Part Of The Problem - A Response to Michael Knowles

Episode Date: May 26, 2026

Dave Smith brings you the latest in politics! On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave and Robbie "the fire" Bernstein discuss new developments on the war in Iran, Thomas Massie hinting at the idea of potentially running for office again in 2028, Michael Knowles' response to Dave's analysis of Thomas Massie's recent race, and more.Support Our Sponsors:Troll Co - https://www.trollco.com/problem and use code DAVE25 for 25% off your first orderSheath - https://sheathunderwear.com use promo code PROBLEMCrowdHealth - https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/promos/potpProlon - https://prolonlife.com/potpPart Of The Problem is available for early pre-release at https://partoftheproblem.com as well as an exclusive episode on Thursday!PORCH TOUR DATES HERE:https://robbernsteincomedy.com/eventsFind Run Your Mouth here:YouTube - http://youtube.com/@RunYourMouthiTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/run-your-mouth-podcast/id1211469807Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4ka50RAKTxFTxbtyPP8AHmFollow the show on social media:X:http://x.com/ComicDaveSmithhttp://x.com/RobbieTheFireInstagram:http://instagram.com/theproblemdavesmithhttp://instagram.com/robbiethefire#libertarian See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What's up? What's up everybody. Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. I am Dave Smith. He is Robbie the Fire Bernstein. How are you, sir? Happy Memorial Day. Happy Memorial Day to you. I can't believe you picked going live during the Knicks game.

I, you know, look, I don't ever think in an intelligent way. And so I just, Liz, I honestly, until you said that, and I did, I watched the last next game, which was great. The Knicks, I, look, I grew up like a hardcore Knicks fan. I've just, as an adult, I can only spend so much time watching sports. You know, it's just one of those things. You get to an age. And I guess maybe I'm in a sweet spot.

My son is four. And so I'm sure over the next few years, I will feel kind of like more of a like, oh, I got to like watch sports with him or, you know. But at least for the last few years, it's been very hard to like, you know, get yourself to be like, sit down and watch some 20-year-old millionaires play again. because I got to work on my own shit. We'll say, though, these Knicks are something else, man. I've never seen anything in Nick's history, and I'm a Knicks history buff.

I don't think we've ever, ever had a playoff run as impressive as this. And I know Knicks, they won two championships in the, was it late 60s, early 70s. They went to the finals twice in the 90s. But what are we, what are the eight game winning streak? back to back, looking for back to back sweeps. Pretty goddamn impressive. I don't follow any sports whatsoever, but I get excited for Nick's, not Nick Sport, New York sports. And every once a while, I'll be in a bar and it's playoff season. And if you catch me like with enough nights in a row where I'm off from comedy and I can watch the games, I get sucked right in. I'm like,

I'm a total playoff world series front runner. Like if the Yankees are in the World Series, I'm on board. Nick's or Rangers get to the later rounds of the playoffs. I'm suddenly watching every game. It's a thing that like when I was a kid, that would have been something we looked down on. Yeah, me too. You're a front runner. Oh, you just come in at the end.

But then as an adult, you're like, yeah. That's when it's good. Yeah. That's when it's fun. I don't know what to tell you. I'm sorry. I can't devote my entire life to other children making millions of dollars. I've got stuff of my own.

I got a non-interventionist. America First Libertarian message. I got a spread. Anyway, I had a fun Memorial Day weekend, took the family up to the lake, and we had a good time. Yeah, it was nice. It was a nice, nice time.

And that's why we're recording tonight rather than earlier. So I'm a bit exhausted from a weekend with the family. Dad's out there. No, that can be very tiring. But I could not, we had to do an episode today because there's just several things that need, that the world needs.

to hear from me and you. But before we get into that, Rob, we should let people know that we got big shows coming up, some real, real big stuff. Toronto, we are back in Toronto for the first time in many years at the Parkdale Hall, a beautiful theater up there, one night only two shows, June 5th. It's a Friday.

There's a 7 p.m. and a 9.30. Tickets are still available. Come on out and see us there. And then Denver Comedy Works, legendary weekend we had there last year. We sold out every show last year. So hoping to do the same this year. And it's one of the, one of if not the best comedy clubs in the country. So very excited for that. And you got stuff, a bunch of stuff coming up. Yeah. Thank you to everyone that came out in D.C. It was a blast. My FBI presentation was really grooving. So I'm happy about that.

I'm excited to be working on it. If you go to port store.com, you can find all the dates. There's too many to rattle off. But the upcoming dates is one in upstate New York near Ithaca. I forget the of the town and then I'm outside of Detroit and then I'm doing Pittsburgh and that's all a road tripping to the Toronto gig because I don't have a passport. So, you know, come make my stops worthwhile. I like that you not only promote a gig, but you give them the reason, the reason why the gig even exists at all. And it's because Rob couldn't be bothered to do 45 minutes of work. And that's why he's coming to your town. So, okay, so anyway, let's get into it. So let's start with the latest on the war.

Um, it's really something, Rob, because I was thinking, so I'm away, I was away this weekend. Had I been home, and if you were home too, I probably would have called like an emergency podcast, you know, and we would have like recorded yesterday or the day before. Um, you know, we typically keep to our schedule, but if there's a huge thing that happens, we might come in and do a show. But I was away with the family and I had made a commitment that I wasn't doing work this weekend, which in my world means I will sneak away. way and do a little bit of work at a little, you know, at a time. But anyway, so we get back here

today. It's Monday night. And okay, again, I know this can be very confusing for people who don't pay close attention to it. And so obviously you already have in the background that we've been at war for 47 years. But this isn't a war, but it's a 47 year war. But Trump is finishing the war. It's not really starting a war per se. Now, granted, no one could tell you that until he launched the war. But as soon as he did launch the war, just know it was always a war. He didn't start it. Now he's finishing it.

Also, we've won the war about 50 times. And the war was declared over two weeks ago and then continued on exactly in the same manner. But something kind of different did happen this weekend. So one of the things, as I've been saying from the very beginning, Rob, and we had Ryan Grimm on last week, and I've credited DropSight quite a bit, particularly Ryan and Jeremy Scahill. And, you know, I've been reading since the war started. I try my best. I listen to everything Trump says. I read Axios. I get the regime opinion. And then I also read the Dropsite stuff and hear what the Iranians are saying. So several different times in this not very long so far war, but several different times in the last two plus months, Donald Trump has claimed that a deal has been worked out.

Every time so far, the Iranian regime has said none of this is true. He's lying and making it up. And what the Iranian regime has said has kind of turned out to be accurate. there wasn't really a deal. This weekend was the first time that I saw that Donald Trump announced there was a deal and also the Iranian leadership were saying, yes, we are very close to a deal. So that's kind of, that was kind of different about this weekend where Donald Trump is saying, hey, look, we've got, you know, and he didn't say we have a deal. He said the outlines of a deal were very close to a deal, but we've largely agreed upon several things. And the Iranians were like,

yeah, that is true. That is where we are. So that was different. And then the other thing that was different, Rob, was that the Israel firsters all lost their fucking minds. But I don't know if you saw the comments from Lindsey Graham, Mark Levin, a million other Israel firsters, they were very upset and really like, you know, this is, we've, oh my God, we're, you know, we've come 99 yards and we're going to fall at the one yard line. If we just keep going and we could get everything we wanted, but Trump's falling down now. So they started freaking out.

Also, in response to this, Israel just went kind of ballistic. It's killed a bunch of people in Gaza and southern Lebanon. They've gotten that kind of flared up again. And then ultimately, all of this seems to be resulting in what it always does, is that Donald Trump has now, as of today, said that it's either going to be the perfect deal or no deal. And in fact, he's decided that it's all about the Abraham Accords and that everyone involved must sign on to the Abraham Accords.

And anyway, this seems to be a complete non-starter to be going, I mean, to add the Abraham Accords into everything else. Saudi Arabia has come out and said, no, no, we can't actually do that. And anyway, there's a lot there. But essentially, it seems to me like we were actually close to a deal. The deal would have been something, as me and you have been predicting, and that was going to be very a bitter pill for the hawks to swallow, because we actually don't have that much leverage here.

And so it would have been some type of deal where the regime stays in place. The enriched uranium is at least debatable for, until further rounds. The Strait of Harmus will be open but still controlled by the Iranians. You know, a lot of money will be unfrozen or there will be reparations or sanctions relief. So anyway, it was going to be a deal that was humiliating to Donald Trump. The Israel lobby, the Israel firsters, let him know that we will not let this go without us raking you over the coals and letting you know to do this.

Ultimately, that is what moves Donald Trump. And so he snapped back to this and now he's threatening them again. So we're back to square one. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is crowd health. I love this company and we've been promoting them for many years. You got to check out crowd health. It is the alternative to the broken health insurance system. And now they're introducing the Black Swan membership, the healthcare alternative for those who want autonomy over their care, their costs and their lifestyles.

For just $75 a month, you get a team of expert bill negotiators, access to low-cost prescriptions, and lab testing, and a curated database of high-quality, low-cost doctors vetted by crowd health. There's no insurance middleman and no networks dictating your care. It's you in the driver's seat. And what many of you are wondering is what happens if there's a major Black Swan event? Well, you cover the first $15,000 and the crowd steps up to help fund the rest. It's like the freedom we used to have before Obamacare turned health care into a bureaucratic nightmare. So get your health care on your terms.

Use the promo code POTP at join crowdhealth.com and you'll get your first three months for less than $80. Crowd Health is not insurance. Opt out. Take your power back. This is how we win. Visit join crowdhealth.com and use the promo code POTP today. All right. Let's get back into the show.

That's kind of how I read it. I'm curious what your thought is. Firstly, I find it amazing how difficult these storylines are to follow and that they keep teasing deals and you wonder, okay, well, what's the actual deal here? Axios is the only mainstream publication that had any of the details and then DropSight News had more details on that. From what I understand, you're looking at major concessions from Donald Trump. Huge concessions. And so to give the broad strokes on concessions, the biggest one is, it sounds like Iran can just go ahead and sell oil. So now they're just a part of the global economy.

They can sell their oil. You're also looking at sanctions relief, money going to Iran, which is their money, but also talk of actually getting paid war reparations, which is huge. In terms of enriched uranium, this is very unclear to me. It sounds like they're going back to the JCPOA that they can enrich. The timetable is unclear, whether they got to wait a bunch of years to it. It also sounds like they're going to keep their enriched uranium but dilute it within Iran. But I mean, the huge kid, and then also they keep control over the straits. And I guess after a period of time could potentially be tolling it, but that's also not clear.

But well, yes, but it'll be an environmental fee, not at all, which is a clever little game that the Iranians are playing, which, by the way, and Trita Parsi had a great thing. He broke this down very well. But essentially, you know, the thing that Iranians. rounds trying to do. This was amazing. It's pretty woke for Shiite theocrats. But the thing is that outside of a war, it is just kind of blatantly illegal under international law to blockade the straight or to charge a fee or anything like that. So the Iranians kind of recognize, well, we can't just say that. So they decided to call it an environmental fee because it's like that type of woke shit works real well with the global governance types. Anyway, I just thought that was

kind of savvy. But yes, I agree with everything else you've said. The only reason it sounds like we actually got potential here is that Donald Trump is waving the white flag and actually offering enough concessions where Donald Trump can walk away with the talking point of, hey, they're never going nuclear and then never really addressed the fact that he ended up with a more powerful Iran and in a significantly worse place than where the JCPOA actually was. Now, it appears to me that when he made the Abraham Accord statement, he's throwing a monkey wrench into this and realizing, oh, I can't actually do this. So I'm going to sabotage my own deal. I do want to give Trump a little bit of credit, though, and just float a possibility. I don't think that this is true, but I want to

float a possibility here that came across my head. It sometimes kind of seems like Donald Trump is looking to checkmate Netanyahu on claims that Israel is not safe. And that's why they have to be the aggressor. And what happened the first time when Donald Trump said, did the new nuclear strikes on Iran was he turned around and said totally obliterated, which for about a six-month period forced Netanyahu to get Trump's back because he didn't want to call Trump a liar on television right afterwards. And so for a little while, that had to seep to the sidelines. The big monkey wrench in this deal is that Israel has to be done with Lebanon. And of course, they left a little bit of wiggle room in there as long as Hezbollah behaves, then Israel will not respond. But it does somewhat

feel with the Abraham Accords play. My read is it's a disingenuous monkey wrench and that he's looking to blow up his own deal. But I also think that there might be a possibility of trying to kind of pin Netanyahu down to being like, hey, quit pretending like you guys are the victims here. I've worked out an environment where you guys are completely safe. Nobody's saying that you don't have a right to exist. So knock it off. And I wonder if there's a little bit of room in there in the Abraham Accords to try and make

that play. restrain Israel, but in a way that appears to be a victory. It's an interesting point. I mean, look, I'll say this. And I don't know. There have been several times in

where Donald Trump, where it is almost appeared as if. And this seems too crazy to actually believe that this is what's happening. But I will admit, there have been several times where it appeared almost as if Donald Trump was a hostage who was trying to,

to send like an SOS message out? You know what I'm saying? Like almost like he's trying. Like, dude, when Donald Trump gets up on stage and he points Miriam Adelson out and he goes, Merriam Adelson gives me all this money and all she cares about is Israel. You know, one time I asked Merriam Adelson, who do you love more? Israel or America? And she hesitated.

And I think I took that to mean Israel. Look, when he says things like that out loud, it does at least make you wonder. I'm not saying anything, but I am just saying that like she certainly wouldn't like him to say that out loud. It's clearly humiliating her to at least a big percentage of the people who are going to hear this. Now, you could write that off to Donald Trump just can't control himself. And that's Donald Trump. He just says things that are in his brain. And that probably has more explanatory power than anything else.

But it does, sometimes there are moments like this where it does kind of make you wonder. But then again, you also wonder if that's the goal, then why can't you just say it? Why can't you just do it instead of like hinting through all these other things? You know, it's worth taking a moment to just kind of explain some things about the A. Abraham Accords. And the, if, if you understand what the ask is here, is that the Abraham Accords essentially ask that you normalize and recognize Israel. And a lot of the pro-Israel people will, will take this, and they'll kind of run with it like, I've seen some people on Twitter going, you know, because Saudi Arabia came out and said, look, we're not ready to do that yet.

And people will go, well, what's the problem with like recognizing Israel? I mean, it's there, right? Like, as if Saudi Arabia is saying, no, there's no such entity as Israel, which obviously isn't what they're actually saying. And essentially what's happening here is that for the most part, the Sunni Gulf states are sock puppets over there. look, they want to be in business with us. They would love to sign on to the Abraham Accords.

They are happy to recognize Israel. They got a little bit of a problem. And the problem is that 100% of their population hates Israel's fucking guts. That's the problem. 100%. I mean, maybe it's 99, Rob, but it's between 99 and 100%. of the population of the UAE and Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, they are completely on the Palestinian side. They think what Israel is doing is awful. And so essentially what they've always had to maintain

just to keep legitimacy amongst their own people is that we will normalize relationships with Israel when they allow for a Palestinian state. When they give up on the brutal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, then we're more than happy to sign on to this. But we're asking them to sign on with no thought of that. And then they go, look, this is, you know what I'm saying? Like, this is the game. That they're like, we got our people that we got to deal with.

And so this is, you know, the idea that people would say, oh, you know, Donald Trump was such a peacemaker because he got the Abraham Accords through in his first term. And you're like, yeah, there wasn't really a war between Israel and Tajikistan or the UAE. Like, he didn't end a war. It's just that he bribed them all off with U.S. taxpayer money or with U.S. taxpayer money bought military hardware

and got them to just sign on to be friends with Israel and fuck the Palestinians. You know, that's really what it is. But at this moment, and this is why I agree with you, that this was just him kind of like deading the deal. was that to insist that everyone involved right now, not only, we're essentially on what was announced this weekend, what the Iranians were saying that you were talking about there, Rob, is that they go, look, we're going to start the deal with ending the war and opening the straight, which I got to say, if you're being objective here, that's a reasonable place to start. Because Rob, what are the two

most immediate threats right now. What are the, what are the two big catastrophes? There are those two things, you know, let's end this war. Let's open the straight. Now, it's a, it sucks if you're a Trump supporter or if you're in the Trump administration to admit that, because to admit that is already to admit where the state of everything is right now. The biggest two most important issues are just to get back to where we were before you did this dumbass fucking thing that you did, right? Like the biggest things are just to end the war and open the straight. Essentially, return to the status quo before Donald Trump elected to launch this war of choice.

Okay. And then they say after that we'll get to the more difficult parts, nuclear enrichment, existing stockpiles of enriched uranium, proxy groups, sanctions, you know, all this stuff is that we let's get to the most important stuff and then we'll get there, okay? That's already hard enough. But to then throw in that everyone must sign on to the Abraham Accords is like, well, you're not even trying to solve this.

That seems like you're trying to blow this whole thing up. And so now it seems like Trump's back to trying to blow the whole thing up and trying to threaten around again. Because this time the threats will work, Rob. Well, just to give the two sides of that. And once again, I agree. I think it's a monkey wrench. The Abraham Accords specifically for the other countries that didn't sign on before. It's a much harder ask after what's taking place in Gaza.

And that completely lets Israel off the hook for everything that it's done and kind of further legitimizes them. uh however if that came with trump actually saying america will restrain israel moving forward and we are going to have peace in the region and israel's not going to pretend like everyone's their enemy and being engaged in aggressive action that does give you like a holistic picture of how to actually be done with this thing um now i i i think it's more of a monkey wrench and i don't actually think you're going to get there well what are you you're saying like uh it would be more holistic if everyone agreed to the Abraham Accords. The trade-off is everyone recognizes Israel,

and now Israel, you can no longer pretend like everyone wants to annihilate you, so you can no longer behave aggressively towards these other people. Okay, I get what you're saying. Yeah. But, yeah, okay, I get your point. But at the same time, when we all know that these nations are not nearly ready to do that. I mean, look, when Saudi Arabia are closest out of all the, SUNY Gulf states. Our closest trading partner, our closest, you know, friend comes out immediately and goes, no, we can't do this. It just seems more like that's a, um, that was just a crazy ask.

Like that was obviously not on the table. Well, leave it to Trump to throw something in right when you're signing. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Well, it's been, it's been amazing to see how much like the, the Warhawks, they really just, I don't know, they, it seems like they just have a wish list of what they want and they're completely untethered to what is like an achievable route to accomplish that. You know, it's just like, well, we want all the enriched geranium and we want whatever. You know, it's, I don't see how you're going to get it. I have seen, there was one comment.

I got to highlight this because I just, I was kind of struck by this. You know, I've talked a little bit, Rob, about how the Iranian expats have really been something to see through this war. Like, and when I say that, I mean, there's an Iranian diaspora of people who have, you know, gotten out of the country, you know, between 1979 and today who are not. big fans of the government. And a lot of them have really been advocating for, um, for, you know,

overthrowing the regime, uh, really the ones who, who talk about liberating the people and all that. And I've made the point several times over the last, uh, you know, a couple months that it's crazy to me that they're still on board with this.

Like if your goal really was to liberate the Iranian people, I just can't imagine that, you know, bridge and power plant day didn't get you to go, okay, maybe this isn't the best idea. You know, like maybe I shouldn't support the guy who's threatening genocide against the people I want to liberate. But I did see, there's this one Twitter account, which has gone at me several times, Neowa Berg. I don't know. But she's got like a half a million Twitter followers. And she posted this.

I thought this was very interesting. She posted talking about Donald Trump's, you know, Abraham Accords Demand tweet, and she said, it really does seem like Trump threw the Iranian people under the bus so he could force countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to normalize with Israel. Was this war ever about Iran? Or was it always with the goal of strengthening the Israelis at the expense of the Iranians? I dislike asking these questions, but they need to be asked sadly. Anyway, she's getting like destroyed by her own followers in her comment section.

But I got to say, I just wanted to highlight that because it is interesting that like there's when it like it's supposed to be this wild conspiracy theory. Even here you have this, this girl asking the question going, I don't want to ask this. but it is just wild that at the end of all of this, when it looked like, I mean, look, Rob, it seems to me clearly that Donald Trump is desperate to just try to get out of this. He's recognized. This did not go the way I thought it was going to go. We are in real trouble here, dude. Like, we are, the global economy is under severe threat.

We don't know, you know what I mean? like we don't know what does a $150 gallon oil look like. We don't really know and none of us want to find out. But we might if we can't figure out this straight to Hormuz situation. So we got to get this figured out. And then Donald Trump comes out and essentially goes, you know, look, dude, we're going to take a deal here. Whatever. I'll spin this.

Let's just take a deal and get the straight opened and then we'll figure out the rest later. And then a couple days later, it's. It's like, actually, you all have to agree to accept and love Israel. Not only do we have to get through the first step to maybe the second step, to, oh, shit, that third step's going to be hard. Actually, you got to jump right to the 99th step. All you guys got to kiss the wall, and then we can end the war. I don't know. It does just seem like even a lot of useful idiots are going to wake up over that.

Yep. It seems like, like I said, the more likely of the two is an unnecessary monkey wrench at the, at the last minute. And also, it's like we weren't beefing with Saudi Arabia. Why he's trying to start beef with Saudi Arabia now? We have to have an argument over this. Like, there's enough other more pressing issues to address. I don't know why you're stirring up the other fights. Yeah, absolutely. And look, as I said, the other point that I made earlier that the Israel lobby is going to turn over on Donald Trump if he tries to get out of this. And this is his own doing that now you started a war at the behest of the Israel lobby. And if you didn't know this, you're insane to not know it. But the whole goal here was to take out the regime, obviously. And so now if you if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, a stop short of that, they're going to turn on you because they never cared about you. They were the never-trumper's to begin with. They were the ones who smeared you as being Adolf Hitler incarnate. So, you know, you decided to go all in with them and they're going to turn on you now. And Jesus, fucking Christ, if he doesn't deserve that, but also it's a real problem because that's the only base he has left.

And so his incentive is to not lose that base. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Troll Co. Troll Co. was built by two guys from the oil patch who were sick of clothing companies pretending blue-collar workers don't exist. While most brands chase trends and influencers, Trollco was made for people who work with their hands, solve real problems, and keep the world running. Just respect for the overlooked guys doing physically demanding essential.

work every single day, like the podcasters, you know? That's who we're talking about. Us working class folk. Trollco makes tough, comfortable hoodies, teas, hats, and real workwear that actually holds up and you don't need to be in the trades to wear it. If you value self-reliance, responsibility, and honest work, troll co is for you. And that's right. That's what I value, even though, you know, it's us, us hardworking folk and those of us

who just dress like it, but podcasts for a living. Well, look, if you want to get these clothes, they really are great. Go check them out right now at trollco.com slash problem. That's T-R-O-L-L-C-O dot com slash problem and use the promo code Dave 25 to get 25% off your first order. That's trollco.com slash problem and promo code Dave 25 for 25% off your first order. troll co dirty hands clean money support a brand that supports real people let's get back into the show um all right let's uh let's talk a little bit more i want to get into this uh i want i want to um play michael knolls uh he he did a segment about me um so i wanted to respond to this uh but it's about thomas massey And I guess before we get into this, maybe we should mention that Thomas Massey, he announced that whatever it is, he filed with the FEC.

And, you know, I don't exactly understand it. But he basically filed so that he is, he can run in 28 for whatever federal office he wants. And he can continue raising money until that. then, and then he posted, like, the receipt of it, and he goes, this means I can keep raising money, and then when 2028 comes, I can run for any federal position that I want to. And so, you know, he's not saying he's going to run for president, but he is clearly flirting with it openly. He did this at his concession speech.

And so that is kind of interesting. Thomas Massey is openly talking about running. Now, at the same time, today, and again, take this with a grain of salt, there was a daily mail piece about how J.D. Vance is bailing on the idea of running. Now, I don't know if that's true. You know, that's why I say take it with a grain of salt. Who knows? But maybe, maybe it is. And also, I could kind of understand why that might happen.

It seems more and more that it's becoming clear that there really is no lane for J.D. Vans to run for president. And, you know, like, it seems like most of the people who still support this administration are way more Marco Rubio fans than they are J.D. Vans fans. All of the most powerful donors to Donald Trump, like Marco Rubio, way more than J.D. Vance. and how can J.D. Vance really run on a J.D. Vance lane when the administration is the war party. It seems tough to me. Anyway, I don't know. What do you think, Rob? You know, I said I was on, provoked the great podcast with Scott Horton and Daryl Cooper. And I talked a little bit about what I think it would be if Thomas Massey ran for president in 2028. And I got to say, I think it would be huge.

I mean, I think if Thomas Massey runs for president in 2028, it will, it's a guarantee that it won't be the Ron Paul campaigns or the Pat Buchanan campaigns. It'll be closer to the Bernie Sanders campaign. And I don't say that I have nothing but admiration for Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. It's just a question of the time and what the country was like. but I really think, man, Thomas Massey running in the Republican. Imagine, Rob, imagine a scenario here where Marco Rubio is the nominee,

and he's got to run in a primary against Thomas Massey. I mean, wow, wow, do I really love the idea of that? I like you, it's very exciting, and I see a very big, wide open lane with a lot of winning storylines for Thomas Massey to run on, and a lot of grassroots and organic. support and it seems like he's got all the winning hands. So listen, I hope he gives him hell. I hope he runs. I really think he can win and I'm excited for it. The, the factor that I have a blind spot to is to what extent I'm excited for the things that he cares about because I care

about them and just how dumb the rest of the country is and how easily fooled they are by propaganda and whether or not what appears to be, it's amazing that someone can be right on everything. who if you are having a conversation with them doesn't think that we should get the criminality out of DC who thinks that the spending is like on all of these things it feels like you could have a conversation and they agree with you on everything but yeah like even even the people who think there's nothing to the Epstein conspiracy not a single one of them if there you know be a would go and we shouldn't declassify the documents you know what I mean like if the fight is over declass like who's who's saying and we shouldn't have transparency

on them. But I just got to say, look, Rob, you're right, dude. You're right. Who knows? Look, at the end of the day, we're always running these experiments. And obviously, things have become much more in our favor. But, you know, who knows? How much does Fox News and big money campaigns really move the electorate? Well, we're about to talk about this because we're going to respond to Michael Knowles here. But look, if you're going to... you're just being real and you're not being like a Trump, you know, nut hugger who's who's just defending no matter him, no matter what he does.

Who like who is the average Republican vote? Again, just imagine the scenario that it's massy running primaring Marco Rubio. Is anyone going to sincerely tell me that if they had their finger on the pulse, of where the people are, that they were more with Marco Rubio over the last, you know, 10 years than with Thomas Massey. And Mass is more likable.

Are you also? He's more likable. He's a better dude. He's better looking. He speaks better. Everything he's got, but I'm talking on the issues. Are you really going to sit here and say,

is any self-respecting, you know, Republican voter going to tell me that you really thing big picture that Marco Rubio has been more on point than Thomas Massey. Like, I mean, I don't care if you're a fiscal conservative, it's Thomas Massey. If you're just not a neocan insane war hawk, it's Thomas Massey. If you oppose government corruption, it's Thomas Massey. If you're for Drain the Swamp, it's Thomas Massey. If you're America first, it's Thomas Massey.

Like, there's who other than Mark Levine, who has, you know, look fair that's who maga is now but who other than that who other than the israel lobby actually thinks marco rubio is better than thomas massey and i would just love oh man if that could be the perfect like you know the perfect choice right there the perfect like split there you go let's let's delineate along these lines and see what side you fall on. That to me is a political dream. And could win a lot of Democratic support in a general election, particularly if it's against like a Newsom or AOC because he's not a Donald Trump Republican. So you're not going to have the same ability. You're going to have more people that he can pull over. No question. If you're running an

actual America first, you know, let's just say it was like, the, broadly speaking, the position is that you don't want to fight stupid wars that we don't have to fight that are unwinnable. Like, just don't want to permanently be at war for no reason to say we got to deal with the debt and the deficit, to say we got to stop destroying the currency. We got to have transparency about, you know, government criminality, that we got to Like, there's so many issues where Thomas Massey would not only have huge appeal in Republican primaries, but he would absolutely, I think, have enormous appeal to independence and leftists and Democrats. And, yeah, a whole, like, you know, there's a huge, the America First coalition really, you know, can be gigantic.

In fact, I would argue that even Donald Trump, who in 2024, obviously, like, you know, dominated politically with that coalition and won the popular vote in all the swing states and dominated the culture and all that stuff, I think that a candidate who didn't have his baggage could do even more. Now, to be clear, Donald Trump has a lot of baggage, but he also has a lot of like things that really aid in his coalition building, like how famous he is, how rich he is, how big a spotlight he has on him. But at the same time, I'm just saying, I'm just saying like theoretically, there's a much higher ceiling on Donald Trump's message than Donald Trump could ever put together because

he's just, you know, he's a very alienating, you know, figure. and for, you know, for some reasons that are bullshit, but then also for some reasons that are quite reasonable. Like he's a big, dumb, orange animal who's never read a book and is, you know, just kind of, I don't know, like a shitty person. And all the conservatives, we're going to get to Michael Knowles in a second, but Michael Knowles included, if we were in a more free environment to say how we actually felt, Michael Knowles would also concede that Donald Trump is like a horrible person.

Like Michael Knowles is a very is a deeply conservative religious person. He does not approve of a playboy who cheats on all of his wives and you know, probably paid for several abortions, you know, type of guy. So anyway, so let's move into this clip. So I had a essentially I had talked about Michael Knowles in the podcast with Nick Fuentes. This was a couple days before Thomas Massie his primary, and then Michael Knowles did a response video to that. So we're going to play that and give our thoughts on it. Let's start up the tape.

A clip comes across my feed yesterday. People were tagging me in it. This was from before the Thomas Massey primary campaign, before the election on Tuesday, in which Dave Smith was taking some issue with my political analysis and my predictions. He was sitting with the reactionary commentator, Nick Fuentes, and Dave said that he was really eager to see what my reaction would be if my prediction turned out to being correct. Then the betting markets start like chain.

Clearly people are putting money in and influencing this. So Michael Moles over at the Daily Wire, you know, I don't dislike Michael Molls. But his take on this was he goes, man, if Thomas Massey loses, this just shows the iron grip that Don. Donald Trump has on the Republican Party. Oh, brother. And you're like, dude, dude.

I mean, I think it shows the iron grip that the Israel lobby has. If that might be a slightly more accurate take. But then I also go, and I'll be interesting, because I think Thomas Massey's going to win. I think it's close, but I think he's going to pull this off. I wonder what Michael Knowles' reaction to that will be. So if it proves that Trump has an iron grip when Massey falls out, what about when Thomas Massey wins and survives $20 million being pumped into his

district. What would what would that suggest? I wonder what Michael Knowles, what his reaction will be when his prediction proves incorrect. You see Nick Fuentes there. He says, oh, yes, yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's right. I wonder, I wonder what my reaction would have been had I been wrong. I guess we'll never know because my prediction was totally correct. Right now, ground. All right. Yeah, let's let's pause this for a second and just skip ahead of this. add, if you don't mind, Natalie. So, all right, look, I will say this. Well, obviously, Rob, I didn't get that right.

I mean, I said, I said, I think Thomas Massey will still win. And look, I'll be the first to admit. Perhaps I was predicting with my heart a little bit more than with my head. You know, the next day after that, which was also before the primary, we had Ryan Grimm on the show. And Ryan Grimm kind of laid out the argument of why, like, actually, it's probably more likely that Thomas Massey loses then wins, and I couldn't really argue with what he was saying. But, okay, regardless of that,

it's two things. And you can say how you feel about this, Rob. But number one, I, you know, I've reached out to Michael Knowles personally a couple times at this point to try to get him on the podcast, to try to do a thing. I've been down to have a discussion or a debate. And it's kind of interesting that these daily wire guys, like they always just like to like kind of bring me up in a moment when it's like, oh, this is when we have the advantage.

He said he thinks Thomas Massey will win and he didn't. So, well, I guess we'll never know whether I was right or wrong. But, you know, that really wasn't the point. And look, obviously I said, I thought he would still win. I think I had reason to think that he had won his district several times. and I thought he probably had enough to hang on. But I was wrong about that. Still, that was obviously not the point.

The point was that like to just say, if there's a congressional district and a lobby interest, whoever that might be, no matter what the, let's say there was a candidate running for gun control. and the NRA poured more money into that congressional district than had ever been poured into a congressional district in the history of the United States of America. And it unseated that candidate. The takeaway from that probably wouldn't be that that shows how much juice the president has. The takeaway would probably be that shows how much juice that lobby has. So that was obviously the main point.

but if if michael wants to take shots at me for saying i thought thomas was going to win all right fair enough i did get that wrong any thoughts i thought uh the second half of this post the ad break was more interesting to me so i'll wait yeah yeah well well me too but i i would say just to the first part it's like okay like yes if you want to say that like we um i thought that thomas massey would still pull it off i was wrong about that and he he lost. I don't think that really proves anything. Like, I don't think it really, I'm sure there have been races that Michael Knowles thought would go one way that ended up going the other way. That I don't know, you know, I don't watch his show enough to really have like a detailed

record, but I'm sure that's true. And it doesn't necessarily prove that you were wrong in your analysis leading up to it. But let's hear what else he has to say. Dave says, he goes, you know, look, I think it's going to be close. It wasn't even close. It wasn't even close. it wasn't close it was a nine point swing so that was that was the first bit i found that very delightful and i appreciate that dave says he goes look i don't dislike michael knolls and i feel exactly the same way actually i'm i want to get dave on one of the bar fight shows because he'd be a good figure for the show i would be the conservative dave is a libertarian then we get some left winger i think that's a pretty good lineup because everybody could kind of disagree but sometimes would agree with

each other so anyway i i i'm okay let's just pause it right here okay okay just to be clear here, Rob, okay? As you know, this is my history with the Daily Wire guys. So I was on a Daily Wire show once ever. Candice Owens had me on one of her last shows on the Daily Wire, which probably was done intentionally to piss them off and helped her leave rather quickly thereafter. But here's the thing.

I have obviously for many, many years I've been challenging Ben Shapiro to come debate and he's done a lot of segments on me and I've done segments back to them. All of my segments end with me saying Ben Shapiro, why don't you come on the podcast or why don't we come do a debate? And all of his segments end with him saying, I'll never debate you. Anyway, I've also like tried to get Matt Walsh to have a conversation before. If you remember Rob, he said, not everything has to be a podcast day. like, and I was like, yeah, but we both podcast and we're disagreeing. So like, this could be a podcast. And he goes, no, put your argument right here on Twitter or I won't.

So he refused a podcast about it. And then somehow his supporters still tried to go, you're ducking him because you won't. Anyway, Michael Knowles, I've messaged before and said, hey, look, dude, I'm actually like, I really agree with you on a lot of stuff and I respect you. so we could have a cool conversation about this. He's refused. He has, and this is true, he has invited me on this bar fight show, which evidently is, Rob, it's a show at a bar with an audience. And I think it's kind of like the ideas that's a little bit unruly and people kind of like interrupt.

Then you take questions and it's a panel. they invited me on this is true i mean i don't the day the exact days might be wrong but the spirit of what i'm saying here is completely true they i think they literally messaged me like on a monday and went can you do uh this show in dc on wednesday like the day after tomorrow can you be in dc and i was like what no like what are you talking about like this is this is this is this is this is this is This isn't even how you book a show. What do you like, so anyway, I think they asked me like a couple times and it was always like a ridiculous on crazy short notice.

Like, can you travel to go do this live show? The show, by the way, Rob doesn't do numbers. It's not like. So anyway, it's a little bit weird when Michael Knowles knows full well that there's like an open invite to like, let's have a conversation, which we could both. jump on tomorrow for him to go, you know, I would maybe like to get Dave on a fight night because it'd be like a cool dynamic with the left and the right. If you're doing a video about me, man, let's just talk about this. Why is it that your side is so averse to this very

simple idea of having a conversation about this? Like, we can do it tomorrow. I literally mean this. Michael, you can sit in your home studio and I can sit in my home studio and we can talk about this issue. Why is it like I have to fly to DC for no money on 24 hours notice for no audience? This doesn't seem reasonable to me. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Sheath underwear, the underwear of legends, long time sponsor of part of the problem. They have been sponsoring this show for. I think almost four years at this point. I love the product. It's the best underwear I've ever worn. The only boxer briefs I ever put on my body are Sheath underwear. It's a great product. And as I

said, they've been longtime sponsors of this show. And as I said, they have been great sponsors of this show. So if you want to support the show and get the best boxer briefs you will ever wear, go to Sheath.com and use the promo code problem for 20% off your entire order. That's Sheath.com. Promocode problem 20% off. Support Sheath, support the show, get the best pair of boxer briefs you'll ever own, sheath.com promo code problem. All right. Let's get back into the show. I think that's a fair critique to that specific invite and certainly add some context to what they're offering. Well, yeah, literally, this is, I mean, this is, I'm not exaggerate. I will release the text messages if you want me to, but it was something like that. It was like, can you be in D.C.

day after tomorrow was the invite I got. It's like, what? No. Okay. Anyway, let's keep playing. And I look forward to, you know, seeing him on a bar fight show or something. But, but what about the first part where you say, okay, well, maybe Michael was totally right in his prediction. Maybe Dave was wrong in his prediction. But Dave and Nick Fuentes both take issue with my analysis. My analysis was part of my prediction, I said, was if Massey goes down, this will be evidence that Trump has an ironclad grip on the Republican Party. And the two of them, they say, oh, brother, here we go. No, it doesn't show. That's not what it will chiefly show. What's going to show is that the pro-Israel lobby has an ironclad grip on the Republican Party. That will be the chief takeaway

if Massey goes down. But I don't think Massey's going to go down. Yeah, no, I don't think he's going down. No, he'll win. It'll be close. Whatever. Okay. So I want to point out, I was also completely correct in my political analysis of the broader context. here. And let's be totally clear about it. I am not denying in the least that pro-Israel donors wanted to take Massey out. I'm not denying that at all. Let's talk about pause it for a second. Massey's biggest. I'll pause it for a second. I love, it's a great tactic when you're doing this. The like the seeming admission, but it's to something that's so obvious that you can't possibly deny it anyway. You know,

like the cops come to your door and there's a bazooka hole in the front of your house and you go, I'm not going to deny that there was an explosion in my house. You go like, okay, thank you. That's very bad. Yeah, obviously you can't deny that because more money was pumped into this race than in any race in American congressional history. I don't bring it back a little bit and then play the point he's going to make right here because I'd like to take this apart before we get into the meat of it. Donors wanted to take Massey out. I'm not denying that at all.

It's a little complicated because Massey's biggest individual backer was ardently pro-Israel. That's a slight confounding factor. But it's true. A-PAC wanted to take Massey out. All right. Paul's up there. Pro-Israel donors really wanted to take. Okay.

So that is not a confounding factor. That means nothing. The fact that you could go, there's a one of Massey's donors was also pro-Israel. Well, what does that mean, Rob? you know, as you know very well, there's a million people out there that just loosely would say, are you pro or anti-Israel? They'd go, yeah, pro-Israel. Are you pro-Ukraine?

Are you pro-Ukraine? You know, are you pro-like, okay, you might be pro-Israel in some generic sense, especially if we're talking about like a boomer or something like that. Like, yeah, that's just the standard position. But if you're a donor to Thomas Massey, what do we really mean by, being pro-Israel in today's context, right? Like, let's just say you found someone, you said, I mean, I don't have any donors, Rob. I mean, I have donors, you guys listening, but I don't have anyone else other than you guys.

But if someone, if you found out that there was like a, someone was given me a bunch of money, and then you went, oh, they're pro-Israel. You go, well, yeah, sure, maybe in a sense. but clearly, you know, if they're given Dave Smith money, they're not, like, you know what I mean? Like, that doesn't really mean anything. It's like, no, the point is that the Israel firsters who think it's a political crime for you to argue that we shouldn't give aid to Israel and we shouldn't fight wars on behalf of Israel and we shouldn't cover up Epstein files on behalf of Israel, the people who think that's a crime worth being unseeded

versus the people who still support you even when you do that. So call him pro-Israel if you want to, but that's not what he's donating money to. Fair? Yes. Okay. Let's keep playing. Massey out.

But that was not the chief takeaway. And my proof of this is all of the other races, all of the other primaries that Trump intervened in. You can say the Israel issue was a big factor in the Massey race. How do you explain Brad Raffin's? Berger in Georgia. Israel didn't play a single role in that election. That primary race was about Raffensberger's reaction to the 2020 presidential election. How do you explain Bill Cassidy's Senate primary? Bill Cassidy's Senate primary had nothing whatsoever to do with Israel. He just irritated Trump by

turning against him, turning against him on the issue of impeachment. How do you explain the five Indiana state legislators who went down in their primary campaigns in all the races that Trump intervened? in. That issue wasn't about Israel. That was about redistricting because they turned on Trump on redistricting. My point is not that the pro-Israel donors didn't want to take Massey out. My point is that the chief takeaway of Massey going down alongside Raffensberger and Cassidy and the Indiana legislature all at the same time is that the only common thread there wasn't Israel. It wasn't the 2020 election. It wasn't impeachment. All right. Let's pause it right there. Okay. This is I mean, Rob, look, dude, this is what happens again.

I've said this so many times. This is what happens when you start with your conclusion, and then you just have to work your way backward from there, and then you just get into this sloppy thinking. I mean, this is, look, again, as Michael Knowles appreciated that I said, I don't dislike him. I kind of like Michael Knowles, but this is really sloppy thinking. I mean, this is clearly fallacious.

thinking. This is a fallacy. He doesn't even say that this is evidence, Rob, which it isn't. But he claims this is proof. This is proof that Thomas, that the story here isn't that the Israel lobby has the juice. The story here is that Donald Trump has the juice because you know what, Rob, look at the Indiana state legislator. It's like, what? Listen, this makes, I'm just saying this is objectively, whether you're on Israel's side or you're on America's side or you think America and Israel on the same side, whether you're for the war in Iran or against it, whether you're for Trump or against Trump, objectively speaking, Michael Moles' logic here is fallacious. This is not correct.

To say that it's proof that this race wasn't about the Israel lobby. it was about Trump because look at all these other races, it just doesn't follow. It doesn't make, listen, that's like saying if eight people died today and you go, okay, well, what's the through line? What's the commonality between all of those people? That doesn't mean anything. If you go, hey, look, there were all these people who died from dehydration, and they hadn't had a drink of water in two days. and let's say they were all real old people who are very weak and unhealthy,

and they all died from dehydration. And then I had a young healthy person who also died, and you went, look, what's the through line here, dude? He also didn't have a drink of water in two days. And that's what killed all these other people. And you go, okay, that's true. But the difference is he was a young, healthy guy. They were old sick people.

And also a little other point, Rob, I should make. this guy has five bullet holes in his face. Maybe we should look at that. You wouldn't go, well, let me tell you the proof that those bullet holes have nothing to do with how he died because what's the commonality here between him and these other people who died today? Dehydration.

So in other words, and I'm sorry, Rob, I want to let you get your point in here. But in other words, if you want to say Donald Trump, turned against a bunch of people and they all lost. Well, okay, look, no one was ever saying that Donald Trump turning against a Republican in a primary wasn't a negative, a net negative, right? Donald Trump, even though he's one of the most unpopular presidents in American history, and even though he's one of the most unpopular presidents in the 21st century, and even though independence and Democrats hate his guts and that he's destroyed his entire coalition,

the truth is, Rob, that Donald Trump is still very popular amongst Republicans, especially Republican boomers. You know, I mean, Donald Trump, but he's got like an approval rating in 35% amongst the American people, but amongst Republicans, he still got like an 80% approval rating, maybe higher. I don't know. And so that guy being against you doesn't help. There's no question about that. It doesn't help.

And so if Donald Trump was against some other people, that probably didn't help them. And if Donald Trump was against Thomas Massey, that probably didn't help him. That in no way whatsoever proves proves that the reason, Thomas Massey, a, what was he, a seven-term congressman, lost this primary where more money than has ever been pumped into a congressional race was pumped into his? Like, I mean, come on, guys, right? This is fairly obvious to understand that that logic just doesn't logic. It doesn't mean that what's the commonality?

Why does there have to be a commonality? Why can't, like, if you were at a hospital and you were assessing, why a patient died, you wouldn't go, what's the commonality here? You'd go, no, this is a case-by-case basis. What happened here? And by the way, just to throw some other, you know, a wrench into this logic of Michael Knowles, okay.

I mean, there's also been a lot of Trump-endorsed candidates who lost, including Trump endorsed primary candidates who lost, Trump general election candidates who lost. I mean, I can think of so many. Blake Masters and Kerry Lake and I don't know, just like a lot of Trump-endorsed candidates don't end up winning. And that's true for primaries as well, depending on the election. I mean, but Republicans who called Donald Trump Hitler won primary elections, you know, Mitt Romney became a senator after Donald Trump was. Like, there's just lots of examples where the Trump and, hey, here's a crazy example, Rob.

I don't know if this will make it. But in 2020, Donald Trump was about as popular. Well, he was much more popular with the country. But he was about as popular with the Republicans. And in the year 2020, Donald Trump turned on Thomas Massey and called him every vicious name in the book and sent every one of his supporters to attack him and said he was horrible for the crime of being completely right.

You know, Michael Knowles is bragging about being right on this political prediction. Libertarians, we don't always get our political predictions right. We're only right about all of the issues when they matter. Let's, I don't know, where were you, Michael Knowles on lockdowns and government spending in 2020? Anyway, I actually don't know the answer to that. But anyway, for the crime of being right about passing giant spending bills in 2020, Donald Trump turned on Thomas Massey denounced him in the strongest possible language. You know what the results in Thomas Massey's primary were that year?

He got 82%. 82. Is it really that crazy? Has or has Michael Knowles not proved that the difference between 2020 Donald Trump and In 2026, Donald Trump, you know, supporting, endorsing Massey's opponent, was the difference that or was it more money than's ever been poured into a race ever? Because Rob, I think it's the latter, but maybe I'm crazy. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is

Prolon by El Neutra. Prolon is a plant-based nutrition program featuring soup, snacks, and beverage. designed to nourish the body while keeping it in a fasting state. It triggers cellular rejuvenation and renewal by essentially tricking your body into thinking it's fasting. So here's the idea. You've heard a lot about how fasting diets are very good for you, and there's a lot of science behind that,

but there's real benefits in fasting. But the problem with fasting is that you have to give up food. Now you can get the best of both worlds with proline. You can get all the benefits of fasting without a fast, without actually having to give up food. And the next gen builds on the original prolon with 100% organic soups and teas, a richer taste and ready to eat meals. It's been developed over decades by USC's Longevity Institute and backed by top US medical centers.

Prolon has been shown to support biological age reduction, metabolic health, skin appearance, fat loss, and energy. And right now, for a limited time, you can be first in line. to experience the new next gen at special savings. Prolon is offering part of the problem listeners 15% off site wide plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe to their five-day nutrition program. Just visit ProlonlLife.com slash P-O-T-P. That's P-R-O-L-O-N-L-I-F-E.com slash P-O-T-P to claim your 15% discount and your bonus gift. ProlonLive.com slash P-O-O-L-L-E-E dot com slash P-O-T-P-E.com. All right. Let's get back into the show.

Well, it's basically the same point just from a slightly different perspective, but what struck me in this clip was the weasel pivot by him, which is I'm assuming that the original quote was Thomas Massey losing showcases Donald Trump's iron grip on the party. And now he's defending a different statement, which is this batch of people that lost showcases that, and that's a different statement. So he's actually not defending, if that was in fact the original statement, maybe you guys took it out of context and he was talking about the whole group of them. But if his original

statement was Thomas Massey losing, of course. He has now pivoted to defending a different statement. And it is a very large pivot. Yes, that's exactly right. No, what we were talking about was about the Thomas Massey race, of course. Yes, he's pulling

a weasel pivot because it's more easily easy to defend the batch of them where the spending didn't exist in the whole batch of them. But that was not his original statement. And so he hasn't defended his original statement. Exactly. And as I said, the logic of his new statement doesn't even track. It doesn't make sense. Like, oh, well, these other people who Trump was against laws. Like, were these other, let's do some controls. Were these other people, was Thomas Messia, a seven-term congressman? Were they seven-term congressmen? Were they national figures? Did they have

huge followings. Had they won previous primaries even after defying Trump with 82%, 75% of the vote? Had they? Like, I don't know. I don't even know the, I'm sorry, I'm being honest. I don't know the details of the Indiana state legislator races, but I don't think so. I don't think that applies to any of them. So this is a different thing. And to try to sit here and say, yes, look, I'm not going to deny that Israel lot, like a lot of people who like Israel put money in against him. But yeah, no, some people who like Israel put money in for him. Okay. But come on, man.

Like, the president of the United States of America has admitted that his biggest donor loves Israel more than him. And she put like $10 million or more into this race. Like, you can't just call that for what it is. And again, as I've said before, you know, if you want to, like, if you want to try to feed this slop to Fox News watching boomers, good luck. But in this, in this world, I just don't think that's going to play.

And again, I will also say, look, I'm not even against. I would maybe do the show that he's talking about. We'd have to find a time. You know, I'm busy. I travel a lot. But maybe I would go down and do that. But like Michael Knowles also, just come on the show, dude. Let's talk about this.

Like, why is everyone, is there not, has daily wire not done enough segments about me that none of you have the balls to just come on a show? Am I crazy to say this, Rob? Traveling to do a live show that's not a stand-of-comity thing you specifically want to do because it's fun for no money makes absolutely no sense, particularly for you as a man with the family who has to do a lot of travel dates. And they pay money. It literally doesn't make sense.

Well, also in a way, like, we can just have this conversation. Why does it have to be at a thing? Yes, and you're right with the point you made. But like, I don't know, at a certain point, like, I just wonder, how does it not, in a sense, just kind of win the argument? You know, again, it doesn't, I guess not technically, but it kind of win the day, win the argument by going like, how many? segments are daily wire hosts going to make about me where at the end of every fucking one

of them I go, so let's talk about this. Come have the conversation with me and every single time they refuse. And now Michael Knowles, who just, again, I personally messaged him after like we were on Pierce one time together. And I was like, hey, dude, you know, I actually I'm a fan of some of your stuff. Let's like have a conversation. Be good. Doesn't respond. But then it'll be like, oh, if you can be down in DC in 36 hours, we'll do, like, I don't know. Let's talk about this. Because honestly, you're making this video. I do like you, Michael Knowles, but you're being pretty smug in this video. Like, hmm, he said Thomas Massey was going to win, and I said he loses. And so it's like, but your argument is bullshit, dude. It can't stand up to

basic pushback. So let's do it. Let's have a conversation. Maybe it'll be good. Let's cool the temperature in the room. Bring it down a little bit. We'll have a friendly conversation. All right. I'm not holding my breath. All right. Thank you guys very much for listening. I'm glad we got this late night episode out to you guys. Rob, one more time. Plug anything you got. Yeah, come check out. Firstly, run your mouth, doing new episodes, sometimes two or three times a week. And then, of course, portshore.com got a ton of summer dates, probably playing somewhere close to you coming out. Hell yeah. And comic davesmith.com for all of our dates together. Thanks for watching, guys. Catch you next time. Peace.