Asmongold TV - The War Update Is Crazy | Asmongold

Episode Date: July 9, 2025

The War Update Is Crazy Subscribe to Asmongold TV on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@AsmonTV Disclaimer: This podcast is an independent project created by a viewer using content from the YouTube channel Asmongold TV. The purpose is to make his content more accessible to those who prefer audio formats, helping more people engage with the ideas presented in his videos. This podcast is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially associated with Asmongold. All rights to the original content remain with Asmongold TV. If there are any concerns or requests regarding this podcast, please reach out. ------ Keywords: streamer podcast, gaming podcast, reaction videos, gaming opinions, streamer content Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mr. Secretary, for our audience, just to explain, this Red Sea area is a really important transit point for global shipping. The Houthis out of Yemen have been disrupting transit there for some time. President Trump cited these concerns when he announced the strikes. I'm wondering, how long will this campaign last and will it involve ground? Can you imagine having to, like, sail all the fucking way around Africa? just because a couple of clowns don't want you to go through here. Think about how much fucking money that wastes? The billions of dollars that we're spending on this?

Forces. Well, first of all, the problem here is that this is a very important shipping lane. And in the last year and a half, the last 18 months, the Houthis have struck or attacked 174 naval vessels of the United States. Attacking the U.S. Navy directly, 174 times. And 145 times they've attacked. commercial shipping. So we basically have a band of pirates with guided precision anti-ship weapon. Guided by Luffy. And exacting a toll system in one of the most important shipping

lanes in the world, that's just not sustainable. We are not going to have these people controlling which ships can't. Imagine defending this. And go through and which ones cannot. And so your question is how long will this go on? It will go on until they no longer have the capability to do that. How's that going to happen? I don't know. Well, what does U.S. intelligence tell us at this point? Because the U.S. had been conducting strikes for some time, but has not stopped the Houthis. So what's going to be different right now? Do you have more fidelity in the intelligence that would make this more successful?

Well, those strikes were retaliation strikes. So they launched one missile, we hit the missile launcher. Or we sent something to do it. This is not a message. This is not a one-off. This is an effort to deny them the ability to continue. to constrict and control shipping. And it's just not going to happen.

We're not going to have these guys, these people with weapons, able to tell us where our ships can go, where the ships of all the world can go, by the way. It's not just the U.S. We're doing the world of favor. We're doing the entire world of favor by getting rid of these guys and their ability to strike global shipping.

That's the mission. They are. That's why we need to have the whole world pay us a bunch of money to do this. Yeah, I think that they owe us. How much you guys think? Probably $100 billion again? I think that's a good start. Yeah, you're welcome, by the way.

Here, and it will continue until that's carried out. That never happened. World didn't ask. Actually, I bet a lot of places probably did. I bet there's probably a lot of people that, like, their nation depends on, like, trade. I bet they're probably like, thank God this is happening. Before the Biden administration didn't do that, all the Biden administration would do is they would... I can think of one nation that wants it to happen.

respond to an attack. These guys would launch one rocket, we'd hit the rocket launcher. That's it. This is an effort to take away their ability to control global shipping in that part of the world. That's just not going to happen anymore. And it could continue until that's finished. It could involve ground raids? Well, those are military decisions to be made, but I've heard no talk of ground raids. I don't think there's a necessity for it right now. I can tell you that as of last night, some of the key people involved in those missile launches are no longer with us.

and I can tell you that some of the facilities that they use are no longer existing, and that will continue. Look, it's bottom line. So they're gone. These guys are able to control what ships can go through there. They've attacked the U.S. Navy. 174 times they've attacked the United States Navy. We're not going to have people.

How did that happen and Biden just let it happen? That's crazy. How do you do that? The U.S. is doing all the dirty work while the European Union countries are looking at each other while they're too busy censoring Internet bullies? Yeah. Well, we'll take over Europe after we get done with this. It'll be okay. By the way, I know there's a lot of fucking stupid-ass Europeans that they're in chat. I'm joking, by the way. Before you fuckers write another Reddit threat about I hate Europe.

Jesus Christ, you guys are such pussies. Sitting around with the missiles attacking the U.S. Navy. It's not going to happen, not under President Trump. The president also referenced Iran in his statement. Iran provides some support. for the Houthis, as you know, put this in context for me, because U.S. intelligence has been suggesting for some time that Israel has the desire and intent to conduct an attack on Iran's developing nuclear program in the coming months. That'd be nuts. President Trump has extended an offer for negotiations.

Have you heard anything back from Iran? Is this strike in Yemen a signal to Iran? This strike in Yemen is about their ability, the ability of the Houthis, to strike global shipping and attack the U.S. Navy, and their willingness to do it. 174 times against the U.S. Navy, 145 sometimes against global shipping. That's what the strike is about. What we can't ignore, and the reason why the President mentioned Iran is because the Iranians have supported the Houthis.

They provided them intelligence. They provided them guidance. They provided them weaponry. I mean, there's no way the Houthis, okay, the Houthis would have the ability to do this kind of thing unless they had support. from Iran. And so this was a... That's a good point. I mean, I've seen some of these terrorists

and they're on canoes and boats and shit like that, these shitty-ass little boats, yeah. The message to Iran, don't keep supporting them, because then you will also be responsible for what they are doing in attacking Navy ships and attacking global shipping. They also get support from Russia, potentially,

which you leverage sanctions in regard to. But I want to ask you about tariffs, because you were just in Canada this past week. China is Canada's second biggest export market, Mexico's third. In this ongoing trade back and forth, the U.S. is having, isn't there a risk that China will ultimately be the winner? If it's too costly to deal with the United States, won't they benefit? Well, actually, China and Canada are involved in a mini trade war right now. In fact, the Chinese have imposed a bunch of tariffs reciprocal or retaliatory tariffs on

Canada after Canada imposed tariffs on them. So here's the way everyone needs to understand this, okay? The president rightfully believes that the balance of global trade is completely off guilt. For 30 or 40 years, we have allowed countries to treat us unfairly in global trade, much of it during the Cold War because we wanted them to be rich. Yeah, I feel like it's kind of, I kind of feel bad for Canada in a way, right? I mean, you have two big groups of these, like, you know, massively powerful countries that have decided to, like, just team up and just fucking beat up on.

Canada. Like, hey, yo, fuck Canada, right? Like, for real. They deserve it? They were our allies in the Cold War. But now that has to change. You look at the European Union. The European Union's economy is about the same size as ours. It's not a low-wage economy. It's very comparable to ours in terms of its composition and so forth. Why do they have a trade surplus with us? So what the president is saying is two things. Number one, there are critical industries like aluminum, like steel, like semiconductors, like automobile manufacturing, that he rightfully believes, President Trump rightfully believes, the U.S. needs to have a domestic capability, and the way you protect those industries and build that capability is by ensuring that there's economic incentives to produce in the United States.

The second is global, and that is we are going to put tariffs on countries reciprocal to what they impose on us. And so this is a global. It's not against Canada. It's not against Mexico. It's not against the EU. It's everybody. And then from that new baseline of fairness and reciprocity, we will engage, potentially, in bilateral negotiations. with countries around the world on new trade arrangements that make sense for both sides. Fairness. But right now it's not fair. We're going to reset the baseline and then we can enter into these bilateral agreements potentially with countries so that our trade is fair. What's not going to continue is of course these countries are upset. So this is all just about leverage to get bilateral, not free trade, not North American free trade deals. No, no, it's not leverage. It's fairness. It's resetting baseline fairness. And then from there we can work on deals.

so forth because they'll have products we don't make. We have products they don't make. That's where trade works the best. It has to be free, but it has to be fair. And right now, it's only free on one side and it's not fair for the other side. It's an unsustainable position. The ad hoc nature of these policy announcements and pullbacks are causing concern in the marketplace as we saw this past week. So I heard you describe what seemed like a strategy to get to negotiations on a bilateral front. also seem to negotiate, say this was national security-minded, but then we also see comments by the president of like 200% tariffs on champagne. That's not a critical industry for the United States.

That seems more emotional. No, that means that's called retaliation. That's what happened. Why are they doing it to us? Yeah, so it's emotional when we do it, but not when they do it. How's that work? They're going to increase tariffs on. They already have high tariffs.

They're going to add more to their tariffs. fine then we'll have to find something to I mean you tell me I mean Canada's going after a whiskey and orange juice and retaliation yeah exactly so that sounds pretty petty to me as well so what's the difference the point is I get it yep I understand why these countries don't like it because the status quo of trade is good for them it benefits them they like the status quo we don't like the status quo we are gonna set a new status quo and then we can negotiate something if they want to that is fair for both sides but

What we have now cannot continue. We have de-industrialized this country. Deindustrialized the United States of America. There are things we can no longer make and we have to be able to make in order to be safe as a country and in order to have jobs. That's why we had a rust belt. That's why we've suffered all these important jobs that once sustained entire communities wiped out by trade that basically-

I think there's a chance that Marco, yeah, little Marco might be the president one day. There's a good chance. I mean, he did pretty well. I mean, for a young guy on his first time, I think he did pretty well in 2016. And that was against like, you know, like full, you know, like fucking hard mode Trump. I mean, really? Like, yeah. These factories, these jobs, this industrial capability to other places, that cannot and will not continue. I don't know. President Trump, this is no mystery. He's been talking about this since the 1980s, actually, even before he was a political figure.

This is going to happen and it's going to happen now. I want to ask you about Russia. You said, Andvoy, Steve Witkoff's meeting with Vladimir Putin that happened last week would answer the fundamental question of whether we're moving towards a ceasefire or whether Putin is using a delay tactic. You spoke with Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, yesterday. Is this a delay tactic? Well, I think that was a promising meeting. As I've said repeatedly, we're not going to negotiate this in the public. Hopefully we'll have something to announce at some point fairly soon. I can't guarantee that. But I certainly think the meeting was promising. The exchange was promising. I don't take away from Steve's meeting, from Ambassador Woodcoff's meeting, negativity. There are some challenges. This is a complex three-year war that's been ongoing along a very long military front with a lot of complexity to it. So no one's claiming that it's easy. But I want everyone to understand, here's the plan. Plan A is get the shooting to stop so that we can move to Plan B, phase two, which is have everybody at a table, maybe with some shuttle diplomacy, to figure out a way to permanently end this war in a way that's enduring

and it respects everybody's needs and so forth. No one is saying that that second part is easy, but we can't get even to that second part until we get past the first part. It's hard to negotiate an enduring end to a war. I think they're going to be able to do it. I do. I think they're going to figure it out. I haven't, I didn't think that for a while, but like, after the amount of crashouts and then recoveries after the crashouts, I think that they'll be able to do it. As long as they're shooting at each other. And so the president wants a ceasefire. That's what we're working on.

Maybe it sounds stupid, but like, that's not thinking. We'll be easy in and of itself. We move to the second phase, which is negotiating something more enduring and permanent. That will be hard. It will involve a lot of hard work, concessions from both sides, but it has to happen. This war cannot continue. The president has been clear about that. And he's doing everything he can to bring it to an end. Okay. We'll talk about that later in the program as well with Envoy Whitkoff. I want to ask you about a decision you made to revoke a student visa for someone at Columbia University this past week. The Wall Street Journal editorial board writes, They just can't get over this.

They can't get over it. The administration needs to be careful. It's targeting real promoters of terrorism, not breaking the great promise of a green card by deporting anyone with controversial political views. Can you substantiate any form of material support for terrorism, specifically to Hamas, from this Columbia... They don't need to substantiate it directly to Hamas. All they need to do is substantiated to an organization that has expressed support for Hamas.

That's what the law says. That's what the rules say. And it's also not even any terror organization. It's even bigger than not. Duden, or was it simply that he was espousing a controversial political point? You see how she's so specific? Well, she's so specific because this is the woman that tried to compare. What did she try to compare to Nazi Germany? I'm trying to remember, like, how Hitler took power about burning books, I think. What was it again? Yeah, I forgot what it was. It was like free speech. Yeah, yeah. Oh, that's right. Free speech is what led to Nazi Germany.

This is what this woman said. So you shouldn't take it. anything that she says seriously. She's a retard. So, yeah, I mean, just straight up. Well, not just the student. We're going to do more. In fact, every day now we're approving visa revocations. And if that visa led to a green... Thank God.

Thank God, bro. We have a less terrorist sympathizers here in the U.S. that are citizens. We don't need to import new terrorist sympathizers. It's overdue. It is long overdue. Get them out. Card, the green card process is

well, and here's why. It's very simple. When you apply to enter the United States and you get a visa, you are a guest, and you're coming as a student, you're coming as a tourist or what have you. And in it, you have to make certain assertations. And if you tell us, when you apply for a visa, I'm coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events. That runs counter to the foreign policy interest to the United States of America. It's that simple. So you lied. You came. If you had told us that you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa. Now you're here. Now you do it. You lied to us. You're out. It's that simple. But is there. But is there any evidence of a link to terrorism or is it just his point of view?

Has it ever occurred to you that his point of view is the link? Like, what are we doing? He just answered it, yes. She doesn't get it. Well, what she's trying to do, so this is what she's trying to do. She's trying to minimize and make it seem like his viewpoint and his support of terrorism is just a point of view. So she's using intentionally soft language in order to make him seem extreme. That's what's happening.

And this is, again, like, it's manipulation, it's an implication. Yes, exactly. And so as soon as you see how this happens, and this is why, by the way, this is the reason why a lot of people watch these videos. It's because I think a lot of average people see this happen, but they might not really understand. it entirely. Maybe English might not be their first language or they might not, you know, really pick up on it as much. I spend a lot of time talking. I spend a lot of time reading. And so I see this very quickly. Are you? Yeah, I understand English very well. I do. And I can immediately see when this is happening. I know how to use manipulative language and I know how to identify manipulative

language. I'm very good at it. I think that's one of the reasons why I'm so popular. Yeah, it's because I'm good at communicating. So anyway, English good since when? Yes, my English does be good. And so anyway, this happens. And it's so obviously disingenuous. It's clearly disingenuous. Yeah, they take over, I mean, do you not, I mean, you should watch the news.

These guys take over entire buildings. We've vandalized colleges. They shut down colleges. I'm asking about the specific justification for the revocation of his visa. Was there any evidence of material? The spokesperson was the negotiator on, but negotiating on. negotiating on behalf of people that took over a campus that vandalized buildings, negotiating over what?

That's a crime in and of itself, that they're involved in the being a negotiator, the spokesperson, this, that the other. We don't want it. We don't need these people in our country that we never should have allowed them in in the first place. If he- True. Fucking true. He had told us, I'm going over there, and I'm going over there to become the spokesperson

and one of the leaders of a movement that's going to turn one of your allegedly elite colleges upside down. People can't even go to school, library, buildings being done. vandalized? One of these people share a bed with terrorists and terrorist supporters? Because their entire ideology is hinged around oppression and oppressor, and they view the terrorists as the oppressed. So anything that they do as a response is acceptable because they're part of this group that it's acceptable to do these things. that's that's that's that's that's that's it that it and everything is based off of that would have let him in we never would have let him in to begin with and now that he's doing it and

he's here he's going to leave and so are others and we're going to keep doing it we are and by the way i find it ironic that a lot of these people out there defending the first amendment conservatives will be the first to tell you that they're the most depressed people shut the fuck up zack bro you're not going to convince anybody by creating these disingenuous double standards that nobody believes or gives a shit about. Like, here, I'll pull it up. We haven't pulled up anybody today in chat. I just noticed that.

So what's the problem with this? We're listening to, like, what this is. Your entire channel is a double standard, partisan hack. Can you give me an example of that double standard? If it's my entire channel, I think that it'd be easy for you to find one. He's crashing out. Is he really? You think so?

I think he might be crashing out too. Emotional manipulation only going one way? No, I've said multiple times that emotional manipulation goes both ways. And I use the example of bringing that kid with brain cancer to the union address, or basically the union address that Trump did, as blatant emotional manipulation. And I think that it's also emotional manipulation with the trans issues and the sports issues as well. I've never said that. Do you have another example of a double standard that doesn't,

exist or is that the only example of fake double standards you only ever call out one side so if i only ever call out one side why am i able to make multiple examples of me calling out other sides because like how do i have multiple examples of me calling out the other side if i only call out one side are you saying that i'm lying i didn't do that or are you saying that you're just exaggerating things because you're mad which one is it you used to care about wealth disparity now you're championing when have I championed wealth disparity? When did I do that? So this is another double standard, right?

And by the way, this isn't a double standard. This isn't like you're saying that I have a double standard. This isn't a double standard. This is a shifting of value. So like you're wrong also in terms of like how you're categorizing this. When you cheer on the richest man in world firing families in their ability to pay their mortgage or buy groceries. So, yeah, I am because I think they're jobs useless.

So do you think so, basically based off of your argumentation, do you think that we should never fire people from the government? That's not what I said, is it? Well, it's what you implied. So basically what you're saying is that you used to be skeptical government talking points. As soon as the new admin took over, you buy it at face value. Okay, so this is a video that I uploaded two days. ago. And so this is me right here fact-checking something that Elon Musk said in the middle of the video. Like at the beginning, you started talking about the conservatives being the most depressed people.

And then now you're talking about there being a double standard. And then you're saying that there's emotional manipulation. And then I'm saying they'll only call out one side. And then I care about wealth disparity. And now you're making an emotional appeal for families that can't pay their mortgage or buy groceries. You're just emotionally charged. Everything that you're saying is emotionally charged. You're disingenuous. You've misrepresented everything that I've said multiple times. So what are we doing here?

GOP is erasing black history. Yeah, a little recycling. Yeah, this is a guy. You know what they say? They're not sending their best. And now that he's doing it and he's here, he's going to leave. and so are others, and we're going to keep doing it. And by the way, I find it ironic that a lot of these people out there defending the First Amendment

speech, alleged free speech rights of these Hamas sympathizers, they had no problem, okay, pressuring social media to censor American political speech. That's right. That's right. These people had no problem censoring for, quote, misinformation during COVID or misgendering somebody, but they want to keep somebody in the country that is not even a citizen for supporting terrorism. It's not the same people, though?

Yeah, actually, it is. In fact, as a matter of fact, it is. It's the same apparatuses and the same organizations that were justifying and celebrating and supporting de-platforming people like Joe Rogan that are now trying to play defense for a terrorist sympathizer. Why are we deporting terrorists? Because they're bad.

And we're not deporting terrorists. If they were terrorists, they'd be in jail. We're not even deporting them. We're not, they're sorry, they're not even terrorists. They're people that are supporting terrorists. So I think it's ironic and hypocritical. But the bottom line is this, if you are in this country to promote Hamas,

to promote terrorist organizations, to participate in vandalism, to participate in acts of rebellion and, riots on campus. We never would have let you in if we had known that. And now that we know it, you're going to leave. Is it only pro-Palestinian people who are going to have their visas revoked? Is it only pro-Palestinian people? You see how like this is again, the intentional misunderstanding, the intentional misleading that this is, yeah, see, this is how it always works, right? It's this dishonesty. These people can't even have, he's a green card holder. Once you have

a green card, you're a citizen, you have the same rights as citizens have. Can green card holders vote. Can they vote or not? Some people just don't want Israel to keep bombing innocent people. That doesn't matter. That's not relevant. If the way that you protest that is by supporting terrorists, then you can do that somewhere else. This conversation isn't about Israel at all. It's about a terrorist organization and whether you're supporting them or not.

It's very simple. I don't know why you don't know why you don't understand it. As someone's trying to teach you? Well, no, it's a simple question. can you vote if you have a green card or not? Is this another crash out? No, you can't. So when does free speech equal being deported?

Okay, so then when you said that you have the same rights as citizens have, that wasn't true? You admit that then, right? So what you previously said is not accurate. The DM's coming after me? Well, I'll ban you and you can deal with the DMs then. Yeah, you can be against Israel without support. supporting terrorists. Yeah, you can. And you see the damage that these people are doing to the, to the Palestine movement when they're characterizing support of terrorism as support of Palestine.

We just to pay an act of rebellion and riots on campus. We never would have let you in if we had known that. And now that we know it, you're going to leave. Is it only pro-Palestinian people who are See? The entire framing of it is disingenuous. Everything about this is a lie. We're going to have their visas revoked or are other points of view as well. No, I think anybody... Other points of view, again, it's another point of view. Here in favor. Look, we want to get rid of train that Agua gang members.

They're terrorists too. That's a great point. I like this. Big Marco. Don't stop with the fucking terrorist supporters of Hamas. Get rid of all of them. We did. The president designated them.

Asked me to designate. And I did as a terrorist organization. We want to get rid of them as well. We don't want terrorists in America. I don't know how hard. that is to understand. I know. You would assume this is kind of like a, you know, a common sense agreement.

But no, apparently not. We don't want people in our country. They're going to be committing crimes and undermining our national security or the public safety. It's that simple, especially people that are here as guests. That is what a visa is. I don't know what we've gotten it in our head, that a visa is some sort of birthright. It is not. It is a visitor into our country.

And if you violate the terms of your visitation, you are going to leave. Man. Okay. Secretary Rubia, I'd like to have you back, talk to you about a lot more on your plate.

I'm sure she will. We have to leave it there. Thank you. Yep, there we go, guys. People aren't defending the individual what's happening to. They're concerned about the precedent that it sets.

Well, no, I support the precedent. No, that's the whole point. I like the precedent. I think it's a good thing. Yeah, no, the precedent is that if you come to the country, and you express material support towards groups that support terrorism,

you will be removed. Yeah, no, no, no, I'm in favor of that. That's good. Yeah, that's the whole point. I want that to be the precedent. Correct for me. People are talking about Palestinians who start October?

Well, I mean, listen, I know that it's back and forth with like the Palestine, Israel thing. Like, I'm not trying to decide who's right and who's wrong in that conflict because it's not relevant. what's relevant is whether somebody is supporting a terrorist organization that's it why am i so why am i cherry-picking messages that you can see something you can exploit

okay um well how about this i will um i'll pull you up this will be the last one then we're going to move on and look at other stuff okay um so so uh what's the problem what's the argument that you have because i mean you you accuse me of cherry-picking messages you've now been cherry-picked are you also being cherry-picked because you're stupid? Let's find out. Let's find out. Where all these retards coming from?

I don't know. Being free content. Okay. Read, bro, scroll up. Can you vote if you're a felon? No, you can't vote if you're a felon. I'm pretty sure you can't. What's the point?

Depends on a state. Whether a felon can vote, it's statewide. Okay. There's no uniform federal rule. Okay. So it's a, it's a state's rights issue, brother. I can vote in most states as long as you're not actively on parole.

Okay. So there you go. You're a fascist who decides who terrorists are? You think we deserve to say who's a terrorist and then kill them? Yes. So are you arguing, well, who should decide then? Do you think that there is, do you think terrorism is real? Because you can make the argument that terrorism is real.

Because obviously somebody has to decide. And that decision, because we have no real, Like everything is to a degree a opinion, right? Like every morals and ethics and all that stuff, it's all opinions, isn't it? Right? At the end of the day, it's opinions. So what do you mean by that? Fascists?

No, no, I understand that you have, I know, I know. This is a, it's a word that a lot of people like using. So let's go ahead and look up the definition of fascist. Is a far-right authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, political ideology, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forceable suppression of opposition. So you think it's fascist and authoritarian to be against terrorism? Come on, bro.

Expand of the voting rights. What else do you got to say that a green card isn't a citizen? I think there's a couple of other restrictions that green card holders have. Like if you commit certain crimes, if you do things that are immoral, like sex crimes particularly. I read about this recently with the recent case, but that's also, there's that. And I think obviously like the material support of terrorist groups is a big one. Actively like threatening the government, I think so. And so those are all examples of things that people who have a green card are susceptible for deportation because of.

And then, yeah, the Patriot Act was added in extra stuff as well. The AIA told me there was no evidence who was supporting terrorists. You don't have to support terrorists. You have to support an organization that supports terrorists. So how about this? I think that we both can come to the conclusion that if he wasn't supporting terrorist organizations, he shouldn't be deported, right? If he wasn't doing that, he shouldn't be deported.

So let's do a thought exercise. If he was supporting a terrorist organization, should he be deported? Okay, so we're done here? No, no, we're doing a thought exercise because I'm not going to convince you, like, I can show you a video, I can be like, oh, well, he's part of this group, this group had this speaker here and the speaker was part of a terrorist group, etc., right? Like, I could do that, but that's not going to work on you because you're just not going to accept that as evidence. So the better thing to do would be to have a theoretical conversation about the idea rather than try to argue about evidence that you're just going to pretend doesn't exist.

So assuming that he did do it, would you want him deported or not? All those Venezuelans shouldn't have been deported, but that's what's happening? Okay, well, I disagree with that. Yeah, I want to have people that are part of violent criminal gangs in other countries. I want to have them deported. And I will vote for the people that will do that. So I guess this could be a part where we disagree. But that's basically it.

Yeah, maybe this is, maybe it's an ideological difference. Changing topics? Yeah, it's changing topics as well. It's again, I just want you guys to see. how a lot of the people that post this kind of stuff and that have these kinds of arguments, there are paper thin, brain dead arguments that there is no thinking

involved at all to them. There's no like real logic or rationality implied. There's no thinking beyond just like these weird like gotchas. Like there's never like a good faith engagement in conversation. And I think that this is one of the

big problems that happens is that a lot of these people do not want to make a good faith engagement into conversation. And because of that, they caricature what people do and they call you names instead. And I think that's what happens more than anything. It's people getting called names and stuff like that. Why do you always only pull up the retards? What the fuck? Because it's only retards that are disagreeing.