This is the weirdest thing.
I criticized Donald Trump.
I referred to him as a developmentally disabled individual.
I argued with Joe Roden that ivermectin did not work.
You know,
you say you don't think either sides will ever meet in the middle.
They're never going to agree.
We're talking about the fact that there's a
top-down approach by Republicans like Donald Trump.
Can I ask you the question again?
Can you answer the question and allow it to happen,
foment violence in this country?
Can you answer you're running cover for it.
If you are only getting sound bites on.
Shorts,
TikTok,
Instagram,
you're gonna think I'm sitting here banging on the
table with a hammer screaming the end is nigh,
which is just not true.
From Jubilee Media,
this is the Surrounded podcast.
I'm Paris Rose filling in for John Regalado,
and we've got another follow-up episode for you today.
And quick reminder,
we have new releases every Sunday.
So if you want to get more surrounded,
be sure to like,
subscribe,
and follow us wherever you get your podcasts.
Thanks so much.
All right.
Well,
hello,
Tim.
Good to see you again.
Likewise,
thanks for having me.
Well,
thanks for jumping into the circle to debate 20
progressives and thank you for joining us for this round of podcast.
So I'm really curious,
what made you interested in joining the show?
Have you done anything like this before?
I mean,
I've done debates.
Uh,
we,
we've done,
um,
a show we have called the Culture War where we'll have,
you know,
54 or 5 people up on stage and then we let the audience kind of interact.
But
I don't know,
I've,
obviously,
I've seen the Surroundings before and,
uh,
I thought it's a great opportunity to
dispel some misconceptions,
have a conversation,
meet some new people.
I think
we accomplished all of these things.
Whether or not anybody agrees with me,
you know,
you got to hear me a bit,
I suppose.
Now for those of us who don't know,
can you give us a little bit more about your background and how you got into politics?
Well,
I've always been,
since I was a kid,
uh,
the internet got me involved in politics just cause,
uh,
my family had the internet before I was born.
We had CompuServe on DOS.
Most people probably know,
don't even know what that means.
But,
uh,
getting on AOL when I'm like 9 or 10 and playing video games,
news headlines every time you log in.
And so I just started paying attention and reading news at a very early age,
but
right around the time I was 1314,
I started listening to punk music,
mostly pop punk,
which then turns into
real punk,
which is very political.
And then with the,
the Iraq War,
the protests,
you know,
growing up in Chicago,
we're just surrounded by it the whole time.
So I started paying attention quite,
uh,
quite a bit.
And I actually worked for a handful of big nonprofits when I was,
uh,
2021 years old,
actually fundraising for,
say,
the ACLU Greenpeace and all that.
So then by the time I'm
25,
26,
and Occupy Wall Street is happening,
I'm down there,
I'm filming
and
There you go.
From there it's uh working for Vice,
working for ABC
then eventually starting my own company and launching my own podcast.
Yeah,
I think a lot of people might recognize you from Occupy Wall Street in in that era.
Now,
I know you haven't watched the episode yet.
You haven't seen any of the clips.
So,
uh
we're gonna get into that today.
I really want to start with one of your surrounding claims,
which was the United States is tracking towards civil war.
Because that one got everyone in a tizzy.
So I'm going to play that clip
and see how you guys interacted with Costanza.
I don't want to live in a country where people
are attacking each other without trying to understand each other.
Right,
but the rhetoric that you're spewing is leading towards that.
You want Trump
again,
which means the rhetoric that you're spewing online,
the political
commentary that you're spewing online
is
teasing.
I don't want Donald Trump.
Will they,
won't they,
will they,
won't they?
I don't want Donald Trump for a third term.
No,
but I would,
I would prefer,
uh,
you know,
JD Vance,
maybe Rubio,
but
that's still MAGA
and indeed,
and understand that Trump won the plurality of the vote in 2024 and
he has a large support base despite his polls being very low.
He does,
and we'll see what happens with the Republican Party in 2026 and 2028.
But you can't just
wish away the existence of a polar of a of a another political faction
with a polarized worldview compared to yours.
I do not see a reality
where Republicans accept the worldview of the of the
progressives who are gaining ground in multiple places,
namely in New York,
and I don't see the progressives accepting
the,
the Trump worldview as you've described it.
And the reason
that we're not going to
accept
it is because people like you and the reason we don't accept it is people like you.
So,
in that clip,
you,
uh,
you said you don't see Republicans accepting
the progressive worldview and vice versa.
So what specific trends make you think that divide
is becoming irreconcilable rather than just another cycle of,
you know,
political polarization?
Well,
uh,
if we go back to 2021,
the issue of immigration
is particularly pronounced even today,
I think,
um,
I'll just preface this by saying,
we had the ICE
shootings in January
2 people died.
And neither side is going to accept
what that was.
If you go back to 2021,
we saw a very,
uh,
heated circumstance where
the Texas State Guard
was in a physical confrontation with
federal authorities under the Biden administration.
The Biden administration had filed a lawsuit
to allow them to remove the physical barriers
from the southern border to allow people to illegally enter the country.
The,
the entry of,
uh,
non-citizens,
uh,
outside of a port of entry is actually a violation of,
of codified US law.
For the Biden administration to use federal law enforcement to remove the barriers
allowing these people to come in
would be to facilitate a criminal activity.
Whether or not you believe those people deserved asylum after the fact is,
is different.
So you have armed Texas State Guard
in a standoff with federal authorities in 2021.
Now I can't say
fortunately since then,
we have seen things calm down in that capacity a little bit.
I mean,
it's pretty shocking.
When you're you're coming off January 6th,
and then 7 or 8 months later,
you have the Texas,
Texas deploying State Guard,
you had multiple states deploying National Guard to other states,
specifically to confront federal authorities.
But now we're still dealing with,
you know,
Trump has largely secured the border,
but now you have ICE and CBP going through various cities.
They're arresting people.
We had a viral video just recently where a woman was trying to board a plane,
I believe it was in Denver,
and she was,
she had overstayed her visa,
so she was illegally remaining in the country.
CBP or I believe it was a CBP,
it might have been ICE,
they arrest her,
and the narrative that we get from the progressives
is that she was here legally
and she was being kidnapped.
And the narrative that we get from the conservatives is that
she had overstayed her visa,
was here illegally,
and was being deported.
Well,
I'll just say this.
Obviously I have my biases,
but
when you look at the facts of the case,
the woman,
uh,
came here,
overstayed her visa by about a year,
and was
being arrested and deported for overstaying her visa.
If you don't like the laws of this country,
then Congress needs to change those things.
But to characterize it as a legal individual
being kidnapped is,
it's hyperpartisan.
And so ultimately it doesn't matter if,
if my,
if I'm correct or incorrect as to the assessment of what happened.
What matters,
what matters is
you have
two factions,
as it's described by uh Stephen Marsh and various other academics and journalists.
You have a
multicultural democracy
and a constitutional republic
existing within the borders of one country.
These are diametrically opposed worldviews as to the structure of governance,
as to the,
the moral framework of,
of our judicial system.
They're never going to agree.
It's,
it's not possible.
This,
this divergence started
20 or so years ago.
You could argue it,
it started in academia in the 60s and 70s,
but becoming pronounced with political factions
in the late 2000s and the 2010s,
I don't see a reality where
You are going to convince
an American constitutional republicanist
that we should abolish the Senate the way the DSA is proposing,
and I don't see a scenario where you're going to convince
Democratic Socialists of America or Progressives
that the founding of this country was
legitimate.
The worldviews are just
the antithesis of each other.
Costanza,
your opponent,
you know,
she suggested that.
Commentators like you are contributing to this polarization.
You know,
you say you don't think either sides will ever meet in the middle.
They're never going to agree.
Do you think political commentators have any responsibility
to lower this temperature and work towards
this middle ground?
I don't think that that is possible.
So she is absolutely correct when she says,
I as a political commentator contribute to the atmosphere in this country,
but
I'll put it like this,
this is the weirdest thing.
I criticized Donald Trump as I,
I do fairly often.
I mean,
I voted for him,
I,
I wanna see him succeed,
but I absolutely
Uh,
ragged on him over the Iran war and things of that nature,
and the media still characterizes it as though I'm a,
a hardcore mega far-right Trump supporter,
despite the fact
I referred to him as a developmentally disabled individual
in a more crass manner,
and they still refer to me as like some far-right die-hard Trump guy.
I guess cause I voted for him.
If I go on my show and I say something like,
I don't think we should have initiated this war with Iran,
I don't think Trump is legitimately trying to solve this problem.
If
taking those positions
never reach the progressive audience,
then the only thing they have is,
is assumptions about me based on fake content they've seen from somewhere else.
So let,
let me,
let me phrase it like this.
Well,
I certainly think I have opinions,
biases,
and I am going to say things that they will not like.
I think the reality is to use,
uh,
this,
this surrounding.
As a perfect example,
there was one individual who claimed that I was shoving ivermectin up my,
you know,
I'll,
I'll refrain from being too uncouth.
But I have never promoted ivermectin one time.
In fact,
I argued with Joe Roda that ivermectin did not work,
and to this day I've maintained,
I do not believe there's
conclusive evidence of this.
Why is it then
that these progressives come in
under the assumption
that I would be,
say,
promoting ivermectin or something of that nature,
because they don't actually know who I am.
And so I would say this,
while,
while every political commentator contributes to the atmosphere,
there is a surface level to the way social media algorithms work,
that's making sure
these young people,
not necessarily all young,
but these progressives,
are never going to actually watch my show and
hear my real opinions on what's going on.
Instead,
what they're going to get is
some other progressive commentator cherry-picking the most
shocking thing they can out of context
to try and generate views.
There's a really funny example of this.
There's a series of videos on YouTube that are titled
Joe Rogan Shocked,
and what they'll do is
they will edit a fake clip of any political commentator.
Put a clip of Joe Rogan being shocked in front of it,
and they get millions of views from this.
And there are people who genuinely believe
that I was sitting on Joe Rogan's show talking to
him about immigration in the UK which never happened.
But if your worldview is built on social media
algorithms convincing you this is what I believe,
you're gonna come into a debate
totally confused,
thinking that I believe incorrect things.
Well,
I think another issue that the progressives were having
with you is feeling that you weren't taking accountability.
They were saying that
they felt like you were really fueling this fire of there's gonna be a civil war,
there's gonna be a civil war.
And so,
kind of what you're saying,
they already have this idea of you that you are MAGA no matter what you say,
even if you call out Trump,
they feel like no matter what,
you're MAGA.
So,
you know,
what has to happen
for you to say,
you know,
I was wrong,
the country isn't headed in that direction at all.
I take those words back.
Well,
it's fascinating because my,
my actual position is that we are in a period of civil strife
for which the next phase would be civil war.
We have no guarantee that this actually would lead to a civil war.
The civil rights era in the 1950s into the 1960s was considered
a period of civil strife that did not result in civil war.
So what I would argue is they're mischaracterizing my opinion
because they don't actually listen to what I say,
nor actually watch my show,
and they're being fueled by grifters who are
trying to make money through shock content.
That's definitely a possibility
for sure.
I'll stress it again.
Every single time I've done a
I've done a show talking about the prospect of civil war,
it's been in reference to articles from the mainstream press,
from The Atlantic,
The New York Times.
I've never just fabricated a whole cloth and argument
that I think we're drifting in this direction.
My show is based on pulling the top news stories of the day,
and then we opine on them,
either on my morning show where I do it as a
monologue or with Tim Cast IRL with 3 other guests.
So if the New York Times writes an article saying,
Barbara F.
Walter,
former CIA warns the US is headed towards civil war,
and then we opine on that.
That is not to say I decided to push this narrative,
but again,
these people don't actually look at what I'm saying,
and I'm not trying to blame them.
I think that the mechanisms of social media,
the monetization structures result in this.
But every single conversation we've had on this,
I have said,
There is no guarantee we actually go into a civil war.
For all we know,
this is just one hot moment,
it's a blip on the radar.
Things will calm down.
If you are only getting soundbites on shorts,
TikTok,
Instagram,
you're gonna think I'm sitting here banging on the
table with a hammer screaming the end is nigh,
which is just not true.
Yeah,
I do think that's an issue with
whatever.
Whoever
side you agree with
that
social media is just feeding you what you want to hear,
what you want to see,
and people are only watching clips
just to reconfirm and validate what they already had in mind.
So
I do feel like we are stuck there.
Let me give you a good example.
I think one of the individuals said something to the effect of,
you have 40 videos talking about civil war.
I would just like to stress,
we have 1570 or so episodes of Timcast IRL.
Or if he's talking about the inclusion of my morning show,
interview show,
and Timcast IRL,
we're looking at somewhere around,
in just terms of full podcast episodes,
perhaps around 4500.
But if we're looking at
every clip,
every segment we produce,
because we produce about from Timcast IRL,
which is a 3 hour long show,
we will produce 5 segments from the show that are between 10 and 20 minutes long.
Now we're looking at around 30,000 different clips.
I think 40 is a rather small percentage if that's the case.
Yeah,
I mean,
whether you
think it's we're heading toward,
we're in a political strife right now,
we're headed toward a civil war,
we're headed toward a revolution.
Do you feel like
something is necessary
for change at this moment?
Or do you feel like,
you know,
a revolution wouldn't be helpful,
civil war wouldn't be helpful?
What are you none of it's helpful.
I had a gentleman,
a liberal on my show and we we were debating the issue.
And,
and,
and again,
it's always from the pretext of Tim Poole saying it's gonna happen.
And then as soon as I clarify,
no,
I'm saying,
you know,
we had a former CIA,
uh,
analyst.
She wrote a book about this,
Barbara F.
Walters saying
that in her experience tracking all these other countries,
the United States is in a similar vein.
All of a sudden they're like,
well,
what am I supposed to debate now?
But,
uh,
what I,
what I always say to them is,
let me ask you this question.
They always say it's not possible,
a civil war can't happen in the United States.
And I say,
OK,
fine,
yeah,
whatever,
whatever you think.
But let me ask you this question.
Do you believe Donald Trump will use the military
to round up
migrants in this country?
To which,
at the time,
the answer was,
yes,
I do think he will.
OK,
well,
Trump actually did.
Marines were deployed to California,
they went to marijuana farms,
and they were pulling migrant children working
on marijuana farms from those farms,
as well as arresting older individuals for
deportation who were working on those farms.
So that did happen.
The question I have for the progressives is,
will you do anything about it?
And invariably the response is,
yes.
So,
so this is,
this is my point.
We had a,
we had a narrative in 2024 that Donald Trump would use the military against,
uh,
migrants in this country
that were here,
uh,
that were not authorized to be here.
I'm trying to be light in my political language.
And the response from progressives is they would do whatever they had to,
to stop Trump from doing that.
Well,
I don't know what
you can do to stop
a marine being deployed
to California
to physic to to assist physically
in the apprehension
of these,
of these immigrants,
unless you're referring to some kind of violent escalation.
So again,
my,
my perspective on this is not based on what I think I would do,
or anyone in my neighborhood would do.
It's based on what we see from the willingness
of conservatives in terms of the use of,
uh,
legitimate government power,
whether it's used legitimately or illegitimately,
I'm saying,
federal law enforcement,
duly sworn in
and dispatched by the president versus
what progressive activists,
organizations,
NGOs are willing to do to counter that.
The,
the argument ultimately becomes this.
You either get what the progressives would view as a fascist dictatorship,
a revolution,
or what the conservatives would describe as the
dissolution of our borders and a communist revolution.
If
nobody fights.
So if the conservatives simply just say we're
gonna turn everything down and we're gonna stop,
and we're gonna,
we're gonna let them do what they're doing as they march to the streets,
as they,
you know,
shoot and kill individuals like Aaron Danielson or Charlie Kirk,
well then the end result,
based on that arithmetic is
you will get a,
a,
a democratic socialist,
ultimately a socialist or communist revolution in this country.
And from the argument of the progressives,
if Trump is going to deploy the military to round up his political enemies
and arrest
migrants with the use of military force,
then you'll get a fascist dictatorship.
Now you can choose to fight,
in which case you'd get a civil war.
So I don't know what will happen.
It's entirely possible
that,
uh,
you know,
I,
I don't think we're gonna have a communist revolution or a fascist dictatorship.
I think
both of the,
of the politically entrenched
view it a bit more
extreme than I think what we're actually witnessing.
But I do think we are facing a dramatic transformation.
And I don't know how it can be reconciled with the current
existence of two distinct body politics.
That is,
Zoran Mamdani engaging in foreign affairs when
he threatened the arrest of Netanyahu,
overtly violates the Logan Act.
Of course we're not going to see any law enforcement pertaining to the Logan Act
against the mayor of New York,
but it's
pretty
crazy to see a mayor.
Threatened to arrest a foreign dignitary,
which it's very strange.
I don't,
I don't see how with New York,
Colorado,
the rise of the DSA,
I mean,
the DSA is talking about abolishing the Senate,
which is firmly in the Constitution and
can only be abolished if the Constitution itself
is,
uh,
removed as the supreme law of the land.
You have a
political faction saying they wanna do that.
No,
I wanna uh kind of stop you there because I,
I wanna move on
to another claim that you had.
I think it really will tie in to what you're saying now.
Um,
this claim of yours was that the mainstream political left commits more violence
than the mainstream political right.
Um,
so,
I'm gonna play a clip from a conversation you had with Mason.
I think
it really ties into what you're saying.
There seems to be like a broader implication
with your prompt that there's this domestic threat
from mainstream left politicians
like do you really think Hillary Clinton's
like leading the Vanguard Revolution Party?
Like
what what what is your take?
When you look at the violence that we do see
uh there's it's it's.
It's from,
I,
I describe it as from blunt to acute,
which is
with the fringe extreme right,
you'll see extreme,
uh,
mass shootings.
You'll see,
you know,
someone will show up and unload on people,
things like that.
On the left though,
you'll see riots,
vandalism that you don't see from the right,
but
The point I'm making is that when you break down
the ideology that motivates individuals that commit political violence,
there is more often an overlap
between what the Democratic Party espouses ideologically
and what we see in street level violence as well as maybe assassinations.
What is what the Republicans would espouse.
I mean,
I couldn't disagree more.
What,
what ideologies that the Democratic Party is promoting
that leads to these types of violence?
Anytime you see an act of violence that's typically attributed to the left,
it is immediately condemned.
By every Democrat politician,
you couldn't point to one that actually endorses that
where you have somebody like Donald Trump who's literally the president of the
United States saying that we should call for the death of congressional members
who are fulfilling their civic duty and saying,
hey,
maybe you shouldn't,
uh,
fulfill illegal orders if you're in the military
and Donald Trump's asking for them to be put to death.
How is that not inciting violence?
No,
that is,
that's absolutely terrifying.
I completely disagree with that.
My,
my point more so is that when you see,
say,
The George Floyd or the BLM riots,
you end up with
Biden and Kamala themselves promoting fundraisers for
those accused of committing these crimes.
So
you drew a distinction between what you called acute violence
on the right and more sustained violence
like riots and vandalism on the left.
So why do you think that distinction matters?
There are very few
high profile
right wing attacks relative to left.
One is too many.
Uh,
so you see somebody,
um,
you know,
go into a church and,
you know,
shoot up a,
a,
a black congregation.
And I call that acute,
meaning
it is a singular instance of some of
the most extreme violence and most detestable and evil
that we could see.
We want those to stop,
obviously.
On the left you'll see something like 3000 instances of
people getting punched in the face,
bashed over the head.
Fires set,
buildings destroyed.
So blunt is,
you get a lot of a little bit,
which these stories typically don't individually make national news.
And then with what we would call right-wing,
you get
rather extreme,
a guy showing up with a gun and shooting a lot of people.
However,
there's a,
there's a more important distinction,
which was the,
the,
the core of the claim,
is that
I don't believe it's meaningful to tell a voter,
the right is more violent.
Because if we look at the Cato Institute
or even the FBI,
They're not referring to Charlie Kirk,
they're not referring to Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro.
They're referring to an unnamed Grand Dragon of the Klan that no one's ever heard of.
In one particular instance that got a lot of attention,
I believe it was the Cato Institute that claimed
a,
a white supremacist who punched his wife and got arrested for it was an instance
of white supremacist violence.
Well,
look,
if the Republican Party says white supremacy is bad,
and Charlie Kirk was kicking out white nationalists from his events,
and Nick Fuentes was barred from,
uh,
he was barred from the RNC,
from CPAC,
from all these organizations,
it's not meaningful to a voter to put
those ideologies alongside the Republican Party.
So when we talk about left and right,
by all means you can include whatever elements you think are left and right,
but I think when we're coming to a midterm in voting,
We,
we want to draw the distinction between the mainstream
liberal and left and the mainstream conservative and right,
in which case,
You see almost no violence.
There,
there's,
there's zero
instances of Charlie Kirk's supporters following his death going around
smashing windows,
setting fires or murdering people.
In fact,
there's an estimate of between 24 and 34 murders
that took place following the killing of George Floyd,
who was not even a prominent political activist.
It is an objective fact,
and this is what's,
what's fascinating to me in,
in the whole debate.
When you look at just news articles.
So,
uh,
my company,
we did an analysis tracking just
ABC,
New York Times,
NBC,
CBS,
and we found over 465 instances of high profile,
what one could describe as terrorism
over the past 10 years coming from the left,
and one
coming from the right.
Now I,
I wanna clarify what that means.
I'm not talking about fringe anti-government communist revolutionaries,
and I am not talking about fringe white nationalists and ultra-nationalists.
I am talking about individuals who are motivated by an
ideological cause espoused by the Democrat or Republican Party.
That is
who comes out
and says Elon Musk
is,
is bad,
he's got to be stopped,
he should not have this money,
and then people take guns and go and unload on Tesla vehicles.
That is motivated by an overlapping ideology.
But we have not seen free speech activists wearing Charlie Kirk
shirts going around and shooting up campuses or setting fires.
Would you say that one of the biggest,
uh,
riots in modern history was at our nation's Capitol
on January 6th,
uh,
where government officials.
And police officers and anyone who got in their way
were under attack by the right and then pardoned by Trump.
So do you feel that,
you know,
him pardoning those people kind of embolden the right and
has been one of the most violent
riots in our modern history?
Well,
the January 6th was not.
One of the most violent riots in our,
in our history
by the numbers in
modern,
in modern.
No,
it,
it still isn't.
First of all,
obviously January 6th is abhorrent and it's,
I think if you,
if you line up,
uh,
if you compare January 6th
to 90+% of what we've seen from progressives,
it's just worse.
Right?
You had,
uh,
an estimate of,
I think you had between 1000 and
2000 individuals who actually entered the building.
You had an estimate of around 800 to 1000 who
were engaged in some kind of violence against the police.
All of that is very,
very bad.
I don't think when you compare this to what we've seen going back 10 years
in modern history,
it's
It's gonna fall somewhere,
uh,
in the middle of the bulk of the riots,
if we're just,
uh,
comparing riots.
But the reason why I say it's worse is because it was at our Capitol,
it obstructed our,
our,
our constitutional processes,
and that makes it substantially worse.
In terms of damage,
violence,
injuries,
it's actually not.
In,
in fact,
uh,
one thing that's often overlooked,
which is
I find it to be frustrating is the M29
insurrection that we saw in DC.
We had several 1000
far leftists
beating police,
over 100
federal officers
injured.
They tore the barricades down at the White House,
threw firebombs on the White House grounds,
and set fire to Saint John's Church.
The president was forced into an emergency bunker where he,
I,
I would describe it as embarrassingly pretended like he wasn't.
But he was called in the media bunker boy,
having been forced into the emergency bunker.
Now nobody breached the White House,
but they did set fire to a historic American church,
which is terrifying.
Had they actually breached the,
the,
the fencing,
we would call that one of the darkest days in American history.
Now,
now the question is,
why did we not get any hearings on this?
There were substantially more injuries on that day than we saw on January 6th,
but don't get me wrong,
it's not to excuse January 6th,
it's all bad.
It's just,
for whatever reason,
Progressives
don't care
about the M29 insurrection at the White House.
I'm going to stress this.
They ripped the barricades down.
They threw firebombs on the White House grounds
and set fire to the church across the street.
This was terrifying
for me and my,
my,
my friends and family who live
just outside of DC,
but it's remarkable that
the Republicans don't seem to care
and the Democrats don't seem to care and the progressives,
I think,
supported it.
Now as for the pardons,
there's a very important distinction here.
What we were looking at with the criminal charges on January 6th is,
first,
let me just say anybody who attacked a cop,
tore the barricades down,
and stormed the Capitol deserved prison.
And they got it.
In fact,
many of these people got solitary confinement on and off for 3 years.
The question that I ask for anybody who's concerned about those pardons is simple.
How much time in prison
should an individual
who rioted at the Capitol and attacked a police officer get?
This is not a gotcha.
This is not a,
it's a legitimate question.
Now I think
reasonably what I would argue is
if you were one of the leftist rioters at the White House on May 29th,
2020.
And you were one of the people who injured one of these officers,
I would argue that a year or two in federal
prison probably is enough time for the crime you committed.
For the J-6ers,
you had individuals who actually never even fought police,
who got 1 to 2 years in prison.
So herein lies the problem.
The Capitol Police set up offices around the country,
they wrongly raided innocent individuals' home.
There was a woman in Alaska,
they raided her home and and arrested her even though she was not even in the Capitol,
only to later realize their mistake.
Now you had hundreds of those cases.
So the challenge presented on the right
is that first,
the rioters who attacked police were already in prison for 3 years,
probably long enough.
The rest of these people who got misdemeanor trespass charges,
some were put in solitary and some were in prison for over 1 year.
My opinion is
when you have a process this tainted,
the pardons are warranted.
And if there is a complaint over some of these bad
people being parted to later on got arrested for other crimes,
the issue is
when you blanket over 1000 to 2000 people,
some of whom were peaceful and entered the building
from the other side where there was no riot.
You've created a serious conflict in this country
to lower the temperature,
I believe a mass pardon is warranted,
just like we saw in the early days of this country.
When there were many individuals
who fought in an early war,
I believe it was Jefferson,
issued a blanket pardon
for a bunch of farmers who were rebelling against the government,
the argument being,
OK,
we've arrested these people,
we've taken from them.
If we are going to lock up thousands of people,
you are going to turn the temperature way up.
I would make the same argument for those
on May 29th and 2020
that had they been in prison and many
of them in solitary confinement for three years,
I would also advocate for their release.
Well,
where do you draw the line between,
you know,
a politician expressing support
for a movement or
a riot insurrection
and then being responsible for the violence committed by the people
in that movement?
Yeah,
I don't,
I don't hold any of these,
uh,
you know,
all these Democrats,
you know,
Elizabeth Warren being a great example.
She is allowed to express her opinion,
and I appreciate that she does.
She holds no responsibility if someone who agrees with her worldview
decides to be violent.
Because all of these Democrats have denounced violence,
and I'm glad that they do,
and I don't respect Donald Trump coming out and threatening the death penalty,
uh,
against these,
these Democrats who are saying do not,
uh,
you know,
do not obey illegal orders.
There are a lot of,
uh,
political arguments,
but I,
I don't think this country has served with what Trump said.
Uh,
that being said,
The point I'm making is that
mainstream
run of the mill conservatives and moderates are not picking
up guns and Molotovs because of the things Republicans say
for the most part.
January 6th involved,
I think there were a couple of individuals who were arrested on gun possession in DC.
Most of them did not have firearms or explosives.
But then we see with the left.
I mean you can see the motivations
for the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
By all means there are many people who are
claiming that Israel or the government killed him,
but
if we're going just by positive evidence,
this is a guy who said he was hateful,
and so he killed him.
I think a better example is the he wasn't necessarily tied to the left,
progressives or
Tyler Robinson was motivated according to the evidence released by
by uh Charlie Kirk having spread hate.
To put it simply,
if you are in a relationship with a non-binary individual,
uh,
a claim Charlie Kirk is a is is spreading hate and then decide to go and end his life,
I don't think we can say that person is a moderate or conservative.
This is,
this is,
this is an ideology that is,
let me put it very simply.
If all Tyler Robinson ever said was this man
spreads hate and that's all we knew about him,
I could say,
OK,
AOC said the exact same thing in the halls of Congress after Charlie was murdered.
That is an
ideological overlap.
I'm not suggesting AOC wanted Charlie Kirk dead or advocates for violence.
I am saying that when Charlie Kirk came out and said
we should defend free speech,
no one showed up and shot
an Antifa protester
for advocating against it.
We don't see those instances.
So I'll put it like this
the George Floyd riots or the BLM riots,
however you want to describe it,
in 2020 were considered to be some of the worst riots we had seen
in 50 years.
There's an estimated 24 to 34 deaths depending on how people want to calculate
these murders.
One was
David Dorn,
a retired police officer.
He went to his friend's pawn shop and took a bullet to the chest.
These were rioters that were out in the street for an ideological cause.
I know many of them were just exploiting that cause,
but here's the issue.
As many of these individuals set fire to buildings and were arrested for it,
Kamala Harris and Joe Biden,
Personally
solicited donations on their behalf.
Now you've got to hold people responsible
if they are providing money
for those who committed these crimes.
And absolutely
when,
when you have people on the right
that were advocating that people who are beating
cops on January 6th shouldn't go to jail,
they should be called out all the same.
But
I will just stress in this capacity,
we have,
uh,
some 465 tracked incidents over the past 10 years,
and a consistent
defense from Democrats
over the individuals accused.
While I'm not going to accuse any Democrats of coming out and saying explicitly,
go be violent,
we have numerous instances where they have,
they have,
they have a famous quote,
It is,
respect the diversity of tactics.
And what that means is
the,
the surface level term that most people would take it to mean is
if somebody is going to engage in violence.
For the benefit of a left cause,
we have nothing to do with it,
and we are going to stay out of it.
At
worst,
what we see in these protests are that organizers who claim to be peaceful
will instruct their facilitators to respect the diversity of tactics,
which means stand down and allow them to be violent.
It's their
diverse tactic.
We don't see
any of that among conservatives.
I hear you.
I kind of want to pivot a little bit into our next clip
for the next your next claim.
It was that the Democratic Party has embraced authoritarianism.
Um,
because I also think it ties in nicely to what you are talking about.
You had a conversation with David.
Support to recognize that
a simply I condemn is not sufficient when
the Republican Party has created a permission structure
for individuals to go out and do violence
against,
I'm about to tell you with impunity.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a good example.
Trump
administration.
The Trump administration,
you know,
they lost in the courts 10,000 times,
right?
That's not true.
It is true.
Politico actually released a report on it.
Yeah,
they lost 10,000 times
like 10,000
murdered numerous American citizens,
and guess what happened to the individuals that carried out those killings?
What happened to them?
Have they been prosecuted in any investigations,
do you know?
I believe they have not.
Why?
It's almost as if when you commit violence,
you're going to be protected.
That's what's going on.
That's why Christie No went out and said
that Alex Freddy was a domestic terrorist.
That's why Stephen Miller said the same thing.
And everybody in the entire Republican Party apparatus is
echoing those talking points because whenever there's violence,
they,
they don't condemn it.
They condone it.
They,
they congratulate it and they pardon it.
Law enforcement duly elected by a by a population that voted in
plurality for ICE to go out and engage in these kill American
citizens,
which sometimes,
yes,
absolutely.
And oh,
they voted for ICE to kill American citizens,
really?
Yes.
Do you,
do you,
the,
the average Republican,
I don't think they're that who said the average Republican would vote,
but do you not believe that there are people in
this country that would vote for ICE to harm people?
Is that your,
is this your argument?
Do you believe this is terrible.
So you think not a single person in this country wants to harm illegal relevance.
We're talking about the fact that there is
a top-down approach by Republicans like Donald Trump.
Can I ask you the question again?
Can you answer?
Can you answer the question and allow it to happen,
foment violence.
Can you,
can you answer you're running cover for it.
Can you
actually,
you just did.
No,
I didn't.
See,
I'm,
I'm pointing at ICE violence.
You're saying that people vote for it or whatever.
You don't think that there are white supremacists
voting for ICE to go and harm migrants.
Are you saying that white supremacists voted for
Donald Trump so they could kill migrants?
Yes,
I am.
OK,
good to know that white supremacists make up part of
the Republican Party and Donald Trump's doing their bidding.
Yes,
I,
I certainly believe they do.
OK.
So here in this clip,
David,
your opponent argued that Republicans have created a permission structure
for political violence.
So what's your response?
I know we've been talking.
About this,
but what's your response to that?
And not only in this debate?
Well,
it's actually the best argument.
The,
the right doesn't engage in street level vigilante or um terroristic violence.
They vote for it,
implement a system by which they can engage in the violence.
Uh,
Democrats do the exact same thing,
which is,
which,
which is my counter.
And,
uh,
under Barack Obama,
we saw substantially more deportations.
There were different kinds of deportations,
largely at the border,
but,
uh,
we also saw the indefinite detention provision
under the National Defense Authorization Act under Barack Obama.
To,
to claim that the Republicans
are unique,
is silly.
But if you want to argue that the,
the structure by which people can vote to empower an executive,
who will then dispatch law enforcement
controlling the.
Having a monopoly on violence and harming people,
I think we all agree we have concerns about an unaccountable police force.
I have,
I have a few counters.
I think that when I pointed out
there are white supremacists in this country,
ultranationalists,
and even,
you know,
non-white individuals that do want
ICE to kill migrants.
The way
this man acted,
he immediately said it's not true,
and people around me laughed,
and my only thought is,
No matter what I say,
they will claim the inverse,
because even when I say something they should completely agree with,
they act like I'm wrong.
There are people in this country that have gone
on social media and they do every single day
saying they want
machine guns on the border.
They want
ICE to mow people down.
You see that they're voting for Trump.
Now that being said,
There's a distinction between
Whether those people are just going to talk big online and have horrifying views
and whether or not we'll actually see that implemented in terms of law enforcement.
I just think you,
you have a serious challenge in a few capacities.
Alex Peretti,
for instance,
was armed
and,
uh,
had shown up to confront federal law enforcement.
This is not a protest.
This is a federal law enforcement enforcement operation.
You run very serious risks
because we are not talking about,
say,
a police line outside of a building.
Which is community response or riot control.
We are talking about an individual who said,
I am going to obstruct federal law enforcement
actively pursuing lethal threats.
This does not justify anything the cops did.
I think the police in that regard made terrible mistakes.
However,
This is a guy who showed up armed to confront federal law enforcement,
which resulted in a tragedy.
I'm shocked that you would find progressives advocating
for the right to carry a concealed weapon
to confront federal law enforcement.
I'd imagine the progressive argument would be,
we should have gun controls and permits,
and you shouldn't be able to conceal your
weapons like this or something to that effect,
but
I certainly understand there are many on the left that
do agree
with,
uh,
you know,
having guns.
And I also think
you can't simultaneously argue for democracy
and then condemn the result of your democracy.
Donald Trump won the second biggest issue according to Gallup
throughout the 24 cycle was illegal immigration.
This helped Trump secure the plurality and win,
and he didn't just win the presidency,
but the Senate and the House.
The Republicans took.
Everything
and the second biggest issue was immigration.
So if you believe in democracy and the right of the people to vote,
and when they do,
they say please enforce the law against
people who have come to this country illegally,
you can't come out after the fact and say,
well,
you've done it wrong and you've created a permission structure
because unfortunately that permission structure is part of your democracy.
All right,
but do you think that political leaders have any responsibility,
especially when
extremists interpret their messaging as
we're gonna get them,
these illegal immigrants are the worst of the worst,
they're criminals,
and so they're taking that messaging and they're committing acts of violence
and then
I want,
I want to say that it's on a
bigger scale,
but there are small.
instances where people are saying
he looks like he's an illegal immigrant and
they're harassing people and there's even many fights.
Now,
this is not on a,
this is not a huge issue,
but if none of that is getting denounced,
maybe Trump is not seeing these side little issues happening,
but if he is and he's aware
that his messaging is that
these illegal immigrants are the problem,
they are dangerous,
we need
out by any means necessary.
Do you feel like that he has
any responsibility to condemn people who are taking it upon themselves
to say,
hey,
I think that person's illegal
and attack them or harass them?
I,
I don't think we've seen any substantial incidents
where a private individual has confronted a man wrongly,
accusing him of being an illegal immigrant.
I,
I do agree it does happen.
There have been a few videos where there's a,
you know,
you'll see like a guy yelling racial slurs or something.
And,
you know,
at another guy or,
you know,
migration-based slurs at an individual.
But we have not had an instance,
uh,
the example that I use would be,
uh,
Aaron Danielson's,
uh,
murder,
in which a man named Michael Reinold with a Black Lives Matter tattoo on his neck,
walked up to a Trump supporter who was minding
his own business and shot him twice in the chest
for no reason other than he was a Trump supporter.
So I absolutely believe
political leaders must condemn.
Immediately individuals who act in accordance
with their ideology to violent ends.
And do you think the right has been condemning individuals like that?
It hasn't happened.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I read hundreds if not thousands of articles,
uh,
I read hundreds of articles a day,
maybe thousands per week,
and there have not been any
notable instances
where a private right-wing individual has engaged
in lethal force against a person wrongly
for being,
uh,
perceived as an illegal immigrant.
It just doesn't happen.
And
I think it's very easy to just say,
it shouldn't happen,
nobody should do it.
And any right-leaning individual,
nationalist,
American conservative,
libertarian,
or otherwise,
who believes for a second they should engage
in violence against someone they think is,
is an illegal immigrant,
they would be wrong for doing that.
But it's just not happening.
And,
and that being said,
the amount of assassinations we see from progressives is also very small as well.
We have a couple individuals politically targeted just in the past couple of years.
I mean they've tried to kill Trump,
but it's not like we are seeing people go out every day and murder individuals,
you know,
on strong pronounced national level issues.
So I would just say,
We get massive riots from left aligned progressives,
uh,
you know,
uh,
liberals.
We see this
all the time,
and on the right we don't.
Uh,
we don't see,
uh,
Dave Rubin leading marches,
no,
he,
we don't see,
uh,
you know,
Steven Crowder
organizing big rallies where people firebomb buildings or,
or vandalize cars.
But we see this from the left
regularly.
We call it riot season.
I've covered riot season for 15 years.
Every single year there's a riot season.
Some kind of left aligned violent group goes out,
and I've been documenting it for 15+ years.
So I'd appreciate it
if,
uh,
anybody who engaged in these,
in these,
these,
uh,
these tactics would be condemned.
But what I would argue is,
back to the point being made by this individual,
the best argument is that the right uses
what would be described as legitimate democratic authority
to empower law enforcement to engage in violence.
That being said,
the Democrats do the same too,
so we can condemn all of it,
but you can't just pick and choose which party
at the time.
Well,
you also mentioned how Trump has,
you know,
white supremacists and ultra
white supremacists
backing him and supporting him and identifying with
his movement or the MAGA,
the MAGA movement.
So even if they're a small minority,
do you feel that Trump
or Republicans have a responsibility to,
you know,
denounce these extremist groups that
identify with it?
And if they since they haven't,
is that encouraging these?
I haven't,
from what I know,
I haven't heard Trump denounce
the KKK or these Christian white nationalist groups or the Proud Boys.
And you do a simple YouTube search of the
compilation of Trump denouncing white supremacy because I believe
there's like an 1 hour and 40 minute
compilation showing Trump repeatedly denouncing white supremacy,
white nationalists.
Perhaps my favorite quote of all.
Time is,
there are very fine people on both sides,
and I am not talking about the neo-Nazis and
the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally,
which is a direct quote from Donald Trump,
I believe it was 2017
when he said that.
So I want to look into this last clip,
and it's an interaction that you had earlier
about fascism and is Trump a fascist,
so I want to play that back.
I think we should just get to the heart of it.
Donald Trump is a fascist.
He has Nazis in his administration.
His entire messaging
was resonating with Nazis from the very beginning.
Donald Trump,
when rallying for 2024,
had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.
What was the significance of that rally?
You tell me,
yeah,
it's the same place,
same date as the Nazis
in the 1940s.
Literally,
um,
Donald Trump said that,
uh,
immigrants are poisoning the blood of America.
And their varmint.
Who also said that?
You tell me.
Hitler.
Literally
Donald Trump has openly
said things as dog whistles,
so you may say that it's not mainstream,
but the entire ideology of the right
speaks to those people.
Let me ask you,
what,
what do you mean by fascist,
uh,
far right,
authoritarian,
ultra nationalistic.
14 sins of fascism,
all that,
but there's a specific definition of fascist.
Do you just mean that
he's he's an authoritarian?
No,
I mean that he meets all 14 tenets of fascism.
So when Santana called Trump a fascist,
you immediately asked him to
define the word.
Were you trying to clarify his argument or did you find this label to be unfair?
Oh,
no,
I clarify,
and the reason why is because there's like 3 colloquial definitions of fascist,
and I don't want to improperly argue what he may not be arguing.
So there's one very prominent argument that fascism
is the lucrative merger of corporation and state.
If that's the argument,
you're referring to crony capitalist structures,
which sometimes progressives do because they're anti-capitalist.
But it seems like he was arguing something different.
I did not quite grasp which position
he was actually taking on,
uh,
what it means to be a fascist.
One,
argument is,
uh,
natio,
you know,
ultra-nationalist doesn't really mean anything.
You're either a nationalist or you're not,
it's,
it's rather binary.
So,
it would be,
uh,
traditionalist nationalist is one definition that people use for,
for fascism.
So I'm,
I'm,
I think that might be what he's,
he was trying to accuse
Donald Trump of.
I just think for the most part,
people say fascist to mean,
you know,
bad guy,
authoritarian.
I,
I would also add,
uh,
Trump did not say that immigrants are poison in the blood of America.
I mean,
these things are fabricated.
He did mention
criminal cartels,
gang members,
you know,
rapists are poison in the blood.
I think if you misinterpret his intention,
you could try and liken him to be,
to,
to be like Hitler.
I also think it's silly to claim that because he had a rally at Madison Square Garden
on a particular date,
it was significant because the Nazis did as well.
I,
I'm not gonna
claim
Tony Hinchcliffe is a Nazi for having a show at Madison Square Garden.
I think that's,
that's a silly,
uh,
comparison.
Well,
what definition of fascism do you use and
which parts of Trump's record do you feel clearly
fits that definition or clearly does not fit it?
Yeah,
I,
I don't think it does.
I think,
um,
I think the way most people try to use fascist is just going to be flat authoritarian,
which
just doesn't really mean much.
But I think when you go to the next level,
the next layer of the definition,
it's a reference to traditionalist nationalism.
So if you take a look at the fascists,
which was Italy largely,
They wanted strong national identity,
they wanted a strong ethnic identity,
and it was based on a traditionalist worldview,
so
aligning with more conservative values than progressive.
Typically what we saw with the communists would be,
I would describe as uh authoritarian globalist progressivism.
People like to claim that communism on a surface,
they'll say,
oh,
it's uh,
it's,
they want everything owned by the people,
that's not actually
how it's used,
uh,
colloquially by people who are making the argument.
So if you're trying to understand what
someone is saying when they're saying fascist,
right,
they're saying they want,
you know,
marriage to be between a man and a woman.
They're,
they don't like LGBTQIA.
They want secure borders,
a strong national identity,
and if you take that to its extreme,
You can accuse someone of being a fascist if they
polidify this,
if they turn it into a party
by which corporations adhere to the party's message with single party control.
We don't really have that with Donald Trump,
and,
uh,
Donald Trump actually is very pro H-1B,
much to the chagrin of the conservative base and Trump's own supporters.
He's been a big fan of,
you know,
he,
he's the one who ignited Operation Warp Speed for vaccination.
His supporters aren't big fans of that.
So I think when you look at,
uh,
Trump supporters,
I can actually,
I'll just throw it to Vox.com,
who wrote in 2016 that Donald Trump was the moderate candidate at the time.
And,
uh,
he's often compared to Bill Clinton's policies of the 1990s.
In fact,
much of what Trump says about border security and illegal immigration
is just,
to be honest,
a rip off from Barack Obama and,
you know,
Hillary and Bill Clinton going back.
What changed in the Democratic Party,
where their rhetoric shifted,
I'm not entirely sure.
But a lot of what Trump says is just 90s and 2000s Democratic Party rhetoric.
So I,
I don't think I would take that and claim he's a fascist,
because if you did,
you'd have to argue that Bill Clinton was too.
I don't think that's true.
OK,
so you said that you don't remember this
quote of Trump saying that immigrants are poisoning,
you know,
the blood
of America.
But even if you
don't think that happened,
do you feel like his rhetoric,
even saying and speaking really broadly that immigrants are the violent ones,
they're the ones committing crimes,
do you feel like that rhetoric is dangerous and dehumanizing?
You see,
this is,
this is the problem is that,
uh,
you know,
specifically Donald Trump referred to MS-13 as animals.
What we ended up getting from a variety of large corporate news outlets
was that instead of quoting him,
they paraphrased that Trump called immigrants animals.
This is where this,
this rhetoric emerges.
If you go to Donald Trump,
you walk up to him and look him in the face
and say,
how do you feel about immigrants to this country,
he'll say they're great,
we love our immigrants,
we want to bring in more,
but they got to come legally.
In fact,
that's a quote from Trump.
He said at almost all of his rallies.
What ends up happening is Trump will say,
you've got rapists and cartel members and coyotes.
These criminals can't be allowed in this country.
They're animals and they're poisoning the blood of this nation.
And I don't think any reasonable person
would disagree that a
child sex trafficking cartel member
is poisoning this country
and they should be arrested.
It's a problem then when people for
political reasons misrepresent what Trump said.
The best example possible I believe was,
would be what's now known as the very fine people hoax.
It is remarkable.
I had on a liberal journalist from Brooklyn.
Uh,
I believe this was last year,
who still,
after 10 years,
did not know that Trump condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists back in 2017.
Because what happened was,
when Trump said there are very fine people on both sides,
and I am not talking about the Nazis and the white nationalists,
because they should be condemned totally,
media outlets cut the back portion of his quote off
and ran a fake version
to manipulate people into thinking
that he was suggesting white supremacists were somehow good.
You know,
I,
I would argue with many of these progressives,
and the reason why I think it's important to come and sit down in these,
in these debates,
they don't
actually know what Trump said,
they don't actually know what I believe.
They assume that because I voted for Donald Trump,
I agree with everything he's done.
I'm pro-life,
which I'm not,
I'm pro-flat tax,
which I'm not,
or that I'm anti-immigration,
which I'm not.
They,
they,
if you only follow the likes of CNN or MS now,
You are not getting accurate representations of what Trump is actually saying.
And don't get me wrong,
if you're watching Fox News,
you're getting the inverse problem.
But I think what we see here politically,
and we can go back to 2016,
9 million individuals
who voted for Barack Obama
chose to vote for Donald Trump over
Hillary Clinton.
I was a Bernie supporter,
and when Bernie was iced out from the DNC,
and it happened twice by the way,
I said,
well then Trump's my guy.
I'm not gonna vote for Hillary Clinton.
I think she's a terrible candidate.
I think she's a warmonger,
not that Trump's earned any Brownie points in that regard.
But then with 2020,
when Bernie Sanders has another opportunity and I fully backed
the Democratic Party with maximum donations on numerous occasions,
what did they do?
They coordinated everyone to drop out to make sure Joe Biden got the nomination,
and I said,
I'm not voting for these people.
This is not a legitimate primary process.
I wanted
Bernie Sanders,
we didn't get it.
I'm done.
And,
and I'll fully admit I'm not a big fan.
of Bernie these days.
Come 2024,
I vote for Donald Trump because of his first term and because
we were living under a nightmare administration
in with,
with Joe Biden.
I don't think Trump has done everything perfectly these days,
but,
uh,
you know,
I,
I think it's still the,
the,
it's still been the better choice.
Overall,
do you feel like debates like this spend too much time
You know,
arguing over intent and not enough time discussing the impacts of
these kind of messages and,
you know,
the power that they can have.
Well,
look,
one guy
showed up with a beanie in his back pocket because I think too many of these young
people are just trying to get notability on social media in any way that they can.
And I don't feel that it,
uh,
it serves the betterment of mankind
to just be enemies for the sake of being enemies.
So,
in essence,
I would agree with you.
Many of these conversations aren't genuinely trying
to understand the issues at hand,
they're just trying to clip farm
so that it can look like they're standing
up to a representation of what oppresses their,
their tribe.
We see this
in every political group.
You know,
my most viral clips are when I'm debating someone and angry.
And uh that's
0.001% of the content that I produce.
You know,
for instance,
we had Brian Shapiro on several times,
and though we disagreed,
we were laughing the whole time.
Cause I,
you know,
I,
I've come to realize this and,
and,
and I,
I agree with the assessment.
You know,
I'll,
I'll get frustrated or angry when someone,
uh,
lies,
misrepresents facts or otherwise,
but I'm just sick and tired of these
angry clips that get produced,
you know,
we're all angry all the time,
and I don't feel it's actually helping any
of us understand how to solve these problems.
So,
in the future,
I'm gonna try to avoid
instances where an individual,
actually this,
this happened on the show,
when the dude began to do his performance,
I just got out of the chair and walked off.
Waited for him to finish and then came back and sat down.
You wanna do a,
a clip farming thing where you put on a beanie and then just insult me,
do it on your own time.
If you wanna have a conversation,
I'm here,
I'll sit down.
Well,
lastly,
before we wrap up,
you said that,
you know,
you can't only get your news from Fox,
you can't only get it from CNN.
Where do you recommend people getting their news and getting their information?
Because like you said,
a lot of it is just clickbait and just looking for,
you know,
vari variety.
And so,
where are people supposed to get their news and information that they can trust?
That's a big challenge.
I,
there,
there is no one location.
You can't,
you,
you can't even just look.
If
someone did an analysis on my shows and found that there is a theme
to the shows that we produce,
the content that we cover,
obviously,
cause there are things that I care about and things that I don't.
If I cared more about
the World Cup,
we would have produced a dozen big breaking news around the World Cup,
but
I'm focused on electoral politics,
cultural issues,
sometimes movies.
So my recommendation for people is check out Allsides.com,
because all they do is
show you a story.
And different articles from left,
lean left,
center,
lean right and right.
It's imperfect,
because what constitutes right wing or left wing is,
is,
is fairly nebulous.
But if you get your news
through,
uh,
all sides,
you can see
when it's a left
interpretation or a right interpretation,
and then read them both.
And they may that still may not guarantee you're getting accurate information.
I,
I like to read left,
center,
and right on every story to see what I may be missing.
Uh,
I would just stress that the difficulty for most people is,
you know,
every day when I'm going through the news,
I'm actually checking source material to verify claims.
It's not something the average person can do,
so
I don't even believe that there's a news service that can get it right,
but I,
but I think all sides,
uh,
gets as close as you can.
All right,
well,
Tim,
thank you so much for joining us today and thank you everyone at home for watching.
Be sure to tune in to the next surrounded episode.