Piers Morgan Uncensored - Andrew Wilson vs Destiny On Donald Trump, Elon Musk, RFK Jr, Kanye & More

Episode Date: February 14, 2025

Piers Morgan Uncensored presents a match-up between two firebrands from each side of the political and spiritual spectrum; liberal streamer and atheist Destiny versus conservative Christian and host of ‘The Crucible’ Andrew Wilson. Both are known for their staunchly aggressive and sometimes shocking defence of their beliefs, but they’ve never faced each other on Uncensored. Piers, as always, acts as moderator and guides the pair through issues like Donald Trump’s cabinet picks, RFK Jr and US health, comedy and freedom of speech. So, are we about to witness what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Or will one of them crumble under examination? Protect your wealth with precious metals! Call American Hartford Gold today & get up to $15,000 in free silver on your 1st order! Call 866-692-2474 or Text PIERS to 65532, or visit: https://offers.americanhartfordgold.com/piers-morgan/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I would say let's try and keep things civilized, but that's entirely down to you. Leftists are just pissed for no good reason. Musk is collecting all these people's information. It's like unelected officials at the DMB are collecting my information. Elon Musk is definitionally an unelected bureaucrat, cutting whatever he decides is necessary. He hasn't cut anything. What are they cut? I don't think that Doge even exists. I don't think they have the capacity to even do what Trump wants them to do.

Trump was already found to have had people who were working with him, collude with Russia. Roger Stone did it, but he was pardoned by Donald Trump, the same way Donald Trump pardon all 1600 J6 offenders. Biden parts the whole crime family, but that's fine. You had eight years to investigate it. They had nothing. Here's destiny logic for you. As long as bad things were done via the process of law, that's fine.

I don't want to leave us without getting to the really contentious story of the week. It's been another whirlwind week in President Trump's USA from outshining Taylor Swift to banning plastic straws and bringing Doge's Elon Musk to the Oval Office. Somewhat overlooked in the blizzard was Trump's order for a new task force on anti-Christian bias. and the launch of a White House faith office, led by televangelist Paula Michelle White-Cain. The longer the dance, the more bees she gets aroused. So Queen Bee starts going into this frenzy, and she starts going around and around and around. And she goes into vibrations until all the bees get activated.

And all the bees start going forth. And she leads the way by stirring something up. Angels are being released right now. Angels are being dispatched right now. Hamanda Ata Ata Raka, Teda Baca, Sanda, Ata, Amba Osa, Rita, Eke, Banda, Adariki, Diyah,

for angels have even dispatched from Africa right now. We can do with some of that energy. Well, Trump says that God saved him to save America, and many supporters are fully on board. We're making America holy again. But critics say it's a divisive move

that could bulldoze the constitutional separation of church and state. Here to debate this and much more. Two controversial commentators, views of this world, and indeed the next couldn't be more different. Destiny is an outspoken liberal and atheist. You said that religion is trash and a substitute for human thought. Andrew Wilson is a fiercely committed conservative Christian and founder of the Crucible Debate Channel who once said this about facing Destiny. You and Destiny on whatever podcast together. I've been watching

some older debates with you and him. Love watching, wipe the floor with them, keep up the amazing work you do. I doubt it. I doubt there'll ever be another debate between myself and Destiny, and here's why. blacklisted, he actually made a blacklist and put me on the blacklist. So even if he says, well, now you're off the black list, I see no reason why I should engage with him. Well, here you are. You're both together again to debate. I'm personally thrilled that the reality has come to this point. So welcome to both of you. I would say let's try and keep things civilized, but that's entirely down to you. It's your debate. I'll be in the middle of and hopefully we'll try and get through some complex issues in a constructive and interesting way.

So welcome, anyway, to both of you. Let me start, Destiny. I mean, this whole idea of Donald Trump, you know, making America holy again. What is your response to that? I feel like we have a lot of issues right now in this country. I don't know if our president being a spiritual leader is one of them. There have been things that I've said about religion, mainly in regards to philosophy and how you reconcile like religion with some philosophical positions, but I do think that right now there's kind of a

crisis of meaning in the United States. I think for a lot of people, religion can serve as a good foundation of meaning. However, I don't think that Donald Trump is going to be the guy to, I guess, usher in that era of religiosity in the United States, at least not for any holy religious person that I know that would look at a person and think, oh, this is like a spiritual leader that I would want. You know, Andrew, I would have kind of agreed with that, having known Trump a long time, I've never seen him as particularly religious guy. I've got to say, since he got shot, he sounds a very different guy about God, about religion. You know, I've spoken to him myself several times.

I mean, including once a week after he got shot, where he said, you know, God must have had a plan for me. He must have saved me for a reason. He said, there can be no other explanation for why I came so close to being killed, but miraculously escaped. I do think he feels that really quite deeply. Yeah, there's no atheist in foxholes, as the saying goes, right? So a near-death experience often will bring people closer to the divine. This is a very common thing. It doesn't surprise me that Trump narrowly, I mean very narrowly, for a turn of his head is still alive. I'm sure that he could definitely attribute that to divine intervention. And I'm sure even Destiny would

understand why a person would do that. He's right about the fact that we do have a crisis of meaning. but he also is right, and I can concede on this point, that an office of faith with a chick speaking in tongues is cringe, and the most divisive thing on planet Earth is religion. It's the most divisive thing when it comes to, I mean, it's even more divisive than relationships. It's more divisive than sex. It's more divisive than anything is the topic of religion itself. America's already very divided on religiosity with a traditional camp and a non-traditional camp. I don't actually think that this was a great move for him to put in this.

this Office of Faith, not because I do like the fact that it does signal that is perfectly acceptable to rule through faith. I think that that's perfectly acceptable. However, I think strategically, it wasn't particularly wise as it opened up a dialogue now between the traditionalists who were really Trump's kind of staunch supporters saying, what the hell are you doing here? We don't want this woman, Paula, in any way or shape, form or capacity representing Christianity on the national stage. Yeah, I mean, destiny, some people see Maga Christian nationalism as racist. Time magazine said the toxic blend of ethno-religious identity politics was reflected in the prayers and religious symbols.

Participants carried at the US Capitol insurrection on January 6th, 2021, and it's become central to the trajectory of the contemporary Maga Republican Party. Would you agree with that? Pierce Morgan Uncensored is now proudly independent. If you like the show, we ask that only one thing. Subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Now let's get straight to the point.

Support for today's show comes from a business focused on a critical issue. Prosperity. US national debt is at crisis levels. Inflation has made life more expensive for everybody and a stock market is precarious. It's enough to make anyone's financial future feel grim. So what is the solution? Well, a simple one is to opt out of the chaos

and invest in something solid and reliable, physical, gold and silver. One name you need to remember, American Heart for Gold. This company has earned the trust of thousands of customers with an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and glowing reviews you can see for yourself. They offer an incredible range of gold and silver bars and coins that can be delivered directly to your door or they'll help you set them up in a tax-advantage gold IRA. First-class customer service makes the whole process simple, secure and straightforward. American Heart for Gold is committed to getting the truth out there and giving you peace of mind

in uncertain times. And if that wasn't enough, you've got up to $15,000 worth of free silver when you make your first purchase and mention my name, Peers. So, make the smart move. Call 866-66-692-2474, or text Peers, that's P-I-E-R-S-2655-32. That's 866-692-2474, or text Pears to 655-3-2. All the details are in the description. Now on with the show. I don't think anybody can disagree that there is like a section of MAGA or far-right people that are racist in the United States. But I would say that this is a small section, and I don't think that it's worth focusing on.

I think that progressives especially have this tendency to over-exaggerate. I mean, we were all on the internet when people were hunting every single person who made the OK symbol and saying that they were like some kind of closet Nazi or whatever during the written house era. So I mean, like they're going to be racist people everywhere, but if you want to attack MAGA and you want to do it through the lens of their racist, white supremacist or whatever. I mean, most people, I mean, obviously, MAGA's not going to care for a variety of reasons and they shouldn't.

And even most people that are kind of like, like, or even from the center or even from the center left are going to be like, well, I don't really know if I feel this way. Like, MAGA kind of seems more colorful than they even have been in the past in terms of conservative movements. You can just look online and see that. So, yeah, I don't know. I'm not a big fan of those types of attacks towards that, I guess, ideology, towards that camp. It's sounding very reasonable today, Destiny.

You're right? I'm a very reasonable person, Pierre. Well, that is, I mean, he is right. There are better avenues for which to attack the Maga movement that would actually be more effective for progressives. Them utilizing this type of attack actually didn't do them very much in the way of good in this last election cycle. And you saw this from large progressive commentators,

and this is all they did, it's on Piker, among many others, in the political commentary world, Bosch, other guys like this, they hyper focus on the racial dynamic issues, and Destiny is right. Manga doesn't care. And most of the supporters of Trump don't care, and most Republicans at this point don't care because it's so overused,

that essentially if you overuse a phrase like this or these kinds of talking points too much, their effectiveness just basically gets destroyed. So let's move from making America holy again to making America healthy again. I mean, Destiny is a divisive character. I've got to say about Robert F. Kennedy and Jr., I've heard all the stuff about him.

So the first time I interviewed him, I was quite like combative with him. And I was pretty charmed by him and quite impressed by him, I've got to say. And I've interviewed him four or five times since. And I really don't think we've got the devil here at the head of the health service. We've got a guy who has a very curious mind constantly asking questions, which probably need to be asked about the nation's health. He's also a fine figure of a guy for 70 who seems to practice what he preaches. Are you in favor or against him?

Absolutely against him. I think that there's this talking strategy that people like RFK do that drives me insane. And apparently it works for people like you where somebody will say something that sounds on its face reasonable. But if you think about it for like two seconds, it's the dumbest thing ever. Like the idea of like, well, we need to be examining the safety of these pharmaceuticals. Like we need to look at the data. And it's like, well, yeah, of course. How do you think these things get past?

Or what do you think all the research is for? Like people like RFK will just say these things that sound. good. Like, shouldn't we be doing research on long-term outcomes of, you know, XYZ drug? And it's like, yeah, we should be. And it's like, okay, well, yeah, we do do that. Of course we do. The FDA has a pretty good track record, all considered. Andrew? Yeah. So, I mean, I think that Kennedy is as buying a choice as anybody. It's not like, it's not like these positions have been filled by people in the past are incredible at them, not even on the progressive side, often moving into trans issues, trans health care, which was a big loser for progressives. I think ultimately,

I don't see any problem with this guy getting in there. I don't think he's going to do anything harmful. And I don't really see any problem with them moving into these various agencies and trying to do various reforms. I don't even actually see why progressives would be upset by that. So Destiny might say, well, there's things that he says that are already being done. So he's going to go in and be somewhat redundant. But it's like if you already like those systems and he's already going into the systems, I don't even see why that would be a problem.

Right. And Destiny, what I would say is that always strikes me. If you ever see pictures from, say, Times Square or Trafalgar Square in London or Sydney or whatever it may be from the 20s, right? What's the one thing we all notice immediately if you think about it? There's no fat people. Well, there's no fat people. They just didn't seem to exist. Literally, they barely existed because people were far more mobile.

They had far better diets to a large degree. And none of the processed crap had come into their to ruin their lives. None of the sort of television, internet and stuff, which makes people sit around all day. So very different way of living. And it really strikes me. If you look at those pictures today to then, the world, particularly in the sort of developed world, like America, like large swathes of Europe, we've just got very fat and unhealthy. And if all that he achieves in his term as health secretary is getting Americans to really think about that more, Wouldn't that be a good thing?

I mean, I feel like he can luck his way into a couple of okay positions, but the problem is going to be what the focus is. And the problem is that the focus in some ways, I think, is kind of contrary to whatever MAGA believes in, although it's hard to know at any point in time what MAGA believes in. But for instance, I think that probably the number one thing that you could do to increase the overall health of Americans would be to bring down our average weight. And the best way to do that probably would be to find ways to restrict the ultra-processed foods,

the stuff that's like super high in sugar, whether that's through additional labeling or whether that's through taxes on ultra-processed food or sugar, either of those I think would be tremendously in a good direction. However, both of those things are, what, an increase in taxes and an increase in bureaucracy? I don't know if MAGA is in favor of either of those things. If that was the sole focus of RFK, I would be more okay with it, but it's like this obsession with like the fluoride in the water and red dye number three and the heavy metal microplastics in our ball sacks and everything else.

And these things are very like, they're worth looking at, but they're on the peripheral. they're on the edge. What if he's right? I mean, the reason I say what if he's right is, I remember through COVID, for example, all sorts of definitive statements from doctors and scientists, which often turned out to be complete baloney. You know, what if he's actually right about this stuff? He can be right.

So first of all, most of the statements that were said by the people on the other side were completely and totally incorrect relating to COVID and vaccines. There were no mass deaths. There were no mass injuries. Vaccine injuries. there were no microchips planted in us. There were no permanent vaccine passports. There still isn't any proof that it was created and elaborate.

Like all of those things that are not being correct. But insofar as him being right, I'm saying that like it might be the case that microplastics or red dye number, whatever, could be bad for us or could even be carcinogenic, maybe. But these are like 2%, 3% issues. Like 80% is if you could bring people's weight down on average by helping our diets, it would be so much more impactful. And I don't see how you do that without increasing the bureaucracy,

because you have to be anti-capitals a little bit. You've got to start taxing certain things. You've got to target certain types of foods in order to change people's food consumption habits. Yeah, I mean, Andrew, it's a fine line, isn't it, between being relentlessly critical of health institutions and accepted norms and science and so on and getting to a place where, if you're not careful,

public confidence in all of those bodies collapses and then you start to have serious health issues. Yeah, that's true. and this is part of the polarization in the United States. You know, Destiny brings up this point. He says, well, these are kind of tangential issues, microplastics, things like this. The truth is, if we have states that have done restrictions on things like this,

they've restricted sugars, they've restricted some processed foods, it does very little to mitigate the problem. I'm reminded of an article I read not too long ago about Japan, where the, you know, the Japanese don't have the same epidemic when it comes to obesity that we have here. The gal who was there doing the article made a great point. She said she thought the kids there were trolling when they said their favorite food was broccoli, celery, things like this. But when it was investigated, it turns out they were taught that those are the good foods to eat and nothing else is the good food to eat.

So in other words, there's national propaganda around the idea of health and things like this. Instead of moving towards restrictions like Destiny's proposing, I would move more towards national propaganda. but progressives are very wary about moving towards propaganda. I don't know why. Even though, now, propaganda itself has a negative connotation. I'm just saying the word propaganda because people understand what it means, right? Like a national campaign for something like this could be very effective the same way they do it there. What's not effective, though, is restrictions.

That doesn't seem to do very much. At least it has not so far. I also think parental responsibility has got to be massively reinforced, just generally, right? It's all very well blaming. Well, that would be part of a national responsibility. campaign though in order to do that I agree but you do actually you know like when I see some of the food that

parents give their kids not just America but we have it in the UK as well have a massive obesity problem there and it's like where's the parental responsibility to stop shoving horrible yeah but then we have to look at other things progressors don't want to look at like okay alternative family units single motherhood the intact

family things like this which all feed into the idea of how kids are even nourished at home like these are all interconnected things and it's not so fun then if you're running a national campaign to say uh father should stay in the home that's good for the family that's good for the kid's nourishment things like this you know what i mean suddenly that's why they try to tend to steer away from that type of uh public discourse at least at the governmental level even though for the health of the nation probably would be quite good

so destiny your your sheer progressiveness is going to stop any solution being achieved uh i have i'm a deeply unpopular person with a variety of people i have no problems talking about attacking a particular problem from a multitude of angles. I think that you can talk about what goes on the household as well. However, I think that the culture, you know, writ large and what's available is also a really challenging thing to deal with. If you've had a kid and that kid is going to school, the thing that makes that kid want something more than anything else isn't just something being available. It isn't just, you know, someone on the internet offering it. It's when other classmates have that thing. As soon as you start hearing, hey, Bob or Jane,

you know, their parents let them do that or they have this thing at school. Well, now all of a sudden you're competing against all of the other kids in class. And then these types of pressures when your kid is outside of your supervision are almost impossible to overcome. One thing that is kind of irritating, I guess, is I feel like there was a big push to have kids eating healthier in schools a while ago. But everybody made fun of her for it. It was led by Michelle Obama when it came to making healthier foods in schools and high schools. I agree.

Yeah. And it seems like Republicans litter up like crazy for that. And I don't know. I think that, yeah, I mean, we can talk about healthier food. in the household. We can talk about healthier food at schools. I think that everybody should be on board with it because things like obesity, being overweight, is one of the worst things that you can do for your health. Yeah, it's interesting. I was out in Saudi Arabia a couple of weeks ago, and they've got a national campaign to get people out doing exercise three times a week.

And they've got a very young population, like 70% or under 35. And it's been very popular. And as a result, more and more young people in Saudi are playing sport, for example, than more. ever playing before. And that isn't a physical education standards here, Pierce. We have physical education standards set down by the government here for years. And those were rolled back due to the idea of fat shaming, do the idea of, oh, my, you know, my kids can't do this. Which is all bullshit.

I agree. It's all bullshit. And the thing is, is like, those, that's what I'm talking about when we're talking about national campaigns for this. We can bring in exercise standards. We can bring enforcement mechanisms for those standards, starting at a young age. age, destiny makes a good point. It is valid that if you're in school and your kid and the other kids have donuts, you're probably going to want a donut. You don't want to eat your broccoli,

right? But there's an aspect of social shame that happens with patriotism and aspects of social campaigns and culture that can be actually done from the top down that we see in other nations, including what you're talking about right now. Just something as basic as, okay, physical education, now we're going to actually start taking it seriously. You know, there's two hours of it a day instead of just the 30 or 40 minutes of you throw dodgeball in each other, right? I think that these are very valid things that we should look at. Yeah, I agree. Let's turn to feminism.

So Donald Trump has been lauded as the great new feminist of United States. This comes from his executive order banning trans athletes in women's sport. Let's take a look at him, surrounded by grateful women and girls as he did this. If you'd like to gather around me, I think I'm going to be okay. Come. Come on. Secret services, worried about them? If we have to worry about them, we have big problems. I think I've ever seen a finer feminist, Destiny. I mean, this is like classic Republicans.

Like Donald Trump tweets out at 4 a.m., that he's going to make the sunshine. And then at 6 a.m., the sun comes up and everybody worships him for it. I'm pretty sure, didn't the NCAA already roll back a lot of the transatl? participation in sports in the United States. And then I feel like we've already seen like the Olympic make moves against it. Like I don't, we've already seen like, I mean in your country and the United States across the world, people have kind of like rolled back a little bit on a lot of the trans youth,

especially the medication stuff. Yeah, but you said the phrase there. When you say it's been a little bit and it's been piecemeal sport by sport and age groups and so on. What Trump has done with one sweep of his pen is say no more of it at all, right? There will be no more trans athletes in women's sports. sport, period. Now, I personally think this is absolutely the right thing to do. I think it's become the new doping where people who have an unfair advantage have been, you know, beating women,

removing women from women's teams and say the Olympics and so on, actually beating up women, as we saw in the Paris Olympics where somebody reportedly banned from the World Championships with male chromosomes literally beat up one female opponent so badly she quit after 40, seconds in the ring. So I do think this is a really important thing. Do you agree with it? I don't think this is a very important thing. I don't even know if he can enforce this through executive order. Like I don't know if this is going to be like some kind of Title IX challenge or whatever. I don't know what the courts are doing with this right now. It's just I just don't think this is very relevant in the overall scheme of US or world politics right now. I mean, people don't

want women competing with trans women, especially at the college level and beyond. I don't really have a problem with that. I don't know if these two groups of people should be competing with each other. This is like a blip on the, on the grand scale of things, I think. You know what's interesting, Andrew? I've talked to quite a few on the left since the election. They've moved from the position before the election. I'm not saying destiny was one of them. I can't remember, but, and you can clarify if you want destiny, but a lot of them are like, absolutely trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sport, blah, blah, blah, blah, and Biden and Kamala Harris supported this with actual policies endorsing it.

And now the position is, you know what, nobody cares. It's a thing, I don't have a view. I don't have a view. And I think it's because, to their shock and horror, the single most effective political ad of modern times turned out to be that trans ad that Trump did, ending with Carmelas for they, them, Donald Trump's for you, but also including this issue of women's sports

and women's safety and the issue of putting, you know, I mean, as we had in England, in Scotland, actually, a male rapist who suddenly identified as a woman who got put in a women's prison. It costs the First Minister of Scotland her job. I think it's a big issue, far bigger than Democrats want to admit. And it's interesting the narrative has changed from we're all in favor to actually it's just a small thing we don't care about it. Yeah, this has been a major setback for LGBT period. The trans issue has been the entry gateway for one of the most brutal attacks against the left.

in modern times. And all you really have to do is just ask basic logistical questions like, okay, which prisons do they go to? You know what I mean? We were past bathrooms. We were into prisons and can children get gender reassignment surgery, things like this. This has always been a very, very unpopular position for leftists, but they can't really back away from it because the T got attached to the LGB, right?

So they could never really back away from it. They've had to kind of defend it tooth and nail to Destiny's, credit, he's always had a more nuanced position on this of, I don't care, at least to my knowledge. But ultimately, this is not popular for them. It's never been popular for them. When you're talking about what Trump is doing with the gender binary, I somewhat disagree. Not that he, the thing I agree with is that he proposed at, you know, a government top-down level. The United States only recognizes two genders. Now, he means sexes, male and female, right? That's what he's alluding to there. But I do think it actually was very punishing for

to have fought all those years for their sports teams and then have men just go in and kick the holy shit out of them. And so that actually mobilized, yeah. But I mean, it mobilized a lot of those feminists to move away from the left because they were like, wait a second, this actually wasn't the liberation we signed up for, right? We spent all this time fighting for this. And now you can just basically put on a wig and go break all of our records. I mean, it's just a huge loser for the left.

I agree. Desi, I want to read you a quote from Andrew Wilson, he posted this week. The most disappointing thing about feminists is how made out of glass they are, with the slightest pushback they break. They demand equality until he talked to them like you would a man. It's actually comical. Would you concur with him? I mean, that's everybody in politics. I mean, everybody's a snowflake, depending on what the issue you're talking about is. I don't think that it's ever been a huge issue on most of the left when it comes to, trans stuff. I think there's a vocal minority on Twitter and in colleges that scream about it. I think it seems like it's a huge issue because Republicans wanted it to be a huge issue.

Even that commercial you were talking about was quoting something that Kamala said in 2019. So it seemed like some huge, you know, ever-present issue. But I don't know. I guess I'm looking more towards like domestic policy, like things related to immigration or health care or what's happening right now in our executive branch or foreign policy. Like I thought the war in Ukraine was supposed to end on day one. I didn't know that we were signing up to be owners of Greenland and the Gaza Strip and the Panama Canal. These things, I think, are more important, at least to me, but I don't know, maybe some people are really powered by what Republicans think.

I don't know. You know, I got a 13-year-old daughter. And I got to say, if I was living in America, she was born there, actually, but if I was living in America with a 13-year-old daughter who likes sport, I would be very exercised about this, and particularly if she had to share changing rooms with biological men who said, I'm now a woman. Yeah, I think I'd be more worried about my daughter, like, dying in Texas, like, trying to get a medical procedure done because I'm pretty sure if there have been three deaths now so far in Texas of young women that are pregnant that can't have medical procedures done because the doctors have to be so careful when they're doing them that they can't accidentally abort a fetus because then they'll be held liable for crimes. So I think these are things I'd be worried about more than trans athletes, which are what points are over percentage of anything. More than a woman potentially being killed in a boxing ring by a trans athlete.

How many times does this happened? Well, it hasn't yet, but it will do if it carries on. Exactly. But it already has happened with the abortion. So that's what I'm more worried about. Yeah, but children's gender reassignment surgery, that is something which has been on the table for a long time. That's one. And two, when you're talking about this issue, it's kind of revisionist history, right? Now, suddenly the Democrats don't care. Oh, we, you know, so it was always a vocal minority. No, it really wasn't. These were very, very public fights going on at the national level. And the reason is, is because this was a moral question. We're talking about a moral question from the viewpoint. of the Christian right, which most right-wingers are Christians, you're actually assaulting their religion. You're assaulting their idea of what moral grounding even is. So to them, it's a huge deal.

For Destiny, who has a completely different moral prism, it's really not a big deal, right? He doesn't really care about it. It's not that important. But to the average person, at least to the average right-wing conservative, who's a Christian, it's a huge deal. The assault of the moral foundation is something they're going to take issue with. It's going to be one of their top priorities.

So to say that Democrats were not fighting tooth and nail on behalf of trans inclusiveness, including in sports and everything, it's just insane revisionism. Of course, they absolutely were. I mean, I look at someone like JK Rowling, who got absolutely, you know, destroyed by the Woke Brigade for standing up for women's rights to fairness and equality. Now everyone lords her for heroic stance. But at the time, most women put their head under the, understandably put their head under the vicious parapet and didn't want to engage.

And that left people like her out on their own, getting completely killed by people who professed to be the Bekind lobby. And talking of which, I wanted to play you of This Destiny because it really annoyed me, not because it's a comedian making a joke, that's absolutely fine,

nor that I want her banned or cancelled, or any of those things. Just about the blatant hypocrisy of what we're about to hear. This is Chelsea Handler talking about Melania Trump. I am your DEI host, Chelsea Handler. It was a huge year for biopics, a complete unknown about Bob Dylan, Maria about Maria Callas, and Anora about Melania Trump. Now, Destiny, what she's doing there is calling the First Lady a hooker, okay?

She's perfectly entitled to say that. But she would never have done that joke, and nor would any comedian have ever done that joke, about a Democrat First Lady at an award ceremony, ever. So my question is, are the Democrats, again, is it one rule for them, one rule for everybody else? And before you do the, well, the Republicans do other stuff, I know they do. And it just seems to me she would never have done that,

and nor would any comedian if it was a Democrat first lady. I just, I so don't care. I mean, like, what is a question? Was a joke too mean? or would she not have done it towards a Democrat? She probably wouldn't have done it towards a Democrat because those types of people all tend to lean left. That would be my guess, right?

The same way that if it was any right-leaning comedians are probably not going to go super hard on anybody on the right. I mean, that seems pretty obvious. If you're asking if it's a mean joke, I mean, yeah, it's a mean joke. Lots of people tell mean jokes. I don't know what kind of...

No, no, it's not about the mean joke. I think it's not really a joke. It's just, according the First Lady of Hooker is just vile. Okay, the majority of... I hear a ton of conservatives right now that say that Michelle Obama and the wife of the French Macron are trans. I'm pretty sure that's Candace Owens. She said I would stick my entire career on McCrone's wife being trans.

That's not a ton of conservatives. I see a lot of jokes about that Michelle Obama stuff being trans, but I don't know. Yeah, well, the Michelle Obama dick jokes are very old and have been going on for a long time, right? I've seen those. You've seen those. And some of them are kind of funny. But the point is, is that with Chelsea Handler here, there's one of the most promiscuous women in Hollywood calling someone else a hookers. Right.

By the way, hilarious. And also, you're talking about an entire party who is pro sex work, pro sex worker, pro prostitution, code only fans, does everything it can possibly do in order to enable those things. And then at the same time, they're like, I can't believe the first lady's a hooker. It's like, if it was anybody else who wasn't a Republican, they would probably glorify it. They'd be like, finally, our first prostitute first lady. I don't even understand why, you know, the, the, the, depths of the hypocrisy here is actually kind of outrageous, right?

Yeah, I completely agree. I think the joke, the joke has more to do with pointing out, I think, the hypocrisy on the other side. For instance, if you make a joke about like, I don't know if we're a lot, like for Stephen Crowder being gay, that's a common joke that people in the left make. I don't think the joke is, ha, ha, you're gay, so that's bad. I think the joke is more, you hate this thing and you are this thing, which would, my guess is going to be, I didn't see her whole performance. I don't even know the movie where she was making it, but that's probably the joke is that

you guys hate prostitutes and you are a prostitute. You hate gay people. You are gay. No, no, that wasn't a joke. That wasn't the joke. She's just basically calling... She's calling Melania Trump a hooker because she wants to imply that she's actually a hooker.

And I think the point I'm making is not that she's not entitled to do her what I think was a crap joke. Of course she is. She's a comedian. It's the fact that you would never ever see at an award ceremony in America if I can ever remember any comedian right or left make that kind of remark about a Democrat First Lady, a current first lady from a stage televised at an award show.

That's the distinction. I haven't seen every award show, but didn't Stephen Frye do a couple of really brutal award shows where he was like throwing it out to almost everybody? Am I making this up, dude? Well, he's English. Okay. All right. Let's move on.

I guess you guys got away without. No, I don't do that. I just don't think any of them have ever called a first lady hooker. It just seemed to me, I don't know. It just, it's not about crossing a line. in comedy and all that. If you did down the comedy store, you can do what you like.

If you're on Twitter or X now, if you want to do things, okay, fine. I'm not going to say you should be canceled. Well, I thought we learned when that guy made the island of floating trash Puerto Rico joke, I thought there were no lines anymore. Why are we crying about her making this joke now?

No, because the left went completely nuts. They thought he did cross a line. Well, now we've learned. They did go crazy about it. Now you get us joke about anything, I guess, right? We're all in that world now. Well, you should be to joke about everything.

Yeah, sure. I mean, but we can also, we can also joke about her being, you know, one of the most promiscuous women in Hollywood in that she's speaking out of both sides of her mouth here because she's been a big time supporter of sex workers and now suddenly, I can't believe she's a hooker.

It's like, what are you talking about? That's a very good point, that she used it as a slur, having professed to be the complete opposite about sex workers. Very good point. Talking of stinking hypocrites and vile people, let's come to Kanye West,

who started the week parading his wife, Bianca Sensori naked on the Grammy's red carpet. Looking at these images now, it was a deliberate derobing, whatever. I mean, obviously, any woman can do that. I thought it was all a bit cheap and embarrassing and pathetic, and I certainly wouldn't want to be doing that with my wife on a red carpet. What was far more serious to me was what then followed, which was literally just a bombardment of horrifically anti-Semitic, racist comments. And then some pornography that he began flying out. one of his posts,

sometimes you have to do it like the pharaohs, make your Jews work for you, but watch them as close as you can, whip your Jews. What was interesting to me, destiny, was ultimately Elon Musk, I messaged him directly on X publicly and said,

you're going to just keep letting this guy do is he's breaking every single rule that X has about this kind of stuff. So the normal rules weren't applying to him, and he was doing it to 32 million people. So from the free space, speech argument is one thing. Actually, the ex-in-house rule book is another that wasn't being applied. So there's going to be one rule for him, one rule for everybody else. But secondly,

it was clearly, in my opinion, when you start talking about making Jews your slaves and whip them, you are actually now committing a crime. You're inciting actual violence against a group of people. That is a crime. It's not protected by the First Amendment. But what was interesting was Elon Musk only intervened and shut down the account for the NSFW pornography, which was completely legal. So, you know, inciting people to violence against Jewish people was not considered to cross a line, but actually posting legal pornography was. I thought that was an interesting contradiction. What did you think? Yeah, I feel like Kanye West to me, it seems pretty sad because I feel like it's pretty obviously he's mental,

issues relating to what is he bipolar or whatever. So I don't know if he has these manic phases where he just starts going crazy. And I don't know if he either surrounds himself with yes men and fires everybody else or if there's just a bunch of people like the Candace is in the world who are just around him to take advantage of him. But I mean, clearly he has these mentally unhinged moments. I'm sure him being as famous and as wealthy and as successful as he is probably doesn't help with that mania. As for rule enforcement on X, I mean, there's a million things that could be said about that. People have had a lot of complaints about Elon coming on. Obviously, a lot of people from the left. You feel like the platform has gotten a lot more hateful. A lot of people

have said that the platform's gotten a lot more spammy. There's a lot more bot activity and everything. Some people on the right over the H1B fiasco were upset that Elon seemed to be banning people who previously would have been okay because of their political slash racial stances, I guess, or whatever. So yeah, it seems like Elon's been having a little bit of trouble getting a handle on how he exactly wants to present X's moderation to the world. Yeah, I mean, Andrew, I interviewed Kanye West a year and a half ago. And he denied having any mental illness, certainly denied having any treatment for any mental illness. And a lot of Jewish people in particular think it's just an excuse that he just actually is a

massive attention seeker. It was the Grammys. He's no longer a kind of, you know, superstar rapper in people's eyes. He's just become this pretty unpleasant troll. And that he was doing all this to suck attention away from the Super Bowl, from the Grammys and so on. What do you think? Where's the truth about Kanye West, do you think? I mean, he's done, he's done this before. I mean, he had a meme presidential campaign, right? Total meme, ultimately. Yeah, though people, though people, some people took it seriously, most, most people in

mainstream, most certainly did not take it seriously. And yes, it's attention seeking behavior. Stripping, first of all, this is not the first time this has happened. Remember that his wife also was in controversy because she had a cross on her buttocks, you know, her naked buttocks. And then now she is at the Grammys. And what happens? He literally takes her clothes off, disroves her.

Humiliating, by the way, absolutely humiliating. I felt ashamed on her behalf. I hate saying that, right? But I actually, I just couldn't believe it, right? The disrespect towards your wife, that's to me in many ways unconscionable. When it comes to the X thing, though, the freedom of speech, what we're talking about here is this line in freedom of speech, which you're right. Elon Musk has not figured this out yet because it's not really possible to figure out. Is it okay? And this is what Kanye West is trying to say. Is it okay to post as much, you know, swastikas and I heart Hitler's and, you know, everything else on this as I want? And if it's not, why isn't it?

Yeah. Why can't I? I agree. I thought this was about freedom of speech. He was going. So he's pushing the number. And that drives attention to that account. And in many ways, it could have been a tactical move by must to say, well, you know, maybe. taking that down is not going to look good on me. And so when the when the time came when porn came up, he pushed it a little further, right? Okay, they're not banning my account. He's actually letting this go. How do we push the number a little bit further? Then he moves over to, okay, let's post hardcore porn. And then finally Elon Musk says, okay, enough. You know, I tried to do the best I can. So he's trying to find, Musk is trying to find this line. Connie is purposely pushing the line so that he can test the limits of Musk and this free speech on X and try to point out hypocrisy, this kind of thing.

But yes, I agree it's for attention in a big way. I don't think anybody would disagree with that, even his supporters. Yeah. Let's turn to the Trump-Elon Oval Office presser. We've got a sort of this. Some of the things that I say will be incorrect and should be corrected. So nobody's going to about 1,000. I mean, any, you know, we will make mistakes, but we'll act quickly to correct any mistakes.

So, you know, if the, I'm not sure we should be sending $15 million with the condoms to anywhere, frankly. I'm not sure that's something Americans would be really excited about. And that is really an enormous number of condoms when you think about it. Destiny, what did you make of that? Obviously, it's very unusual. You've got the richest man in America standing next to the President of the United States in the Oval Office by the Resolute desk. He's got his kid with him who's picking his nose. It's all a bit random and weird and surreal.

However, I did watch it all, and I kept thinking to myself, if I was an average American watching this, hearing what Elon Musk is doing to federal overspending, I'd be cheering him on. I'd be all in favor of this. Yeah, unfortunately, the average American, I guess, or the average person, there's no idea how government works or functions. And I guess weird and surreal as just the way to describe now, or illegal, I guess, is the way to describe that this administration has decided to address programs that they don't like. if you want to cut down on waste fraud and abuse, I don't think anybody would necessarily have a problem with it, but they keep saying waste fraud and abuse when what they mean is programs that I don't like. And they've already taken several almost certainly illegal actions in trying to basically unilaterally dismantle organizations like USA that have been in penalty authorized by Congress that

the president doesn't have the ability to do to dismantle unilaterally. And now you've seen TROs coming out from the judiciary that's telling him, hey, you have to stop. There was the one on the federal spending freeze that. not only was a TRO issued telling him that you have to stop freezing these funds, now another judge has said you are violating the TRO. You need to stop this immediately. So I guess if you don't care about the legality or the process and procedure

or anything having to do with the structure of government, I guess it's a cool thing. But if you care about like following the law or the rules or maintaining your government, then it would probably be a horrific thing. Andrew? Yeah, you got this idea. I've heard Destiny kind of talk about this before. or when he's saying, okay, these are illegal actions

and possibly the court's not going to be able to catch up with these illegal actions. And so Trump is just going to basically continue with what he's considering to be illegal actions. Thing is, is like people forget about things like jury nullification or like the idea that you can have laws. And even if you're the enforcer of the laws, in this case the executive branch,

you don't actually have to enforce these things. There's no, like you're put there for a reason, just like a jury can nullify law by saying, even though the law says you're, guilty. I can still come back with a not guilty verdict. What's happening here is we don't even know what the waste, fraud, and abuse is. And so there's an audit going on, and this is exactly what Musk is doing. They're trying to audit this and get it in front of the attention and the American people to say, look, we don't want condoms for the Taliban. That was 15 million.

Promotion of atheism in Nepal for 500,000. French LGBT programs in West and Central Africa for million, right? I mean, the list goes on and on and on. $200 million. 20 days in, I think that the American people do deserve to know that. And I don't think that they would, that this would be front and center or a thing we would be focusing on absent this audit. And I think that more of these government agencies should be audited. Now, Destiny can get, he can say, well, you know, technically due to the rule of law, we have judges who are making these impositions and this and that.

It's like, yeah, that's fine. But that's all part of the process, too. It's all part of the process of law. The process of law is playing out exactly like it should. Judges are supposed to create injunctions if something illegal is going on. etc, et cetera, et cetera. There's nothing wrong, though, with auditing these places. And for the spirit of transparency, I think that the leftists are just pissed for no good reason. Like, they go, oh, Musk is collecting all these people's information. It's like, unelected officials at the DMV are

collecting my information. The unelected officials at the Social Security office are collecting my information. Like, so many government offices collect my information by people who I definitely didn't elect and neither did destiny. They're totally fine with that. But for some reason, with these guys, no, that's too much. That's a good point. I mean, the reason, well, it's not a good point. The reason why is because these things have been, no, these things have been authorized by law. There's a process and procedure there.

The Social Security Administration was created by Congress. There is a process and procedure by which they collect data and they have a process and procedure by which they store data and who's allowed to access it. Elon Musk is definitionally an unelected bureaucrat who is now part of a shadow government who is going from agency to agency, cutting whatever he decides is necessary. In terms of there being transparency, all of this stuff was already publicly available. They're literally, they've literally shuttered the USAID offices. What do you mean?

They've literally frozen payments from the Treasury. Shuttered them as in they tried to give a mass recall saying all the employees needed to come home, which was stopped by a TRO by a judge. And now a lot of these programs, there was just recently a report by the head of the Treasury guy, who now is fired, who was saying that there's a whole bunch of food and stuff that we've shipped to other countries. It's just going to spoil because now we've cut off funding. and money for it. All of these things have just been unilaterally cut by Elon Musk and Trump without any authorization from Congress, despite the fact that Congress was the one that authorized the funds for these

programs and authorized these offices and agencies. If you want to remove all of these things, that's fine. If you don't want $500,000 being spent for trans ballets and Nepal for atheists or whatever, which whatever, that's fine. If you don't want it, then Congress has to defund it. That's the way that this process works. It's not up to the president unilaterally to decide what he likes or doesn't like that's already been passed by the Congress. It's not up to you. That's actually, I was going to say, look, that's not actually correct. He's entitled to do this.

No, he's absolutely not. Well, hang on, hang on. Then there can be legal challenges, and Trump made it clear in the Oval Office yesterday, he would accept what a judge said. Now, by contrast, I remember Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, when he came to the Texas ruling in a court by a judge about abortion medication, for example, she said that the Democrats should not accept what that judge had ruled. Right? So why is it one rule for Democrats that they can ignore a judge's order with impunity?

But when President Trump says, President Trump says, if you want to challenge this, no problem, I would accept the ruling of the judge. Isn't that democracy? What years was AOC the president of the United States? What difference does that make? What does that have to do with anything? She's not in the position to do these things? She can give the advice on it. If you want me to ask myself like A.O.C.

He doesn't want to obey the law. A lawmaker, she's in a different branch of government. She's part of the legislature. We're not talking about the legislature. We're not talking about a random lawmaker right now. We're talking about the president of the United States doing things to intentionally contravenile. You can't just say you can break the law.

President Biden did the same over student loans. No, he absolutely didn't. When the Supreme Court shut him down in one thing, then he took a different avenue. It was not the same. President Biden did not ignore temporary restraining orders. It wasn't issued TROs to stop what he was doing with the loan forgiveness. This is a totally different thing. To say that, well, this is not the same process.

It's not the same stuff. Hang on, hang on, Desi. I just let you go. I'm sorry. I'm responding to respond to peers. Vance and others have made it clear over and over again. They've quoted the Andrew Jackson quote and they've said, well, we should just resist the judiciary.

It is not part of law and order. It's not part of checks and balances for the executive to say, well, I don't care what a judge says. We'll just do whatever, which is what they're currently doing. And a judge has already said they've done with the TRO that was placed on them having to do with freezing federal funding. So they've already broken. with what the judges are telling them to some extent.

And at the end of the day, there's no way to check and balance the executive if they're just going to do what they want to do. You have no checks and balances there. What are the, are men in robes and lawmakers going to walk down and fight with the U.S. marshals and the FBI? Like, it's not going to happen. Andrew? Yeah, right.

Exactly. So there's an issue. What you have is an issue of authority. So Trump is, he's trying to expand the limits of his office as fast as possible. And I understand why. Last time he was there, they were trying to impeach him from basically day one, made up this phony Russian collusion nonsense. He comes in now. He has nothing to lose. He's going to expand his office as quickly as possible,

try to move things as quickly as he possibly can. And most importantly, he doesn't trust the judicial branch. That's what he said himself in his various speech. I don't trust them to give fair rulings. I don't trust that they're actually there in respect to actual law. He doesn't actually even believe that. So what he's doing is he's expanding. Hang on, hang on, hang on, my turn. So he's expanding it as quickly as he possibly can. But he did say that he would abide by the ruling. of these judges. He just recently said this, and we don't know what's going to, what's going to come of that. Right now, he's expanding, he's expanding this office to try to figure out these audits, this type of thing. I don't see what he's actually done wrong. You're already panicking,

but we haven't really had a chance to see what happens if he abides by these rulings, doesn't abide by these rulings. We don't really know that. Yeah. Right. Well, Doge in itself is probably a wholly illegal agency. I don't think that Doge even exists. I don't think they have the legal capacity to even do what Trump wants them to do. Number one, Number two, bringing up the Russia collusion stuff is funny when the entire foundation for Hunter Biden and Burisma was entirely fabricated. That person has already been convicted by the FBI for lying about the origination for that. And three, Donald Trump was already found. The person, what about is?

Who are working with him, collude with Russia. Roger Stone did it, but he was pardoned by Donald Trump, the same way Donald Trump pardoned all 1600 J6 offenders. Same way that Biden just... That were... Yeah, that Biden does the whole crime family, right? Pardon the whole crime family? That's fine. Oh, yeah.

How many crimes are they committed? Republicans had like eight years. They've found nothing. How do you know what eight years to investigate it? What do you mean? How many special... How did we have eight years to investigate them? Nothing.

How did we have eight years to investigate him? From as soon as, from as soon as Biden was in office, they've been investigating this guy, Hunter Biden over and over and over and over again. And they found nothing. That's why the charges we got to the end of the day. We're for tax front.

Well, for Joe Biden, they found nothing ever. Well, destiny. Destiny. I know. I just want to make any better. I just want to make sure that we can get back to the actual point. The end of the day. It's not.

It's not. None of them have committed crimes. Why do they all need preemptive pardons? Yeah, they all need partons. Because Trump has shown over and over again, they don't need crimes to start chasing down people. And the Republicans have no problem hunting people down to try to go on fishing. And the Democrats haven't been doing that for the last year.

Give me one example. Stormy bloody Daniels. Did he break a law? What a farce of the case. That was the state. Are you honestly happy? That's fine. The only time an American, hang on, hang on, the only time an American president.

You just don't like the law. You just don't like the law. You just don't like the law. Only time an American president was ever dragged through a criminal court was over a one-night stand with a porn star 20 years ago. It wasn't over a one-night stand. It was over misappropriating campaign funds and then creating a paper trail. If you don't like the law, that's fine. You've had presidents like Obama waging illegal drone programs killing thousands of innocent people.

Why is he not in a criminal court? Illegal as per who? What are we talking about? You don't think illegal drones programs are criminal? You can't just say illegal because it sounds illegal as per who? Oh, you think they're lawful? because it sounds bad. Apparently so.

What about the illegal invasion of Iraq by George Bush? For which, what are we talking about for illegal invasion? I'm talking about crimes. Which crime? Which crime? What crime you're talking about? A bigger crime is sleeping with a Pornstar. I'm making the point. I'm making the point the only time an American president has ever been dragged

for a criminal court was not over running illegal drone programs or illegally invading sovereign countries. It was over an alleged one-night stand with a porn star. It involved a bit of paper shuffling. It was completely ridiculous. You have strong feelings about what you think should be a crime or not, but if you don't care about the law,

there's no legal argument to be had that. And if you just think it's a crime because it's bad and you don't like it, or if you think it's a crime, because you don't think it's a big deal. That's fine. But I mean, like, if you want to have the legal argument, as long as bad things are done

via the process of law, that's fine. But if you do good things, absolutely the process of law, that's bad. It's like, what are you talking about? Yeah, I know. Here's my chain of logic. I don't know it's hard to follow. If you are a criminal,

It's because you've broken a law. Not all bad things are criminal, okay? Not all bad things are crimes. You can think somebody did a bad thing, but they didn't commit a crime. Donald Trump committed crimes in New York State, probably committed crimes insofar as George's concerned. And he's committed federal crimes as far as the Mar-a-Lago documents case was and the J-6 case was. He won't be held accountable for all of that, thankfully, because he's dismissed. He does everything it can to allude accountability.

But those are crimes. If you want to say, I don't like the war in Iraq, and that's illegal. Illegal as per who. We can talk about the ICJ or the ICC if you want, but that gets all. obviously way more complicated. No, that wasn't what my point was. My point was... Yeah, it wasn't my point.

My point was to say that, from your view, all your, you're only concerned about process of law in this case, right? The law, yes, the law, yes, correct. Hang on, hang on. Not about the moral implications of the actual waste, fraud, and abuse that is brought up, only that the technical process has followed. So it's like, okay, but what are they're not, they're not following your technical process, but they're actually finding waste fraud and abuse from,

a moral implication that's actually a good thing. Now, I don't even agree with you that, that they're breaking any loss. I don't even agree that they're breaking any laws. These challenges are brand new. We have no idea how this is, how this is going to play out. You don't? I don't. We have no idea. We have a good idea. To what the court is going to say. No, we don't have a good idea. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's not, we don't know for sure that Trump is going to just go, oh, I'm just going to Jackson the courts. The courts can enforce their Like, that is speculation that's beyond the pale. They've already done that.

A judge has already issued a ruling saying they've already violated a TRO. So that's already happened to some extent. Now, how far will it go? Who knows? They've already done exactly that. Doge does not have the legal authority to go in and unilaterally show. They're giving a legal challenge back, Destiny. They have, they didn't even respond.

Read the TROs. Their response was, oh, we're going after fraud. And the judge laughed that he said this isn't even a response to. That doesn't mean, that doesn't. Wait, wait, wait. So, so yes, they're. Not only are they going to respond to this, but they're setting up for legal challenges to go back the other direction. This is obvious.

And by the way, this is part of the process. Like, I don't know why you just pretend like these politicians don't expand their offices all the time. And that's what the judicial does, right? It comes in. It'll rain it in. It'll say this is constitutional. It's not constitutional. You can do this.

You can't do this. They do it all the time. There's so much precedent for this, in fact. So if he doesn't adhere to what the judges end up saying, to what these courts actually say when he has no more legal standing to fight it, then you have a leg to stand on. Right now you don't. He's already done that. He's acting the best he can in the ability of the office of the president of the United

States. Chats, we will see. So the goal should be to just break as many laws as possible then and then see what happens. No, Trump is made clear he'll accept the ruling of the judges. If he doesn't, that's another matter. That doesn't even follow anyway. Guys, I want to leave. Follow logically.

We're running at a time. I don't want to leave us without getting to the really contentious. of the week, which is paper straws. Let's watch a clip of Donald Trump talking about straws. We're going back to plastic stores. These things don't work. I've had them many times. And on occasion, they break, they explode.

If something's hot, they don't last very long, like a matter of minutes. Sometimes a matter of seconds. It's a ridiculous situation. So we're going back to plastic straws. I think it's okay. And I don't think that plastic is going to affect a shark very much as they're eating, as they're munching their way through the ocean.

Okay. Destiny, can we at least agree that paper strolls suck? Or rather, you can't suck with a paper straw. You know what? I'm going to be like a good conservative. Just despite conservatives, I'm going to buy a thousand paper straws. I'm going to replace every plastic straw that I see in a straw from now on

with the worst, the shittiest paper straws that dissolve the second you put them in your fucking soft drink. That's my goal for the next two years. That's my way of protesting. Andrew, your response to that dramatic statement from Destiny about paper straws. Well, then I have to at least counter with buying a thousand plastic straws, right? But anyway, you know, I drank out of these stupid paper straws last time I was in Santa Barbara going on the whatever podcast. And they do suck.

They do. And they do dissolve quickly. And everything tastes like cardboard when you drink through these straws. Totally great. But there's also all sorts of chemicals in them. I'm not even sure that they're safer than plastic. No. And there's a lot of data on this, too.

Like, they dissolve the drinks in the mouth. And they have all sorts of chemicals, preservatives in the paper. The baseline plastic is non-reactive. There's all sorts of, like, little things that you can point out here that is problematic when it comes to paper straws themselves. But ultimately, they just suck. Like, if you're going to replay it, like, you know what people in California do? They get metal drinking straws, right?

Right. And then they use the metal drinking straw. They just bring their drinking straw with them. Like maybe that's a good alternative. I don't like the idea necessarily of drinking out of plastic. I don't think that's the greatest idea. But the paper straw thing was always stupid. Yeah, I agree.

Well, gentlemen, we're going to leave it there. It's been, I've got to say, I'm pleasantly surprised by the tenor of our debate today. How have you guys found it? Well, you got to give us different topics and then we'll really go at each other. You know what? We'll get you back and we'll do it again. I'm not being topic shamed. But I really enjoyed it.

So thank you both for doing it. Let's do it again. Thank you very much. No problem. Thanks, Lyon. Piers Morgan Unsensit is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing.

Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Unsensor Media has never been more critical. and we couldn't do it without you.