Timcast IRL #1116 Trump Would-Be Assassin CHARGED By DOJ For Trying To END Trump's Life w/Dinesh D'Souza
02:06:32 Share

This is the sound of your ride home with dad after he caught you vaping. Awkward, isn't it? Most vapes contain seriously addictive levels of nicotine and disappointment. Know the real cost of vapes. Brought to you by the FDA.

The Trump would-be assassin has now been formally charged by the DOJ for an attempted assassination. Initially, it was some weird gun charge, but after the news broke that he had some hidden letter offering up a massive bounty on Donald Trump, the DOJ has now issued these formal charges. But the story is interesting because just yesterday,

Time magazine published a story about the third assassination attempt on Donald Trump. An Iranian individual or I'm sorry, Pakistani who was working the best of Iran was arrested and his plot was foiled. They go into great detail when the DOJ announced the indictment. They just said on politicians or political officials, they didn't mention Trump. But Time magazine says they've all but confirmed it was Trump.

Now, I'm wondering what connection this guy had with potentially the first assassination attempt, because they arrested him the day before it happened, claimed that they heightened security on Donald Trump, but actually did not. It's a very strange story. We will talk about that. There's a lot going on today, my friends. But oh, geez, how do I even say this one? The son of the would-be assassin was arrested, was announced he was arrested on, let's just keep it family friendly, child abuse imagery.

So the whole thing just gets very, very strange. And then we've got the new Quinnipiac poll showing Donald Trump is leading nationally against Kamala Harris. And get this. You're gonna like this one. Taylor Swift's endorsement, according to Quinnipiac, has a negative impact on Kamala Harris. That's right.

People are less likely to vote for her in all but the 65 plus age bracket, I think it was. They're all basically like, no, we don't like that she did that. So it actually soured many individuals from Kamala. We'll talk about that all that day to Trump leading the battleground states. But before we do, my friends, don't forget also we got the song coming out. Go to getcominghome.com. You need iTunes installed. You can preorder it.

We'll have more on that this Friday when the song actually drops. You can take a listen. But we're going to try and get as many people as possible to buy the song, and we will smash those charts. This song is subtly political. It's about the collapse of our cities by the people who are supposed to be running it. We entrusted who have run them into the ground. Become a member at TimCast.com. That members-only show will be coming up tonight where you as members can call in, talk to us, and our guests, ask questions, and

And being a member by going to TimCast.com and click and join us. It's how you help make this show possible. So smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with all of your friends. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Dinesh D'Souza. Hey, Tim. Great to be back on the show. And I'm doing a little bit of the movie tour these days. New film coming out this weekend. It's Vindicating Trump. And the website is VindicatingTrump.com. It's going to be in 800 theaters. And I'll have a book available.

book of the same title coming out shortly. That's where you can buy the movie tickets or to the book. So vindicatingtrump.com. Right on. And I think most people know who you are, but you're a filmmaker. You've made a ton of huge films, and this is your new one. So anything else you wanted to add, I guess, to your bio? Yeah, well, I've been, I guess, mostly I've been an author for most of my career. I've been at various think tanks. And then I did Obama's America a decade ago. And this is my eighth documentary film. So I feel like a bit of a veteran now.

these days. And I'm glad to see a lot of other people doing films. And I think it's opening up a good space for us. Absolutely. Right on. Should be fun. Thanks for hanging out. We got a lot hanging out. Hey, everybody. What's up? My name is Alad Eliyahu, resident neocon Jewish affair correspondent and field reporter here at Timcast News. Dinesh, thank you so much for stopping by. I'm looking forward to talking to you today on the show. Only the neocon part was right.

I feel like that's the only part people pay attention to nowadays. I mean, it's all made up just for attention, but that's OK. I'm Hannah Claire Brimelow. I'm a writer for SCNR.com. I'm happy to co-host tonight. Thanks for joining us. Let's get started. Here's the big story. NBC News reporting. This is from 6.50 p.m. today, Eastern Time. Ryan Routh arrested near Trump's Florida golf course is charged with attempted assassination. So it is formal. Previously, he'd only been charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. The indictment, unsealed Tuesday, alleges that Ryan Wesley Routh, is it Routh, Ruth? I don't know. I like Routh. Routh did intentionally attempt to kill former President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, a major presidential candidate, when he was camped out near where Trump was golfing in West Palm Beach, Florida. It also added two other charges, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and assaulting a federal officer. Whoa, that part we didn't know.

Ruth Routh, whatever, had previously been charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. We read that part already. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon. Wow. That's really interesting. The Trump nominee who dismissed the criminal classified documents against the former president earlier this year. That is so interesting. OK. The indictment comes just one day after Trump issued a statement accusing the DOJ of downplaying the alleged assassination plot against him this month and suggesting state officials in Florida take over the case. OK. OK.

So Bill Maher comes out on his show and he says it's not funny that they're trying to kill Trump. Eileen Cannon is assigned to the case. A Trump nominee who dismissed the classified documents case is now overseeing the guy who tried to kill Trump. Trump says that the DOJ is downplaying this. Is there something going on where Trump is winning? Is the DOJ getting scared that Donald Trump winning is bad for the bad actors? So they're trying like are there people in the DOJ who are saying, look, Trump's going to win and we all know it. We better we better start treating him nice.

That's a tough one. I look at it this way. The remarkable thing to me is Trump's reaction to these two assassination attempts, which is downright classic and unique to him. And it's hard to think of anyone else who would react this way to either one. I mean, with the second assassination, of course, he's annoyed that he's interrupted in his golf game. He was about to make an amazing shot.

Then he posts on social media zero for two. So he's kind of keeping score. That was good. Right? I mean, think about that. And the first assassination attempt, you know, it got me to look. I remember reading a passage in Aristotle, of all people, many long time ago on the issue of courage.

And I went back and looked at it because Aristotle discusses whether courage is a matter of being without fear. And Aristotle says, no, that's actually not what courage is. Because the reckless man is without fear. If some guy goes to a precipice, is ready to jump off, you know, he doesn't know if there are rocks below, that guy is fearless. He's an idiot. So Aristotle goes, there's the reckless man on one hand, and then there's the coward on the other extreme. The courageous man is in the middle. He has fear. He doesn't overcome it.

But he also knows what he's going up against and what he's going for. And he's willing to take the risk. So this, I think, is Trump. And we see it not just with the assassination attempts. We see it also, by the way, in the way he has handled these criminal charges. Because I think you know, you guys all know that if any other Republican was facing three attacks,

criminal charges, they would have fled the field. Yeah. I think that's great because I've heard very similar. Courage requires fear. Courage is overcoming that fear in front of you and doing what has to be done. It's doing what must be done despite your fear. Exactly.

Exactly. And because Aristotle has the famous doctrine of the mean, you know, the virtue is always in the middle of two extremes. So recklessness on the one hand, timidity or cowardice on the other. But there's also a confidence or an arrogance that could be applied to this as well. I mean, it may not be that you're reckless. It could be that, I got to be honest, I don't know if Trump fits perfectly into that paradigm. I think Trump is just so sure of himself.

He's not afraid. He's not reckless. He knows what he's doing. But he also doesn't have fear because he's sure. You know what I mean?

Yeah. And to be honest, Trump is one of the few people I've seen who has aggressively defended his own egotism. Trump says that egotism is... One of the best things to watch him do. Right? I mean, he says that egotism is not a vice. It's a virtue. Now, he says it's a virtue because egotism is required to do great things. I personally have a different view of his egotism. I discussed this a little bit in my book on Trump. His egotism is his own personal wall.

Meaning if any guy is facing the kind of attack that Trump is, a normal person would crumble. Right. You'd go into the fetal position. You'd just be sort of emotionally destroyed. So you have to have a massive ego that insulates you and allows you to sort of shut out some of this craziness and forge ahead. So I think Trump's egotism is a political asset. Do you think that Trump...

can view different aspects of the government differently. Like one of the things that struck me after the first assassination attempt is that the entire Trump family came out and said, no, there are really good agents that protect us. We like them while simultaneously being open to the idea that there was a failure. And in this case, he's saying, you know, the DOJ is not trustworthy. I think this is sort of an interesting characteristic that he is both dependent on the Secret Service day to day. It's not like he got a

It's not like they could just hire a private security team to step in and replace the Secret Service. And at the same time, he doesn't totally trust the federal government right now. I mean, the eerie fact, which sort of can't be avoided, is Trump is dependent for his security.

on a regime that is trying every other which way to destroy this guy, right? I mean, it's the regime that has criminal charges against him. They have done the character assassination that in some ways has emboldened the actual would-be assassins. So Trump is in a very strange position. Now, admittedly, looking back in American history...

Max Bankman, I'm the new doctor. Welcome aboard the Odyssey. ABC Thursdays. This ship is heaven. We're tending to our passengers' dreams. I'm in. From 9-1-1 executive producer Ryan Murphy comes a splashy new drama on a luxury cruise ship with Joshua Jackson and Don Johnson. It's your job to keep everyone alive. She's in V-Fib. One, two, three.

I have a pulse. You're going to be okay. Doctor Odyssey, Thursdays, 9, 8 central on ABC and stream on Hulu. At least when I was a younger man in my earlier career, no one thought this was an issue. I mean, no one thought, for example, that John Kerry would not get proper Secret Service protection because George W. Bush is out to do him in. This is a question that has...

emerged only now and I think reflects our deep distrust of these institutions and the ruthless way in which they have gone after him trying to lock up the leading candidate of the opposition party for life. Despite this obviously being widely condemned by most elected officials, political commentators, I think it unfortunately speaks to the political climate that we're in and is only going to get worse. I think Tim was pulling up a poll earlier that said

Democrats, independents, Republicans across the board are anticipating and concerned about more political violence. Copycat attempts, things like this. I've said it before. These guys get Secret Service protection. Most senators... No, no senators does. Maybe the leader of the House does. I think Nancy Pelosi does, like some of the highest-ranking members of Congress do, but it's mostly the vice president. There was still somebody who was able to get to Nancy Pelosi's husband, so...

It's scary how much damage one person who is very motivated can do. And Trump just announced that he'll have his October 5th rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. I mean, he's returned to the same site, which is fascinating. And again, it brings up that question of like, is this just a level of boldness that no other American has kind of pulled off? Or is it courageous? Is he symbolically saying like, you cannot intimidate me. I'm going to return to this spot where, you know, I was hit by a bullet.

I think that this is the question with American leadership, especially given that Biden and Kamala Harris are so famously inaccessible to the media and therefore to their constituents. I think, you know, you're mentioning Trump defending his egotism. I think...

I think Trump is largely driven by his ego. I think he wants to do good. I don't think it defines him. But there's a lot of people who don't want to believe that they think, no, no, no, Trump's altruistic. He's doing this for the greater good of everyone else. And I'm like, I think Trump internally wants to be loved. I don't think it's a bad thing. I think it's it's a good thing to want other people to respect you for the hard work that you do for what you accomplish. And I think it's

exactly who Trump is. If you meet the guy, and I'm sure you've met him on many more occasions than I have, he tries really hard to be nice to you. He tries to be respectful to you, to a complete stranger, because he's a good person, largely. And when he meets you, he's trying to make sure that you see him positively. I think that's a good thing. Yeah. I mean, I think you have to put this against the backdrop. I mean, look at it this way. If we were Trump...

And we had Mar-a-Lago. You got sort of a billion dollars plus lying around somewhere. You got grandchildren. You have maybe 10 years left to live. And somebody asks you, well, are you going to put yourself in a position where you will be flayed on every platform every second of every day? You'll face criminal charges to lock you up for the rest of your life. You'll face

two, maybe more assassination attempts, no normal person would go for that deal. You know, it's kind of like the scene in My Cousin Vinny. Do I take the $200 or the ass kicking? You know, it's not really a hard choice. So I... After the first assassination attempt.

He gets Sunday off and then he and his family are at the RNC working like nothing happened. That to me is absolutely insane. It's insane. I'm like, take a day off, bro. We're cool with it, you know? And look at the Republicans. I mean, if this had happened to Kamala Harris or Biden, the Democrats would be screaming.

The press would be screaming. They'd be on the House floor, on the Senate floor. Whereas there's a kind of, to me at least, a creepy silence from Republicans. One or two exceptions to that, but by and large, Republicans are acting like it's no big deal.

Or they're letting the mainstream media dictate it. I mean, I think that's so much the difference between Democrats and Republicans right now, which is in part because I think there is a stronger relationship between mainstream media outlets and Democratic politicians, right? They have the ear and the ear wants to hear what they have to say, so to speak. But, you know, there are Republicans...

who have pushed the FBI directors or different people for answers about what happened in Butler. And I guess now we'll have another one. I know Josh Hawley has brought forward a whistleblower, but it's almost like every other Republican knows, well, if I bring it up, the media is not going to pay attention to me. And if I am trying to get some media attention, this isn't something that I can talk about.

It's allowing themselves to be siloed. But I could understand if you have limited resources as a congressman and you're trying to, you know, talk about something that matters to your constituents. You may have to make a choice between the assassination attempt and, you know, agricultural issues. Well, let's jump to the story from Time magazine.

Iran, Trump and the third assassination plot. Now, we did have a super chat the other night that said, actually, we're at number seven. I think it was this morning. We're at number seven with a bunch of different instances that happened. There were like rice and letters that were sent and no one's really keeping track of the lesser known ones. But this story is pretty crazy because the DOJ put out a statement about the arrest of Asif Raza Merchant.

And they said that he was arrested for targeting political individuals. Time magazine is now saying that is Donald Trump. He was scouting out Donald Trump's rallies, counting how many what their security was, things of this nature, and was authorized, apparently by Iran, to offer up to one million dollars to kill Donald Trump. This is absolutely insane. So this guy's been arrested. He was arrested on July 12th, one day before the attempt on Trump's life.

They say that when he was arrested, Secret Service decided to up security on Trump, but then clearly did not. Something doesn't add up. But the big point of the story is we could be looking at

On the surface, based on the news, there have now been three assassination attempts on Donald Trump. One was was stopped abruptly before this guy, a foreign actor, could have take could have actually enacted his plan. Then you have the next day someone actually struck Donald Trump with a bullet. And now, of course, you have the Ryan Routh story. So I fear for the worst. We're entering October. I

I hope the October surprise is something dumb, like a laptop gets found in a hardware store or something. Not anything related to this, but I'm curious what you guys think. Well, Melania Trump's memoir is coming out in October, so maybe that's the October surprise. I doubt it would be bad for Trump.

Maybe that's good for me. I think one of the important details here is that Iran was planning an assassination attempt against Donald Trump and not Joe Biden. And the reason for that is because under Donald Trump is when they killed Qasem Soleimani, leader of the IRGC. I think Iran had multiple plots to kill John Bolton and Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump as a result of that killing. And I'm happy they're on...

are unsuccessful and we should continue taking out the upper echelons of the IRGC as retaliation for doing things like this. This is outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous. And the shocking fear is that were they have to have been successful, this country is going to full scale war and that can only mean the absolute worst. So I remember reading the reporting when this was first reported on and it was a little bit absurd because it made it look like this guy is

wanted to fund an assassination but not do it himself.

And according to the reporting, he was going around apparently with an Uber driver or a limo wanting to stop at clubs to recruit an assassin. I mean, it seemed crazy. And so I thought this is obviously not serious. Now, obviously, it is serious. And there are some new developments here. I think it's very interesting that the thing that catches my attention from what you just said is the fact that they suppressed the fact that Trump was the target.

And that's probably because they thought that if they say it, it's going to help him politically. Oh, yeah. I mean, that would be a reason for the DOJ to go. Well, it was just it was just some high ranking officials. Look at this. This is the DOJ release on September 11th. Pakistani national ties to Iran charged in connection with foil plot to assassinate a politician or U.S. government official. And they had the evidence. They knew exactly what he was trying to do. Fortunately.

The guy he met up with, because he's a moron, you know, no one accuses people of being smart, was an informant who immediately went to the to the feds. And they were like, or I wonder if they say he was an informant. I wonder if what actually happened was when he went to the guy and said he wanted to pull this off, the guy panicked and called the FBI and said, hey, I don't know. He's like, I am now an informant. I am right. I have nothing to do with this man. I had read and I could I could be wrong. But in the early days, I remember a July reading that this man was known to U.S. intelligence before he arrived in the U.S.,

and that he arrived in the U.S. on a visa that was approved by a federal agency. And to me, that always seems strange. Like, if you know someone has malintentions, why did we approve a visa for them to, you know, come stay in the U.S.? It seems like a way to prevent this to me, but I don't know. And so, you know,

the fact that he would then approach an FBI informant or whoever, like that also seems sort of strange. The, the, the I totally believe that there are threats to not just Trump, but all kinds of top officials that we'd never hear about because they're stopped so early in their tracks or because they never escalated anything else. I think that's par for the course. I think anybody in public eye probably deals with similar things. What bothers me about this case is that, you know,

this became the focus over what was happening in Butler. We weren't getting any information about the person who had actually shot Trump. We were getting a fair amount of information about this plot that they had successfully foiled. And to me, this is again, a collusion with the mainstream media. They're running cover for federal agencies when the agencies don't deserve it. If journalism is supposed to give you the truth, then they all should be saying great about Iran. We're happy to cover it. Tell us more about what happened in Pennsylvania. I have a question for you, Dinesh. Uh,

What's your stance on foreign war, foreign policy? Are you you know, I don't want to be too, you know, are you for Ukraine, Israel or anything like that? But like in general, how do you feel about foreign intervention? I generally I think I would say I'm I'm by and large with Trump on this. And here's what I mean by that. I'm not an isolationist.

I'm reluctant to intervene. I certainly am very reluctant to commit troops, but so was Reagan. So if I think back to my Reagan days, I think Reagan was quite prudent. Reagan was also much more transactional than we give him credit for. We think of Reagan as ideological because it was the Cold War.

But remember, Reagan was very tough on the Soviets in the first term. And then he became surprisingly accommodationist with Gorbachev in the second term. And that's when the neocons were bashing Reagan. They're like, he's an idiot. He's falling for Gorbachev's lie. And he doesn't realize Gorbachev is the same as Andropov and Chernenko and Brezhnev. So I think what happened is I got a little suckered into the Bush deal. When the Iraq thing first came out, I thought to myself...

This is so dumb that the obvious stated rationale can't be the real reason for going into Iraq. There must be like another clever reason they're not telling us. And I thought it was more like the old Western movies, you know, where the guy goes, the new sheriff goes into the bar, the bad guys are there, but he doesn't really know who they are. So he just pistol whips a few guys and he just goes, you know, hey, there's a new sheriff in town. That was sort of my way of thinking about the Iraq war when it first happened.

But now I think with some perspective, I think that this was a very bad road to go down. So I've revised my way of looking at foreign policy, partly because I think I understand better that war is a racket, no less than, let's say, welfare programs or housing programs. Well, here's why I ask, because I imagined that you'd probably be somewhere in the Trump realm where Trump's like with limited purpose, we might go in places, but we got Iraq, war, etc.,

If Iran definitively was proven, and I don't mean like the federal government came out and said, trust us. I mean, literally, we knew for a fact Iran orchestrated the assassination of Donald Trump. Would you then support military reprisal against Iran for that action? Absolutely. Me too, 100%. And I am very, very anti-intervention, more so than you and Donald Trump. In a lot of ways, I was anti-war in the 2000s. But we've talked about this quite a bit, and this is what scares me the most about this story, is that I don't want to go to war with Iran.

I don't want to be involved in foreign conflict. I don't like that we're funding the war in Ukraine. I do not like the U.S. involvement, all of these things. I know a lot disagrees, but...

If a foreign government, an adversary of our country, were to assassinate one of our leaders, even if it was Joe Biden, you can't—I don't understand morally and logically you survive as a nation if you allow your enemies to literally kill your leaders. Wait, wait. So, okay, so if they successfully assassinate Donald Trump, then we go to war with Iran. What do we do if they attempt it? What do you think the penalty should be now to— I mean, that's a terrifying question. Yeah, well—

You know, but the question really would come down to definitive evidence that we know for a fact it was Iran, the IRGC. I think there's a preponderance of evidence right now for the public on the surface. Iran definitely was doing this. The killing of Soleimani, they vowed retribution publicly. The guy's mouth is moving as the words are coming out of his mouth. We know they intend to do this.

However, there is there is a question of murder versus attempted murder. And do we escalate to an extreme degree, which is severe international conflict in the Middle East with Iran, a mountainous nation with anti-aircraft capabilities? I mean, I don't want to get into war with anybody. I don't like the idea of the U.S. getting involved in these things. But I will just say this. I can sit here and say in my heart of hearts, no war. We have to avoid it at all costs, no matter what.

But I don't know how you function diplomatically with other countries and even hold treaties if an enemy can kill one of your leaders or even frontrunners for an election and then nothing happens. There's no – I mean that's a declaration of war. I guess I'm the resident neocon because I will take it a step further. I think if you spill the blood of an American service member anywhere, we should probably go to war with you.

And that's what's already happened with our troops throughout the Middle East coming under attack by Iranian proxies. I think Joe Biden was weak to let those attacks go relatively unanswered because of this supposed fear of escalation. But I believe in peace through strength. Sometimes you have to use the big stick. I don't completely disagree, but...

You know, my fear of we lose service members because of Iran funding these militias and intentionally trying to kill our servicemen and women. And I do believe there has to be some kind of penalty in any circumstance for a murder, for killing.

But to go to war with Iran is not some minor. It is not Iraq. It is not Afghanistan. We could start with their proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and other countries. Dinesh, I want to ask you, I feel like on the foreign policy question of our time has become if we should defend Taiwan if China invades. I feel like that's what they've been talking about that for most of your lifetime, too, now. But what do you think about that core question? I know that's a it's a.

This episode is brought to you by Financial Times. When it comes to voicing or acting on our opinions, why are some people more confident than others? With the Financial Times, you form your own opinions with conviction based on unbiased and trusted reporting. FT journalists tackle global issues with an impartial and rigorous mindset, providing the facts and analysis that you need to make up your own mind. Make up your own mind with Financial Times. Visit ft.com slash the journal to read free articles and subscribe.

I think we should do it. By and large, I think that the way we handle these issues is I like the sort of in-between position of the Reagan Doctrine. So the Reagan Doctrine is people should fight for their own freedom. We don't actually fight for them. They fight. We help.

And that was Reagan's model when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The U.S. did not deploy troops, even though this was a direct invasion of 100,000 troops. The United States sent some Stinger rockets. You can shoot down Soviet helicopters. So my point is that we should make it difficult and expensive and counter the Chinese attack. But if you're asking if we should have a massive deployment of U.S. troops...

I would hesitate about that. Let me ask, is it not too different what we're doing now with Ukraine against Russia, what we did with Afghanistan against Russia, the Soviet Union when they invaded them?

Yeah, I think you can make an analogy because I think that in the Ukraine case now, it is a proxy war, right? And the difference, I think, is the level of U.S. national interest is not the same in the two cases. In the Afghanistan case, you have to look at the background. The Soviet Union had gobbled up 10 countries between 1974 with the fall of Vietnam. So Afghanistan was number 10.

So this idea of a kind of escalating Soviet empire was a serious threat. The U.S., I think, had a big strategic interest there. And the U.S. didn't provoke that war. So with Ukraine, there are all kinds of sort of other factors involved. Of course, the Cold War is over. We have a much smaller interest in Ukraine. We're deploying relatively enormous resources in a war that's not so important to us. But on the other hand, like, for example, I would make a distinction between our interests

with Israel on the one side and Ukraine on the other. I don't think that those are equivalent. Part of the problem with our political debate right now is, you know, Mr. Trump, who do you want to win, Ukraine or Putin? And

I think that's such a weird way to phrase this. As if that settles the issue. That does not settle the issue. That doesn't even begin to settle the issue. It's like they're asking about the Super Bowl. Who do you want to win this year? But Trump nailed it. He says, I want the killing to stop. I want the dying to stop. And I'm like, agreed. Well, I think, Dinesh, what you're saying is it's not black and white, right? When you come to the negotiation table, nobody's going to be a winner there. Ukraine is likely going to have to give up some parts that Russia conquered. And Russia will likely have to

likely give up much less, but neither side would go away happy. It won't look like there's a clear winner on either side, especially with all the casualties Russia's taking. And that's true of what's going on with Palestine and Israel, right? There's no way to negotiate a deal there where everyone walks away being like, wow, this was great. I'm so happy we did this. I think it's why it's interesting to see so many people turn to Kamala Harris and say, we want to cease fire. We want the release of all hostages and we want these in absolutes because they're

It's a position she can never deliver on. And I'm sad about that. Right. We want violence to stop. On the other hand, there is not a solution that would make both parties happy. And they are clearly not impressed with the Biden administration. Otherwise, they would have come to the table by now. Let's let's jump to this very weird story that everyone and their grandmother was sending me today because this news is very strange. The son of the would be Trump assassin.

Ryan Routh was arrested on child abuse imagery charges. Apparently, what is it? The feds investigators say they discovered hundreds of files with child abuse imagery. I'm trying to be very family friendly as best I can. This is shocking stuff. During a search of Oren, that's his name. His name is Oren. Oren Routh's residence in Guilford County, North Carolina on Saturday conducted in connection with an investigation unrelated to child exploitation. The two charges he faces include receipt of

This material and possession of said material. The unrelated investigation referred to his father, who remains in custody. A spokesperson with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of North Carolina confirmed ABC News. Investigators said the imagery was found on a Samsung Galaxy Note device located inside his primary bedroom in the residence, as well as another Galaxy Note device in his possession. A review of the SD card located in the device revealed that it contained hundreds of these images. Child abuse.

Prosecutors wrote in the criminal complaint these files include videos from a known series, geez, created outside the state of North Carolina. This just seems absolutely insane. But the crazy thing about it is Epstein, now Diddy, the guy who's trying to go after Donald Trump's kid is is.

There are a lot of people that believe there's this great conspiracy theory of, you know, child abusers at powerful levels of government. And this just has people saying, what the is going on? I mean, I think it's really creepy. I think it makes people...

unhappy because they realize how sensitive all of these issues are. What I find kind of, I don't know what the right word is, but this was the son who gave an interview saying, you know, my father was a great, you know, good father and I don't really know why he did this, but of course he hated Trump like all reasonable people would. And you want to say this person's yardstick for what's reasonable is becoming more and more warped to me. I don't know that I trust his judgment. I, I,

I think that child sexual abuse material is actually really rampant in our country. And I think one of the reasons we're hearing about it more is because people are starting to take it more seriously. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Oh, I was just going to say, for years, you know, when we heard about Pizzagate and so on, it was a little difficult to know if this was just some outrageous allegation being made or whether there really are these powerful pedophile rings in politics, in Hollywood, right?

I guess I'm beginning to move to the fact that some of this may be real, right? Well, Epstein is, we know it. That's right. And now Diddy, what's going on with Diddy? So Usher apparently like deleted all of his Twitter account, but then came back and said it was hacked and it got restored. But Pink deleted her Twitter account. And, you know, apparently like, I don't know if Serge, you know anything about this? You're saying something like people are quitting or I don't know.

So just saying, but for the show, a bunch of music executives are quitting. But he took away his own microphone, so now we can't have him comment on it.

I think I'll just say the obvious on this, that it's obviously extremely gross, but more widespread than we might realize. And that's very unsettling. It's obviously sickening and unthinkable to polite society, but there exists this like gross underworld. And I think it goes from the elites to non-elites. And I don't think this is unique to just rich people or poor people. I think there's a sickness that exists across the board and people need to be on the lookout and

concerned for and I think this what you know Hannah Clare was saying is that people are starting to take it more seriously I think people starting to realize how serious it is and I think when we learn about what Epstein was involved in and now these these Diddy stories which is I think the bulk of the story is just he was filming politicians with these weird romps and orgies and there was trafficking involved and there were underage girls and stuff and

These are all allegations, by the way, all the allegations. I think there are the powerful people who are involved in this have a vested interest in making sure the media stays away from it. And so if you're a billionaire, if you're Epstein, I think he was worth half a half a billion.

Yeah, he's going to he's going to if he's got blackmail material on somebody and you've got some connections to major media publications, that story ain't coming out. Look at the story that James O'Keefe broke with Amy Rohrbacher, I think her name was. And she's like, we had Epstein. We had the story and they killed it. They said not to do it. So you have to wonder if Epstein makes a few phone calls and says no.

And then they just fall in line. And of course, interestingly, Gillen Maxwell has not spilled the beans. She could have. And she knows, but she's not telling. And that's kind of significant. I mean, look, when you look at this, the Routh family, if you want to call it that, we have two defining features.

In the case of the father, we have Trump derangement syndrome to the max. Yes. And the kid. What do you mean? All reasonable people hate Trump. That's right. All reasonable. And then with the kid, you've got, let's call it the Moulin Rouge Society. And these are two phenomena that you see on the left. I mean, you see both. You see Trump derangement syndrome all over the place.

And then you see a lot of an attempt, if you will, to pull down the moral codes of our society, which is going to open the door to all kinds of taboos falling by the wayside. And the Democrats, you know, will cheer it.

Yeah. I will say on this issue, one of the ways that it touches into other issues is like free speech and privacy issues with some apps not working with the feds to find perpetrators. Like Telegram? Yeah. So, for example, Telegram recently was embroiled in this stuff because they don't work with the feds at all when it comes to any of these cases. So Telegram has kind of become a hub for

for predators as a result of this stuff. Because if you're doing illegal things, Telegram is known to not work with the feds. It'll become your app of choice. You obviously have to weigh with working with the feds and collaborating with them. And if you make a backdoor to your program for one reason, it's a backdoor for any reason per se. So it's a security concern. Well, now I think after that whole dude getting arrested in France, they removed some of the...

The terms of service, it's something like protections or whatever. The implication, I guess, and I haven't looked enough into this, but that

If you're on Telegram, there's going to be a backdoor for law enforcement. And Telegram has always said like they work with law enforcement to a certain capacity. They don't, you know, they have their certain values that they stand by, but they also meet certain EU standards. NYPD, they have not worked with NYPD. Like they constantly complain about how they have many cases that Telegram hasn't worked with them with. I also think the FBI has come out and said like the Telegram hasn't worked with them at all.

Maybe they I would be surprised, frankly, if they didn't have a back door that they were able to engineer themselves. But I don't think you could use that legally. Therefore, so. I mean, I think with a lot of this and I am not sure what language YouTube's OK with, but I think our cultural understanding of pornography has changed so much that it went from like at one point being this like.

part of the sex positive movement and being like, some people do this because it's expression and this, that and the other. But as we come up against really horrifying things, I think people don't want to talk about. You have that relationship of like, there have to be boundaries and there have to be protection, especially in this case, minors who cannot consent to be a part of this. It's always abuse. It's always exploitative. And I think the cultural revelation of like,

the sexualization of children, as it becomes more entrenched in our mainstream conversation, you will see more conversations like this, which is like, this guy has a series of images that was known to police and made outside the state because they are trying to...

they're trying to stop something that they are far behind. It's very different from the conversation about like this family seems to have some serious problems, but it also speaks to like our cultural issue, which is like this is something that law enforcement is chasing. They're not preemptively preventing right now because they can't. I've got some serious concerns about this coming month. So I will be purchasing some water and dry food, gold maybe.

I feel like you haven't said the magic civil word, civil war word in a long time. Oh, it's not even about civil war. And the New York Times last week wrote that international world leaders are concerned the U.S. is about to devolve into a civil war. Like they were mentioning Keir Starmer talking about something related to this.

I'm just saying, I don't even know about election. It doesn't even have to be any kind of civil conflict. I mean, look what's going on in these cities. Just Philly the other night, where you have the ring of fire. They've got flamethrowers. They're attacking cops and smashing cop cars. I mean, you've got Chicago, where you've got the Venezuelan gang, Trendy Aragua, now taking up against all the Chicago gangs. Oh, man, that's crazy. And think of where that's going to go. They're going to lose. They do not understand.

These I don't I don't think these Venezuelan gangs get it. I mean, maybe if we're talking about like, I don't know, you know, Colombian revolutionary or like counterinsurgency, whatever, like actual combat war and like the cartels, MS-13, great above. But this trend, Aragua stuff, I think these guys are wholly unprepared for what they're getting themselves into in Chirac. Like the Chicago gangbangers are going to.

You see that video out of Aurora where the gang bangers, I'm sorry, the Venezuelans knock on the door and then they're like banging on the door?

Yeah, if that was Chicago, balls would come through the other side. You knock like that. They don't get it. You know, in Venezuela, the gangs are protected by the Chavista regime. And so they become, they get state protection. They get state protection even in prison. And so then they're unleashed here. But I think you're right. They're not quite prepared for what they might be going up against with some of the American gangs. I don't know.

I was in, when I was in Venezuela, the way it was explained to me is that the most common crime you're going to experience is called an express kidnapping. They'll wait for someone by an ATM. They'll walk up to you. They'll wait for you to take the ATM and then point a gun at you and pull you into the car. While you're in the car, they give us all your money. Then they ask you where you want to go.

they'll drop you off where you want to go. And I was like, really? They'll be like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Once they take your stuff, they'll be like, where can we drop you off? And it's like you get a free ride out of it. The most expensive Uber of all time. And then, you know, a lot of people are like, just drop me off here or whatever. And express kidnapping was very common. There are a lot of murders. I believe there's more murders in Caracas than anywhere in any other city in the world, but not per capita Honduras, I believe, or maybe Belize, but I think one of the two has more per capita. The thing about Chicago is...

And I can't perhaps speak to the greater of Venezuela. When I was there, I didn't experience this kind of stuff. But there's cultural violence where with the gangs, there's a combination of finance, honor, territory, things like this. So what these gangbangers are saying is that these Venezuelan gangs don't understand the rules. They're coming in and they're on their turf. They're engaging in business.

And so the gangs are all like all of the gangs are basically talking to each other like, you know, what are these guys doing? You know, like, you know, let's say gang number one and gang number two know where that boundary is. The police have maps showing the gang territories and the gangs know if you go into someone else's territory, there are certain things you can and cannot do. But now all of the gangs are like, you know, these Venezuelan gangs don't care about our arrangements anymore.

And so that's a recipe for disaster. But it would be funny if it unites the Chicago gangs and then the Chicago gangs end up pushing out the Venezuelan gangs and it like cleans up crime. It's like domestic v. foreign gangs. But it like ends the crime somehow. This is like kind of a movie material, right? It's like a movie plot. And quite honestly, it could be an extremely violent –

a gang movie or it could be a comedy you could actually go in either direction this is a great idea it's the reverse avengers it's basically like you get one gangbanger and he's and it's like one day he sees venezuelan gangs like robbing a liquor store and then you know he walks in and he sees a bunch of others gang members are all beat up so he has to now go and recruit all the leaders of all the other gangs to form one super gang to go up against the international cartel or whatever

And what are they fighting for? Chicago gangs unite. They're killing each other for the right to sell you Chinese fentanyl in Chicago. Largely. Always goes back to China. That's where it's going back to. That's why they're killing each other for. Well, let's jump to this next story. We've got this one from azfamily.com.

Democratic Party office in Tempe hit by gunfire twice in a week, no injuries reported. Now at first when I heard this story, I was thinking to myself like, oh no, you know, the political violence in this country is getting out of hand, this is unacceptable. And then I pulled the story up and looked and I went, oh, this is just Democrat city violence. Okay, and it's all bad, it's all bad. But my point is, and I do mean this seriously, at first I was terrified, like, man, are we really getting to this point where now people are gonna go shoot? Oh, okay.

It doesn't look like it's politically motivated. We don't know for sure. It looks like it may just be run-of-the-mill urban crime that is affecting these Democrat cities. They just picked a bad place to put this headquarters. Still bad. Still bad. We don't want this stuff. We're critical of the crime. But I'm saying, you know...

Political escalation where people are targeting each other for politics with this kind of stuff is substantially worse than just standard urban crime. Well, and also just to raise the question, and I'll raise it in a broader context, not about the Tempe, not about this incident, and that is, should we feel sorry for

for Democrats in cities who vote for policies that produce carjackings, crime, burglaries, muggings, and then become the victims of those exact policies that they advocate not only prior to these things happening, but they continue to advocate it even after they happen? I've got a very simple answer for this. And we need to stop looking at this

from our perspective. We need to think outside the box because, you know, you and I, Dinesh, we clearly don't want to be victimized. We don't want muggers to come after us and take our wallets. Well, Democrats do. And so the problem I was experiencing for a while is that I could not fathom. I assumed they must feel the same way as me, that if I don't want to be mugged, they must be making a mistake and then getting upset when they get mugged. And then I realized,

No, they actually are OK with it, in which case I would liken it more to someone deciding someone saying I'd like to vote for ice cream and then someone handing them ice cream cone. Right. So that's the better way to look at it. So when Democrats say we vote to release criminals from our prisons, be light on crime, which does increase crime, I say no.

Well, that's really good for you. I'm really happy that you got what you wanted. Thank you. Have a nice day. I'm a little bit more empathetic and sympathetic. I think if you are a freedom-loving American, and even if you voted for Democrat policies, if you're getting mugged or something, or if you get killed downstream from a policy that is tangentially related... You did not listen to a word I said, did you? No, I did. So let me put it this way. If I said, Elad, I would like to have this...

and you went, "No, I have empathy for you, so I'm going to deny you from having that." That doesn't make sense, does it? This is a thing that I want. But you, in your mind, can't fathom me wanting it, so you're like, "I have empathy for you, so I'm going to deny you the thing you're asking for." Let's take an example. Let's say that there is a referendum in the city of San Francisco.

that says, would you like to have more cops? Would you like to have these things? And let's just say that 90%— Bail reform. Let's make it easy because it's already happened. In New York City, there's bail reform and there's more criminals out on the street. You put the whole ensemble of things on the ballot. And let's just say that 90% of San Franciscans go, no, we don't want that. We want to take the money away from the cops. We want bail reform. And then you see a spike in the crime rate. And you see that more San Franciscans are getting victimized by crime

What how are you and I to feel morally as well as politically about that? I disagree with their position that we should decrease funding to police, but I don't think they're directly by doing that. They're not. I don't think directly voting for crimes to happen. And I think this is where this is where they are. They decriminalized. They said if it's up to nine hundred and fifty dollars, you can't be prosecuted for it anymore.

And people were loading up garbage bags from stores. They want these things to happen. Or it could be that their votes are even more malicious, which is to say they don't mind the crimes happening as long as it doesn't happen to them. So they feel like, I'm in a high-rise building. It's not going to happen to me. But there may be some poorer neighborhoods where it happens. I don't care about those people. So then when it happens to you, I feel almost particularly delighted because I feel like you voted for it. You lobbied for it. And finally, it's caught up.

with you. I think the question would be like if it was a new policy no one had ever heard of

Get softer, smoother, and more even-toned skin after just one use with the new Gentle Exfoliating Line from Cetaphil. Formulated with a unique triple acid blend that promotes surface skin cell renewal, these gentle chemical exfoliators remove dead skin cells and refine skin's texture while hydrating, resulting in softer, smoother, more even-looking skin. Shop the new Cetaphil Gentle Exfoliating Line in the face and body aisles at your local Target store or online at cetaphil.com.

this before and you were a Democrat, like, I think that could make a difference. And he voted for it. And then you were victim crime. I might be like, yeah, that's sad. That's bad. But the fact that it's happened over and over again, that other cities try the same things and get the same results, it becomes a level of like, are we going to excuse the fact that they are now acting illogically? I completely agree. And I would say to you, Ilan, stop injecting your emotions on other people and stop and just look at it mathematically.

Person says, I desire this thing. They get this thing. The only response logically is outside of my emotions. Congratulations on getting what you asked for. I don't like dunking on my fellow Americans when bad things are happening to them. I think sort of the Democrat equivalent to this would be like if an old person who said they were against vaccines and would never get the COVID vaccine would

ended up contracting COVID and died. And now you see on MSNBC or viral tweets going, oh, look, this moron didn't take the vaccine that could have saved him. And now we're thinking that's funny. No, I think that's wrong. No, I think it's wrong in both cases. Listen, when this happened and people on the right refused to get vaccinated and died, they didn't all of a sudden go, I wish I actually did this thing. And there was no big change. Conservatives still maintained, even through this, we don't think they should have mandates.

The Democrats mocking them are exactly what you're doing now to them. They said, we want bail reform. We do not want people in prison. They got let out. Crime increased. And you're saying, ha ha, look what you get. They're going, we wanted this. We voted for it. We got exactly what we wanted. We accept what's happening.

Yeah, I don't think the goal of bail reform in their mind... Okay, now understand, the Democrats are saying the identical thing about vaccines, saying these stupid Republicans didn't understand the vaccines would save them, and now they died because of it, but Republicans never changed their position. They still don't want the mandates.

The changing position part is for political people and for you to decide how you want to change your mind. But on the face of it, I don't think we should be making fun of for people for having bad things. I'm saying congratulations. You voted for it. I don't know. MSNBC will make fun of people who could have gotten vaccines and helped save themselves. And now we're making fun of people who have crimes committed against them when they vote for things like defunding the police and bail reform. I'm not making fun of them. You're saying they deserved it?

I'm saying, congratulations. I don't know. You voted for it. Let's take another example just to push the logic of this. Let's just say, for example, that you vote for a candidate that promises to increase your taxes, right? And then they come in and they pass laws that have confiscatory tax rates and you are now forced to live under those tax rates.

Would you say that somehow aren't you getting what you voted for? Yes, totally. I think that's more direct, though, than wanting something like bail reform and then having a violent crime happen to you. If you go and ask one of these leftists, you were the victim of a violent crime by an individual who should have been in jail. How do you feel? They will tell you. I know it's bad that they victimize me, but I'm still happy the system is operating this way.

You are sitting here telling them that you you think they actually secretly feel the way you do instead when they don't.

That's why, as the desk pointed out, they advocate for a policy, face a negative repercussion and continue to advocate for that policy. The same can be said with what the left does about the right and the vaccines. It's a good point that the right says there should be no mandates. I don't want to do this. Then, you know, Herman Cain or somebody dies and then they all start mocking him saying, ha ha. But not a single Republican goes. We hereby change our position and regret the choices we made. They maintain the position.

I think it's generally politically toxic to say like when violent crime happens to somebody in somewhere where they're, I mean, that's how we were starting the premise out. The premise was that I say congratulations to them.

You got what you voted for. And then that's it. I'm not going to go tell San Francisco how to live. They can wallow in human feces and crime all day and night because they vote for it every single time. I'm saying conservatives often say it's so awful. These things are happening to these people. I'm like, go talk to them. They'll tell you they're OK with it. I'm not kidding. They will.

I mean, let's say we were to say that the people in San Francisco who essentially chased out all these productive high-tech businesses are now facing empty office buildings and they're now facing, let's say, property values are starting to slump in San Francisco.

I say, again, there's no other way to think of it, but didn't you vote for that? Didn't you vote for the policies that made that happen? I agree with that, but I think that's different than like, you're voting for somebody to, because defunding the police is different from directly voting for somebody to like have a violent crime committed against you. If you're raising taxes in an area, then yeah, you should expect the consequences to that. If you go to a progressive in San Francisco and say,

Do you ask them, do you support bail reform? They'll say yes. You say, OK, statistics show that this will result in more violent offenders being on the streets and violent crime will go up. They'll say, we know. And you'll say, and in the instance that you are a victim of this violent crime, would you regret your decision? Change your position? They'll say, no, of course not. We're in favor of bail reform.

This is what we see time and time again. That was the beginning of what Nesh's point was. They advocate for a policy, face negative consequences from it, and continue to advocate for it. Because I think the policy is wrong, I still feel bad for them. But I think you have to bring out your hidden premise. And your hidden premise is that they do not think...

that bail reform and defunding the police will in fact lead to more crime. You must think secretly they can't believe that because you find it hard to believe that they would be okay with escalating crime rates because of course escalating crime rates are bound to visit them at some point.

I guess it depends on the leftist you talk to. I feel like some would justify it and some wouldn't. I would say that if you go to the average default liberal, they're going to be clueless on every single issue. You're going to go to the average conservative and they're going to be clueless on most issues as well. If you go to politically active individuals on the left, AOC, you ask her about it, they will not retract the support for bail reform despite the crime. Well, they'd add on a bunch of things like we need bail reform because our—

our jail system is historically racist, and NYPD is historically racist. - They'll change that conversation for sure. - My point is, other people think differently and feel differently than you do, Elad. So when you say I feel bad for them, it's like saying, did you see "Hak Tua Girl"? She's a millionaire now. Don't you feel so bad for her? Because she's this weird, gross sex symbol, that's her career. And I made this point the other day, I can only feel so bad as I would for someone who instantly became a millionaire.

I don't think she's upset at all. But someone would look at that and say, I would be miserable if my whole persona and character was based on saying you spit on a dude, you know, like that. And they feel like, oh, man. And for all you know, she's happier than a pig in ish rolling around with millions of dollars being a life is so good. Why feel bad for people who are happy with the results they got? I cannot.

understand people don't know better like i have my own moral code right like if you're saying like look they may not feel bad or they may think they deserve something like there's a certain part of like you are responsible for your own emotional reaction to something and i could understand wanting to have empathy for them uh i don't think that we have to like then still believe them when this is a justification like if they continue to say no no these policies work and you know they're not you know i don't know i figured it out i feel bad

for people who eat cilantro because it's disgusting. And so it should be illegal. That way they don't have to suffer by eating cilantro. I'm just such an empathetic and sympathetic person. Me too. I'm so empathetic to people who are forced to eat cilantro. I mean, because if people really had the choice, they would never vote to put cilantro in their guacamole. It's just that the restaurants forced them to do it. And so me as the benevolent leader who understands exactly what people think and feel, and I know exactly what they want, I will make it so that they have to live my way and they will never have cilantro again.

See, that makes no sense. Obviously, some I don't like it, but I understand people do like it. The idea that you are saying it's such a shame that these people are experiencing these things that they are completely OK with, they support and advocate for even after experiencing it. Look at the guy who went up at the podium whose son was murdered and he said his son, he wished his son was killed by a white man.

You're empathizing with someone who is begging for this stuff, right? So we can certainly say, I believe their morals are backwards. But the idea that you can be like, wow, I feel so bad for them. Why? They're happy. Do you feel bad for that father? I feel bad for that father. Although he supports immigration that might have led to more people without licenses in his community that led to the car accident. There's a distinction here, though. I feel bad for an old man who falls down the stairs.

I feel differently about an old man who runs full speed and then jumps and then flops down the stairs. It's a different kind of feeling, right? I'm upset that he got hurt, but I also think that guy should be in a mental institution because he's a danger to himself. The old man who is waving to me saying, hey, you know, I bought cookies for him, he slips and falls. I'm going to be mortified and terrified and rush to try and help.

If he ran full speed and was like, this is going to be fun, and then just barely flopped off the stairs. But wait, we don't need to do abstractions. This man who said, I wish my son was killed by a white man instead of a migrant. Do you feel bad for that man? So there's a distinction between feeling bad for someone whose son was killed and a person who's advocating for a white man to have murdered his son. The bad I feel for him is not empathy. It is structurally and societal. But this man, I believe, is a bad person. I do not empathize with someone who would say something so disgusting.

You have to separate the two things because what's going on is, number one, there is the fact that this man has suffered, right? And that part of it you do feel sorry for. But he's exploiting that suffering to do something quite pernicious, which is ultimately saying, I want to now peg the blame for this on a white guy. So that's the sick and demented part of it. And I think by separating those two, you're not being morally inconsistent at all. Like Mr. Freeze, right?

You know Mr. Freeze? Is that from like... Batman villain, right? Wow. So when the cartoon for Batman came out, they won an Emmy for this story because it was one of the first times a comic book villain had a real motivation. His wife was dying.

He freezes her body to try and buy time so he can find a cure, and he turns to crime to get the resources we need to save the life of his wife. And so you're like, wow, I feel so bad for him. He's an evil guy. He was hurting people. He's a bad guy. It's a different kind of feeling bad. It makes me think of Molly Tibbetts. I don't remember this story, but she was a University of Iowa student who was murdered by an illegal immigrant while she was out for a jog.

And her body was found in the cornfield. It was really sad. And Trump talked about it a lot because I believe it was during his 2016 campaign. And her father came out and, you know, you have empathy for this father who has lost his daughter. That's tragic. But I...

didn't have empathy for his argument that we shouldn't talk about illegal immigration because that would actually be racist and and you know politicize his daughter's death like his daughter's death was you know and the man has been convicted so i feel comfortable it's we don't have to use the word alleged like she was definitely murdered by an illegal immigrant illegal immigration was a direct influence on her death uh and so you know to to what danesh was saying like

I feel sad about the loss of life. I can't imagine being that parent, but I have no sympathy for his his trying to steer this away from the truth, which is that illegal immigration causes harm in this country and especially to his family. One last one last point on this and we can move on is if a guy was robbing a bank and then on his way out,

A cop shot him and he was lying on the ground. Do you feel bad for that burglar, that robber? No, but I don't think the metaphor works because I don't think the Democrats are metaphorically robbing the bank.

You don't think releasing criminals onto the street who continually victimize people is a bad thing? I think that's a really bad policy, but I think most of the time, most of the people in most Democrat cities don't even vote. And I think it's kind of still messed up to kind of throw it in their faces. There's a spectrum between an innocent person who in no way is responsible for the harm that comes to them and the individual who advocates for it suffers the consequences of his own actions of a negative choice and then continues to advocate for it. So it would be like...

A criminal commits a crime, gets punched in the face while committing the crime, gets angry, goes to the hospital, then goes back out and starts robbing people again. Right. Democrats in these cities are voting for things that are destructive, suffer the consequence of the destruction, and then continue the path of destruction. There's no real empathy. There is

there's a certain degree of like you, there's different kinds of empathy. There's different feeling bad. In this instance, I just think people who choose to live this way, I say, oh, okay, you know, congratulations for getting what you want. I'm not going to sit here and tell you how to live your life. I mean, I think we're trying to make a broader point here about the cities. And that is that for decades, we have assumed that as the cities devolve and become more and more unlivable, right?

There is bound to be a political revolt in which the people who live in those cities are going to say, I don't want to live like this. This goes too far. I've had enough. And we've been struck by the fact that that point never appears to be reached. And then it forces you to go, wait a minute.

Maybe I'm only thinking that this is the way I would feel if I lived in Philadelphia under these conditions, but maybe the people who are actually in those conditions have different motives, different interests. We're not saying that they enjoy being mugged, but what we're saying is they may have other things to gain. So, for example, they realize the city creates a structure of dependency.

I don't mind the crime as long as I get a monthly paycheck. I can live with the crime. But then the crime comes and haunts you. Now, you're not happy it did, but you made a dirty bargain in which you said, I'd rather take that paycheck and I'm willing to live with higher crime rates. And I'm saying, that's a bargain, buddy, that you made. Not that I don't feel bad for you, but I do recognize you are getting what you voted for. Let's jump to this in the daily news. You want to read that headline, Elad?

Trump edges ahead of Harris in new national Quinnipiac poll. There was this headline a while ago and it said something like, Harris edges Trump in latest political poll or whatever. And everyone was like, please never write that again. That's just too close. We don't want to hear that. This grin on Trump's face. Yeah. Well, so this new Quinnipiac poll is actually rather shocking for this reason. In May, Biden was up three.

Harris comes in in August. Harris is up, too. And as of September, Trump is now up one in the same poll. So it's actually really, really interesting seeing this this this breakdown here. Daily News says that so Trump is up one as long as Jill Stein is in the race. They say Trump is ahead of Harris, 48 to 47 in a new national Quinnipiac poll.

of the race for the White House. The survey, which was dead even when measured as a head-to-head contest, comes as a rare piece of good news for Trump. So 41 days before the election. Is it really 41 now? I believe so. I mean, I think there's only like 30 IRL episodes until the election. 30! I think early voting starts in many of the swing states even prior to that. In PA now. Okay, yeah. So...

This is huge. When you when you put the battleground states here, let's this is the national average, but the national average is two point one. And then Trump in the battlegrounds, Trump is up point two in aggregate in the battleground states. If we are to assume that the same bias exists like it did in 2016 and 2020, then Trump is up in every battleground state by about three or four points because the battleground bias in 16 and 17 was four to seven points, depending on the polls.

In the national average, it was three to five and Harris up two point one. So this is massive. And take a look at this. Quinnipiac, when listed by RCP, they put tie. They don't even give him the plus one. Jill Stein is absolutely running. And so is Chase Oliver. That is Trump is up one in this poll, not even giving it to him.

And the Democrats have made a serious effort in certain states to keep Jill Stein off the ballot, which I find fascinating. I think, you know, and you'd have to go through each poll to be to be careful. But maybe if it's just a direct mashup between her and Trump, she has an edge within the margin of error in some places. But I think that's pretty inaccurate considering how many places have third party candidates.

Well, this is big. I think one of the reasons why Trump won't do this next debate and why Kamala is begging for it is because they know her internals are bad. We went over that commercial the other day where Sam Elliott was like, what are you waiting for? Is it the woman thing? Well, it's time to get over that.

And people aren't getting over it. I think that's going to be that's a huge issue for many people in America. I think she hasn't even won over all of the Democrats that she needs, let alone independents or, you know, they keep trying to, like, make it OK for Republicans to vote for her. I don't know if you guys saw the story, but there were climate activists who were protesting outside her home in in Brentwood in California. And, you know,

In response, she put up a tweet that was something like, we will make the environment better and full of priorities and joy and hope and opportunity. Like just buzzwords, fluff, nothing. And it irritated the activists because they have specifically been asking her to be direct and specific in what her promises are. They want concrete goals and measurable goals.

values that she plans to carry out and she won't give it to them. And it's the same thing with the voters that Biden faced during the primary who were saying, our number one issue is Israel-Palestine. If you do not secure or promise a ceasefire or whatever it was, we are not coming to the polls. I think the idea that they are now so far ahead, all the Democrats are on lock, that they need to convert Mormons in Arizona is sort of a, it's a fantasy.

I mean, this race, interestingly, is not even between Trump and Harris, if you really think about it. This is a race between Trump,

and the unelected junta that is running the country. Yeah. And I say that because it's become really clear now that the Democrats aren't running a candidate in the normal sense. Normally, the candidate becomes the head of the party. They direct the affairs of the party. We kind of assumed that was true of Clinton. It was true. It was true of Carter, obviously, further back, Truman, and so on. But starting with Biden, the Democrats decided, let's do things somewhat differently. We have an inner group that runs the country. Right.

Biden doesn't even need to win the primary. We just move him to the front and he takes office. It's under the understanding that he's our man. He's in the canoe. He's the face of the canoe, but he's not steering the canoe. And we reserve the right to move him out at any time. And he has to go kind of willingly.

And interestingly, if you think that that was just like a one-time deal for Biden because Biden was in a unique position, he has dementia and so on, it turns out that they made exactly the same deal with Kamala Harris. No primary. And that means that we chose you. We moved you to the front of the line. We gave you the nomination. If now you make it across the finish line, you're going to do what we say. And we reserve the right to swap you out whenever we feel like it. And you have to go smiling.

So what that means really is that the Democrats are no longer running candidates in the normal sense. They're basically telling the American people, we've got an insider gang that

And we are going to run the country and we're going to put a front person out there. And that's going to be the figurehead president. I don't. Is there any other way to see it? For a political party that talks so much about democracy, it is really ironic that they pull the rug from under Joe Biden in the primary just to appoint somebody who won, again, no primary votes. This Quinnipiac poll is hilarious. Check this out. They say, regardless of how you keep in mind, keep in mind this whole time I'm reading these things, that Trump is ahead of Harris by one point.

Chase Oliver and Jill Stein are absolutely in this race. And when you factor in the full race, Trump is ahead by one point nationally. Now listen to this. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think has higher ethical standards? Total 43% said Trump, 51% said Harris. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think cares more about the needs and the problems of people like you? 49% said Trump and 48% said Harris. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think is more honest?

46% Trump, 48% said Harris. And they said, regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job handling the economy? 52 for Trump, 45 for Harris. Handling immigration, 53 for Trump, 45 for Harris. Preserving democracy, 47 for Trump and 50 for Harris. And handling abortion, 41 for Trump, 54 for Harris. Handling gun violence, Harris has the lead. Handling a crisis in the country, Trump has the lead. The reason I'm going through these,

They don't care about honesty. They don't care about ethics. They care about whether or not you're going to be good on the economy for them. That's it. So when you can see the people like, oh, Kamala is way more ethical and more honest, but Trump's better in the economy and immigration. So I'm voting for him. It doesn't matter. And I think Kamala's favorability is actually better than Trump's in this. People are outright like, I don't like Trump. He's not an honest guy, but he's going to make me some money.

I think it's the myth of would you have a beer with them? Right. I mean, I think people would want to have a beer with Donald Trump just to ask him lots of questions. But but the reality is, I think we're past the point of feeling like our politician has to come to our Christmas party or to our summer barbecue. I think people feel desperate enough where they're like, I don't know that I would personally be friends with this person. But if they are effective on the on the world stage and if they can handle domestic issues, especially as things become unbearable,

more more acute, then that's who I want there. Here's the best part of the poll. Does Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris make you more enthusiastic about Harris's candidacy or less enthusiastic about Harris's candidacy? Or you just make a difference. Nine percent said more enthusiastic. Congratulations. Thirteen percent said less enthusiastic. Oh, and 76 didn't care.

But that means there is a greater negative impact on Kamala Harris because of Taylor Swift's endorsement. It's so funny. The reverse endorsement, I guess. It's sabotage. Yeah. I mean, how do we, how do we, how are we supposed to think about, how do we explain this? This is a little strange. What's your theory? I don't have a theory. I think people don't want celebrities in politics. I think we want, there is a political fatigue and they want entertainment to be entertaining and to have a break because it's been essentially a decade of intensifying divisive politics. But,

But also, sorry, just... No, go ahead. Elon Musk's endorsement had a similar backfire on Trump. 13% are more enthusiastic, but 21% are less enthusiastic because he endorsed Donald Trump. That one's absolutely... I think celebrities are generally less beloved now than they've been in the past 50 years. And I think gaining some sort of prominence is more attainable for the average Joe more than ever. So I think it umifies...

people and the celebrities a little bit more. This populist zeal that's taken over this, this anti sort of anti-rich, anti-celebrity strain that's kind of taken over. It makes sense why some people would say like, oh, that's who you want. Like, yeah, I'm just going to be a contrarian and do the opposite. Do you think any of it has to do with the influencer economy? Like now basically anyone can be micro famous, but I don't care, you know, what the girl who started a pretty successful blog that I went to college with

she's a nice lady. I don't really care how she's voting. Like, I think it dulls the shine of celebrity endorsements because everyone kind of has a platform. Isn't it beneath you as a celebrity to even care about this? Don't get involved in our petty politics. I wish it was trendy to stay out of politics. 73% of people say they're at least somewhat or very concerned that there will be political violence.

following the outcome of the 2024 election. And I think that sounds about right. I mean, considering what we've seen the past five years, ever since really the George Floyd riots, I think we've been seeing some parallels with

Some protests we've seen coming up that hasn't reached the same level of violence. But then obviously the two assassination attempts, January 6th. I think people have a reason to be concerned about political violence moving forward. Democrats, 90% of Democrats are concerned.

that there will be violence, much less. It's 59% of Republicans. So the Democrats, they know their neighbors. They've been hyped up aggressively about the January 6th stuff. CNN, MSNBC is constantly drilling them with January 6th stuff, fear-mongering. So I think that's why the Democrats... Hey, Fidelity, how can I remember to invest every month? With the Fidelity app, you can choose a schedule and set up recurring investments in stocks and ETFs.

Oh, that sounds easier than I thought. You got this. Yeah, I do. Now, where did I put my keys? You will find them where you left them. Investing involves risk, including risk of loss. Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC. Member NYSE SIPC.

Democrats are so high. Well, I think the added factor is that Democrats get information only from other Democrats. Yep. And that's not true of our side. So, for example, if you or I were asked to summarize, let's just say what Rachel Maddow believed, we could do it. We have a pretty good idea of how she thinks. We could state her opinion in a matter that would make her go, yeah, that's what I think.

But I don't think she could state our opinion in the manner that we think. She would do a caricature of it. Well, hold on. If you were in a private closed room, Chatham House rules, Rachel Maddow would absolutely correctly nail down Tucker Carlson's worldview and opinions. And then once the camera turns on, she'd say he's a neo-Nazi white supremacist.

Oh, I see what you mean. You're saying that she has the IQ to be able to do it, but she is posturing. She does know better. Yeah, she's... It's the more run-of-the-mill default libs who don't know. And so you're more likely to find, because this is actually true, when you look at the data, this is actually interesting. Let me pull up the favorability on someone, say, Tim Waltz, because Republicans should dislike the guy, right?

Let me see about favorability. Why would Republicans dislike him? He has the camo hat. That's right. You know, that changes everything. He's a white Midwestern man. They must like him. Joe Biden handling the president. Here we go. Is your opinion of Tim Walz favorable, unfavorable, or haven't you heard enough about him? Which is a weird way to phrase it. And Republicans say 4% favorable, 68% unfavorable, 27% haven't heard enough. Republicans will be like, you know, I don't know enough about the guy.

What do you think about what do you think it's going to look like for Democrats and J.D. Vance? How do you feel about J.D. Vance? Democrats say four percent favorable, 87 percent unfavorable, nine percent haven't heard enough because Democrats are just so dang sure of themselves. And Republicans are like, well, I need to know more. Republicans are more likely to say, I need to check myself and see what he's got to say. Democrats, they're not listening to J.D. Vance. They don't know what he has to say.

They're just watching MSNBC and listen to what Rachel Maddow has to say. It feels like evidence of two different cultures that are in America. They have different values. They have different morals. They have very different ways of thinking. And I find that to be the most concerning part. It's very difficult to form a cohesive society if you continue to drift farther and farther apart where even the common language, even the common way of interpreting news and information is just wildly different. Veltard and Feather, J.D. Vance is weird in Call It A Day. Yeah.

I want to make sure we get this story in. This is big news from SCNR. IPCC data shows human activity not causing global temperature rises. Scientists quote, these findings call for a fundamental reconsideration of the current man-made climate change narrative.

They say the data in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that Earth's warming trend over the past two decades may not be attributable to human-related activity. Experts analyzing the report point to changes in the planet's albedo, the fraction of the sun's energy reflected by the Earth, as the factor driving the rise in global temperatures. Albedo fluctuations have caused Earth to reflect less solar energy and absorb more, leading to the warming trend frequently cited by activists, advocates, and policymakers focused on addressing climate change.

In a recent interview with SCNR, Ned Nikolov, Ph.D., a scientist specializing in climate, cosmology, and astrophysics, expressed concerns about the integrity of the IPCC reports, accusing the panel of manipulating the data. Now, I'm going to pause here and just say this, right? I guarantee you you're going to get pushback. The corporate press is going to say, no, this is not correct. These scientists are not experts, even though they're Ph.D. scientists. They're going to say, no, no, all the experts agree. But I turn only to this, which will delight Ilad, to show you that climate change is over.

Don't believe me? Listen to a minute from Greta Thunberg. In Palestine and all over the world, the fight against colonialism and corporations' destruction of the planet are intrinsically needed. Look at Sherrod.

Everyone knows that Chevron is one of the world's biggest climate criminals. But the oil giant is also fueling Israel's genocide in Palestine. As Israel bombs hospitals, homes and schools in Gaza, Chevron supplies them with energy from two Israeli-claimed gas fields in the Mediterranean, making millions in the process. Ending Israel's genocide in Gaza and Israeli apartheid is a climate justice issue.

Israel is destroying Palestinian lives, but also destroying Palestinian lands and resources through its warfare and industries that pollute and destroy the environment. We cannot stand by and do nothing. I'm joining Palestinian global calls to boycott Chevron. Together we are calling for Chevron to withdraw from its projects with Israel. Join the movement to defend human rights and protect the planet by pledging to boycott Chevron now.

So when Greta Thunberg has no choice but to go, uh, Palestine, there's no more money in climate change activism. It wasn't a component of the debates. It popped up for about 30 seconds and then it went away. And the general idea was like, wow, how could this be an existential threat and crisis if you don't even want to talk about it? Greta Thunberg made herself, according to some reports, maybe not, but very famous and wealthy off of she may have already been wealthy.

off of climate change. And now she's segwaying into Israel, Palestine. Why? Because the whole thing always just following activist trends without rhyme or reason.

I think she speaks to a larger trend among the activist community ready to move on to the next issue, the next most important issue ever, on to the next most important issue ever. And you'll see this continuing cascade and then trying to meld issues together. You know, and yes, that's really it. It's a cult.

The activist groups, they are a cult. And this is exactly it. When the people are all rallied around saying climate change and she sits outside, refused to go to school, they prop up and put her on TV. But now nobody wants to put her on TV anymore. Why? Well, because Israel-Palestine is the big issue. So what does she do? She falls in line and segues now to, yes, but Chevron makes money selling gas to

Israel. It doesn't even make sense because there's so many other oil rich countries in the Middle East that are producing a ton of oil. A lot. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. Iran. Kuwait. There's a ton of countries in the Middle East that are doing this. And like, why are we talking about Israel? If you're worried about oil production, Israel isn't responsible for the Saudi Arabia. If

Iran, Saudi Arabia, a lot of these countries. Russia. It really makes no sense. But I'm satisfied to see that Israel's enemies are some of the worst losers and enemies to America. In case it wasn't clear to people, Israel's enemies make it clear as to why I think you should be an Israel supporter. Who's supporting the Palestinians? Islamists, Kurds.

people who follow the climate change hoax like this, who are just trying to follow the trends. You're seeing the mesh of BLM into this movement as well. I think what's quite clear, if you just take a little bit of perspective, is that you have a group of people who are deeply restless in terms of their soul.

And these are people who are always looking for a moral cause that never involves personal responsibility. It always involves something that other people need to do. But this goes back decades. I mean, think about it. It's the revolving placard, right? It was the nuclear freeze. Then it was the ozone layer.

Then it becomes racism. Then it becomes... And then if you look at these demonstrations, it's the same guys. So you realize they've given up the first placard and they took up the new one. And with each one, they come at you with tremendous sincerity. Like they believe that this is the issue, but

But then when the issue goes away, they forget about it too. Yep. And they move on to the next thing. It reminds me of applying for like scholarships and they're like, you have to say how your thing demonstrates our mission or like Matt's our mission statement. So they're picking out buzzwords like, well, you know, the environment is still relevant because...

Palestine and Israel is bad. And so they're just tying it in this sort of loose way to something else because they want to transition into what I think is the money source, right? Like if this person, she started this when she started doing climate activism when she was like 16, she's only 21 now. If

this is her main source of supporting herself. She needs to continue to chase wherever people are sending their donations or paying her to give speeches or whatever, like wherever the money is, that's where they go. So in this case, it's like, how can we tie this thing that I was known for to this cause that's more trendy right now?

In the first few decades of the 20th century, you would have these leftists who would try to find a communist utopia abroad. And in the 1920s and 30s, it was Stalin, believe it or not. Stalin's Russia. Then when irrefutable evidence emerged that Stalin was just murdering people left and right...

Interestingly, the impulse didn't go away. They were like, oh, no, no, it's not Stalin's Russia. It's Mao's China. And then when the evidence of the Cultural Revolution came, the mass famines, it was like, oh, can't be China. It's now Cuba.

And then evidence comes out, it's not Cuba, they have these horrible hospitals, they kill dissidents. Nicaragua. Then all these so-called sandalistas are heading down to Nicaragua. The point I'm getting at is that the impulse never dies. It just migrates to some other new utopia. And similarly here. It's climate change, and after a while, people are like, that's not it. So then they move on to something else. But again, the agitation, the agitate-agitate mentality changes.

seems never to go away. - Well, if you solve the problem, then everyone has to go home and find other careers, right? Like if this is what you're basing your both financial and social worth off of, then you can't have something that has a solution, otherwise you disappear with it.

And then what's happening here is that the professional activists who are making a living off of that particular placard become kind of annoyed when a new placard shows up. So then they have to hitch their placard to the new placard. And that's really what's going on with Greta Thunberg here. She has to now climb on the new bandwagon. There's no environmental object behind her as far as I can see. No, it's Palestine. Right. She's converted to the new trend. I mean, the fact that Saudi Arabia...

had the petrodollar deal with the United States for 50 years and is a massive oil producing nation and she's like, I don't know, but Israel buys gas, therefore. It's like, wait, wait, hold on. It's so outrageous. Yeah, you got OPEC, lady. You got the entire Gulf region. Come on. Iran. Nope, nope, nope, Israel. She could come out and be like... It's very interesting, the choice, right? I mean, Qatar's got a lot of oil. She's not denouncing Qatar. It's...

You know, Russia's got a lot of oil. And Chevron has been the target of a lot of domestic environmental protests this summer, right? Like there are all kinds of people camped out out of all kinds of I mean, it's not just Chevron. It's like major corporations in America saying it was it was part of this summer of heat campaign. And so they would be like, you're ruining our lives by supporting oil. It's just a translation of that. Like

Corporate oil is bad. We won't talk about any other sources of oil. Let me try to give her some credit. I think she might be trying to appropriate some of the Palestinian cause to try to reinvigorate some energy into the climate change movement. She wants to bring more Islamists into the climate change movement. So she's like, hey, look, I'm in the kafir. I care about Palestine. You guys ought to care about climate change. Like, let's do this sort of exchange. Stop pumping oil your entire economy, Saudi Arabia. Yeah, right.

Just so as far, you know, and I think that's part of it, like the camaraderie, the idea of her trying to, you know. It's funny because the BDS people, they don't boycott Chevron. There's a long list of countries and different companies that try to boycott Israel and nonprofits that get people to try to boycott Israel. Chevron is never on that list. So she's trying to bring in...

some climate change stuff into the anti-Israel sentiment. And it might be a politically savvy move, maybe, if Chevron's at it. If anyone could pull it off, I feel like it might be her. It should be Boykata Ramko. Is that Saudi or Russia's? What you're really saying is she's trying to diversify the ranks of the climate movement. It's a little too white. It's a little too European. She'd like to see some more people in veils and pardas and... Oh, yeah.

And I don't know if it's gonna work, but... You know, I wonder if Greta Thunberg supports the blowing up of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. I assume she does. I assume she... There's a lot of pollution, but... I don't think she cares. It's a greater good. Yo, yo, this is... Didn't she say something like, we don't want to wait till 2030 or 2025, we want it now? And like, if you stopped fossil fuels today, I think the estimate is 60 million people die in three days.

because freezing, heat, food spoils, there's people with diabetes that their insulin has to be refrigerated. And so... But Tim, she wants math death now. Yeah.

I mean, isn't it interesting that not so long ago, the primary cause of the left was eradicating global poverty. And now we have the possibility of having abundant natural gas, abundant fuel, low-cost energy. And the good that this could potentially do for the world is enormous. And how ironic that these same people have now mobilized against it. The one thing that has the chance to make life easier for people.

hundreds of millions of people on three continents who have very difficult lives right now. Think about this. In terms of the left's cause to eradicate poverty, you can't. Poverty is relative. No matter what you do, there will always be people at the lowest tier of class. So in the United States, we have homeless people who are morbidly obese, right? There's a mismanagement of resources, and we're like, oh, these poor people. Low-income individuals in the United States today have better dental care than Rockefeller did.

That's kind of crazy to think. But it's true. He certainly did live better in a lot of ways. Servants, you know, a train on his command and beck and call and was very wealthy and commanded respect. But technology has advanced to the point where at least many of these things, which were only for the upper echelon of society, are now attainable by the poorest of society. Air conditioning, clean running water, hot showers, water.

Those were unheard of a couple hundred years ago. Life expectancy. Absolutely. And so I certainly don't want people living in the worst conditions. We want to continually improve the conditions for the poorest among us, but they will always be the poorest among us. There will always be poverty. In a hundred years, poverty is going to be like you live in a floating castle with servants and filet mignon 3D printed, you know, manifested or whatever. And then you're going to be like, it's not fair. I wish I could go to outer space and travel to Jupiter. Yeah.

The thing is too, cheap oil and cheap energy disproportionately benefits the poorest in our society because it hits the bottom. Everybody has to pay the same or use the same amount of it generally. And who feels the pain when the gas goes up a couple of dollars and its downstream effects on the economy? Yeah.

When you see a gas tax, it's the people who are at the bottom of the ring. I was looking at one of those data charts that divides America. Typically, they do this into five quintiles. There's the upper quintile, and then there's the next, and all the way down to the bottom quintile. And I was thinking to myself, where do I fit in this kind of context?

class distribution of America. And I realized that through my life, just over the last 25 years, I've actually been in all five quintiles. Really? You know, for sure. In fact, most of us have. You start probably at the very bottom. You try to make your way up the ladder. So in other words, the quintiles aren't counting, in a sense, rigid classes of people who spend all their life in that segment. They are actually measuring the way one goes through life and

and improves, hopefully improves your condition. Obviously, there are people who also have downward mobility as well as upward. And we have to remember that that dynamic aspect should be kept in mind when you look at these charts. Absolutely. Do you think that environmentalism as a conversation will ultimately drift

farther down the political ladder. I mean, Kamala Harris came out as the I am the I'm the savior of abortion in America candidate, whereas the environment was sort of a big push in Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. He did position himself as someone who was going to take environmentalism seriously. In fact, I was just reading a report that, you know, there are a lot of environmental advocates who think he hasn't done enough and he's done kind of a bad job.

Well, I think that the reason, this is why I think the environmental movement has failed. Because if it really succeeded, it would have persuaded at least its own side, right? In other words, let's just say, for example, the environmentalists tell us that the oceans are rising and that coastal property as a result is going to be endangered, right?

As far as I can see, no one takes this seriously. Why? Because property values on the coast remain high. And that means that buyers don't believe it, sellers don't believe it, real estate agents don't believe it. So if the climate propaganda were successful, at least the Democrats would believe, listen, I can't buy in Martha's Vineyard. I can't buy on Rehoboth Beach. I can't buy in Nags Head because the ocean is going to take my property.

So you would begin to see property values falter. And the fact that we have seen no effect whatsoever tells me that everybody recognizes that the whole thing is nonsense. And so they spout political rhetoric maybe on the one side, but their actions and their portfolios and the way they allocate money shows they don't believe it. They even don't believe it.

Right. I wonder if that's enough for the American people, though, right? Like there were a lot of Americans who felt like, like at one point when you would look at reasons people were deterring having children, climate anxiety was one of the number ones that the world's going to fall apart and you couldn't add to the, you know, fossil fuel consumption or whatever it was. It seems more so we're seeing people are just saying it's overall, the price of having children is very expensive. Here's what it is.

In many cases, like economic policies, people are in a position to verify for themselves, right? So, for example, you can tell if the economy is going well because of how it's affecting you. But if somebody were to tell you something like an asteroid is going to hit the Earth next year, you're in no position to know. You're bound to feel anxiety because someone's saying it. They appear to be credible. They appear to have degrees. And so you're going to worry about it.

it. But if a year goes by and two years goes by and ten years goes by and there's no sign of the asteroid, after a while you're going to go, wait a minute, I'm not too worried about that asteroid anymore. I think that's what's really happening is that

that initially people thought, you know, that serious people are doing calculations and something troubling is going on with the entire globe. And now they've begun to realize that, you know what, there's a lot of variation in temperature. Some summers are hotter. Others are not so hot. It's...

Obama buying waterfront property in Martha's Vineyard. There you go. I just kind of don't believe you anymore, man. And I think something similar is happening with Trump. I mean, I think that he is really a known quantity after basically a decade of running for public office. At one point, there was a big panic and fear like he's going to ruin everyone's lives forever. But

After his economy was pretty good and Biden's was pretty bad, I think people are similarly not looking out for this asteroid in the same way. And Trump is quite, if you watch any of these rallies, the guy is an obvious comedian, right?

He's an obvious stand-up guy. So when he says things like, I'll be dictator for a day, and you pretend to take that seriously, he's really going to be dictator for a whole day. But he actually, Hannity asked him, will you be a dictator? It was only on day one to secure the border and drill for oil. And they were like, he's going to murder people. It's like, what? Right. He said to get the border closed. And then he said bloodbath. And Kamala Harris is like, he said there will be a bloodbath. And he's like.

Yeah, in the auto industry. It means an economic downturn. What? But they're acting like they're morons, perhaps because many of them are. This Greta person stinks. I never want to hear about her ever again. I looked her up to see, like, what is she up to these days? Because, again, she made her... I remember I had a teacher in high school who was like, I heard her speak at the UN. It was really impactful. And, you know...

You were saying before the show, like, it's just not cute anymore. And I was trying to see, like, is she in college? Like, does she run a group? And all I can find are these, like, honorary doctorates that have been conferred to her by all of these universities. I mean... Well, I mean, she's such a weird creature. I think what it is is that they're almost daring us to make fun of her. Yeah.

Knowing that the moment we do, they will immediately turn on us and accuse us of being horribly insensitive and so on. And so we hold back. We resist. And it's like a little game that they're playing. I don't know. I kind of like this idea. If the cause that you champion isn't popular, just attach it to a separate cause. Right.

And that's how you can get your cause across. Did you guys hear about the Magic the Gathering scandal? Well, it's the Democrats, you know, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris. So, you know, they banned some magic cards. You're doing it the wrong way. Israel was involved. You don't understand what's really trending right now. Netanyahu personally called Hasbro and said, I want to ban Jeweled Lotus. And, you know, so it's...

No, it was... The jeweled lotus was stolen by the Jews in Israel. No, no, no. They wanted it all for themselves. They wanted to crash the market. Tim had to explain this whole thing to me before the show. I was completely clueless. I was playing a video going over the news of the day. But actually, for us, it would have to be more like Iran and Hezbollah called Wizards of the Coast and they were like, ban this. And we're like, oh, no. And, you know, it's like...

She's the one. Need to wipe them off the map now. Last thing on climate change. They have to go to war with Iran because they banned the cards. Last thing on climate change. Even if the United States got to net zero, I think we only contribute something like 15 or 20% of the world's global emissions.

And if there's no global consensus and cooperation on this, we're not getting anywhere. China doesn't care at all. They're increasing their coal productions. But a lot of the biggest climate change critics will, or not critics, biggest proponents of climate change will not blame China and say they're, you know, a role model in the field. Wasn't this a part of NAFTA too? Like Trump was like, NAFTA is a terrible deal. And one of the problems is there were all kinds of environmental, like carbon emission reduction requirements that Mexico just did not meet. Yeah.

And it was sort of like, you guys should do that. And they'd be like, we're probably not going to. And then America would still continue to be like, well, ban plastic straws and whatever else. Like there are countries that are actually, uh, uh,

They're producing more in terms of emissions and we just can't do anything to stop them. And we all know it's hard to blame them, too, because they're doing they're not doing this because they're like, oh, screw the planet. And we want to contribute to pollution. They're doing this because cheap energy is good for their people and it helps with the economic development of their country. So you're asking these countries to sacrifice that sacrifice the well-being of.

of the people in your country, make everything in the country more expensive. Why? Because some chart from some scientist says something in the future in a 50 or 100 years might happen. There's another factor here that's going on, and this is something that was figured out internally in the country through the civil rights movement by the blacks, but it's been now figured out by the rest of the world with regard to the West.

And that is the West is the only civilization that is plagued by guilt over its own success. No one else feels this way. If you go to other countries and talk about the Indo-Pakistan War, the Indians will say things like, well, you know, we had a war and we won and that's that. And there's no further need for discussion beyond the fact that we defeated you and we took all this territory and we're not giving it back because we got it.

It's only the West where you can say things like, "Hey listen, you've had all this development and now you need to pay us. You now need to turn over some of this wealth to us." As long as the West is willing to take out its wallet when that happens, the rest of the world realizes that guilt is a highly profitable business. And so the Indians and the Chinese, I mean, you've just got to realize that they will mount the slogans of climate change,

Because they have been initiated into a game that the West has invented that they have now learned how to play. They have no intention of actually doing anything, restricting their own development. That would be insane. They would have to face their own people if they did that. They have no intention of even going there. But they recognize that when they go to the UN, they're going to show climate sensitivity and use all the appropriate climate emergency...

and so on. But it's ultimately the West that has brought this, I think, this problem on itself because of its demonstrated willingness to be suckered in this way. Yeah.

We're going to go to super chat. So smash that like button. Everybody, if you are watching, if all of you right now smash that like button, we'd have 50,000 likes. How about that? And head over to Tim cast dot com. Click join us to become a member and you'll get access to the members only uncensored show at 10 p.m. where U.S. members actually get to call in to the show. Join us. Talk to us and our guests. And as a member, you are making all this possible.

So as many of you know, we are in the process of suing the Kamala Harris campaign. It's about 40 days till the election or so. So, of course, we're suing her for defamation. And it was an egregious lie, but it's not such an easy task and we could use your support. If you appreciate the work that we do, we stand up for ourselves and we fight the fake news. Timcast.com, click join us. But for now, we'll grab super chats. We got Zia S, probably pronouncing that wrong, says, hey, y'all. Hey, Scooby Dragon says, howdy, people. Howdy.

Cal H is regarding this morning's survival conversation. I have the Rangers handbook in my Amazon cart, but what are some other resources to learn these skills? Download some apps onto your phone. Google search what you can get. There are some really interesting apps. There are apps that will show you the direction of the nearest cell tower. So if you have weak signal, they have apps that you'll open up and it will point like a compass to the tower so you know which direction to walk to improve signal. And that could be amazing. Check out some other stuff.

All right, where are we at? Cain Abel says, did you hear about Alex Jones or the judge ordered the liquidation of Alex Jones's business? They will go after his house and other belongings. Yeah, this is crazy. Apparently in the next couple of weeks, they're going to completely liquidate Infowars. They're going to auction off parts of it or something like that. I've heard this. Who's going to buy it? Is he still going to continue the show? However, I don't know how you in a different way. How do you stop him? Yeah, it's impossible to stop the guy. It's you could you could take everything from him.

And some random person can hold up a cell phone and Alex Jones can go off and get a million views. It's easier than ever, you know, to stream in any way. But, you know, I mean, it's kind of crazy. The bigger question I have is who would buy Alex Jones's equipment? Oh, I thought you said company. I thought we were going to be parent company to... No, no, no. They're liquidating his company, which means they're going to try and get as much money as possible to pay off the lawsuit. But I also think it's going to be strange. I mean...

especially in liberal circles, which is dominant in the media industry, who's going to want to be the person who has Alex Jones's camera? Maybe as a trophy to be like, look at this, I bought his camera.

But what I mean, if you're a company and you're like, we bought Alex Jones's equipment from Infowars to run this, they're going to be like, why would you help him? Why would you do that? But if you're starting it, unless it's branded or something like that, like I'm sure there's some business that's like it's super cheap. I'm going to buy it. And so therefore I have this fancy equipment because the government sells quick and you'll get it at dirt. You'll get it for dirt, I guess. But then people keep it keep it secret. But.

But if anyone finds out that you bought Alec Jones' equipment to help pay down his debt from these families, I imagine they're going to accuse you of being far right or something. I mean, it seems like this whole thing is, there's a strong vindictive component here, right? In other words, their whole deal is we don't really, because if they were trying to maximize Alec Jones' revenue so that he could pay off these legal debts, they would keep him in business. Yeah.

But they would rather take less money, I think, and try to wreck his operation. They said this. Yeah. They said they want to shut him down. They want to shut him down. But like you say, and that would have worked 25 years ago. But in today's era, it's a little difficult to pull off. And I think part of Alex Jones's revenge needs to be, I think, to sort of stay on the air.

There's nothing that they could ever do. He can go to Best Buy and grab a camera for $200. Yeah. I mean, they're going to claim he owes the GDP of France or whatever, but there's limitations what they can take from him. They can't take his clothing off his back. I wonder if we'll ever see a case where they go after his platforms as an asset of the company. But even then, Alex Jones will go to some young guy

And he'll be like, how many followers you got? I got 100,000 on X. Okay, broadcast me. And he's going to be like, yeah. And that kid's going to be like, I'm going to get a million followers from this. There's just no way to stop Alex Jones. How do you stop someone from speaking? Yeah. I guess you can try to track any revenue that comes in from that and say, I'm going to go after that. But that still doesn't intercept the speech itself. So in that sense, Alex Jones retains his free speech. All right, let's grab some more Super Chats.

I'm not your buddy guy says people and the existence of others for a couple hundred thousand in insurance money What do you think others would do for control the most powerful military economy and influence in the world? Yeah, it's not just that it's that people Hire hitmen that there are hitmen who get paid like ten grand like to end someone's life You know, that's crazy if you yeah, I mean if you watch these crime shows you realize that people will do murder for like 200 bucks It's insane

Jacqueline Stoico says, Dang, I had to dig for this show. Isn't that something? Isn't that something? The people who watch the show frequently keep talking about how YouTube makes it very hard to find. Indeed. Well, I really do appreciate that you guys tune in every night, and that makes it very difficult for them to try and censor us. If everybody shared this show...

We'd be the biggest show in the world. We would. And I had someone super chat the other day. I missed the super chat, but they were like, Dan Bongino gets 100,000 to 150,000. You really think he'd be the biggest? First of all, Dan Bongino is awesome, big fan, and he does have a massive show. And yes, my point is, if 50,000 people all at once posted the link on X, it would be the number one worldwide trend. And then you'd get millions of people watching. That's true. It's just

People don't do that. I don't know. We talked about maybe doing something cool like that. There should be this app called Thunderclap. You'd sign up for it and it would connect to your Twitter account. And then all at once, it sends out the same tweet, creating a viral worldwide trend. So everybody sees it in their feed. But, you know, whatever. Share the show if you like it to help bypass the censorship. All right. Shannon says Candace Owens proved Kamala ain't black. Well, did Kamala vote for Joe Biden?

Because that's the evidence we need. I mean, if she didn't, then it's true. She's not black. Does she prove Macron's wife is a dude yet? I'm still waiting for that one. I don't know. I don't know what we're doing here. All right. Sound Logic says, how do you know if you were one of the first 500 to sign up for Booneys HQ to get a free board? I think it's first 100, not 500. On the website, it says the first 100 members get a free limited edition deck. I suppose we're going to reach out to the first 100. And yeah.

And let them know that you were in the first group to sign up. We sold out of all the snack boards. Let me see if we can... What do we got going on here at the old Boonies store? Snack boards are back in stock, ladies and gentlemen. We are quick with it. We have 8.5s and 8s available. So these sold out instantly in a day. Head over to boonieshq.com. The Step on Snack and Find Out boards are available. And holy crap, they went quick. So...

We don't have the boobies. This is my favorite, actually. I didn't even know we were making this one. There's none of them, though. It's a booby bird. You ever see a booby? They have blue feet. And instead of boonies, there's a bee over it. It's brilliant. I love it. But the snack boards are back. It's funny because my board sold a little bit. Bokehs and Taylors sold a little bit. And then the snack boards were instantly gone. So if you want to get a step on snack and find out skateboard, boonieshq.com.

All right, Steven Sheflo says, Hey, Tim and community, a friend of mine is battling stage four cancer and has two young kids and could use the help. I know GoFundMe, but please help if you can support Zoke's fight against melanoma. It's S-Z-O-K-E. Zoke? I hope I'm pronouncing that right. Best of luck, good sir. It's already here. TheDarkKing says, Hey, Tim, I just want to let you know...

It, uh, let you know is the only possi- possible? Possibility? That has been showing up regularly without fail is the no show tonight you posted three days ago weird. Oh, interesting. Oh, he's saying the only thing he's getting from the feed is the one where I said there wasn't a show yesterday. YouTube plays dirty games! That's what we call it. We call it dirty games! It's not very fun.

Mad Max has make no mistake, a very significant part of the GOP hates Trump even more than Dems and would like nothing more for Trump to go away. And I agree. There are a lot of Republicans who hate Trump and will vote for him anyway, because what are you going to do? I think, you know, if I'm a higher, this is what I was saying like a year or two ago.

Two guys show up to your house, Dinesh, right? And you got a broken toilet. And there's... It stinks. And you got one guy who's a plumber who said, I could fix it. It's like, okay, well, you're a plumber. Well, I could be a plumber. And you're like,

Has anyone ever worked with you before? No. Do you have any reviews? No, not a single review. I took the job after my boss left the company and I just decided to be a plumber. You'd be like, okay. Then another guy comes in with his butt crack sticking out and he's spitting up and he's yelling and complaining and he's overconfident. He's, I'm going to fix this. I'm the best plumber. He's got tons of reviews. He's got rave fans. They're all cheering for him. You actually have seen his work in the past. You know that he's good at fixing this. Well, it's who you're going to pick.

Right. Absolutely. You're like, I'm not inviting him to dinner. I'm asking him to fix a problem for me. OK, he can spit and cuss and yell, but he's going to he's going to fix my toilet and get the stench out of here. The other person might seem nice and be drunk. Who knows? I don't even know this person is. How do you vote for him? I mean, let's it's a good moment to spell out like the philosophy of what appears to be the Paul Ryan view of the world. And that is let's.

Let's sort of tank the 2024 election so that we get rid of Trump. Let's bring the Democrats in for another term. Admittedly, they're sort of destroying America. But the great news here is that we have a chance now to reconstitute the Republican Party so we can beat them the next time around. And this time we'll be a GOP without Trump and we'll be better and stronger than ever.

And you just have to listen to that and ask yourself whether someone actually can espouse such a nonsensical vision of where he sees things going. Especially when it's out of alignment with what the voters want. I mean, Trump has wide popularity, maybe not among elected Republican officials, but among American voters. The Republican base picked him for a reason.

And I think to say like, well, I know best the Republican Party must reform under the image I see fit. And that's Donald Trump-less. How are you going to sell that to the people who feel as though Trump is the reason that or Trump is the only one who can get the country back on track? Yeah. And to put it slightly differently, some of those sort of Trumpian issues were there before Trump. I mean, we have to remember that even that Reaganism to some degree preceded Reagan and

It created Reagan. It caused Reagan to embrace the issues that we today identify as Reaganism. But those weren't all distinctive with Reagan. Jack Kemp had a lot to do with it. Gene Kirkpatrick had a lot to do with it. They created Reaganism before Reagan. The same happens with Trump. So you're right. Those issues are not going away.

All right. And Andre C says, Tim, your views on the war and the death penalty are contradictory. They're not. Says you can't not trust the government on death sentence, but trust them when intel agencies blame a foreign government on assassination. Who killed JFK? War equals death penalty. Wrong. You are wrong. Good, sir. Oh, let's start from the beginning. First of all, the presumption on the death penalty is that.

I don't trust people like Kamala Harris and other actors to convince a jury an institutionalized mechanism to kill people. There's a story that's going on right now that we had talked about where apparently I don't, I think, you know, more than I do that there's a guy who's on death row and there's exculpatory evidence, but they won't hear it. And they refuse to stay his execution. Yeah. There's a man on death row in Missouri. His name's on my mind right now, but he, um,

This may get an ongoing issue. I mean, he's been on death row for a long time and there have been a lot of efforts to appeal his case. But his team is saying right now there's new evidence. The evidence is that his DNA does not match the DNA that was found on the murder weapon. He's accused of killing a reporter, I believe, in the 80s. And the governor has refused to stay the execution. I believe the Supreme Court also did. So he is going to be put to death tonight. And I've heard the state, you know, argued a couple different ways, which is like, you

And it's a case I should have followed more closely before presenting on tonight. But, you know, the state has argued he's had a fair trial. The evidence that they are bringing up doesn't actually conflate anything that was brought up during trial. And so he has he's been through the justice system fairly. So here's the point. There's an institutionalized mechanism at the state level where people are killed and you don't know anything about it.

So the argument I always share in the death penalty is if I were the judge and I saw the evidence and I knew he did it, well, of course you could do those things. And I trust you. I trust that if there was a deranged murderer who was trying to kill me and you were standing in front of me, you would do the right thing to use the force necessary to save my life up to and including lethal force.

I don't trust an institution that is the bureaucracy of the United States to effectively run a system that kills people because they deem it to be so, because there's a big difference between you as a good moral person and the Democrats in this country who don't know up from down and vote for Kamala Harris, who are going to be on those juries. And I just you're never going to get past that one. But more to the point, the idea that.

First of all, the death penalty presumption was always that in the event you know definitively a person is a threat to others, you have the right to take action to protect others. We know that. The problem is you don't know. That's why when I brought up war with Iran, I specifically said, imagine a circumstance where we knew definitively it wasn't a question of they're trying to convince you. It was somehow, you know, 100 percent you as an individual. Then would you be OK with war?

The question is always whether or not you as an individual have direct knowledge of an event beyond a reasonable doubt or an institution has decided to convince you of something and you let them do it. Because you're right. One that penalty are very much related. Why do you think I'm extremely anti-intervention?

Because the government came to us and said, trust us, we have to go invade these foreign countries. Trust us, we need the drone bombings. Barack Obama says, trust us, we're only targeting evil people. And then he went and blew up a bunch of American citizens. So no, I don't trust you. I don't trust a single person. You explain to me how Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was killed by the U.S. government in a country we're not at war with. No, I don't trust any of it.

So if you think domestically, I'm going to support people who say, trust me, we need to kill this guy. I'm going to say, screw off. I've been down there. I see exactly what you do. Sure, probably most of the people, the overwhelming majority of the people you're going after. But sooner or later, there's going to be political retribution or there's going to be error and negligence and malice that result in innocent people being killed.

And that is a problem, in my opinion. If you don't look up the case I was referring to is Marcellius Williams, and he was actually executed about 40 minutes ago. No. Wow. And there was potentially exculpatory evidence and they didn't want to hear it.

I don't know if they didn't want to hear it. I mean, the argument is that he was given, he exhausted his appeals and then afterwards this evidence was brought up. I'm not super well versed in this case, but... Well, again... Hypothetically, we have an appeals process to the death penalty. I'm not sure how this factored in. If this is true, because we did research this, that...

He exhausted all of his appeals and then they discovered exculpatory evidence that now your appeals are exhausted. That is a psychotic system. I kind of don't believe that's the case, though. I think that's

However, that being said, Kamala Harris did keep a guy on death row despite knowing there was evidence that proved he was innocent because she is a demon. And it's just insane to me that we know it's not just Kamala Harris, that other prosecutors have kept innocent people on death row out of fear for career embarrassment. And they don't want to acknowledge they prosecuted an innocent person. So they're just like, just kill him so that no one finds out. That's insane. And this happens. I'm not.

ardently against the death penalty. It's something I feel like I'm constantly reviewing and how I feel about it because it's so complicated. But this case is weird because from what I know from the reporting I was listening to today, the victim's family was saying that the execution should be stayed. And there you go. Everyone should agree. If the victim's family says, guys, wait, wait, wait, we don't want to kill a guy who's wrong. Imagine imagine you're a dad and your daughter gets killed and you're angry and you demand answers and they find a guy who fits the bill. They think it's him. And you're like, I want justice.

And then 10 years later, you think everything's resolved and evidence comes out proving this guy did not do it definitively. It was someone else. Would you want to have blood on your hands of an innocent person? I don't know. Some people, I imagine most honorable men suffering would say like, well, don't kill an innocent person because of my

I think most people would agree, no, you don't want to be a murderer. Yeah, I mean, I think that we should separate the cases where we have an element of genuine, reasonable doubt, because the idea of executing an innocent man is horrific. I agree with that.

On the other hand, let's just take the case where, let's say, for example, you have a serial murderer and he is on video having done these things. And in other words, there is no doubt, not even reasonable doubt, there's no doubt at all that this is in fact the perpetrator and the crimes are horrific. I think in that case, the argument for the death penalty is extremely strong. Except that argument is, in a single instance where we have definitive proof, we justify an entire machine where other instances without proof will be justified.

So every single time I have this conversation, the opposing argument is always, what about the one moment where you know for sure? And it's what we're not arguing about one moment. We all agree. If you see a person with your own eyes about to commit a horrific act or you know he's a threat, let's just put very bluntly, a threat to society that cannot be contained. And the only way to save someone's life or great bodily harm is to use force against them up to and including lethal force. Everyone agrees. Everyone agrees.

But how does that justify mechanizing at a national institutional level a system where we know the bureaucracy can't even run a DMV properly? Exactly. Not to mention the fact that very often the way that these prosecutors look at these cases is not in terms of did he do it? They look at it as can I get a conviction? Yep. In other words, have I got enough in the bag that I could get a jury to say guilty? And

And that is a completely different thing. That's more gamifying the system and looking at it as a career opportunity for a prosecutor. Can I get this guy? And can I get the jury to go along with me regardless of whether he did it or not? And that's a very scary thought. There's so many perverse incentives with prosecutors and defense attorneys. Like if you're a defense attorney and you're defending somebody who you even know did something wrong, you're still going to try to manipulate the legal system in any way possible.

I think Hillary Clinton famously used to brag about the horrible people that she used to help protect. But that's what makes somebody a good defense attorney. So I think Matt Walsh made a lot of really great points when we discussed it. And he said, we need to think about in terms of what is possible and what we can do right now. The island sounds great. You can't do it. Because my argument is just exile people. If they get convicted, you don't got to kill them. You say you go live yourself somewhere else.

And I agree. And so my response was, I don't have a good alternative right now. I don't think it makes sense that you put someone in jail for 40 years and we have to pay the bill for it now. But I also don't like the idea of an institution that can kill innocent people and does. Depending on the metrics you look at, it could be between, you know, one in 200 to one in like 80. It's like 4% of the high end from activist groups is around 4% of executions are innocent individuals.

4 out of 100. That's 1 in 25. That's crazy. It could be as low by conservative estimates of 1 in 200. And I'm like, that's still crazy. However, I recognize...

I don't really have good alternatives, just that I morally oppose it. Therefore, what I told Matt was, well, look, you know, fair point. You're not going to see me joining an advocacy group and going and marching in D.C. to abolish death penalty because I don't know. All I know is I don't like the idea of institutionalizing the state to kill, like to have the power to kill people when you've got Kamala Harris and Joe Biden as people who are running the system.

I don't like to take a definitive stance on it. I'm generally open to capital punishment, but, you know, one of the benefits of living in modern society is that we are able to demand higher levels of proof, like DNA, like video surveillance, like cell phone stuff. And some of this stuff is fallible, but, like,

if you were on trial for capital punishment in the 1920s, it would be really different, right? Like to me, the ability to definitively prove something is much better now. And of course, the risk of potentially putting someone to death for a crime they didn't commit is horrifying. On the other hand, the burden, like if our prison system is to remove violence from society and hopefully reform those who can be reformed and abolish

otherwise deal with those who can't, I think you have to weigh the benefits here. Andre C. chiming in again saying, Tim, intel agencies fabricated definitive proof in the past. You can't not trust on death penalty, but trust the same institution on foreign assassin. I think once again, you are mistaken, sir. I have never said I will trust the intelligence agencies on foreign assassinations.

I said, in the instance where you know definitively that a foreign government killed your leader, a president or politician, would you be OK with war? I never said in the instance where an intelligence agency comes to you and says, trust me, I have proof. My response would be the same. I don't trust the government. Kamala Harris is going to come to me and be like, look at this proof that I got. I'm like, get out of my face.

or the Vindmans. They're going to be like, we're going to try. No, none of you people. I'm saying. I mean, we've been talking about assassination attempts on Trump. Now think about it. It's on the third attempt we talked about Iran.

But look at the first two attempts, right? Now, no one is saying, and I wouldn't say for a minute that this is an, quote, inside job in which the intelligence agency selected a 20-year-old like crooks and said, you go do it. That's not believable. But what is to me believable is that higher people high up in the government know that there are kooks out there who might want to get Trump. And they don't think it's the worst thing in the world if they did, right?

And so you find out there's this guy Crooks and, you know, he's planning to go up in this building and climb up on this roof. And so you conveniently leave the roof unguarded. This kind of thing to me is believable and needs to be investigated. I'm not saying it happened exactly that way, but it could have. And it's, it is telling that we have so much distrust today of our own agencies that we would believe them fully capable of doing that. Right.

All right, everybody, if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel and share the show right now everywhere you can. If you share the show, it really does help out because that's how podcasts basically grow word of mouth. Go to Timcast.com right now. Click join us. The members only show will be starting in about a minute. It's going to be a lot of fun. So we hope to see you there. You can follow me on X at Timcast.

Dinesh, do you want to shout anything out? Sure. I'm Dinesh D'Souza, and my film Vindicating Trump is out in theaters, 800-plus theaters, this coming weekend, September 27th. Get tickets at vindicatingtrump.com.

Awesome. Dinesh, it's been a fun convo. I'll be sure to go check out that movie. Everybody, please follow TimCastNews on Instagram and Twitter. That's where you could see some of mine and other people's work here. I was in Pennsylvania earlier today covering a Republicans for Harris rally that I'll be posting clips from.

You can follow me on Instagram @barelyinformedwithalad or Twitter @aladaliahu for all your compliments and complaints. Hannah Clare? Compliments and complaints. It's been great having you here. I'm glad you could join us. Alad, you're here. I don't know what to say about that. No, I'm just kidding. Definitely go follow @simcastnews on Twitter and Instagram to see Alad's work. I'm excited. Your on-the-ground work is great. If you want to see work from the rest of our writers, you can also go to scnr.com. That's Scanner News.

And if you want to follow me personally, sorry, my stutter's kicking in. I'm on Instagram at hannaclaire.b. I'm on Twitter at hannaclaireb. Thanks for everything you guys do. Have a good night. We will see you all over at timcast.com in about one minute. Thanks for hanging out.