After Party with Emily Jashinsky - “Happy Hour”: Skepticism of Power, Generational Divide on Media, Trump’s Legacy, and THAT Dave Smith Interview: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: April 17, 2026

On this week’s edition of “Happy Hour” Emily begins with comments about her skepticism of concentrated power, why she can’t work in politics, why different generations are so polarized in their media consumption, and she answers a thought-provoking question comparing modern media to a derivatives market. She also responds to a series of comments and questions on the Iran war, President Trump’s handling of it, and the break between the young and old on Israel. Emily received a number of emails about her recent interview with Dave Smith and explains why she wants to have guests like Dave on, even when she might disagree with them. She dives into her debate with Dave over his claim the U.S. is arguably the worst terrorist organization, why she disagrees with him on that, and why she believes America must be different from the ‘bad guys.’ Emily also explains why she likes people like Ana Kasparian who are willing to challenge power and details the hate Ana gets from her own side that some may not realize. The emails continue with thoughts on President Trump’s legacy and how the assassination attempts may have impacted him emotionally. Emily rounds out the show with a question about family and how to build faith when you’re questioning, and a lighter question about her favorite music.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hello, hello everyone. Welcome back to another edition of Happy Hour, which is, of course, itself, a special edition of After Party. We do every Friday here on the podcast feed. So just for podcast subscribers, so send to friends who might not be podcast subscribers yet. They might be missing out on Happy Hour. It's where I go through all of the questions that you send in to Emily at devilmaycaremedia.com. And as usual, full disclosure, I'm doing this live, just like Bill O'Reilly back in the day, doing it live. And I think that just makes a better show. When you send me an email, I flag it in my inbox if it looks like it's a happy hour submission. And then we go through them right now. So let's go ahead and get started. Here's an anonymous email that says they work for a pro-life group. But conservative Republicans are driving them crazy, learning nothing, supporting Trump no matter what. I think you can probably relate.

and this person says it's my only option to go into media so I can criticize them every step of the way. I'm only half joking. Yeah, that's why, I mean, honestly, that's one of the reasons. It's not the reason, but it's one of the reasons that I am in media. I was on the other side briefly after college, just working kind of in the conservative activism world. And, you know, first of all, I just loved writing and media,

and that's why I wanted to go into media. But also, journalists just typically have that temperament where if you're, like, this is how I would describe the kind of stack of my ideology. It was first, I'm a Christian, which means I believe that man is fallen by his nature. And that makes me believe we must be always suspicious of concentrated power. So step one, Christian, the garden, step two, skeptical of concentrated power. Step three, that's why I consider myself a conservative. So honestly, like, I believe we must be constantly skeptical of concentrated power. And a lot of people

come to the left from that vantage point. But I don't actually trust the concentration of power in government any more than I trust the concentration of power in business. So that's, you know, I think the building box, at least for my perspective, in media. You don't really ever have to lie by omission or pretend or do anything like that. People might think you are. That's always frustrating, but you don't have to. And I couldn't. I mean, first of all, I talk so much in different spaces every single day that it would be impossible. But secondly, it just people can, I think people can tell. And third, it's wrong. I mean, I guess that should have been one, but truly it's wrong. And you are in this, I see it not as an informal, but as a formal contract with your audience.

You're telling them that you're coming to this from a particular perspective and that you're doing your best to curate the truth. And that means you got to do it. Otherwise, you're in breach of contract. And that's not a good place to be. It's not a good place for your soul to be. So maybe this anonymous emailer should go into media. It's very difficult in politics. I mean, again, I know people who are in politics and are people of faith and do their best to avoid some of these pitfalls, you know, and believe in their bosses. I know some people who are actual politicians who come from perspectives of faith and are doing their best. So it's just hard for me to imagine being in that role and, you know, shutting up. But on the other hand, journalists can easily lose perspective, too.

by only ever being skeptical. I mean, it's our job, right? So it's important that people understand that. We're not activists. We're not cheerleaders. That's not what we're here to do. There's some people who misuse the position that way, but it's not what we're here to do.

I'm here to, you know, use my time, which is finite, to be calling out, to be holding power to account. I'm not, you know, here to use my finite time to pat power on the back, you know, whether it's Republican Party, Democratic Party, a Republican president, Democratic president, just not my job. And so that means you also have to keep in perspective when you are conveying criticism of Trump, for example. And this is something that I need to do a better job at it, and I know that. But keeping, building like the bigger picture, right? So, or if you're criticizing, you know, Dems, building out the bigger picture that like, well,

yeah, I mean, listen, there's a lot of corruption in this Trump administration. You know, the Hunter Biden corruption, I frankly think pales in comparison to the Jared Kushner corruption. But then if you want to talk about Trump, you also have to keep in mind the media ignored a lot of Hunter Biden stories for however long. So you do have to keep things in perspective. You can't just be shooting from the hip without the bigger context. So that's tough too. There's a lot of things you've got to balance in media. In a way, it's simpler to just try to push from inside. And we do need more people pushing from inside. So I would actually say, maybe to this anonymous person, if you feel like you can push from the inside in a better direction, please do it. That's a really important thing, too. Let's see.

Ashley says, Love the Makeover. Being yourself is always the best look from a tomboy for life. I am almost completely aligned with Megan and in some aspects, talker on Iran and Israel. I feel like this was the majority observation until I visited many family members over spring break, and they're all lined with Trump no matter what. I guess they are the MAGA group. I thought I was up until the Epstein failure last summer. Anyway, wondering if you feel that the generation that is perpetually online and the generation that is perpetually on Fox is actually just influenced by the choice of media slash news, starting to see a trend.

Really interesting point, Ashley. Of course, the media that we consume is part of that. It's our window into public affairs. So if your window is coming from, I always use the, it's not even a great analogy, but I always think about it in terms of like if there's, if you're at the zoo, there's a parrot behind the glass window. And you're looking through it on one side of the window, maybe on the left side, and the window is cracked. And if you're looking through it on the right side and the window is smeared, you're going to see a different thing behind the glass. It might look totally different. The parrot might have two heads if it's a cracked window.

And, you know, that's sort of in a negative sense. It could be in a positive sense as well. But if you're looking at the same thing through different windows, it's definitely just going to change what you're seeing and then the decisions that you're making about your worldview based on what you're seeing. So I definitely think that's part of it. I wonder if it's a chicken or egg situation where you start to seek out new media because you have such deep distrust of maybe even Fox News

that I don't think a lot of older people who have just honestly been watching it for years and years know a lot of the same people and faces have. So also it's a lifestyle thing, right? Like if you're retired and you have your TV on in the background, I don't think that's insignificant. I think that matters too. So it's partially just what builds into your lifestyle better. If you're, you know, 20 years old, you're 25 years old, your office might not have the cable news on in the background. But what you do have in front of you constantly is social media and those

social media channels are heavily populated with content other than just Fox News. So I think lifestyle is part of it too and probably draws other people in. But we are definitely, I think, polarized based on generations for all of those reasons. So this is a great observation. You know, if you look at the polling on Israel, this is a very, very, very good example. Republicans, conservatives are totally polarized by generation. Young conservatives have a totally different take than older conservatives. And, you know, I have a thought on this that might be controversial with some of you, but I did want to read it.

Didn't get a chance to do this on the show this week, but I wanted to. I think I talked about it on breaking points. There's an Ezra Klein column about Hassan Piker that was super hot on the left. I mean, people were really, really mad about it on the left. But there was a part of it that I liked that I thought put this, really well. He was talking about declining support for Israel around the country. And Ezra wrote, this is not the result of an international sciop or a profusion of memes. The Israel that young people know is not the Israel that older people remember. It responded to the savagery of October 7th by

flattening Gaza and a brutal campaign that killed at least 70,000 Gazans, taking control of more than half of the territory and herding Gazans, more than 2 million people, into the remainder. And as well, it goes on to do a longer list. But I want to just say, in good faith, that's very important for how younger people view Israel. They have been, of course, bombarded by propaganda, but not just propaganda over the last several years showing a different country than many baby boomers grew up seeing, frankly. And I really, really, really believe that if people want to consolidate support for Israel, redevelop support for Israel, they fundamentally have to reckon with that and meet people where they are. And that is a good description of where they are. The Ezra Klein

description is a good description of where they are. And that's very generational. It's the window metaphor. I think, again, if you're seeing it on this side of the window versus this side of the window, and you're bringing with it, you know, if you're a baby boomer, probably a lot of years of good feelings towards Israel. And you have this visceral memory of 9-11 and, you know, of radical Islamic terrorism. And again, it doesn't mean you're wrong and it doesn't mean that the zoomers who see Israel differently are wrong. It just means that you're bringing different baggage to the conversation.

And I think a lot of the baby boomers just assume that baggage is all from propaganda or BS or nonsense. And it really, really isn't. People genuinely just disagree. And they disagree based on their life experiences, their consumption patterns, and the like. Their trust of our institutions. You have to rely on some of our institutions in order to, I mean, in order to make your mind up about, in one direction or the other, about some of these things. You know, that 70,000 number is finally, that's the Gaza Health Ministry number that, you know,

the media would cite. And then conservatives and folks in the Israel camp would say, that's wrong. You can't trust it. And then about, what was it, like six months ago, Israel came out and said, actually, we accept this number. So again, all kinds of crazy stuff going on. And if you're coming to this from a low trust versus a higher trust or an experience with higher trust institutions, you just are going to come down on different sides of it. And I wish people just were a bit more patient, but the media culture we're in does not incentivize patients. We're all jumping down each other's throats. Someone sends along a YouTube link here to a song. I'll have to check that out. Thank you, David, for the email. Someone here passes along a documentary on the

Thomas Crooks case. This is, looks like it is available on X. Something interesting. It looks like maybe it's also building on the Tucker documentary on the Butler case. So something to, I'll go check that one out, see what's up with it. This is from Natalie, who says, help a millennial out. I follow a lot of thinkers on the right who are talking about AI, especially about Claude Mythos lately. Could we maybe hear from some more guests on this topic. I think you ask great questions that get to the practical implications of an issue. My husband and I both use AI and recognize the benefits, but I am more than him worry about the ever-shifting landscape and the potential dangers. And of course, as a Christian parent, I frequently question how best to steer my preteens into the AI future. How plugged in

do we need to be to stay safe and informed? Great question, Natalie. You know, I'm curious how much people want coverage of AI, it sounds so abstract. And tech in general, I think sounds so abstract that unless you're like a tech focused show, it's hard for me because all I like the hyper-novel technological changes, that's the prism through which I see just about everything. So I kind of always want to talk about it. But I don't know how much of an audience there is for it. So I welcome your emails. And I'm happy to talk about this because I'm sort of obsessed with it. I think to this question practically. The line that I draw for myself was developed, you know, in in conversation with my friend John Daniel Davidson's book and even just talking to John himself, Pagan America.

So John might even disagree with this. He might think that I'm, you know, being too accepting of AI. But my line is that, first of all, I never talk to AI conversationally like it's a human being personally, like it's a human being or anything like that. It has always very utilitarian language. I don't want to condition my mind to think of a chat bot as you'd really be engaged in chat in any sense of human chatter. And I think we need to be careful with the language that we use around this stuff, normalizing, you know, chatter, for example. It's not what this is. This is code spitting back what looks like chat at you. So I think that's an important line. Like I don't use it for any personal advice at all, period. Like right now I'm trying to think of a

gift to get for my brother and his fiancé for their wedding. And I really, really, like, I have different ideas. And it would be so easy to put in like this or that. And I think at one point, I did ask something really specific after I had already come up with my own list or whatever. But it has to come from, you know, what I was asking, I think was about like where I can find this or that. But I'd already come up with the this or that. So something really practical, but I would never engage it in a conversation about what I should, you know, what I should get. Like that should come from the heart if it makes sense. And so I think that's really important. I never, ever ask questions about religion or faith, unless it's, you know, just like looking something up.

But never, you know, how should Christians think about this? How should, what does God think about this? Like just, I think it has to be used as a utility. And I think the companies should think long and hard about totally dehumanizing these chatbots, totally taking away their names. Like chat GPT is actually not a bad way to do it. It should just be called chat GPT. It should sound like a robot, not like a human. It should spit back answers that aren't human as much as that might suck. Like right now, if you're using these chatbots, you see that they're trying to emulate conversational language. And it does make the information easier to digest, but it also does condition us to see them as a human entity or a quasi human entity.

And they're not. They're bits of code. So that's a change that I think would cost the companies lots of money. It would make the products less efficient. But it's probably a worthwhile step to consider. So, yeah, I mean, again, like never, ever, ever using it for social purposes, ever, you know, people who develop relationships with chatbods, ugh. And it is probably a slippery slope once you start conditioning yourself to be like, Why am I feeling so sad or something like that?

Just no social conversations, no attribution of humanity, even in a simulated way. So I think this is a great question, Natalie, and I welcome people's thoughts. We're all going to have to put our heads together on it. David says, I recently had a discussion with my father, mid-60s, about the Iran war, where his position was that Trump made all those threats about ending a civilization, and then to my father's disappointment, didn't follow through. I personally find that to be horrific. As I think about it, there's at least some coherence to the argument, unlike most of those who support the war, but argue that Trump's goals can be accomplished simply by dropping bombs on their heads.

The only two courses of actions that have any logic to it was never to start a war in the first place, such get out ASAP at this point or to make sure Iran can never have a nuclear program. Again, the latter is horrific to me. I do wonder how many Americans agree with my father, especially of the baby boomer generation. Yes, David, I totally agree with your point that your father's position is actually the morally, intellectually consistent one. because the odds of us actually ensuring that Iran is in a zero-enriched uranium forever position after this war without taking steps like that are slim to none, slim to none. And that's what bothers me about it the most, right? That, you know, not even the most, actually, but that's one of the things that bothers me about it the most is that we've already had 13 American lives law. dozens of serious injuries and lots and lots of money.

And right now, according to a great Wall Street Journal report, just a couple of days ago, you already have a more hardline regime in place. And in Iran, that has a likelihood of more people coalescing around the IRGC, not everyone, not the whole country, but the propaganda they have been spinning for years about the United States being great Satan. when you have the president saying he wants to wipe out an entire civilization, that makes it harder for the freedom-loving Iranians, or Western-loving Iranians who want the West to help, you know, build,

help them build conditions for a better society in Iran, makes it harder for them to get behind and pushes them towards more radical solutions. And this is what Dave was saying on the show this week. And we have lots of emails, people mad about Dave. But Dave was making the position that people in other countries are also rational actors. They may be rational actors who are operating on an irrational belief system. So you have to understand that belief system to see what they might think is rational. But there are also plenty of non-radical Shia Iranians who are looking at this and saying,

my country is Iran. I don't want my country or my civilization to be wiped off the map. And maybe I don't want the help of a country that's threatening to do that. Now, of course, there may be some people, the free press had a story from Eli Lake this week of how the Iranian dissidents were disappointed that the war had not gone further. But I'm sure they wouldn't want a nuclear bomb dropped on Iran. So I just worry continuously based on the history of the Middle East. the history of our interference in the last century, particularly half century, that we've just

created a more radical Iran, a more brutal Iran, and an Iran that's more anxious to rebuild its military and get its hands on a nuclear weapon. So that's where I come from on this. But, you know, I do think, to David's point, there is something more consistent about, you know, having that, what I agree is really gross. I mean, I said on the show this week that I'm kind of a hippie on nuclear weapons. You probably picked up on that. I think we've gotten way too comfortable because, you know, the human lifespan is short in the scope of human history. And because we've gotten through a couple of generations with that abject nuclear disaster, we have the hubris to think that everything is going according to plan and is managed and under control. And I just don't agree with that.

So I agree. I think that's not a good solution, but I do think in a sense there's something more intellectually consistent about it. This is from Hank, who says all to talk about the cancellation of Caesar Chavez. I haven't heard any to talk about how he was so opposed to illegal immigrants undermining the United Farm Workers. Yes, yes, and yes, Hank, I think we did talk about that on the show. I think my theory, I think I expressed that my theory is the reason this came out when it did is that Chavez more and more had been used by the right, and I think reasonably so, myself included, to make arguments about the Biden surge, undermining workers. And I think that just made it easier for this to come out when it came out. You see in the New York Times story and from the Facebook posts it was based on that people were trying to bring this to light earlier and just weren't getting much traction. And I guess it's during the anti-ice peak of Trump 2.0 that it starts to really get investigated by the New York Times. So I agree with that. Let's see.

Bob says, I'm sure the guys negotiating in Pakistan are staying out of Iran for fear of that very thing, referring to Mark Tiesin, who wrote an op-ed the other day in the Washington Post, saying that we should kill all the Iranian negotiators along with any other leader who popped. up his head. What a great idea that I'm sure would cause the entire regime to lay down their arms in surrender. Yeah, that's probably true, Bob. That's probably true. Bob says, I wish I could imagine an end to this war, but I cannot, can you? I kind of can envision an end that Trump draws to the war where he feels like he has enough to frame this as a win, which he's been doing repeatedly over the last six weeks. He feels like he has enough to frame it as a win. I just can't envision that, quote, win actually being a win. So I could envision him. And I hope we get to a place where there's a real ceasefire or something lasting soon. And Trump feels like he can frame it

as a win. I just don't know. Like right now, it seems as though we're going to have some joint understanding with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz, probably not a win since that didn't exist beforehand. And that we might even end up on a timeline, you know, whether it was the five years that Iran was pushing in regard to like a deal on enrichment or the 20 years that we want, it would probably be somewhere in the middle, but it could be even worse than what was on the table before or what was possible beforehand. So it is kind of hard to see, it's hard to see an end that is a win for the United States at this point. Let's see. This is a book recommendation from Hank. It's called Not One Inch, America, Russia, and the making of post-Cold War stalemate.

Perhaps something there, too. Take a look at. Dylan sends two questions and says, what do you think about the effect of making most podcasts available in video form? There used to be the old joke about a face made for radio, but now it seems like physical appearance probably matters more than it used to. Video also goes viral in a way that audio only doesn't so that perhaps alters incentives and behavior. Yeah, I mean, I just, you probably hear a different between the audio-only shows that I do and the video shows that I do. I think in the audio only, there's just less distraction. So when you're on camera, you're very, very aware of your physical surroundings, and you have to be. You know, you've seen a couple of times, like, the light in my

background if you watch the show. It's like steadily drooped throughout the program. I'm looking at the guest. I'm, you know, absorbing the guest's reaction, which can be good in some ways. But, But it also means it's less focus on what's coming out of their mouth and sometimes more focused on like when it's a good time to jump in or when they've just reached a natural break or if they seem really nervous. You're processing additional things. And it's not always bad. But it is different in a way that I think is worth preserving the audio only format.

I've been really glad that people like AirPods are huge, right? Like it makes it so easy. I hated them at first. I don't know that I'm endorsing AirPods here. but like we do just kind of exist in this ambient podcast space. If you're a big podcast listener, you're always listening. And I don't think that's necessarily bad because it does incentivize some more audio-only shows. Video stuff's great.

Like I'm glad people are watching video. I'm glad the pivot to video finally happened for media because if people aren't going to read, they do want some compelling delivery system. And for many people in the screen-based economy, that's going to be visual. So I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but personally, you know, Federalist Radio Hour, for the most part, was always audio only. And I've just loved that because it's really just, even when you have a guest over Zoom on audio, which is what Federalist Radio Hour was, I'm just listening so intently to what they say. Because you don't have the body language and stuff to distract you. Sometimes it's additive.

Sometimes it's distracting. And I just particularly love that format. So I hope it doesn't go away totally. another question here from Dylan. Any thoughts about how modern media kind of operates like a synthetic derivatives market in finance? There's a finite number of real issues, but investors gain exposure through later combinations of claims on its performance. So there's far more financial exposure to those products than to just the underlying asset. This is brilliant, Dylan. I have thought about this before, but never been able to articulate it in these terms. Dylan says, apparently the Lindy West book

only sold 3,000 copies, but there were probably 3 trillion sub-sac pieces and podcasts on the book and reaching to other people to it and so on. Dylan, if you happen to post that on X, send it to me so that I can retweet it because that is such a brilliant way to describe what happens in media. Very few people are interacting with the source material of the Lindy West book and most people were just talking about other people's discussions of the source material. So maybe we're in a Lindy West bubble. Maybe we're in a, we are definitely, by the way, because in a lot of these cases, it's actually kind of what was happening with the Iraq war in the buildup of it, in the buildup to it, is that the public was left to deal with the derivatives of the media's interaction with primary sources. Sometimes the media wasn't appropriately interacting with primary sources, but everyone had to make a decision based on the derivative.

And that came to be a bubble. It was a bubble that some people coasted on in the Bush administration in 2004 and financially in the defense sector. and then the bubble popped and Republicans lost. Didn't ever pop for the defense contractors. You'll be surprised to learn. But I love that point, Dylan. Really, really well said. Let's see here. Here's a question from Bob.

Will the diminished threat of Iran be worth the damage done to the political support for Israel? Super important question, I think. Super important question from Bob. And that's something I think is just baked into, for Israel supporters, that's kind of baked into it. Of course. The calculation for Netanyahu is that in Iran and chaos and disarray is necessarily better for Israel. And it's just not one that I agree with. I don't know it's one that every

is really agrees with either. So that's a, I think, a good question. Hank says, Dave Smith, I don't trust the polls, but look at all the polls crushing Trump. How well. It's a funny point. I think when Dave was saying he didn't trust the polls, someone can remind me if I'm wrong. My memory of it is that it was about, like, what were we talking about, like, social stuff? I don't remember exactly. But, yeah, I mean, this is the thing with polling. Sometimes where I trust polling is when there's so much of it in one direction. And the Trump stuff, I mean, there's so much of it in one direction.

A point that some people make about the 2016 election is that actually the polling was more mixed. the media just didn't want to believe that the polling was more mixed. It actually was like not as, you know, perfectly in the Clinton direction as the media was saying it was. And I think that was actually maybe one of the biggest mistakes was the coverage of the polls. So anyway, just an interesting point there. Here's Kevin who says, with all due respect, I'm very disappointed that you had Dave Smith on your show recently.

He says the most horrible things about the year. USA, calling us a terrorist state, and it makes my blood want to boil when there's no pushback to that. I couldn't believe you were going to have him on your show because I've seen things that he has said on other shows that make him sound like a hateful lunatic. I will respect your judgment that you thought giving him your platform to say what he was going to say was important for some reason. But this made me feel the same way that I felt when Megan recently had Anna Casparian on. We've had Anna Casparian on, by the way. Kevin goes on to say, who on other shows also sounds like a hateful lunatic to me. I guess I just don't understand why you and Megan would give

people like Dave and Anna the chance to spew their crap. Also, I'm very alarmed how Megan seems to have turned completely against Israel, constantly insulting them on her show now. I believe with my whole heart, you can be MAGA slash America First and pro-Israel. Those two positions are not at odds with each other. I will end by saying there's more than one side to this Iran conflict, but no one would know that from listening to your shows these days. How about going back to a balanced approach where you have people on the shows who support it and people who don't support it? I am a Christian and I support President Trump is trying to accomplish with Iran, but having people on like Dave, who calls us terrorists and poor little Iran as this innocent bystander was more than I could take.

Thank you for reading and have a good day. Well, thank you for the note, Kevin. And I'll just first say, we have had Brian Dean Wright on the show to give a, I thought, fairly pro-war perspective. Megan has had lots of people actually debating in different segments. Megan is clearly on one side, but she's brought on plenty of people who disagree with her about Iran over the last six weeks. So I wouldn't say, I don't think it's fair to say it's one-sided. I think it's probably fair to say that you, you hear a one-sided perspective from both of us. We're both pretty skeptical. And the guests are probably tilted in that direction, but I think both of us actually make an extra effort to bring on people who disagree. And that would include, by the way, Anna Kasparian, and that would include Dave. I mean, you heard Dave, I said, I disagree with the framing of America as the world's largest sponsor of terrorism. And Dave was like, all right, let's get into it. Let's debate. And so we went on for, it felt like 20 minutes to half an hour back and forth on this point.

I don't agree with that framing. I think terrorism is a word that has a particular meaning in the minds of Americans and the definition of it should respect that. It is, you know, non-state actors using terror as a weapon to harm psychologically civilians, to physically harm civilians. And I just do not think that fits the definition of what Dave takes umbrage to in the United States foreign policy and what I take umbrage to in the United States foreign policy. So for example, with the benefit of hindsight, I look back on, you know, the CIA supporting both sides in the Syrian civil war. I mean, just unbelievable. Al-Shara on a terrorist, well, Jalani. on a terrorist watch list, high up on the terrorist watch list,

and now our government is working with him. I look back on the Contras. Illegal funding of the Contras. I look back on that as a bad thing. And you can go down the line these various proxy wars between the United States and the Soviet Union or even the arming of the Mujah Hadin, which all conservatives were in support of at the time.

I probably would have been in support of it at the time. but I don't call it terrorism. I don't call the U.S. supporting, in those case, I don't think that's the U.S. being the world's largest, what a lot of people say is a state sponsor of terrorism. Because I think the intention in those cases is those were literal ground wars, right? Like those were ground war in Afghanistan, ground war in Syria. And some of the people then turn out to be terrorists. You know, bin Laden being a good example coming out of the mujahideen. So, but I think that distinction is very meaningful. I don't think, you know, the world, the U.S. is the world's largest

sponsor, state sponsor of like sending, or world's largest sponsor of sending non-state actors into terrorist acts, intentionally into terrorist acts. I just think that's an important and worthwhile distinction. And I was, you know, happy to talk to Dave about that. So, you know, I disagree with Anna Kasparin on a lot of things. I think she's an interesting person. And I think she has interesting things to say. And they're critical of the political establishment. It's the same thing with Dave.

And that's great. I'm always happy to have guests like that on. So, you know, we have a couple notes here about Dave. Let me see. I can probably bring them all into one place here. Let's see. All right. Let's find another Dave question.

Marlowe says, I'm so glad Dave Smith gave me permission as an audience member of podcasts to be disappointed in President Trump's choice to go to war with Iran. That was something that Dave said. Let's see. Yeah, here's Abe, who says regarding Dave's contention that the U.S. is the biggest terrorist on the planet. I like Dave, and I think he's mostly right about the stupidity of the Iran war, but his argument that the U.S. is the biggest terrorist in the world's total false equivalence. hogwash, yes, we've been perpetrating violence all around the world for decades. And yes, by people financially benefiting from it. However, his argument still doesn't hold water. And here's why. It's like two guys that push old ladies in the street. One pushes a lady into traffic.

And the other pushes a lady out of the way of traffic under Dave's logic. They're equally as bad because you see they are both pushing old ladies. And it's wrong to do that. Ridiculous if you're an Iranian and get a knock on your door in the middle of the night. Which would you rather have? A, an Islamist from the IRGC, B, an Islamist from the Iranian morality piece or C, an American service member, whom is perpetuating. or perpetrating more terrorism on the people. That's an interesting way to put it, Abe. This is a long email, so I'll zero in on that part.

Yeah, I've heard, I think it's been people in debates with Dave, actually, say, well, the obvious difference here is that we're the good guys and they're the bad guys. I think people have to be really, really careful with that distinction, or really careful, I should say, with that argument, because it can lead us to justify. acting like the bad guys, right? I heard that all of the time after Trump said, you know, we are going to wipe out an entire civilization, possibly never to return if X, Y, and Z doesn't happen in the time frame. And people were saying, Iran's been chanting death to America for years. That is not a good argument. We are supposed to be the good guys. We aren't supposed to

be the one saying, we're going to push the old lady into traffic if you keep pushing the old lady into traffic because we're the good guys. And I think too often that's been the moral justification for, you know, sending different countries into chaos through proxy conflicts. And what ends up happening is actually that more old ladies get pushed into traffic. And we, you know, have to then deal with the counterfactual, which I can't prove, right? I can't prove that if we hadn't funded the Contras or interfered in, you know, in Guatemala or Indonesia, Sakarno and all these different things. I can't actually promise you that we wouldn't have been nuked by the Soviet Union. I cannot promise that. And, you know, so to an extent, it's a luxury to be able to make

the argument that I make. You know, I don't think so. I think history is a good guide to that. But I can't promise. I can't make that promise. And nobody really can on the other side either. So we're doing the best we can with the knowledge that we have. But I do think we have to be careful with this argument that we can't be moral relativists and act like all countries are equally good actors. But we also can't always say, because we're the good guys, we can be pushing people into traffic. You know, that's accepting, I think, a false paradigm. So a little bit of agreement there and a little bit of disagreement there, Abe.

But again, the benefit of having people like Dave on is that it opens up these conversations. It opens up these conversations. Even when we're not like fighting or, you know, like we're on Pierce Morgan, which are so many times I intentionally don't do in those big panel forms. You know, even when we're not fighting or whatever, it opens up these conversations. It's thought for provoking. And I find Dave and Anna Kasparian both to be thought-provoking people who do think for themselves. Anna's a good example of that. She started to realize she was wrong about some culture stuff

just through her experience living in California and Los Angeles. And the amount of hate that woman gets from her own side is almost unfathomable. I mean, if you look at the social media posts at her about her, I really don't know how she deals with that. I get a fair amount of it myself, but it's nothing compared to Anna Kasparian. It was the thing with Megan and Mark Levine. I hadn't realized until Megan responded to Mark Levin how many times Mark Levin had been out on social media

saying things about her. There's constant, like, weird, bizarre anger towards her over and over again on social media. It, I mean, it's people are, like, you know, I think people come from their own context and maybe, you know, if folks just see Anna on conservative shows, they don't realize exactly how much trash she gets from her own side, and for being a pretty independent thinker. So, you know, I am just in media,

so I probably have more context for some of these people because I have to follow it obsessively. But I'm willing to bring anybody on whose challenge is power without fear or favor, left or right, as long as they're not, you know, saying things that are, like, factually incorrect. Not factually debatable or contestable, but, like, obviously incorrect. So I know it's not everybody's favorite. people really have issues with Dave, but, uh, and with Anna. But, um, like I said, I like people, um, who, um, are, are willing to challenge power across the board, even when it's, it's, it's not favorable, uh, to their own side. All right. John says, uh, I was listening to your latest episode with Dave Smith. And while you guys were talking, something occurred to me after watching Trump prevail through all the nightmare

scenarios the left has put him through, including assassination times. I've always seen Trump as some kind of invincible almost in human force. But he is human, and he's been through more than any of us can even imagine, is it at least possible that he is suffering from a form of PTSD and what we are seeing right now are the results. John, this is such an interesting question because I've actually wondered this myself. And everyone knows I've talked about this a bit in the context of the Charlie Kirk assassination, that there are all of these people in media who knew him, who had personal relationships with him, even some people on the left, by the way, who knew him in the flesh, and had to see him be killed in real time in a mist of blood.

It was just horrific. Had to watch his widower in real time. Had seen, you know, his children on social media. Just it was traumatic for a lot of people. And some people knew we've talked about Candace here. I think have been psychologically scarred by that in ways that do not excuse, but perhaps explain what was going on, maybe at least at first.

I don't know if it does anymore. But I think that is probably something that's been underestimated on the left and in the center in the media, how traumatic the assassination of Charlie Kirk was for people in the Trump administration. I mean, look at J.D. Vance going all the way down to Georgia this week to fill in for Erica at that turning point event. That tells you, I mean, he's the vice president of United States. That tells you something, I think, about the emotional effect of Charlie's killing public assassination execution on many, many, many people. So I think that's been underestimated. And I think probably the same is true with Trump. And some of it I wonder if it does have to do with tech.

It's like the liquid modernity thesis. It's harder and harder to distinguish between, you know, real and fiction. Because if you see something on a phone, it's very real. But you're not seeing almost everything on a phone. So in a way, it makes it less real. And we kind of forget that these were serious, actual. incidents unless we pause and think about it. And I think that that may be true of Trump. I mean, he seems like he is remarkably unchanged on just an emotional level, like psychological level, physical level. The man is like,

you seems indestructible. So, but you never know what's happening in somebody's interior. So I actually think that is entirely possible. I mean, there were, you know, reports that Iran was trying to assassinate him around that time period. So maybe that's something that has affected him. That's some of the theory around why George W. Bush goes into Iraq is because of his own father. So there's something there. Interesting point, John. I don't know what it is, but I think that's an interesting point. Ryan says, I have a question for your breaking points podcast.

Well, this is a, we're unhappy here. I'll take it. With the straight of Hormuz being blockaded, the number of vessels coming into U.S. port says there's dramatically. What is the likelihood of a terrorist attack happening to a U.S. port city? I would think that our Coast Guard is enabled to vet all of the ships to determine that any of them are carrying munitions. What are your thoughts? After your interview with the widow of a 9-11 victim, this fear of mine has been rekindled. Yes, Sagar and I were doing what we called fascist points this week because Crystal and Ryan were out. And we did interview this brilliant woman,

Kristen Brightweiser, one of the 9-11 widows, her husband was in the second tower. She's been an advocate. You actually may remember her from the early aughts. She was everywhere. And actually, I think, took a lot of flack from the right at the time. But she came on the show this week and did talk about the possibility of a blowback, and it is very scary. She was clearly very concerned about it. So go check out that interview. It's on the channel that was fascinating to hear from Kristen. Ryan, I don't have a great answer to the specifics here, to be honest. Other than that, I think you're right. I don't know that we're able to vet all of these ships. Maybe we are. Maybe somebody who's an expert on that would, we'll be able to write in and tell us.

But yeah, there's something there. Ryan also asked, if the admins take is that they launched this war with Iran because Iran can't have a nuke, then why didn't Trump start this war in his first term? Interesting. It would seem to me that this war is simply Trump knowing he isn't going to be running for president again and wanted to leave his stamp on the world in a big way. What are your thoughts on this takes? On this take? I think maybe that's part of it. I mean, I do believe right now, I've read a great essay from the man who wrote a book with Roy Tachara. I'm really like Roy Tachara. Let me find this link.

It was a notice of all places. It was called Trump as Alexander the Great, a theory that explains Iran and everything else. It was, yeah, by John B. Judas. And I want to say it was from March or earlier this month. But go check it out. It builds out this theory as Trump as Alexander the Great, not even just as Trump seeing himself as Alexander the Great, but Trump actually being a Hegelian great historical man who comes about at these hingements. moments in history and ushers in a total paradigm shift globally.

So there's a case to be made for that. There's a case to be made for Trump wanting to be that. And I think, you know, he's been very intentional about brokering things he can brand as peace deals because he's definitely doing legacy building. And he wants to kind of, you know, prove that people were wrong about, you know, what he'd be able to accomplish as president and the like. So I think that's some of it. I think the first term question, they were still trying to figure out what to do. You know, that went after Soleimani, obviously. And so they were building to something, I think. I don't know what had happened in a

second term. Let's take a couple more here. All right. This one is from Travis, who says, want your opinion on this religious question. I myself am not a believer, but I try not to sway my kids one way or the other. My kids have expressed interest in going to church. I have no issue with that and support it. I'm also not a debate, bro, who wants to argue with people about any of their religious or religious adjacent beliefs. I'm cool with going to a church and doing all the standard kneeling and praying and everything that said, how would you feel about a non-believer going to your church for the sermon? Would that offend you? If not, and if you think I could go, should I tell the pastor that I'm not a believer? Should I tell attendees if they explicitly ask me?

Like, do you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Or should I just pretend to believe for the sake of peace and for my family's comfort. I lead towards the last option is what I usually do around religious people, especially if I don't know them well. I'm thinking about more accepting denominations like the Episcopal Church or United Methodist Church because those seem like they will align pretty closely to the values of my wife and I teach our kids. I really don't want to deprive my kids of the opportunity to connect with the church if that's what they want, but I also don't want to disrespect any church or members of the church. I also want to have my wife and kids go without me because this seems like something that should be for the whole family. Okay. So I would say in response

this, I really recommend it's in mere Christianity, taking a thoughtful consideration of C.S. Lewis's Trilemma, the liar lunatic or son of God, Trilemma, that, you know, if we accept the historical Jesus is pretty widely accepted in academia now among experts that Jesus was a man that existed, Jesus was based on the historical record and evidence that we have, either a liar, a lunatic or the son of God. And I would recommend going to a church that accepts Jesus as a son of God. You know, if you accept the history, you know, my position is if you accept the history, then you end up in son of God territory, the likeliest case scenario. And once you accept that, it's very liberating because you can pray and read scripture in a way that builds faith for many people who needed in that sort of,

who need to have their kind of academic building block to even get to that point. So I would say just it's not even, from my perspective, it's not really even worth as the great Aon Hersey Ali has written. This was unheard. after becoming a Christian and reflecting on why she's come to accept Christianity is true without accepting it as true, you end up in Richard Dawkins' cultural Christian territory, just kind of liking the teachings,

but then missing that first step of what they're rooted in. And if you can't come to some certainty on that first step, then I think you end up with more questions than answers for the rest of your life needlessly, because I think there is an answer. If you, you know, I don't think everybody's going to come to the same conclusion I do about the CS Lewis Trilemma, certainly. But I do think, you know, that's a, it's almost a skip that we step over in the secular world a lot. Just like, well, of course, this isn't true.

Yeah, people say, I'm not a big believer in the supernatural. I'm just not really in religion. I know so many people have been hurt by religion and people who are weird and just not for me. but I think Tom Holland's dominion, some of the debates that he's done about dominion, ion reckoning with this, and many others reckoning with this, they're getting to the really fundamental question, which is why did Jesus Christ change the world? Like no other person ever has. And so my recommendation would be not, I don't think I've ever even been in Episcopalian Church, so I don't want to speak ill of it. I don't know that I've ever been in a United Methodist Church,

but I would just, you know, if you're going to do it, my recommendation, not a must, but my recommendation would be to start somewhere that actually really does accept Jesus Christ as is the true flesh and blood, son of God who was crucified and died and rose from the dead. It's supernatural and woo, of course, but, you know, make Christianity weird again as the saying goes. So that would be my advice on that point. And honestly, I don't think you have to do anything when you're in church if you're a non-believer. I think it would be great to talk to the pastor, let them know that you're a non-believer, you're there to support your family and give them that context, but you don't have to feel any pressure to say anything at all. So handle it with whatever you're comfortable. This is just my opinion.

Again, I go to a non-denominational church that doesn't have rules about this. So from my perspective, it's great. And I think a lot of those non-denominational Bible churches are great options. but I think you should do what you're comfortable with. And I think it's like the best case scenario is probably that you do talk to the pastor and just explain where you're coming from and always be honest in those situations. But there's nothing wrong with sitting in on services at all as a non-believer. I'm sure a lot of people do that at my church, to be honest. So no problem.

On that end, let me go here. It looks like we have one more from Instagram. this is... Oh, this is another Dave Smith one. I'm so disappointed he had Dave Smith on. After he called the USA a terror state, it was so triggered by that that it turned off the rest of it. I'm not sure by him saying such a violent, disgusting thing was not enough to end the conversation there. He said so many horrible things on other shows that I can't believe you had them at all. I had similar feelings with Megan had on Anna Kasparian.

I am just feeling very disappointed that you and Megan amplified such voices. I don't just amplify people that I think are, like, that I agree with on everything. But I would say it's unfortunate, Kevin, that you turn. that off. I understand, by the way. I understand because people fought and died for this country. And so I understand why insults. We love this country. This country has given us and our family so much. So I understand why insults like that do trigger people, are sensitive and are visceral. So I do understand it. I would say, though, we had a whole debate right after that point about using that language. So unfortunate. But you could go back and check it out if you have the stomach for it. And yeah,

That's why I would say it's important to have people like me and Dave in conversation with each other, like Anna and Dave in conversation with each other, like everybody who's willing to really challenge their own side. But, you know, everyone across the board, despite when it's convenient. Those are the people that I'm willing to listen to, even when I think they have really ugly ideas or bad ideas. They've said bad things about this or that. I think that's the truth is the most important starting point. And so I want to just talk to people who are willing to start there, even when they're totally wrong. So that's my answer.

Appreciate it, Kevin. Braden says, what is your favorite song? Let's see. Favorite song. A lot of people don't like saying guilty pleasures as their favorite song. I remember my dad when I was younger just telling me, like, there really is no such thing as a guilty pleasure. Like, if you like the music, you like the music. It's just who you are and, you know.

So it doesn't mean there's not. good music and bad music for what it's worth. But let me see. I'm trying to think. Favorite song. Oh, I guess I really like it. I'm a big Grace Potter in the Nocturnals fan and also solo Grace Potter. So I really like the song Ragged Company. She has a live version of that with Willie Nelson.

That's fun. I like the original better. She also has a song called Everyday Love that I really, really like. I'm a huge Heim fan. I love strawberry wine, Dana Carter. I've got a lot, like most people,

I've got a lot of favorite songs. I love Don't Think Twice, it's all right. So many bangers, if you can consider that one a banger, but that would be my answer. There's just too many. There's too many. And I feel like just about everybody

has the reaction to this question, but I appreciate the question because I love music. So thanks so much for writing in, everyone. Oh, wait, do I have another answer to that question? Well, I have answers based on bands. So, yeah, that's probably a more specific way to do it. But yeah, overall, it's just, yeah, I'm being flooded with different options right now, so I'll cut it off here.

Thanks for listening to this edition of Happy Hour, everyone. Really, really appreciate it. Thanks for listening to the show. Even and especially when you disagree with it, I appreciate that so much. We'll be back on Monday with more after-party. And, of course, next week, Friday with more happy hour. Have a great weekend, everyone.

God bless.