After Party with Emily Jashinsky - “Happy Hour”: Cringe No Kings, If Emily Would Ever Go on ‘The View,’ and Why the Trans Issue Matters: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: October 24, 2025

In this week’s edition of “Happy Hour,” Emily Jashinsky answers your questions about what a Kamala presidency would have looked like, if words like antisemitic, racist, Nazi have lost their meaning, and what dystopian timeline we’re in. She also offers her thoughts on media coverage of Caitlin Clark, why the trans issue is actually important, what Gen Z thinks of No Kings, her recommendation for a Packers bar in D.C., why she doesn’t love going to sporting events, PLUS horror movies.  She also takes on some tough issues such as the story that really impacted her view of the Israeli government, modernity vs the Christian faith, and she wraps it all up revealing if she’d ever go on The View. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Well, hello, after-party listeners. Welcome to our weekly installment of After Party that we're calling Happy Hour. It is audio-only and an even more casual version of an already casual show, where I get to talk to all of you through the great questions and comments that you send into us via social media and over email. So let's get to it. Remember, I am now reading all of these live for the first time because I've discovered that's actually kind of an entertaining way to go about recording these Happy Hour. So let's go ahead here and crack open the Instagram. All right. Good stuff. Good stuff. Good stuff coming in here.

All right. This is from E. Juruda. What do you think a Kamala presidency would have looked like? I'm disappointed in Trump. Hmm. I think a Kamala presidency would have looked almost exactly like the first term of the Biden administration. I think there would have been a lot of the exact same personnel, a lot of the same policy pursuits, although actually it may have even gone more pro business, pro tech, just given the Harris camp. First of all, tech is pouring a lot of money in politics right now, and they kind of made their bet in 2024 on Donald Trump. But actually, like, doubled down on that after he won. And a lot of that money, I think, would have gone to whoever won into the inaugural basket probably would have, the inauguration fund probably would have gone,

that's just a guest, honestly, just a guess, honestly. But that's hard to say. I think it would have been doubled down on the culture war. It would have signaled to Democrats that their culture politics weren't toxic. And so I think they would have gone peddled to the metal on that. And the entire like vibe shift, this is probably the biggest consequence of the Trump win. is just the cultural winds shifting so significantly in media, in Hollywood, in tech. I just don't think any of that would have happened if he'd have lost to Kamala Harris. It's really hard to say because maybe Trump would have, I don't know, maybe it would have maintained some measure of power and tried to mount another comeback attempt.

It's, of course, hard to say. But that's my best guess. I haven't actually thought about that before. it's a really good question. Texan 316 asks, with words like anti-Semitic, racist, Nazi, etc., you so often do you think they've lost their meeting? One of my favorite questions,

because yes, and this has been on my heart so much and my mind so much just over the last month as I'm watching Elise Stefani refer to Zeramam Dhani as a jihadist. Zaraam Dhani is a democratic socialist. You should already have plenty of ammunition against the guy, who, by the way, marches in pride parades and is not like, for example, the imam he spoke with last week who has called for Sharia law in the United States, Saraj Wahaj.

That is a distinction with a very meaningful difference. It's something that's bothering me with the grand platinum story right now, people calling him a literal Nazi. And these are examples of people on the left that drive me crazy because my experience, as somebody on the right, over the last 10 years, even when I was in college trying to just do normal conservative stuff on a college campus, the way that definition inflation completely categorized, lump to into these categories as a horrible human being and a bigot, it was so, I saw it be radicalizing to a lot of people, but it is also so alienating and ostracizing and just deeply unpleasant. One of the great things about the United States is that there is an enormous

social stigma to being a bigot. There's an enormous social stigma to being a genuine racist neo-Nazi. And that's why it's so powerful, but also so divisive to engage in definition inflation of these types of terms. And I think it also explains the young Republicans group chat scandal that the media was obsessed with for a few days. Now, for what it's worth, I don't think I talked about this on the show, because I don't think it's really that important to talk about on the show, I think they should have just been condemned as mouth-breathing freaks who are, you know, dragging good people down by their selfish, stupid, trolling behavior. But I think a lot of that comes from people being called all of these names forever, and then those names losing their power.

Because the people who are gatekeeping and policing are doing it in such a flamboyantly performative, virtuous, sanctimonious way, it does really lose its power because you're applying it to people who are not actual bigots. And so that's why I just, it's from personal experience. I take it so, I just take it so seriously anytime. And I try to be on the lookout for it too. You know, I think it's to the rights credit that for the most part people don't run around calling abortionists, well, I shouldn't say abortionists, but people who support abortion, baby killers. Somebody did not literally kill a baby. I get it. I think we often label somebody whose behavior leads to racism or leads to baby killing. You want to call them the racist or you want to call them

the baby killer. But if you are not literally killing babies, if you're not literally racist, then you have to apply that term or then that term must be applied much more narrowly, lest it lose its meaning. And I think that's what we're seeing. I mean, we just had a giant experiment in that over the last 10, 15 years. And, The results are plain as day for everyone to see. So great question. Texan 316. Really appreciate that one.

Kleinstine 9 says, what dystopian timeline are we in? I think 70% Brave New World, 20% 1984, 10% Truman Show. It feels like idiocracy. That is such a lame answer. But I mean, like just the way social media and consumption habits have perverted the incentive structures. It really does feel like idiocacy. I feel like that's such a lame like Gen X reflex to be like it's all idiocracy. But it is. Tom B. says, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Caitlin Clark phenomenon and the media's insistence that her popularity in

viewership is the results of anything other than just exciting basketball. This is just one example, but I've noticed lately the media conversation starts far from your most logical explanation and is often a more negative one. That's a great point. It's this, a lot of times people who are like overeducated. You know, journalism used to be a sort of blue collar field for misfits and people who didn't mind hanging out of under bridges and in seedy bars. That is to say men for a long time. And now people who work in media are people with master's degree in journalism from Northwestern and Columbia. and they have a tendency to signal their value with over analytics.

So, and with just this sort of, what's the right word for it? The shallow grasping at buzzwords, that sort of thing. It's a good question about Caitlin Clark. And again, the reflex, or it's not even the. reflex. It was people in media were pushed so easily by the activist class that they sympathize with on the left to applying this framework to Caitlin Clark, that this is a story about white and black. That's all it is. That is the most important lens through which to view Caitlin Clark with because we saw it immediately from the very left players and their allies in the kind of

LGBT activist space, BLM activist space, and the giant overlap between both of those activist spaces. And so the people who sympathized with them in journalism because they went to a lot of the same schools and believed a lot of the same ideas started insisting that this was the frame through which Caitlin Clark must be viewed and to suggest otherwise would be racially insensitive. I really think that's what it came from. That's a good question. FVR. 07 says, I wonder if that's...

FBR 07 says, how are you dealing with the elimination of your Milwaukee Brewers, Dodgers, or Blue Jays? Dodgers all the way. I can't even stand that we have Canadian teams in Major League Baseball, to be honest, and I'm coping with the Brewers' loss. Really easily, actually, because Dodgers are a great team, there's nothing better than losing to a team you, like, deserve to lose to, and that is great and you genuinely respect. So, Brewers all the way, Packers having a great one, and the bucks are back, Janice is already thriving. So that's good to see. There's all kinds of good news in the world.

Okay. Hunter sends in a Halloween movie recommendation and says, I get the impression from your described taste that you're not a natural horror fan. But if you feel like indulging the season, David Cronenberg's Videodrome starring James Woods and Debbie Harry has a core message about media and television's revolutionary effect on the human brain that falls squarely in your corner of interest. this sounds great Hunter

this is a this is a great recommendation actually I should watch it I do really like horror movies I'm just not a horror movie nerd a lot of people around me who I love don't love horror movies so I don't get to watch a lot of horror movies but this actually sounds like a

fascinating film so I'm gonna check it out I like that thank you Hunter horror movies often are a good I'm not a science fiction person So I like a horror movie that doesn't have the element of science fiction in it. And I find that they're often great meditations.

This is obvious. I mean, if you're a horror buff, this is why you like the genre. But they're often great meditations on technology and the human condition in ways that are very immediate and urgent because they're made to be the film equivalent of a page turner. And they're made to feel very urgent. So very, I find them to be like a very accessible genre. All right. Dunn writes in second visit to Sprout, still no Masa Chips. And you're the second shopper to ask today.

They're out at the warehouse. No surprise because Mosa Chips are so, so good. That's really funny. Hope they get those back in stock soon. Tim says this is about, this is about the video Megan played on Monday's Megan Kelly's show on a woman claiming, gosh, what was the woman's name? I've already forgotten her. She was really funny. Danica something, who like moved to Costa Rica to get rid of the MAGA movement in America,

like regretted it right away. She said something about the Irish people being, let's say, promiscuous. And Tim says, I think she was citing redheads specifically. and Tim is planning to see Megan in Westchester. I'm heading out to San Antonio in just a bit for that too. All right. Brandon writes in, Hello, Emily. You are probably my favorite commentator.

That's very nice. I'm a father or an eight-year-old daughter. I really wish people would push back on Anna Kasparian and others' comments on trans ideology, not being a, quote, real issue. They often dismiss parents' concerns and say that we'll come around. What is more important than the health and safety of my daughter? Nothing is more important.

I want my daughter to be safe in restrooms. I want my daughter to compete fairly. in sports, nothing short of starving or nuclear war is more important than that. It seems like people in the media either have no or grown children and have this dismissive attitude about trans ideology. I know many parents and it's very frustrating that nobody is saying this. To many people, this is the number one issue of our time. And I wish that people would express this. Thanks for what you do. Brandon, that is dead on. I remember back at the Federalist when I was there for like the six years from 2018 to 2024, I was writing a lot of. I was writing a lot of. a lot of pieces of the time about hearing from parents like you around the country because there was this idea on the left they could cope with the transgender policy question by claiming pointing the finger at like punching conservatives in the face and then pointing the finger at conservatives for starting the culture war incredible work and then also suggesting it just wasn't one of those kitchen table issues right like it just it it didn't affect the material

concern of people's daily lives. They cared more about affordability, grocery prices, inflation, and all of that. And it's just not true. I mean, it is just not true. It is so obviously, just not true. It affected the Virginia governor race in 2020. And I covered that at the time and talked to all kinds of parents who were from all kinds of political backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, and all came together on this issue. And of course, on critical race theory curriculum in their classrooms. But yeah, it's, it's, this is the problem. We talked on Wednesday show about Bernie Sanders going on with Tim Dillon and pivoting from the trans questions by just saying, fair enough, but what really matters is affordability. I think that's the best that

Democrats can do if they insist on clinging to the insanity of trans ideology, which many of them do. I mean, Bernie Sanders has gone so far left on it. He is, you know, in a way, that by the way, one of the things I was writing at the Federalists all the time is that there are class implications of trans ideology. There are girls who lose scholarships that would get them into great colleges with a more affordable future. And they lose those scholarships because of trans ideology. There are parents who can't afford to have the great therapy that other people, although therapy can be part of the problem. There are, as Abigail Shrier wrote, there can be issues with people who don't have child care,

giving their kids iPads and those tablets sucking them down into this mentality more dangerously than people who are able to control Internet access because they pay for nannies and great child care. And people who are able to go to private schools, for example, where they don't have. to worry about this as much. Now, you do still have to worry about it at private schools, but it is a bit different if you're able to afford a great Christian school and, you know, all of that, and maybe the one in your area is really expensive. So there are also class ramifications to this. How about the women in women's shelters who are disproportionately from the lower socioeconomic rung on the ladder who are having to sleep next to men when they are escaping abuse?

do the leftist feminists care about those women? What is their answer to those women? So I think they're just wrong across the board on this issue. I think it is a material concern, and it's amazing the blind spot that the media has when it comes to understanding that it's a material concern. So great, great question, Brandon. All right. Jesse says one of my first rules of politics is to look at a group and ask myself,

do I want to be associated with these folks? After seeing the No Kings protests, I have to wonder what young person slash new voter would want to join that movement. I actually do have some overlap with the beliefs of the NK movement, so I have to ask myself if they're doing more harm than good. If I was 18 years old,

would I be rocking a J.D. Vance 2028 T-shirt just to piss my teachers off? I also have to ponder who exactly is the recipient of their message. Dem leadership was literally marching in these things. Okay. First of all, the thoughts that you were hitting my inbox with, everyone makes me feel like we have, like, one of the sharpest listener bases. I've been behind a lot of, you know, I've been behind a lot of, you know,

inboxes where questions get sent in. These are like just really smart questions. And I'm enjoying just thinking them through with all of you. So thank you for sending these thoughts. And I wonder what like Gen Zers think of no kings. I saw a comment of somebody on MSNBC, like a younger Dem analyst saying, Gen Z is not turning out to these protests because they protested gun violence and they still see school shootings. They protested BLM and they still feel like there's racial strife and the like

and they protested climate change and Trump gets reelected and goes in the opposite direction and all of that. I wonder there's something to that. But also, I just kind of feel like everyone's, not everyone, but there's something that feels so participatory. about social media. It's a much easier way to express yourself and protest politically, way less friction. You don't have to get up and go outside and you can feel like you're actually having an even bigger impact because maybe you posted something to your 500 classmates or whatever, whereas you're just won in a giant crowd if you go out and protest. So I wonder if that's the better explanation for why people aren't out there.

But I also just feel like there is a nihilism. I don't know that it's a nihilism specifically about those causes so much as it's just a nihilism about the two-party system and politics in general. But then again, Jesse, I think you might be right. Like these no Kings protests just to me were such a reminder how the Democratic Party fell behind in the culture. And it was sort of obvious that at some point this would happen. I just thought it would be like 50 to 100 years in the future. Not like five years in the future because, again, like, I remember when I was in college, we hosted a speaker about how, like, it's kind of cringed to look back on, but the title of the

lecture was like, conservatives of the real rebels, something like that. This would have been, like, 2012. Kind of funny. But, like, obviously true. The conformity on college campuses, you know, for years was around kind of standard issue, liberal, and then some leftist ideas. And there was nothing edgy about being a liberal on a college. campus. And it's still pretty edgy if you're like pro-Trump on a college campus. That's a much more

sort of dangerous thing. So if to the extent young people are attracted to the dangerous and edgy ideas, because, you know, they're full of hormones, testosterone and looking for that youthful cause, there's something much more attractive about MAGA, but also maybe more attractive about just being totally nihilistic because that's sort of just checking out of the cringe system altogether. Definitely, they don't want to be associated with the boomers who have those like hideous orange blow-up dolls in weird unicorn costumes. And some of them aren't. I mean, I'm not saying everyone's a boomer, but just that culture of, of, like reliving the 1960s that you were never a part of in a way that feels very sad and

pathetic. That's what, I really feel like that's what was represented at No Kings. And it's, it sort of caught me off guard. It shouldn't have, but it did caught me off guard. It did catch me off guard because they did this in 2017, 18, whatever. They had all of the signs about just like really lewd and disgusting stuff. There's still like stickers up around D.C. with some of this illusion disgusting stuff about Donald Trump and Ivanka and orange Cheeto Jesus and diaper Don. Like, it's so gross and weird and unappealing and feels like lazy, boomer cringe. And they're still doing it. And it's so wild because it always felt like the shoe was on the other foot growing up.

Like, it was the right that was so square. And to paraphrase it, not to paraphrase, to quote the youth. just like utterly riseless. And that's what it feels like. The left is now. And it still catches me off guard because it was such a quick roll reversal and they're not learning, which is quite interesting. Like the Jeff Daniels video we played on Wednesday's happy hour of him serenading Nicole Wallace with this weird-ass folk song that felt like he was larping as woodstock as like in his Woodstock moment or like his Greenwich Village, 1964 moment. Like it was just weird, weird, weird, stuff. All right, Ryan says, are there any Green Bay Packers bars in D.C.?

If you'd be able to keep up with the Packers, I don't need to go to a bar, but there is a really great Packer Bar. I usually will, I usually just watch on TV. What does that? NFL Sunday ticket, something like that, to be able to keep up with them. I don't, I'm not, I'm not a big communal sports viewer. I don't know why. I just, I didn't grow up that way. We always just, like, watch at home. My dad really, of focus on the game. So I'm not a huge, especially don't love, like, drinking in the middle of the day. So I don't like going to bars. That makes me sound like such a loser. But yeah, those midday drinks will throw you off. So it's not my favorite thing you do. I do every once in a

while go to the Packers Bar in D.C., which is really fantastic. It's a special place. If you ever are looking for Packers Bar in D.C. is called Hamilton's on the Hill. It's really cool. It feels like you're stepping into any bar in Wisconsin. almost indistinguishable. And that's partially because in the most random way, when there's a Packer game on, it's full of Wisconsin people who clearly wish that they were like in Wisconsin and clearly have so much Wisconsin in them. And everyone just like lets it all out when you're there. So it's great if you're ever homesick or if you find yourself in town looking for a place to watch the Packers. It gets crowded. So you have to go early. But Hamilton on the Hill, awesome bar.

All right. Jennifer Wrightson. Emily, great interview with Anna. I never really had an opinion on Israel in the past few years that has really come to light how much influence and entanglement they have in our government, even though they are our ally. In my opinion, their influence is way too much. I've also seen lots of trolling and propaganda hustling and the social-sured people using their free speech to share their opinion on the Israel government. I find that to be unacceptable and I was hoping to see UNMK on the road in San Antonio this Friday. Unfortunately, I have to travel for business this week so it's not possible. I know it will be a banger of a show. Hopefully y'all get to visit the Alamo. Oh, Wisconsin accent almost just came out there. I almost said the Alamo. But Jennifer, that's so sad. Would have loved to see you there. I'm really looking forward to what I've never been to San Antonio before, and it's always been on my list. So that'll be fun. Thanks for your comments on Anna, on Israel.

I know I've done a couple of segments on breaking points just about how I've openly gone through a sort of personal evolution on Israel and what started to change the way that I saw Israel. I'm generally pretty supportive. of Israel's ability to like exist as a Jewish state after what happened in the Holocaust. And that, you know, it's very telling when people don't fundamentally support that. But on the other hand, this Israeli government, the Akkad Party and Benjamin Netanyahu just takes such advantage. My perspective has just been coming around on how they take such advantage of the goodwill of the American people with these really, I think,

predatory is maybe too strong of a word, but these influence campaigns that I think do prey on the goodwill of the American people in ways that are just manipulative and not truthful in ways that, you know, exaggerate or, you know, tell stories that are, that they know to be exaggerations or hyperbole or untrue. One of the really pivotal experiences I had was before October 7th and it was covering the story of what happened to Shereen. Abu Akla, who was a Christian-American, Palestinian journalist, and was killed by the IDF. I think it was in Janine. So if you're curious to – I've done a couple segments on that on breaking points, but if you're curious about that, I would, you know, just Google it. The conversation about her was mostly on the left. So I, you know, personally just had to do a lot of digging to figure out what was happening, sort of fact, from fiction.

But as I did it, it really soured me on the way the Israeli government was, again, advantage of the American people and at the time the Biden administration support, like general support, the money that gets sent over, the military support. Obviously, the U.S. believes it's in our strategic interests to have a strong relationship with Israel. People, you know, support Israel for ideological reasons. All understandable. But it just feels like we get taken advantage of very often in ways that lead us to make decisions that are in their interests, like in the case of when an American Christian journalist is killed by the IDF. And they pretty clearly knew it and misled the public for a while. So that was, people are free to disagree with me on that.

But that's just one of the interesting experiences I had covering something and watching in real time, some of the propaganda. And people that I trust tell me, you know, who are very supportive of Israel saying, well, the IDF would never do that on purpose. you know, there's no way that they weren't trying to hit actual terrorists, et cetera. And the more the story built, the more information we learned, the less true that became. And I get that it's one example. I think I've seen that example now replicated in other cases. So probably that's probably fodder for a longer segment, although, to be honest with you,

I've just, it's never been one of my big issues. You know, when you cover politics, you do sort of have to. pick and choose these issue areas where you specialize in more than others. And this has never been kind of at the top of my list. I feel like a lot of conservatives are the same way. I actually feel like a lot of Americans are the same way. They're like, yes, generally it's good that Israel is an ally. But oh my gosh, we're talking about it so much. I think the kind of podcast world might give more coverage to Israel than the average American thinks they need. But that's a separate debate. We could get into that too. It is, it is just, I mean, it's just, I really pray that we

start to see this very fragile peace agreement start, start to really shore up because, you know, it has been a really divisive, really divisive time. And I think we all feel that. All right. Layton says, hey, Emily, I was raised in the Bible Belt, chose baptism at 15 years old and walked away from the faith. And it's my understanding that we were gifted this life through grace and love, despite our innate tendency towards resisting the love of God and being of God. What I find difficulty in accepting is inerrancy of the Bible. The concept of homosexuality being identified as a sin one engages in, as opposed to a feature of how a person by nature and ultimately a way of loving people, as well as the idea that people who do not profess Christ Jesus, this Lord,

are to be condemned to hell? As a Christian, would you be uncomfortable with a person of such understanding to claim themselves as a Christian? With such understanding, let me see, again, I'm reading these for the first time. I'm trying to think of what that means in the question. I guess a person, would I be uncomfortable with a person who understands the Bible to have errors, understands homosexuality to be a natural way of loving people, and that people who don't profess Christ Jesus is Lord are not condemned to hell? Would I be comfortable of that type of person proclaiming?

themselves as a Christian. I don't think that would fit the sort of consensus definition or the rightful definition of what constitutes a sort of lowercase O Orthodox Christian. It would definitely fall outside my definition. You know, I feel like the Bible is very clear about the way the truth of the life being Jesus Christ. So that one, yeah, that's a big one. Right off the bat, that's a big one. So yeah, I would be uncomfortable with that. I mean, there are all kinds of denominations that, you know, say they believe in Jesus that come to totally different political conclusions than I do. And, you know, I can't really say what's in the heart of people who believe in Jesus Christ, my brothers and sisters in Christ, who come to different conclusions.

I can say I disagree. And I'm generally not trying to, you know, draw lines to find anyone in and out. It's not, you know, part of my job. My job is to cover politics. So I don't, you know, really try to use my platform like a pastor would, for example. Just try to be open about where I'm coming from on my own faith. But, yeah, I think it's fair to say I would be uncomfortable with that. And I understand why that's tough, especially for people in 2025.

And my book recommendation on that to address some of these questions would be abolition of man and screw tape letters. Some of these really difficult questions about modernity and how we should think about some of these narrow political ideas. There are all kinds of things you could get into. There are all kinds of great books that could get into some of that. But maybe these seem like odd recommendations. But yeah, I would say abolition of man in screw tape letters by C.S. Lewis are good places to maybe think through some of these questions. And maybe disagree. But those are books, I would say, help me think a lot about modernity versus, you know, the ultimate truth and the big picture. Ken says, I'm late in writing, but your comments on the rom-com, sleepless in Seattle. And while you were sleeping made me think about the movie House Sitter starring Steve Martin and Colley Hahn. Have you seen it? It has some fun. themes in common with while you were sleeping and builds so hilarious climax. Recommended. I have not seen it, Ken. It sounds good. I'm all for 90s rom-com recommendations. I feel like I've seen a lot of

them, but this one sounds like a good one. I'm not a huge, oh, this is going to get me in trouble. I'm not a huge Steve Martin person. I get sort of easily irked by Steve Martin. I feel like that's a very, very, very unpopular opinion, but that's where I find myself. Okay, Richard says, of course John Bolton had an AOL email address. You know that's funny. It really is. It really is funny. I'm sorry, but that is hilarious. And Scott Johnson says, subject line, please go on the view. Emily, I heard Joy Behar from the View said that we want to invite more Republicans, conservatives on the View, but they're too scared of us. Please, please, please, please ask to go on the view. I'd like to see the ass kicking of the century. I can picture you laughing your ass off at these idiots. You would make them look like the morons they are. Please, I am begging you. Have a nice weekend. There was a time when the view was looking to add more conservative voices. They were like auditioning more conservative people. And, you know, they never like asked or anything. But it was, you know, there are a couple conversations about, you know, whether that would be something I'd be interested in, not from the view, but from people who'd be in a position to, like, pitch and that sort of thing.

No way in hell, am I interested going anywhere near the view? if you read the leaks that come out of that set, it is a, it's no surprise, but it is and always has been an absolute vipers nest where people use tabloids to smear each other. Colleagues use tabloids ritualistically to smear each other in truly just awful ways. And the culture of the show, I think, makes it very hard for anyone to remain a decent human being and a decent colleague. And I try to say as far away from anything like that as I possibly can. God bless any conservative who can do it. I thought Megan McCain was fantastic on the view. And even though Megan is sort of more moderate than I am in a lot of things, that is just an impossible position to find yourself in. it is so uncomfortable to disagree with the consensus in any meaningful way.

You know, they have these like fake, shallow disagreements kind of around the edges of an issue, but meaningful, substantive differences are just too uncomfortable and will immediately mean that people are trying to ruin your life, basically, and demean you in the media and all of that. I'm also not really a fighter. I don't know if you've known. Like, I'm not a big debate person. I get a lot of flack for that because I'm like a conservative and talks to a lot of people on the left.

I just don't have it in me to debate people. I like to hear, I always say I have more questions than answers. I like to hear other people's perspectives. I, you know, just like to talk to people, ask questions, learn what they think and then make up my own mind. But, yeah, debating is just, I'm also a really shy person, which is surprisingly common. among people who have, like, media jobs, it's unexpected, but it is surprisingly common. I really am just uncomfortable with conflict and discord and also new experiences. So you will find me in Midtown Manhattan as infrequently as is humanly possible.

All right. That does it for me on today's edition of Happy Hour. Thank you again for these awesome questions and thoughts. You can reach me at Emily at devilmaycaremedia.com. I've decided to start opening these literally as I go through them. And I appreciate you guys sending this stuff in, listening. You can also DM us over at After Party Emily on Instagram. Looking forward to being with Megan and Glenn Greenwald in San Antonio.

And we'll see all of you on Monday's show. As a reminder, please subscribe to the podcast edition. It's helpful. And that's the only place that you can get happy hour. So I'll see you guys next week. or in San Antonio. Have a great weekend.