Trump WINS American Approval After Speech, Democrats PANIC As Party COLLAPSING, Dem Voters QUIT
02:10:50 Share

Last night, Donald Trump gave his not State of the Union, State of the Union. Now, normally would have been a State of the Union address if he served consecutive terms. But because it's the second non-consecutive presidency in U.S. history, they're calling it an address to a joint session of Congress. My friends, it was an amazing speech. It was one of the best presidential addresses I have ever seen in my life. It was it was the best. Just just hands down.

It was the most raucous, politically divisive and just outright crazy. It was not a good night for Democrats. Donald Trump says we want to balance the budget. Not a not a peep from Democrats. Donald Trump says we have captured violent murderers, not a peep. We've captured violent terrorists who killed American troops, not a peep. Donald Trump says we will no longer allow

These criminal cartel members to come in and harm our families. Not a peep. He called out to a 13 year old child who survived brain cancer. And he said, we are going to make you an honorary Secret Service agent, not a peep from Democrats. That was their plan. Save one moment. When Donald Trump said we have spent upwards of three hundred and fifty billion dollars funding a war in Ukraine, Democrats erupted.

It's fascinating. Trump didn't say we are fighting Putin. He didn't say we're here to save the Ukrainian people. He said we spent hundreds of billions on their country and Democrats started clapping and Trump paused and waited. And he said, do you want this to keep going on for another five years? And apparently it's been reported. Elizabeth Warren, we have the video, said yes. The only time Democrats cheered.

was for a foreign country and not for this country, not for securing our borders, not for bringing down prices, not for arresting criminals, not for securing. And let me just stress the lowest border, illegal border crossings in history, in history, nothing. They don't care about this country. And the polling shows that my friends wait till you see this. It is not just that the YouGov data says the Americans loved Trump's speech.

They said they're hopeful. They said they feel pride. No, it's actually that Democrats have checked out completely. Now, CBS, you gov is trying to defend why nobody in a representative sample of this country identified as Democrat. No, no, no. Hold on there. Let me say that again. You heard me right. When they pulled a you gov representative sample of this country, they found only 20 percent Democrats.

And they say, but that's normal. That's normal. Oh, yeah. Well, I pulled up the data from the last address by Biden. It ain't normal. They're lying. Or are they going to come out and say, well, last year was different. That was an anomaly. No, the reality is when you pull a representative sample, you are supposed to balance for whether it's Democrat or conservative, which was what the polls are supposed to do. We found Democrats, independents, Republicans, Democrats,

representative sample of this country based on the percentage of votes and things of this nature, and then ask them how they thought about the speech. So if you're trying to, oh, but what happened when they pulled a nationally representative sample, they found no Democrats. That's right. The Democratic Party represents nothing. They come out and they say they defend women while voting against protecting women against men. The American people can see this. It's fascinating to me.

As I've brought up quite a bit, these progressive Democrats who used to scream about the military industrial complex now support it. Well, because Ukraine, I guess.

Can't give us a real reason why they do. Sure, whatever. I oppose the war in Iraq. I oppose the war in Afghanistan. I oppose the war in Syria. I opposed the extrajudicial assassinations of Barack Obama. And I oppose the war in Ukraine. Why? Because they don't ever give us legitimate reasons for our incursions into foreign countries. And I largely oppose foreign interventionist policies, be it Donald Trump or whoever else who is doing the right thing. They will get credit for this.

Democrats do not operate largely, not all, but largely as a party and their personalities on principle. They operate on party. So when the Democratic Party says they are for war, you get your progressive personalities lining up to back the military industrial complex. Fascinating, isn't it? Hypocrites, I say.

And the American people can see it. And that's why they are abandoning the Democrats in huge numbers. Don't get me wrong. The Democrats still have a large party. They still a lot of people. But take a look at the voter registrations. Take a look at Florida, Pennsylvania and now New Jersey shifting rightward. We've got a couple of clips. We'll add to context, add context to this, to the speech. Stephen Smith says on The View, it was 86 percent of counties shifted rightward.

Trump won every swing state. This is a mandate. And then we get bitter and angry. Karine Jean-Pierre saying, no, it isn't. It's not a mandate because his popular margin was low.

Let's see how things go in the midterms, honestly, because who knows? Democrats may see a rebound. We will see. Trump's got to get a handle on this economy. He's got the border. That was one of the big issues for the American people. But the economy is a big issue, too. And the economy ain't doing so well. I think Trump is desperately trying to stop this war in Ukraine, knowing doing so is going to benefit the American economy. Plus the tariffs, short term pain, long term gain.

Let's see if this plays out well, because if in the next year this pain that is brought on by the tariffs resolves into long term satisfaction and a booming economy, Trump's going to win. Republicans going to win the midterms. But I'll tell you this, my friends, before we get started, I got a few humble requests of you. You can check out cast brew coffee dot com. We have a bunch of delicious coffee. Appalachian Nights. Ian's Graphene Dream will be in stock, I believe, tomorrow. So but everybody loves it.

We also have Rise with Roberto Jr. And you got to sample them all, man. You got to try every single one. Phil's Holiday Blend Gingerbread. And we've got Focus with Mr. Bocas for those who like espresso. And Misty Mountain's Costa Rican Blend.

Don't forget to become a premium member of Rumble. Go to TimCastPremium.com and I'll send you right to Rumble where you can sign up using promo code TIM10 and you'll get access to all of our members-only exclusive premium content. The Green Room Podcast. Look at all these episodes you're missing out on. Behind the scenes, we're goofing off, we're talking, it's uncensored. I can't even tell you some of the things that were said in these. It's not family-friendly, we'll put it like that. And of course...

Smash the like button right now. Give me your comments. Guys, engaging is everything. Share the show right now if you're watching live or otherwise. Take the URL, post it. Word of mouth is how podcasts grow. You wonder why these podcasts, other podcasts, are the biggest shows in the world? It's because their fans love it that much. And perhaps we'll never be the biggest. But I'll tell you this, if everybody watching right now

who liked this show, I mean, if you don't like it, I guess, shared it on social media. And this I can tell you that most people don't share. But if literally everybody watching shared, two, three million views instantly. Biggest show in the world overnight. So if you guys really want to support the show, that's one way to do it.

Let's let's jump to the story, starting with the polling. And again, smash that like button and we'll get we'll get a good poll in there for you. We'll get in a second. I want to figure out a good question. Ask you guys. We'll start with CBS News. And the first thing I want to show you, show you all is how the Democratic Party has collapsed. I understand you like what Trump had to say. We're going to break down a lot of what was said and where we're currently at with the Democratic Party. But let me just first show you the first caveat that CBS introduces, which is a lie.

A manipulation at the very least. Take a look at this. A large majority of speech watchers approved of what they heard from President Trump's joint address to Congress Tuesday night. Really? Well, I thought that was big news when I saw this. 76% approve, 23% disapprove. And with everyone showing that, I said, wow, Trump's approval rating is very good. But then you gov when you pull up the CBS article caveats with this.

The viewership was heavily Republican. Historically, a president's party draws more of their own partisans. This was no exception. And they liked what they heard. And I thought to myself, that can't be true. Republicans watch the news all the time. 51% of viewers were Republican.

Twenty seven percent were independents. Twenty percent were Democrats. And so I said to myself, well, of course, Trump's going to end up getting a massive approval. It's largely Republican. He's going to win the Republicans, very few Democrats and many independents. So that means the rest of the poll is pointless. It means nothing.

It's actually not true because I actually went and pulled up the previous year's polling to check to see if what they were saying was true. And oh, boy, are they lying? Now, what they say is this CBS News YouGov survey interviewed a nationally representative sample of speech watchers immediately following the president's address to Congress. Heaven's me.

So the 76 approval rating means nothing. You basically said, did you watch and were you Republican? And if the answer was yes, of course you liked it. Okay, let's go back in time. I'll take you through a time machine called the internet. And we'll take a look at this from March 7th, 2024. That's right. The same address around the same time one year prior. And let's take a look at how they addressed this. CBS News poll finds most Americans see State of the Union as divided, but their economic outlook has been improving.

So when it was Biden one year ago, they didn't get the overwhelming support. Now, hold on there. Gosh, darn minute. CBS, you told me that historically a president brings more of their own partisans. That would indicate that every every state of the union or joint congressional address from the president would end up skewing in favor of the president's party. This was divided. Well, let's take a look at how they broke this one down.

CBS News asked Americans over the past week if you could give the State of the Union, if you could give the State of the Union, which would you say describes the country today? We received some negative evaluations. Divided. Fewer Americans picked strong, prospering, or united. Democrats and Republicans described the country as divided. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Do they mention how they polled a national sample? Take a look at this. This is among Biden. The state of the country is 61% divided, 45% declined.

declining, 37% weak. Where's the I approve or disapprove? State of the country among Democrats divided. State of the country divided, declining, weak. Republicans said so. Democrats said divided, declining, 25% said strong. They like Biden.

Things in America today are going well, going badly. Americans do tell us they would prefer to see the president speak more to the nation rather than less. OK, now hold on there a minute. Where's the data on whether the people watching were Democrat or Republican? Look, when CBS pulled this poll, they say speech made you feel hopeful, proud. In speech, Trump was among watchers. Does Trump have a clear plan on inflation? Trump's plan, blah, blah, blah. Trump described crime problems. These are different polls. These are different.

They're talking more about how you feel about Trump. They say a survey based on who watched Trump. Now, this they put out from YouGov around the same time. Take a look at this. When you go to their the data here, this is what I found really interesting. All right. I can grab any one of these and check it. Check out party ID. When they did this poll on Biden's address, it was split.

600 Republicans, 603 Republicans, 655 Democrats. And sure, you can see that the polls skew. Now, this one isn't directly addressing his State of the Union, although I mean, they are. Look at this CBS News poll. So this is the issue I take. If they want to put another poll saying, how did you feel about the State of the Union? It's fine. CBS News poll finds most Americans see State of the Union as divided, but their economic outlook has been improving.

They're talking about Biden's performance. And they did pull a they pulled everybody evenly when it comes to how people are being asked about Trump's whether or not he did well. They're outright saying, well, you know, most people were Republican who watched.

So I call shenanigans. I call shenanigans on putting this in the forefront, negating their entire poll. I don't trust them. I don't. Well, I do certainly agree. OK, let's be fair. Obviously, Democrats are largely going to check out when it comes to Republican. But I just never believe that Republicans would check out of watching Biden. They're they're they're tuned in.

I say shenanigans to CBS, putting this in the forefront right before the whole poll, which gives Democrats an out to say, well, of course, Republicans liked it. Democrats didn't even watch. I say this. I say this. They could have polled how Democrats felt about this. They could have polled a nationally representative sample of all Americans and not chosen to do 51. They could have skewed it. They could have said, no, no.

We don't want just Republicans. We don't want no Democrats. We understand Republicans may watch more. Let's get a politically representative national sample of this in which they would have found perhaps different numbers. But what they did was they said it was mostly Republicans who watch. So that's it. Their polls worthless. It's completely worthless. And their past polls are also worthless because they play the same game.

So the State of the Union, you could poll people and you can ask them about how they feel about it. But what does it matter? You could say, Democrats, how do you feel about the State of the Union? And then say, as Democrats are more likely to. But no, that's ridiculous. Everybody's sharing this and they're acting like it's a big deal when the reality is, I would say most people did like Trump's speech, especially most people watched it. I think what they're actually seeing here and the reason I bring up these polls, Democrats are checked out. OK, so.

There's only so many lies you can maintain. I think the reality is Democrats largely didn't watch the State of the Union because they're not Democrats anymore. That's the reality. You tell me this. You've got massive protests. You've got Democrats waving signs and screaming about egg prices. You've got coordinated campaigns where 22 Democrat senators go online and post the same video and they don't watch Trump's speech.

I thought the Trump bump boosted CNN's ratings, but Democrats didn't watch Trump's speech. I don't believe it for a second. You gov could have pulled it if they did. And the reason they put it up this way, I think it's because Democrats are checked out. And that's where we're at. Now we can jump over to just the news. They say Trump's big speech proves to be optics nightmare for Democrats. I got to admit, my friends, I've got some stuff to show you that will shock you to your core. You had a woman on MSNBC.

I can't believe I'm saying this. A 13 year old kid who dreams of being a cop who survived brain cancer. They thought he wouldn't make it. And Trump honored him at the State of the Union. It's not really State of the Union, but it kind of is. And it was it was it was amazing. I mean, they clapped and they cheered for him. His dad lifted him up. And Trump said, you are going to be sworn in as a Secret Service agent. That's amazing. It's honorary. Little kid's not going to be doing much. It'll be interesting to see what happens when he's older, when they're like, you're already an agent. You're here. He gets a job.

Democrats didn't clap and cheer for this for this kid. And after the fact, MSNBC said she hopes he doesn't kill himself. I kid you not. I kid you not. In one of the most vile and disgusting things you could ever imagine. She says he doesn't he doesn't kill himself. Are these have these people lost their minds? Look, MSNBC's ratings are in the gutter. I understand liberal podcasts are enjoying a big boost right now.

But I got to say, Trump has a mandate. Regular Americans are sick of the psychotic, histrionic behavior from Democrat personalities and politicians. You can only push it so far. The majority of Americans, I think the latest poll that they've been praying around, something like 82% of Americans, or I think it's like 80, think males should not compete against females. Democrats, despite that overwhelming majority, have maintained a position that males should in fact.

Who? Why? Well, look, man, by all means, if you want to if you want to advocate for transgender biologically male athletes competing in women's sports, you're free to do so if that's what you care about. And they'll argue it's the right thing. Fine. But understand that means people will quit the party and check out.

So I'll go back. When I look at the polls that they do and they're polling Americans, they don't need when they say we polled a representative sample of who watched. We found out most of our Republicans. So Democrats have checked out. But that's tends to be the case. That's not you could you could do a poll where you could poll Democrats if you wanted to.

I think they're playing games. I think they realize the Democratic Party is getting obliterated. I think they've realized that when something like 80, 86 percent of counties swing to the right, when Pennsylvania registers more Republicans, Scott Pressler, shout out Florida and New Jersey, when Miami turns red and that happened in the midterm, it's fair to say the Democratic Party is in free fall and they will not course correct. So, yeah,

Big optics nightmare for Democrats. Let's start with Al Green losing his mind. Check this out. Most of you probably saw it. Let's watch it. So it's single largest one month gain ever recorded a 41 point jump. Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions. That's your warning. There's Al Green.

He wants it now. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant at arms to restore order to the joint session. Mr. Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir. He won't do it. Take your seat. I think he yelled, there's no mandate. Did you see that? Did you see that? J.D. Vance. Watch J.D. Vance. There it is. Out of there. I think he said, come on. Put his thumb up. Get out.

Reminded that members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum. The chair now directs the sergeant at arms to restore order. What a wild thing to watch, man. Remove this gentleman from the chamber. There he goes. He's out. These people are nuts, man. They are absolutely nuts. Al Green comes out, doubles down on impeaching Donald Trump, telling reporters it was worth it. Sir, what were you shouting to the president? The president said he had a mandate.

And I was making it clear to the president that he has no mandate to get Medicaid. I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people. And they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their health care.

And I want him to know that his budget calls for deep cuts in Medicaid. No, it doesn't. He needs to save Medicaid, protect it. We need to raise the cap on Social Security. There's a possibility that it's going to be hurt. And we've got to protect Medicare. These are the safety net programs that people in my congressional district depend on. And this president...

seems to care less about them and more about the number of people that he can remove from the various programs that have been sold out. No, he's just trying to get re-elected. Is yelling at him the best way to get it across? It is the best way to get it across.

He's going to go to his district and say Trump wants take away your Medicaid and Social Security, which Trump has said he's not going to do. In fact, Trump likely would increase it. No one's stupid enough to try and make that move politically. That being said, Trump's not running for reelection. He's going to go back and say, I stood up to Trump and they threw me out because Trump wants to take away your Medicaid. That's that's that's what politics is. These people do very little. They don't even show up for floor votes or I should say they don't show up for votes until it's called to the floor and they're forced to and they get real mad about it.

So this guy says there's no mandate. All right. Let me see if I can pull up the video on. Yes. Where do I have this? Where's the yes, there is a mandate video. I pulled it up somewhere. How do I not have it? What am I doing over here? Here we go. We got it for you, ladies and gentlemen. We got it for you. It's only been in office for six weeks. Seems like six years, doesn't it? And he's been going around with his cronies touting his so-called landslide and blowout win. But he won the popular vote by one.

point five percent, one of the smallest ever. And he won the general election by less than 50 percent. So what kind of mandate is this really? It is a mandate. And I'm going to explain why. And I don't mind the question. But let me be very clear. I'm no supporter of Trump. I'm a supporter of truth and the facts. And here's the facts.

The man won every swing state. He increased in terms of his voter turnout in his favor from the standpoint of blacks, Latinos and young voters. He increased his numbers in that regard from 2020. Eighty nine percent of the county shifted to the right.

That's a mandate. We can sit up there and play around all we want to. In 2020, Trump didn't win the popular vote. He didn't win the electoral college vote. A matter of fact, the Republicans hadn't won the popular vote, if I remember correctly, since 2004. But they did this year. So 20 years after.

After they last won a popular vote, they won the popular vote. They won the electoral college vote. The mayor won every swing state. And on top of it all, 89% of the counties shifted gifts. I don't understand how people can look at that and say, there's no mandate. There's a mandate. Well, it's a different definition of a mandate, I guess. A different definition. But the problem is that if you're the Democratic Party and you lost 49.8% to 48.3% and you're looking at that 1.5% dip, that's an excuse for you to say, what we did really wasn't that bad. We should continue to do that.

No, don't continue to do it. Find a new strategy.

I hope they do continue to do that. And I'll give a shout out to our good friend, Corrine Jean-Pierre, who is now unemployed. I'm kidding. I don't know if she's actually unemployed. Maybe she got a job somewhere. But she's no longer in the White House. And she said there is no mandate. Speaking on, she gave a post-election analysis saying that there was no mandate. Washington Examiner is not going to give us the full story. But I do want to find the video for you. I'll pull it up on X because X always has the good videos. I got to tell you guys, it

It used to be that you had to find videos on like weird sites because like YouTube wouldn't have it. But now you go on X and you know the video will pop right up. And what do we got? Libs of TikTok here. Kareem Jean-Pierre, where is this? Are they going to play the video? Joy has the first question, but you, when Steven was leaving. Here we go. She said, nice to meet you. Joy has the first question, but you. Oh, it's really hard to see, huh?

When Stephen was leaving, she said, nice to meet you, nice to meet you. I disagree with you. Yes, I do. And I was curious. I do. I do. On the mandate, on Donald Trump and his administration having a mandate. And we have to be super mindful and careful of this because he does not have a mandate. And what I mean by that is if you look at the numbers, just look at the facts, he

He won with the smallest margin of the popular vote since the 19th century. There was no coattail, meaning that it is the house is at a razor thin, razor thin. And he is about he's on his way in the first hundred days to be the most unpopular president in their first hundred days. I'm going to pause you right there. You see, she's cherry picking. Donald Trump is enjoying the best aggregate approval rating of his career.

And she said the first hundred days because she knows he's actually doing pretty well. Does it matter if he has both houses of Congress and the White House? It does matter because right now we have what we're seeing in this administration is he's taking a wrecking ball to the government. And what that means, and so that people really understand as folks are sitting here and watching, he is there are folks who have been fired from the federal government and now

Is our water safe? Right. Is our food safe? The sky. And the skies, right? We have to worry about getting on a plane. Is that going to be safe? Is there going to be a pandemic? And not only that. That's racist, Karine Jean-Pierre. You can't say that you're worried about getting on planes. That's racist. Because, you know, all these pilots are DEI, right? Their social security check? Yeah. Are you going to get it? Yeah.

Yeah. See, none of that actually addresses the issue that Stephen Smith brought up. There is a mandate. There is saying we're concerned about the skies or we're concerned about food safety does not mean anything. The question is, did Donald Trump win the House? Did he win the Senate? Did he win the executive branch? Yes. And this is an American population that knows full well, knows that you've got a conservative Supreme Court. So with Democrats screaming all day and night,

I tell you this, that Trump speech, if you take CBS News, YouGov at their word and just say, ignore the fact they couldn't find Democrats. Let's entertain the plausible scenario that they couldn't find the Democrats. They've done polls where they've been politically representative and they decided this time around it wouldn't be. Why?

Shouldn't they give us not just generic speech watchers if they let me tell you, if CBS, YouGov knows or claims that it's always skewed in this direction, shouldn't they then said we we polled based on political affiliation proportionate to the nation, not just who watched it? They're basically telling you their polls are worthless. But let's entertain the real possibility.

It's that there's no Democrats. It's that the Democratic Party is a weird fringe crackpot ideology. And so when they actually tried looking for it, they were like, we can't find any Democrats. They're not answering polls. They're tuned out. They're checked out. They quit. They're gone. I think that is the reality, my assessment. And that's largely why Trump won.

I have friends who, uh, yo, this is, I'll tell you the crazy thing. I've got progressive leftist friends that I've known for a long time who told me they're not progressive anymore. And they've, oh, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not like that. And I'm like, what? I'm like, bro, I've seen your posts on Facebook. I know what you're saying. And they're like, yeah, well, the Democrats. And I'm like, dang, these Bernie Sanders people that I know, they're like, the woke stuff has gone too far and they're scared to be associated with it. It's not just, uh,

That people looked at the Democratic Party and said, yo, these people have gone nuts. I believe a large component is that a lot of people are checked out. They don't feel represented at all. While there are certainly some people being like Democrats have gone politically nuts. I do think another component is they're embarrassed to be seen with a loser party of insane ideas.

So you take a look at what we just saw. And let me play this clip for you, which should it's I'm sorry. This is shocking and offensive from MSNBC. This is what's her name? Nicole Wallace, I believe her name is. Nicole Wallace should apologize for what she said about this 13 year old boy. This this kid right here, you see him during Trump's address to the joint session of Congress. This little boy was dressed up like a police officer.

When he was, I believe it was seven years ago, he was diagnosed with brain cancer, 2018, and they said he would die and he survived. And it was his dream to be a cop. Noble. He's been made an honorary officer. They said, I think 900 times. All these departments are saying we're giving you an honorary status. He can't do anything. He's a little kid.

And Trump held him up. He got a Secret Service badge. He's an honorary agent of the Secret Service. It's heartwarming. It's how we inspire younger generations to believe in your dreams, to fight, never give up. And man, it warmed my heart to see that proud dad with a big old smile on his face holding up his son. Man, that must be a proud dad right there. A grateful dad who almost lost his son. I could not imagine.

Here's Nicole Walsh from MSNBC. And finding one thing that you let yourself feel. And I let myself feel joy about DJ. And I hope he's alive for another, you know, 95 years. And I hope he lives an honor.

What a...

vile scumbag. Holy crap, man. There is some degree of decorum we're supposed to have in this country. But this evil witches, psychotic histrionics cannot just for one second calm down and let a child celebrate a moment. These people are unhinged. Absolutely insane.

They cannot. They can't stop. They won't stop. And this is why I'm telling you they're in collapse. I got to give a shout out to Anna Kasparian for one of the best tweets. You know, she's she's come around, huh? Based. Excellent tweet, Anna. Ken Klippenstein said congressional Democrats expressing opposition to Trump by holding up little signs that say things like Musk steals and falls. False.

I don't even know what you're referring to. Here's Rashida Tlaib with a little white board saying that's a lie. Save Medicaid. Musk steals. OK, first of all, the Republicans have never said that they're going to cut Medicaid. To be fair, it's fine to be concerned that cuts may hit Medicaid and Social Security. But they're acting like and they say this all the time that Trump is going to do it. Republicans are going to do it.

By all means, if they come out and said, I'll tell you what I think is fair. I'll tell you from my point of view. The Doge team is going into government agencies and they are looking for ways to cut spending. And our concern here is one of two things. First, you know, I could save the Democratic Party. I'm telling you, because here's how I do it.

I think Elon Musk is a smart guy. I think he's done tremendous things. Clearly, he's helped Donald Trump massively. And so you got to respect that. Respect doesn't mean like you respect the power behind the moves that he's making. Don't underestimate these people.

Now, Doge is going in and they're cutting government spending. Who disagrees? Right. On the surface, we are all grateful that wasteful spending is being cut because we want that money to go towards Social Security. Imagine if we could make sure our elderly citizens and those who are dependent on Medicare and Social Security were getting more money. The concern is there have been instances and this is true where cuts have been made.

Because they did a broad brushstroke and then they realized they made a mistake and had to turn around and correct that. That's that's the first fear. That's the reasonable fear that when it comes to people, Social Security and Medicaid, there may be an inadvertent broad brushstroke that interrupts, drops or cuts or causes confusion among those who are in desperate need of Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security. I think that's a legitimate fear. Now, the second fear would be that while the Republicans are saying they don't want to cut it.

They end up cutting it anyway. That being said, we're going to make sure we keep pressure on this government so they do not cut these programs people so desperately need. And I'll tell you this personally, and I mean this sincerely, I actually believe this. I'm not a big fan of a system, the Social Security system. I believe the families should be taking care of their parents. I think that family structure is important.

When you're a baby, your parents take care of you and change your diapers. You get older, you have a kid, the family works together and the grandparents help. And then when the, when your parents are getting old, you change their diapers. You probably don't have to for a long time. For the most part, even if they are incontinent or whatever, they can change their own diapers. They're adults, but the kids then take care of their parents in their citizens. That's what we do. And we built this system where we just give money to people and forget about them. I think it's disgusting.

But I think those fears are fine. The problem is they don't articulate these things. The Democrats don't know how to come out and make a legitimate argument as to what their fears really are in a reasonable way that can be attractive to Americans to actually address the problems. So I'll tell you this. If there actually was a left, it is where you and I are when we say things like, I don't believe they're going to cut Medicaid and Social Security, but let's make sure we keep pressure on Trump so that they don't.

It's that simple. If we do not, as people who voted for Trump, maintain that pressure, it won't happen. Take a look at there was that guy who got appointed to the DEA in Florida. I think it was DEA, right? And there was a massive campaign saying this guy shut down a church and arrested a pastor. Don't hire him. So Trump said, you're out.

That's what I'm talking about. The opposition exists and it exists amongst people who voted for Donald Trump and are going to make sure they hold him to his word. So we want the Epstein files and we're pissed about it. And the pressure is on when the Democrats come out. False. It just says false. The science is false. I have no idea what you're saying.

We say that we want to protect women. And so Trump says, you've got the family of Lake and Riley, and we're making sure that we're going to keep out these violent criminals, the cartels, the evil gang members, the rapists. Democrats don't care. They say, here's a young woman, Trump, a young woman who was partially paralyzed after getting spiked in the face by with a volleyball by a male player. She's playing on a volleyball team. The dude, the male player jumped

Bam, the volleyball hit her in the face. She screams. I think it busted her nose and partially paralyzed her from the shock to her to her neck. I think she's largely OK now, but it ended her career. Democrats don't care. And so I don't see the Democratic Party is the true opposition to the Republicans. I don't. What I see is you've got the Ben Shapiro's and the Tim Poole's. Maybe not me, but you get the point. Maybe Jimmy Dore's.

You've got people I'd say I'm primal moderate. Jimmy's more of a leftist, but Jimmy's not woke and he's not establishment. So Jimmy is a guy who's in favor of universal health care. Clearly, it adds a bench appear or probably has choice words for him. But they find themselves strangely both being called the right, which makes no sense because I think the truth is Trump's opposition is.

supports him. And that these Democrats are are blind blanket zealots. They don't represent any real ideology. They don't represent any real opposition. There's no political philosophy here. They cheered only for Ukraine. Let's pull it up. Let's see what we got here. I tweeted this last night. The only time Democrats clap is for a foreign country, not for cutting waste, not for apprehending terrorists, not for protecting women, just Ukraine. It's a cult. Even balancing the budget. Trump said we're going to balance the budget.

No, no cheers for the Democrats. None. That's that to me is nuts. Autism Capital says Trump, the United States has sent hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine's defense with no security, no anything. Looks at Democrats. Do you want to keep this going for another five years? Warren says yes. Take a look at this clip. No end in sight. The United States has sent hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine's defense with no security, with no security.

The Democrats all start clapping and he paused. They keep going. Do you want to keep it going for another five years? Yeah. Yeah. You would say Pocahontas says yes. One of the most outrageous addresses states, whatever you want to call it, ever. And the craziest I have ever seen. Can we just stress that? I ask you, the American people who are watching this, do you know anybody? I mean, I know people who are like this.

For what purpose are we defending Ukraine? It's because it's a cult. I got to be honest. I've had conversations with look, their default liberals and then their cult members. There are moderates, conservatives, and then there are Trump cult members. It's real. The problem is the left cult says everyone on the right is in a Trump cult. That ain't true. I rag on Trump all the time about TikTok in particular. Trump deserves criticism because we had to keep him in line because he's a man of his word and he needs to know how we feel about things that works.

I, along with the moderates, the post-liberals and the we don't get along on everything. We don't. A lot of people are concerned about RFK Jr.'s abortion stance and environmental stance. But we form a coalition on the matters we want to win. That's the way it should be.

So I take a look at these Democrats. I got friends who are progressive. I was having a conversation with a liberal friend, but you got to understand default liberals, we call them. That was Andrew Breitbart called them that, default liberals. They are people who aren't really into politics and they just align liberal because they don't pay attention and they believe whatever the media tells them. Not so much they just blindly believe things, but they passively hear something. They assume it's true. They don't really look into it. So I was talking to some friends who I would call default liberal.

And they're just like, we got to protect Ukraine. Russia just does whatever they want. And I was like, why are we going to go protect Sudan next? We're going to go protect Pakistan and get involved in Pakistan, India. Are we going to go invade Georgia or Chechnya? No. So why Ukraine? No answer because there isn't one. Now, they like say like the Budapest Accords or I'm sorry, the Budapest Memorandum, which was never approved by Congress. And I'll give you this analogy.

My friends, if any one of your liberal aunts, because that's all it ever is, your aunt, you're only your aunt. I'm kidding. Anyone you ever know says we signed an agreement or we had an agreement that we would defend Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear weapons. And they did. Russia invaded. We must defend them. I say, OK, let's try this. And the analogy I gave last night for those that missed it. Let's say there is a cliff.

overlooking this big, beautiful lake, big, beautiful lake. It's a 30-foot drop, not the biggest cliff dive anyone's ever done. Scary, but easily doable. And you say, I make this promise to all of you that if bad people ever do bad thing, I am going to jump from this cliff into that lake, right? Now, you may be saying, Tim, what does a lake have to do with a war or conflict? Oh, it's really simple. 30 years later, let's look at it a couple different ways.

You're now 60 years old. Let's say you were 30 when you made the promise. And they're like, OK, the bad people are doing the thing you promised. Jump. And you're like, I'm 60 years old. I know 60 years old don't sound like that. I'm just kidding. But you're like, I'm an old man. I can't make that jump anymore. A promise made 30 years ago is no good 30 years later. OK, you may be saying, Tim, that doesn't work because we have young fighters and resources to do. OK, let's try this one.

It's some it's 30 years later. And you said, if at any point a bad person ever does anything bad, the next person physically capable who is part of our lifeguard, whatever, will jump in. 30 years later, the lake is completely dried and it's just jagged rocks down below. And you say, I'm not jumping into that. But you promised you would. Yeah. But that was when it was water. Now it's jagged rocks. OK.

The circumstances have changed substantially. A 30-year-old promise means nothing, especially considering it was never formalized by Congress. Not to mention, there was also a promise made by the U.S. that should East Germany fall and reunite with West Germany, NATO would not expand one inch to the east. Instead, NATO expanded into Estonia, Latvia, now Finland.

on the border of Russia in numerous areas to the point where Ukraine was actually on the verge of joining the EU, the Schengen zone, abandoning the Russian Trade Federation. Why is that a bad thing? Because Russia needs the Black Sea to transport fuel and trade goods through the Bosphorus Canal into the Mediterranean, through the Suez Canal into the Indian Ocean. And if they lose access to Sevastopol, which is Crimea, which is Ukraine,

then their economy is done. It's done. 60, 70 percent reduction collapse overnight. So this was always going to be the outcome if NATO tried expanding into Ukraine. And here we are. I am not defending Putin. He's a scumbag. He's a desk. He's a despot. He shouldn't remain in power the way he does. And the invasion was wrong. You lose.

Instead, he resorted to hot conflict. But I got to be honest, it's still none of our business. So I digress. Not to relitigate the history of Ukraine. Oh, boy, just get me riled up.

When they come to you and say, we have a 30 year old promise to defend Ukraine. Oh, 30 years. Is it possible that things have changed so substantially that it would be nigh impossible for us to maintain this position? As Trump pointed out, another five years. It's an unwinnable war. Either we go direct conflict, NATO v. Russia, when then Russia pulls in China and Iran. World War Three, baby. Or we say Ukraine is not a NATO ally, not NATO.

in the EU and we have no business pushing hundreds of billions of dollars into a conflict for which we benefit nothing. NATO does not need to keep expanding the way it does. And we don't need to shut Russia out from their trade routes. We want to. The American military industrial complex wants to do that. Sure. I mean, let's be real. We destroy Russia's economy, make them a vassal state, and we expand global influence. There is only one argument I accept on Ukraine. One.

If I was talking to a Democrat and they said, if we don't stop Putin in Ukraine, he'll invade Poland. I'll say that's stupid because he's already got access to Belarus, their allies and Belarus borders, Lithuania and Poland. And they've already got Russian troops in it and nuclear weapons. So he's already at the border of Poland.

Not to mention Kaliningrad is north of Poland and southwest of Lithuania, meaning Russia has direct land access to both of these countries and they're heavily militarized. They could slice a land bridge through Lithuania into Belarus and create a corridor where they could cause lots of problems. They don't need Ukraine. But I digress. There's only one argument I accept. If a Democrat said to me, it's because we want to expand Western NATO control militaristically for global dominion, I'd say, oh,

That I believe you're telling the truth on. I'm not for that. The reason why I say accept it is because all the arguments made about Ukraine make literally no sense. Now, when you see this video, as I've shown you of Trump, amazing saying you want to go for another five years, another five years. The Democrats don't know why they support Ukraine. They do it because they hate Trump. It makes literally no sense.

There are militaristic reasons why we're involved in Ukraine, largely energy. Cut off Russia from their main trade route into the Mediterranean, destroy their economy, force them to sell gas at discount prices to Europe, allowing Europe to grow and expand their economy, and then destroy Syria, build a cutter turkey pipeline, increase energy flow into Europe. Oh, baby, the European economic bloc will flourish. Flying cars, skyscrapers, you name it. Kidding, but something like that, I guess.

It's largely why we're there. It's to expand global dominion. It is to create, you know, I don't want to call it a one world government, but the Western bloc wants unipolar dominion. We don't want a world, and this is, I'll agree with this one. We don't want a unipolar, meaning a single global power in China. That's scary.

A multipolar world can be dangerous. That's what it was like during the Cold War. But it literally wasn't the end of the world. Now, there's fears it could be a lot of scary moments in the Cold War. There was one story where the false alarm was received on a Russian nuclear sub and protocol said fire retaliatory nukes. And I know the full story. I'm probably flubbing it. But there was like one officer was like, no, we won't do it. And then they averted a serious crisis. Could it could the false alarm could have resulted in

Russia and Soviet Union starting a nuclear war. I don't know if you guys have ever seen the film The Sum of All Fears. It's a good one. It's a good one. It is. It's old. Ben Affleck, Morgan Freeman, and a bunch of other people are in it. Basically what happens is a terrorist detonates a nuke in Baltimore. I'm sorry I'm spoiling a 23-year-old movie for you. Detonates a nuke in Baltimore, and the Russians are framed for it.

And so the U.S. government begins preparing retaliatory strikes. Russia sees America enter a war footing with bombers being dispatched and enters a war footing as well, creating the verge of nuclear annihilation. We don't want any of that. And it is so easy for it to happen. We are sitting on a dry bed, a dry forest bed of tinder, and all it takes is a single flicked cigarette.

the smallest of actions to create a massive global wildfire with Ukraine and Russia and Russia stating they would use nuclear weapons in the event they face an existential threat. Ukraine is that tinder bed. And if the U.S. and NATO send in troops to try and fight Russia and Russia says, I'm not stopping.

It escalates. And nuclear weapons are a real possibility. See, people seem to think that nuclear weapons means ICBMs. No, it can start with nuclear artillery. Strategic, tactical nuclear weapons. Nuclear artillery. This basically means nuclear warheads that are fitted to howitzers or things of that nature, which are lower yield but can be massively devastating and can scar the earth. Think about it. If it is true that Russia requires the Black Sea for a large portion of their trade and NATO successfully cuts them off from it,

Now, don't get me wrong. Russia, Russian territory is on the Black Sea, not just Crimea. But this would mean Russia would have to build a massive, like multi hundred million dollar port and relocate its military base. So it's not completely existential. But if Russia views this as a no go, we are not going to abandon our our naval base in Sevastopol. Then you're basically threatening nuclear war when you push this. I certainly hope we don't get there. But it seems like Democrats are pushing everything they can.

Take a look at this beautiful tweet from End Wokeness. Democrats kneeled, eulogized and cried for a violent criminal who died during an arrest. George Floyd. They refused to stand for Lake and Riley. Look, they hate this country. They don't care about America. They are zealous cultists. They do not have a unifying political ideology. That's why they simultaneously simultaneously say protect women, but then won't stand for a murdered woman. They're like, we got to protect women, not in sports and not from rapists. It's like, then what are you talking about?

Honestly, I got no idea because the ideology isn't there. So here we go, my friends. Let's see. We already played that. We got that one. Alyssa Slotkin responded. We'll play this clip. This is her response in this viral clip. She says this while we're on the subject of Elon Musk. Is there anyone in America who is comfortable with him and his gang of 20 year olds using their own computer servers to poke through your tax returns, your health information and your bank accounts? No oversight, no protections against cyber attack.

no guardrails on what they do with your private data. It's all not true. We need a more efficient government. You want to cut waste? I'll help you do it. But change doesn't need to be chaos. Change doesn't need to be chaos. I would just like to point this out to the Democrats and Alyssa Slotkin in her response. Can any one of you name the individuals who were previously going through our tax records and bank accounts and health records?

I'll wait. You can't. So when other government employees, they are these 20 year olds are are going through the information looking for fraud or whatever, and they're not really going through your tax returns, mind you. Why should I care?

When the bureaucratic system at like literally right now, the NSA is spying on me. I'm sure there's FBI agents watching this live stream. I guarantee it. Some of them are probably fans hanging out with Kash Patel, enjoying a nice morning scotch. It's a little early for that, boys. I'm kidding, by the way. Yeah, we're spying on all the time. They're spying on my text. They're spying on your browser history, my browser history. Boy, they're learning a lot if they're watching mine because it's all news articles. It's all it is. The only I live, eat and breathe the news. The only thing I'm ever reading.

And they're spying. And you want to come to me and say that Elon Musk has other government employees doing the same thing. I'm supposed to be mad about it. I ain't gonna be mad about it. But I'll tell you this. Democrats is unfavorable. Now, don't get me wrong. I pull this up and I hate to exclude the Republicans are also unfavorable. But I think largely the Democratic Party is burnt out. Elon Musk tweeted after tonight, I am increasingly convinced that we can get to 60 senators. And I agree with him.

I really do. I believe that he is correct in that Lakin Riley, her family was there at the State of the Union. They wouldn't clap. A 13 year old boy who survived brain cancer. They wouldn't clap. To be fair, they did clap sporadically. You know, I saw Elizabeth Warren clapping for some things, but it's very calm and just very dispassionate. What I mean to say is the Democrats as a whole never stood and clapped loudly for anything other than giving hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine.

So I give you this, my friends. Should we, I don't know, protect our children, fund Medicaid and stop giving hundreds of billions to Ukraine? How can Democrats simultaneously say save Medicaid, but then advocate we give hundreds of billions of dollars away? I give this unto you, everyone. Here's my proposal to all of those who are dependent upon Medicaid and Social Security and other benefits.

I propose we take all of the allocated funds for Ukraine and divvy that up amongst all of you. So I know it's not that much money. I think it might be, what would we be looking at? A hundred bucks a person? Just one time? How'd you like a hundred bucks? Sounds pretty good, right? Actually, no, it might be like $200.

So, oh, actually, no, I'm way off. I'm way off. I'm doing the total American population. How many people get Social Security in the U.S.? Let's do the numbers. We'll give you the hard numbers.

uh, as of 2024, 67 million people. Okay. Let's estimate Trump says upwards of 350 billion spent. And that's not direct aid to Ukraine, right? I think the total direct aid is around like 140 billion, but then there's an estimated additional, you know, 200 billion in ancillary spending meant to benefit Ukraine. What that means is money directly sent to Ukraine or spend on things for Ukraine versus things on European security defense because of Ukraine.

So let's just say Trump's number is correct. 350 billion, 67 million. And let's see what we get. How much money would you receive? I think it's going to be, what, 400 bucks? Oh my, I was way off. It's $5,000. It's $5,000. Man, my math was bad. I was off by a factor of 10. Social security recipients. How about this?

Instead of spending $350 billion on Ukraine, we'll give each of you $5,000. How about that? How about we do, I don't know, let's call it $420 a month. It's a good number. $420 a month additional to all Social Security recipients instead of funding Ukraine. Who's going to disagree? I believe that Trump should actually propose that. Now, he's talked about the Doge dividend where they...

They're talking about giving Americans a portion of all the money saved by Doge as a refund, which is based. Trump just needs to come out during the midterms and say all of that money we saved by not funding this war in Ukraine. We are going to give to Social Security recipients. If you have a parent who requires Social Security, no longer will you get worried phone calls from them saying they can't they can't make their bills and they need help.

If you are a recipient yourself, no longer will you be worried you're not going to meet your budget and you're not going to be able to afford your groceries or rent. No longer will you have to choose between eating garbage, fast, cheap food from processed, nasty garbage or trying to be healthy. We are going to get you an extra $420 a month by gutting the wasteful spending to Ukraine. The American people deserve that money first and foremost.

I'd like to see the response from Democrats to that one. My friends, make sure you smash that like button and subscribe to this channel right now.

Share this show if you really do like it. We're live Monday through Thursday at 10 a.m., soon to be Monday through Friday at 10 a.m. That's right. Because with the Culture War show, we are changing the format. We are expanding it out, and we're going to be a live format show where members of the TimCast Discord can actually come on stage. That's right. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist, I don't care. If you're a member of community, of the Discord community at TimCast.com, if

and you're actively involved, you will sit down at this table and debate me and whoever our guests are. The plan is to decentralize the power structures around debate and get more people involved.

Build community and make sure you guys who are watching right now are active and not just passive viewers of the news and let the world pass you by. If you're wondering how to get involved, go to Timcast dot com. Click. Join us. Get in the discord server. Why? Twenty thousand plus individuals politically active every day, having debates, conversations, starting new podcasts, programming video games, making art, making movies, making shows.

And all you have to do is say, yo, what up? I'm new. What's going on? And you chat and you engage and you will meet people and you will no longer be passive. You will be active. And if we are active, if we are active, we win in 2026. We went in 2028. Let's grab some of your super chats and rumble rants, my friends. See what we got going on over here. We've got the deplorable Miss Drake saying all we have in common with Democrats is currency. Yikes. Now, to be fair, we all drink water. That was always true.

Let's go. K Daniels music over on Rumble says if you watch the right side broadcast Rumble channel of Trump's speech last night, you can see Warren visibly shaking when Trump calls her Pocahontas. She looked like she's about to have a seizure. Heavens, heavens. What an offensive thing to say. The Quiet Part podcast.

originating on the TimCast Discord server, by the way, says, thanks for the shout outs, Tim. They're in fact very generous. I do, however, have a challenge to issue. Do as you ask and share shows like the Quiet Part Pod and Rumination. Help us little guys grow. That's why I shout you guys out all the time. Word of mouth is literally the way to do it.

I got to be honest, X posts are almost no conversion, none. And so direct shout outs are usually the most powerful way. So you may notice often I will shout out the Quiet Part podcast as well as the Roman Nation podcast. We have actually had the Roman Nation hosts on Timcast IRL.

For those that aren't familiar, these two podcasts started in our Discord community. People got together. They started talking. You can use the live chat function and actually launch the show. You can talk to the people on the Discord, and there are people actively hanging out every day to listen and engage with you and kick off your new show. Now, I don't think everyone just doing podcasts is the way to go.

But you do have a community trying to strive and build and engage. So let's say you're working on a new piece of art, a comic book. The community is there and they're supporting everybody. And we are trying to build something that networks out and creates a culture and maintains merit, moral tradition, etc. All right. We say we got Jack Quo. How do you say that? Doctors called in to check Tommy Robinson in prison after 100 plus days in confinement. Interesting. There's a video link. Interesting.

We'll have to take a look. We'll take a look. Let's go. Rob says, Tim, I wanted to touch on something you said last night about the GLP-1 injections. It isn't always laziness or discipline. My wife was put on one to help manage her PCOS symptoms, which will help her be able to have a child. I have never criticized GLP-1 for legitimate reasons.

I have outright said some people are diabetic. That's why they were prescribed Ozempic. Some people have other issues that they require medication. My point is it's being taken recreationally, as it were. Being morbidly obese is not a disease. I mean, maybe it's legally or literally a disease, whatever. My point is, for most people, you're eating poorly and you are not exercising. I really don't get it. I got to be honest. Guys, if you're a man out there and you don't exercise, you are missing out on

I don't describe it. It's euphoric. What do they call it? Runner's high. When you start exercising and you push your muscles to the limits, it feels insanely good. You get a burst of energy. It feels like electricity is surging through you. A smile on your face. Every part of your body hurts in the greatest way imaginable. You're sore. You can barely walk. And you feel like a million bucks. So for women, right.

I'm not gonna speak for ladies. I ain't no lady. But I can say this too for humans in general. The big issue usually is you're eating poorly and not exercising. Drink more water. Check your sleep. Sleep is huge. People don't know this. Some people are like, I eat right. I exercise and I'm not losing weight. How's your sleep? And then some people even get this. They go, I sleep eight hours a night. Can't figure it out. Sleep trackers. So I've been monitoring my sleep. I'll tell you this. Last night, I got bad REM sleep. You know what's really fascinating is I'm doing science here.

So I've been using this headband called Sleep Sanity. It's really cool. They don't sponsor the show, but I'm a big fan. And it's got Bluetooth headphones and a visor that dims and yellow and like an orange light stimulates melatonin. It's man, it's brilliant. And in the morning, it like wakes you up, I think turns blue. But what I did was when you go to sleep, it turns orange and then plays sound, but it only does it for like 20 minutes.

And so for me, I'm like, no, I want I want the white noise. They said there's different kinds of noise, like green noise or whatever. I want noise all night. So when I was using the headband, I was getting about an hour and a half of deep sleep, which they say is good.

But I'm not a fan. Deep sleep is when your muscles regenerate, your body produces human growth hormone and testosterone. And so if you want better testosterone and HGH naturally occurring, not weird supplemental stuff, you need deep sleep, especially if you're working out. My REM sleep, always perfect. And so what I've been doing is putting on nature sounds like usually thunderstorms. I love me a thunderstorm. It is the coziest sound ever when you're going to bed and there's a thunderstorm. I love it. I don't know why. I just humans love it, right?

It's beautiful. My deep sleep is now at two hours. So last night I got two hours. You know, I feel like I could punch a bear. Well, I often feel like that, but not that it'd be successful. Like I feel great, but I didn't get a lot of REM sleep and my head kind of hurts. And I'm like, there it is, right? You need the deep sleep for the muscles, the REM sleep for the brain.

So you got to get that balance. I'm working on it. Maybe I do half the night with thunderstorm sounds and I turn them off or whatever and just get REM sleep the rest of the night. But I'll tell you this in response to that GLP-1 stuff. It really is not so simple. I can't stand people like calories in, calories out. I'm like, ain't no way, dude. No way. Because if you're not getting proper sleep and hydration, then you can't even exercise. And if you're not getting proper sleep, your body's not metabolizing properly. It is not so simple. There is a balance and everybody is different.

Let's grab one more super chat here. Halo News says, Tim, the Supreme Court just blocked Trump's attempt to cancel $2 billion in USAID spending. I saw that. I got it pulled up. We didn't get to it, though. Cameron Wright says, me and my wife are having our fifth child and our first son keeping it based here in Texas. Yeah, I got to tell you, I recently had my first child. Don't wait. Don't wait. I'm an old man, right? I'm an old dad. I'm 38. I'm going to be 39 in four days this Sunday. But, you know,

There is some people say that when you're a younger dad, there's a fear of FOMO in that, you know, guys, they want to conquer the world. They want to they want to do so much. And then once a kid enters the enters the fray, you now have to allocate more time to the family and less time to your goals and dreams. I don't think that's 100 percent true, but obviously a child does take time and energy. I actually think for those that are properly motivated, having a child will make you more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

The people that I know that have had kids, 90%, 90, not all of them, obviously, the dudes ended up becoming substantially better versions of themselves after having kids. I know there's a couple of famous individuals I won't name, and they were poor and poor. They were poor people. They had a kid at a relatively young age and then immediately started pushing themselves to the limit for their kid and then became very, very wealthy and famous. And it was for their kid.

Not everybody's like that, but most of the people I know who have kids end up going from like I would describe as street urchin partiers to family people, meaning they stopped partying, they stopped drinking, they got jobs, and they became responsible adults because they had to for their children, and that's success. Plus—

Babies are magic. They're wonderful little things. And then they grow up and maybe they'll get into Hollywood and then you can have a rich child. Good luck. I'm kidding. Keep your kids away from Hollywood.

All right, everybody, smash that like button. Let's see some more like smashes. And I really do appreciate everybody subscribing and sharing the show. Of course, we are live Monday through Thursday at 10 a.m., so don't miss it. We will have other independent segments, unique clips throughout the day. I'll be recording new segments as soon as I end the live show. And then we're back tonight at 8 p.m. at youtube.com slash Timcast IRL. But I beseech thee.

My friends, if you really do like the show, we are not like big networks like CNN or Fox or MSNBC, who somehow can dump tens of millions of dollars into talentless hosts. Well, Fox is OK. Some of them are not so good. But Lawrence Jones, Greg Gutfeld, I'm a big fan. Those guys are fantastic. And Jesse Waters is also fantastic. Who else do they have?

I mean, those are basically the person I really do see. Peter. Peter and Steve. I can both. Okay. Anyway, I digress. Fox is okay. But CNN, man.

We don't have the money to dump and throw around. And we are looking at billboard campaigns, like big outdoor ads in major cities to advertise the show. But really, for us here and largely for me, the only way we succeed and continue is two things. You guys become, well, I should say three things. There's the membership side, which is watch our uncensored premium content on Rumble Premium. We have teamed up with Rumble for the network effect.

Because we need to build these neurons, as it were, connecting the dots between communities. So Rumble's got Russell Brand, Dr. Disrespect, Dave Rubin. You've got Steven Crowder.

And we all have these little islands of audiences. And so teaming up with Rumble, we can start to connect them. Now Crowder's audience is watching more of my content, which is good for me. And the Timcast audience is watching more of Crowder, which is good for him. We need to network, which is the same reason we also have the Timcast Discord server. But outside of joining and becoming members, sharing is caring. And I'll say it one more time. Whenever you watch, if you really do like the show and you think I do a good job and you appreciate it,

consider sharing. Grab the URL, post it wherever you can. All right, everybody, we'll be back up in an hour with another recorded segment. So check that one out. We got some Andrew Tate news. They're coming after him. Florida is saying lock him up and it's created a big controversy. We'll see how things go. Smash that like button again, share the show. Thanks for hanging out and we will see you all in the next segment.

Andrew Tate appeared on the PBD podcast to have a discussion. And the shocking news right now is that the attorney general of Florida says the state is conducting an active criminal investigation against the Tate brothers. Listen.

I'm not the I don't I don't really follow the Tate's all that much. I got to be completely honest. I did a segment about this a little while ago. There is a big hubbub, a lot of concerns over comments made by Andrew Tate, criminal accusations against him. He does not sound like a very good guy. Podcast appearances he made where he talked about how he had all these women tattooing his name and wrapped on his finger. He was effectively, as some would describe, a lover boy pimp.

Now, in Romania, they accused him of human trafficking in this regard. But it does present a bit of a political conundrum here in these United States. Now, again, I don't follow him all that much, but it's interesting for me to see that Florida, based only on what appears to be online conjecture, albeit none of it looks good.

They've launched a criminal investigation and executed a search warrant, or I believe they have a search warrant. I don't think they've executed against the Tate brothers. Let me just stress right off the bat. You will never come to me and say, because Andrew Tate has said bad things on the internet or been accused, but never convicted that warrants the government targeting him in a totally separate jurisdiction. Listen,

I'm open to seeing the evidence, but I do not trust this. OK, I don't think based on look,

I don't know a lot about the guy. And so what I can say is this. I've watched the videos people have put out. I have seen the clips of Andrew Tate, some of them. I don't know if they're in context or not, but he is not a good guy based on these clips alone. I am wary to say much more because unless you've seen the full interview, you don't know if they are lying when they put these these clips out.

For the most part, I lean towards I think Andrew Tate did these things with the lover boy, only fans, all that stuff. I don't know about how extreme you'd carry those claims to like human trafficking. Right. And let's clarify if it is true. And there's evidence which I don't know, because, again, I don't follow a whole lot. By all means, charge the guy, lock him up.

But if they're making the argument that he convinced women through persuasive methods, the lover boy method in Romania. OK, you're getting in a murky territory where you're not talking about he's generally a bad guy. But this is a gray area of the law where some places allow this. And whether you call that trafficking of a woman chooses to go and do these things is tough.

It is not defending the guy or the practice or saying he's a good person. None of that. I'm saying there's a big difference between him actually kidnapping women. And if he's been accused of those things, again, lock him up. My point is this. He's not convicted of any crimes. Most of what everyone's saying about him is based off videos on the Internet, which are very bad videos. OK, so where do we go from there? Is it fair? And you know what you guys, you're gonna have to comment. You have to tell me what you think. You see, I'm telling everybody to comment more and more lately.

Do you believe, because this may be fair, that if someone goes online and says they did all these things, whether as a character or otherwise, presenting it as fact that they did, should that warrant a criminal investigation? I think so. I honestly do. I honestly do. If a person goes online and says they are actively breaking the law in one way or another, then I think that's just preponderance of evidence. And that's a probable cause. Say, okay, we're going to investigate.

What I'm seeing from so many people, though, is jumping the gun to the burn the Constitution phase of whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Yo, whatever it is they're accused of doing, we are looking at dangerous legal territory. And just because they flew to Florida, the age is going after him. Let me stress that. By all means, lock him up if he committed a crime. If he admitted to crimes, investigate him. Fair. I think so.

But the only reason Florida is investigating him is because they flew to Florida. Let's be honest. When dudes were in Romania, Florida wasn't investigating. It wasn't until they flew to Florida. All of a sudden, there's a criminal investigation. I'm not a fan of this legal precedent. If you've got evidence of a crime, you investigate that crime. You don't just say you flew to my state. We're coming after you. I mean, you know what, man? This is a tough one. It really is. One of the arguments I've seen for a while.

from Tate supporters is that he's a liar. He's lying about all of it. He's a bloviating liar who built a persona around being this character because he knew it sold and men wanted to hear it. I don't know that I believe that. There are videos of women who have tattoos of his name, and they're saying they're not victims. They love him, and they like what they do. And so you get into this murky territory of,

How much of it was women being forced against their will and how much of it is women choosing to do a thing? And then who's criminally liable? Complicated stuff, I guess. I'm hearing a lot from conservatives saying don't platform Andrew Tate, blah, blah, blah. OK, well, we should get into the news first because I'm ranting now. But.

You gotta. The dude's got a massive following of diehard fans who love him and believe in him. And if your attitude is we're going to cut him off and just ignore him, congratulations, he's won. He will continue to amass more fans. He will control the narrative around who he is and what he does. And that's it. No one will ever challenge him based on anything he's done in the past.

So I think this is a guy who needs to be challenged. But again, I'll stress when I saw the Florida AG saying he was investigating them, I'm like, you weren't investigating him before. You only investigate him now because he just flew to your state. That freaks me out. I'm not a fan of that. I'm not. Sorry. You know, but I guess there's a very serious debate in this. If the dude is known to have committed crimes and he's not in your jurisdiction. Yeah, I guess it makes sense. You would investigate him. But then he shows up to Florida. DeSantis said, you're not welcome here. And then.

Now what? They're going to start going after him? I don't know, man. This whole thing freaks me out. Let's read the news. Before we get started, my friends, go to castbrew.com. Pick up some Cast Brew Coffee. Appalachian Nights is everybody's favorite.

Ian's Graphene Dream, the new rising star, currently sold out. And don't forget to join us over at Rumble Premium. Go to rumble.com slash timcast IRL. Sign up for premium to watch all of our premium content. Use promo code TIM10 and you'll get 10 bucks off an annual membership and you get all of our behind-the-scenes. So we've got a full podcast called The Green Room Behind the Scenes.

30 minutes or so per episode. Look at all these episodes we got. It's a whole new show behind the scenes in our green. Look at that Fox News playing in the background. You got Viva Fry. It's good fun. Don't forget to subscribe to this channel. I never tell people again. You got to subscribe. You got to subscribe. You got to share the video and smash the like button. All right. From CNN. Here we go.

A criminal investigation into online influencer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan has been open in Florida, according to the state attorney general on Tuesday. Attorney General James Uthmeyer has directed the Office of Statewide Prosecution to execute search warrants and issue subpoenas in what he is calling a now active criminal investigation into the brothers, he said on social media.

In a video posted by a Scripps reporter for CNN affiliate WTXL, Uthmeyer says the Tate brothers have publicly admitted to what appears to be preying upon women around the world. People can spin or defend whatever they want, however they want. But in Florida, this type of behavior is viewed as atrocious. They chose to come here and set their feet down in a state. And we're going to pursue every tool we have within our legal authority, told them accountable. I think this is largely a mistake.

largely a mistake because it's going to empower Andrew Tate. It's going to give him more and more notability. It's tough, though. Assuming this guy actually did the things he's accused of doing, which, again, he's not been convicted of, but he does say a lot of these things publicly. That's true.

How you deal with an issue like this is beyond my capabilities. And I will be the first to say, hey, man, don't put me in charge of the FBI. I'm just some dude in the middle of West Virginia, not the middle, in the eastern panhandle, complaining on the Internet.

I have not the moral clarity of mind nor wisdom to approach how we deal with situation like this. I certainly know emotions are tense, are high, because I mean, the stuff Andrew Tate was saying he did is atrocious. But then we run into the limits of government and prosecution and the Constitution. Should the government be able to take statements you've said 10, 15 years ago and

Depending on the severity of the crimes, I mean, maybe. But here's the question. The challenge here is when was Andrew Tate doing these things? And seriously, was it like 10 or 15 years ago? In which case he didn't live in this country for a decade. He was in a foreign country. He comes to us and immediately they're trying to get him on a criminal charge. I don't know. The whole thing kind of freaks me out. Not that I like what Andrew Tate is doing. I am scared of the government. Insanity. Andrew Tate responded saying he was disappointed by the development.

This is interesting.

He's massive now. They've only made him bigger and bigger and bigger. And that's that's the conundrum. What I will say of the big brother thing is, again, believe what you want to believe. I don't know. I don't follow this all that much. Honestly, at the time, I remember something about he was like spanking a woman with a belt or whatever. And apparently it was BDSM play. That's their claim. The the anti Tate view is that he was just beating a woman.

The pro-tate view is the woman and him were into, you know, like bondage, like BDSM stuff. Meaning they had a safe word and it was part of something they were into. Man, this is where things get tough. And that's why I'm not completely opposed to criminal investigations. That's why I said, if you know someone's committing a crime or they've admitted to it and then they come and land in your jurisdiction, like, well, maybe you have to investigate. You're like, yo, this dude's here. But man...

This is tough. It really is. I do not accept the people who hate Andrew Tate. And for that, they're simply saying, throw it, burn the Constitution. I am playing that game. So we have this tweet. Not this one. Where are we at? Here we go. Attorney General James Utmeyer says, last week, I directed my office to work with our law enforcement partners to conduct a preliminary inquiry into Andrew and Tristan Tate. Now, why Tristan?

See, this is where things are getting. I don't. What did his brother do? I know there's tons of videos of Andrew Tate saying he's doing these things. There are some videos of Trish Tate after the fact, but nowhere near as prominent. He's going after his brother now. Look, I don't know. Based on a thorough review of evidence, I've directed the Office of Statewide Prosecution to execute search warrants and issue subpoenas in the now active criminal investigation on the Tate brothers. So he recently, Andrew Tate, appeared on Candace Owens show and said,

Let me do I have it pulled up? I thought I had it pulled up. I guess I don't. I thought I had it pulled up. Let's pull it. I got to search for this one because this one this one does matter. So Candace Owens did interview Andrew Tate and then Andrew Tate basically said that he destroys. Here we go. We got it right here. Nobody had an issue with you. All right. Let's play this clip from the Candace show and see what they have to say.

Nobody had an issue with you, okay, despite your case going on until you hopped onto Piers Morgan on October 9th and said that you were pro-Palestine and called it a genocide. I watched overnight.

overnight they went from okay he's fine you can talk to andrew tate everyone wanted to like know andrew tate figure out his platform to a complete 180 and trying to say well it's it's not christian it's not this he's a bad guy and suddenly everybody wanted to look into andrew tate that i watched that happen live okay okay i'm gonna pause and just say that's just not correct

I'm sure that from from Candace's perspective in the news she's reading, she's seeing something different from what I'm seeing. So I respect that. What I can say is.

The controversy around Andrew Tate has been going on for a long time. In 2016, there was a video of him with the belt. Now, perhaps what she's saying is the persona non grata stuff, which I can't speak to. So maybe she's right on that one. I'm just saying, well, so let's put it this way. I'm not actually disagreeing with her 100%. I'm saying I know that there's been deep concerns over Andrew Tate and platforming for a while.

But perhaps I have not seen that when he started criticizing Israel, it got substantially worse among prominent conservative individuals. I still don't think that's the principal reason, but it may be the ignition to where you're getting these stories like that, like basically they're conservatives.

who are angry about the trafficking and lover boy stuff, who didn't really pay attention until it got more attention. So any person who would like to debate me on that, who is a neocon, who is pretending that they've held these perspectives about Andrew Tate forever, since the investigations began, please, I invite you to have that conversation with me because you're all lying, okay? Let's not dress this up as something that it isn't. This is about Andrew Tate saying something that,

you don't want him to say because he's too influential. If he took a Likud party position and he said, kill every last Palestinian, he would be governor of Florida. I got to be honest. Um,

I'm like 65% there with Candace. I do believe that if Andrew Tate came out fully in support of like Israel or Ukraine, you'd have a lot more quiet. Like there'd be a lot less being said about him for sure. It's very interesting because I felt it myself.

When I had these accusations, everybody understood, well, they've done this to Donald Trump and they did it in New York. And this is happening in Romania and it's all very old and the judicial system there can't be trusted. To be fair, that's one of my big concerns with this one. I'm kind of freaked out. It is very, very old stuff.

And so I'm not saying he's a good dude, you know, but it's like he flies to the U.S. somewhat like 15 years. It's like 10 years after the fact. And he's being criminally investigated. The issue I see largely is

Do you think after this guy got accused by Romania, he said, let's do more of this and retain evidence? I just don't. It's just weird. And they haven't even managed to have an election because it's so corrupt. And this doesn't really make sense. And why did they attack him when he got big online? Everyone was on my side until that exact day. And after that day, they all instantly turned on me. The second I said we shouldn't be blowing children to pieces, the second I criticized Israel, that was the day where I lost all...

All of the support from the conservative side. Was that not me as well? Have we not seen this trend happening over and over and over again? Candace Owens was totally fine. She was never considered anti-Semitic in Adolf Hitler. All of a sudden she speaks up about a human right violation and says too many Palestinian children are dying. And what happened to me overnight? They gave me anti-Semite of the year. Every friend. Oh my God. Well, I got to pause there. You know, I'm a little more agnostic on this one.

What I will say is Candace has one of the biggest podcasts in the world. She's not being completely shut up, but she does have a lot of people coming after her. That is true. However, I would also counter with Candace claimed that LBJ was a Jew. And it's like, you know, look, Dave Smith doesn't have near the vitriol, but Dave Smith doesn't.

Like, he doesn't go as far. I mean, Candace Owens did a USS Liberty thing. So I don't think that's grounds for going after her or shutting her down or anything like that. But I just want to stress, it's not so simple as that she just said, you know, there's two like Israel's killing too many Palestinian children, which, of course, is a very bad thing. I think a little bit more to that. However, I do agree.

There are prominent individuals with their pet issues, Israel being one of them. And, yo, this is a contentious issue. People come after you. However, Candace Owens, you're not being criminally charged or targeted like Andrew Tate is. And you do have one of the biggest podcasts in the world. So I do agree people are mad at your views and they are coming after you. But you have found success in spite of that. Andrew Tate has found success as well, but they're trying to put him in prison. This is happening.

happening too much. It's too obvious at this point. It's too obvious. It's not even casual. You assassinate, you go after and you attack people. And the reason that I believe they're doing this to you is because they're losing. Okay. The neocon influence is, is it's, it's waning. Everybody can see that they can see that in the numbers, uh,

organizations that were big and used to have influence don't anymore. And so when people lose influence, they essentially go, I don't want to do the free markets anymore. I can't win in the free markets. Okay. So how do we, she's right. This isn't the clip I wanted to pull up, but she is completely correct. When people start losing power, they say time to use brute force. It's like, that's why Putin invaded Ukraine.

She's correct. Powerful neocon forces who want to establish military presence around the world, be it Ukraine, Israel, whatever. When they start losing that influence, they do react with more shut them down, shut them up. I don't completely agree. That's why they're going after Andrew Tate. But I do think it is a component. However.

Guys, if Andrew Tate didn't say or do anything he's doing, we wouldn't be in this position. But here's the clip I wanted to show from Candace's show. This is important. Come get me. Arrest me. Perp walk me. Put me on the news. Tell everyone I'm a human trafficker. You think I'm not versed? You think I'm not ready? I'm a Navy SEAL in this shit. Fucking come get me. Raid my house. Take my stuff.

You think I sleep with a phone full of evidence? You think I don't wipe my phone every night? You think I'm dumb? Come get me. Arrest me. Let's do this all over again. Come get me. Arrest me. So a lot of people are responding saying, you know, here's what an odd thing to say. Come arrest me. You think I don't want my phone? Come on, man.

I'm sick of the emotion. I don't care. I don't care if you like Andrew Tate. I don't care if you hate Andrew Tate. I don't care if Andrew Tate confessed. The emotional reaction everybody has is stupid. I want to know the legal procedure and process by which this makes sense, and should we do it? And it's tough. Man, I am not... Look...

I want to be reasonable. I know there are a lot of people that for emotional reasons say stop going after Tate or they say go after Andrew Tate. But the questions I have, and I'm not excluding people who are looking at legal reasons, I'm saying there are two big camps here. I want to know, should we do this? Should we say you flew here and there's accusations you have a bad PR image? We're coming after you. I don't know how I feel about that. It's tough. I mean, if someone admits to doing criminal things, should he have? I mean, I've seen a lot of things he said. Should those be criminal?

Then investigate them. That's tough, right? High profile individuals are going to get targeted in this way because it's like they say, if you have a red car, you get more speeding tickets.

But what an odd thing to say. Listen, the dude was just locked up in Romania. The charges fell apart. They did not convict him of anything. There's no evidence. Some of a lot of the women said they weren't victims, but they were told despite the fact they testified they weren't victims. They were said they said they were. I don't like that. That is insane to me. If we're going to live in a world where we say women have agency, if a woman says, I love being with the guy and I did everything because I love doing it. How can you call her a victim?

Victims need to say they did not want it. They were forced to do it. There's coercion. There's pressure. You can't say like, look at entrapment. Entrapment from police requires coercion.

You can't just have like people think a cop will say, well, you want to buy drugs for me? And they go, sure. Aha, you entrapped me. You asked for no entrapment is if the cop says do it or else. If if if an undercover officer goes to a person and says, I need you to commit crime. And the guy says, no way I would never do that. And then the officer presents some kind of conundrum.

forcing the guy to do it, that's entrapment. So if he said something like, I will hurt your family, or he said something like he has to threaten something criminal to induce the behavior for it to be entrapment. Anyway, I digress. My point here is, of course, this dude is deleting and erasing his texts. That's why I'm like, what is the purpose of is this virtue signal? We're going to investor investigate Andrew and Chris Andrew and Tristan Tate.

I doubt they're doing anything criminal. They've once they got charged or accused, I probably started cleaning everything up. So what is to be gained from this? That's what I don't understand. Now, I will tell you, I despise the Israel, Israel, Israel arguments from every single person all the time. So Andrew Tate's already persona non grata to half the conservative movement.

I do think it's stupid, however, when a lot of people are saying don't platform the guy. So I got this tweet here. Where did I put that tweet?

This is Pedro Gonzalez. We've had him on the show. He says,

because they have no moral compass and their lives are devoid of meaning outside of being edgy online. So let's take a look at the two prominent figures who have platformed Andrew Tate, Candace Owens and PBD. They both have children and they're both married. Candace, of course, is a woman. I am not outright defending Andrew Tate, but I am concerned about the lawsuits. I also am married and have a child newly, but, you know.

He says, you actually cannot hold them in more contempt. They're such losers. All they have is being the most based freak online, blah, blah, blah. It is spineless, pathetic behavior. And their only recourse is to claim you are enabling some stupid conspiracy because the obvious truth is undeniable. What obvious truth? Guy, give me evidence and convict them. And we walk away. Fine.

Guys, Andrew Tate is only being hated because he criticized Israel. It has nothing to do with him being a garbage human predator who has openly bragged about luring men and women into self-destructive behavior for profit. Sure. I don't know about the Israel thing. I do think it's largely silly. There's obviously a component, but I don't think that's the principal reason. But, um...

Is it illegal to encourage people to be degenerate? That's the issue. And so my concern is when when we see this, my response to do I have this one pulled up? I actually I think I read right here. My response to the attorney general is what? Why? He says, I've launched a criminal investigation. What? Because he flew there.

And I get I get this response. Andrew Tate's worse. Richie McGinnis, friends saying, brah, bro, I don't care, dude. I don't care if he committed a crime. You investigate him for it is the only reason he's being investigated because he's famous and and he's got videos online where he bragged about things. OK, conundrum, I suppose. I just don't like the idea that people don't like Andrew Tate. So they started investigating him.

And I know people are going to come out and be like, yeah, but he admitted to doing things online. Did he admit to breaking the law? Did he admit to committing crimes? If he did, OK, investigate him. Maybe I'm wrong. I've not I've not seen it. I mean, there's maybe some stuff. There's a challenge here. Now, I will I will say additionally, if you, Andrew or anybody else, I mean this to Andrew, if you went online and said you were doing illegal things, you're going to get investigated. That's fine.

My concern here is we are dancing on the line of what the Constitution allows. And so my response to Pedro was, oh, my God, Andrew Tate was accused of crimes. Quick, burn the Constitution. Do we want a government that says I saw you on TV say things that I think are bad? So we're investigating you. Do we know that? I mean, it's it's a challenge. It really is. The last thing I'll say on this one is, y'all be careful.

Andrew Tate is a massive following of devout young men who believe in him and they like what he has to say, whether he did it or didn't, whatever. And this empowers him when he gets angry. He says he's fighting the matrix. He uses that. So I think it's good that people platform him. I don't think it's good that people, I think he needs to be challenged on the things he said.

Let's let's let's play in full context. I've seen clips. Clips are not enough. Don't come to me. Look at this clip, Tim. Why? They do the same thing to me. The Harris campaign lied and claimed that I advocated for the for the death penalty for Democrats. A lie. So that's why I'm just like this stuff freaks me out. They have lied about me. They have pulled things out of context. They have taken quotes from other people. I was quoting and attributed to me.

So if Andrew Tate says stuff, I'm leaning towards seems like he's not a good dude, but I don't know. And then the government says they're going to go after him. And I'm like, this kind of freaks me out. I'll put it this way. You know, it really gets me. I put out a video where I say I always use an example because I don't want to actually read these quotes. But you'll get Donald Trump or you get like Elon Musk or somebody and they'll say something like, you know, I just plain don't like chocolate milkshakes.

And then I'll be doing a show and I'll say, and we were shocked to see Elon Musk come out and say, I don't like chocolate milkshakes, which is a weird thing because personally, I love them. And then what they do is they take me, according to someone else, chop off the ends and say, Tim Pool says he doesn't like chocolate milkshakes. They do that all the time. So I don't believe blind clips on the Internet. So you know what? I say this. I don't know.

And that's why I'm much more normally I'd be more adamant about like whether I thought someone was guilty or innocent or otherwise. I do know that the charges didn't stick. They were dropped. There were a bunch of weird like the Romanian government did a bunch of weird things that fell through. And it's like, what did they really have on this guy? How did this fall apart? If the government's so corrupt, they could have just locked him up and they failed to do it.

Right. If listen, if he did it, they'd have got him. They said they had all attendance. If he didn't do it and they're super corrupt, they'd have got him. So what happened? Perhaps there was nothing there that warranted actual criminal offenses. I don't know. I'm wondering if Andrew Tate is a bloviating blowhard who goes online and lies about what he's doing to create this pimp persona that thinks is in a cell among young men.

Maybe that's the case. In which case, this is outside of my, look, I don't know. I just get freaked out by the government being like, we saw video podcast interviews out of context. And so we're investigating them. That being said, that being said, final thoughts on this one. They said they reviewed the evidence. Okay, fine. Based on a preponderance of evidence or probable cause, they're going to execute search warrants. Fine. They're not going to find anything.

Like you think this guy's Cameron Evans. So I don't know what this is about. It seems a virtue signally announcing this seems like the stupidest thing you can do. That's why I don't trust it. Why would you announce it? You would just do it. This seems weird. Whatever, man. I don't have enough knowledge on this issue. So I'm going to wrap it up there. Smash the like button. You guys comment below. Let me know what you think about this one. We'll wrap it up there. Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you on the next segment.

The Supreme Court has blocked Donald Trump and Doge's efforts to suspend USAID payments in a five to four ruling. They's basically saying two billion dollars that we know to basically be going to let's just call it colloquially fraudulent programs.

They're going to allow it. And the reason why I say colloquially fraudulent is a not outright saying in the legal sense, people are defrauding the government. I am saying in the spirit and essence of the law, when we are supposed to be giving money for aid and development and instead it's going to gender studies, I would call that a lie.

But I draw the distinction because some of it probably is criminally fraudulent, but all of it is spiritually deceptive. No one in this country that is defending it knew it was even going on. And those that do are deeply concerned about a major waste of money. Now, I can't say I'm surprised that we got a five to four ruling against Trump, because although the court is conservative, you still got Roberts. You still got any Amy Coney Barrett who are going to be like, but we'll see.

Was it, in fact, Amy Coney Barrett who sided against Trump? I don't know for sure. But I do know that Alito, who is based, is fuming about this, as is Thomas, because, well, let's just say, can we, you know, I'd like to do this. Can we take...

Thomas and Alito and cloned them. I know Christians and conservatives may have more qualms of cloning, but trust me, having a Supreme Court that is just nine in whatever combination of Alito and Thomas would be the best thing for this country. You must do it. All right, here's the news from Postmillennial. Don't forget to smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel right now. Share the video if you do like the show.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Wednesday against the Trump administration and sided with a lower court judge's order for the government to pay around $2 billion to USAID contractors. The high court rejected the Department of Justice emergency application and sent it back down to the lower court for further proceedings. The one-page order stated...

that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order on February 13th blocking the Trump admin from enforcing directives that pause the distribution of foreign development AID funds. I don't want to call it aid. Stop doing that, Postmillennial.

On the 25th, the D.C. court ordered the Trump admin to issue payments, which were for work already completed before the issuance of the temporary restraining order. This amounted to around $2 billion. A deadline was issued for the Trump admin to comply as of 11.59 p.m. on February 26th, hours before which the administration filed the request to intervene with the Supreme Court.

The unsigned order states the application is denied. Let's pull it up right now. They say the dissenting judges were Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. See, I called it. And then, of course, you had Roberts and Coney Barrett, of course, siding with the liberals. We have this tweet from Charlie Kirk, who says.

Breaking Supreme Court has ruled that Trump must unfreeze one point nine billion in foreign USAID payments. Unbelievable. Alito blast the majority with justices Thomas Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joining in dissent. Well, I have the ruling here and let's not waste any time with filler nor pat her. They basically say on February 13th, United States Court for the District of Columbia entered in temporary restraining order, blah, blah, blah. Moving on.

Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas Gorsuch and Kavanaugh join dissenting. Does a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out and probably lose forever two billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be emphatic. No, but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned, guys.

Alito is the best. Well, actually, I think Thomas is the best. But shout out to the rest. Kavanaugh sided against my views on guns. I'll let it slide. He's OK. But Gorsuch has been all right. Thomas and Alito, though, they are they are based in capsule form. That's what happened. Respondents are a group of American business and nonprofits that receive foreign assistance funds from the State Department and USAID. They brought suit.

And claimed that the current administration's temporary pause of foreign assistance payments is unlawful. On February 13th, 2025, the district court issued a restraining order, temporary, requiring the government to halt its funding pause. It based that decision on a finding that respondents are likely to succeed in showing the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act, APA.

After issuing the TRO, the district judge grew frustrated with the pace at which funds were being dispersed. And on the 25th of February, he issued a second order requiring the government to pay approximately $2 billion. The judge brushed aside the government's argument that sovereign immunity barred this enforcement order. And he took two steps that, unless corrected, would prevent any higher court from reviewing and possibly stopping the payments. First, he labeled the order as non-appealable TRO. And second, he demanded the money be paid within 36 hours.

This left the government little time to try to obtain some review of what it regarded as a lawless order. The government moved for a stay pending appeal in the district court, but the judge shrugged off the government's sovereign immunity argument and ignored the government's representation that most of the money in question once dispersed could probably not be recovered.

The government quickly filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, but with only four hours to spare before the payment deadline, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the government's appeal because it took the district court's TRO label at face value, determined it lacked appellate jurisdiction. With nowhere else to turn and the deadline fast approaching, the government asked the court to intervene.

At the last moment, the chief justice issued an administrative stay. Unfortunately, a majority has now undone this stay. As a result, the government must apparently pay the $2 billion post haste, not because the law requires it, but simply because a district judge so ordered. As the nation's highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power and trust to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the court fails to carry out that responsibility. I'm going to take a page of the Democrats' books.

Democrats said, you know, they should just ignore the Supreme Court. Well, that's a bold play, Democrats. Do you think in this instance Trump should do the same thing? I'll take it from you guys when you said justify the Supreme Court. Maybe Trump should. Here's the question. What if the Trump administration said we won't do it? What then? We call that a constitutional crisis. There's no real definitive what a constitutional crisis is, but the Supreme Court says do it and they lack the enforcement capabilities.

The issue then becomes, who are they instructing to do and what are they instructing them to do? So the payments has to go out. Who does it? What if Trump right now says to the individual who is responsible for pressing enter, you're fired, go home. The Supreme Court would be issuing an order to no one. They'd say the government's you got to pay it. And Trump's going to be like, there's nobody here with that ability. And then I say, well, then you do it. Well, I don't I don't handle that. I guess I'd have to find someone to to do that job.

This is interesting because they are requiring an action be done that could potentially just not be done. There are a lot of instances where there are enforcement capabilities of the court. In this one, it's at the top. There isn't.

They can go to these departments and order the money be paid. The only way this actually gets paid, however, is if the Supreme Court instructs the banks to pay out the money. So let's go to a lower court and entertain what happens, right? There's a famous story where a bank issued a false foreclosure claim on someone's house. Basically, they had the wrong records. They claimed some guy who owned his house outright had a mortgage and they foreclosed on it and tried to take it.

Apparently, like I think what happened was like the sheriff showed up and then he said, nope, there's no mortgage. There's no order. Screw off. He had to go to court. When he went to court, he proved the bank was wrong. They did not have a mortgage on his house. It's insane. And the court said the bank has to pay his legal fees. The bank didn't do it. So how is their enforcement? What ends up happening is the police go to the bank and seize their assets.

Understand, they went to the bank and seized things from the building to take the money required to pay the man the money was owed. Now let's go to the highest possible level. Two billion dollars to be paid out post haste. If Trump says, OK, you win, enforce it. OK, the Supreme Court goes to the U.S. Marshals and say, OK, go and seize two billion dollars. And they're going to say, how? Um,

find out who handles the accounts. Ah, they could go to a third party. They could go to the bank and say, we are seizing this funds to be dispersed. And then they would have to do it. Either way, it's a nightmare scenario. It's not so easily handled because there's no hard jurisdiction. Who's going to go and tell the bank two billion? And what bank is it? And is it government controlled accounts? Who knows? I mean, obviously it is. They're going to say,

Let me break it down for you.

Trump says, don't give the $2 billion. The judge court says, I'm going to issue a temporary restraining order on that freeze. Pay it. Trump then says, how is it a temporary restraining order? If we pay it, we don't get the money back. And then what if the court rules in our favor? What's happened now? The Supreme Court said, no, no, pay it. But don't worry. Courts can consider later on whether that should have been paid or not. The money's gone. This is insane.

The order here, which commanded the payment of a vast sum that in all likelihood can never be fully recovered, is in no sense temporary, nor did the order merely restrain the government's challenged action in order to preserve the status quo. For these reasons...

The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the government's appeal, and we have jurisdiction to review that and summarily vacate the court's erroneous judgment. Even if the majority is unwilling to vacate the D.C.'s court order, it should at least stay the district court's enforcement order until the government is able to petition for a writ of certiorari.

Probably pronouncing it wrong. In considering whether to issue such a stay, we ask a minimum, one, whether the moving party is likely to prevail in the merits, and two, whether the moving party is likely to suffer irreparable harm. In which case, they will likely win in the merits. At the very least, they will be irreparably harmed without a finding. Likelihood of success. The government has shown a likelihood of success in the merits of its argument that sovereign immunity deprived the D.C. court's jurisdiction to enforce, to enter its enforcement order. I got to be honest.

The Supreme Court is no more entitled to make illegal declarations, as is the executive branch, thus a constitutional crisis. If Alito is saying outright the court has no authority to enforce a temporary restraining order on what would ultimately be an unreversible action, thus it's not temporary, that is illegal. You enter into constitutional crisis. Trump can say

The court has no authority to issue this. So who do they turn to when the court issues an incorrect ruling outright? The Supreme Court may be the highest court in the land, but the conflict is now between the Supreme Court and the executive. So the judicial branch at the highest level and the executive branch, the highest level, the legislative branch would be that check and balance as it were. That's controlled by the Republicans. I'm curious to see how this would go.

This is ultimately insane, in my opinion, that they have outright. I mean, this is this is this is crazy. It's the whole thing. Just just dissent. Oh, it's a single page ruling. An application to vacate the order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, blah, blah, blah. The chief justice just entered into an administrative stay shortly before blah, blah, blah. And then they say the order by the chief justice is vacated. So it's actually really simple. They're saying we out. We're not going to hear it.

So now a lower court has basically said, pay the $2 billion. Don't worry. It's only temporary. What is wild? This could get crazy. Marina Medvin says, I've never seen the dissent like this. Justice Alito is stunned that five justices of the Supreme Court are giving a single district court judge unchecked power when he likely lacks jurisdiction to force a $2 billion nonrefundable payment at a complete loss to the taxpayers. I honestly think Trump has no choice but to say no. That...

The district court does not have the legal authority to make such a claim, and the Supreme Court has ignored this. That means there's no resolution to this issue. There's no check. There's no balance. Like, let me put it this way. This is a complicated legal issue, and maybe I'm wrong. I'll accept that. What if the district court says, I hereby order a man to be strangled with someone's bare hands? Like, that's clearly illegal, right?

And then what happens if a higher court says we ain't getting involved in this one? And the Supreme Court says, yo, we're not getting involved in this one. Are we just going to say, OK, the court said to strangle the guy? Well, no, that's that's not a legal court order. But where's the check on that illegal order right now? Understand this. A lower court judge is ordering the U.S. government pay two billion dollars out and that money's gone forever. And it's your money.

Yeah, I'd call that theft. I'd say that's that the U.S. government says we are not like if you want to argue, Trump should have to pay this money. Then you have to have a lawsuit on who is right or wrong in this. Like another way to put it is you you you're let's say I owe you money or you claim I owe you money and then we go to civil court.

The judge says, no, no, pay him the money and then we'll determine later on whether you owe it to him. I was like, OK, well, I'm never getting that money back if I pay it. Not too bad. It's like, what? It's my money. You can't just take it from me. That's what they're doing. This is wild. I honestly think there's a possibility Trump says no. And then what can a lower court do? The Supreme Court didn't issue a ruling on this. They literally just said, no, we out. We're not going to hear it. The temporary stay is vacated. Have a nice day. Alito is dissenting because he's like, well, we have to hear this.

This is wild. We'll see, man. Smash the like button. Share the show. Subscribe. Tell your friends subscribe. Thanks for hanging out. And we'll see you all in the next segment.

All right. All right. He didn't really specify, but the implication is that we are going to invade and seize Greenland. Now, it's what's fascinating to me because it's really, really simple. You know, I'm going to pull up Google Earth for you guys. Earth dot Google. And I'll show you exactly why Donald Trump would like Greenland. And what is this? Why is it so complicated? Can you show me the planet Earth?

Show me the planet. I'll pull it up in a second. It's the Northwest Passage, they call it. As ice begins to melt in the northern part of this planet, and a lot of people don't realize Greenland is north of Canada. That's access to Greenland, being able to build bases there and operate freely. We'd be able to control the Northwest trade route, much like we want to control the Panama Canal.

It's actually really simple. Trump has made trade control of international seas a huge priority. So yesterday at his speech, he said he's we're going to get it one way or another. All right. Now, I do have concerns. OK, I don't want to invade Greenland. I don't think that's realistic. Trump is talking very big here. Let's keep it. Let's keep it calm. But I think likely he's talking about probably more economic coercion.

And I don't care. Soft power is the way we should expand. And we have it in spades. I don't care for being involved in a war in Ukraine. Denmark can't maintain or provide the benefits required for Greenland the way the United States can. And United States could easily offer up economic incentives, in a sense, coercion to a certain degree, because we can say to Denmark a few things.

Because for those that don't know, Denmark controls Greenland. When you say to Greenland, the benefits you'll get from being part of the U.S., tremendous. When we set up operations there, you guys are going to see an increase in yearly revenue, tourism, operations, money, all that good stuff. Plus, we'll give you tax incentives, benefits, bang.

Denmark can't do nothing. Now, that's incentives. That's fine. That's easy. The other thing is basically saying we're going to cause you economic problems if you don't play ball. And that's to Denmark. OK, we're going to negotiate the easy way or the hard way. And I think that's what Trump is saying one way or the other. The one way up front is we're going to give you a lot of money. You're going to love it. But if you don't, then we're going to cost you a lot of money and you will hate it. That's basically what he's saying. Here's the clip.

For a mediaite network error. Let's refresh and see if we can also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland. We strongly support your right to determine your own future. And if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security. And we're working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it really for international world security.

And I think we're going to get it. One way or the other, we're going to get it. I think we're going to get it. One way or another, we're going to get it. We will keep you safe. We will make you rich and together. We will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before. It's a very small population, but very, very large piece of land and very, very important for military security.

He is indeed correct, and we'll pull up that there Google Earth to show you. Welcome to Earth. Hey, look, there's Greenland. Let's get the compass.

reset to north it's overly complicated so a lot of people don't know this because the way maps project it looks like greenland is like east of canada let me see if i can just get like a standard let's do let's do uh earth map it's a regular earth map you can see right there i pulled it up there's greenland it is north of canada um these these maps make it look very different very wikipedia has got a world map is this going to be large enough oh that's too big

Too big, Wikipedia. We have to shrink you. Most people see this.

And it looks like Greenland is east of Canada. That it's like northeast. But if you follow the lines of latitude and longitude, you can see that, in fact, Greenland is north of Canada. So you need only look at Google Maps and you can see this. There it is. Here's beautiful Mexico. Here's the United States. Here's beautiful Canada. And there's Greenland like straight to north. Now, why does Trump want Greenland? Greenland is under the dominion of Denmark, right?

And so there's Finland, Sweden, Norway, and there's Denmark. Where are you? Denmark's right there. Itty bitty little space. Okay. Denmark has dominion over Greenland.

But Greenland is north of Canada. It's another reason why Trump is talking big game on Canada. So the Northwest Passage is opening up. This is crazy. Normally there's too much ice. So you've got Russia right here, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the UK, and the Northwest Passage. So they can transport through the north, around the North Pole, Alaska, the Bering Strait. It's a massive trade route. Now if you go down, you can see Panama as well, another extremely important area.

a trade route and Trump wants to control both. So one of the things, one of the things he announced the other day was that BlackRock will be purchasing or has purchased two of the largest ports in, in Panama, which is massive. This is actually quite simple. It's a large piece of land with a very, very small population. That's basically just down right here. Where's that? What's, what's the name of the city? I always forget the name of the city. There's a lot of little, little bitty ones, but nook, there it is.

Look how small that is. And this is basically the main urban hub. I think what does Greenland have? Like 60,000 people total in this whole piece of land? It's very far north. It's very cold. It's hard to grow food. What's their population? I'm pulling it up.

Fifty six thousand five hundred and eighty three estimate with a GDP of three point eight five billion per capita. That's sixty eight thousand. I got to tell you, man, they live decently well up there. However, one thing I look how beautiful this is. Greenland is amazing. So I hope Trump doesn't play stupid invasion types of NUCC skate park. Let's check this out. I'm always interested. OK, I'll have to pull up a Google, I guess. NUCC skate park. Let's take a look.

Nook Pivot Tech. Wait, skateboard.com.au. That's cool. I can't see it. Where's the skateboard? Oh, there it is. Look at that. You can see it right there. That's what I'm interested. You know it. It's pretty small, but hey, take what you can get, right? Nook. Is that how you pronounce it? Nook? Nook? I don't know. So what was I talking about before I got distracted? Oh, yeah.

I don't think there's going to be anything invasion-wise on Greenland. There's not much to invade, to be completely honest. And the amount of resources and development that could be given to Greenland, tremendous. Now, Greenland maintains it's not for sale. That's silly. It really is. The people of Greenland...

Yo, I got to be honest. Money talks, BS walks. Now let's play a game. You got 68,000 people here. What's sum of money would you have to offer up these people to get them to agree? Come on, 100 grand? So we're talking about, let's just say, let's just round it up and say there's 60K people. And let's see if we can work out some finances here. So six, is that, what is that for real? Six billion dollars? Six billion. Come on.

Gaining access to the Northwest Passage, Trump could give everyone, everyone in Greenland, literally all of the people, including the children, a million dollars. And it would cost $60 billion. Is that right? $60 billion? I feel like I'm getting this wrong, right? Let's just say he gives $1 million to 60,000 people. I'm pretty sure that's just $1 million. No, no, no, you got this wrong. Okay, what if we gave...

60K people, 1M each. I think that's just $60 billion. It would be $60 billion. I got to be honest. Trump's clearing up Doge, and apparently they already found that much. Imagine if he was like, oh, you're not for sale, right? I'll give you a million dollars. Wait, what? I'll give each of you a million dollars. Each of you gets a million dollars. Take it or leave it. I got to say, I bet they take it. And that $60 billion apparently is a rounding error in Doge. So, uh, huh.

Not that I think we'd actually do that or whatever. But Greenland's prime minister issued a harsh rebuke of Trump when he said one way or another, we're going to get it.

Prime Minister Mute Mute Burrup-Egede wrote on Facebook, we don't want to be Americans nor Danes. We are Kalalit. The Americans and their leader must understand that we are not for sale and cannot simply be taken. Our future will be decided by us in Greenland. It sure will. And when Donald Trump offers up, you know, a million bucks, I think they're going to offer like development deals. They're going to say, look.

We're going to spend a billion dollars building roads, highways, shopping centers, imports, greenhouses. People are going to be like, let's go. Let's take it. Why not? Now, laugh all you want. This is major strategic value for any country. And right now, Denmark has it. I imagine there's a good reason. Look at this. Let's I hate how North keeps changing on this stupid thing. Tilt and heading. There you go. It's it's basically just north of Canada.

I think it's going to happen. I think the U.S. is going to acquire Greenland. We'll see, though. Let me know what you guys think. Should we take Greenland? Look how far north it is. Isn't that crazy? Yo, that's nuts. Is Nook in the Arctic Circle? I think it is. Pretty sure. Arctic Circle's fun. There's no trees. Oh, it's not. It's not in the Arctic Circle. Interesting. Oh, it's literally just south of it. So maybe they do have trees in Nook. It would be terrible if they didn't. But in the Arctic Circle, they don't have trees.

It's kind of crazy. Looks like they might have trees. Yeah, there's green. So I went to Utqiagvik, they call it, Barrow, Alaska. All of the ground is mud. There's nothing else because it's permafrost. It's always frozen in the Arctic Circle. Crazy, right? All right, man. Well, I guess that's it. We'll see what happens. Smash the like button. Share the show. We got one more segment coming up. Stay tuned and we'll see you all shortly.

What do you think a Democrat politician would say if a man bashed a woman in the face and left her with a traumatic brain injury that caused a concussion, partial paralysis and ended her career?

Well, obviously, in that context, they're going to say it's horrible. You know, we need protections for women. Unless, of course, it was a transgender individual who is male who spiked a volleyball so hard it smashed a young girl's face. A teen, a young 19 year old woman and severely injured her. I don't know if she was 19 at the time. She was in high school, so she probably wasn't. But I want to give a shout out to the majority report. Sam, you sure know how to choose them.

Emma Vigeland of the Majority Report responds to a video of a high school teenager being smashed in the face by a man with ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. OK, I mean, guys, I'm here for this. Like, share this. Let everybody know.

Because here's my pitch to you, and we'll go through the story. There's a bill to ban men from coming as women. Here's what I want you to do. You got a liberal aunt, right? Everyone's always saying, I got a family member. They won't listen. I know it's going to be impossible, but let's have fun anyway, right? You're going to share this video. But first, you're going to say to them, I got a question for you. Like,

If a man bashed a woman in the face and it caused a traumatic brain injury, like, what do you think we should do? Should we—like, we should arrest that guy, obviously. I mean, obviously, right? And they'll say, yes, of course. And you'll be like, okay, like, I mean—

You know, what if like it was like a sporting event, you know, and the women were playing? Well, I don't know if the women chose to play against the man and they got injured. Yeah, that's fair. Fair point. If like if a woman chose to play like a co-ed game of, you know, basketball or volleyball, end up getting hurt. We're not going to blame the guy that we don't send the guy to jail. Right. Right. Right. But we still feel bad when we got injured. Like, I got to be honest, if a woman was playing volleyball against women, got injured, we'd feel bad. Right. Right.

OK, how would you feel if liberals and Democrats were laughing at the injuries of a woman who was bashed in the face by a male? I mean, that'd be kind of messed up, right? Well, I don't know. Let's go. Here's the video. Here you go. Here's Emma Vigeland to the majority report. I want to say with great appreciation to Sam Sam Cedar.

I want to thank you for hiring Emma, never correcting her wrongdoings. When she advocates for pornographic material to be sent to children, you never correct her. You let her do her thing. I respect it because it means the populist movement is going to win the midterms. And, you know, that's what I'm really concerned about. Donald Trump is doing such tremendous good that I'm that I voted for it.

That I'd like to see his legislative agenda continue. And it's a bit rough because you've only got, you know, what is it, 53 Senate seats? And you've got we had we had 53 Senate seats. I think it's 53, right? Fifty three. We got 218 in the House and we have this is this is Senate. Come on.

I think it's 53. I want to make sure I get it right. U.S. Senate Party Division. Wow. They have the first Congress listed at Congress.gov. That's amazing. And they have the latest, which is 53. Okay. I was right. Whatever. I'd like to see 60. Elon Musk says he thinks we can get there. I think so.

And that's why I'm doing a segment where I'm highlighting Emma Vigeland of the Majority Report laughing at a traumatic brain injury that a young girl received because a man bashed her in the face. Now, I'm going to be the first to tell you. I said it over and over again. If women choose to play against men, that's their choice. I ain't playing this game, guys. Right. I get these Democrats and these conservatives. Everybody's fighting. And conservatives say it's not fair. It's not fair. And I'm like, dude, stop. Make you made that choice. Don't get me wrong.

Some people are like they have no choice because they want to be in athletics. And if they don't do this, they get in trouble. No, no, no, that's not true. Let me pull up this story. Women refuse to run against trans male. This is a story that just that just broke. I had it pulled up the other day, but we didn't get it. Man, where is it? I don't have the story pulled up, but it was a handful. Oh, wait, what's this? No, I don't know. There it is. There it is. There it is. Daily Wires got it. You know, Daily Wires on top of this stuff.

Female competitors drop out of race against trans-identifying male at U.S. Open Championship. See, respect. I'm not happy this stuff's happening to these young women. But there is still, do you choose to do this? That being said, only for that reason, I would say we're not going to arrest the trans individual for spiking a volleyball. They're in a game. They're allowed to play. The rules say they can play. The women choose to join in and play. Choices were made here.

That being said, I'm deeply concerned about Peyton. I hope she's OK. She's got a lot better. And it is sad. And I say for this reason, we change the rules. We don't want males playing against females because females get hurt. So, Emma, thank you for showing us what you guys represent, because I try really hard every day to convince people like I was talking to a liberal friend of mine.

It's your default lives, man. These are people who are not super political. They exist. Like, obviously, we have contractors. We have groundskeepers. We have delivery people. We have regular people who work here who play video games. And we've got some people that come by and hang out. They don't really pay attention to politics. And I'm trying to explain to them why, like, what's wrong. I mean, people choose to play because they'll get hurt.

So if you want to do a co-ed game, I'm totally fine with it. So we got to have women's co-ed and men's. There's no problem there. And any trans player can play in the co-ed team. And if you want to do a women's team, it's a women's team. All right. That's just fine by me. In fact, why don't we do this? No men's team. None. You have the women's and the co-ed. You know why? Because the men will dominate the highest rankings of the co-ed. Women won't even compete. We don't need to worry about women invading the men's space because they're not going to reach that highest level.

But I have a hard time explaining why I think Democrats are evil. And so Emma coming out and saying, ha, ha, ha, ha. Here's the video. We'll play it for you. It's just a sporting event. Nothing too gruesome. Here's the individual in question. So this person right here, this is the biological male reportedly spike. And there you can see Peyton. And she gets bashed so hard in the face that she was rushed out and brought to the emergency room where she suffered a concussion.

Now, these things happen in sporting events. And I say each and every one of these females playing knew, presumably, I mean, they knew they were playing against a male. In fact, Peyton even said they brought in a freshman afterwards and she was shaking. Let me see if the two years later, we have the story from the Daily Signal.

After I got out, they'd put in a freshman setter and she was shaking like genuinely so scared. Stop. So she's on the verge of tears having to go in because, of course, they didn't take him out because he was the only reason they were winning any games. So for them, you see their captain and senior on their team completely got knocked out and they have to go in to finish the game. I feel so bad that they had to do that, but they refused to take him out. Ladies, simple. You just don't compete. There have been a number of female teams that have done the right thing, and I respect it.

They have refused and they've been given forfeitures. Do it. Do it. End this charade. Because if every single female athlete said, I refuse to play, I don't care if I win or lose, then this would be over. You'd have all of these teams with biological males on the women's team. And then they'd be like, we've played no games this season. We won a trophy. They'd be like, no, you didn't. I just did. This is not a real thing. And the brackets and the tournament system would collapse. That's just plain and simple.

You'd end up with really wonky stats that made no sense. You don't have to do what you don't want to do. And so, you know, I reject this. Look, if it was my kid and she's playing sports, she's an itty bitty baby, but you know, I don't know, 10 years, she's playing sports and they bring a boy out. I'll say, you're not playing. We're not doing this. I'm not, it's not just about whether you can, it's not about whether they should. It's about, we just say outright, we just, we don't involve ourselves in these things.

Let the system be what it wants to be, and we will make our own thing. So we can make our own sports division. We can say no to this. This young woman, she'd have a career if she said no to this. So I'm not trying to put the blame on her. I'm saying for that reason, I am not going to like you're not going to get me to blame a trans male because all the women decided they wanted to compete with that person. No sympathy. Sympathy for the injury. Yes, I don't care. Like

A volume if she got spiked in the face by a other female and it causes injury and took her out of sporting, I'd feel bad for you get sympathy for that. What I don't give sympathy for is you chose to enter this arena. That makes sense. The bigger picture here is this is what we we strive every day to explain why Democrats are evil, why they're evil people. Right.

So how about a teenage girl is critically injured? Well, I shouldn't say critically exaggerating. A teenage girl is injured substantially with a concussion and a traumatic brain injury that caused temporary partial paralysis. And the response on the left is ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Well, all right. I can share this a lot of people and explain they're evil. There's no reason to laugh at this. We had a Democrat congressman just died. I feel sad. I feel bad.

You know, he was a Texas congressman. He passed away suddenly overnight. He was 70. Sad man. I don't I don't want anybody to die. I'm anti death penalty. But these people are zealous cultists. They don't care about what's right. They don't care about empathy or compassion. They just care about whatever their side is. And they hate they hate. That's it. This is hatred, mocking the injuries of young girl who did nothing to no one.

You want to make fun of me? Go ahead and do it. You can call me all the names of a crooked teeth, bald, whatever. Fine. Make fun of me. But this chick was just minding her own business, playing a game, and she got injured and you're laughing at her. That's crazy. But so be it. That's the liberals for you. I'm gonna leave it there. Thanks for hanging out, my friends. Timcast IRL is coming up next. Don't miss it. Smash the like button, share the show, and we'll see you all then.