The Michael Knowles Show - 2 Liberals vs. 1 Conservative: BAR FIGHT | Michael Knowles, Adam Mockler, Loren Piretra

Episode Date: January 17, 2026

Michael Knowles goes head-to-head with Adam Mockler and Loren Piretra in this episode of Bar Fight, where the fired-up live audience chooses the hottest topics to cover. From the protestor shot by an ICE officer to controlling women's bodies  no subject is off-limits with live questions from the rowdy Nashville crowd. - - - Today's Sponsor: ZBiotics - Go to  https://zbiotics.com/BARFIGHT and use BARFIGHT at checkout for 15% off any first time orders of ZBiotics probiotics. - - - Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe 🍿 The Pendragon Cycle: Episodes 1 & 2 start streaming Jan. 22nd exclusively on DailyWire+ 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.watch/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Not loving your AT&T or T Mobile Bill. Yeah, we've been hearing that a lot. Good news. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile Bill to Verizon and we'll give you a better deal. So get away from that unfortunate phone bill and get to Verizon. Run, ride, canoe. Whatever it takes, we'll be here. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile Bill to a Verizon store today

and we'll give you a better deal on the best network. A better deal. No surprises. That's Verizon. Best Network based on Route Metrics, Best Overall Mobile Network Performing to US second half 2025. All rights reserved. It must provide a recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person

for giving me the deal. additional terms, conditions, and restrictions apply. Did she hit him with her car? No. Yes, but I don't get people driving out of the Walmart parking lot. I don't support violence, but some of you guys have never had your ass kicked, and it really shows. Listen, I've almost gotten hit by a deranged retail. You guys are like, yeh-haw for, like, not feeding babies.

Hey, welcome everybody to Bar Fight. I'm delighted to be joined by our two esteemed guests, including our first ever returning fighter. He's dusted himself off Adam Muggler. You guys are quite literally taking an 80-20 position on this line. Because they've been lied to about what happened. If you want a job where you can go terrorize ISIS for you. Our second guest marketing and influencer's sensation. Least necessary she-her pronouns in her bio.

It's Lauren Paretra. Here's how it works. We'll be debating two of the three most controversial topics of our day. The bell rings. We duke it out for that round. And then our friends in the crowd can come up to the microphones and pick a fight with any of us. But do not wait because there is a time limit for each round, and anyone who comes up to the mic can win special prizes

and a seat at our VIP table sponsored by Redneck Riviera Whiskey. Lady and gentlemen, are you ready? I'm ready. It's time for round one. Yeah. Okay, now I have all the topics here that everyone picked, and I'm going to try to make it so you don't know who picked what. I might rephrase it a little bit.

First one, the ICE agent in Minneapolis did nothing wrong. That one's going to win, I bet. Okay. Hold on. We got some more you can pick from. Trump is not corrupt at all. Sounds like yours. Oh, you're going to laugh at that.

The next one. We have a major Somali problem, and we need white men to save us. Whoa. All right, then we'll pick that one. Pro-life politics is about saving babies, not controlling women's bodies. Whoa, okay. Trump is putting Americans first. They don't sound too sure about that one.

The Venezuelist strike was as American as Taco Bell. All right, so we got some close ones. I think the pro-life one. Yeah, okay, all right. Now, whose was that, Lauren? It was mine. Okay, how did you phrase it? Okay, so hear me out.

Pro-life politics are really just pro-control. women's bodies. Let's be real. You guys don't really care about babies that much. If you did, if you did, we would want to fund child care. We would want to give them food. We took that away. You guys remember that? We funded a lot of Somali child care. Donald Trump cut snap benefits, Medicaid, he's cut. ACA subsidies that just expired. I don't know how that's helping children. He's actually taking food out of children's mouths. I'm going to ask the audience a question. Name one pro-life politician that is riding for children. Childcare.

It is what? Riding for child care. Ooh, I hear a lot of crickets. Or how about this? One pro-life politician who fought against the cutting of SNAP benefits for not only children but families across the country. Yeah. We definitely, I think a lot of us opposed SNAP benefits for, well, for the aforementioned

Somalis and people who are, who are on fraud. Like, for instance, one in 10 people in the state of Tennessee was apparently abailing themselves of SNAP. We learned that during the shutdown. We're talking about babies. Well, we're just saying, how many babies were, how many babies? and snap we're talking about. How many babies were fraudulenting their snap benefits? Well, the babies don't apply. It's usually their parents and some of them can move forward. So then how do the babies

eat if they can't apply? How are they doing their fraudulent thing? One in ten babies are doing this? I guess my point is that Snap is not really primarily about babies. And I think we're getting off the topic that you chose. Which was pro-life doesn't really care about babies. They care about controlling women's bodies. And you're telling me that babies shouldn't get snap benefits because one in ten people have maybe fraudulented their things. Yeah, I mean, just as a rule, like babies cannot apply for SNAP benefits. They are not eligible for SNAP benefits. And they shouldn't because we don't care about babies. We all agree with that. We don't care about babies in here. I mean, I just want to narrow in on your point because I want you to make the argument for it.

The point, as I see it here, is pro-life politics functions as control over women's bodies, not about babies. Correct. And I don't, I don't think I, the first part I don't totally disagree with in the sense that. So I went. In the sense, well, I mean, you make something of a point in the sense that a vaccine policy, or seatbelt laws also function as control over people's bodies. I disagree. I think vaccine laws function as a public safety requirement. Yeah, public health. This is my point.

Well, for the greater good of public health, but I think when it comes to abortion, it is just restricting women. And who's making the laws? It's disproportionately going to be men making the laws that women can't get access to health care. Let me just make my analogy and you tell me why I'm wrong. The vaccine policy certainly functions to control people's policies, bodies, especially if there's a mandate. That's not the primary function. Wait, wait for it.

We'll get to it. I'm going to give you a couple minutes. Seatbelt laws function to control people's bodies. No. They do. You have to lock it in or you can get a ticket. Okay. Okay. I really hear about seatbelt laws. Now, I agree with you, Adam. That's not what they're for. That's not their chief objective. And it is the case that abortion laws, like not letting people have abortions, does control women's bodies to some degree. I want. But what it's for is saving babies? It's not about the control.

Okay, but what's the difference between a baby and a fetus? Have you ever spit in your hand? No. That's what a fetus looks like at like six weeks. old. Yeah. That's not what it Betus looks like. Google.

Okay, you guys need to go back to science class, okay? Maybe we should fund that in Tennessee. I have three kids. I've gotten ultrasounds at eight weeks

old. You don't do them so much at six. They don't look like you spit in the hand. You can make out all their little parts. You can even figure out

if they're boys or girls at eight weeks. No, you can't. And you can't do that with you spit. Can I ask you, when do you think life begins? Well, by definition

at conception. You think so? So how do you define life? A human life or just life general? No, human. What qualities do you use to define life? Life is described by various attributes. So growth, metabolism, organic matter, movement. And so we see these qualities and the potential

for these qualities at the beginning. So for instance, when they're a fetus, they can. Yeah. So, okay, I'm going to cut you guys off the second. Why are we riding so hard for like a fictional fetus versus? I don't care about fictional fetus. I let you finish. I'm going to finish now. A fictional feet. A fictional feet is. A fictional fetish. versus real-life human babies and SNAP benefits and child care and health care and taking care of the babies we actually have. Yeah, so I guess my point, my very narrow point on abortion is I grant, I think you're partially right. Abortion laws do involve controlling women's bodies because we say you can't kill the kid. Fetus.

Well, what does fetus mean? Offspring. It means offspring. It means offspring. It's a lot. Well. By science. What you love.

So the word fetus just means offspring. So there's no distinction, right. There's no distinction between that and a baby, and as much as it's a human... You had a point a second ago. Yes. So the very narrow point on abortion that I'm making, and I'm open to all sorts of talk

on welfare programs and all the... That's fine. I'm not some, like, libertarian extremist. However, my only point is, it would seem to me that we should not kill innocent babies in the womb or out of the womb. That's my whole point.

Okay, yes, yes. I'm not for killing babies outside of the wound. I'm for feeding them and providing the kids with access to health care. So then you agree, we shouldn't kill them, we should not have abortion, and we should have welfare later on. Okay, that's fine. Here's what I'll agree on. You don't want an abortion, which you don't seem to be able to have the ability to have a baby yourself. You don't have to get one.

Your partner, your wife doesn't want an abortion, she doesn't have to get one. So, therefore, choice. Can we agree on that? Yeah, okay. So I think, for instance, look, I'm not, I'm not going to engage in an honor, killing of my wife, if she apostatizes from Islam, for instance. Now, I'm not going to do that. And look, if a Muslim immigrant to America, as many have done, actually, wants to kill his wife in an honor killing because she has apostatized from Islam, that's his business, right? And it's not

your business and stop sticking your nose in it, right? Or no? Okay. I think that a lot of liberals here, I don't know how we got from abortion care to your, because you're saying that one. with Muslims, but we got there pretty quickly. So I'm going to bring it back to children and babies. And what I'm saying... I can explain to you the analogy, if you like. It's not relevant to this conversation. I don't even...

I think it is. I think it is. No, it's not. Because you guys are like, yihah for like not feeding babies, but you want to control women's bodies. Why is that? Why is that?

Anyone want to come to the little life? I have personally fed three babies in my life, all right? That's pretty... That's not bad. Yeah. And I only have five kids. No, I'm kidding. I only have three kids.

So listen, you don't want an abortion. Don't get one. But okay, you don't want to murder your wife. Don't murder your wife. But surely you would outlaw murder as a matter of the law. Which I don't have in my fetus. Your wife, I don't think, is in your fetus. Correct. So, therefore, I'm right again.

No, I think the argument a lot of liberals would make is that killing a person is not the same as aborting a baby because the baby is not conscious life yet. So the, okay, well, that's a good point. The main argument that usually happens here is trying to define when life begins and a lot of conservatives. say at conception, but there are studies showing that consciousness starts at about 20 to 24 weeks. So, hold on. Adam makes a great point. I just want to push it one more so you can finish your argument. If your argument then would seem to be that being killed or not being killed, having those legal protections, is predicated on consciousness. So my question is, do you have the right to go into a hospital ward and kill somebody who's in a coma? It's based on, no, I don't think so.

There you go. All right. We agree. Now, we have questions from the audience. I was going, Michael, a big fan. I've seen that guy before. Yeah, big fan. Big fan, Michael. Don't be full. He looks like a Republican, but don't be fool. That fan. I'm just code switching if you want to donate me money.

I promise I'll put it towards all your charitable policies. Anyway, I have a question for you, Michael, and it's specifically regarding the topic of abortion. And if you have a lot, if you let me expand upon this line of questioning, a couple questions. First one, do you think that abortion is morally comparable to something like the Holocaust, something that, you know, conservatives talk about a lot? Would you agree with that premise that abortion?

In the case of Charlie Kirk, he said it was eight, times worse than the Holocaust because of the death or the amount of abortion that have occurred since Roe was legalized. Do you say so? Abortion is the killing of innocent human life, intentionally, and the Holocaust, as all genocides entails the killing of innocent human life. And so in that way, yes, they're comparable. So you think they're comparable. So do you think that, for example, political violence would be justified to stop the Holocaust? Let me give you an example right here. Let's say that I exist in Nazi Germany at the time. And I see that a Nazi is going to the concentration camp, but he is going to kill or put in the cyclone B to gas a group of Jews. I think

that he would be justified, or I would be justified, rather, in killing that Nazi officer on his way to work. So if you think that abortion is morally equivalent to the Holocaust, how do you feel about violence against abortion doctors? Is there anything actually wrong with that? Because these people are morally equivalent in your eyes to Nazis. So very, it's a very good question. I think that a political revolution under certain circumstances could be justified. St. Thomas Aquinas explains this very well in the Sumetheologian de Réno. However, I don't think that vigilante violence is justifiable in almost any case, not because of the justification of the actions that are at discussion, be it the Holocaust or mass abortion,

60 million babies being killed, but because of the downstream political effects that come from that, and because there is such a thing as a civil authority. So in the extreme case where revolution would be justified, there would still have to be ordered to be undertaken so that greater evils would not abound from an act that could be justified. I understand that. But do you think that during, when the Holocaust happened, do you think that it would have been wrong for someone to kill a Nazi officer on his way to the concentration camp to gas a bunch of Jews?

Would it have been wrong or not? Well, in the case of the Holocaust, we're speaking specifically of war conditions. So there, you're in the midst of a massive war, both within Germany and throughout all of the world. Engage with the question. I am engaged with the question. If it in fact was a case, yes, it would be justified. My point here is rather that I don't really think that you think abortion is more equivalent to the Holocaust, or you're not believing that it would be justified for people to kill

abortion doctors. I'm saying that different rules apply during times of war than during times of peace. So if you, so if the president suddenly declared it was a time of war against women who get abortions, then suddenly it's justified for people to go out and kill. Okay, fine, Michael, very good. Against abortion, however you want to call it. You could outlaw. You think that it would be justified? That would be a war, though. A war is when belligerent parties fight each other for territory and for political control. I think Michael's evading the question because his line is reasoning. I'm not a reason. His line of reasons. His line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that it is actually morally permissible to commit political violence.

No, I don't think he's against that. In most circumstances, I don't think it is. Most circumstances. So this is not comparable to the Holocaust. It is comparable to the Holocaust. It is comparable. As I mentioned to you, in the respect of both of these things entailing the killing of innocent human life, it is comparable. In respect to the fact that one is in a polity during a time of peace and one is during a time of war, they're not comparable.

It's just not very awkward. So they're in different respect, you would address them differently. Okay. great questions hey you're nice to be here good to see you I guess this question is for Lauren is that

so I just wanted to bring it back a little bit to the topic which was that abortion is really just a way to control women's bodies not really a protection of life do you know of any other ways to bring life into this world besides using women's bodies no

okay well I mean it's not really about controlling women's bodies and it's about you know, providing a safe way for life to be brought into this world. Okay, so how would you define safety? Yeah, how would you define safety for this fictional fetus? Tell me, yeah, I'm waiting. Or even for a real fetus. I mean, I think a fetus is pretty safe for a baby because that's where it actually belongs.

Okay, let's talk about a baby. What is safe for a baby? Yeah. Some wounds. How is it? The actual place where it develops and grows and grows and actually produces life. A baby? What is safe for a baby? The place where it can actually grow into complete its cycle.

Babies are not growing inside the body. Babies out now. So you force the woman to give birth. Now what's safety for that baby? Okay. This is a separate conversation because now we're no longer talking about bringing life into the world. We're talking about life after it exists in the world already. Exactly.

That's the exact topic that we're talking about. And I'll wait. What's your name? Gregory. Gregory. Gregory, I'm going to ask you again, what is the, what's safety for a baby? It's just not that hard of a question. Do you need a couple minutes?

I mean, have you ever taken care of a baby? Have you ever babysat? Have you ever done anything like that? Making sure it's fed. Yeah, great. Okay. What else does a baby need? Shelter?

Okay. Exactly, right. Great answers, Gregory. And now how does a baby get shelter if that mother is not in a position economically to provide that? Well, that's a different conversation. We're talking about after a life is over there. I'm asking Gregory.

We're talking about a different conversation, which is after life has been brought into this world versus the birth of the baby itself. Or we only care about the baby after it's been the woman's body? or we only care about the baby within the woman's body. Absolutely, that's a different conversation that we can have about support for a single mothers. I think a bunch of men have a lot of opinions on uterus as they don't have. Okay, Lauren, I'll tell you what. Let's say we all guaranteed that there's infinite taxpayer welfare dollars for any woman who wants it who has a baby.

In that circumstance, would you support outlong abortion? No. If we guarantee, okay, then it's not really about what you're saying. No, so hear me out. So you guys know how often a miscarriage happens? You should know you have a bunch of kids. That's not an abortion. That's different than abortion.

It actually is. So the medical term for abortion, yeah, okay, you guys. That's not an abortion. You can live in your little Dulu, but abortion is an umbrella term for medical care. Nope. Okay. I can't debate with people who are making up their little reality. Okay, okay, let's say then, let's agree on terms. When we talk about abortion, we're talk, when we, let's agree on our terms.

When we talk about abortion, we're talking about the intentional ending of a pregnancy, which some call the killing of abortion. Abortion is care for... That's the issue we're talking about. An abortion requires human intervention. A miscarriage is not. One and four people experience a miscarriage when they have a baby. To complete that miscarriage,

you need abortion care. So there are plenty of women dying and hospital waiting... False. Call hospital. Call hospital, Gregory. Tell me what happens. False.

My sister had a miscarriage. Not everyone needs one, but a lot of women do. It was not... I think Adam, you have a point. It is going to say... that caused the baby to die. There's a lot of argumentation going on.

I think one of the most contradictory things that bothers me with a conservative position on abortion is that everybody should be in favor of minimizing the amount of abortions that happened. Was it Clinton that said they should be safe, legal, but rare? Now, let's check in. Do you agree we should minimize the number of abortions? Safe, legal and rare. I do not give a single what other people do with their bodies. It's not my business.

She doesn't agree with that. She doesn't agree with that. No, I don't. Well, my position is, along with many Democrats in the party, that they should be safe, legal, but rare. That's what the former Democratic president is. said. But the current Democrats shout their abortion, right? They say there's

no reason to minimize abortion. Wait. Planned Parenthood posted in an ad. Democrats in power? Say it again. What Democrats and Power have said this? Democrats and Power wanted to be saying. Bill Clinton was president in the 90s, man. That was a long time ago. I agree. Can I say it really quickly? The problem is, in order to minimize the amount of abortions that happened, you should have proper sex education at young ages. Now, in the state

that I grew up in Indiana, there was actually a slashing of sex education at really normal ages. Like when you're in seventh grade or eighth grade, you can be learning about this stuff. And when there's a lack of sex education, you have more teen pregnancies, you have more women that get pregnant. So I think these are kind of contradictory positions beyond like when life starts.

Okay, so we have the moderate Democrat position. We want fewer abortions and we want all this other stuff. And we have the women's perspective on the women's bodies. What a concept. One last point before we move on. Just this question, Lauren, you say that the people who want to end abortion, they only want to control women's bodies.

They don't care about babies at all. If I look you in the face right now, I tell you, I'm someone who wants to and abortion. And I'm telling you, I promise you my hand to God, I care about abortion because I don't want babies to be killed. And I don't really care about controlling women's bodies. That is not in any way the primary objective. I just want fewer babies to be killed. Do you believe me? No. You don't. Okay. All right. She rejects the framing that it's killing babies. Because if you don't want an abortion, don't get one. I'm not in your bathroom following

around. I don't need. I don't think about any of you guys having sex. Okay. Look, I tried. I tried. Okay, so who won that round? Was it Team Libs? Whether moderate Lib Adam or less moderate Lib Lauren, was it the libs? No, was it the me? Look at Gregory's. All right, there we go. Okay, all right.

I don't see it. It's ambiguous, I can't tell. Okay, more important question, who won the round of questions? We say, are we hearing Gregory? Who was it? Oliver. Gregory's going home alone with his lotion and his bottle. What?

Who won? Was it the guy dressed like a Republican or was it Gregory? Gregory, you're going to the VIP table, man. Here we go. Enjoy. Okay, now you're going to get that delicious redneck Riviera whiskey. And you know what that goes really well with? Delicious Zbiotics.

Folks, you need to go to Zbiotics.com slash bar fight. Let's face it. After a night with drinks, I don't bounce back the next day like I used to. I'm an old man now. 35 years old. Got gray's on my head. I have to make a choice. I can either have a great night or a great next day.

That is, until I found Zbiotics pre-alcohol. Z-biotics pre-alcohol drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. And the science behind it is fascinating. So here's how it works. When you drink it, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. Now, it's the buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration. that is to blame for rough days after drinking,

which I had no idea about until I read this ad. Free alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down, so you are actually addressing the root cause. Just remember to make free alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly, you will feel your best tomorrow. Trust me, when you've got nights like this, you have to be up early in the morning podcasting, carrying the daily wire on your shoulders.

You want that free alcohol, okay? Head on over there right now. Zbiotics.com slash barfite. You get 15% off your first order. We use code barfite. It's backed by 100% money back guarantees. There's no risk. It's a longest ad ever.

Subscriptions are also available for maximum consistency. Remember to have to Zbiotics.com slash barfite. Use code barfite and checkout for 15% off. Can I offer any of you a pre-alcohol from Zbiotics? I'm having one. I'm already a little bit too deep into this drink. I'll eat, though. You want one?

You can have one? No, all right. I'll have one. That's fine. Okay, it's round two. There are three more commercial breaks coming, by the way. All right. Now we pick the next topic.

You've heard them all. I'll just do a quick one again. Trump is not at all corrupt. The ice agent in Minneapolis did nothing wrong. It's going to be that one. Okay, that's my topic. I say the ice agent in Minneapolis did nothing wrong. And here's...

Thank you. Here's my argument for this. It's a pretty simple argument. the ICE agent was there to carry out federal law in total accord with the law, and he was following all of his instructions and all of his training, and he saw that there was an SUV parked in the middle of the street, obstructing law enforcement. At that time, he might not have known, but it was being driven by someone who trained to obstruct law enforcement in this operation. And so they went up there to try to get her to move, and she didn't want to move.

She was there for quite a while. And then the lady hit him with her car. And so when you... And she literally did that. So we now know, though there was a lot of confusion at the time, that the agent was in front of the car. We can slow down the footage and look at the tires. We can see that the woman accelerated while her tires were aimed at the agent. We know that when the agent fired his weapon, he fired it through the front windshield,

which means he couldn't have been on the side. And we know that she hit him with the car because of footage from him, body cams, best thing for law enforcement ever. and we also know that he suffered internal bleeding as a result of that. So in that case, when Adam might not believe it, but it had probably seen him. Maybe it was a period. You at least believe that she hit him. No.

I don't think that she hit him. What are you talking about? You understand what I saw on this video? Yes. My problem. Which video? I mean, there's multiple angles. But very quickly, you realize internal bleeding could just be bruising.

But if we're going to follow this administration of what they're saying, it can be. If we're going to follow this administration's like what they're saying, do you agree when Donald Trump said that he was a vicious? hit and he's surprised that the guy's alive. Did you see that on the video? Surprised he's alive? Yeah, I'm surprised that... Wait, wait, do you agree with Trump? Do you agree with Trump when he says this guy was viciously hit and he was

He said basically like, I'm surprised this guy's alive in the hospital? You're surprised he's alive? Yeah, yeah, because had the tires not spun out because of the icy roads in Minneapolis, she would hit him. Are you guys surprised? Are you guys surprised he's alive? Come on. You guys are all coping. Yeah, okay, thank you.

You're not surprised he's alive. What AI slop are you watching? Here's my problem. You guys are quite literally taking an 80, 20, 20. position on this, and you guys are the 20. Americans were pulled on the justification of this killing, and 28% of Americans, only 28% thought it was justified, almost 60% thought it was unjustified. Because they've been lied to about what happened. Do you agree to hit him? Yes. They've seen videos. Including by you. No, they agree that she hit him. I mean, she touched. Did she hit him with her car?

And the same way that I've hit people driving out of the Walmart parking lot. He's standing right there. You hit pedestrians with your car in Walmart. You should go to jail too, buddy. He walked off. Are you kidding me? We're not talking about going to jail. We're talking about shooting her in the head four times and then calling her a bitch. There's a difference. He got her the first time. She had a Honda. She had a Honda. Let me back up. The general population does not agree with you. And let me finish here. Because they've been lied to. No, the general population does not agree with you because they saw the videos that happened. This administration before the investigation started said that she was a

domestic terrorist and said that the guy was lucky to be alive. Well, I don't know she was a domestic terrorist. Okay, we'll talk about that one second. Do you think it's responsible for them to say that before the investigation started? Trump said it, I think, like 90 minutes after. Christy Nome, 45 minutes after said she was a domestic terrorist. Do you disagree with Christyneau? I think that when you hit law enforcement with your car. Wait, do you disagree with Christy Knoem? Is she a domestic terrorist? I agree that she was aiding and abetting domestic terrorism. So she's not involved. I wouldn't use that term. Okay, so thank you. You just said that I'm lying to the American people, but you seem to be

conceding that Christy Knoem and Donald Trump both lied to the American people. No, I say I don't agree with their wording of that. And yet what I'm saying is the facts as they described them happened. You're denying the facts that are on video. Can I tell you what I saw? I saw a woman in a car who was waving people past. And listen, I'm a moderate. Democrat. She was waving him past? No, no, not him, but cars. She was waving multiple cars passed. If you guys haven't seen the videos, that's your fault. Did you not see her waving? You're not

allowed to block traffic. Did you not see her waving? Wait, is that a death sentence? If you hit a cop with a car, yes, that's a death sentence. You're going to get shot. And you're going to deserve it. If you were, if she was going to hit someone with her car, why did she first reverse, then stop, then spin her wheel? Every time... She didn't spin the wheel first. She did spin the wheel. Wait, why did she run of your car? Why would you reverse? Why would you reverse? She clearly was, is a very confused woman.

I don't know. Why did she hit him? So I want to ask. Well, you don't know why she reversed because she spun the wheel and then tried to drive off. She accelerated before she turned the wheel. Here's what's on video. Here's what self-defense counts.

That's why he shot through the windshield because he was obviously in front of the car. You can reach over the windshield. What about the second two shots? He reached over. He reached over. He reached over in the moment. He just to frame this innocent woman.

Did he even get knocked over? Yes, he did. That's on video too. Was he on the ground after? Yes. No, he was standing the fuck up. He was standing up. literally video going down.

Okay, I'm going to be bumped this after. Yes. So you're saying when Renee and Nicole Good hit him, he got knocked on the ground. Yes. So you haven't seen the video. Wait, wait. Did he get knocked on the ground?

No. No, he did not. Thank you. You guys. He's still standing. You guys are all lying because you've been gaslit by this administration to think that ICE can do nothing wrong. Over the past year,

listen, over the past year, over the past year, we have seen clips of ice cracking the ribs of 79-year-olds, grabbing U.S. citizens and bringing them to the ground, deporting people with no due process and having to bring them back because they admitted there was no due process. That happened, right? They had to bring it.

Are we talking about, we're talking about the January 6thers? Are we talking about those Midwestern? No, those are domestic terrorists. No, no, if you want to talk about domestic terrorists? Wait, they're using political force to stop the certification of election. They're actual domestic terrorists. You want to call a 37-year-old mother

who was shot in the side window, a domestic terrorist? She wasn't shot in the side window. Adam, the bullet is through the windshield. You're just making that up. You were making up that he was knocked over and you can't respond to why she reversed. Why does she reverse? Adam, it's a simple question.

Did she hit him with her car or not? She didn't. Did she hit him with her car or not? Yes or no. You're wrong. You answer. Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Can I give a legit answer? You can give me one word answer? Yes. Yes. There you go. Can I answer? The entire conversation is more. Can I answer though?

I want to bring it back. Go on. Tell me why he should not have defended himself when she hit him with her car as you admit. Self defense means there needs to be two requirements by the law. You need to be able to reasonably perceive yourself as an imminent risk, yes.

And then you need to be able to use a disproportionate amount of force to take care of that danger. It's the continuum use of force. Use the force continuum. Okay, okay, okay, I want to bring it back to your... You have to use a proportionate amount of force, right? You have to use a proportionate. A 3,000-pound SUV is a deadling threat.

I want to bring back to your original. You were standing up. You guys are lying. You said in your original opening, you said that he was doing his job as instructed. Okay, right? Okay, so with his instruction, surely there's some other type of escalation steps in that process before shooting her in the face four times and calling her a bitch. No.

No? Lauren, it's a split second before she's running him over. She didn't run him as a mile down the road. So she had a Honda. No, no, she didn't because he shot her in the face. She didn't because she turned her wheel and revert. Why would she? Okay, I have one final question.

Yes. I really want you to answer this that you continue to kind of weave around it. Why did she reverse her car if she was driving straight into him? She didn't drive straight into it. I don't know. She was a real confused lady. And I'm really sorry she got healed. And she shouldn't have done it. How did it work out at Nuremberg?

How did it work out in Nuremberg when they were following instructions? Nuremberg? Yes. You can't just execute moms. You guys are a little weird if you think you can just execute people. Huh. Okay. Okay.

What was it done? Do we have questions? Yeah. Michael. Michael, I consider myself a conservative. I'm in favor of rigorous enforcement of our immigration laws. But I want to ask you a question about tactics. Yes.

So even setting aside, I think there are legitimate legal issues here that we could ask about Fourth Amendment issues, etc. But I just want to ask you, let's assume that sort of the public backlash to what's going on right now with ICE, you know, stopping people in the street, pulling them out of the cars, going to door to door, is sufficient to cause some sort of

landslide in the midterms against the Republicans. Let's assume that that leads to Donald Trump getting impeached. Let's assume that that leads to maybe by the end of the Trump term deporting fewer people than we saw under Obama. Would you not admit that maybe tactically mistakes have been made that this is bad optically at the

very least, even if you dismiss the legal issues. Yeah, I don't, I don't think so, because I don't know what the alternative is. Well, you know, what the people voted for is mass deportations. What we've gotten so far, the Obama numbers are in- They vote for that? The Obama, well, when people are trying to run over cops, I voted for that. Okay, so I thought you love due process, no. So was she guilty of-

You don't get due process when you're running someone over? You just get to, there's, that's not. There's no trial. Well, they let the DOJ do an investigation then if they're so right and correct. There will be an investigation. No, there's not. No, there's not. So answer the question, why won't they?

Why won't they then? Hold on, I'm answering his question first. Okay, so that's a deflection. Let's go back to it. No, it's not your turn to speak. It's not your turn to speak, because we're not really following those rules. So what is the... I'm following those rules.

Okay, because you don't want to answer the question. Okay, go ahead. We'll get to whatever you want to talk about later, but first, it's his turn. It's your topic. But it's his question. This is why she doesn't... It's like the order of events. This is why we don't understand what happened with the lady running him over.

So to your question, tactically, is this a bad idea? I don't think so. Some people say that Barack Obama deported three or 400,000 people. It's kind of fake because they're counting turnbacks among that. He did deport some people, but it's kind of fake because they're counting turnbacks. Right now, the borders totally shut down. President Trump, I think, probably is deported in his first year a little over 500,000 people, like 525 or 530,000 people.

I do believe, and I buy the labor studies that have come out, that there have been a lot of self-deportations because of the optically brutal ice rates. I think that's part of it, too. So President Trump says he's deported over two million people, It's possible. It's somewhere between half a million and two million. Compared to the Biden administration where they were letting in three million people a year, obviously that's a huge turn in direction. My question is, how are you going to get mass deportations, which most of the conservatives, I think, would agree,

were not even getting enough mass deportations? How are you going to get that if you don't go from job site to job site from town to town and try to round people up? Is that going to involve bad optics for the leftists? It is. I just don't know what the alternative is. I think, first, it might require more funding for things like immigration judges who could process these asylum judges. But if you can also,

we're talking about like 16 million people. The fundamental question is basically if it turns out, let's just assume a hypothetical world where there is a democratic landslide, and Trump gets impeached over this. And we find, as a result of surveying people who voted against Republicans in that election, that a big part of this backlash was due to this type of ICE enforcement. Are you not going to think that, oh, maybe we could have done this a little bit differently? So you mentioned we need.

Yeah, sure, Adam can answer. The alternative is a moderate immigration policy like we saw under Obama. Do you know what they called him? The deporter in chief. Yeah, but listen, they were wrong. Okay, they called Obama the deporter in chief. The problem here is in the mass deportations. The problem, as he points out, are the brutal videos coming out of those that ICE is losing popularity with the public population. Obama deported a massive, massive amount of people, but we didn't see the same. Do you dispute the turnbacks?

Let me see. Okay, the turnbacks happened. Most of them were turnbacks. They called them. They were turnbacks, but not most of them. They called them the deporter in chief. And he did that without cracking the ribs of 79-year-olds, without shooting U.S. citizens, without deporting people with zero due process. and then bringing them back to the effing country. Do you agree that Trump has deported more people than Obama? Yes, but he's deporting people that he shouldn't be deporting. 75% of them have no criminal background, no violent criminal record.

But are they illegal aliens? They should, he's deported people with no due process. Are they illegal aliens? Kilmer Amando, yes, but Kilmore should not be. But then they should be deported. Do you think people should do, do you think illegal aliens does their due process? Illegal. Are we joking?

Wait, do you guys think that illegal aliens, then you're wrong. The Constitution specifically says in the Fifth Amendment that person, We can expedite their due process. Wait, wait, wait, hold up, hold up. Can you just say if I'm right or wrong? Does the Fifth Amendment specifically say persons, and that was upheld in a Supreme Court case, said it's persons not citizens?

In the enforcement of American immigration law, we sometimes do things a little more efficiently. We, for instance, deported a million people in the 1950s under President Eisenhower. If we were to give a lengthy trial to the 16 to 30 million illegal aliens who were in the country, we would never afford virtually any of them. I'm not asking for a lengthy trial

for someone like Kilmar Monde-Obray-Rosia, right? The thing is, when he got deported over to El Salvador... No, I'm not. I have a pretty moderate immigration policy. I think people should be here legally. Illegal immigration should be minimized. We should know everybody that's here, but like most Americans, guys, this isn't even me living out.

Most Americans do not like to see these videos that are going everywhere. Most Americans don't like to see grandmas and abuela being pulled off the street. And I keep going back to this. There aren't that many abuelas. Come on. There aren't that. Wait, wait. Wait, wait, are you okay with the U.S. citizens that have gotten caught up.

So I keep going back to this case, but a 79-year-old U.S. citizen got his rib cracked by an ICE agent and it's now suing the DHS. So I think it's very unfortunate when innocent, it's a very small number, but when innocent people or American citizens or legal residents are caught up in these raids. The problem is illegal aliens don't walk around the country with a big sign saying, I'm an illegal alien. So the problem was created by those who allowed the millions of illegals to come in and now Trump's cleaning up the mess. The problem is you guys can never admit when ICE does anything wrong whatsoever. No, I'll admit that. So there was an article from Slate that came out just two days ago where I'll never admit anything. in slight. No, no, this woman provide all of the receipts. This liberal woman applied for ice. And her whole internet history, she was shitting on ice. She smokes a bunch of weed and posts about it.

And she didn't, she didn't even submit the domestic battery, her history on it. Like, she didn't submit anything. And ice still let her in. So the problem is, undertrained ICE agents are giving the, or being given the funding of national militaries. Like, they're funded more than national militaries. They're masking up in such a way that emboldens them. And then they're going around in terrorizing communities. Because they're a bunch of them. Husseys and the administration's lost. Because they take every, they take every insult loser from the small town high school. And they're being threatened as they should because they're a bunch of pussy losers.

And like, okay, listen, if you want a job. Okay, if you want a job where you can go terrorize elementary school students and pepper spray them, ice is for you. What did they do? What did they do after Roosevelt? Yeah, they went to Roosevelt High School. First they went to elementary school. Teddy or Franklin?

Was it Teddy or Franklin? Can you? Can you admit that ice does a lot? Can you admit that ICE does anything wrong? Can you ever admit that ICE does anything wrong? Or do you think I have admitted that? Yeah, I think I have admitted that. Say it again louder.

I think that was wrong. Okay, but do you think they have absolute immunity like J.D. Vance does? I think they should be given extraordinarily broad immunity. So, extraordinarily broad immunity for things they do on the job? Yeah, for official acts. So they can just go shoot people? Yeah, I think Vance is totally right about this. But how did, like...

You think he's right? Sense the Inception of ICE. Immunity is not an excuse for morality. Like, again, I want to bring it back to Nuremberg. Like, what happened to the people, like, carrying out these atrocities in 1930s Germany? I don't think removing Trendy-Rogway is akin to a Nazi-carrying. They were following their orders too. What can you admit that ICE has done wrong thus far?

Because most Americans... I just gave you an example. No, obviously, like a real example of ICE doing something wrong. You mean not vetting people? Yeah, I can't think of a particular example. So, were you serious about the pot smoker? Do you think ICE should be vetting people more for ideological reasons? If they can, the problem is, the problem is so massive because there are 16 to 30 million people,

and ICE was so understaff. That's a massive range, bro. 16 and 30 million people. We don't know where they are. You call them undocumented. That's the problem. I don't have any documents.

I don't care what you call them, dude. I think that the administration... I know, I just saying that's why we have a broad range. We don't know how many of them there are. Hey, Adam, I got a question for you. Sorry, that was a little aggressive. No, you're good. Oh, what's up?

Hey, I just had a question about the due process for illegal immigrants versus like an American citizen. Does an illegal immigrant have an entitlement to legal representation? An entitlement? entitlements? Are they entitled to legal representation? They have all of the, they have all of the rights to find under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. They're not guaranteed legal representation in their immigration case. Well, are U.S. citizens? So we can agree that, no, they're not U.S. citizens. Immigrants, they're not guaranteed. They're not guaranteed. They're not guaranteed.

Can I ask you? They're not guaranteed legal representation in their immigration case. Wait, can I ask you, do you think only citizens or persons, any person in the United States deserves due process? That's not the question. No, no, I'm asking you a question. In an illegal immigrant, In an immigration case, in an immigration case, someone is being deported for being here illegally. Are they guaranteed legal representation? No, but that is not all that there is to do process. Do process is wrong. But we can agree that due process looks different for immigrants versus American citizens, right?

Wait, wait, but they're saying that immigrants versus American citizens. They're saying that immigrants get no due process. Wait, do you guys think immigrants should get any due process? He's just arguing, he's just arguing that due process for the illegal alien deportation cases is markedly different from an ordinary case. A lot of different ways. Totally fine, but what I'm arguing is that... That's a good point. That's a good point.

That's totally fine. What you're saying is true, but what I'm saying is there was no due process for the cases like Kilmore Amando Obrego-Garcia. There was no... Yeah, but then Chris Van Huyallin went... How many people do you have? No, no. Do we have a question?

How many people do you have? I got a question. I will make jokes about Kilmar-a-Raego-Gersia. What's your question? He's back in the U.S., yeah, what the fuck? This guy, this guy? He's a boomer?

A boomer? A boomer? He's a trans-boomer. Don't talk to Adam like that. What's your name again with a blonde girl? What's your name? My name? Lauren, yours.

All right. Michael, my name's Whitfield. Michael, my question is for you. Do you think that Lauren prefers anthropomorphic minot-smut novels? Or AI-generated ice romance novels? Thank you for the question. I don't know what the first one was. Well, okay, then it's the second.

I say it's the second then. Is that fair? Ice porn? There was a lady. there was a millennial lady who went on TV or was she on TikTok or whatever and maybe I'm the boomer I say she went on TV and she goes there

and she says you know hating men for so many years has trained me to stop ice and she was admitting it was this amazing psychological admission that a lot of these protests are about like women who hate their dads basically and it's unfortunate

it's like that's what all of liberalism comes down to is three words screw you dad but I don't even think it's primarily about the cops can I bring it back around to one final thing screw you minotar can you say Michael

Michael Michael, you ask me a yes or no question. Can I ask you one? Did the ice agent who shot Renegu and Nicole Good get knocked on the ground on his ass? Oh my gosh, dude. He got knocked over. Wait, wait, no, no. Minutera or not, bro? Yes or no.

Is your question, was he flat on the ground? Everybody said he was not. Wait, first of all, are you saying, cut head and toes flat on the ground? Was he knocked on his ass? Okay, was he knocked on his ass. Okay, he was knocked over. He was not, he was not flat on the ground. He was not flat on the ground.

Can I please have the honor? He's a minotard guy. Don't know, don't know. I'm granting your point. I'm granting. I'm granting your point. He was, I'm granting your point

that he was not flat on the ground. He was knocked over. You guys are being really dishonest about that like 10 minutes ago. He knocks the ice agent flat on a sultry ass. He knocks his ice, the ice agent flat on his sultry ass. Wait, do you actually think that?

Wait, wait, do you actually think that? No, I think you want to read AI generated ice. Wait, wait, no,

do you actually think what you just said? Do you think he got knocked on his ass? All right. So what? No, do you think he got knocked on his ass. I'm so sorry, do I think he got knocked on his ass?

No, I don't think he got knocked on his ass. Okay, then why were you guys like, who were you guys in hollering? What's your name? What's your name? Adam. Adam, listen, I've almost gotten hit by a deranged retard in her car.

Okay. I had a gun in my pocket, which I was not able to bring up here because of safety and everything. And I had to contemplate, am I going to shoot this black chick or not? As a six foot four white guy, when a woman who was led out on the street by Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan to take some, lithium instead of going to a stay run mental institution, decided to drive up to Nashville at 8 a.m. in the morning and try to run me over. So I know about cars menacing me. And I'm not a I don't care about your personal experience. I know. I know. I know, he has injuries. Is this a therapy session? Did

I just crash a therapy session? He's explaining what it's like. He is first getting experienced. I'm letting you know. I know. I know you have to be Michael's foil. But I know I knew I knew y'all have to be Michael's foil here. It's like bar fight or whatever. But, dude, if a federal agent is having a car coming towards them, you're going to get smoked. He was standing on his feet and the car missed him. If a car hits a federal agent, they're going to smoke you. And I will say this, in no other country in the world will they have as much pause and discretion? No other country in the world is as good as a, they're like, like, are you in, like, dude, okay, go to Venezuela. No other country in the world is as good as America. And in America,

And in America, we have human dignity for our citizens. So, can I agree. Why would she back up? Why would Renee Nicole good back up in her car? And why would she wait for it? It's called potential energy. All I'm saying is some of you guys, and I don't support violence, but some of you guys have never had your ass kicked and it really shows.

He had a lady almost rolled into it. I've had my ass kicked. What? What are you fucking talk? You don't know, I've had my ass kick. Okay, you don't, you're not acting like it. Oh, okay. Have you gotten your ass kicked or have been protected to your whole life?

I mean, have you ever driven in L.A.? I'm not, if women, if women pulled a gun every time they felt unsafe, none of you would be here. None of you would be here except for Adam. That's not true. Yeah, it's true. And now, I will say this, because you remind me a lot of my wife. And Michael and you argue really reminds me that.

Oh, your poor wife. Hey, you said it. Okay. Am I your husband? If my wife was being menaced by a car and it hit her thigh and she had a gun and she was a man and could draw quickly. She would shoot. What if your wife was on in the car?

Yeah, because she's not a federal agent. And if she was in a fucking gay state like California, maybe she would. She would get charged with manslaughter anywhere. Let's find the ice agent. What was your name again? Dude, you wouldn't get charged with manslaughter in the state of Tennessee. If it touched her thigh, yes. If it fucking bonged up against her.

Well, you can also get married as a child in Tennessee. So anything girls here, you know? So can you in California. No, you can't. Not California. Only in the Bible Belt. Google it. Okay.

Yeah. I don't fucking care. So we, let's do a little, go forth. Go forth. Go forth. I'm ready to hear. All right, all right. You're right.

You're right. You can cut the tension with a knife. Now we have to pick. We should write a novel together. We should write a novel about that. We should. Now we got to pick who won the round. Before we get to the more important question of who won the question round, I think I know the winner.

So who here thinks that the libs won the debate on that topic? You got to put your cards up, blue cards up, okay? I'm sensing some audience bias here. We got one blue. We got one. I love a democracy, though, to be honest. Now, how many think that I won that debate? Okay, all right.

We got... All right, all right. Listen, this happened the first time. The first time he was here, it was all very reasonable people, so I kept winning everything. And then on the next few debates, there were a bunch of libs that came in.

Oh, really? And so it was more like 50-50. But today, I don't know. Now we have to figure out who won the question round. I think... I'm not going to say. No, I think... I think we know.

Okay. Mr. Whitfield, would you please go over to the John Rich Redneck Riviera VIP table? Oh, shit. Is that my prize for mock in the sky? That's your pride. You can write the novel while you're over there. Okay. Now, it's round three.

Yeah, there we go. All right. I hope you had Z biotic before you started to know. So the remaining topics. Trump is a great president and not at all corrupt. Did we do that one already? No, no, yeah, okay. We have a major Somali problem, and we need white men to save us.

We already did abortion. Trump is putting Americans first. The Venezuela strike was American as Taco Bell. I like Venezuela, though. I like that one. I like that one. They don't like it as much. Okay.

Yeah, yeah. That's topic five. So, all right, I actually think, I think it's between, gosh, I don't know, it might be between three. Who says the Somalis? Okay. Who says Trump putting America first? Not as much. Who says Venezuela?

Venezuela. You think it's Venezuela? What do you think, Mr. Davis, is Venezuela or Somalis? Venezuela over here. All right, let's take it. All right, that's actually mine. Okay. I believe, and I am correct to believe, that the Venezuela strike was as American as apple pie.

Now, I want to be clear, I support the strike, but I'm not arguing that it was a great strike. It certainly was. It was an excellent strike. But I'm not even making that point. I'm not saying it was geostrategically necessary, though it probably was. I'm simply saying it was very, very American. Some people came out afterwards said it was unprecedented and unlawful. It was funny because Kamala Harris said it was unlawful, and it was awkward because her own administration had called for precisely the arrest of Maduro and actually offered 25 million

bucks to get it. So Trump did exactly what she wanted, but saved $25 million, which is great. But it was very, very American. And this is because we have been intervening in Latin America since 1846, really going back to 1823 with the Monroe Doctrine, but actively since Mexican American War 1846, we have intervened 88 times in that period, now 89 times, I guess, because of Venezuela. It did it something like seven times in the 19th century. We did it seven, no more, a little more than that, 77 times in the 20th century.

We've done it three now four times in the 21st century. It was awesome. It did the founding fathers proud. And it's very, very American. Wait, can I ask you a question? Yes. Following up on that, you just named a lot of the regime changes or at least removals of leaders in Latin America in the Middle East.

Can you name a single time in the past like 50 years that's gone well for us for the United States? Yeah, yeah, quite recently. In Panama, it was great. We got Noriega out just 30 years ago. It worked out great. So I think part of the problem is that the prompt that you sent me... I was curious.

Can you admit that the vast majority of times they've not only gone wrong, but it's led to the deaths of like hundreds of thousands of people? When have we done for regime change? This is just history, right? No, sometimes. And Latin America, too. But Middle East has gone worse than Latin America. Latin America, we're better at it.

Sometimes it can go wrong. In Guatemala, it went a little rough. But a lot of times it's pretty easy. I mean, we've gone in in places like the DR. We go in, we take someone out, and then we kind of reform him, we put him back in sometimes. We've basically created the nation of Panama out of Colombia. We've done it in Nicaragua a bunch of times. So we've been actually pretty effective there.

I don't think in Latin America it's turned out well 90% of the time. So the prompt that you submitted to me was that the strikes on Venezuela were as American as Taco Bell. And I was thinking, I agree in the sense that you regret eating Taco Bell the next day. In the same way, in the same way that most regime strikes are regretful. Or no, sorry, most regime changes are regretful at some point. Now, this isn't even me again, living out. If you look at the history of both, I'm not. If you, genuinely, I want to put America first and I want to prioritize Americans on the ground,

not only economically when unemployment is up, not only small businesses, but I think Americans should be prioritized. And right now I see Donald Trump being caught up with things abroad. So not only Greenland, not only Canada he talks about, he talks a lot about Europe, but he talks a lot about Venezuela. I've seen him talk more about Venezuela and Greenland than inflation or health care at this point. And the problem is with Venezuela or with Latin America, almost all regime changes we've done have gone poorly over the course of a few years. So even with Gaddafi, like this is what

Gaddafi was awful. That was a disaster under Obama. This proves my point too. Like, I'm not going to defend Obama on this. Yeah, yeah, it was off. In the two to three weeks following the removal of Gaddafi, I was doing this research, looking up the articles. People were celebrating and people were saying this is finally bringing an era of peace. People were saying now that Gaddafi is gone, the Middle East is going to be reformed. Well, guess what? Like, two. Two or three months later, they devolved into a civil war with open-air slave markets, and they are still in a very bad spot. So I'm not even going to argue against the removal of Maduro. I thought the military did a great effing job.

It was amazing. It was so impressive. Of course, of course. I also think Maduro is the enemy of the Western civilization. I think Maduro is the enemy of America. So don't mistake me as defending Maduro. But I genuinely think there are problems with regime changes being carried out. And there are also problems with the president unilaterally striking other countries.

without the authorization of Congress. So you're making one big error. And because you've conflated two things. I said there have been 88 interventions in Latin America, and you've equated them with regime change. Only 15 of those were regime change. Sometimes they were interventions to just make the regime act a little better. But interventions blew back, too.

I mean, we can call it whatever you want. When you're military... Those are different things. The key here is, do you think the Venezuela strike was a regime change? I think it's regime coercion at this point, because the regime is still standing. change. I mean, the regime still there. It's military intervention. Wait, that's not a good argument.

The Maduro regime is still there and you think that looks good for us? Yes. Because I agree with you that sometimes massive upheavals of regime are a bad idea. The biggest problem. Most times, most times. Maybe, maybe not. The biggest problem in Iraq, of course, was not when we entered. We actually were greeted as liberators. The problem was when we disbanded the bath party, when we debathized Iraq and created the insurgency. So in the case of Venezuela, what we're not, what we're doing here is not Bush era spreading of democracy, Madisonian liberalism around the world. Wait, what are we doing then? What we're doing there is kicking China out, kicking Iran out, kicking Russia out. We're taking oil that is owed to us. We're taking out Maduro, who's been a target of the United States for 25 years

now since the Chavez regime. And now we're leaving his deputy in charge and we're saying play ball or else. What's going to happen otherwise is we're going to treat you worse than Maduro. Okay, but this is a problem. Which is very restrained. It's called me do a little Donro doctrine. The Don Road Doctrine, baby. This is a massive, massive problem. This is a massive problem. A lot of times when interventions fail, it's because there's not a solid backup plan. I think this would have gone way better.

But there's the backup plan. Leave the vice president in place. Okay, that is an awful backup plan. I think he should have at least endorsed Machado, who is the opposition leader. That would have been a full regime change. There's so many. That would have been Libya. That would have been Iraq.

We are going in to pillage their resources like oil. Then we are holding... First of all, some of those are our resources that they stole. We can debate that. But we can, then oil executives... I mean, just to back up, everyone in this room, most people in this room who voted for Trump probably wanted Trump to put America first. Right now, what I see is Donald Trump focusing so much so on foreign countries that he is now

pillaging Venezuela for resources, for their resources, without helping the Venezuelan people. How does this help the Venezuelan people? So then who's it helping Americans first. No, no, no, you're wrong, you're wrong. It's not. It's helping oil executives. It's helping Chevron. It's helping oil execs that we're sitting around that table.

Do you think that when the United States? Do you not care if you guys die on insured? By the way, none of them. None of them know your name. But wait a minute. So it's like, you're riding for Chevron, but none of them know you. Donald Trump put U.S. troops' lives at risk during this operation just to make oil executives rich. No, I- You guys pay for that.

Absolutely true. Adam, you know, there was a legal order going back five years for the arrest of Nicholas Maduro. That's not an illegal. I'm not making any illegal argument. The previous administration called for this very action. I'm not making a legality argument. No, you're saying that, do you think that the Biden-Harris administration, only called for that policy. Do you think the judge who issued the arrest warrant only did so to make oil

executives rich? No, I think that at least- Exactly. There you go. And Trump didn't do it either. No, I have a better answer. I think that Biden would have at least encouraged Machado to step into power and then help the Venezuelan people. Your problem is- So can you admit that we can't even say Machado, bro. What? We are subjecting the Venezuelan people to take their oil to just benefit us. This is not a good precedent to set. You're not making a good argument here. No, no. How does this benefit the Venezuelan people at all? The dictator of Venezuela was inviting our enemies into the hemisphere, China, Russia, and Iran. They were sending illegal aliens by the busload, much more than the busload, into the United States, especially under Joe Biden. They were sending drugs into the United States. They were funding terrorism.

And so that was a national security problem for the United States. This has been the case as a cornerstone of American foreign policy since 1823. We removed him in accordance with 25 years of U.S. policy. Okay, let me ask you. I have one more question. Yeah. I guess the question is, if Delci Rodriguez begins to not play ball and tries to lengthen the Goshen. Trump threatened to kill her.

Okay, so we are going to continue U.S. military force? Yeah. So, wait. Just like we have since 1846, baby. You guys have no fucking morals. You guys voted for no new wars. And Michael Nose is up here saying that we might be in a prolonged war with Venezuela. We always do that.

You guys do that. Wait, so are you okay with Trump starting a prolonged war with Venezuela without the authorization of Congress? Where's the war? You guys couldn't even change a tire and you're like, Wait, wait, wait, where's the war? Wait, wait. It's an 88 minute war.

We are talking hypothetically if Deli Rodriguez doesn't help Trump. This was literally, were you not listening over there? Yeah, we're talking about Rosaliega. Gregory doesn't think he's going to go to war. No, I didn't say there is a war. I said if Delci Rodriguez doesn't give a war, I'll tell you what probably will happen. I'm sorry. You're not built for that.

It's probably what happened the last time we replaced the leader of Venezuela is that it'll take about an hour and a half and we'll just go to the next guy. Wait, wait, so you're just going to perpetually remove leaders that are handfellers. that are hand-picked by Maduro. Wait, then hand-picked by Tulsi Rodriguez. That's what we've done for centuries in Latin America. This is the most ineffective, least American first policy ever. We've done it since the Mexican-American War. Anything for Chevron.

Donald Trump. The Mexican-American War existed before Chevron existed. Under the Trump administration back in 2019, they did a war game... All right, finish you sent. They did a war game simulation of what would happen if we removed Maduro. It said within one to two months, there are three scenarios. Either devolves into a civil war that cuts us off from oil, either warring militias begin to coup whoever is in charge, Delci Rodriguez.

And the third one was even worse. So that's why they didn't do it. All of the scenarios in this war games showed that removing Maduro long term doesn't help. So you just made the argument that we could be perpetually... So why do we do it? No, you just made the argument that we could be perpetually removing leaders for the next few years while they draw out the negotiations, which is the United States being in a war with Venezuela. That's not what we want to do.

Okay, Adam said, I want to hear what she has to say. Oh, yeah. We've got to go. Let's go. Yeah. Hi. My name's Lauren. So name Twins. I actually have a comment for you. First off, totally respect you for coming up here and debating. But I just think that Lauren to Lauren, I think if you use a little less ad hominant attacks and going after people's character, we'll all take you a lot more seriously. Most of the comments you've said have been reflecting on our like appearances or like our stereotypes.

And I think we'll all listen to you a lot more if you back off on that and start using more facts. Okay. So thank you, Lauren. What I will say is, like, I don't get to... Everyone feels very entitled to kindness, but in the same breath, they're talking about killing mothers four times in the face, and we're like, woo! And then you're like, hey, Lauren, be a little nicer.

So it goes both ways. I'm not saying be nicer. I'm saying use facts instead of attacks on character because you should be able to defend your point with facts and not with going after how they love... And I have, but I haven't gotten to be able to... No, you haven't, actually. To be fair, it's a combative environment,

and when people are booing you, sometimes it's easy to get defensive when you're on stage. Yes. Yeah, but I'm just... good example, since we're having a nice little therapy session. Like when you were arguing about abortion, you didn't really focus so much on the policy or the fact itself. You were trying to impugn the motives and it psychoanalyzed the people who say openly that, like myself, that we just don't want babies to be killed. Okay, but the topic was wanting to control women's bodies and what

did we get to wanting to control women's bodies. Yeah. And also a fundamental misunderstanding of abortion, and it's very difficult to have a debate around facts when people are not connected to reality, which objectively, the definition of abortion, which the room tended to just not agree with, which science is one of those things you either understand. You can't not believe in it. You just either, it's like two-bust two, four. You make a great point, Laura. You either understand it or you don't. That's true. Next question. Okay, I actually have a question. Goodbye. I actually have a question. I haven't a question for Lauren on the abortion topic, actually. My first question leading into this is, do you believe that black lives matter?

Yes. Okay, great. Second to that is abortion has killed nearly half the population of black people. If not for abortion, there would be almost double the amount of black people that there are today. Are you glad that those women were not encouraged to control their bodies and give birth to their children? Do you think that those lives don't matter? Because you guys love facts. That's a fact. Fetuses are not people. Fetuses are not people.

So, okay, so, okay, okay, so the fetuses, the black fetuses that were removed from their mother's wombs would have, had they been born, grown up to be black children, black adults, and they would have almost nearly double the population that they have today. That is half of the black population that has been wiped out because these women were encouraged to kill their fetuses. Okay. Michael's like, maybe I am pro-abortion. What is your name? Molly. Nice to meet you. Yes, ma'am.

Nice to meet you too. So babies are not the same as fetus. No, but she said even to grant your premise. Let's say that fetus isn't really a baby. What she's saying is if you, if the abortions did not take place, left unimpeded, those fetuses or whatever you want to call them, would have become fully grown black people and the black population in the U.S. would be double. Why are we talking about the black population when we're talking about control over women's bodies?

If black women want to have the baby, they can have the baby. We don't only talk about what you want to talk about, Lauren. I think that we'd, I think that what we'd say is we'd prioritize the autonomy of these women to make their own decision over them being forced to have a baby who may grow up in suboptimal environments or be, I mean, if these people got abortions is probably because they couldn't support a baby coming into the world. You guys always talk about, you guys always talk about single parent households and you guys talk about these. If a baby is going to be born to a mother whose father left and he decides to abort or she decides to abort it, I think that she's making a decision to prioritize herself over a baby that would be born to a shitty situation. That's the argument that we made. Do you think that a baby who has been born to a single mother should be open to a post-birth abortion?

In other words, he's going to grow up in a bad environment, all these problems that you're ascribing to these young black women. And we all know that, but he's been born, but he's going to have a really tough life, you think. Wouldn't it be better for that child to be killed? No, of course not. Then why would it be better for the baby five minutes or a little? Nobody wants a post-life abortion. That's a murder. When a person is born, yes.

That's murder. That's homicide, you guys. Come on. I guess the point that Adam's making is interesting to me, because it's kind of like the free economics argument. You know, like they said crime rates went down because abortion rates went up, which is a pretty ghoulish argument,

if it is even true. But I guess my point, if the premise of your argument is that a kid growing up in tough circumstances justifies just killing that kid in the first place. I'm not saying I justify that. I said the bodily autonomy of women. That's probably the argument that we make. Plus, the bodily autonomy of women.

No, no, mainly the bodily autonomy of women to make the decision for their own situation is what I'm saying. Because those are totally different. Really, I think you're saying the bodily autonomy is what it's all about, but also they grow up in bad situations. But if we only isolate the latter one, you would throw that argument out. I'm saying the argument that she's trying to make, basically, is that women are prioritizing bodily autonomy over some nebulous idea of the black population growing. I think that, yeah. They're prioritizing it over their own babies. Yeah, I think that's wrong. Okay, then, yeah, we don't. We think that the bodily autonomy is. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Whatever happened to incontability.

Whatever happen to accountability. How many people does it take to make a baby? But there are long-term consequences to choosing to control your own body, whatever it is you're saying. There are long-term consequences and half of the black population not being here today is a consequence of all of those women choosing for themselves. There is a consequence to that. It's not just like... Okay. So what's the fixation with black women's abortions?

Because it's proving. It's a statistic. So, Meli, why do you care about, why did you come up here and choose to talk about black women's abortions? Why? Because it'll tug on your liberal heartstrings. I'm asking Molly, Molly, why do you choose? Because it is a statistical example of a long. I know, it's a statistical example, but why?

I have a question about the current topic. It is a statistical example of the long-term effects of abortion. Why did you choose that out of all the statistics you could have chosen? Because the left, one of their pinnacle fights over the last 10 years has been Black Lives Matter. And I'm standing up as a pro-life conservative saying Black Lives do matter. Okay, so Black Lives Matter. So black lives matter. So black women who are alive and here and functioning on this earth, that you don't believe that they have the right to choose whether having a baby is the right to.

That's not the question. That is the question. That is literally exactly the question. So my question for you, Molly. choice and half of their population is not here. I can't hear Molly because everyone's hooting and hollering. Whatever you just said, I can't, couldn't hear that. Can you say it again? I have a question about the current topic. I'm talking to Molly.

I don't know why you asked and what I answered. So why, like again, succinctly explained to me why you chose Black Lives Matter and forcing Black women to give birth is your platform of choice tonight. It's not. There's no one's forcing. We are encouraging and showing the reality of that a fetus is a baby and that every life deserves to have a chance to live. No one's forcing holding the woman down. We are encouraging and hoping that they will give their babies the right to life and the opportunity to live a life. Okay. And if they're born into shitty circumstances, maybe they'll turn it around and become an incredible leader. You don't know. Molly, we agree on a couple things. We agree that like, hope, sure, you can hope one thing, I can hope one thing,

Gregory can hope one thing, but what about what? What about what? That's Gregory can't hope one thing. Give it up for Gregory. But there's a difference between hope and forcing, and I believe in the autonomy of women. Well, that's the thing. I would force. The only thing we agree on is that hope is not a strategy.

Yeah, that's, okay, it's a theological virtue, though. All right, all right, hold on. We got to move on. Let's get a nice question. Okay, bringing it back to. the current topic, I would like y'all to answer or explain, define, what about international law is legitimate or has any sort of grounding or force? Because based on U.S. law, every action taken in Venezuela was completely legitimate. But based on, you know, all of the complaints about it are violations of international law. So please explain that.

That wasn't my complaint about it. I didn't bring in a legal argument or an international law argument. I think there's a decent argument that Trump made legal strikes. Now, the distinction I'd make, Obama made a lot of, did a lot of strikes under the authorized use of military force in a post-9-11 era. Trump, when you're striking a country, should probably go through Congress before doing an active war. But I'm not going to say it's illegal or it's going to be upheld as illegal. The reason I say that every president should have to go through Congress, not only Trump, but Obama and Biden before doing this, is because we don't want presidents as Americans to be able to unilaterally strike or do acts for wars.

Like, for example, Trump is talking a lot about Greenland lately. Would you be okay if Trump authorized a strike on Greenland? I will become the most dick cheney neocon. I want F-35s flying over nuke, baby. I want to greet them. I want them to greet us as liberators from their Danish overlords. You realize, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

It's fine, yeah. Okay, you guys have no moral foundation. You guys voted for some way. Adam's being mean too Adam's being mean too Hold up, hold up No, no, no, this is so true Donald Trump said over and over

No new wars, no new wars And you guys just cheered for somebody Who wants F-35s to fly over a NATO- No, look, I'm exaggerating a little bit Donald Trump has not ruled out military force Against a NATO ally Now, I want to talk a little bit about like international law

And why it's important just for one second In a post-World War II era After the bloodiest conflict in human history All the world leaders came together And said, we have to make sure The world doesn't devolve into chaos again. So they created NATO, which says that you can't just invade countries for no reason. I'm not fucking wrong. But to continue, good one. You guys. Well, no, it wasn't all the world leaders,

right? There was, half the world was, of course, was aligned with NATO, half with the wars off. That's a great point. So developed countries decided to join NATO, then they got to enjoy. No, the Soviet Union was a developed country. Okay. The countries that joined NATO got to enjoy decades and decades of not only economic growth, but more technology, more medicine. The countries that haven't joined NATO are honestly like third world chit holes at this moment. So NATO exists to keep us safe to make sure that we have a world order that is in focus and the United States benefits from that world order. So I just don't like Donald Trump trying to step all over NATO,

trying to threaten our NATO ally of Greenland. You realize we have U.S. troops on the ground in Greenland, not to invade them, but because they're a fucking ally. We could call them up and just say, hey, can we put more troops on the ground? Is Greenland an independent nation? Greenland is not independent, no. You're right. So we're talking about Denmark.

Okay, no, we have troops in Greenland. Yeah, yeah. So we can call up Denmark and literally just say, can we increase troops to Greenland? Or I'm sure we can communicate with Greenland directly. Why does Denmark have Greenland? We're closer to Greenland than Denmark. That's not how property or international law works. Isn't that way?

You mentioned international law is very interesting here. Because you mentioned NATO, and it's very telling that you misspoke and you said that, you know, the whole world was united by NATO. No, no, no. That was a product of the Cold War where half the world was divided into NATO and the other half was in the Warsaw Pact. And so when the Cold War ended now 35 years ago, the role of NATO dramatically changed, and the role of the United States as the sole global hegemon changed.

And so there is such a thing as international law. I'm not one of these people who says international law is fake. There is such a thing that goes back. I'm not Matt Walsh. I do think it's real. Though the point he's making is a good one, which is that the modern instantiation

of international law, like the UN and associated bodies, is ridiculous. It's a liberal internationalism. It's not ridiculous. Article 5 of NATO has prevented nuclear war from breaking out. The military might of the United States

has prevented nuclear war from breaking out. That's what it is. And that's all NATO is too. Wait, wait. You're, wait. You guys clap for everything. You're making my points. You're making my points. The military might of the United States has deterred countries from invading our NATO allies, which would also have military troops if they got invaded.

So the might of the United States as the leader of NATO has benefited us. We provide their military protection. China and Russia are aggressing on Greenland. It's strategically necessary. It's been the policy of the U.S. State Department since the mid-19th century to acquire. to acquire Greenland and we have to take it. China and Russia did anything to Greenland, under NATO, Article 5 would mean that we retaliate.

Russia and China are not surrounding. We're getting a head start. That's what's going on. You guys have no more foundation if you're okay. I appreciate people who've never seen conflict really like get emboldened and really like lash out about how they know everything about world conflict. I'm not saying I know everything.

And it's for a lot of people in this country. You know, we've never had conflict with our shores. New Wars being started? Because that's what he's saying. My question is... Wait, you just say you won F-35s over Greenland. Now you're saying you're not saying that. There won't be a war.

It won't last very long. No moral foundation. I appreciate the sentiment of no new wars. But my question to you is, do you think that America will survive if we do not take a country like Venezuela with the largest oil deposits? Because, listen, hear me out, America creates light oil.

We have a lot of fracking in this country. Most of our refineries, and things that convert heavy oil is what we have here in America, which is on the Gulf of America. Yeah, you Gulf of America. But ultimately, when you have China rush everyone teaming up with Cuba, Venezuela, who are taking over Guy on them for all the resources, consider the one-belt, one-road initiative that China is putting in place.

They're giving a lot of money to these regimes to make them look good so they can create infrastructure so they can win the voting power. And then they're indebted forever to China. when they take over that region and they have all these resources that we do not and then they start launching missiles into our backyard right across the Gulf, you think as the leaders of the free world

that we should not intervene and take over Venezuela. Should we intervene and take over Venezuela? No, and we haven't done that. Currently, Delsi Rodriguez is in power, so your framing is entirely wrong. I mean, we're running the show. She is sort of in power, but... Rubio and Trump are running.

You ask a fundamental question, how is America supposed to survive if we're not taking over countries like Venezuela, the same way that we both survived and excelled over the past 70 years. Over the past 70 years, we have seen a massive increase in quality of life, technology, medicine. And it's awesome, right? How do you keep those going? Oil.

You need oil. It's because global wars haven't broken out in the same way they did before. The luxuries of what you love here in America no longer exist. Okay. Are you saying that pillaging Venezuela for their oil reserves and taking... I'm not saying pillaging. What I'm saying is taking it away from the civilians. No, I'm saying taking it away from the civilians.

who is working with China and our enemies out of the equation and letting them come back in and become an ally. We want Venezuela to be an ally so we can have access to the resources. We want them to be an ally by taking over their country. Number two, if you're scared. Maduro is not on our team in any way shape of form. Delcée Rodriguez won't be either. But let me ask you, are you okay? So should we or should we not have taken Manduro as we did?

It's fine if we took Maduro. That's not even my big problem. So we're all on the same page. Let's get that. The regime has changed over, right? Listen. No, the regime hasn't changed over. You're just wrong.

The leadership has changed over. The leadership has changed. Can I ask you? Give it time. If you're so scared about Chinese aggression, would you be okay with protecting Taiwan if they were invaded by China? Yes. Because they're the closest democratic ally that we have over there. Russian aggression, are you okay with stopping Ukraine from being invaded by sending military,

not military troops, but military weapons like we are? So this is, I love how you bring this into the chess board. Wait, no, no. I'm asking. Because you're getting into all of our allies and stuff. but at the end of the day, when you're talking about the Russia-Ukraine war,

yes, we should support, what support should we do in what capacity, right? And that's where we're never all going to agree. However, one fundamental thing is America does not create enough heavy oil

to maintain the lifestyle and the strength of America without this type of oil. So where do we get it? Venezuela. That's the argument you're making. This is just geopolitical truth. We are running out of heavy oil

in America. And to your point, Adam, I think we agree. We've reached a synthesis, which is you say, well, you know, the way we should do it is we should get along as we have for the past 70 years. Well, over the last 70 years, we've intervened in Latin America like 50 times. We've overthrown a lot of regimes, so we're going to keep on, keep on. It's going to be great. It doesn't work.

It doesn't work. And they're creating alliances to create a socialistic party with Cuba and other enemies of America. Pingo. Cascading effects. It's beautifully stated. Okay, we have to figure out, who won that round? Was it, and you raise your paddles? Was it the liberal team?

You guys, we got tried in true blue, was it me? All right, there we go, it's good. All right, now I kind of saw that one coming. Now, now, who won the question round? I think it's obviously the last guy, right? That was very thoughtful and serious, I think, right? Thank you.

I'm 2A daddy. I do gun stuff, Second Amendment. I'll be here all year. I live here. Come hang out. Let's shoot some guns. Yeah, my man. That's great.

I just got a new gun. My buddy, Nick Pradoes, gave me a desert eagle. And it's Catholic, and it's called the excommunicator. It's sick. Anyway, maybe I'll have to bring a question. I'll go shooting with you for content. That'll be fun. Yeah, we can record it.

Do you shoot? Have you ever? Yeah, yeah. Wow, all right. Let's go. Liberals are normal people, bro. I mean, we're just normal people. No, some of the, like a very few numbers sometimes are.

Okay, but you can also point to Republicans who fucking raided the Capitol. I mean, people are always going to be crazy. Yeah, those guys, they're going to come shooting with us, too. You don't know. Okay. Now, okay. Now, we turn to the VIP table. Uh-oh.

I don't know. Did we solve all of the world's problems or not? Is there one more topic we have to get to to hash out? Oh, man. I don't know. Ask us anything. You don't think we solved them. I don't think you solved them, but I don't know.

I actually don't know. I don't know the topic. You don't have a not, you know, is there anyone? Is there any suggestion? Gregory, let's go. I say we take on the transgender with the Supreme court cases that they're hearing today, we take on that transgender issue just a little bit further. Okay, so the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in two cases. The Libs won't let this issue

die, which is great for Republicans. Because if we were going to get blown out in the midterms, this is like our absolute best hope of turning it around. And basically, the Libs are arguing that states cannot pass laws banning boys who identify as girls from girls' sports. And the court heard it. And Katanji Jackson, I spoke something vaguely. resembling English and Clarence Thomas smacked them down and the ACLU fumbled. So is there any particular angle with that? Let's talk about our fifth place superstar, Riley Gaines. Let's talk about trans women.

I think that's that is that you want to talk about trans women. Transwomen and women's sports. Okay, cool. I love talking about women's sports. So Adam, is it right, Adam? Yeah. Since you're effectively Bill Clinton. I don't know what you mean by.

What I mean by that is like you're the only moderate Democrat left. There's a lot of moderate stuff there. How old are you? 23. Oh, shit, okay. No, no, you're good. What's up? All right, do you think men can become women?

Can men become women? Yeah. You can change genders from male. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But there's a difference between sex and gender? Do I think there's a difference between sex and gender? Yeah. Yeah, I think that there are two different terms.

So when you go up to someone in a grocery store and you're walking up to them, do you think scientifically they're different? Well, gender is a sociological term. Yeah, based on like physical appearances like hair length or other things like that. And then sex is based on, it's not a joke. Sex is based on your genitals, right? Yeah. So can I ask you a question? Yes, please do.

Genuinely. No, no, for real. I'm not joking with you. Okay. So if you're walking up to somebody in a grocery store and say it's a worker and you can only see them from behind. And all you see is somebody with long, luscious hair. Yeah. Is it a Gourlock, the devour? No, no.

Say you're walking up to somebody in a grocery store. store and you can only see them from behind and you say they have long luscious hair they have jewelry around their wrist are they thick do you go based on do you go based on a vague assessment of social characteristics or do you check their genitals before you check to see if they're male or female uh before i got sober or after no but you said genuinely which one which one um i would assume that they were a man or a woman well based on their oh they had with those characteristics i'm saying is it based on their james i'm saying is it based on their genitals, or do you base it on their broad characteristics out in public?

Broad characteristics. So when somebody out in public, it has long hair or jewelry from behind, in 2026, that could be a male or a female. Totally. Yeah, so absolutely. So the difference between sex and gender, as we laid out, is that sex. No, hold on. Say that again. I'm sorry. I'm just, I'm saying that when you're walking up to someone in a grocery store and they have long hair and they have a, they have a bracelet or whatever, jewelry. They could be a man or a woman.

Yes, exactly. Exactly. Stop there. Exactly. Okay, I have a question for Gregory. I'm making my point. I'm making my point. Okay, keep going. The point that I'm making here is, and I don't know if you're too smart, too dumb to realize it, I don't know.

The point that I'm trying to make here. Maybe. Yeah, so when you walk up to someone in a grocery store and you don't know what they are, it's because you go based on social characteristics. That is gender. Gender is defined as social characteristics. Sex are your genitals. So can somebody be transgender?

Can somebody who has long hair and is a male then transition to look like a female? Yes, absolutely. But come on. Oh, yes. No, no, no, no. No, no, no, no. I don't grant that. Wait, so, which part do not grant?

Wait, hold on a minute, you can pretend. Hold on a minute. I do not grant your premise. Which premise? What the fuck you granted all my premises and now you have a problem? No, no, no. Okay, I was here. Because right there, you're conflating.

What? Gender expression with sex. And you're, you're, you're declass. I'm not. Hold on. Explain the difference. You're decoupling. You're decoupling, you're decoupling gender expression from sex.

No, they're going, you know, they're making my point. 99% of the time, and gender overlaps, but in this 0.5% exception, people can transition, like you admit it. Yeah, but I, okay, where's my, where's my, where's my, where's my, where's my, where's my, where's my, where's my, where's my, where's my, where's my, where's my, where, again, you're, you're, you're, you're saying, you're not even representing, again, you're Bill Clinton. You're not representing your own side. Okay, I'll represent. Hey, you guys aren't. Your firmware is not updated. Women, women talking about. This guy's shaking over there. He's shaking in the BIP section. No, hold on. Hold on, Lauren.

Let's just finish this topic. Oh, my God. The point where I think you're diverging is you're saying, and therefore this person can transition to have a transgender. Wait, can I ask you a question? Yes. Do you think somebody who has male characteristics can change themselves in such a way where they appear to be female when you walk up to them at a grocery store? What do you mean? I mean.

I mean, like, tax and all properties. I mean, jewelry. Superficial or sexual, you know, sexual down there? Either way, it can be like tits. I can't figure out which part you're asking about. Are you saying someone who, by all biological bus signs is a man but wears a dress? Or like, what do you mean by the characteristics?

I mean, some of those are characteristics. Yeah, somebody who has a penis, but they have pants on, obviously, so you can't tell. But then they're wearing jewelry. They have long hair. I mean, here's the thing. Dude, I wish trainees tried that hard. So.

You can usually tell. I could not even good at it. Do you what I'm saying? Do you want to have this conversation about penis is over there? I think you're making a great point, Adam, which is, and you're granting it wit, which is, yes, there is a distinction between sex and gender. Of course. Sex pertains to human nature. Biological characteristics. And it's expressed biologically, primarily. And gender expression is this social performance in some ways. But the problem is you're making an undue leap, which is you're saying, therefore, one can transition from one to the other.

Just because these things are distinct does not therefore imply that they should be in conflict with, one another. So the pro-transgender side says, well, you know, you can have gullions. Hold on. You can have gullions and you can dress like a woman and therefore you're really a woman and entitled to all the rights of women. But I guess I would say the opposite. If you're a man who wants to put on a dress, you shouldn't. You should bring your gender expression into line with your biology and you should act like a man if you're a man. You have an obligation to do that. I think that 99% of people's gender aligns with their sex. I guess the question is, if we just refer to- True, it's 1%.

If we just refer to women as trans women, would you guys be happier? Is that literally the... No, I want them to act like who they really are. Wait, so do you think gender dysphoria is real, according to DSM-5? I think people get confused, but we should treat it rather than... Do you think gender is a real... I want to go back to DSM-4, bro. I want to hear from Red Gregory.

I want to go back to DSM-3 before it was cool, man. I'm a conversation about women's sports and girls' t-ball, because that's what I thought this was Supreme Court hearing was. It was about elementary school. children's sports. We're talking about girls in boys, which is under the age of 18, they're...

Yeah, but boys still have an advantage. It's less than after puberty, but they still have a physical advantage. What's your question? So my question is, what's the fixation around kids' t-ball? I've not mentioned kids t-ball. Yeah.

I have a good question about transgender sports. Hold on. How many times have you run the bell? They play, what are your kids? All right, fine. All right, we got to go. In my opinion, no one wins a bar fight. They're only losers.

So the real question is, who lost tonight? The question is, who's going to buy the round? You are. The question is, I know, I think I technically did. The question is, who is going to star in Witt's romance novel? And so, who lost? Was it Adam? You guys hate it.

Was it? Lauren. Was it Lauren? Was it me? Where are you? Come on, you at least got a yell. Yeah, okay, we got one of his name. She lost in the same way.

She lost in the same way Trump lost in 2020. We still have to do some court cases. We still have to, you know, contradict a bit. Yeah. See you at the Daily Mail H-P tomorrow. And in the same way, because Venezuela maybe you stole it. I don't know. They won't steal it again.

See you all at the next bar fight. Thank you. Yay.