The Chris Cuomo Project - The $20 Burrito Problem Trump Can’t Ignore

Episode Date: August 25, 2026

Andrew Kolvet (spokesperson, Turning Point USA, and executive producer, “The Charlie Kirk Show”) joins Chris Cuomo for a wide-ranging debate over the future of Trump’s MAGA movement, the economy, immigration, Islam, ICE, and the rise of the DSA on the left. Kolvet explains how a college student’s complaint about a $20 burrito became a national political argument—and why he thinks Republicans risk making the same mistake as Democrats if they dismiss voters who say everyday life is still too expensive. Chris presses him on whether Donald Trump deserves the same criticism conservatives leveled at Joe Biden when voters felt the White House wasn’t acknowledging their economic reality.  Chris and Andrew also clash over Muslim immigration and the role of Christianity in America, debate the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and the use of force by ICE, and examine whether Democrats are moving toward their own political transformation. Kolvet argues that the DSA could mount the same kind of “hostile takeover” of the Democratic establishment that MAGA carried out on the Republican Party, while Chris questions whether the movement’s most extreme positions actually represent where Democratic voters are headed. They also discuss conspiracy culture and social media, including the attacks Kolvet and others at Turning Point faced after Charlie Kirk’s death and why he believes online incentives are pushing Americans toward increasingly baseless conclusions. Join The Chris Cuomo Project on YouTube for ad-free episodes, early releases, exclusive access to Chris, and more: https://www.youtube.com/@chriscuomo/join Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject For a limited time, save 20% on your first subscription order of AG1 Next Gen or AG1 Pro at https://drinkag1.com/ccp. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You want to see what you're up against in the midterms? You want to understand where the mindset of this administration, of its supporters, of MAGA, where they're going to be coming from. Now, do you want to get that from people on the left or people who are critics of MAGA and why they feel the way they feel? Or do you want to hear it from the people who believe it, who are helping to raise the money for the people who are going to run? That's what I want.

I want to understand what is organic to the contest that is coming. That is Andrew Colvette. Now, you may know that name from T.P. USA, who's one of Charlie Kirk's best friends, did his podcast, help run the organization, and he continues that work now with Erica Kirk and all the others. He is a profound Christian thinker, okay? that's the lens through which he looks at his positions. He will call himself a conservative. What does that mean vis-a-vis Trump, vis-a-vis the big issues of the economy and immigration,

ICE, and our culture, and Muslims, and what they see as the conflation of Islam and Islamism, which is confusing, and that's easy to then weaponize. Andrew Colvette can provide you the roadmap that you seek because if you want to know what they're going to do with the economy, what they'll argue, what they'll argue about all the big issues, then you should get it from the source. But too often we want to stay in the bubble.

We don't want to be infected by what we don't agree with. I think it's a mistake strategically, if nothing else. Why? You should be very familiar with what you want to oppose. Now, the way to do it is also part of the trick. I could go and debate and probably win most points, but I would have to use different devices to do that. I'd have to play with data. I'd have to get him on the form of how he makes arguments.

I'd have to do some things that are clever, fair, but not really connecting to what matters most, which is who's got the better set of suggestions to the measurements to the majority? majority in this country, in the places that will matter in the midterms. So that requires something else. That requires you to have an old-fashioned conversation where you push back on things as appropriate when appropriate, but that it's not about winning or losing. It's not about exposing. It's not about owning. It's not about anything that'll make this go viral. It can't be because what makes things go viral is what got us where we are, which is ridiculously, redonculously divided. That's where we are. All for the advantage of one side over the other.

Nothing of value is winning. Nothing is getting better for the many. It's all about the interests of the few. And if you want that to change, you have to change and you have to be open to what you oppose, open to what you don't like, open to what bothers you, and maybe for good reason. But you've got to hear it so that you know how to combat it, how to counter it, how to understand it, and maybe, maybe how to consider it in terms of what you thought before you heard it. That's what I'm going to do with a very big influence, as well as an influencer, Andrew Colvette from TPSA. Andrew Colvette, here we are in the interest of going past left and right

in getting towards something like reasonable, but I got a little news hook with you. So I'm on vacation and all I hear about is $20 burrito, $20 burrito. And I'm like, well, that's an expensive burrito. You were at the genesis of $20 burrito. What did you do? What have I done?

I was asking myself that many times, actually, in recent months. No, we had a chapter leadership summit. By the way, it's great to be with you on this kind of forum, too. It's way more fun than like a four-minute news hit. But yeah, we were a chapter leadership summit. We had 2,600 college students gathered in D.C. We had to Washington Nationals game, all wearing freedom shirts with Charlie Kirk, you know. And it was a great event.

And Pete Higgseth spoke, a bunch of other people from the admin. But when I was there, I did a bunch of roundtable conversation. with students just to get their perspective on things. And when I was talking to one of the young men, he just said, hey, listen, I love Trump. I, you know, I'm a Christian. I go to church every, you know, I'm looking for a wife. Like, this kid is like out of central casting.

And he goes, but, you know, it's kind of one of those things where a burrito shouldn't cost 20 bucks. Now, I didn't press him on where are you buying these $20 burritos, but his perception, and whether it was 15 bucks at Chipole or 20 when you count tax and tip, or he gets the chip. chips and guac. Like for him, he was just, it was an expression of, hey, it is expensive out there and things do feel tight. And I'm a college kid. And when I'm on my, on the run to class or something and I'm trying to pick up something to eat on the way there, feels expensive.

So I said that. Next thing you know, it becomes like a proxy for Iran. It becomes like, you know, neocons versus common good conservative. I mean, it was, it was wild what it became a proxy for. It was a Rorschach test completely on the, on the conservative side. And, you know, all I was expressing was it's not a good idea to tell your voters that what they're feeling and experiencing isn't true. Because we saw Joe Biden do that, right? Everything's fine. The economy's great. And people knew that that wasn't true.

They knew that they just lived through about 30 percent inflation over four years and things were expensive. And so better to be honest with your voters, acknowledge the real experiences and go from there. So why don't you have the reaction that you had to Biden to Trump when he's doing exactly? the same thing. Well, I don't think that he's doing exactly the same thing. I mean, he's not saying the economy's going great. Well, listen, I mean, I think J.D. Vance has done a great job of that. I had Scott Besson on the show and he was like, hey, listen, we get it.

Things are expensive out there. But, you know. That's not what the president said. He said affordability is a fake word. He said the economy's doing great from the Wall Street perspective, which is exactly what guys like your students are upset about. Yeah, I mean, it's only about them. Obviously the president feels like he should get more credit for some of the good things that are happening in the economy, record small business startups, the lower quintile of the economy.

Their wages are growing faster than inflation. Inflation is down off the highs, to be fair, to the Biden administration, it was coming down, started trending down in 2023. But you're not going to move the Titanic on a dime, right? The American economy is a huge, huge multivarian equation, and there's a lot going on. And so it's going to take some time. But when you see wages, actually, it's the lowest 75% of wages are growing faster than inflation. You've got to grow your way out of an inflationary period like we've had. Candidly, I have critiques on the messaging. I won't deny. But I do think there are voices within the administration that are not doing exactly what Joe Biden did. But I understand President Trump's point. Like I said, record new small businesses, lots of investment and restaurants turning over their their kitchens or reinvesting in. their facilities, new factories being built. There are really good trends in the economy.

People just in Main Street are not going to feel those immediately. And like I said, you've got to grow your way out of that over time. Yes. Look, the frustration with the economy is why Harry S. Truman said, give me a one-handed economist. Because there's always another piece of data. On the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand. So he said, give me a one-handed economist because he got tired of all the, on the other hands.

I know that the small business administration says there's a record number of startups. There's also a record number of shutdowns and people aren't hiring and they're afraid. And the specific reason is because of the tariffs. And the tariffs were a policy choice. And you can argue the geopolitical effect, but economically they were a burden. And the president came in touting what? Gas and groceries. His other issue was immigration.

He won on that until I would argue ISIS. tactics. But on the issue, going into the election, he won on it. And gas and groceries were bothering people, and he said that will come down. He then got in and tried to say, well, that's tricky. It takes time, as you say, or whatever it is. It's unsatisfying the voters. Back to your original point. I don't think this administration can make the midterm case on the economy, which is why we're now hearing about Iran, Muslims, socialists, and communists, because they do not want to argue the economy because they're going to lose. Yeah. So there's a lot there that you just said. I would say tariffs certainly is a policy choice. You're trying to incentivize onshoreing of production. You're trying to de-incentivize people offshoring. I think in general that's a good thing. And again, it's a multivarian equation. You have to sort of of assess the relative strength of your economy to see how much it can bear. It might be one of those

things where we look back and just say, hey, the inflation was too much under Biden. It was the wrong time to pull that trigger. But in general, I approve of the perspective and of the approach. The inflation was lower the last year of Biden than it has been since. Yeah, but you got to think about a cumulative inflation, right? You got to think about how much people. So wages don't catch up immediately with inflation. What does inflation do? It inflates the value. of assets. The economic incumbents end up making out like bandits in inflationary periods because they own the stocks, they own the equities, they own the property. The working class, the salary workers get left behind. So that's why inflation curates this case-shaped economy, which is why you want

to see wage growth in those working class wage tiers rise faster than inflation. So that is happening, right? And it wasn't really happening under Biden. I mean, we can argue the economics on this, and I'm sure you've got countervailing points. Yes, I do. Yeah, I know you do. I know you well enough to know that. But you, you know, the average home probably lost about $3,000 in real wages under Biden because of inflation, right? Now, you can blame COVID. You can blame supply chains. You can blame macroeconomics. And probably there's some truth to that. But there was also too much spending, right? And that's ultimately, you know, Milton Friedman used to say only Washington can create inflation because only Washington has a printing press. Would I like to see our spending cut? Yeah. Would I like to see balance budgets? Yes, absolutely, because ultimately that's what's driving this. Then you tack on six, seven trillion dollars worth of additional spending during COVID, and that's where you get this inflationary period, okay? So ultimately, Washington is responsible for inflation. There's no doubt. Tariffs can be a really useful tool. I think the president has used them in many instances very well, but there's no doubt. It does create pricing pressure in some industries, on some fronts.

And like I said, maybe we just had lived through too much inflation for it to be the perfect time to pull that trigger, but I'm still in support of onshoreing reindustrialization. And so I give the president solid positive marks on that, actually. You always have the goal versus the tool. The problem is that you have to gear it to the election. Onshoreing, good goal. The tool then becomes what you look at. It hasn't happened, so this tool didn't work. What it created was a capital freeze and allowed China to make new trade partners. Might that happen mid or long term? Maybe.

But the election is about now. Small businesses are hurting now. Wages are barely above inflation growth. It doesn't allow people to get what they need the way they want, which is why consumer confidence is down, small business confidence is down, and those metrics will matter going into the midterms unless you can get them talking about something else.

Yeah, I get that. I mean, here's what I would say. I've always been talking about the Islamification of the West. You and I are probably going to disagree with that, but I think it's a problem. I don't think that... You think Muslims are a problem or you think extreme Islamism is a problem. Yeah, I think that, yeah, you would definitely want to kind of divide the critique upon macro-Islam and micro, because you will meet wonderful Muslims. There's no doubt. But when you take it on a macro and you're talking about millions of immigrants, you talk about... divergent birth rates, right? They're, they're, they're, it's not just the ones you let in. It's how many kids they're having because they're outpacing American births. It's not hard to do, apparently, at this point. So you're looking at a demographic shift that is potentially problematic as you go down the road here.

And I would just say, there's 50 majority Muslim countries in the world. They're not moving there. They're moving to the West. Why? And that there is a huge move in that the imams will tell you, they say it out loud that they want to conquer the West. A lot of these guys are really radical. and they've got big mosques full of a lot of people that are listening to what they say.

And I do think ultimately the value systems are incompatible on the macro. And that's why I'm worried about Europe. I'm worried about places like Dearborn. I'm worried about it in Texas. I think you are letting a Trojan horse in your country when you do this. And again, on the micro level, you're going to meet a lot of sweet Muslims. Judy and Nassar is a guy here in Arizona who's a great guy. that was really close with Charlie, Muslim guy, moderate Muslim.

But here's what I would just say is they pray to Mecca, right? It's even in the act of praying, they are praying to a distant place that is showing their allegiance is not to the nation state that they call home in many cases. It's it's to a foreign place because that is ultimately what they believe. They also believe that when they, and they'll tell you, they want to take power. And some of this admittedly, Chris is from the more radical wing. But they're more influential than many want to admit, okay? They want to conquer the West through immigration and through the wombs of their women.

That's what they say. Some of them are quoted. That's what the radicals say, not just everyday Muslims. I don't think. So here's my point. A good Muslim is a radical Muslim. Now, we could argue what's that? To whom is a good Muslim?

Because none of my Muslim friends believe that. well the rat i'm just this is what it says in their in their holy scriptures right they believe in but if we went by the literal translation of the bible we wouldn't be in a great place either Andrew i mean i just think you're confusing the majority with the minority you got a billion and a half people i spoke your right chris and you have a small percentage of them that are extreme islamists and that's a problem for places no question about it but the idea that you can't have a lot of Muslims and not have a lot of terrorists, I don't think is, I don't think is an American value I think that's naive. Here's the thing. You could, you could, you could, you could have, let's just say,

100,000 Norwegians immigrate into your country and you could have 100,000, you know, Muslims from, let's say Saudi Arabia, you could say Morocco doesn't really matter. Your percentage of chance of having bad actors in that bunch with Moroccans or Saudi Arabians, I mean, I've got no issue necessarily with any of these countries. I'm just saying if you bring Muslims over 100,000 versus 100,000, you're going to have a higher percentage of Muslims that end up driving a car through some Christmas festival or engaging in an act of terror than you are with the Norwegian. When you look at the last dozen terrorist events in this country, when you look at what's killing us right now in terms of, when you look at what's killing us through our politics right now, and look, I don't have to tell you this.

you lived it with, you know, with your dearest friend. That wasn't a Muslim. Mangione's not a Muslim. The people, I'm saying that, you know, the idea that, you know, but for the Islamist jihadis, you know, we don't have to worry about terror in our country. It just sounds like what people used to say about Italians, what they said about Catholics, you know, that when white Protestant America looks at any. thing that is different than they, they tend to see an enemy. I think you're conflating like multiple conversations, actually. So you said basically the economy's bad, so we're trying to distract to these other conversations. I'm saying that I've been on this

beat for a long time. I have been. Oh, no, I know you have, but I'm saying that's why you have an elevated platform right now is because Islamophobia with the 25th anniversary of 9-11, the Iran war, and looking for a new boogeyman, it is now a new article of convenience for the president. And, you know, he tried this in his first term. He got turned back. Supporters came and said, you're causing trouble for me by saying Islam hates us. And he's like, well, I'm not saying all Muslims. I'm just saying Islam, which is, of course, the same thing.

So he went away from it, but now we're back. Well, I mean, listen, I think the reason is it's become more prominent, right? You got Abdul al-Said in Michigan. You've got Mom Dani in New York. I mean, it's just more in your face. And by the way, they're just Muslims, though. Like, what about them? I'll give you this.

They have both hung out with guys they shouldn't have. They both hung out with guys they should not have been with. That's why I'm saying, Chris. Not that we get to police who you're with. But that doesn't mean that's who you are. And they have both rejected what it is about those guys that make them objections. He's friends and I will show you who he is. Honestly, if you see up.

But in politics, you wind up looking for affinities. And sometimes you pick the wrong ones and you move away from them. Okay. How about Osam Piker? He's not even up. He's an opportunist clickbait warrior that is selling hate. That celebrates murder. That celebrates who said, if you want Medicare for all, you should kill Rick Scott.

Capital's blood should spill in the streets. And it's really, really, really dangerous toxic propaganda because he's taking something that's a real need. You know what I mean? Health care for all and access and affordable health care. I mean, that's a real thing. And he's tying it to a blood oath that is really, really, really. really pernicious propaganda. And it makes me dislike it even more because he's playing with something that actually

matters as opposed to destroy the West, you know, which doesn't bother me the same way. Yeah, you and me are just going to, you and I were just going to disagree on immigration, I think, in general. I think it's a huge, I think it, like, listen, look at El Sayyad. He spent his summers in Egypt. Look at, um, look at Hassan Piker. He's born in America, but then raised in Turkey, Silver Spoon, uh, kid and then he comes back and he spews all this hate. Rashida Talib, I got issues with her.

I just read an article about her father that's very interesting. I don't have the facts. I won't go into any detail. Ilhan Omar. I mean, these are people, Ilhan Omar, I have a huge problem with and I'm not even going to go into the whole brother thing. I'm just saying this is a woman that America's generosity helped her, saved her in many ways. And she openly despises a lot of our value systems. And this, I call her Ilhan the Ingrate, right? So my point is, immigration fundamentally changes the fabric of your nation. It happened with the Italians. It happened with the Poles.

I get it, the Irish. But ultimately, those are, people need to stop thinking of immigration as like Tabula Rasa, right? It was like everybody's a blank slate when they come in. Ultimately, Italians were Christians. Poles are Christians. Irish are Christians. The difference in the alien nature to our current culture of a South or an eastern, Eastern European versus somebody from Somalia is light years different. And it's, people were worried

about the Italian immigrants and probably rightly so. They were worried about the Irish. It was, it caused tensions. They were worried about it. It's also, by the way, where we got this myth that America is a nation of immigrants. We're a nation of settlers before that. And then we, we ingested this huge immigration wave from the south and east of Europe. And then we came up with this myth that we're a nation of immigrants. And then we got rid of. It's not, it's not a myth that we're of immigrants. The original settlers were almost uniformly. The story we told ourselves after that. But I think it's also known as our history. I mean, if you take a close look, who came here originally, people who had to? Then what was your next wave?

People who had to, the Protestant Reformation, running away from the Church of England and other parts east. And they came here. Why? It was safer. Then you had your mass waves of immigrants. And every time the country got stronger, whether it was the Chinese or the European or the post-war. That's just super. And that's lacking so much nuance in the reading of that history. I mean, that is such a misread, in my opinion. What happened was, Chris, is, yes, there is a part of America's history. We are so, such a great country with so much space and it's large and it's dynamic.

and we have great rules, laws, all that kind of stuff, okay? Great customs and traditions. That we could absorb that. But guess what? It was really hard. People do not realize, if you go back and read the histories, it was really hard on the nation. And there was a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment, which is why we got the correction in the 20s, where they basically backdated it and said, we're only going to let immigrants in that

matched the demographics of the country back in, I forget the year it was like 1885 or something. They were like, we'll let in this percentage of people. Now, that changed in the 1960s. But what changed before that that allowed us to ingest all those people into assimilate all those people? First of all, we had a culture that forced assimilation that was proud of itself, that was like still very masculine in a good way. And yeah, there was problems.

I get it. I'm not endorsing everything about the culture, racism, misogyny, whatever. But what I'm saying is they had a self-confidence to say, hey, you come here, you play by our rules. Plus, there wasn't a welfare safety net like there is today. So a lot of people washed out. About a third of those immigrants went back home because they couldn't cut it here. All right?

So then what happened? We had the Great Depression. And then we had a couple World Wars, right, in the middle of that. When we were one in World War II and all those Italian boys went over to fight for America, and all those German boys went over to fight for America. And all those Poles and Irish went over to fight for America. That had a binding effect when we were triumphant in World War II that brought the nation together. These GIs come back.

They start having big families and the GI bills and the – subdivision subdivided neighborhoods and it created glue social cohesion. Barring the Great Depression, which was deeply traumatic for the nation and then fighting together to get out of that and then World War II, I don't know that we come together like we did, but we all look back with rose-colored glasses because it worked out the way it did. That was not a foregone conclusion. It caused a lot of stress on the social fabric of this country. But again, we're talking about Christian immigration to a Christian nation. Yeah, we got a lot of Catholics, which caused some consternation, but they were Christians.

It's much different when we're talking about. When you say consternation or stress or strain, you're talking about the same dynamic each time, which is the lack of acceptance by white Protestants. I mean, it wasn't the people who were coming here who were looking to start the trouble. They were coming here to get away from trouble. And I don't have a problem with white Protestants, by the way. Why are the Muslims now? The Muslims are coming now for opportunity. You have over 4 million in the country. It's the first time just recently that you have more Muslims in New York than you do Jews. This was one of the only places on the face of the planet where you had more Jews than Muslims. And they're here and they're making their communities. And guess what? Their education rate is high. Their earning rate is high. Their crime rate is low. So, well, you know, they're not Christian. We are not Christian. This is not a Christian country. It is a secular country. It was the only thing the founding fathers pounded together immediately. That's not true. That's not true. Yes, it is. When they sent, when they sent the Constitution out, one, in the drafting of the Constitution,

James Madison writes in his diaries, they were scrupulously observant to not put the divine into the document. When it came back from the States, the number one thing they asked for was a combination freedom amendment, which became the first, which was what? Two things that don't really go together, which was, hey, you guys, because we're doubtful about you, we think you're making a monarchy, we're not sure, but we think you are because you're all the aristocrats that are there. They were all leery of each other. They're a little leery. These guys were making the rules. We don't know. We don't know because you're all landowners and stuff, but, but let's just be sure. You guys aren't going to make a church like they just did in England, right? You're not going to

do that. You won't do that to us here. Okay. So that's where you have. The first operative effect of the First Amendment is government shall make no law. establishing or disallowing faith. Okay, good. Second, you got to let us talk and we want to talk. So they combine those two things, even though, you know, they're related but not directly connected. This is not a Christian country. It is part of our heritage, but it is not part of our formative understanding of what we have to be. You have to respect the law. That's our national religion, not God. So that's, again, I would just call that a misreading of the historical facts.

And I mean, listen, find me anything different in the Constitution. The 18-Ov colonies all had a profession of faith to serve in the legislative bodies, right? Like, I am a Christian. I think Maryland was the one that had the, but even then it was a profession of faith for Catholics, if you were. the 55 of the 56 original signers of the Declaration of Independence were practicing Christians. I know, and the biggest influence early on was an outspoken atheist, Thomas Jefferson. You know what I mean? So what?

He was a deist. Anyways, but the point is they were also, they were also imbued with biblical texts in scripture that it was reflected in their turns of phrase. There's definitely an influence. There's definitely an influence. saying there isn't. The Judeo-Christian undergirds our laws. There's no question. It was completely considered a foundational starting point. And when they were establishing a freedom of religion, they were worried about establishing a state religion like they had in England. The assumption was that they were all going to be Christians. Like you might be Episcopalian,

you might be Church of England, you might be Quaker, you might be. So that's what they were dealing with then. Every early Supreme Court decision, even before Marbury Madison. was if it came up on this issue, it was an immediate rejection of any inculcation of faith. There is not allowed in the public square. In fact, the Supreme Court has a very strong decision that you can take your oath of office. But it is a tradition. It is not operative. You do not have to put your hand on a Bible.

But here's what my concern is, Andrew. I get your point. Your point's going to be the Muslims are going to come here and they're going to change that. You know what we'll allow them to change it? If you try to make rules about religion now, if you try to make a religion rule now that these people are incompatible, we've got to be anti-Muslim because they're not like us, when they outnumber us, then they will have the high ground to change the rule. So why would you set a precedent that you do not want to play out? I will acknowledge that it is a very difficult question of how best to address the problem. because Europe is much further down this road, and it's scary in parts of London, and, I mean, it's

unrecognizable now. But I will say, you're also talking about mass influx of poor people from Muslim countries. And we know that the poor in places are much more susceptible to extreme thought. So you're acknowledging the problem is real. The point, the point I would say is that I think it's an immigration question at this point. And I think we need to be honest about our history that our founders were talking. about different denominations and faith traditions within Christianity, our founders were no friends of Islam, right? They did not see it as compatible with their values, compatible with their traditions, their rules and their norms, customs.

So I'm just saying that we need to come up with a solution because they are telling us openly what they plan to do. They plan to use our open civics, secular society, and they are going to infiltrate And they talk about this. We need to get more and more Muslims elected to office because eventually we're going to hold real power. And there's, you know, scary examples. If you look at Lebanon, what happens when they get to about 20% of the population? They will exert massive control. And they do not look at you like you look at them. And I would just say, we are. It doesn't bother you to be generalizing that much. Can you imagine if people did that to us as Christians? Suckers, if we put up with, if we do not be honest about the threat, we are suckered. But what, why is it a threat any more than Catholics were a threat? Because they're Christians. But at the end of the day, what does that mean?

If you come and you believe, you believe in a monotheistic system that has a bunch of rules, that if you follow them the right way, promise you says something better after this life. As long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else, what difference is it? make. It is going to infringe upon other people. That's what I'm trying. I'm like, please wake up. But then why isn't the rule that you can come here and practice whatever you want? It just has to stop at where the next person's nose begins. You can say whatever you want. You can believe whatever you want. You just can't make me do it. They don't believe that. A lot of them don't believe that. Some of them, I hope do, and many I hope do. But there's enough that don't

that it's very terrifying. And we are absolutely walking into cultural suicide if we don't acknowledge there's an issue and deal with it. That's my point. And I'm not trying to distract any conversation. I admit the economics. I mean, I'm the $20 burrito guy. I'm just, I am saying that just because, you know, there might be certain political strategies that certain different conversations happen, it's not me. I'm telling you that I've been concerned about this for a long time because I do not want to hear the Muslim call to prayer five times a day. I don't want to see the red-green axis take power and push us into a socialist direction. And by the way, I just think that's hilarious as well. All these far-left, you know, DSA types in league with Islam and Muslims, because they will,

it's the eat-me-last mentality. They will turn on them eventually when they don't need them anymore. Support for the Chris Pomo project comes from AG1. Look, this is an easy sell for me, all right? one and done. They're always improving their formula. They're always figuring out how to have it absorb better. I like to just take one scoop, warm glass of water. Do I take other things? Yeah. Is some of it redundant? Yeah. Some of it am I going to pee it out? Yeah. But if you don't want to take multiple things, AG1 is a great place to start. Why? Because it's all the right things that you need in your body to give yourself a chance to get to a better place. And you just take it once a day, taste great. They're different flavors. And it does what you need because, it's got science behind it. And there's no, there's just nothing, no other thing that works as well

as research when it comes to wellness. Okay? And they've done the research to create a better product and it's there for you. For a limited time, you can save 20% on your first subscription order of AG1 NextGen or AG1 Pro

at drinkag1.com slash CCP. Drinkag1.com slash CCP. I think it's one of the most affordable best things you can do for your health. What you see on the left as the out party disruption answer to what is now status quo, which is MAGA, which started as a disruptive thing, they are playing to the economic needs and desperation of the middle and lower class. And you're going to find a lot of immigrants in there. And there are a lot of Muslim and brown immigrants. So they're finding their way into the disruption.

As opposed to the power structure. Interesting thing. If you look at socialist revolutions, oftentimes they start with something called the lower elite. And you're kind of seeing that play out right now in the United States, right? So Robespierre and the French Revolution, right, was sort of a rural lawyer. So he's educated, you know,

but ultimately he ends up getting put to death by the guillotine, right, when they turned on him. And the people that he once led cheered on his demise, right? The Bolshevik revolution, similar, where you had lower elites, They partnered with some of the aristocracy as well. But this is, you know, it's interesting. There's been these clips floating around lately that I think are really fascinating of, you know, these DSA co-chairs or whatever saying that you have downwardly mobile educated whites that are basically leading a lot of these charges because they're disgruntled.

They feel entitled to more than they got. They're pissed off. Just like MAGA was. I don't disagree, actually. But what ultimately happens is you have the American Revolution. the French Revolution, right? Sort of the two sides of the coin. The American Revolution ended in creating the greatest country in the history of the world.

It ended up being, you know, our home and we're grateful for that. The French Revolution was a bloody terror. And the reason is, I believe, is that the American Revolution, the value systems were completely different, right? They sound sort of the same, but it was what the French was fraternity, liberate. Egalite, verite. Egalite, yeah. So, which is sort of the same spirit that you see.

in the animating spirit of the progressive left in the country right now, this constant, you know, talking about equity, inequality and all of stuff. Well, we believe in equality of opportunity, but not of outcome, right? And we believe in property rights, right? Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness was originally life, liberty, and property.

So we- Nobody who wants to get elected on the left. What's that? Is nobody who wants to get elected in a serious way on the left is arguing for meaning, change in property rights. Not El-Sayed, not even Mamdani. And look, my brother ran against him twice. Okay. So I'm not here as some early booster of Zoran Mamdani. But even if you look at his food

pantries, okay? One, not his idea. They've been done on rotation in society through different administrations and different periods. I'd hate to be a bodega owner down the street from one of... Let me tell you, it is a challenge. It is a challenge. It is socialistic. but a lot of things are socialistic that we like, like public education, like Trump accounts. You know, when you take my money, when you take my money and give it to you for your kid because he fits into the slot and I don't have one that does,

that's a socialistic principle. It's a redistributive thing. I'm okay with it, but that's what it is. The president deciding to take an equity stake with my money in 30 different tech companies is a socialistic principle. That's not laissez-faire market capitalism. Milton Friedman wouldn't like that. But he's doing it because he believes in the policy.

So the word isn't dispositive is what I'm saying. Yeah, no, no, no. And listen, we have various degrees of socialism in our culture. But I would say that, you know, most of the affordability debate centers around, it's not burritos. It's health care. It's. And breaking up the big shots. The best idea I've heard from President Trump.

And I don't know what happened. I have reporting on it, but I'm not sure. And it happened twice. The president says offhand, yeah, you know, I'm going to call in these health care guys. And when I call, they're going to come. They're going to come here. We're going to sit at a table. And I'm going to have cameras there.

And I'm going to say, listen, you're making too much money. It's too expensive. We're going to change this with you or without you. I'm seeing that you're here, so you want us to do it with you, right? Good. Now turn off the cameras, close the door. And let's figure this out. Amazing idea.

Never happened. Then the credit card rates. He says, cut the interests. Cut the interest rates. It's too much. I'm going to call them up right now. Got to cut the interest rates. You're gouging.

It's too much. Mike Johnson goes to see him. Three days later, we never hear about it again. Whoever takes on the verticals in health care and the ratio of influence over benefit and burden, doesn't have to be socialism. could be capitalism because look, right now, you and I have companies, okay, but they're flow-throughs. We pay like it's income. You get to write off certain things, but you're paying the income tax rate, okay?

C-corp's get a preference. They pay half what we pay, basically, right, if they pay anything at all. Why? Because they take care of a lot of families. But if you are Amazon and Walmart and you have a disproportionate percentage of your workers that you and I are still paying for as taxis. because they're on Medicaid and food stamps, why do you get a preferential tax rate? You tweak something like that.

That's not socialism. It's capitalism, just like it is now. We're giving you a preference. Listen, I'm open-minded to all that stuff. I think that's, that was really the fundamental choice right now facing the country is we have on one route. We have momdaniism. On the other end, we have what I would call MAGA, right, which is national populist economics. I think because ultimately what we saw from the NAFTA era, from the laissez-faire kind of capitalist system is we saw the hollowing out of the middle class. What did we get? We got a bunch of empty towns with drug addicts and, you know, and a bunch of cheap plastic junk from China, all right? And more billionaires than ever.

Yeah, well, sure. But, and again, a lot of that wealth inequality is because you are printing more money and you're creating economic incumbents at the highest level that just keep getting richer. Okay, that's just one of those things. The other issue is that any area where the government gets involved in a really socialistic way, we tend to get price issues, right? So, for example, the government gets involved in student loans, right? We federalize all the student loans, you know, so what happens? The institutions of higher education, they start becoming degree mills. The quality of the education drops.

The number of students obviously expands. And the price goes up because they had access to new. money. Check. Yeah, they have a blank check. Same in the old. I agree. I agree.

Republicans did that, by the way. Say that again? Republicans did that, by the way. Oh, and I would disagree with it. I mean, listen, I have ample criticisms for Republicans in bygone ears. I think there's been more bad than good in many ways, but it doesn't mean that I'm not a conservative and believe in conservative principles, right? So, you know, we could go around and around on this, but ultimately, these are ideas that have

failed time and time again. It usually is spurred from a place of resentment. It's not spurred from some place of good-hearted, you know, just want best for my common man. And I think that's what you're seeing in a lot of this. A lot of this was Tom Tan Kratos, Steve King, and then perfected in a way as a message by Donald Trump. He went after the rich. I know these guys who run the game. They can't buy me because I'm rich already.

I hate the same people you do. You got to drain the swamp. You got to get rid of the deep state. You got to stop this system where only the top gets what it wants. I will be your retribution. Populist economics. That's the same thing that Mom Donnie and this new wave are saying, that the top gets too much. They're squeezing everybody else.

We've got to change the balance of power. How you do it winds up becoming the whole conversation. The difference is the solutions that you bring to bear, right? Do you want to unleash growth? Do you want to unleash opportunity? or do you want to seize the means of production? And that's ultimately where these people are going. I mean, I don't believe that.

I don't, because I'm not in favor of it. I don't think it works. I don't think it works here. I believe that there's a big difference between being a socialist and a social Democrat, just like there's a big difference between being. What's the difference? So here's the difference. A socialist is what you just said.

We're going to take the means of production, okay? that's, you know, China, okay? China, because there is no communist country on the face of the earth. There's some that are trying for it, but there is no place where nobody owns everything. Everybody gets everything handed out and it doesn't exist anywhere. China was trying it a little bit, but they're moving away from it, if anything. Russia also. North Korea, maybe it's the closest, but it's a completely crazy caveman existence.

Socialism happens. social democracy is Germany. It is capitalism with a heavy hand of take care of the many, not just a few. Take care of the many, not just a few. And you see it related in top-end tax structure, work requirements, access to health care, et cetera, free university education or finishing school, which is trade school for them. So it is capitalism. We don't own it. We will subsidize certain industries, just like us. But it's private, but we have a heavy hand taxation regulation. That's what it is, which is very easily identified by us here because of a fundamental hypocrisy. We say laissez-faire when it's good for the top. But when it's not good for the top, then we go straight socialism. How? The New Deal. How? How? the bank's savior. How? The bank bailout. When it's bad for the top, we go full socialist in America. And the people see that. And they want it directed toward them. That's where Mom Dani and AOC, I've got to tell you something. I've gone after AOC plenty. Okay. No question. I see two things now that I think should be really relevant to you and everybody watching and listening. One, AOC talking about, harvesting her eggs is a good thing. It shouldn't be criticized. But she's a member of Congress. Look, it's a reality of the workplace. It's a reality of weird things that are happening in our environment

where women and their ability to reproduce is being compromised. They're giving their period very early. There's all these hormone things. There's things going on that we don't understand. I'm fine with her doing that. It creates connective tissue. Good. What's much more important and instructive She is moving away from where she was. She is saying, like when she tried to save Hong in Wisconsin, oh, well, you see, she's changing her position on things, because you have to campaign on what will win where you are. Woke won was crazy, she said,

but she put it in the mouth of some council member who I don't think exists. Why? Because she didn't want to own saying that Woke went to, far because then her people will get a little mad. But she's modulating and moderating. Why? Because she wants the many. And she's not that far from where the many are. People want their system to change, Andrew. They want things to go back if you want to look at it this way. To where we were, 50s, 60s into the 70s, not in terms of civil rights or gender equality. But in terms of the economic realities of how we balanced the corporate interests and investors with workers,

that balance was skewed by a number of legislative moves that put the needle towards corporations. And I think people want it put back and it can be done. I would say they're, you know, we're here to have a nuanced conversation. So I'm not going to say that I disagree with all of that. I think some of that is really right. But I would, I would warn you just like we did with the Islam conversation. It's a Trojan horse. And you are a sucker if you don't think that the move is to shift the Overton window further and further away from basically a capital market system.

Right. This is why when you hear DSA talk, what they're actually saying is they want to abolish the Senate. They want to abolish the presidency. They want to do a lot of crazy stuff. Pack the courts, all the stuff. But Mom Donnie, if you will remember, in his campaign, his, his, his, website had tax white wealthier neighborhoods more. Yeah. And they do want to seize the means of production. But he hasn't done that. It's also important that he hasn't done that. He can and cannot do as the mayor.

Now, if that idea becomes large. But I think a little bit of it is hot talk. Like when the president said, I'm going to put a wall around the whole country, you know, it was something that was said that delivered a message of rejection of a norm. Tell you who they are, Chris, you should believe them. But then why? But then why? But hold on, because we didn't do this in the last cycle. When the Heritage Foundation came out with Project 2025, and it was filled with all of this crazy shit that America would never go for, what did the Wright say? Yeah, that's the Heritage Foundation.

That's one group of people who have some extreme ideas and they have a wish list. Okay, that's not what we all are. And we'll see what happens when we get in power and what the majority wants. Why isn't it the same with the DSA analysis? You have some people who have some extreme ambitions, and their wants list, but that's not all Democrats. And that's not what they're going to do once they get in any more than Trump did it once he got in. I mean, I disagree.

Yeah, like, I actually believe that the DSA is the rising. I mean, I think what we're seeing is the inverse of the MAGA hostile takeover of the conservative, you know, movement. But it's the DSA doing it to the establishment Democrats. So I don't see these things as fringe. I see the polling says that a majority of Democrats are now in favor of socialism. I see that these ideas are set. No, it's that what you see is that two and three Democrats are not afraid of the word socialism. Why?

Because it's not 1950. It's not the red scare. It's what does it mean? If it means healthcare for all, okay, I'm okay with it, no matter what you call it. If it's in favor of getting rid of big farmers control over drug prices, I'm okay with it. Well, the president's done actually great work on drug prices. But here's what I would say. Maybe he's a socialist.

I mean, honestly, the president, you know, they call him a Nazi, but I mean, people need to remember. He is just sort of a New York old school Democrat on some levels. It is true. I'm probably more conservative than President Trump on many issues. You are definitely more conservative than President Trump on a number of issues. Culturally, in terms of what he says politically, you are very closely aligned. personally what he says on those issues, you are not as aligned. But we have to take what he says in public because he's in power.

Yeah. I mean, listen, I think these ideas, here's, I have many thoughts, Chris. Let me hear them. That's why we're here, Mr. Conno. The main thing here is that you seem to think that the DSA is sort of fringe. You seem to think that socialism, Medicare for All or whatever you want to call it, single-payer, is something that we need. I have huge, huge reservations about what happens when you do this.

First of all, and I'll go back to Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman says you can have a welfare state or you can have immigration. You can't have both. So you cannot ultimately afford the math does not math when you have open borders, which the Democrats are probably going to. No open borders. No open borders. And in fact, I bet you.

You feel confident about that. If the Democrats, say it's 2028 and AOC wins the presidency, do you think or Asoff or whoever, Mark Kelly, do you think that the border is going to remain shut? Or do you think there's going to be a massive wave of immigrants that go, oh, Democrat in power, we're flooding the border again? I do not believe that any serious Democrat running for major office is going to say we should have no borders. Or that we should have floods of unvetted people. have the backbone when that when those sob stories the crying migrant mothers with you know from honduras are flood in the border and you got 150 other countries present at the border that they're going to have the

backbone to say sorry you can't come in or do you think they're going to come in they're going to come in like you're crazy if you don't think they're going to come in but that's that's just scare tactic you don't know that you're just speculating you're speculating because you guys created numbers of what happened under the bide administration the democrats i get what why you're saying what you're saying, because you guys have scared yourselves about open borders and you have created a boogeyman about what Biden did. Immigration is a really important story. And I believe the Trump administration has benefited greatly from mistakes made by the Biden administration and by Democrats. Now I think that the needle is starting to swing because of the

tactics of ice. But the rules of who gets to come in under what conditions, what you do about the people who are here illegally, and how you do that is all really, really important. But it's about solutions, not just what's wrong and who's to blame for it. And nobody wants to create the laws to change the reality because the problem works better for both sides. But I don't believe Democrats are going to go open borders. I think they learned a very harsh lesson in the Harris Trump campaign. Man, I hope you're right. But if I'm a mic-

Biting my time, you know, in some far-flown country, whether it's contiguous with the United States or not, I am waiting for that moment where a Democrat gets sworn into office and I'm swarming that border. And by the way, I've seen the clips. If you go right now and you go interview people that are in South America, if you interview places that they want to come to America, they are saying, we will wait for Trump.

Trump to be out. And once he's out, we're coming. Look, and that, that's something they would have to deal with. That's something that anybody who's in power next will have to deal with. If you don't have the political will to stand up to it and to actually do things that are going to be interpreted as harsh to some, listen, we can't have nice things in this country because sob stories, basically. That's what it is. Oh, some migrant was crying. I saw this the other day. It was an interesting juxtaposition. Mom, Donnie blames the federal government in their immigration policies. The horrors of the federal immigration because he met some Haitian that was crying that was basically on the deportation list. And he's crying. It was horrific, horrific, right? I had to talk to him. He's crying. Meanwhile,

in California, some Venezuelan that had an ICE detainer that was being shielded by the state of California was casing joint. He'd been arrested for burglary, I think domestic assault or some sort of ice put a detainer on. California refused to honor it. The guy's casing out a new house. The 64-year-old man goes to confront him and say, hey, this. in my house and he ends up stabbing him to death because state of California wouldn't honor an ICE detention request. Listen. This is what I'm saying. Like the devil-

I get your concern and there's no debate on the issue. That's problem. There's no debate on the issue. You have almost eight out of ten Americans want people who are in the country illegally, who are committing crimes, violent crimes, removed. You got eight out of ten. There's no debate. If you want to be elected in any major office, you can't be about anything other than that.

How you do it matters. Now, you're going after the guy with the knife. People aren't going to be as sensitive to how you do it. But the traffic stops, grabbing citizens, grabbing people who maybe are here illegally, maybe not, or picking them up at schools or picking them up at immigration courts. You're starting to overplay the leverage. You're already proving my point. of the issue. You're already proven my point because this is a harsh business. You have to be, listen, I mean, I'll never forget. I had this conversation with somebody I probably shouldn't say their name, but high up in the DHS world. And instantly, as soon as Trump gets elected, they're getting calls from senators like, hey, my maid, you know, they're getting calls from like high up. Like everybody's saying, oh, but my soaps, this is a tough job. And if you are actually going to restore the rule of law and a sense of order in the midst of case,

chaos, it's going, it's going to come with sob stories. And the Democrats literally will not put up, they will not put up any defense against that. They will just, oh, okay, look, you got seven and ten Americans. Seven and ten Americans say not everyone here, uh, illegally is the same. Nor should they be treated the same. And I think that there's plenty of room for enforcing the law without doing it in a way that is abusive of the law. I hear, all I hear, Chris, is the, recipe for another disaster. Because the second you get... The disaster is shooting American citizens and beating up American citizens and beating up women. On that stuff. So I don't know if we want to go there. But that was an intentional confrontation that was spurred on by activist groups that were trying to train like normie citizens to go and obstruct ice operations. They should not have been in those situations.

I'm sad that Renee Good and Alex Pretti lost their lives. But ultimately they were interfering in ways that they shouldn't. Alex Pretty's not a death sentence. Interfering with the cops. I agree. I agree. Interfering with the cops. Breaking the law is not a death sentence.

But it can be. That's why you don't do it. I reject that idea. They are supposed to be better. They are supposed to be better. We give law enforcement officers deadly weapons because they're supposed to use force I acknowledge it was a PR loss, okay? For my cop.

It was illegal and ethical and moral loss. Well, yeah, of course. But here's what I'm saying. My dad, I get pulled over. He said, if you ever get pulled over, you say, yes, sir, no, sir, yes, officer, no officer. You put your hands at 10 and 2. The keys where they can see me, turn your car, roll your window down, and you be a great behaving citizen. The wrong decision, because every time that cop comes up to your car, he's wondering or she's wondering, am I going to lose my life?

Is this guy going to pull out a gun and shoot? That is true. That is true. A lot of cops feel that way. Such disregard for the rule of law that they think they can ram their car or move their car or obstruct or do anything that freaks that law enforcement officer out. I'm sorry, but that's on you. And you can say they didn't follow protocol. Fine.

You didn't follow protocol. You shouldn't have been getting in their way. They had business to attend to. And you were obstructing them. And you were doing that intentionally. And you were being belligerent. And you were being mean. And those all may be.

criminal, but they do not warrant a death sentence from someone who's supposed to be trained to de-escalate and deal with people at their worst. But Chris, they have the hardest job on the plan. I know they do. Andrew, I work with them all the time. Bad things have. I work with them all the time. Okay? I work with them all the time. They are way more. They are my friends and they are my colleagues. Okay. There's no one who's going to get hit easy. with the, well, you have a bias towards first responders than the only major member of the media who is a first responder. Okay. So I get it. I want to protect cops and firefighters. Probably say they didn't handle that right. What I'm saying is when you obstruct, when you put yourself

in your body in the line, bad things happen because it's a tense situation. So don't be I understand. I understand. But Andrew, the same way that when somebody comes up to you, and God forbid I hope this doesn't happen, right? But if somebody come up to you and they catch you, You know, you guys don't know Andrew, but I do. He's a sensitive guy. He's a good guy. He leads with a lot of love from his heart. Whether you see that in his politics is up to you.

But you're with your kids. I'm quarter of your wife. And you're having a bad time, okay? And somebody comes up to you in front of your kids, in front of your wife, they're saying ugly and obnoxious things, triggering you. You know, as Andrew Colvette, you cannot be what Andrew Jones might be in that situation. Because they're going to hold you to a different stand. And they're going to say, oh, you should.

But don't be. That's the same thing for police. Police are held to a different standard. They're not held to the Renee Good standard. They're held to the standard of what you're supposed to do when you are confronted with that. That is an indictment of the culture that has lost sense of respect for people and authority, have lost a sense of respect for law enforcement, how tough their job is. I'm just saying, listen, I'm not defending necessarily the actions of those particular officers.

What I'm saying is you should not be obstructing law enforcement. I agree. I agree. But when you don't like what you see, people protest. And if they do it the wrong way, then they're a criminal and they get arrested. But it's not a death sentence. And with what you see with ICE, when you have an ICE officer, a death sentence. But sometimes it's going to be if you pull.

But it can't be. It can't be. The officer has to be better than what he confronts. And when someone is yelling at an ICE officer and he turns, They burn their weapon. Andrew, we just saw they're kneeling on this guy in the ground. The people around feel it's too much. They start yelling at the ice guy.

Are you talking about Alex Freddie? No. This just happened somewhere. The ice officer, they're just in the middle of an intersection. Everybody's looking. They got some guy on the ground who was resisting. They are once again not well-trained. So they don't know how to really deal with this guy.

The guy drops his gun. He picks up his gun. He gets up and he's holding it on the, this, bystanders and someone starts yelling at him, he says, you want to be next? That's not policing. Okay. Okay. Chris, but you can cherry pick the bad actors and that they're going to be people that don't do the job the right way.

No, here's the problem. You are contributing to a sense that the police are the bad guys. Do you want to know how amazing a job that the police do nationally? The police are not the bad guys. The police are not the bad guys. What I'm saying is, I believe, you think that. I believe... Bad policing is the bad guy.

Bad ice tactics is the bad guy. You believe that, Chris? But here's the problem. When you contribute to this narrative and like you're, you're justifying this obstructionism and this confrontational culture... No, I'm not justifying it. What they're doing is wrong. Because that's what you're doing. What I'm saying is...

What they're doing is wrong. What they're... Look, touching or obstructing is illegal. The narrative is the opposite of what you're presenting, though, Chris. Like, the cops in this country do it a phenomenal job. job. If you look at the millions of interactions that they have, the relatively small number of poor interactions and bad policing that happened. One is too many. You're not living in reality. You're not. You're not factoring in the human factor. You're not factoring in like anxiety,

depression. You're not fact that they're getting. No, no, I account for all of it. I'm account for all of it. I'm saying that you're asking for perfection in a world that, no, I'm not asking for anything near perfection. I'm asking it's going to happen. Well, it is. I mean, just like when someone is killed by someone who shouldn't be in the country, one is too many. When someone is killed by an officer

who should know how to do the job and didn't do it right, one is too many. What I'm saying is I want transparency and I want accountability. That's what I want. That's great. That's what I want. And if you get up in a cop's face and you touch them, you're asking to get touched. No question. No question.

And by the way, I know that if I get pulled over that that officer's wondering, is this the last time I'm going to see my thing? I know you're right. I know you're right. So you put your hands up there. You say, yes, sir, no, sir. I get it. Ran your car and try and block it. I agree. I agree. But people are going to disobey and what happens when they do. You're very measured here and I can appreciate that. But what I'm telling you you're actually doing is you're giving justification for the anti-police sentiment that I think is so destructive to this country. No, I think ICE and what they keep doing consistently, is giving a lack of confidence to people about the integrity of the rest.

And I believe from a PR standpoint, that message has won the day, and I think it's a damn shame. I really do, because I think that they are doing God's work. I genuinely do. And it's a hard job. And it's not always going to be pretty. It's not always going to be perfect. But guess what? It's a job that needs to be done.

And we, as a people, need to have a little backbone to not be, like, fooled by these ops all the time, where it's like, sob story, sob story. Because guess what's going to happen? You think the Democrats have learned a lesson. I don't think they've learned crap. I think the next time that they have any kind of power over immigration enforcement, they are going to let the floodgates in because they have no answer for the compassion narrative, for the humane immigration narrative.

Which is garbage, by the way. What about humanity? I think that you can have compassion. And I think, I think you can have compassion that is embraced by justice. And everybody knows that immigration has to have rules and that they have to be enforced. We're in charge, Chris. I would probably trust you with it.

I do not trust the Democrat Party with it. Okay. Let's do Lindsay Clancy. What do you think is instructive? You know what my position is on it and what my frustration is about what's being made relevant. Yeah. I mean, listen, I know you want her to be held accountable, but you just think it should be sentencing. You know, you have more compassion on her than I do.

I would say that. Put it this way. For me, this whole thing feels very personal, right? So Charlie gets assassinated. And next thing you know, Candice Owens. and the whole cadre of influencers are trying to like point the finger at us and all this stuff.

Yes. Disgusting. Yeah. Disgusting. And by the way, the Venn diagram of people that were like on that train and that are on this like Patrick Clancy is guilty. It's like blowing me away.

And I haven't studied. And it's good for people to see that, Andrew, so that they're reminded of how wrong what Candace got people to do to you and yours. Well, totally. And here's what I would say. It's like with zero evidence, zero facts. Now that, you know, the same people, like, there was this one gal I posted about it. She was, like, doing financial deep dives on me.

Like, I'm like a very simple guy. Like, I don't have complicated finances, okay? But, like, you know, she's giving me this, like, crazy score or whatever. Somebody sent me this clip. Anyways, next thing I know, she's posting about how Patrick Casey is a psychopath and she's going to call him out and all this kind of stuff with this, like, haunting music around. I don't even know where these people come from. They just, like, pop up.

But what's what I believe is that COVID. was kind of the last straw, like breaking a bunch of people's brain. You know, like we've been lied to about Hunter Biden's laptop, where the virus came from. We've, you know, we've been lied to about JFK, maybe, I don't know. So you put all this stuff in. Now you've got people that think the earth is flat, that we never landed on the moon, and that literally anything that the law enforcement does is fed slop, and you can't trust any of it. Every text message confession is planted.

In the Lindsay Clancy case, she literally admits she did it. The prosecution admits she did it. The defense admits she did did it. And yet Instagram says Patrick Catee, uh, Clancy did it. So it's just like, it's mind blowing to me. I'm literally so concerned about the state of our mental health in this country and the fact that people, we went from don't trust the experts to only trust like idiots on Instagram. Like that's where we're at.

And, and I think that's the invert, the moral inversion here of a woman that strangled three of her children. Like you could, okay, postpartum depression. can be real and it is. You can overmedicate totally. I think we overmedicate in general. I think most people go to therapy when, you know, a beer at the pub would do just fine, right? You know, go meet with your priests. So, so I think our whole culture about this stuff has gone completely nuts-o. And plus we've become, we got TikTok brain, therapy brain, we've got true crime brain. And it's just, it's like up is down, down is up. And we need to get back to a sense of

normalcy somehow where real facts still rule the day. Social media is a reflection of us at our worst. And the algorithms are designed for provocation. The reason people are talking about Patrick Clancy, like your friend Candace Owens, is because it works. And if it didn't get rewarded by the algorithms, they wouldn't do it. They would weigh in on some other aspect or some other trial or some other thing. And that's what we see with social media. That is the blessing. in the curse. And yes, all of these cultural crises are attributing to a culture of rot. And look, let's be honest, the president has made points on this where he says, don't trust anything. Don't trust the DOJ. Don't trust the FBI. Don't trust anything. Then,

but you can trust me. I'm going to come in. I'm going to release the Kennedy stuff. I'm going to release the Epstein files and I'm going to tell you about the UFOs. He doesn't do any of it. Why? Because it's a little complicated when you're in power. That's why. And that is what feeds people's misgivings to begin with. And it's all true, but the question is, well, how much is it true? And Lindsay Clancy is an outgrowth of that. And I'm happy for you to point out to people that there is a weird, weird coexistence between people who wanted to believe that you had something to do with your best friend's murder and people who believe a man who did nothing but suffer like you did is to blame for his own suffering. And I hope they see it. I just hope they do something about it, which is to just

turn it off to block that person. Yeah. That we're not seeing. Well, I mean, I have, I mean, listen, if we had more time, I would say some more controversial things. But I totally agree. People need to touch grass again. And they need to stop. saying that the facts aren't facts. I mean, listen, I get this guy, he married, he remarried really soon and that gives people like, well, it was over a year later. But, you know, what are you supposed to do? I talk to Rusty Yates about it and I talk to two clinical psychologists about it. And there is such a desperation for realizing that not everything is destroyed and your life is pointless, that people are looking for connection to cope. Rusty Yates told me that he got married

a few years afterwards because it was as soon as he could get his head straight because he was much more involved with Andrea's treatment than Patrick has been with Lindsay Clancy's treatment. He also didn't have to contend with social media telling him he was a piece of shit the whole time, Rusty, and he mentions that. Some people thought he was somehow to blame. He must have abused her or something like that, but nothing like what Patrick Clancy's dealing with. Because there was no money to be made off that speculation then, and there is now. But look, even if you don't like that the guy got married, that doesn't make him complicit in the murder of his kids. And that those two things go together is what we're real fight really, really up against in our

culture. And this is the fallacy of the gaps, right? So what the internet does is where there's gaps in knowledge or evidence, they fill it in with whatever makes the most clicks. And I've seen that prime and time again. And it's like, you know, apparently there's some like confusion about what shoes he was wearing when he was at the CBS or the Walt E, wherever he was. So then they fill it, and I'm telling you, I'm seeing like one to one like recreation of what I had lived through. Like, oh, somebody said one thing and then said another. It's like people don't understand the chaos after a moment happens. Like they don't understand that like everybody's running in different directions. Maybe they perceive something different. Like stuff is really explainable and it's really easy to actually

logically work through, you know, maybe why there's a contradiction in claims or something like that. It doesn't mean that there's some nefarious motive. It might just mean he didn't remember or he misremembered or he misstated. It doesn't, this is what's crazy, but it's the fallacy of the gaps. People always fill in and they make connections. And it is the meme, right? That always sunny in Philadelphia meme where you have them with all the strings connected on the map. That is what happens with the internet. And so, I mean, listen, I'm open to all kinds of solutions, but I'm completely, completely convinced that the social media companies are complicit with some of this brain rot because they're feeding, as you said, the algorithms in the first incentive way. It's all by design. And they were given a break in 1997 or whenever it was with the Internet Act so that they didn't get sued out of existence by what was put on their platforms. And they were called non-publishers. But now we know they curate content more than any place I've ever worked for. They decide what you're going to see more than anybody else does.

Yeah, they pump, they pump, you know, controversy, they pump brain rot. And I'm convinced that, you know, for example, we saw on YouTube where, you know, it's like the highest CPM rate would be like financial products, right? We were seeing that with anything that mentioned Eric. We had Erica Kirk. We had, you know, people that would be in real estate. They did real estate YouTube videos. All of a sudden, they're doing videos on Erica Kirk because the CPM was higher.

So I don't know who's doing that. who's pulling those levers, but that's a big part of the problem here. Yep. So anyways, I got thoughts on it, but bottom line is, you know. We'll do it again. We'll do it again, Mr. Colvin. We will do it again. I appreciate you coming to have the conversation. You are a big voice on the right, and you are nowhere near where you're going to be.

And I wish you well. I hope you stay open, and we'll keep talking. God bless you, Chris. You know, what they say about you, I, it's not true, Chris. don't worry. Depends on the day. Yeah. I would say this.

Chris, you are, you are, you're truly a decent man. I really believe that. And you were willing to have conversation with me at times when I was at my absolute lowest and, you know, dealing with all the Charlie stuff. And it was always private. It was always in good faith. And I really appreciate that. So even while when your politics are completely backwards at times, I remember that fondly

and I'm grateful for it still. So thanks for having me on. Well, listen, the invitation is open, and if I can help, I try to help. All right. Andrew, you be well, and I'll talk to you soon. See you, Chris. Now, I bet many of you will go into the comments and say,

good, Cuomo owned them on this and this, but you kind of let them go on that and that, or the opposite, right? I would fight that inclination. One, I don't need the attaboy. Two, the point of conversation is to flesh out where people are and what matters and on what basis. Why, right? So that's what we're trying to do here.

If you want to know what the midterms are going to be about, you're going to have competing cases that are going to be made. You're going to have competing narratives. You're going to have competing realities. Andrew Colvette is what's coming from the right. This is what you're going to hear from Trump. This is what you're going to hear from Mike Johnson. This is what you're going to hear from Thune. This is what you're going to hear from players in states all across the country.

What you're hearing right here, right now. How do you counter it? How do you account for it? What does it mean to you? Those choices are your own. I'm here to give you food for thought. You are here to be a critical thinker. So thank you for subscribing and following.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to create an opportunity. And thank you for doing that in the morning. on SXM, 7 to 9. Thank you for doing it on News Nation, 8 and midnight, every night, weekday, 9. And thank you for branding back and showing that you're different. You're a critical thinker.

You're a free agent. You're not some mouth-breathing lemming that's just going to adopt aside. Nothing gets better if we stay left-right. We've got to go to right, wrong, and reasonable. Let's get after it.