new media seat now placed there. I believe this was actually a special room they did, though. But his appearance polarized opinions online between those who welcomed the space for alternative media and others who questioned what expertise he had. He is a cultural influencer. He is also a scholar, legitimately a learned man. OK, but more importantly, he has been through the ringer.

On these cultural issues, standing up for what he believed in and trying to compromise and still being attacked. And he decided to stand up and use what influence he had and keep the ship sailing. I respect Winston tremendously for everything. So you want to question his experience? Yeah, he's a cultural influencer of tremendous weight. Grammy award winning rock star from a massive band who was targeted with cancel culture and has now created a podcast called

where he is examining and exploring cultural issues for which he's a tremendous influence and asking questions particularly related to what he went through. How dare you? They say he absolutely destroyed Nancy Pelosi in an Oxford Union debate about populism. And this is a valid question watching what's going on in the UK, wrote one user. Thank you for raising this important issue. Winston Marshall is fabulous, true patriot. Gave up his lucrative profession to fight for conservative views. Yeah, patriot for what, the UK? I mean, yeah.

Others were less kind. Retired banjo player Winston Marshall asking the White House to offer political asylum to British bigots. Sure. Don't care. I'll take it. That well-known British reporter and member of the White House press press pool, Winston Aubrey Aladar DeBalkin Marshall. Another clip that X referencing Marshall's full name, which reflects his family's roots in France, Hungary and Romania. Are they seriously just insulting him over his name? Is that really his name? I don't care.

Marshall was the latest public figure to accuse authorities in the UK of using hate crime definitions to clamp down on free speech. It comes after the arrest of pro-life campaigner Adam Smith Connor in 23 after he refused to leave a safe zone around an abortion clinic. They legit arrested a woman for praying in her own mind. Now, I think a lot of people aren't going to want to abandon the UK, but of the people who are facing serious targeting and attacks, maybe they really want to. Maybe they want to say, you know what?

I don't want to leave my country, but I have no choice. And in those instances, I welcome these individuals. 100%. You know, Carl Benjamin, good friend. He doesn't really have opinions that cross the line. If he did, they'd lock him up.

He's a pretty moderate guy, and they need those voices to win back the UK and push back against that tide. If reasonable people like him were to leave the UK and take asylum deal or something, the UK would be worse off and we want them to win. But that being said, there are some people that are facing criminal charges for B.S. reasons. And if their life would be upended and destroyed and they have nowhere to go, then I say we take them.

Quote, we have a quarter of a million people issued non-hate crime incidents since Smith-Connor's arrest, Marshall claimed. In the year following, I'm sorry, in the year ending March of 24, 140,561 hate crimes were recorded by police in England and Wales, down slightly on the 147,000, jeez, hate crimes reported in the previous year.

By far, the largest number of hate crimes arrests were race related, followed by sexual orientation, disability, religion and transgender related hate crimes. Here's a comment. This is a good one. I left the UK 12 years ago, unhappy with the government's incursion into every aspect of life. Woke started there years before it came to the US. It used to be the land of outrageously free speech and practice, if not in law. My friends tell me it's become a big brother nightmare there now. That's really sad to hear.

One person is happening here as well. Maine state rep was censured in March by Dem controlled state Congress because she has spoken out against men and women's sports. The speaker of the House in Maine has stated she cannot speak or vote when the Congress in session unless she recants total dictatorship, speech control in the state, not allowing her to vote, disenfranchises her constituents, leaving them with no representation. The entire district should refuse to pay any state taxes. Wow. No taxes without representation. No taxation. No taxation.

Shout out to Winston Marshall and Marshall Matters. I respect it. And I say, let's roll, baby. I'm gonna wrap it up there. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Thank you all so much for hanging out. And we'll see you tonight at Timcast IRL. We'll see you then. I'm no tech genius, but I knew if I wanted my business to crush it, I needed a website now. Thankfully, Bluehost made it easy. I customized, optimized, and monetized everything exactly how I wanted with AI. In minutes, my site was up. I couldn't believe it.

The search engine tools even helped me get more site visitors. Whatever your passion project is, you can set it up with Bluehost. With their 30-day money-back guarantee, what do you got to lose? Head to Bluehost.com. That's B-L-U-E-H-O-S-T dot com to start now.

Attention sports enthusiasts. Keep the adrenaline pumping and elevate your game day with Chumba Casino. It's completely free to play. No purchase necessary. Whether you're cheering from the stands, on the move, or relaxing at home, Chumba Casino brings the thrill of social casino directly to your fingertips. Experience the ultimate social casino adventure with reels of casino-style games, offering hundreds of exciting options to choose from and fresh new releases every week. There's always something new and thrilling to explore. From

action-packed social slots, and classic blackjack to engaging bingo and solitaire. The fun never stops. Plus, enjoy generous daily login bonuses and a fantastic free welcome bonus to kickstart your social gaming journey. Dive into the excitement. Discover a world where you can play for your chance to redeem some serious prizes and have a blast along the way. Don't miss out. What are you waiting for?

Join now and immerse yourself in nonstop fun and adventure with Chumba Casino. Get in on the action today at chumbacasino.com and make every day a Chumba day. No purchase necessary. VGW group void. We're prohibited by law. 18 plus DNC supply.

Life can be chaotic. If you're running a retail business, don't let disorganized order fulfillment add to the chaos. Use ShipStation instead. With ShipStation, you never have to worry about shipping and fulfillment again. Whether you're running a business out of your garage or you have multiple warehouses, ShipStation is ideal for every phase of your business's growth.

Save time with one login for all your stores and by automating repetitive tasks. Plus, you'll save money with the best shipping rates from global carriers. ShipStation's industry-leading features help you deliver a better customer experience. They'll get accurate and faster shipments along with automated tracking updates with your branding. And with up to 88% off UPS and USPS rates and up to 90% off FedEx rates, ShipStation is the fastest and most affordable way to ship.

Calm the chaos. Switch to ShipStation today. Start a free trial at ShipStation.com slash audio. That's ShipStation.com slash audio.