The Young Turks - Cenk & Jordan Debate - May 15, 2025

Episode Date: May 16, 2025

Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month Shopify trial and start selling today at ⁠shopify.com/tyt Trump ramps up pressure on the Supreme Court ahead of a looming birthright citizenship decision and unveils a controversial “freedom zone” proposal for Gaza during stalled ceasefire talks in Qatar. Joe Rogan dismisses calls to ban Kanye West’s Hitler-referencing song, calling it “kinda catchy.” Hosts: Jordan Uhl & Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, welcome to young Turks, Jay Cougar, Jordan Yule with you guys. Jordan Yule of Rebel H.Qaeda fame and a host of the insurgents, which is really a badass name for a podcast. Let's be honest about it. Okay. So now, a hell of a show for you guys in the first hour alone.

So at the end of the hour, we're going to, we're asking this question on t.yt.com and we're going to try to answer it. I don't even know what my answer is. I, you know, you don't hear that often. But I want to hear Jordan's opinion. I want to get to it. Anyway, the question is, should Kanye West pro-Hitler song be banned on all platforms? It's not whether you think it's a good song. No, it's terrible that he did that song. Terrible. The question is, should it be banned? Was it more productive or counterproductive to ban it? So again, I don't know the answer, let's, we're gonna figure it out. But also several disastrous things from Trump, you're not surprised about that. We'll get to that right in the beginning and then we got an amazing, terrible story about political greatness in the second hour.

But also potentially, really positive development, potentially, potentially, maybe. So hold on, let's see what happens. All right, Jordan, what do you got for us? We have so much, Jank. Let's jump right into it, starting with this. President Trump's battle to end birthright citizenship, taking center stage at the Supreme Court today. You claim that there is absolutely no constitutional way to stop, put this aside, to stop a president from an unconstitutional act, a clearly, indisputably unconstitutional way. I disagree with that.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case about the enforcement of President Trump's order to ban birthright citizenship. The main question is not birthright citizenship itself, but rather whether lower courts overstepped their authority by blocking that order on a nationwide basis. Before we get to the oral arguments, we're going to hear from Donald Trump who went on one of his classic truth social rants earlier this morning. But first, I know you have a lot of thoughts on birthright citizenship. It was in part, one of the reasons you, you know, it helped inspire your candidacy. What do you make of this case? And how do you think the Supreme Court will rule? Yeah. So there's three different issues here. So number one is birthright citizenship, which should be an arguable. By the way, a little topsy-turvy there, Jordan. So I'm a naturalized citizen. So I believe that all birthright citizenship should be taken away. So I'm one of the few citizens left. No, seriously. But I do have nephews who have birthright citizenship, et cetera, because that's how we get citizenship. It's you're born here. That's usually the number one way. Anyways, but there's also the issue of these injunctions from the lower courts.

That sounds wonky, but it was really important, which gets to the third and maybe most important issue, which was Amy Coney Barrett grilling the Trump administration on whether they're going to listen to court orders at all. And then there was one very clear answer to that and then one disastrous answer to that. So there's a lot to get to here and sort out. So Jordan, take it away and then we'll analyze. Let's get to that rant from Donald Trump. He posted this on truth social. Birthright citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent citizens of the United States of America and bringing their families with them. All the time laughing at the quote, suckers that we are.

The United States of America is the only country in the world that does this. For what reason, nobody knows. But the drug cartels love it. We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a stupid country. But in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct. And it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America. Birthright citizenship is about the babies of slaves. It had nothing to do with illegal immigration for people wanting to scam our country from all parts of the world, which they have done for many years.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. First of all, his repeated claim that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship is flat out incorrect, as you can see in this map. There are about 30 other countries that do the same thing, including both of our neighbors. You can see the full list over on the right. Secondly, the 14th Amendment literally could not be any clearer. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. So we've established that Trump is flat out wrong.

But now let's go back to the Supreme Court case because that's not nearly as clear as Trump's BS arguments against the merits of birthright citizenship. Before we hear from the justices, here's CBS's legal expert explaining what this case, stemming from Trump's executive order is really about. Take a look. Many people sued. Federal judges issued these things called nationwide injunctions, meaning that the executive order can't go into effect, not just with respect to the parties who sued, but with respect to everybody nationwide. And so the question that the court has struggling with is do federal judges have the power to do that? Do they have the power to say,

this executive order, stop it, halt it, not just for the people who walked into my courtroom and asked me, but with respect to everybody, it cannot be implemented anywhere. So as we wait for the court's decision, we can only make inferences based on some of the lines of questioning from the justices. And so far, from what? what we can tell, some of the conservative justices seem open to siding with the Trump administration. According to CNN, several conservative justices signaled deep reservations with the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. But at the same time, seemed to be searching for other ways people could in the short term stop a policy that would upend more than a century

of understanding about American citizenship. The liberals, however, pressed solicitor General D. John Sauer on what's taking away power from the lower courts would mean. Justice Sotomayor gave Sauer a hypothetical about what could happen with a different president in charge. Take a look. You claim that there is absolutely no constitutional way to stop. put this aside to stop a president from an unconstitutional act, a clearly, indisputably unconstitutional act. So when a new president orders that, because there's so much gun violence

going on in the country, and he comes in and he says, I have the right to take away the guns from everyone, then people, and he sends out the military to seize everyone's, guns, we and the courts have to sit back and wait until every name plaintiff gets, or every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court. Taking every gun from every citizen, we couldn't stop that. I disagree with that. Now, Katanji Brown Jackson summarized the Trump team's argument as catch me if you can. Take a look. The real concern, I think, is that your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a catch me if you can kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights.

Justice Kagan says, let's assume, for the purpose of this, that you're wrong about the merits, that the government is not allowed to do this under the Constitution, and yet it seems to me that your argument says we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc. And I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law. And finally, all of the merits of the birthright citizenship case are not technically in question here. Justice Amy Coney-Barritt repeatedly pressed sour about why the government is avoiding the merits. And he made a damning admission. Take a look. This is also a follow-up to some of your, the questions that others have asked you about the merits of the order not being before us. Did I understand your answer to be because you think percolation is really important for this one? Yes, but also more fundamentally, it illustrates that the very problem with these nationwide injunctions is they force this rushed, you know, fast and furious decisions on the merits.

So I think it would be very inappropriate in this case to come to a stay application saying, please give us a rushed, you know, a decision on the merits of something that's very very complex. But the government's done that in other cases too, right? Those cases would be different in this case. The example I gave earlier, we think it's very clear cut on the merits. You know, this one is, we concede a novel incentive question. So this one isn't clear cut on the merits. This one, in this case, we want the court to address the remedial issue. One could say, in other words, they can't defend it because they know it's so blatantly unconstitutional.

But, Jank, what do you think the court will decide here? Do you think we should read into Justice Coney Barrett's line of questioning? Okay, so I have so many things to say about all the different justices in their line of questioning. because Amy Coney Barrett had the best questions, to be honest. That was one of them. And then I'm going to get back to a second one that was even more critical in a minute. But so in that question right there, she's getting at, okay, the birthright citizenship issue. Once we get past these issues of, hey, can courts do lower courts do nationwide injunctions,

should they do class action lawsuits, you know, the process issues, right? what do you think about the merits of birthright citizenship? And he just flat out admits, yeah, that was tough on the merits. But that's actually what you guys are going for. All the process stuff is to get to the conclusion where you want to take away people's citizenship. And when she asked him about that, he's like, yeah, I've never seen a lawyer in any court, let alone the Supreme Court, basically say, yeah, my case sucks. Like, he literally said his case is questionable.

Okay, not literally in that he didn't use that. that word, but you heard him right there in that he was saying, yeah, on the merits, it's dicey. So what are we doing here? What are we doing here? And actually one of our members is a good theory on what we're doing here. I'll get to that in a second. Sotomayor had an X, that question that we played for you is also excellent, except I want to tell her, why. Okay, I'm largely kidding. You have to set the right legal president or no better who's in charge. But man, Republicans, right wing, etc. You better be careful with this precedent because now back to the process issue of can the lower courts say, hey, listen, you're going to create mayhem here if you start taking away citizenship before the Supreme Court, it goes up to the Supreme Court. court decides definitively, right? So hold on, that's the injunction, hold on, and let the

Supreme Court decide this. And if they say yes, then you could take away citizenship, right? So Trump doesn't want that. He's like, no, I just want to start taking it away right now. Kavanaugh has some good questions about that. But what Sotomayor is saying is if that's true, if a Democratic president comes in and he goes, oh, oh, okay, so we can do anything we want and the lower courts can't stop us. They have to wait all the way until it goes up to the Supreme Court. And usually the Supreme Court remands and it goes back down to the lower courts and all the way back up to the Supreme Court. That could take a long, long time.

So her example, I can give a thousand examples, but her example was, all right, Democrat comes in, goes, all right, I'm seizing all your guns. Good luck, you'll get to the Supreme Court in a year or so, I suppose. But by that time, I'll have all your guns. And then you'll have to try to get him back. And then you'll have to go to the courts and the Supreme Court and back. and forth, back and forth. No, no, no, no, no. What if they start doing massively unconstitutional, it's super clear? But what if the court said, okay, the president said

Democrat or Republican, all right, I'm taking away freedom of the press. All the press is shut down immediately, okay? No one is allowed to broadcast and certainly no one is allowed to criticize the president. Okay, well, now lower courts can't do anything. So they're going to shut down every single media organization and then try to restart them a year, later when the Supreme Court gets to it? Now that's mental, it's totally mental. The reason why I say sh is because, man, if I had an ally who was president and that rule was in place, I wouldn't know any of the bad things, but I would counsel for us to take

significant and massive action and let them sort it out later. It can't stand, that's nuts. So Katanji Brown Jackson leads to one of our members, right? So why are they even doing this, what's the point of this? Lou B wrote in on t.com ending birthright citizenship is not only an attack on non-white citizens, it also provides a clear path allowing Trump, et cetera, to deport anyone who disagrees with them. See, that's the thing. If you, and that's partly what Katanji Brown Jackson was getting at, if you have this rule in place, how are they going to enforce it? And Kavanaugh got

to that, I'll get to him in a second. And basically, it would be the president, the executive branch going, let's investigate that guy, okay? I don't like that guy. He's been criticizing me. Oh, you, that's it. He was born here, but his parents once went on a vacation and does that really count? I don't know if, oh, one of his parents is American, but the other was Canadian. Doesn't count. Doesn't count. Now I'm targeting you. I'm removing you, you, you and you who all criticized me. On this total BS, you're not a citizen anymore even if you're born in America. So that's part of the point here, a total political attack and an attack on our constitution. So now we get to Kavanaugh. Cavanaugh is an interesting cat. So he's the one that has this alternative about

how people can bring up class action lawsuits instead of getting an injunction from the lower courts. Honestly, it makes no sense to me. And Kagan was like, okay, what if they say, all right, we lost that class action lawsuit. Yeah, those people, we can't take away their birthright citizenship, but everyone else we can. There's no answer to that. So it just doesn't make any sense. I don't even, it can't, it doesn't even begin to make any sense as an alternative. On the other hand, Kavanaugh then was like, wait, how are you going to apply this? So, you know, baby gets born in a hospital, gets a birth certificate, you're born in America, so you say U.S. citizen, they write that in. Are you guys going to go hospital to hospital? Well, yeah, he was born here,

but his parent, one of his parents was originally from Cambodia 17 years ago. So that one doesn't count. Switch it to Cambodian. And by the way, if the lower courts can't do their injunction, they would get to do that for a bunch of people. And then if the Supreme Court rules against them, then have to go back and go, okay, sorry, the birth certificate, not Cambodian, back to America. It would be an unbelievable mess, a ridiculous mess.

So the fact that the conservative justices are even entertaining this is basically like the Alito's and the Clarence Thomas is going, Donald Trump, you can come up with the dumbest thing of the world and we'll go, maybe, maybe, maybe we'll create utter mayhem and no one will know who's an American citizen anymore because they're all born here. When someone's, when a baby is born, is the hospital asking, hey, where are the parents from? When did they get here? Are they going to be the Gestapo that then polices this, right?

Or do they just assume the kid's born here, he's an American citizen? If you make the hospitals try to determine where the parents are from, et cetera, it's going to be the biggest mess you've ever seen. And everybody's going to be going to court nonstop. I'm a citizen, no, you're not, yes, I am, etc. This is just so monumentally stupid. I think Amy Coney Barrett's going to vote against them on birthright citizenship. I'm curious to see if any of the justices, on the merits of the case on birthright citizenship,

votes was Trump. It might be unanimous, not nothing. But if Alito and Thomas do it and others, they're just, it's deeply shameful. So on the process issue, they love to appease Trump that way. Oh, yes, Donald Trump, you are making such a good point about the lower courts. We'll create mayhem by saying the lower courts can't stop you. But when it comes back to the Supreme Court on the merits, I'd be shocked if they took away. How would they even take away birthright citizenship?

It's right in there in the 14th Amendment. It's the clearest thing in the world. And by the way, if you can do that, then you can take away the Second Amendment, which is way less clear. Because it says it's contingent on a militia. If we're having a conversation about a crystal clear amendment, we'll definitely go back and have a conversation about the Second Amendment.

And so last thing for now, on Amy Coney Barrett, what I promised to Jordan. So she asks, okay, wait, are you guys even going to follow court orders? because we're going through this whole rigmar role here, but you keep saying in public that you might not. So she said, if the Second Circuit issues are ruling, will the Trump administration follow it? And Sauer says, general practice is to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice, and that is not just a new policy. She's like, whoa, whoa, wait, wait a way to it. So what do you mean it's not general practice to follow what the district courts are saying?

He's like, well, that it's general practice, but we don't have to do it. She's like, no, you kind of do have to do it. And then she, you know, he keeps saying not necessarily. And she's like, wait, you say that there's been longstanding exceptions to following the courts. Can you name any other than the Trump administration? He said, well, it's longstanding. No, in other words, no, he can't. Because it's not a thing.

They're just making it up that you don't have to listen to the courts. And then finally, she presses them all the way on the distinction between the Supreme Court and the lower courts. And he goes, no, no, no, we're clear we will follow the Supreme Court rulings. Well, he's on the record. I don't know if it's worth anything that he's on the record, but at least that's good news, right? But on the lower courts, he's super clear. No, if it's not the Supreme Court, we can choose to ignore it. And that's a disaster.

And again, if Republicans can do it, so can Democrats. We're going to have mayhem and chaos if they would. Yeah. Yeah, that just completely undermines and jeopardizes our entire democracy. That is a very serious next step if they are willing to take it that far, but I wouldn't put it past them. On who would side, on which side of the case, I think we've seen data over the past couple years that Amy Coney-Barratt has surprisingly sided with liberals the most, which is interesting when you think about the context surrounding her nomination to begin with, people thought she was going to be this extreme, far-right, draconian justice steeped in a real patriarchal understanding and religious overtones of the country.

And she's surprisingly been way more moderate than people expected. Kavanaugh, too. I think Kavanaugh of the conservatives, Kavanaugh sided with the liberals second most. So I'm with you. If it's seven to two and it's Thomas and Alito, would not be a surprising outcome, but it is hard to look at what the government is arguing here, what the Solicitor General is arguing here, and think that any of them could think, yeah, that's a sound argument. But if there were any two on the court, it's Thomas and Alito who would

find a way to justify it. On the issue itself, though, I think, like we laid out, it is perfectly clear in the 14th Amendment. And I also, I'm disheartened by this effort to begin. because it, to me, it runs contrary to what this country should be. We've, you know, many of us grew up to see this country as the shining beacon on a hill, a place of opportunity for anyone who around the world who wants to come here, make something of themselves, contribute to this project, contribute to the country. And we are just rolling back the clock and rewriting it into, and rewriting this country into something that is isolated.

hated, hateful, bigoted, lonely, disconnected from the rest of the world. And that's a sad place to be. I really fear for our country in the direction we are heading if policies like this are successfully enacted. The long-term effects would be devastating. And it's just a really, it's rooted in an inhumane view of others, people who are not born here, people who are immigrants or to them people who are not white. But it is really, it is a disgusting state of affairs that we are in right now. Yeah. Yeah, but last thing of this, why might go in this direction? Who asked for this? Did the people who voted for Biden but then switched their votes and voted for Trump that made the difference between 2020 and 2024? Did they think,

you know what? If only we could end birthright citizenship? No, they were worried about inflation. worried about the border, they weren't worried about doing wildly, ridiculously, stupidly unconstitutional things. I don't know why he bothers getting himself in trouble like this. All it does is make him more unpopular. And I guess the answer is he's playing to the most radical authoritarian part of his base. And that they get super excited with the idea of ignoring the constitution. But I don't know how large that segment is. I know how large the segment is that hates immigrants, and that's pretty sizable, right?

But to the point where you would have light the Constitution on fire, I don't think that that's anywhere near as popular as he thinks it is, even among his own voters, let alone the rest of the country, which hates it. Leave the Constitution alone. All right, we got to take a break here. When we come back, Trump starts talking about freedom zone for Gaza again. Sounds disastrous, but hold on. They might actually be potentially, potentially really good news buried in there. So let's talk about it when we come back. All right, back on TYT, Jake and Jordan with you guys.

More news. Go get them, Jordan. All right, take a look at this. There are days that I feel so alone in this chamber as the only Palestinian-American serving in Congress. The dehumanization and the anti-Palestinian racism here is painful, especially when my colleagues remain silent on the starvation of children and vote to send more bombs to the Israeli government while they commit war crimes with impunity. I pray that the ongoing neck against the Palestinians will end. And one day they will be free. Representative Rashida Talib, the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress,

broke down in tears on the House floor on Thursday as she talked about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza. She called out Netanyahu and her fellow Congress members for refusing to put an end to the genocide. Take a look. Israeli forces have killed more than 52,000 Palestinians. And nearly 70% of them were women and children. Babies who did not live to see their first birthday. There are thousands more who are dismembered, unrecognizable, burned alive, buried beneath the rubble and presumed dead. Each year our country sends billions of dollars to maintain this apartheid state and support the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.

Our country is complicit, Mr. Speaker, because with our nation, is funding this genocide. The Israeli government will not stop until we place an arms embargo. Majority of Americans support it. We must save lives, no matter faith or ethnicity. A child is a child. Despite her pleas and the wishes of most Americans, we will continue to aid Israel. And Donald Trump is now once again signaling that the U.S. is going to participate in ethnically cleansing Palestinians. But before we get to that, jank.

Yeah, it's a huge caveat there. There's actually three different options for what they could do with Gaza. One's a disaster. One is fantastic. And then the third one is frustrating and will not get to the right result. I'm afraid they're going to do the third one. But after Jordan gives you all the details here. And oh my God, the genocide here is unreal now.

72 days of starvation. It's the world going to do anything. It's, it's, the cruelty of this current Israeli government is unbearable. And so those three options are going to determine everything and which way does Trump go? And Trump's going to decide this thing, not Netanyahu, Trump is. And he's a giant wild card. So let's tell you about the current state of the disaster in Gaza. And it's as bad as it has ever been.

And then let's talk about, is it going to get better or worse? And like I said, don't lose hope because there is one alternative where this thing turns positive in a totally unexpected way. Now, Donald Trump's messaging on what his intentions are for Gaza have been all over the place. But during a meeting with Netanyahu in April, he said this. Having a peace force like the United States there, controlling and owning the Gaza Strip would be a good thing. Because right now, all it is is for years and years. All I hear about is killing and Hamas and problems. And if you take the people, the Palestinians, and move them around to different countries,

and you have plenty of countries that will do that. And you really have a freedom, a freedom zone. You call it the freedom zone. A free zone, a zone where people aren't going to be killed every day. That's a hell of a place. It's a, you know what I call it, a great location that nobody wants to live in? And yesterday, he doubled down. During a meeting with business leaders in Qatar, he told the press,

Gaza has been a territory of death and destruction for many years. I have concepts for Gaza and I think are very good. Make it a freedom zone. Let the United States get involved and make it just a freedom zone. I'd be proud to have the United States have it, take it, make it a freedom zone. He described aerial images he's seen of the widespread destruction from Israeli airstrikes on Gaza and said, there's practically no building standing. It's not like you're trying to save something.

His comments come as the death toll surpasses 53,000. And that is just an estimate. And the Israeli military is intensifying operations across Gaza. They killed more than 100 people just today and are pledging to continue. the bombings. And now Netanyahu is just outright saying that his goal is to drive the Palestinians out. He said this earlier this week. We are destroying more and more homes. They have nowhere to return to. The only inevitable outcome will be the desire of Gazans to emigrate outside of the Gaza Strip. Jank, you hear Netanyahu's intent, just completely destroy it, drive everyone

out. I don't know how I could look at Trump's, you know, freedom zone proposal and find any room for encouragement. So what are we missing here? Yeah, yeah. First of all, let me discourage you further and then I'll get to the encouragement. Okay. So option number one is we do what Israel orders us to do, which is Americans go in there and push the Palestinians out. That's the original Netanyahu plan. So God forbid an Israeli should get hurt doing the ethnic cleansing. And he was trying to, hey, he's like, hey, Miriam gave you all this money, over $300 million. Now you pay us back by Americans dying and being guilty of the genocide and the ethnic cleansing. And then the two places that they would push them to is either the ruins of Rafa or completely out of Gaza into other countries.

Now, if you think that that's hyperbole, they're not really going to, I mean, that's literally the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing. Yeah, so let me share with you reporting from DropSight News. Jeremy Skahill reporting here that shows you that is definitively what they're planning to do. And in fact, they actually say it and brag about it. And then I'll get you to the two other options. Okay, Skahill reports, Hamas will lay down its weapons, its leaders, this is an Netanyahu statement to his cabinet. Hamas will lay down its weapons, its leaders will be allowed to leave. We will see to the general security in the Gaza Strip and will allow the realization of the Trump plan for voluntary migration.

He told his cabinet, referring to Trump's threat to seize Gaza and remove Palestinians from their land. And he said, quote, this is the plan. We are not hiding this. So they first say, look, we want the hostages back, wink. Our own envoy, Steve Whitkoff said, no, they don't want the hostages back. Israel is delaying peace. They're the ones who want to continue the war. Okay. So he says, yeah, well, we, you know, we want the hostages back. But that's not good enough. We also want everyone in Hamas, who we don't know who they are, to come out somehow and surrender.

And presumably they'll be either sent to prison or executed. And so they're going to all voluntarily do that. And then Israel is going to say, okay, we are satisfied enough that all of Hamas has come out and said this. And Palestine will never be allowed to exist as a state. And we will occupy Gaza. So if Hamas agrees to all of that, then we can get to a peace too. Who would agree to a permanent occupation and give away their land? By definition, that is not at all possible, because that's just saying, okay, we'll give you 100% on what you want and because we're what?

Otherwise, and you know what, Net Yahoo is saying, otherwise we'll kill you all or just drive you out militarily anyway. And he says, this is the plan. We're not hiding this. But if you're not convinced, hold on, hold on. There's a lot more. Skehill says on May 4th, the Israeli cabinet approved a plan code named Operation Gideon's chariot that it threatened to implement if Hamas did not capitulate to Israel's demands by the time Trump finished his tour of the Gulf.

Its explicit aim would be, quote, the conquest of the Gaza Strip, an open-ended occupation enforced by, quote, wide-scale attacks and the destruction of Gaza's remaining infrastructure. Palestinians would be herded into the wasteland of what was once, Rafa, in southern Gaza. So they're saying if you don't agree to everything Israel wants, including your own subjugation and the theft of your own land, we're going to drive you into the ruins of Rafa and ethnically cleanse the rest of Gaza Strip and take it. And it is a conquest. So we told you that that was their intention. And when we said that, what did people say?

Anti-Semite! How dare you talk about Israel, potentially taking Gaza Strip? They're the most moral army in the world. They would never do that. This is only because of self-defense from a attack from years and years ago. And so we had to murder 53,000 civilians. Sorry, there's a couple of Hamas in there. They've never proven that anyone outside of Hamas leadership was ever killed.

But okay, let's assume there's some Hamas in there. But the overwhelming majority of civilians, two thirds are women and children. Approximately 18,000 children killed by the IDF, pretending this is about self-defense. I wouldn't kill one child, let alone 18,000 children for self-defense. I'd say, you know what, kill me instead. If the choices between me and 18,000 children, really, that's a hard choice for people? I guess it is. I guess for a lot of people who have no morality at all, none whatsoever.

They go, who cares, it's just Palestinian children, just keep murdering them. Well, just blame it on Hamas. Okay, so they're not done with their confessions. So if you're an Israeli supporter, I'm expecting an apology. I told you they were going to try to take Gaza and you pretended that they weren't. pretend to be fair a lot of Israeli supporters they genuinely believe it they really believe it and even as they see with their own eyes and they hear with their own ears that Nanyahu saying yeah it's a goddamn conquest of course

we're gonna take the land they're like no it can't be it can't be Israel's the most moral nation that's ever been created so it can't be that I my my eyes must be lying to me oh it's all Hamas numbers it's all Hamas it's all human shields it's all property what what's the next propaganda line I have. No, they're taking the goddamn land. We were right. Every supporter of Israel that pretended to, again, sorry, not pretended, they genuinely believed that they weren't. You were wrong. So are you ever going to say it? No, no. Israel's the one country that can never be criticized. Jesus, man.

Here's Netanyahu, quote, there will be no situation where we stop the war. I don't know how it could be clearer than that. He says the situation has changed. In the coming days, we will go in with full force to complete the operation. Completing the operation means subduing Hamas, it means destroying Hamas. When he says subduing and destroying Hamas, he I explained earlier, that means the conquest of Gaza, that means the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and that means Israel declaring Gaza their own after they drive the Palestinians out. This is a sick terrorist running a nation, and we're funding him endlessly, blank check after blank check.

Mr. Terrorist, what would you like? Oh, you're going to murder more children? Oh, you're going to do genocide and ethnic cleansing. Oh, yes, right away, sir, Biden, yes, Kamala Harris, yes. Donald Trump, yes, so far but hold. Okay, last quote here from Scahill, dropside news. Nanyahu added that Israel had set up a mechanism to coordinate the removal of Palestinians from Gaza, saying, quote, the main issue is this.

We need host countries willing to absorb them. That's what we're working on right now. So in other words, we're going to drive them all out of Gaza and we're going to push them either into the Sinai Desert or whichever other Arab country is willing to take them. And we're just going to steal all of their land in Gaza. And yes, it is stealing. It is definitely stealing the land. And then who cares?

Yeah, kill him, kill them, drive him out, ethnically cleanse them. This is genocide 101. So now, Rashida Tili, before, if she had said genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, would have been sanctioned. They would have said, oh, that is terrible anti-Semitism. You're not allowed to say things that are true about Israel. Sanctioned. Sanctioned, right? But she wasn't sanctioned. That's interesting. Why? Well, a couple of things have happened. Number one, now the genocide is utterly indisputable. If you're disputing that it's a genocide, okay. I mean, you could dispute that the sky is blue and the grass is green, but you sound like a lunatic.

I mean, if this isn't a genocide, what the hell is? They're declaring it. They're like saying, yeah, we will drive them all out and we'll kill as many as we need to to take their land. How much clearer does it have to be? Okay, so when is that it's indisputable? It doesn't matter. Congress totally works for Israel anyway. They can dispute the indisputable.

But one of the reasons she's not being sanctioned is because the right wing is starting to swing. And Tucker Carlson and so many others, Marjorie Taylor Green, she came up. on the show and said, we shouldn't give any more money to Israel. I'm not sure I've ever heard a Republican politician in my lifetime say that. Tom Massey, I suppose, probably said that. But outside of that, I mean, they worked 100% for the state of Israel, not for us. So now all of a sudden, their media is changing. Some of their politicians are changing. So all of a sudden, she's not sanctioned. Israel's being to lose some power. So that brings us to option number two. Trump went and talked to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, that was

this what this tour was about, but he left Israel out, which is already stunning. Usually you go to Israel, you kiss the ring of Netanyahu or whoever's the Israeli prime minister, and then you go, all Israel is the greatest thing that's ever been created. Then you go to the Arab countries and you give a generally insulting speech publicly and then you do some begrudging deal with them, okay? But at the end of the day, you're gonna do a deal because they got a lot of money. Okay, but Trump has totally flipped that. So he doesn't go to Israel, He goes to the Arab countries, then he goes and starts taking money from them, right? And so number one, he's got the $400 million jet from Qatar.

That's going to be Air Force One. Number two, he's got several billion dollar deals he's doing with Qatar and some of the other countries, including Saudi Arabia. So he's just personally benefiting. So he's like, you know Trump? He's like, wait, I want to be known for peace. And these guys are giving me billions of dollars. Where's the question? But wait, the Aidosis gave you over 300 million.

He's like, yeah, that was yesterday. And if you don't know that I stiff investors, you're a bit of an idiot. So that's why Netanyahu and Trump won, he came in like, I own you, I own you, right? And then all of a sudden Trump starts defying me. He's like, wait, wait, what happened? What happened? I thought we purchased you. That was yesterday, brother.

Trump never, ever cares about his investors. He always screws them. So now he's like, the Arabs are offering me more money. I guess that's a sad day for you. So now when he brought our freedom zone, Jordan, was in the context of those speeches and the context of those deals. And by the way, the other thing is he got a $142 billion arms deal with the Saudis. So I don't know that we should be giving the Saudis and these dictatorships in the Gulf,

all of these weapons, but we are. And our defense contractors are going to make it killing from it. And by the way, Jordan, that's another huge part of the puzzle, it's not just Trump. Part of the reason why we support Israel so much is, you know, they had the conspiracy theories about, oh, the Jews are on everything. No, no, no, no. There's also huge Christian Zionist voting block. But even more important is the military industrial complex.

So they're like, oh, America's going to pass all these bills that give $20 billion to Israel. But really, it's so that Israel can buy our weapons. So it's going to the defense contractors. Then Israel is getting those weapons, right? So Israel's super happy. The defense contractors are super happy and they don't want that gravy train to end. But now Trump comes in goes, I got a better gravy tray. We're going to arm the Arabs to the teeth. Okay, you guys are going to make a killing. Before you're making tens of billions, now you're going to make hundreds of billions. All of a sudden, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, etc. They're like, you know what? Israel's kind of optional.

All of a sudden, Israel's optional, right? And so when he talked about Freedom Zone in that context, There's this, the second plan is the US goes in, but we go in with Arab countries. And the Arab countries then run it so that Hamas doesn't and the Palestinian authority doesn't. And that leads to an independent Palestinian state. Oh, that would be amazing. And there's no reason not to do that. None, none, none. And by the way, if he does that, they'll build statues of him all over the Middle East.

And overnight, the entire Middle East will turn into our allies. And he'll win the Nobel Peace Prize. Those are, I'm not kidding, and I'm not exaggerating. If he created, got actual peace in the Middle East and created an independent Palestinian state, guaranteed Nobel Peace Prize. Where's the downside? Oh, the Israeli lobby won't give you money anymore. He's not going to run anyway.

There's no downside at all. Okay, the third option, unfortunately, is sounds halfway okay, but his, disastrous. Third option is they say there's a peace deal. You get the hostages back, that's good. Israel doesn't occupy. The US occupies bad. And eventually there's loose talk of a Palestinian state at an undetermined time and whether they'll ever be actually have sovereignty and their own military is left to the future. In which case, Netanyahu is going to find 8,000 ways to destroy that deal. It'll never happen. They'll just wait Trump out and the next establishment politician will do whatever Israel commands. So it's got to be option number two.

Jordan, the fact that option two now exists is amazing. It's never happened in my lifetime before and potentially an upside of Donald Trump's corruption. Okay, what do you think? Oh, no, I have zero hope that Trump would be involved in any legitimate peace plan. I think we've seen enough from him to know that that is all a farce, this idea that Donald Trump is some diplomat and peace. Nick has shown time and time again to be untrue. And what we're going to see here is what we saw telegraphed by Netanyahu and the Israeli government for a year and a half. They are going to destroy all of it. And the time to get in the way, the time to stop it, was when Biden was in office. And that's why so many people spoke up and so many people were frustrated. This, you of course were critical of him throughout. And while this may now, as a culmination of this operation may happen under Trump's watch, the people who are ultimately responsible are Anthony Blinken, Joe Biden, all the spokespeople who pretended like

they were having serious tough conversations with Netanyahu and the Israelis about reigning in their operation or being mindful of civilians that was always a lie they were never legitimately behind the scenes pushing for a ceasefire and if you or you mentioned Israeli supporters who pretended like this wasn't a genocide or ethnic cleansing for the first year i mean i you you have to be either stupid or deliberately unwilling to recognize what was happening to have that position And there are people who spent the first year splitting hairs over the definition of a genocide or the definition of ethnic cleansing. And here you are. What do you have for that? All those people who tried to obfuscate and distract during these conversations, during these debates, during these

arguments on behalf of the Israeli government, what do you have to show for it? And you know, you've heard this phrase before. There's a book out now by a Palestinian author about it. One day everyone's going to pretend like they were against this. One day everyone will always have been against this. And when we are presented with situations like this, and Yemen is another example, you have to think about what your role in that is. Is it waiting and seeing until things are bad enough and then you can give it the label of a genocide or ethnic cleansing, or is it fighting fighting against it from day one. And I think many of us, thankfully, and I know many people watching, were opposed day one, week one to this escalation from the Israeli government.

And what they're talking about in some of these plans, but the comment in Jeremy Scahill's article, Palestinians would be herded into the wasteland of what was once Rafa in southern Gaza. Rafa was the safe haven a year ago. That's where people were told to go, to, to escape is Israel's bombing and Israel's attacks. And now it's completely destroyed. Same thing with Kahn Yunus, same thing with Gaza city. Across the board in Gaza, they were continually told to relocate as Israel then demolished more and more of Gaza. After the first or second refugee camp or hospital was attacked, how could you not see what the ultimate plan was? And unfortunately, there are many people, and some even tried to make this case on this network,

But no, that Israel doesn't bomb refugee camps. Israel doesn't bomb hospitals. It's always, it's always Hamas. This was a misfired by Hamas. Look around you. Look, look at the footage and genuinely try to make that case. You were either a liar or you were obtuse. They're not mutually exclusive. There are many people who still try to make the case that Israel is, like you're saying, the most moral army in the world. The blood on their hands and ultimately Trumps and Bidens and Blinkins and now Rubio's untold. We can never have those lives back. It is absolutely disgusting. But on this plan, it's just going to be wouldn't have who wants. No one is brave enough at the top levels of the U.S. government to stand up to him. And he's

going to do whatever he wants. Okay, I've got to comment on a bunch of that stuff. You're 100% right, in hindsight, people always, oh, I was always against it. Oh, I never liked that in Yahoo. Oh, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah. There'll be a thousand excuses. A thousand, yes, but did you do anything? Did you say that Israel was wrong? And that we should have a two state solution and that we should have a ceasefire and

that the Palestinians should be protected? Or did you use talking points about human shields and how they had it coming? And the Palestinians can't ever be trusted. They're not like normal human beings. No, if we give them a state delah, those savages will immediately attack us. No Israeli supporter is ever allowed to use the word savage again. So because what's happened in Gaza is the definition of savagery. Okay?

So, okay, that's clear. Number two, the comment about the hospital was so right. Anna said it yesterday too. Remember when we had the debate? And I, you know, you said somebody on the network said, that's right. And I'm proud of that. Why am I proud of that? Because we had the conversations, we had the debates, and you all saw it with your own eyes.

We didn't shut anything down. We allowed everybody to stay there peace. And what happened? The truth won out. We were right. So, and now it's not in question because the debate originally was, oh, this is the thing that Anna mentioned, you mentioned. Oh, remember that hospital got hit in the beginning and they're like, no way it was Israel.

Israel would never hit a hospital. No, everybody has to retract the story. Israel is the most moral country in the history of the world, and they would never, ever, and if you say they would ever hit a hospital, anti-Semite, right? What happened? They destroyed all of the hospitals in Gaza. They level two of them yesterday. So now we're past 53,000 dead.

They've taken two-thirds of Gaza already. So where is the, oh, okay, they would never hit any hospital. They hit every hospital and every university and every school. They destroyed them all. So can I get a confession from the supporters of Israel? You were wrong. Israel, this current government is a bunch of savages and they destroyed civilization in Gaza. I mean, if Hamas had done this to Israel, can you imagine if Hamas had done this to Israel?

But apparently Israel is allowed to be monsters and say, no, I can do it to Palestinians. their lives don't matter. I'm gonna keep going. So the one thing I disagree with you, Jordan, on you, so they have to be either stupid or liars. No, you'd be shocked at what bias does to you. Well, I can tell you from my ethnicity, you go talk to perfectly rational Turks, perfectly progressive Turks,

and you ask them about Kurds, boom, gone. Bias comes in, their eyes glaze over. No, the Kurds are bad, Turks are the greatest, Turks are the most moral people on the earth, blah, blah, No, bias will blind you to anything, you know, when it comes to these kind of issues. But I am curious, now that Netanyahu is launching this conquest imminently, and he's saying, yes, this is our plan, we are going to take the Palestinian land, we are going to continue to murder them, and we are going to drive them out. Are you still going to hide behind excuses? Are you still going to be biased and go, yeah, no, as long as Israel's the one doing the ethnic cleansing,

then I'm okay with it because excuse number one, two, and three. And every excuse has to do with how Palestinians are savages and violent and can't be trusted and have to be murdered because they're the, because they're the violent ones, right? And then finally, you know, this, Jordan, this idea like, oh, don't trust Trump, he'll never, ever do the right thing. because, you know, he doesn't have good intent and he's not actually a peace thing. Of course, of course. It isn't about good intent. And like all of a sudden, you're like, oh, I think maybe Donald Trump's heart opened up. No. No, the only reason he might do it is because of corruption and ego. If he thought they're going to build statues of him all over the world

and he was going to get a Nobel Peace Prize and he was going to get to take home a couple of billion dollars, That's why he would do it. It's not complicated and Trump's not a complicated guy. Nevertheless, it is way less likely because still Israel has an enormous amount of power in this country. And they are now exercising it in 8,000 different ways. And so that's why on the Qatar jet, oh my God, every ally of Israel is. And again, the jet's wrong, right? But every ally of Israel is out all over media.

Every politician, including Republicans, all of a sudden, finding a way to oppose Trump, right, et cetera. And go, no, no, no, no, no, Qatar's a bunch of terrorists, terrorists, Muslim savages. We have our biggest base in the Middle East than Qatar. If there's such terrorists, why are we working with them? Why are we putting our troops in danger? No, Israel's interests are affected. No terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, anti-Semite. Okay, yeah, try that.

Go ahead. But you know what's happening? The MAGA base is going, you call me anti-Semi, one more goddamn time. I dare you call me anti-Semite, one more time, okay? They had it up to here. So my, I know I'm out of the limb. I said it at the very beginning of the Trump administration. It's not even a majority likelihood.

But is there for the first time a chance, a non-zero chance that they'll get to the right answer because of all the forces that I just explained, the corruption, the ego, etc.? Yes, there is. Yes, there definitely is. There is a possibility. And if you're not open to that possibility, you're making a giant mistake. We should, Jordan, last thing, I know we're so over here, but you have to encourage that possibility. You have to tell Trump, oh my God, you'll be a hero.

But by the way, he would be in that case. But if you say, no, nope, nope, nope, nope, I'm just going to be super pessimistic. And I'm going to yell at him no matter what he does, even if he does the right thing. And, and you know what? And because if he does the right thing and freeze the Palestinians, no, he's still doing other things wrong. Since he's doing other things wrong, I'll never give him credit even though this would be a historic act. I think that's a massive mistake. So can you see that encouraging him to do the right thing, especially encouraging the right wing to push him to do the right thing

might be the right strategy? I just, I don't, I don't have faith in them doing that. Like you just laid out, all of the opposition to this plane is rooted in Islamophobia, much of it, to be fair. Why would they suddenly take a different tact here? I think what we have seen, especially from the right, on foreign policy, going back, I mean, going back to the Gulf days, if you want to be accurate, but largely from the war on terror on, it is a jingoistic foreign policy, and that it's going to extend to Palestinians as well. So I just am not holding my breath. I mean, sure, I guess I'll encourage you, do the right thing.

But like, I feel like it's falling on deaf ears. But they've shown what they want. How can you say it's falling on deaf ears? Joe Rogan's talking about it. Like, I'm not just talking about Kansas Thomas Tucker Carlson in the far right. Rogan, Theo Vaughn endlessly. Like Tucker Carlson is a straight up anti-Semite. The reason he's taking that position is because he's an anti-Semite.

He is a white nationalist. Who cares? That's why you're doing it. I'm being serious. Hold on. If he's an anti-Semite and that's our speculation, okay, that's terrible and I'm going to deal with that later. But are you trying to discourage him from like-

I'm not trying to discourage him. I'm not saying he's going to be an effective messenger to persuade Trump. Of course he is. Who would be an effective messenger at Democrat? That doesn't make any sense, Jordan. Of course Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Green are much more likely to persuade the- Donald Trump than we are. Isn't that the most obvious thing in the world? No, I'm not I'm not saying any of us are going to. He's going to listen to the most powerful

in the world. He's going to listen to the military industrial complex. That's like that is who will reign supreme here. And if Israel wants weapons and they want to continue that cash flow, they're going to have more influence than podcaster Tucker Carlson. It boils down to money. The only reason he's saying that is because he is a white nationalist. You look at his comments on, people in the Middle East, going back to the 2000s, he sees them as subhuman. Like, there are many comments that you made on that shock jock, Jordan, let me have to, no, no, no, I'm really mad about this. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I wouldn't lift him up. There are plenty of people. No, no, stop with that nonsense, Jordan. Hold on. Listen.

How is it nonsense? Okay, here's why. Because you are, the people who are saying that, yes, including you, you're being intensely selfish. Let me explain. So Tucker Carlson said we shouldn't go into Iraq after he originally was in favor of it. But after the war started, he said, you know, we shouldn't be there and I don't want to deal with these monkeys. Now he's talking about Muslims, that's my people, okay? So am I in favor of that? No, no, absolutely not. So I could choose to do one of two things.

Let's if we were back in that time. I could either encourage the Tucker Carlson wing of the party to get out of Iraq, which would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Or I could say, I am morally pure, he was Islamophobic, I banish him and I cancel him. And it's better that I cancel him because of my feelings than we save hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq. That's intensely selfish. Let it go. Yeah, okay, I don't know what his intentions are. And I don't give a goddamn what his intentions are. You've got to get the right wing.

I'm not saying that it's going to be easy, Jordan. I'm not saying, I'm not naive. I don't, it's not like I don't know, I've been railing against the power of the Israeli lobby and the military industrial complex. But if we just go, oh, no, I don't want any allies. I don't want allies from the people who are in charge now. How could you not see that that's maniacal and intensely selfish? Because they're not our allies. When have they ever shown to be an ally? Right now, right now. They're saying, no, they're not. They haven't done anything. Jordan, what the hell do you want him to do?

Marjorie Taylor Green says, I don't want to give any more money. Because he says one thing, you're like, oh, let's listen to him. He hasn't done anything. Jordan, I'm not seeing go vote for Trump. I'm not saying go support Trump. I'm saying push Trump to do the right thing. But you say no, you say no. You say no.

You're letting the Palestinians die because of your selfishness. It drives me crazy. Jake, I have an award for running a ceasefire website that millions of people. that millions of people around the world have used. You're calling me selfish? Yes, I am. Jordan, you've done. Because I don't inherently believe one thing that Trump said on camera. No, it's not about believing, Jordan. It's not about believing. So first of all, Jordan, you have been freaking amazing on this issue. You've been one of the best people in the country on this issue. And I love you for it. Okay. But we're, I'm not asking you to be

naive and go, oh, I just trust Trump on everything now. I'm asking you to be political and strategic and your normal, incredibly smart self, and go, when the right wing comes to our side, we're not going to their side. When they come to our side, whether it's tuck across or God damn it, Joe Rogan, when they're all coming to our side, don't tell them, I don't want you. You're an A.T. Semite. You're a white nationalist. I don't want you. And I don't believe you. Take yes for an answer. For God's sake, for the Palestinian. in sake, Jordan, you've been amazing on this. Please take yes for an answer. When he does something? No, we've got to push him to do it, Jordan.

By the time he decides to do it or not do it, it's too late. If you just sit back and go, I'm not going to help the right, the right who wants to stop the funding to Israel, the right who wants to stop the ceasefire, said, I don't believe them, they're all racist. I don't believe I'm not going to help them. Okay, oh, oops, they didn't have enough power because they had no allies on our side. They had no allies anywhere else. And so we we gave up. We sat on our hands and we were losers and we were pessimistic and we gave up on the Palestinian people. We just gave up on them because calling Tucker Carlson an anti-Semite was more important to us than saving Palestinian lives. That's my opinion. I can't stand it. I think you're dead wrong on it. I love

you. You've been wonderful on this issue. But no, when the other side comes to us on an super important issue where lives are on the line. I don't care about what their past is. And oh, they said the wrong word once. Oh, what do they think about trans people? Are you kidding me? Let's go save some lives. Let's save some lives.

We're not in charge. We're not in charge. They're in charge. And when they say, yes, we agree with the left. Yes, we agree with Palestinians. The correct answer definitively, inarguably, is yes. Thank you for coming to our side. we will take yes for an answer, young Turks.

Palestinians? Of course. Yeah, ceasefire today.com. And whatever action you want to take, as little as signing a petition or emailing your member of Congress or you can call Congress. There's a button you can use. It'll automatically dial it for you. Whatever you want, it's on there. And you don't even have to live in the U.S. There's actions for people around the world. Ceasefire today.com. All right. Sounds good. Let's do the last story here for this hour. All right. Take a look at this. Speaking of the Jews, have you seen Kanye's new song? Bro.

Bro. What is what? Here's the thing. What? First of all, kind of catchy. Well, that's the problem with it. While Kanye West's anti-Semitic song, Heil Hitler, has been banned from major music streaming platforms, it does remain available on Elon Musk's X. That prompted Joe Rogan and comedian Tom Segura, who we showed you at the top, to debate whether banning the song is the

the right move. Here's more. The fucking song is so many millions of hits on Twitter. It's been banned from every platform. But is it good to ban things from platforms or is it better to let it be out there and let people

talk about it because if you ban it, then people want to hear it more. That's true. And then it becomes more popular. And then it kind of supports what he says, which is that there's this concerted effort if you talk about Jewish people, that they're going to remove you from everything, remove you from banking, which is what you're saying, they run everything.

So if they didn't, like, if it was just, you were talking about Puerto Ricans, look what happened to Tony, nothing. Yeah. He's doing great. Yeah. You know what I mean? Like, if there's certain people that you're allowed to pick on and make jokes about or mock or or say something, and you, you can get away with it. Yeah. Well, I think he's made his point. I think we all get it now. 10 million views just on Kanye's account alone, with many more, including many white supremacists and anti-Semitic accounts, gleefully sharing the song on theirs as well. Segura also raised the consequences of the song encouraging anti-Semitic behavior from Kanye's fans. Take a look.

I've always been like, yeah, say whatever you're going to say. But I do think like making a catchy song about that, I'm like, what are you doing, man? Like, you're just kidding. At a minimum, you're just going to get more people that think it's cool. to say Heil Hitler. Like, that's at the minimum. Well, I think that's part of the program. Yeah. I think it's part of what he's trying to do.

But, I mean, is that cool to do? I guess if you're like, well, it's fun to troll the masses and get them to do that. Okay. But what I'm saying is that, like, at a minimum, you're going to get less educated people to go, like, this is a fun thing to say. And you're like, I mean, is that good? You really want people just walking around and be like, you know, it's tight men, how Hitler's like that. thing it's crazy now jank up until the show i have been thinking about this all day and i still don't know where i fall on this but i'm curious do you think this song should be banned on

streaming platforms we just had a knockout brawl debate a minute ago on the show right i mean catch the show live 6 to 8 p m eastern okay so and now we come to this topic and both of us are like I don't know, okay, and we, and you, the two was never say I don't know, right? So we asked it on the website, should Kanye West Pro Hitler's song be banned on all platforms? And apparently you guys don't know, 47 to 53, super close. And it comes out to no on 53. Okay, let's, the live chat has a poll too. Should the song be banned?

Let's pull that up in a second. So live chats on YouTube 6040, no, okay. So now 59 41. So this is as tight as it's been in a long time for any topic. And so why? Guys, let's be super clear. The song is terrible. It's an, like, I don't mean musically. I mean, you know, to put a song like that out there is despicable. And so, and Kanye West is a great a moron. And I'm really, proud that as usual, I was the first and when I said it, what happened back then? People were like, and now I'm not talking about when he started anti-Semitism. He was always a moron. He was always the dumbest person I've ever heard speak. Like whenever he spoke, they'd be like, oh, geez. No, just because he's decent at music doesn't mean his political opinions are smart.

He's always been the dumbest guy in the room, maybe the dumbest guy in the nation. And so when I was saying that, I remember people say, oh no, he's a genius junk. How dare you? He's a musical genius, right? Okay, well, I won that debate. He's a frickin' moron and it's idiot, anti-Semite, et cetera, et cetera. So I despise the song and I'm really worried about what Rogan's guest said there, which is that people think it's catcher and then they start singing it.

No, no, no, no, no, no. On the other hand, if you ban it, God damn it, then, oh, it's rebel, rebellious and cool and underground and that kind of crap. And so Jordan, I don't know, man, banning hasn't worked. So I'm leaning 53, 47 to not banning it. But then if you're not going to ban it, everybody has to say, yeah, Kanye is a giant ass. And no one should ever do any deals with Kanye, not because you're Jewish or it's because

he's a jerk. He's a terrible human being. So, and then he can go complain about, oh, the Jews. No, brother, it wasn't the Jews. Here, I'm Muslim. Born Muslim, now atheists, and I hate you. I think you're an idiot and I would never do a deal with you, okay? So go cry about that.

All right, Jordan, I came out for not banning it, even though I have a long history of despising this moron. What do you come out? I, as I think through it, I jump back and forth. You know, the knee jerk reaction seems like, well, this is heinous. This is deliberately inflammatory and anti-Semitic, let's get rid of it. And then you think, okay, well, that's like they say. And I think that would be human behavior.

People will only seek it out more. It gives it attention, especially in our digital age. When you try to suppress something, it only makes people want to seek it out more. And I think about the consequences of that. And you could think through like, what would the justification be? And I just don't want, I certainly don't want big tech companies. And I certainly don't want our government dictating what can and can't be said. because while it would start here, and we've already seen it for years, especially, like,

just to go back to our last story, big tech companies have suppressed pro-Palestinian speech online for the past year and a half. You have seen now arrests on college campuses. Like, it's not that this would lead to something worse. We're already in an area where things are worse. And I just, I'm also like even just talking about it, we're giving him what he wants. Like he did this specifically because he knew it would upset people so much that it would get way more coverage on his self-released album than if the album didn't include this track. That's it. You know, the single. Look, I don't know how much people are trolling them.

I hope a lot, right? But, you know, for all the trolls for no reason, they're just getting their kicks and stuff, go troll that guy. And you know what? I know what'll drive him crazy. Do what I do. Keep calling him dumb. He's a super dumb guy. And so he thinks he's a jeez. He's a guy, I got a white shirt. I'm selling it for $250. I'm such a genius. Oh, I got a trash bag and I'm selling it for $500 because I'm a genius. No, you're an idiot. That trash bag looks like trash. That's just a white shirt and you're just a hateful idiot. So go do that to him and see if he likes that attention. All right, we got to go. Jordan, thank you brother. I appreciate

and I appreciate you putting up with my yelling and screaming. Of course. Okay, um, so, uh, when we come back, uh, problems of the Democratic Party, hell's terrible. We'll be back.