Timcast IRL - National Guard On Standby For Election, Trump v Kamala w/Ben Shapiro & Jeremy Boreing

Episode Date: November 5, 2024

Timcast IRL LIVE at The Daily Wire! Tim & The Timcast Crew are joined by Ben Shapiro & Jeremy Boreing to discuss DC boarding up businesses in anticipation of Election Day, betting markets placing disclaimers warning users ahead of Election Day, Ann Selzer's shock poll in Iowa, and Joe Rogan officially endorsing Donald J Trump for president. Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Mary @PopCultureCrisis (YouTube) Elaad @ElaadEliahu (X) Seamus @FreedomToons (YouTube) Guests: Jeremy Boreing Ben Shapiro https://www.dailywire.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Washington, D.C. is boarded up. They say snipers are ready because they're expecting a lot of violence. The National Guard is on standby in several states, and everybody's kind of on edge, but we don't know exactly what's going to happen. What we do know is that the polls are insane. The forecast models make no sense. The betting markets are bouncing up and down, and we're kind of on edge, but we don't know exactly what's going to happen. What we do know is that the polls are insane. The forecast models make no sense. The betting markets are bouncing up and down. And we're kind of just waiting. But I am surprised. Well, not surprised, but it's a strange feeling having made it all the way to election eve. And it's just wide speculation. We've got this poll from Ann Seltzer, who Nate Silver says is one of their highest rated pollsters,

but she's claiming Iowa is going Harris. At the same time, she's on camera saying, I don't know what D and R means in a poll. So I don't know how much I trust that. But the polls are pretty wild. And there is a lot of fear of violence. There's already stories popping up about violence emerging. So hopefully things don't go that crazy. But we'll talk about this. And then there's some other really big stories, too, especially Joe Rogan just dropped an episode with Elon and he just dropped an episode with John Fetterman. And Fetterman in this episode actually says Democrats are bringing illegal immigrants in undeniably to reshape the electorate undeniably. But he says it's a good thing. So we'll talk about all that before we get started.

My friends head over to cast brew dot com and buy cast brew coffee because it's the best coffee you'll ever have. We got Appalachian Nights. We got Alex Stein's Primetime Grinding, Graphene Dream, Ian's Low Acidity Coffee. So if your tummy hurts from drinking coffee, that's the one I recommend. Also, go to boonieshq.com because we have Step on Snack

and Find Out Boards back in stock. And those things sell out really, really quick. So if you want to grab one, boonieshq.com. And of course, go to timcast.com. Click join us. Become a member. Because we're going to have a members-only show for you tonight. And it's going to be very epic.

A little short, though, because we have to wake up very early. Tomorrow is election day. And we've got a lot of work to do. But we will make time for you guys. And you'll also get access to the Discord server where you can hang out with like-minded individuals and make friends. So smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk

about this and so much more, we have two amazing guests. We have Ben Shapiro on. What's going on, dude? Would you like to introduce yourself? I am the co-founder of The Daily Wire, along with Jeremy Boring, who you will meet shortly. He's a very handsome and charming individual. And I'm also host of The Ben Shapiro Show, which some people listen to. Absolutely. And Jeremy Boring. I am the aforementioned handsome individual, co-founder of The Daily Wire alongside Ben Shapiro. And I'm really the host of nothing. But you're on a lot of things.

And you're a movie star, too. I'm on things. I start in the odd movie. There you go. This is going to be a lot of fun. It's exciting to be here. We are here live at Daily Wire Studios, and we have this amazing setup. And I'm just jealous because it looks better than our studio. And it's a temporary setup with these cool screens.

Timcast Live. How amazing is that? What's up? My name's Alad. I'm a journalist here at TimCast. How's it going, Phil? Doing well. I am Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary. Hello, Mary. So we're saving the woman in the room for last. Well, you know, we're doing the right thing. Grab your mic. Hi, everyone. Oh, I'm too far away from my mic. You'll usually find me on a show called Pop Culture Crisis here at TimCast, but I'm happy to be here.

I've never been invited on the show. It's a big day, and I like this swanky studio. On Pop Culture Crisis? No, never. Mary's never invited me. I will. No? I didn't know you wanted to. I didn't know. Well, there you go. You've got to send out the booking agent on top of these things. Yeah.

Let's jump to this first story. So, obviously, on election eve, everybody's deeply concerned about Let's jump to this first story. So obviously on the election eve, everybody's deeply concerned about what's going to happen. And man, you know, I got to be honest, I was asking Phil, do we want to lead with this?

It's a little aggressive, but what are we supposed to say? This is what everyone's worried about. This story's from today, just from a few moments ago, published by The Telegraph. Snipers ready for counts and D.C. boards up as election violence fears grow.

Major protests predicted amid concerns Donald Trump and supporters would refuse to accept the loss. They're going to mention National Guard as is on standby in Washington, Oregon and Nevada. The National Guard has been placed on standby to deal with riots and civil unrest, which could begin as early as Wednesday. OK, I have questions. Yeah, my questions are, first could begin as early as Wednesday. Okay. I have questions. Yeah. My questions are, first of all, about the locations. You'll notice that the places that they're citing, the places they're boarding up, not a lot of MAGA voters in those particular places, right?

Like the odd Jussie Smollett, you know, actual perp, I guess. Like Washington, Oregon, Nevada, there are some Trump voters, obviously. But Washington and Oregon, they're pretty much none, unless you're talking like eastern Washington, maybe, Nevada, there are some Trump voters, obviously. But Washington and Oregon, they're pretty much anonymous. We're talking like eastern Washington, maybe southern Oregon. And then if you're looking at the cities, they're talking about Detroit and Atlanta, which are both hotspots for Democratic voting. So it seems like the headline doesn't match the actual story, which is that if Trump wins, a bunch of people are going to burn some shit down.

It literally says, major protest predicted amid concerns. Trump and supporters would refuse to accept the loss. By the way, the National Guard is in Democrat districts. Yeah, I saw your tweet earlier today, Ben, and I retweeted it and I'm completely the same mind. It's it's it's ridiculous that they imply that it's MAGA voters or whatever, when all of the rioting we've seen about almost everything has been from the left. In 2016, there was a riot in Washington, D.C. when Donald Trump won right on Inauguration Day. There was a big riot in Washington, D.C. when Donald Trump won. On Inauguration Day, there was a big riot in Washington, D.C.

And everyone sort of memory holes that one. I mean, obviously, they're not doing it right. If you're going to board up your windows, we know you have to write BLM on the boards. That is the way that you avoid your store being burned down. Or at least they could put a little Harris Walls in the window. That's how you're passed over when the angel of death comes down. It's kind of scary, but it's real, especially go to Oakland. In Oakland, it's perpetually like this, or Berkeley. All of the businesses,

I saw it was an Asian fingernail salon with all of this leftist literature. And I'm like, look, those poor immigrants in there have no idea what that stuff is, but they know why they're putting it there. That's kind of freaky. Yeah. Well, the cities are a disaster area. I was in LA a couple of weeks ago. Honest to God, we went out with just some of our friends. I used to live in LA, so we went out with some friends in LA. Not a bad area. And we go to dinner. And after dinner, I have 24-7 security, unfortunately, so I walk one way. And my friends walk the other. They walk three cars down. They get in their car. As they're getting in their car, a car pulls up right in front of them. Three guys jump out, grab him, pull him out of the car,

rip off his watch, rip off his keys, rip off his phone, run around to her, try to rip off her jewelry. And then she starts fussing a little bit. She starts yelling. And so they jump back in the car and take off right down the street. I mean, that's what's happened in the major city. I grew up there. This is not what these cities were like.

This is like two weeks ago. Wow. Jeez, dude. So, yeah, the cities are not doing well. Democrat governance, always a winner. But crime is down, they said, didn't they? Yeah, they did. And then it wasn't, so.

Yeah, they, what was it? They just hid the, did they fluff the numbers or just didn't release the numbers from the They released them late, yeah. Yeah. You know, I had a conversation with Sam Seder last, just this past weekend, or this Friday, and it was interesting because he pointed out that the economy looks good on paper, but it's because wealthy people and big corporations are making a lot of money, but your average person is not. And I was like, well, that's very honest from a

very liberal guy. And I agree. The numbers look good because we're looking at these big corporations that seem to be doing well, but regular people are feeling the groceries through the roof. Then you look at the crime stats, and I think what they're missing when they say, oh, but relatively crime is down compared to, you know, however many years ago. Yes, but what crime is up and what crime is down? If overall like shoplifting goes up,

that's gonna affect the numbers. I think that's one of the points he made. Shoplifting is skyrocketing, so the crime rates do go up. But if like small property crimes of, you know, vandalism maybe on people's property is going down, but muggings and murders and things like that are go up. But if like, like small property crimes of, you know, vandalism, maybe on people's property is going down, but muggings and murders and things like that are going up. Also, a lot of that stuff is getting reclassified by the cops. So the cops aren't actually policing a lot of the small crimes because they're afraid that if they get caught on camera policing it, maybe they go to jail. And I'm talking to a lot of these cops in these cities. Again, I have a bunch of friends

in LAPD, one in particular, they're all looking to retire early and get the hell out and and move away from la santa i mean these are some of the most understaffed major city la has the worst ratio of police to population of any major city in america which is why it took 15 minutes for anybody to respond to the 911 phone call and then it was really funny the cops drove up they're like which way they go like that way 15 minutes ago it's like okay he just takes off down the street so although this is uh i think for this article Telegraph, I think it's a little bit narrowly focused on only violence potentially from Trump supporters. But there's a grain in truth in that the election is most likely, you know, we're not going to get the results for a few days.

And whatever side loses will most definitely deny the results in either a highbrow or lowbrow way that could potentially lead to some sort of violence, either fringe violence in Seattle or depending on how bad it could get. I don't know what we should expect, but I don't think these stores are wrong to prepare like this, especially given what we're hearing in the media and how close the election will be. No, the rhetoric's been ratcheted up so far in the country. And you could say on both sides, except that one side, at the worst, you can say they have bad rhetoric. The other side actually acts on their rhetoric. I mean, you've had essentially the president of the United States and the vice president of the United States and the former president of the United States and the former but one president of the United States

all saying that the Republican nominee is a clear and present danger, is a threat to democracy. And to that point today, they're chastising George Bush for not coming out and saying that. That's exactly right. And so, you know, even after Donald Trump's, you know, there have been two attempted assassinations on the guy, they still denounce all of his rhetoric while inflaming passions on their side. So you've got, in a way, you have both sides coming at this election thinking that their way of life will end

if the other person ascends to the presidency. That raises the stakes enormously and raises the chances of violence enormously. I think you also have to look at the possible flashpoints here. So when the right tends to riot, it's when there's a flashpoint, right? Like January 6th, the riot, that's a riot with a flashpoint where people thought they were doing a thing. When the left riots, it's just because they're pissed off about it.

It's going to burn down a city and grab a computer or a TV or something. And so that's a completely different kind of thing. I do think, you know, the chance of escalation, I think, is higher from the right than the left. But there's caveats to that. When the right does right, it's January 6th. They almost never do. They barely protest.

They don't go out. But then it's at the Capitol during the certification, which is the worst possible time for a riot. The left, it's every summer. We call it like, oh, it's summer, the riots are starting again. I want to push back just a little bit. I'm probably the most Trump skeptical of all of the occasional hosts, I say occasional because I only occasionally host, of all the hosts at the Daily Wire, and have always been firmly of the opinion that January

6th is kind of a national tragedy. And yet, it's not as though a million people went to Washington, D.C. to riot. You know, the vast majority of the people who were at the Capitol were there to protest what they saw as the unfair results of the election, what they saw as the unfair set of rules that have been structured around the election. Some of them to protest what they thought was the outright stealing of the election. I happen to disagree with that, although the first two I certainly agree with. And some small, very small fraction of those people actually engaged in some rioting. And even that, while I don't think that it's, you know, I'm not so naive as to say like every conservative who got arrested was innocent.

I don't think that's true. I do think that there were instigators who were not prosecuted at the Capitol who probably weren't even conservative. But when people show up to, say, burn down Minneapolis after the, you know, after the death of George Floyd, people aren't just showing up to protest. They're showing up to do violence. They have websites telling them how to survive tear gas, you know, how to attack cops who have riot shields. They prepare for those consequences because they are there for the purpose of rioting. And so while it is true that no one's perfect in this country, no one's perfect in this life, sometimes there's violence that comes from the American right. There is a kind of institutionalized rioting and violence that's accepted on the left that you do not see accepted

on the left. Real quick, so I'll revise a little bit because I agree with what you're saying largely. For the longest time, I've been making this point over the past 10 years that when you, the right is not organized, the January 6th is not organized, but whenever there's some kind of incident or something from a person who has in any way some modicum of right-leaning politics, it's the right doing it. It's the far right doing it. Right. But what I would say is probably in the past four to six years, this has shifted dramatically. The protests that I saw around the Occupy era and even the 2000s when I was in a lot of these protests, I would have thought it was blunt. It's like a leftist punches a guy in the face,

and it happens all the time. We have actually a story right now. A guy had a flag in his yard. The guy went to his house and beat the crap out of him. But no one really cares that much to hear that a guy got beat up. But it does happen a lot. And so I feel like what the left typically engages in never really rises to that extreme level that makes the news. But then again, I would say you're probably I'd actually defer to you a little bit. So you're right, because in the past several years with the White House, with the firebombing of the White House on May 29th, 2020, they were throwing firebombs in the White House grounds that fire to St. John's Church, as well as John Hodgkinson, the baseball shooter. We have actually seen a combination of the blunt

and the escalation of the left. So I could probably walk that back a little bit and just say, man, probably, I don't know. But I guess the question I'd throw to you guys is, what do you think happens Wednesday morning? So I think Wednesday morning is a little bit early to tell, probably, is the truth. I think you're probably going to start seeing stuff Thursday, maybe.

And basically, if you're rooting for the country, I think, obviously, I voted for Trump already. I voted early. In my opinion, if you want what's best for the country and you're a Trump person, the order of preferred results is Trump by a lot, Trump by a little, Kamala by a lot, Kamala by a little, in terms of what's best for the country. Because Kamala by a little is a disaster area. Kamala by a little is a mess. You know, I've been painting this worst case scenario. So, you know, that I get prophecy points. It turns out being right.

We were talking about it. But this is, here's your disaster scenario. Your disaster scenario is Trump picks up North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada. Okay, it takes him to 268. He then loses 270 to 268. There is only one problem. The 2020 census was wrong.

The census department has acknowledged the 2020 census was wrong. That's the key is that they've admitted that it was wrong. The census department has acknowledged the 2020 census. That's the key. That's the key is that they've admitted that it was wrong. And so the arguments are going to be even they've admitted. Correct. And they dramatically the population in places like Florida and in places like Texas, and they dramatically over counted in places like New York and Delaware and like by like five percentage points in some places, the population in these places, electoral votes get allocated on the basis of the 2020 census. So if they actually done the count properly, Trump could lose all of the blue wall states and still win the election.

And so if it ends up being 270 to 268 with Trump winning the states that we just mentioned, Florida is going to file a lawsuit and will end up at the Supreme Court because they will say they have been materially harmed. People have been disenfranchised in the state of Florida by the failure to properly count their vote because of the census data. And then it will be up to the Supreme Court with three Trump appointees to figure out whether that's true. Now, my guess is that the court will probably kick that case. My guess is the court will say that's a political question. We're not going to touch it.

You know, that should have been ironed out by the legislature. But is that going to make anybody feel any better? Probably not. Hold on, hold on. But is that going to make anybody feel any better? Probably not. Hold on, hold on. I want to add to that. You saw the Fifth Circuit Court ruling for Mississippi. Did you see this one? I missed it.

Fifth Circuit Court ruled that ballots received after Election Day, even if postmarked before Election Day, are illegal to be counted. Now, this is just the Fifth Circuit. We saw in, I believe it was in Nevada, a totally counter ruling from the federal courts. There is a probability that come tomorrow night, Donald Trump is clearly ahead, but not by enough. And they say with mail-in votes coming in in several states, we may see a repeat of 2020 where Kamala actually ends up winning. Kamala ends up winning. Republican sue, citing the Fifth Circuit ruling, goes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court says, of course, you can't count ballots that came in after the election. Cuts them all out.

Democrats then say, but we did win. Those were ballots. Trump's cronies just threw them out and stole the election. election yeah that's right which they've been they've been kind of uh preparing the landscape with that by calling this the supreme court you know trump's uh right-wing court and all and all the things did you see did you see jamie raskin on mar so jamie raskin was on mar right and he openly said that we'll certify the election if we feel that it was free and fair which like dude i mean come on if we feel that it's free this is exactly what like, dude, I mean, come on. We feel that it's free and fair. This is exactly what you were ripping Trump for in 2020.

And now you're doing the exact same thing. This is why whenever you get the like Trump is a threat to democracy bullshit, it's like, OK, guys, like you do all the exact same things that Donald Trump did and would do. And then you claim it's a threat to democracy when he does it. But when you do it, it's a defense of democracy. And, you know, this all spirals out of control. I think that there are a bunch of things that have happened in American life that are truly bad over the course of the last 10 years, among them, the fact that we have not unified any of our voting procedures.

So I live in the amazing state of Florida, which fixed all of its voting after 2000. So after 2000, with the debacle, with the butterfly ballots and all that, we fixed our voting, which means that we count all of our early voting early, right? All that stuff's been tabulated. And then everybody who votes day of, you feed your thing in the machine, it's counted all of it early voting early, right? All that stuff's been tabulated. And then everybody who votes day of, you feed your thing in the machine, it's counted all of it. Five minutes after the poll is closed, you're going to have a result from Florida.

It's really easy. It's not difficult at all. And none of these other states have done it. That is a complete mess. And, you know, and then you have just the fact that I think in the minds of both parties, something is fundamentally broken. So as long as I've been alive, the general rule was

when somebody loses a presidential election, the going theory is the reason why they lost the presidential election is because they weren't good enough to win. This is true for my entire life. If H.W. loses to Clinton, it's because H.W. wasn't good enough. If Dole loses to Clinton, it's because he wasn't good enough. If Gore lost to Bush, because he wasn't good. Kerry, same thing. McCain with Obama, same thing. Romney, same thing. Then 2016. And in 2016, the left could not believe for love or money that Donald Trump was a better candidate than Hillary. And so they shifted the logic. It was Hillary definitely couldn't have lost because she was a shit candidate. She lost because of Facebook and because of the Russians. And she lost because of

all these other reasons. And the right responded to that in 2020 by being like, well, he didn't lose because he was a worse candidate than the dead guy. It must have been all of these other facts. The problem is when both parties refuse to acknowledge that their candidate possibly could have lost to the other guy, then where does all that energy go? Back at the system. Back at the system. Now, listen, we're too lazy for civil war, okay? It ain't going to happen.

We're too fat. We're too lazy. You're getting out of your bed and shooting somebody over the shit. Like, there'll be a few people who do some violent things, but the continued breakdown of the social fabric is going to is going to you have to remember that in the in the civil war of the 1860s uh the ivy leagues never missed a single crew match that's that's an actual true statement that's before standoff weaponry you're not gonna have a civil war in the age of cruise missiles because the because the elite in uh connecticut don't get to sit that one out. Absolutely. It's not going to be any simple. Ben, I wanted to follow up with you on one of the...

But insurgency? You know, so... There could certainly be violence. I wonder... Right, so... If you're going to game it out, I think the next thing that happens is, let's say that Kamala Harris becomes president with all this craziness. And then she nukes the filibuster.

Let's say for some reason she's able to gain control of the Senate also. She nukes the filibuster. Let's say for some reason she's able to gain control of the Senate also. She nukes the filibuster. She passes a law over the objections of pretty much everybody else. Then the next step will be you'll see states say, come and enforce it. Right. You want to do it? Come and enforce it. We're not going to let you enforce it. Right. Nullification. Like that's where the thing starts to break down again. And you've seen nullification in certain circumstances from both left and right. So you've seen nullification, for example, on marijuana laws in California for years and years and years. The federal government was prosecuting them. California said, we don't want to do it. And so California would basically just try and stymie or an immigration law, right? The left

does it all the time. California would stymie immigration law. And then you would see it the reverse way on the border with Arizona. Arizona would say, you're not going to enforce the immigration laws. We'll enforce the immigration laws. And the federal government would step in. These kind of conflicts are actually super common across American history. Those're not going to enforce the immigration laws, we'll enforce the immigration laws, and the federal government would step in. These kind of conflicts are actually super common across American history. Those are just going to get much worse. So let me ask, do you think that there's a few scenarios to look at? Donald Trump wins, and then immediately says, we are going to deport these illegal immigrants. If he sends law enforcement in any capacity, from the lightest federal law enforcement to the outright army, do you think there's any scenario where california resists federal

authority i think very very unlikely really unlikely because again i think that that gets too hot too quickly i don't think gavin newsom honestly wants to go up against actual armed federal troops but does it require gavin newsom Newsom? What if far leftist Antifa set up a Chaz chop? I mean, we saw in Seattle when they set up the Chaz, they killed people. And so I agree. I'm not trying to- I agree with that. I agree with that. You could see something like that. You could see zones of resistance that pop up in places like California. Sure. So the first thing I'll say is, I certainly talk about civil war probably more than most, but we don't talk about as much as the memes try to make it out to be. But the media, I think right now is

probably like 15 to 30 articles about civil war that are currently up because of the potential for violence. And so the question then is, I'll put it this way. I do not believe in the near future or in the immediate, we're looking at any kind of civil war potential. It could theoretically be decades if something does happen. We are, according to many academics, in a civil strife period, which could also be like bleeding Kansas, or a better example would be the civil rights era, which did not result in civil war. However, the things that worry me the most are the left's propensity to violence, like Chaz Chop. There was an autonomous zone in Seattle, Atlanta, Minnesota, Portland, Portland, right. And they killed people. A lot of

it. So in the event that, and I'll throw it to Sam Seder And they killed people a lot of it. So in the event that, uh, and I'll, I'll throw it to Sam Cedar again. He gets a lot of shout outs because we just talked. He told me that basically he thinks these outlets are writing articles about civil war because it's sensational. It's click, it's clicks. It's going to make traffic and they're going to make money from it. And then I asked him, so you don't think there's any potentiality, even if it's slim and he's like, no, of course not. I say, OK, Donald Trump gets elected. Let's say Kamala Harris wins through mail-in voting, but the Supreme Court says, citing the Fifth Circuit, mail-in votes are thrown out. Therefore, Trump is actually the winner. Democrats, what do they do? Sam's

response, well, in 2000, look, Democrats gave up. They let George W. Bush be the president. I say, agreed. Now, Donald Trump then says, we will enforce immigration law and begin the deportation of 11 million people or more. Do Democrats or activists respond? Now, crank it up. Do you think Donald Trump would actually use the military to go and start deporting people? Of course, the Democrats say yes. I said, so tell me you believe there's a scenario where Trump will call in the military to round up illegal immigrants after stealing an election, and you don't think that there will be a reaction from the left with violence or an escalation to war. And he hemmed and hawed and ultimately said, I just don't think it's very likely, but kind of conceded. I'll put it this

way. I certainly think it's slim, but Rudyard Lynch of What If Alt-Hist says that based on looking at the history of the Bolsheviks, the French Revolution, the British Civil War, and the American Civil War, though they're all different, and we're not necessarily going to follow a state versus state kind of thing, he's predicting 1,000 dead by April, which I think is way over the top, but he has a bet. $1,000 if 1,000 people are dead by April. I think that's crazy. But what he said was, stop thinking about it like armed groups going up against each other and more just like we end up seeing what happened with Errol Danielson in Portland or Chaz where people shot somebody else. And there's going to be a

political underlining to it. So that's why I say maybe insurgency, hopefully nothing. I think you're completely right, Ben. I'm hoping that Trump wins massively to the point where it sends a message nationally that we are done with what the left has to offer and the American people don't want it. That's exactly right. So I will say I do not like it when I think politicians and political leaders, the more they talk about this idea that there will be civil war. I think it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. People start to take it very seriously. They think, OK, who could I?

But I agree with you that there are activist groups that are geared toward resisting lawful authority. And those do exist on both sides of the aisle. But I think it is very likely that in the scenario like you're painting, there would be resistance by some groups to lawful authority. That sort of stuff's happened in the past. I don't think that...

This is also what I've been telling our team here at The Daily Wire, which is you have to prepare yourself for Election Day. i don't think election day is i wish it were election day it's really everything that's going to happen as a result of and a continuation of tomorrow we probably won't even have a winner tomorrow we may have a winner wednesday we may not have a winner until saturday it may then get contested to the courts you may not know it may be like the year 2000 we didn't have a winner until the Supreme Court ruled. So it could be the end of the year before we even know who the next president is going to be.

All of that is very bad in a system where both sides believe that the other side has become an existential threat to the country. So we have to prepare ourselves in the business that we're in, in the business that you're in. We have to prepare ourselves, yes, mentally and yes, emotionally, but we actually have to prepare ourselves almost spiritually for the temptations that are going to accompany the next several days and weeks. The temptation to assert as fact things that have not been proven factually. The temptation to give into emotional rhetoric instead of using our voices to try to cut through, try to determine what's true, and try to advocate on behalf of what's true. And there's going to be so much rigged against us. It's structurally the case that most states count the election day ballots before they count

the mail-in ballots in the early voting. And historically, Democrats do more mail-in, even when there's not any impropriety. Democrats are more likely to have voted by early, historically, or to have voted by mail-in. So it is just a fact that at the earliest part of the night, Trump will probably have a lead, and then that lead will start to shrink throughout the day. Well, we're so prepped by our experiences, by our emotions, by talk of civil war constantly in the media. It's not just for clicks. It's also a psy-hop. It's meant to prepare people to have certain kinds of reactions. And so I guess all I'm saying is there's going to be an enormous amount of temptation to give in to all of this instead of trying to ascertain what is fact,

trying to stand on behalf of what is fact, and trying to fight our political battles in a passionate but responsible way, which I think is the only way forward as a country. And I will add one last point to a lot who's been desperately trying to get in. I've been warning the last thing anyone should want is a national divorce or a civil war, because there are a lot of people I hear on the right posting comments on X saying we the tree of liberty or whatever. And then I see more reasonable people saying, but a national divorce. No, no, no, no, no. That is a path to destroying the constitution. I do

not accept that. If we have any kind of national divorce, that basically is giving the far left the opportunity to dismantle the constitution. I mean, when people say that, it's just spinning their wheels, their impotent screechings on the internet. It doesn't actually mean anything. A national divorce is China and Russia's wet dream. So we should reject that in every form. One of the things that could obviously contribute to civil strife is something that Ben Shapiro mentioned, and it's the so-called nightmare scenario. And there's many flavors of reasons to not accept the election results. People talk about 1,000 mules. People will mention mail-in ballots. This isn't unique to the right. On the left, there's people saying there's voter suppression and things like that. But on your

nightmare scenario, do you think that would be grounds to not accept the results of the election if your scenario plays out the way it does? So I think that the systems are the systems. And if you accept the systems, you don't accept the systems. Meaning if it goes through all of the steps and the end result of that machine, and here I'm not talking about the Democratic machine, I'm talking about, you know, we go through the state certification of the votes, those happen, it's not electoral fraud. It goes to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court says, listen, it sucks that the census was done wrong in 2020. Also, Wilbur Ross was the Commerce Secretary at the time under Donald Trump. They should have fixed that in 2020, should have fixed

it in 2021. That was up to Congress. This really isn't our business. And they kick it back. At that point, the president's the president. And at that point, then it becomes a question of what governance of the country looks like. And this is the thing. I think Americans are just aching for normal. They're aching for normal. And everyone, I think, on the left, and many people in the middle, thought they got it in 2020 when Biden was elected. He came in and he was in the high 50s in approval rating.

And then it turns out that he wasn't providing any sort of normal, right? Not only just in his own personage where the brain wasn't functional or anything, but like his actual policy was not normal. He proceeded to spend ungodly sums of money, blow up the economy to the tune of 40 year highs in inflation. He proceeded to pull out from Afghanistan, even if you agree with pulling out in the most ignominious, cowardly way it was possible to do it. He then proceeded to lead us into a conflict over Ukraine because of his innate cowardice in Afghanistan. He proceeded to incentivize Iran to lead a seven front war against Israel in order to blow up Donald Trump's Abraham Accords. And like all of that has been not normal. All Americans, terrible rhetoric as well.

The wide open border, all of it is not normal. And so because of that, Americans are still aching for normal. And so what do they get? They get Donald Trump, who presented a normal presidency from 2017 to 2019 before the pandemic. Things were pretty normal. Trump wasn't normal. Trump's not normal, dude. Trump's Trump, right? He's all going to be Trump.

But it was Congress that was doing the passing the laws. And he was signing the laws that Mitch McConnell sent to him. Right. And we had a good economy. We had peace on the foreign front. No wars. And we all like that. That was all good stuff. That's all normal stuff. And so the choice presented to us was Donald Trump, a admittedly not normal human and a very, very normal administration or Kamala Harris, who pretends to be normal, is sort of in the uncanny valley of normalcy, but not really like

a human would be normal. And and a bunch of policy that is exactly the same as Joe Biden's, which was abnormal. And so Americans look at that choice and like, oh, my God. So if Trump is elected, which obviously I hope that he will be, if Donald Trump is elected, what people actually want is just things to calm down. That's what most people want. If you go out, I mean, I've been spending an enormous amount of time in this election cycle actually going to the swing states, right? I went and I was on the trail with Eric Hovde in Wisconsin.

I was on the trail with Bernie Moreno in Ohio. And I was on the trail with Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania. Last night, I was on the trail with Ted Cruz in Texas. I'm going around the country. What people actually just want is leave us, like, just leave us alone. I don't want to think about this shit. Like, can I just have a normal life? All I want is, you know, inflation to not be at 20% and a job. And like, I can take care of my family and not a giant war somewhere that we are involved in. Like, that would be awesome. And whoever presents that, if Donald Trump presents that, he comes into office and that's what he presents. I'm going to close the border, get us back to normal. I think that you could be entering a period of actual stability in the United States

for the first time in a decade, because I think that the left could theoretically respond by saying, you know what, guys, we went way too far. And the only way to beat Donald Trump and to beat the Republican Party is to move back toward the center. And the dirty secret about Donald Trump is that Donald Trump is running as a centrist right now. He is not running as a right winger. On policy, Donald Trump, aside from the border where he's a very right wing guy, he's much more moderate than any Republican candidate in my lifetime, including on really, really divisive issues like abortion.

Do you think that the Democrats will isolate their more extreme wing and have like your normal Democrats come back to being normal as opposed to taking their lead from the extreme Democrats or the socialist in the party. So the one thing that I will say about the Democratic Party is they are professionals. They are, in fact, professionals. So the Republican Party, totally unprofessional. The Republican Party can get hijacked any which way by whomever. Right. I mean, there's no infrastructure or nothing. The Democratic Party is so professional that if their candidate dies on stage in a debate,

they will take him, just throw him out the back door and just shove somebody else in there. That's what a professional party does. That's not a coup. That's a professional party doing what a professional party does. OK, so if they believe that their pathway to victory is jettisoning the AOC agenda, I do think that they will do that. I mean, by the way, they did that in 2020. Bernie Sanders was leading the first couple of primaries and they kicked his ass out.

And they were like, we'll get James Clyburn to testify for him. We'll get a bunch of people to drop out. They'll all endorse Joe Biden, who has no brains, functional, and they'll just shove him in. Kamala Harris and the Democrats are underwater on a ton of different issues, but one of the particular issues that they're above water with is abortion. I feel like a lot of people are drawn to the Democrats as a result of that issue. We've got Seamus jumping in for the next few moments.

Yeah, I'm going to be setting in for Ben. I told him you've got to leave. It's Shimcast time. Seamus took over. I want to jump to the story. Sort of story. Travesty. This is polymarkets. Now, we've all been tracking polymarket. For some reason, people have decided this matters. The betting odds matter,

I do agree, but this one matters more than the rest. And right now, we can see $3.18 billion wagered on the presidential election. Well, the news is that Robinhood is also allowing what's called events contracts, where you can buy contracts for either Kamala or Trump to win. Here's where it gets weird. They've got this read the rules disclaimer up top on Polymarket that says, this presidential market resolves when the Associated Press, Fox, and NBC all call the election for the same candidate. In the unlikely event that doesn't happen, the market will remain open until inauguration and resolve to whoever gets inaugurated. If you would prefer to trade the market that is resolved solely by who gets inaugurated, set to happen on January 20th, 2025, you can visit that market here, which is a separate and much, much lesser known betting market

called who will be inaugurated as president. Now, what I find fascinating with this and worrisome is it's not just Polymarket, but Robinhood says they resolve the winner of their contract based on who is inaugurated, not who wins based on what the election is. Now, why would Polymarket add a disclaimer up top, making sure you understand this? Not that I'm saying there's a secret cabal who's planning Trump to not get inaugurated. No, I'm saying Jamie Raskin stated February of this year, Democrats would not certify the election. Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment. The betting markets are aware of this, and there is likely going to be a lot of complaints from people if the news calls the race for Donald Trump and then the Democrats win the House and refuse to certify.

I'm curious if you guys think that's possible or what your thoughts are. I'm so cynical about Polly Mocker generally because I feel like if the market cap is only $3 million, Jeremy Boring could throw around a couple of million. $3 billion. Oh, $3 billion. Oh, yeah. Never mind. Jeremy Boring cannot move the needle with his money.

Never mind. But I just feel like this is, I don't understand how the market cap on this specific Polymarket poll works, but I feel like this is open to be influenced. I feel like the lawyers are trying to cover their basis with that. That's like their lawyers saying, hey, yeah, just make this little in case somebody calls it wrong and somebody else. I agree.

But I would just say that suggests we are in a period, which we all know, where whoever wins on election night is not the winner. Yeah. Well, listen, there's a there's a little secret that the left doesn't want you to know about Donald Trump. And that's that Donald Trump almost never acts in accordance with the worst aspects of his rhetoric. He didn't lock her up, right? Yeah. He's not going to court-martial the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Donald Trump mouths off. He uses hyperbole. He's a little bit of an insult comic. He has a negotiating style wherein he makes enormous threats. All of that is sort of baked into Donald Trump. Which he laid out in his book, didn't he? He laid out in his book.

Big ask. And he was president for four years. So we actually know how his behavior does and doesn't reflect his rhetoric. What they won't tell you is that the left always works in accordance with the worst aspects of their rhetoric. So when Kamala Harris says we're going to get rid of the filibuster and add justices to the Supreme Court, that's because

what she is going to do if she is president is try to get rid of the filibuster and try to add justices to the Supreme Court. When the left says, oh, they're going to not certify the results, you know, there was a move in the House not to certify the results in 2020. And Donald Trump's own, theretofore incredibly loyal vice president, almost occasionally obsequiously loyal theretofore vice president, Mike Pence, refused to go along with it. You will not see that on the left. What will happen on the left is they simply won't certify if the exact set of circumstances you outlined comes about. They will throw us into civil unrest because, I tweeted about this today, because when the left says horrible things, those things are actually acceptable in polite society. And when Donald Trump says horrible

things, those things are not welcome in polite society. So we have to engage in sort of this outrage culture around what Donald Trump says, never mind what he's going to do. And we have to pretend that the left actually saying and actually doing abhorrent things isn't outrageous. Oh, yeah. Well, I just want to say I would generally agree with that. The only thing that I would add is the left actually ends up doing things worse than they say that they're going to do. And to build on top of that with Donald Trump, it's not even the case that he gets chastised for saying the kinds of things that we would be upset with the left for saying. He can say anything, and they'll take it, and they'll try to spin it into something completely different. So for example, this allegation that's being made by the press that he said about Liz Cheney, a thing that I don't

actually think I could repeat on this show, when he actually didn't say that. He was making the same argument we've heard made since the 1960s about how senators should send their children to fight in the wars that they're able to get out of and send everyone else's kids into. But I think you're generally right about this. And part of the reason is because the nature of the left is revolutionary. Once you push the boulder down the hill, it doesn't stop. And this is the way that I see it. It's like you've got this giant boulder atop an incredibly steep hill. And at the bottom of the hill is a house that your family is living in.

And at the top of the hill, you have three people. You have the conservative, you have the liberal and you have the leftist. And the liberal and leftist are pushing at the boulder. And then the conservative says, hey, hold on, maybe don't do that. And the liberal says, don't worry, I only want the boulder to go halfway down the hill. Like, yes, I understand that you think in some bizarre reality, the boulder could stop halfway, but that's not how the revolution works. And then what happens is they jump out of the left and they start complaining that the revolution didn't stop where they were comfortable with it. But the reality is it is going to keep moving until we stop them. I want to give you another example, too, about if Trump says it's wrong and it's my favorite. Breaking news in the past week, Lancaster County in our, I believe, county right in PA

found thousands of potentially fraudulent voter registrations. Donald Trump read the news from a local outlet and then posted. Wow. Shocking. Thousands of potentially fraudulent ballots were found in Pennsylvania. The media then ran stories across the board. Donald Trump stokes fear of voter fraud. Oh, and in every single possible form, they could accuse Trump. And then it turns out, actually, hundreds of the registrations were actually fraudulent. Trump read the news, said, hey, guys, look what I read. And they said, Trump, how dare you say that? They do this all the time. Trump is a guy who's sitting on his

couch watching Fox or whatever, reading articles on Twitter, tweeting about it. And then they claim he's wrong, lying or stoking fears for reporting what they already reported. Jeremy, I wanted to follow up with something you said about how Mike, I feel like we need to add a caveat with Mike Pence, because I feel like after the fact for being principled, he was actually treated very poorly by the Republican Party and is probably one of the least popular or most loathed Republican politician that I could even think of right now. So, I mean, he's dealt with the consequences of that. Well, yeah, absolutely. I happen to think that Mike Pence did the right thing in 2020, which is not a very popular opinion

today on the right. But I think that he rightly ascertained that he didn't have the authority under the circumstances to do what he was being expected to do. Listen, the bottom line is there is cheating. Cheating happens in every contest. The question is, is there enough cheating by one side or the other to actually materially impact the results? And one problem that we have in this country is that the left goes out of their way to obscure visibility into things like our election, into things like their motives behind their immigration policies.

And so you wind up in a situation which is detrimental to any sort of democratic institution, which is at least half of everyone doesn't trust the process. And in that situation, the difference between actually cheating or only being perceived to cheat, I don't know that there is a meaningful difference between those two things. When a society, a nation has to be based on essentially a kind of trust structure. To follow up on that, though, Donald Trump was pissed off that Mike Pence did end up certifying the election. And I feel like now he actually found somebody loyal enough to have certified the election if asked to do so. So in a recent New York Times interview, J.D. Vance said if he was VP, he wouldn't have voted

to certify the election based off of whatever flavor of election denialism. I think it was the Hunter laptop story that he references. So what do you think about now? J.D. Vance, Trump's VP pick, saying he would have voted against certifying the election? Yeah, well, I don't think that, you know, in politics, people say a lot of things. I don't know what J.D. Vance would or wouldn't have done if he found himself in that exact same situation. Listen, one of my one of my only friends in the federal government, Ted Cruz, was a part of leading the effort not to certify the election on the Senate floor. I disagreed with Senator Cruz in that regard. And we've discussed that privately. So I'm not telling tales out of school. There was a plausible argument, even a historically based argument on taking the path that they

took. I happen to agree with Mike Pence's position. I don't think, though, that it's fair to J.D. Vance, who has really been in the national spotlight really only for a matter of months. I mean, being a first term senator, being a first term senator is not major national spotlight. And being the guy who wrote a very popular book is nothing like the kind of scrutiny that comes on someone when they are thrust into the position that J.D. Vance has been thrust into. In many ways, we don't know J.D. Vance as a political character yet in some very substantive ways. I happen to think that J.D. may be one of the smartest people not only in the government, but maybe ever to be in the government. I think that

he's an incredibly capable person, an incredibly thoughtful person, an incredibly articulate person. What he will be, what he would do, I don would do. Yeah, I think you're at least right that politicians love to say a lot of things because, I mean, I think J.D. Vance has been in the public spotlight a very long time. He was a never-Trumper not too long ago. So if he could have gone from a never-Trumper to his VP now, I guess his words on potentially certifying the election. Well, but doesn't that actually say something? I want to talk about that. Doesn't that say something good about Donald Trump? You know, I often say that Donald Trump

is a uniquely flawed individual. And I don't mean in the way that like all of sin and fall short of the glory of God. Like we're all flawed. Yes, of course we're all flawed. But I mean that I think that Donald Trump's particular set of flaws should have been disqualifying. I think his handling of COVID-19

should have been disqualifying. Now it wasn't disqualifying because as it turns out, the entity that determines your qualification is the primary voter. And the primary voter selected Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee. He, therefore, is qualified to be the Republican nominee. I, therefore, very much hope that he wins the election tomorrow and voted for him and have publicly supported him, even though not only is he not my choice, but, again, I think he's sort of uniquely flawed. But he's also he does have unique virtues. Do I think that they outmatch his unique flaws? Possibly not. But he does have them and no one ever talks about them. And one of his truly unique virtues is his ability to work with people who have done him wrong. People who've said

bad things about him. You him. Tucker Carlson called him demonic, and now Tucker advises the campaign. To your point, J.D. Vance was not only a never Trumper, but a far more outspoken never Trumper in 2016, even than, say, Ben or I were in 2016. Now he's his vice presidential nominee. Donald Trump sort of uniquely doesn't hold political grudges. And that really does matter in a divided nation, because it gives hope that if Donald Trump, as I hope, ascends to the presidency again tomorrow, then he'll become the president in this divided nation who's actually willing to work with people who've done horrible. I mean, what the left has done, what they've said about Donald Trump and actually done to Donald Trump are horrible. But I think that Donald Trump actually is the unique

kind of man who can put that aside, especially for a man who's been powerful, wealthy, and famous his entire life, essentially, that he's willing to subordinate his ego that way. I think John McCain, great patriot. I think if John McCain had won in 2008, many of our national disasters that have happened since then wouldn't have happened. And yet, when John McCain walked on the Senate floor to cast the deciding vote for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, after running for re-election on the promise that he would overturn it, he was faced with the opportunity to either be a man of his word, a man of principle,

a man of values, or to make sure that Donald Trump didn't get a win. And John McCain chose his grudge over the national interest. Listen, he had every right to hate Donald Trump. The things Donald Trump said about John McCain were absolutely abhorrent. And yet, I still demand of my politicians that they be willing to subordinate that to the national interest. John McCain wasn't able to do that. Isn't it interesting that Donald Trump, who we, you know, we're all sort of aware of his flaws, has this very unique virtue, gets almost no credit for it. And that actual virtue in question could be the virtue that allows him to be a restorative figure if he ascends to a second. I think you're speaking to an important Christian theme on the right. That is redemption that is found so often. And I'm Jewish. So maybe one of you guys

could tell me more about it. But I think that's what you're really speaking to with how Trump's willing to overlook these things. And we're really willing to bring a lot of people into the Republican Party who might have been Democrats or against the right in the past. Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr. Trump has a very long list of them but that could be foolish though i do think it is so but it appears that trump doesn't hold a personal grudge about maybe jd vance's personal attitudes towards him as a human being but he could make the mistake of hiring the same exact people who sabotaged him in his administration just because he doesn't hold a political grudge. He's open to redemption. I mean, if people don't know, the people who sabotaged him trying to build

the wall, for instance, if you can't beat him, join him. I guess it's been the theme in the Republican Party. I'll give a little pushback in that. Where was he? Well, Joe Rogan, he was very critical of a handful of people. He was very critical of Bolton. and he called some of these people very stupid stupid people wait he said more than that tim though he said i liked having john bolton around because when i went to putin and he saw me coming through with john bolton that he knew hey i might actually push the button so i think he's really speaking to the youth that's my spin on that mustache here that's that's my spin on that i mean it's good to have him like, hey, look at this crazy guy. Sure, sure.

But Trump still disparaged them is my point. Not whether Trump was happy or sad, but, you know, Trump ragged on some of these people. Useful idiot. Well, but again, Donald Trump's rhetoric doesn't always match Donald Trump's actions. And usually I think in a very positive direction. Trump Trump's bark is worse than his bite. And I oh, yeah, I happen to actually think that's a good thing. I'm not that's not a criticism of him.

Yeah, one thing I'll say, well, I just want to mention this here, this idea that Republicans are now welcoming people who have traditionally been our enemies. There have been a number of ways the Republican Party has changed over the past couple of years that I would agree with and you would disagree with most likely, I think particularly on foreign policy, probably certain economic issues.

And the flip side, probably abortion. Yeah, well, it's true. And I will also say there are certain areas where the Republican Party has changed and become a little bit more moderate that I'm not entirely sure where you stand on, but I would imagine you'd be friendlier to that I am. And what my position basically is for the Republican Party

and how they should conduct themselves in light of how insane the left has been is to not court moderates by becoming moderates, but to just point to what the left is actually doing and say, yes, we are on the right. Yes, you don't agree with us. We're not going to change our platform, but it is a lot better than theirs because the right does not need to change its positions as much as it thinks to. One thing you and I have argued about a lot has been abortion and has been the Republican position on abortion. And what I say is that the Republican Party does not need

to change this compromise where we say we're OK with abortion as long as it happens before 14 weeks. What the Republican Party needs to do is say, this is an all-or-nothing issue. That's why the left treats it like an all-or-nothing issue. And what we need to say to voters is, we don't believe abortion should ever be allowed. The left believes abortion should be allowed during the process of birth. Those are your options. Pick one. The American people will pick for abortion to be illegal across the board

if that's what it takes for partial birth abortion to not be happening. I firmly believe that. Even though I think very many Americans do support legal abortion at 14 weeks. I disagree. I disagree.

This country loves abortion. I'll tell you why. And it's because, Seamus, you are not willing to lie to win. I don't think you have to be willing to lie in order to win. I mean, listen, if you're right. They're going to lie

about every single thing every step of the way. They have this ridiculous commercial where a woman is bleeding out on the ground. And the guy's like, Doctor, what do I do i do and he's like your wife needs an abortion i mean as a and then the republican congressman takes the phone and the absurdity of it is no one whose wife falls down bleeding calls their physician and no sane physician says

time for an abortion yeah if you did for some reason call your physician he'd say are you nuts call 9-1-1 but this is the the they put out there. And they keep saying things like, they have all these tweets saying women have died because of abortion, when in fact, they died from taking these pills or not getting proper medical treatment. That's right. No, listen, you're absolutely right that the left is going to lie about this. But the nice thing about having the position that we have as Christians on abortion is you don't have to lie because the truth is on your side. And so when the left says you're going to go to miscarriage jail because J.D. Vance is tracking your peer. And James, no, that is the argument that has been made by lefties who are

in a histrionics over this. I agree with you on the basic binary of it. But I went to New York and I was hanging out with a friend of mine who is a default liberal. He's a comedian and he doesn't pay attention to politics and he's got a massive following. And when I told him that Democrats introduced a bill that would allow abortion up to birth, he says, that can't be true. You're wrong. And I said, no, I am not a conservative, pro-lifer, crazy guy. I'm telling you the truth.

Took my phone, opened up the bill, and I said, read Section 14. And he goes, this is wrong. I don't believe this. And I said, dude, I am not making this up. See, one of the problems we have with the current iteration of our left in this country is that they are so insane. If you try and tell people it's happening, they tell you you're nuts. There's no way it's happening. I think you're going to listen to your argument. The cognitive dissonance goes too deep. And even if they recognize subconsciously that that the left's position is partial birth abortion,

it doesn't matter because the issue of abortion itself represents sexual license. That's also true. And it is the trade-off that they are willing to make. I respect you guys trying to shift the conversation to late-term abortion, because that is some of the most unpopular time. And politically, it's very unpopular. However, 90% of abortions happen within 14 weeks and

overwhelmingly americans support this electorally speaking being for things like six-week abortion bans which i'm not making up out of thin air have been pushed in florida and things like things like that are cement shoes electorally and you can sink or swim about it but it's electorally it's cement shoes and that's what it comes down to so So good luck legislating what you actually believe. You can keep harping on late-term abortion, but the fact of the matter is you believe life begins at conception, and that's what you're deep down trying to legislate. So you're trying to mislead people by constantly focusing on late-term abortion,

which is wrong. You have made a bad-faith accusation against my position when I literally opened by saying the Republican Party needs to be clear about the fact that we want abortion banned from conception. Anyone can rewind the tape and see that. I've said nothing dishonest. I've been very clear about my position. You levied that accusation against me for disagreeing with your perspective. But one thing I will say about this is when you talk about late-term abortion being a small minority, even though the Guttmacher Institute, which is a very left-wing organization, has said 12,000 of them happen annually. As a percent of abortions, Seamus, as a percent of total abortions.

You've got to let me finish a sentence. You've got to let me finish a sentence here. I find it interesting that you're saying that it is focusing on the fringe of an issue to talk about late-term abortions when the reality is the left is making arguments about women who are going to go to jail for having miscarriages which never happens. That's not even a fringe. It happens just as often as nine-month

abortions. It happens roughly as... That's not true. 12,000 times a year. Gentlemen, that happens 12,000 times a year. Gentlemen. Yeah. That happens here. We were actually wrong. We will continue this conversation. But I want to pull in this story. This was big news of the weekend. The shocking Iowa poll from Ann Seltzer.

Nate Silver says a shocking Iowa poll means somebody is going to be wrong, either Ann Seltzer and The New York Times or the rest of the polling industry. So you guys may have seen this. Strangely, Ann Seltzer, who Nate Silver says is one of their highest pollsters, like one of their best, shows Kamala Harris winning three points in Iowa. Why? No idea. When she was being interviewed about this, she says, what does D and R represent? And everyone began ragging on her like, uh, Democrats and Republicans? What do you mean? Don't you understand what and R represent? And everyone began ragging on her like Democrats and Republicans. What do you what do you mean? Don't you understand what's going on? And then the argument from the left is, well, no, no, she's right. It's just she's not going partisan. She's saying Trump versus Harris. The narrative that is emerging right now on the left.

The reason why Ann Seltzer was able to find these results is because she's not following the herd and that she's polling women. There are numerous narratives emerging where these guys in Iowa are like, you know, I saw my wife having a meeting with all her friends and they said they were going to vote for Kamala Harris. And they are very serious about not liking Donald Trump. We're now looking at polls. I'm sorry, not polls, but the return date on early voting showing that women are, I believe, what, 10 million more women than men have voted. It's 50, it's about 54% to 44% of men nationwide. We love doing paperwork. Well, women, women are voting more than men, at least right now. Some are saying, well,

men are going to show up on the day of, but the issue of abortion is being brought up by the left as a, as a principal issue as to why Democrats may, may win this. I don't know who wins. I don't know, Jeremy, what do you think, if this really is swaying people? Abortion, I think, is the number five issue. Well, it's the number five issue in the way that people respond to surveys. It's definitely the number one issue if you look at Kamala Harris and the left's rhetoric going into the election. I would say that Kamala Harris is obviously on something like Valium like she's a perpetually stoned I'm actually not joking. I think that she's

The only time that she has these moments of sort of Clarity that's like the the fog parts and an actual, you know position appears. It's to advocate for the killing of babies That's like almost the only thing that she seems to actually care about in any real sense, and she becomes very passionate about it. And I do think that the left has done a very effective job over the last 70 years, and in particular, over the last 20 years, of convincing women that the only way to truly be a woman is to be the opposite of what women have been throughout all of human history, which is, you know, life givers and children nurturers. So I, listen, I don't know. I think that there's a world where Kamala Harris wins 50 states. If the left figures out a way to

turn college campuses into ballot harvesting operations, which has historically been impossible, but now in the era of mail-in, the ubiquity of mail-in voting is no longer impossible. If they haven't done it, they're going to do it in the next election, and we have to figure out what we're going to do about that. Then there are a lot of ways that the polls could be wildly off because all of the old milestones or fence markers by which we would understand the state of the race have essentially all been upended we we just don't know and and how you feel doesn't mean no one of the things that i hate the most about uh about politics in the era of social media is that you'll have somebody who says donald trump is gonna win new york i've never been more sure of anything in my life. And then like early tomorrow morning,

a meteor will hit Manhattan, wipe out 20 million people, and New York will only be determined by people who voted in like the three red counties in New York. And that person will say, see, I told you, I always knowed. Well, you didn't know crap, but you did happen to be right.

You brought up abortion as one of the most important issues for Democrats. Trump's Supreme Court famously was responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade. Now Trump is saying that he doesn't want to have any national abortion ban. Do you feel as though Trump is abandoning the pro-life cause? Yes. Trump is abandoning the pro-life cause? Yes, I think that Donald Trump has never been comfortable in the pro-life movement. I don't think that Donald Trump himself has ever actually been a pro-life person. I don't think that he's run in pro-life circles. I think that he has not lived the kind of lifestyle that would reinforce pro-life values. I think that he is a transactional

politician. He understood what the electorate needed from him to win as a Republican, and things happen very fast. It happens to be a sort of rebuke of the right, that most of our way of dealing with abortion in my lifetime was essentially premised on the idea that we would never be able to win and overturn roe i think you're right and so we remember it was settled law that was the phrase around roe v wade like it was ever it wasn't well the left the right never would have agreed it was settled law yeah it was the fight the fight to overturn roe but because the only fight was to overturn roe, there's never been any conception of what would happen after the overturning of Roe. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg knew that it was a

flawed decision. Of course, it was a terrible decision. Yeah, yeah. But the result is that the pro-life movement in America has essentially existed to fight Roe v. Wade, and now we live in a post-Roe reality, and the right has not yet adapted. We have not yet figured out how best to champion life when it can't when it's when it's now an actual issue in which voters are going to routinely have a say in the beauty of Roe. Listen, Roe was a horrible piece of jurisprudence. It led to an actual kind of genocide of the unborn in this country. I'm, you couldn't be more pro-life than I am. Um, nevertheless, I'm telling you that Roe was a, was a great political value to cynical right-wing politicians because it

allowed them to be abortion absolutists politically without actually having to do anything to obviate abortion in the country. I think I've now rescinded the endorsement. I'd like to make this point, and I would start by saying I consider myself traditionally pro-choice. I think abortion is wrong, but I think it's increasingly difficult

to legislate properly. I don't know that I have the best answers, and I will stress with this disclaimer, this issue is the razor's edge. There's no middle road. I'm not smart enough to come up with a good answer, to be completely honest. I just don't know.

What I can tell you is I do believe over a long period of time, the end result will be the complete abolition of abortion. And I mean that from a position of logic. That is, the 14th Amendment would have to be overturned, removed from the Constitution, or the Supreme Court has no choice but to follow its natural conclusion, that is, the unborn have the same rights under the Constitution, and every abortion would require a court adjudication with justification for the death of an individual and i will stress

this by reading section 1 of the 14th all persons born or naturalized the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside period now you can forget about that sentence because that's only one portion of this amendment because often the left and liberals try to say aha but it says person's born forget about that sentence because that's only one portion of this amendment because often the left and liberals try to say, aha, but it says person's born only for that sentence. It then says next, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, semicolon, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law or denied to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws. First, outside of the abortion question, this has already been ruled that non-citizens, tourists, illegal immigrants

still have the same protections. That is, someone who comes here because they're a visiting family cannot just be locked up without charge or trial. They have free speech. They have these things. This means, if the Supreme Court

is to answer this question, are the unborn persons or citizens, the argument is, well, they're not born, so they're not citizens, but are they persons? At which point,

scientifically, life begins at conception. I believe that the logic follows. And I've asked this to many liberals. I've asked them, two women, nine months pregnant. They both conceived at the exact same moments. They're twins, and they're married to twin brothers. The babies are identical. One woman gives birth. The other woman is still pregnant. An hour later, can the woman who is still pregnant abort that baby?

And the response from the left is yes, without question. It's her choice. Despite the fact the babies are identical and the only thing separating them is the body of the mother. I then said, can you terminate the life of the baby that was born? Answer is no. Well, there's nothing legal or logical in that that can be concluded. I believe that if the Supreme Court takes up this question, there is only one answer, and it's the unborn our person. At the very least, the argument is post-viability, but I believe whether you want it to be or not, and this is not me making an opinion argument, or I should say it's not my opinion or morals on the question of abortion, it is my view of how the Supreme Court will rule based on the 14th Amendment. So I would agree with you that that's certainly the most logical choice, but I'm actually going to combine a thing Jeremy said and a thing Mary said,

which I think are both accurate, which is firstly, the Republican Party did for a very long time run on abortion as an issue that they were never actually interested in doing anything about. It's not to say there weren't Republican politicians whose heart was in the right place and plan to. It's just for many of them, it was something that could be easily exploited. And then, Mary, you pointed out that abortion is necessary for the sexual licentiousness that dominates our culture to continue to flourish. And there's a phrase I like to use for this. These people, they really genuinely are lobotomized by their libido. They will go along with any insane policy prescription, including killing babies, if it means that they get to continue fooling around.

There's actually a theory in anthropology that one of the ways you can determine whether a place is a brothel is whether there are infant skeletons nearby. Yes. Yeah, behind every brothel is a graveyard. Yes, because it's absolutely necessary in order to continue this absurd fantasy that you can have a quote unquote sexual liberation that does not involve human beings living by the rules and laws of logic, settling down with one person, having a child with them, getting married. Which is the most reasonable thing to do. Because we want to talk about sexual liberation. You are not free if you are not living in accordance with reason.

But this is why I'm saying I don't have as much faith in the American people coming to the decision that we will not support this if it means partial birth or late-term abortion. They will not decide that. They have, I think, collectively decided this is the price

for my sexual license we will shed blood for our orgasm like that is what they have collectively decided they've decided that today exactly but it took seven this is the sad truth for my my pro-life friends it took 70 years to overturn roe v wade and we had no as I said, we had no idea what we were going to do next. It's going to take at least a generation and maybe two generations to defeat abortion now that it's a political issue. It's going to have to be won culturally. It's going to have to be fought for politically. It's going to have to be thought through by a new generation of thinkers who aren't just thinking about how to use the courts to accomplish this one piece of the victory, but who are actually thinking about ways to legislate our way toward victory.

It's going to be fought by the churches who have, I mean, American evangelicalism is in complete collapse right now. It's going to have to refine. We're going to have to refine that footing. It's going to be probably solved in part technologically because you're never going to have to refine. We're gonna have to refine that footing. It's going to be probably solved in part technologically because you're never going to have a society. I hate to say this, but you know, all of sin and fall short of the glory of God. I said it before.

That's a little line I came up with on the drive over. I think that I'll trademark it, but you know, the, the fact of the matter is that people don't just give up licentiousness and you're never going to have a society that's free from licentiousness. But you are going to have a society where the age of viability moves back further and further and further and further with technological and medical advances.

And the combination of all of that, I do believe, and God's grace, will ultimately result in the abolition of abortion. But it's not going to be decided at the 2024 ballot box. That's not going to happen. It's not going to be decided like at the 2024 ballot box. That's not going to happen. It's not going to be determined in 2028. It's not going to be determined in 2032. We're going to have to fight and fight. We're going to win ground and lose ground. We're going to compromise and get blood on our hands. We're going to dislike ourselves because we have to engage in political compromise for the first time. And Republicans have never had to engage in political compromise on the issue of abortion because it's never been political. We could afford to be completely absolutist

in our approach. I'm an absolutist in the ethic. I believe that abortion should be 100% banned in absolutely all instances. That's about as pro-life as you can get, 100% absolute abolitionist. But we're going to have to make political compromise. If I, for example, lived in California, and somehow a Republican manages to get elected governor in that state again, and he's a Donald Trumpian Republican, and he comes up with a 14-week abortion ban, I'm going to freaking support it. Not because I agree with a 14-week abortion ban. I believe in a complete abolition of abortion. But I know you're not going to get that in California. And I'm going to live with having to face the fact that I live in a fallen

world, having to face the fact that I have political responsibility in a fallen world, and I'm going to fight for every single life of every single child that I can until we figure out how to win this issue, which I believe is a generational struggle. One more point from Shane. Yeah, I just want to make one point really quickly, which is even Pope St. John Paul II said that if there is a situation where abortion is legal across the board and there's a piece of legislation that you can choose that restricts abortion but doesn't totally eliminate it, it's okay to support that piece of legislation on the way to total abolition. So I got to jump to the story because we've been sitting out for a few minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Rogan has formally endorsed Donald Trump. Oh, wow. Get out for a few minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Rogan has formally endorsed Donald Trump. Oh, wow.

Get out of here. Nice. In a tweet, he said, the great and powerful Elon Musk, if it wasn't for him, we'd be effed. He makes what I think is the most compelling case for Trump. You'll hear, and I agree with him every step of the way. For the record, yes, that's an endorsement of Trump. Enjoy the podcast. I guess there are going to be so many videos of him saying offensive things on the Internet tomorrow.

All the Edward tapes are going to get played again tomorrow. Like, every bad thing this man has said is about to get raked up it's fine it's fine he's gonna be fine why did he take he doesn't need us yeah like is this a podcast with him yes yes uh to trump but it was elon who convinced him i i think it's the most i think elon is the most important living human. I agree. I'll just say this. He's kind of a weird guy, but that's okay. Buying X and doing the best he can for free speech, he's not perfect. But SpaceX and the work he's doing with Starship is, you know, if the Earth gets wiped out, if something happens, that's it.

You know, if we start expanding and we develop our technologies and we move to the stars, I believe that makes humans invincible. I mean that figuratively. But Joe Rogan, on the eve of the election, at 8.45 p.m., just tweeting his endorsement. It's huge, but at the same time, it's the lightest way he could have done it. Yeah. I'm wondering if tomorrow, maybee will put out a statement or something on video sorry i was drunk i don't know this is gonna be like to apologize every single news outlet right now is writing this it is fast it's fascinating and hilarious at the same time because who's joe rogan you know what i mean so yeah he's a he's a comedian he's a celebrity i get it he has the biggest podcast but everybody was waiting for his endorsement jeremy this ties into something i think that you said earlier you said how the the left actually does

the things that they say and you mentioned or joe mentions that he spoke to elon and the harris administration has made it clear that they're going to be they're going to use the powers at their disposal, likely at their disposal, likely the Justice Department to go after people like Elon Musk platforms like X. You have experience fighting the government because of the lawsuits that you brought and winning. winning um do is it your sense that a harris administration will go after people like joe rogan like elon musk maybe podcasters maybe they'll come after some of your you some of some of your businesses because of your endorsement of donald trump and because of your resistance to to the the mandates from the government is it your sense that that's a reality because it's my sense and that's one of the things that i find most off-putting about the idea of a Kamala Harris administration is her hostility to the individual liberties that we have too long taken for granted. Yes. There's no question that the left will

weaponize the government to penalize their political opponents. They've been doing it. I mean, Barack Obama famously weaponized the IRS against his political enemies, including my organization at the time, Friends of Abe, the 501c3 that I was the executive director of in Los Angeles at the time and had to fight them and got some help from some friendly senators who helped us repel that attack. They've already weaponized the DOJ to go after Donald Trump. We've seen that in many, many instances of actual Americans who aren't famous, Americans who don't have big names being criminalized by the left. The left is the threat to our freedom. They are the threat to our national sovereignty. They are the threat to our traditional values, the threat to our family. They are all the things that they accuse Donald Trump

of being, and they are those things in practice. You know, something you said earlier that I think is really interesting is that the left does all the worst things that they say they're going to do, but they also say a bunch of conservative things, and they don't do those. And that is an interesting aspect of our country, is that politicians left and right run to the right, and then neither of them do the things that they said they were going to do to the right. And so Donald Trump's right is much further right than Kamala Harris's right, but he's not going to do those things. And Kamala Harris's right is much more close to the middle than Donald Trump's right, but she's not going to do those things either. Everyone promises the country, to Ben's point earlier, everyone sort of promises some sort of return to normalcy, but the left in particular does the worst things that they say that they're going to do. When they say that they're going to

clamp down on freedom of speech, they are. When they say that they're going to look into this Elon Musk character, they are. And if you want to know why, listen, I don't know Elon Musk. I admire Elon Musk. I think he's the most important living human, and I like to say the most important American, mostly because it ticks off the Gropers or whatever who try to point out to me that he's not an American, even though he's obviously the greatest living American. But Elon Musk is trying to build the future. The next three to four years will be the most important years

for determining the regulatory environment for everything that Elon Musk cares about. They're going to determine over the next three to four years to what extent private companies like his have access to space. They're going to determine over the next three to four years to what extent we're allowed to embrace AI. They're going to determine over the next three to four years to what extent we're allowed to embrace autonomous driving. They're going to decide over the next three to four years to what extent we're allowed to embrace autonomous driving. They're going to decide over the next three to four years, to what extent we're able to directly interface physically with machines in a way that he's doing through Neuralink.

They're going to determine to what extent we're able to embrace the revolution of robotics that is, that is at hand. I think people don't realize these things are at hand right now. Like the Jetsons future is here. The 9.9 earthquake already happened in Japan. The tidewater has already receded. There's no question about us getting wet.

It's only now a question of when. The event already took place. And what the left wants to do is crack down on all of that, stymie human innovation, use protectionist policies, use punitive policies to keep it from happening. And all they'll do is ensure that China and Russia and our adversaries steal the technology from people like Elon and get ahead of us and destroy American hegemony around the world. I'm not saying there's not some responsible legislation that should happen around these things. I think anyone would tell you that

there is, but the left actually wants to stop it. I think that's why the most important living American has so passionately embraced politics, because politics is kind of a losing gambit for a guy like Elon Musk, except that he knows that everything he cares about, up to and including free speech, is actually on the ballot tomorrow. That's why I'm voting for Donald Trump. It's why I think Elon Musk is voting for Donald Trump. I suspect it's why Joe Rogan is voting for Donald Trump. Amen. I got to bounce now. Ben Shapiro's here to take my spot, but I just want to let everybody know, if you go over to freedomtunes.com, you can become a member,

help us make more cartoons. If you go to our YouTube channel, Freedom Tunes, we released a video today called Kamala polling at 100% with people who vote at 3 a.m. I think it's a very funny video. I think you guys will really enjoy it. I want to encourage you to go over there and check it out. Thank you all so much for having me. I'm half the voices in it. Yeah, he's like half the voices in the video. I'm the sleepy guy. So go to go over there and check it out. Thank you all so much for having me. And I'm half the voices in it. Yeah, he's like half the voices in the video. I'm the sleepy guys. youtube.com slash freedom tunes.

Thank you guys so much. But this is perfect because I need to hear Ben Shapiro's take on Joe Rogan's endorsement of Donald Trump. All right. You leave for five minutes

during this campaign and Joe Rogan has endorsed Donald Trump. Okay, so that was obviously kind of on the way, right? I mean, we all saw of saw that one coming. Listen, Joe's great. Joe's been heterodox this entire time.

The chances that he was going to endorse Kamala, particularly after she insisted that he travel to her and then come on bended knee and do a one-hour interview to Joe. I mean, some of us in the room have been on Joe's show. And, you know, one hour is called the introduction. Yep. Like one hour is where he just asks you if you've tried ayahuasca.

Like that's like just the first hour. So the idea that he was going to, you know, endorse her is ridiculous. It is, this election is so much about whether dudes turn out. That really is just the entire story of this election. If dudes turn out, Trump wins. If dudes do not turn out, Trump loses. That's the entirety of the election.

I mean, Tim Walls actually sort of, Doug Emff. So I mixed the two of them up because there's such betas. But but Doug Emhoff sort of gave the game away. He said, you know, I've been meeting with with men, which is, you know, he can't define it, but he's meeting with men who are going to vote now for Kamala Harris. But they had to stop watching podcasts and stop looking at the UFC. It's like, yeah, yeah, and cut themselves in weird places. Yeah, they had to castrate themselves. This is what they're so afraid of.

They're waging a war on podcasts. I'm concerned about that. I mean, we're all in the podcast industry. This is what that New York Times piece was all about. There's a New York Times and Washington Post piece. Both of those were hit pieces on our industry. They were clearly in a time to destroy our ability to make a living because they don't like what we're saying. And that's Joe, too.

I mean, Joe knows this, okay? They went after him on Spotify because he refused to bow to all of the crap that the public health minds were saying. And Joe went along with it for a time until he stopped going along with it. But Joe is bigger than they are. And that is something that they, like we are watching the end in real time. This is the celebratory point, no matter how this election goes.

We are watching in real time, the collapse of legacy media. And the only way, the only way they can maintain their dominance is if they participate in censorship and get the social media platforms to censor all of our businesses. I just posed a question, real quick.

I just posed a question to Jeremy about that. Do you, is it your sense that they they do you feel like the government will come after not only Joe Rogan and people like Elon Musk I don't think they even need to do that. I think that the way they like to work is through informal mechanisms of pressure. They like to call in Mark Zuckerberg. They did this already. They like to call in Mark Zuckerberg and they like to call in Elon. And then they like to say to those people, you know, if you don't do what we say, we will essentially regulate your company out of business. So just do what we say and then it'll never come to that. I mean, Dianne Feinstein literally said that to Zuckerberg. And Zuckerberg is considered, you know, the big villain on the right these days. But the reality is that if you go back and you look at what Zuckerberg was saying in 2019 at Georgetown on

free speech, he sounds like one of us. And if you look at what he's saying now, he's sounding more like he did in 2019. He's kind of starting to make turn on that. And, you know, they don't like that very much. And so if Kamala Harris is elected, I think that you're going to see enormous amounts of pressure brought on all of these outlets to shut down, quote unquote, disinformation and misinformation. And the thing is that the Supreme Court failed on this front, right? There was a Supreme Court case that was launched on these grounds about censorship during the 2020 election. And the Supreme Court found that you didn't have standing to sue if Facebook shut down your posts, because supposedly they might have had another reason

to do that. But if the government uses social media as a cutout for censorship, that is obviously a form of censorship. So you think that if Kamala wins, the social media censorship will get worse? Yes. That's interesting, because it seems like Trump's victory in 2016 was the catalyst for so much of that social media. Interestingly, though, having gone through that run building a media company during that time, the truth is that during the Trump administration, the social media platforms played much, much, much more fairly with us. It doesn't mean that there weren't problems. There are always problems. They're opposed to us. They dislike us. They had our point of view. They want to suppress us. But they were afraid of of the Trump administration. They were afraid, particularly in those first two years when we also had control of the

House and the Senate, they were deeply afraid of there being government action from the right against them. And then from 2020 to today, you've seen the worst excesses of what's happened on the platform. So I don't mean to defend their actions during the early Trump days, but I do think it's a bit of a, yes, they were outraged by Trump. And yes, there was a lot of rhetoric around it. But their actual behavior is so much more nefarious now than it's ever been.

I have to be optimistic seeing the endorsement of Trump by Joe Rogan, and considering the show that we're doing here with, I mean, you've got Neocon, Elad, Ben Shapiro, Jeremy Boring, you've got Mary. The politics are relatively different between all of us. I come from a, when I was younger, I was very far left. Anarchist, punk rock, skateboarding, protesting, all that stuff. Moderated quite a bit. Still consider myself to be fairly moderate and left-leaning in certain areas. Phil, you consider yourself what, fairly libertarian? Or how do you view yourself?

A disaffected libertarian because the libertarians are ridiculous. There you go. That's a fair character. Disaffected liberal. Disaffected libertarian because the libertarians are ridiculous there you go so it's a fair character disaffected liberal disaffected libertarian conservatives neocon i think we just i don't know what you want mary i think that's what it comes down that's the common denominator but also myself as an anti-communist every single show you know i i i see a point that i make all the time especially when it comes to abortion is that we all have a conversation where we're trying to figure it out and the left is absolutist. You know, I talked with pro-life activists about this for a long time coming from a more liberal position and the response is always, Glenn Beck was fantastic.

He said, you know, I don't really see the world the way you do, but I really appreciate your talking. We're trying to work this out. And I was like, yeah, man, I think, you know, figuring out these answers and trying to have a reasonable discussion makes sense. The left is out the window on this one. So now Joe Rogan, who is very obviously a progressive guy in a lot of ways, is like Trump's the guy. I can't help but be optimistic for tomorrow. I mean, naive maybe because, quote unquote, shadow campaigns exist, but I'm optimistic. I don't know. Oh, you sweet summer child.

Kamala is going to win and it's going to be very good for opposition media kamala harris is going to lose because she's going to fumble pennsylvania for her weak decision not to make governor shapiro her vp pick but uh kamala winning will will only be good for opposition media on the surface until the DOJ comes in with IRS, you know, tax investigations and regulatory investigations, and then we don't accept. I think that that's a realistic, I'm in agreement with you guys. It is a clear and present danger to the freedom of speech. I think a Kamala Harris administration is on many fronts. It's not just about the First Amendment. Obviously's she's got would go after semi-automatic rifles so the second amendment she would go after i i assume that

there would be no change about policies that that are are covered under the fourth amendment your right to privacy and such and such so i think that that freedom of religion which is the the vital part of the first amendment that we don't talk about i mean it essentially it you know i mean you guys know jordan peterson better than anyone here uh you know his his perspective is if you don't have the freedom to talk and and say what you want then you don't actually have the freedom to think and i agree with that strongly and i think that without that without the protections that are provided in the constitution being something that the American people truly believe in. And I think the American people,

or at least a significant portion of the American people have, have at least considered these ideas passe and, and not important if they don't affect them directly, which most people, you know, most people kind of go along to get along. So they don't actually affect them directly. I think,

I think too many people will allow for it. And I think that COVID was really a demonstration that there's there's another thing that the Democrats are planning to do and they're openly planning it. Right. I mean, so Kamala Harris has talked about killing the filibuster for a wide variety of things. One of the things that they would do if they got control of the Senate and the presidency, God forbid, is they would immediately move to make changes to the Supreme Court. They've talked openly about this. They would talk about packing the Supreme Court, adding justices. They would talk about putting term limits in

to get rid of some of the older justices who tend to be the more Republican justices at this point in time. And if that happened, then the real bulwark in favor of the First Amendment

is gone. Because the Democrats have made perfectly clear that they do not actually believe that things like hate speech, what they call hate speech, or misinformation, that these things are covered

by the First Amendment. Tim Walz has openly said that. He says misinformation and hate speech are not covered by the first amendment if they ever got a supreme court that was friendly to that position then you can kiss dissent in the country goodbye i come from the music industry that's where that's part of the reason why i'm here i'm in a heavy metal band and a lot of my you know people that i'm i've been friendly with or people that i've known for years and years that you know would be were staunchly against the uh the bush administration and that you would think would consider themselves liberals

and be saying things like oh the first amendment and our right to create art and etc these things should be should be fundamental to them should be foundational and as soon as things like you you like you mentioned they talk about hate speech or whatever they're like or or they like to say things like social media is a whole new world and it's different and we have a responsibility and i and i'm personally appalled by these arguments because i am as close to a free speech absolute as i think you can be now i understand that there's always going to be guardrails when you're dealing with public you know dealing in public and stuff but when it comes to exchange of ideas right you can there shouldn't be any kind of limits on the ideas that you're exchanging just so long as you're being respectful of other people and you're not

looking to be inflammatory and the people in the music industry that i know they frequently just drop the ball on it and stop caring about that kind of stuff i want to go back to something you said a second ago mary because i do it it probably doesn't actually matter to anyone else here, but it's a piccadillo of mine. Anonymous trolls on X love to say the Daily Israel Wire wants Kamala to win because they'll make

more money because opposition, all the money is in opposition media. I wasn't that cynical. I know. But I do want to just point out to everyone listening at home that I'm going to make a lot of money no matter who wins the presidency. Because I happen to the world. The world doesn't happen to me. The Daily Wire happens to the world.

The world doesn't happen to the Daily Wire. But I also want to say that I want Donald Trump to be the president. It will be bad for my business if Kamala to be the president. It will be bad for my business if Kamala Harris becomes the president. It will be bad for my family if Kamala Harris becomes the president. It'll be bad for my nation if Kamala Harris becomes the president.

And I wanted to say again, it will be bad for my business. The social media platforms will crack down on us and cut into our revenue in enormous ways if Kamala Harris wins the presidency. They will criminalize vast amounts of the thing, not criminalize in the sense that they put you in jail, I hope, but they will criminalize in the sense that they penalize you for having these opinions in public spaces. They'll

make it very difficult for us to function economically. They will do everything they can to shut us out of the public square. I won't let that defeat my business, but it will be very bad for my business. And then also, I know it may come let that defeat my business, but it will be very bad for my business. And then also, I know it may come as a shock to people, but I would rather live in a free society than be rich. I'd rather live in a free society than have nice studios. I'd rather live in a free society where my daughter has a chance at knowing any of the freedoms and peace and prosperity that I've largely enjoyed in my life than live in some sort of totalitarian attempt at leftist utopia, which has never worked anywhere that's

been tried anywhere on earth. So you weren't being quite as cynical, perhaps, as the anonymous trolls on X, but it is an important point because it is like a major line of attack against people who are in our business all the time. Also, I just want to point out, as somebody, as a Jew who loves money, you know, money's great. And I am Jewish, as you may have noticed from the funny hat um i have expended exorbitant amounts of capital in favor of both president trump and the senate candidates who are running this campaign like on a personal

level i've dropped a check to president trump okay i've dropped checks throughout this campaign cycle i've put my own life on hold to go campaign for Senate candidates and get out to vote for the Senate candidates. I did an entire hour and change on Senate candidates recently. I saw that. I mean, OK, so here they hit the five campaign with the following candidates. Tim Sheehy in Montana. Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania. Bernie Moreno in Ohio.

Ted Cruz last night in Texas. Eric Hovde in Wisconsin. I went to New York on October 7th with President Trump, and I brought him a hostage family to meet. And to the Rebbe's grave. That's right, Rebbe Menachem Schneerson's grave. That was the campaign's choice, by the way. That was not my, I did not book that. I brought the hostage family. That was his choice to be at the Rebbe's grave

on October 7th. I'm not Khabadnik, actually. They were not Ben's hostages, is what I'm saying. Exactly. I don't take hostages. And I personally co-sponsored a fundraiser for President Trump at Trump Doral. Okay, so for somebody who supposedly is invested in Kamala Harris winning so I can make more money, I'm expending a shitload of money to make sure that she doesn't win. I'd just like to point that out on a personal level. Well, let's talk about foreign policy for a second.

What is the prediction of a Kamala presidency versus a Trump presidency, especially pertaining to, I know, Elad, you want to talk about Taiwan, but Ukraine and Israel are the big conflicts right now we're all concerned about. So President Trump brought the best foreign policy of my lifetime. And he didn't bring that foreign policy because he's like a full-scale America first, Father Coughlin isolationist. He said this on my program. I deliberately asked him this question. He understands foreign policy. Foreign policy is a thing that actually is quite simple.

It goes like this. If you cross this line, I'm going to beat the shit out of you. That's actually how foreign policy works. If you're the United States of America, the most powerful force, it doesn't mean you use the force. It's the credible threat of use of force that deters other people from doing bad things. And President Trump totally understands that. He threatened force more than any president of my lifetime and used it less than any president of my lifetime because he was very credible in that threat of use of force. Some days it was like he was writing a letter to Kim Jong-un.

I love Kim Jong. He's my friend. And then on the other, he's like, I have a button. It's bigger than yours. And if you look, that was Donald Trump and how he did foreign policy. And it was really, really good. It's why he was able to broker peace in the Middle East for the first time in 40 years. It was by ignoring the intransigent and intractable problem between the Palestinians, who are exterminationist and eliminationist with regards to the state of Israel and Israel, and instead going over to UAE and Bahrain and, yes,

Saudi, which, by the way, if he'd been reelected by February 2021, Saudi's in the Abraham Accords. It is that clear. It is 100% true. I know people on both sides of that conversation. That would have been a thing that happened because he understands that people in that area have a common interest against Iran, which Joe Biden then proceeded to completely blow up by giving them billions of dollars in aid. That event like opening up their economy, allowing them to fund terrorism all over the region and opening a wide gap visibly with not only Israel, by the way, but with Saudi Arabia. You remember that Joe Biden came into office yelling about Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Salman and about how they had killed Jamal Khashoggi and all this kind of stuff, and he started distancing from Saudi. Iran saw that. They saw an opening.

They exploited it with October 7th. That's why they were telling Hamas to actually do October 7th. None of this shit happens under Donald Trump. The pullout from Afghanistan does not go down that way, because Donald Trump doesn't like losing. There's one thing about President Trump that is very obviously clear. So even if he had decided to pull out from Afghanistan, he certainly would not have done so at the cost of billions of dollars of American military equipment, much of which is now in the hands of China, and certainly

not at the cost of the visual of people falling from wheel wells at Bagram Air Base as American soldiers get blown up. And as far as Russia invading Ukraine, he told me this. This guy's at the fundraiser at Trump Trails, my favorite Trump story that he's told told me so president trump is talking to me and he's like ben you want to know you want to know why russia never invaded ukraine while i was president he did under biden did under he did under obama you want to know i called up vlad i said vlad vlad vlad don't get whatever you do don't go into ukraine and he said why mr president i said because if you do vlad i'm gonna bomb this shit out of you and vlad said no you want mr president and i said well i might and then he said if there's a five percent chance

that that the most powerful military force on planet earth is going to bomb the shit out of you you know what you don't do go into ukraine he's he's got that uh famous uh story it was a phone call i can't remember who it was with taliban taliban head of the taliban right i slipped the photo to him. I'm sending you a picture of your house right here. He said, why is a picture of my house?

Did you have to figure that one out? Yeah. The version he told us was because I'm going to bum this shit out of your house, Abdul. Again, that is not

the words of an isolationist. That's the words of a person who's realistic about the use of American power and the reality. Here's the problem with the sort of isolationist perspective in its classical definition. The problem with the isolationist perspective in its classical definitions, I think that actually most of the arguments that happen are among realists.

OK, neocons are people who believe that you can build like a functioning democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. OK, that's what that's what neocons. I mean, if you want to go back to what the movement was saying into that, Paul Wolfowitz and company, that's what they were saying in actual 2003, 2004. You are not a neocon if you believe that the United States ought to fund Ukraine sufficient so that Russia doesn't walk into Kiev. That is not definitionally a neocon. Okay. Just to be clear about that, they're different. They're a bunch of realists. And then there's a question between realists about particular military intervention in interventions. A full-scale isolationist will say, if America withdraws from the world, the world will be a nicer place because America will be less involved in places around the world. And that's not true because then a vacuum occurs.

And it turns out everybody on Earth has agency, not just the United States. It turns out China has its own interests and Russia has its own interests. And those interests don't align with the United States very often. It doesn't mean that every time Russia does something, it involves our core interests and we need to act or that every time China does something, it involves our core interests. That's where the realism comes in. Is this enough of a threat to our core interests that we ought to either use force or threaten force or threaten tariffs or threaten some other form of interventionism? But, you know, I think that the sort of conflation of all these foreign policy ideas into Donald Trump is an isolationist, which is why he was against the

neocons. Like that, that is a false divide, I think, in the way that we discuss foreign policy in the country. And it's not realistic about actually how foreign policy is conducted. Unfortunately, I'm a little bit less hopeful than you are. I think if either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump are elected, we are seeing American hegemony around the world waning, and we're seeing conflicts flare up as a result of that. So Ukraine now is dealing with North Korean troops that North Korea is sending over. Israel is already in a multi-front war against Iran and many of its proxies. I feel like looking back in this in 10 years, we're going to say, oh, of course this was the start of another world war that we're dealing with. Also, the people who Trump are surrounding himself with makes me feel a little uncertain

with how we would move forward. So for example, J.D. Vance has probably embodied isolationism in the Republican Party more than anybody else. And that's the person he made his VP pick. OK, so I'm responding to a couple of those things. One, I don't think it's true that if Donald Trump becomes president, that we are on a sure road to World War III, because deterrence is incredibly powerful. And just to explain the situation on the ground, I think the most likely scenario in Ukraine, if Donald Trump becomes president, is that Trump says to Putin, I'm going to continue.

I can do this all day long. You want to do this? I will do it. The Europeans will take the lead. I'll make them pay more, because it's what Trump likes to do. And I will fund this all day long until such time as we draw the line. And we know where the line is. The line is Donbass, and the line is Crimea. And we'll solidify that, and there'll be some mutual defense commitments. This is Elon's proposal, by the way. But will the Republicans in the Senate support that? Because that's where I guess I have, because- If Trump wants it,

100% they'll support it, because he's Donald Trump. As far as the, and by the way, again, I think that what he'll say is, I'm paying less than the Democrats would have because I'm going to make the Europeans pay more. And he will he will get them to pay more. You know, I know this because he did this with NATO is precisely what he did with NATO. OK, then when it comes to Israel and its enemies in that area, what Donald Trump understands is that Israel does, in fact, have the strongest military in that region. And so what he will say to Israel and to its enemies is, listen, we don't want any part of any war over there, so go finish up your business and do it fast. This is exactly what he's saying right now.

He's saying to the Israel, I mean, I happen to know this, he's saying to the, I mean, he's saying publicly as well as privately, he's saying to the Israeli government, if I get elected by January and take office, I don't want this on my plate. So what I would like you to do is go fast and go hard and finish up whatever it is that you think that you have to do. And by the way, what Israel just demonstrated by blowing up the S-300s, which were the anti-missile and anti-aircraft weaponry shipped by the Russians to Iran

in order to shoot down Israeli materiel, Israel blew up all that shit. So what they actually showed is that if they want to hit the nuclear facilities, they can absolutely hit the nuclear facilities, which is probably what's going to happen, I would guess, over the next couple of months. So that so yes, things will come in those areas. There's another piece though, to the story, we're talking about what happens if Donald Trump gets elected. The question was, what happens either way? Oh, my God. So I want to speak for a moment about what happens if Kamala Harris becomes president. This will be the least popular thing I've ever said with a camera pointed at me.

But the world is run by strong men who do not respect women. And if you're going to ascend to the helm of the world's last remaining superpower, not only a woman, but a vacuous, vapid, perpetually stoned woman, you are actually inviting war. Yeah. What our enemies do, our enemies do not share these sort of Western liberal values about equality and respect for women

and even all the way to gender confusion. Like, we have some ideas that are pretty novel in this society and we don't treat them like novel ideas. We think that they're somehow universally accepted ideas. The Chinese don't believe that a woman can run a superpower. Vladimir Putin doesn't believe that a woman can run a superpower. Vladimir Putin doesn't believe that a woman can run a superpower.

The Iranians don't believe that a woman can actually function. They don't believe a woman can drive. You know, the Iranians aren't wrong about everything. I mean, and they're going to test the first female president.

Now, this would be true no matter who the first female president is. If America makes the decision that we should ascend a woman to the presidency, part of what is intrinsic to that decision, even if we don't acknowledge it to ourselves, is that we're inviting tests on the world stage from hostile actors. We may conclude that it's worth those tests in order to live in accordance with these values that we have. But my question is, is it worth being tested for this woman? This woman who actually isn't strong, who isn't capable of facing down these threats? At least with Hillary Clinton, who I don't think could have faced down the threats either, but at least she was a tough old battle axe. At least she had been Secretary of State. At least she had actually sat across the table from these people and won in negotiations with them. At least her husband had been president, had deployed the U.S. military to some effect in

Europe and in Iraq. But Kamala Harris does not instill fear in anyone, and fear is part of what makes a foreign policy work. To your point, Ben, our enemies were afraid of Donald Trump. They weren't afraid that Donald Trump was the great general. They were afraid that he might do it. And that enough when you sit at the helm of a superpower. And there was an interesting debate after 9-11.

And the debate was, what would have happened if Al Gore had been president? And I cannot remember who wrote this because I was in my early 20s, so I don't remember the publication. But I read a great story or a great essay that basically postulated that perhaps Al Gore would have used nuclear weapons. And everybody was kind of shocked, like, what do you mean Al Gore would have used nuclear weapons? And the logic was Al Gore was broadly widely perceived as being weak. George W. Bush was widely considered

strong. His father had been the head of the CIA, vice president under Ronald Reagan, had led the greatest military victory in America, the fastest military victory over a major military in Iraq that had ever happened up until that point. They had the fourth Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world in world in the 1990s. So Bush was perceived as strong. Gore was perceived as weak. And what the thought experiment said is, when the exact same event happens to a weak man in the presidency that happens to a strong man, it's not that the weak man surrenders. It's that the weak man overreacts, because the weak man's weakness is being blamed for the event. And so he has to show that he's strong, but he doesn't know what strength is. So he gives a

caricature of strength. And that's what I fear will happen under Kamala Harris. She will be tested on the basis of her weakness, and she will respond with a caricature of what she believes that strength looks like, which will be an overcommitting of our forces and overcommitting of our obligations around the world. And the world will become a much deadlier and much less safe place under Kamala Harris. I want to ask Ben, what were your thoughts on the Abraham Accords? They're wonderful. The Abraham Accords were great. And by the way, they're incredibly durable.

One of the things that you may have noticed is they did not break during this entire intervening period. By the way, the dirty little secret of that is because it turns out that the UAE and Bahrain and Morocco and the other countries that are members do not care as a top line issue about the Palestinian issue because that is intractable. It is not getting fixed anytime soon. And putting that back at the center of every conversation is unbelievably stupid politics that leads to a fragmentary foreign policy.

Donald Trump has the best foreign policy of my lifetime. I completely agree. He crossed the DMZ into North Korea as a tremendous sign of peace. I actually got to speak to some of the guys in Trump's team when I interviewed him. And they're telling me the story how Trump decided at that moment he was just going to walk into North Korea with no security. They're freaking out. They're like, what do we do? Like the president is now in literal enemy territory. And I was welling up when I saw Trump do that. I don't care what his motivations were. They're going to say, oh, he's just trying to, I don't care. Let's get a president who's trying to bring about peace. The Abraham Accords, I think, were absolutely fantastic. We did not have an invasion of Ukraine. Things were actually stabilizing because we, when I, I was in Ukraine in 2013 and 2014, and I was told it was a civil war that started. I was there when it was a protest. I leave. Now there's sniper fire. And they're saying I came back in I think it was 2016.

And my my friends in Ukraine, they said, no, no, there's no civil war. There's no separatists. It's all over. And I was like, wow. I was like, or actually, I'm sorry. This was 2017, 2018. When I came back, once Trump got in, those things simmered down. Then Biden gets in and it's it's it's the worst we've seen. But I bring this up because I was talking to Dave Smith about this. And he said, no, Tim, the Abraham Accords were bad. And Dave, forgive me if I'm misquoting you. I'm trying to do my best.

So I'll paraphrase. He said the Abraham Accords isolated Hamas and the Palestinians, causing an overreaction at giving Iran the opportunity to strike on October 7th. And if we didn't have the Abraham Accords, it wouldn't have undermined their negotiating power. I disagree with them. And again, if I'm getting your position wrong, Dave, forgive me. But my position was we're not going to ignore peace opportunity because terrorists are threatening violence. We are going to negotiate peace between countries and try to bring about the best of our abilities, economic stability and international stability, even if that means crazy people might do crazy things. But I will add on top of this,

Dave Smith is now voting for Donald Trump. So it seems even in these disagreements, everyone's kind of aligned in this position where what else can we do? Well, I mean, the bottom line is that the effects are the effect. Was there any more peaceful world under Donald Trump, regardless of what you think the rationale for that piece was? The answer is obviously yes. Now, I think I have a good read on Donald Trump's foreign policy. Obviously, I've spoken with many people who are forming his foreign policy and who will likely form his foreign policy once again, because again, Donald Trump is not a micromanager,

right? He delegates large swaths of his policy to other people. But the one thing that I know about President Trump is that he calms the waters internationally because he is willing to fill the space. If the United States does not fill the space, somebody else fills the space.

What do you think about, there was this story that came out that one of the American service members working on the pier in Gaza has died. Yeah, I'm curious your thoughts. Because that's a fucking dumbass move. Why are you building a stupid pier off the Mediterranean in order to ship aid into an area that was completely run by the UNRWA,

which is a front group for Hamas or Hamas itself? The problem wasn't the supply into the surrounding area of the Gaza Strip of aid. There's plenty of aid right around the Gaza Strip. Israel's been shipping in like 25,000, 3,000 calories per day, per person in the Gaza Strip for legitimately months at this point. The,000, 3,000 calories per day, per person in the Gaza Strip for legitimately months at this point. The problem is,

once you get it in, Hamas then hijacks it and then proceeds to sell it at marked up prices, the stuff that they're not using for their own terrorists. So what a stupid-ass idea. We're going to build a pier

in the Mediterranean. This asshole can't even build a bridge. He can't build a bridge and he's going to build a pier and we're going to put American soldiers there in the line of fire,

by the way, in order to accomplish that. what absolute idiocy every every element of his foreign policy is just disastrous can i follow up with you on something on the abraham accords obviously very important and i like the direction that it's going in but what it comes down to really is that um saudi arabia well they're not in the abraham's accord yet but this is a common interest against iran in the area. But however, for many of these countries, the actual population still hates Israelis and Jews. Down the line, do you think there's going to be a lasting peace with these accords if they ever become democracies or anything? Well, so the dirty secret is that democracy does not work everywhere. It does not work everywhere.

Okay. The United States presided over an election in the gaza strip in 2006 and hamas won okay that's the dirty secret about the palestinian population the west bank and the gaza strip they largely not largely over the democracy worked in the wrong way right overwhelmingly support terrorism and overwhelmingly support hamas his palestinian islamic jihad the palestinian authority that's not just unique there right i mean you've seen democracy fail in afghanistan democracy failed largely or at least partially in ir. Democracy is hard. It takes rooted institutions centuries to emerge with a functioning democracy, unless you happen to be lucky enough for us to kick your ass in a world war and then occupy our country for 70, 80 years. If you're lucky enough for that to happen, we can turn you into a thriving democracy right quick. Turns out we did that in Germany and Japan. But

even in places where we actually won a war, like South Korea, it took several decades in order for a functional democracy to emerge in South Korea. It took several decades for a functional democracy to emerge in Taiwan. And so this idea that you need a functional democracy in Bahrain, no, actually what you need is stability and an emergence of property rights, and then an educational system that teaches you maybe that all the problems in your life are not the Jews who you've never met and need to murder. So if you do that for like several generations, then you might get, by the way, that is not a point about the people in those areas. That is a point about people in general. It turns out that it took centuries for democracies to emerge in the West. We take it all

for granted. Okay. The first votes that were taking place were taking place not all that long ago on the European continent, right? I mean, the first votes that were happening on the European continent with any serious ramifications were happening in like maybe the 17th century, like early 17th century in places like Great Britain when Parliament was finally starting to, you know, make its way after the glorious revolution. What are we talking about here? This idea that you can like go to places that have never seen democracy ever and we're just going to like overthrow the king. And boom, I remember there was a situation, I won't name the situation, like, overthrow the king. And boom. And remember, there is a situation.

I won't name the situation. In any case, Jordan. Okay, Jordan is 70% Palestinian. The queen is a person named Queen Rania. She's ethnically Palestinian. And she goes all over the world talking about the need for a Palestinian state. This is what she does. Israeli atrocities, genocide, all this bullshit. But here's the thing.

If she wants a functioning Palestinian state tomorrow, a functioning democratic Palestinian state tomorrow, all she has to do is declare an election in Jordan. And one of two things will happen. Either it will turn into a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious paradise, or she'll be hanging from a crane. One of those two things will happen, and it's not going to be the former. And so Donald Trump understands that. People in the Middle East understand that.

It turns out that the world is a complicated and ugly place. But the only way that we ever get to peace and stasis is actually through more American power in the world, not less. Let's jump to this story. Squeeze this one in from the Postmillennial. John Fetterman admits Kamala's border bill would grant mass amnesty to illegal immigrants in the U.S. and not secure the border. Now, man, Joe Rogan doing some of the best work of his career, in my opinion. I mean, I love that he endorsed Donald Trump just recently. But in this video, he presses Fetterman, asks him, he says, you bring in illegal immigrants, you give them benefits, you give them a place to live, you put them in a swing state, then you grant amnesty, they're going to vote for you. Fetterman then hems and haws, blah, blah, blah.

Rogan asks him again. And then finally, Fetterman says, it's undeniably true. Undeniably. First Democrats saying, hey, though, we need. Let me just jump to the end on this one. again and then finally Fetterman says it's undeniably true undeniably first Democrats saying hey though we need let me just jump to the end on this one those states and turn them blue forever uh well I I'm not I'm not really sure if that's that's what what's what's in play I think it's really like it's important that we have to have an honest conversation but doesn't that seem logical though if you have a significant number of people that are being moved into swing states that have come across the border illegally and then you've provided them with all these services, you've provided them with food stamps, EBT, you've provided them with housing, you could, if you gave those people amnesty and allowed those people to vote, and it was very organized, you're talking about 75,000 votes over a few counties that switched everything over to the Republicans. You could see how you import 10 million people over the course of four

years illegally, and then move a significant number of them to swing states, and then provide them with all these services, and then give them a path to citizenship. You could essentially rig those states. Undenieniably immigration is changing our nation i mean i haven't spent a lot of time in texas but it's very clear that that immigration has has remade texas and i think it's generally it's it's for for a good thing now it does cut off i think it's fair to say he's not saying undeniably you are rigging those states agreed he's saying undeniably immigration is reshaping the structure of these states like Texas. It's called the Refugee Resettlement Program.

It's run by the Department of Health and Human Services. You can Google it. It's on their website, on the HHS website. It's a real thing. And if you look at the numbers, I don't have them in front of me, but there are a lot of the blue states or a lot of the purple states have seen like 400 percent increase in refugees that have gone in. And so this is not it's not something that's made up again. Anyone can go to the Department of Health and Human Services website and you just have to look for the refugee resettlement program.

It's a real thing. It is actually happening in the united states and for any democrats that deny it i mean you can present them with with the the website on the on hhs's you know site they're not denying it because they don't know but this is what they always do i think he got cut off at the end of that clip where he said yeah it's a good thing but they always do this like no it's not happening it's not happening and then they're like okay yes it's happening but it's a good thing yeah like that's what they always do that's true but the average person the average voter right the average you know marginally informed person that has maybe a half an hour to an hour worth of news diet per week they listen and they say no it's not happening just like tim

was talking about earlier with his his friend that has a about abortion and i've had a lot of friends where i talk about the second amendment and i'm like look they really do want to go after semi-automatic rifles and they're like no no no they don't and i show them joe biden saying we're coming for blah blah and they're like no they don't there's a lot of people that don't realize what the democrats actually are pushing for or what the government is actually doing and when you present them with this stuff you can actually change people's minds and it's hard work I understand it's slow when you're dealing individually but I mean with a platform like we have here tonight this is part of the reason why I really was hoping

that Tim was gonna bring this up because I wanted to point out that HHS has a policy this is real and the government is actually doing it and they're doing it on your dime now I'm not big on saying the government is actually doing it and they're doing it on your dime not i'm i'm not big on saying the government is spending your tax dollars because modern monetary theory doesn't work that way and etc but essentially the government is saying we're going to use federal money to change the electorate in states that will affect the democrat the the results in the favor of the democrats the real question that we should be asking is, like, why is the border open? I mean, it's the most obvious question in the world.

Like, why was the border open? And to my mind, unless somebody can come up with a plausible fourth explanation, there are only three plausible explanations. One is exactly this, right? You want to ship in a bunch of people who you're then going to move around the country. You're going to change the demographic of the country so that people can vote who couldn't vote before, and you think that they share your values. And people say that that's, you know, a form of great replacement theory.

That's stupid. Roy Teixeira, who's a left wing theorist, had been basically claiming that this was the way the country was going to go, you know, since the mid 2000s. There's nothing new about that. That's not that's not even an argument against it. It's just the description of reality. So you're either doing it because what you wish to do is add an entire new voting population, or two, you think that America bears some sort of bizarre blood guilt for its existence and everyone is owed entry to the United States. And you do hear

this in some of the more extreme circles of the left, this idea that your status as a refugee means you automatically are granted some sort of admission to the United States. Not that another country in between should take you, right? That if you stop off in France and then you want to go to the U.S., you should be able to be let in the U.S. You shouldn't have to, you know, attempt to gain citizenship in France or stop anywhere along the way. And there is that element to the left that basically says, you know, you're the ones who took land and you moved the borders and now you expect people. So that does exist. And then there's the third group of people and or the third possible reason. And the third possible reason is if you build an entire economy on the basis of welfare economics and not producing any children, you need a new demographic

base in order to support this giant governmental structure and unworkable labor system that you've created. And that is obviously true. I mean, the reality is that if you unionize all the labor in the United States and if you then create a massive welfare system, who pays for all of this? Who pays for all this? You're not having any kids. The demographics in the United States are upside down, just as they are in pretty much every Western country. And that means that you're going to need to import a vast population of people. And when Democrats talk about people coming in, this is how they talk about them. Who's going to clean your toilet? I mean, it sounds racist. They'll say, like, who's going to clean your toilet? Who's going to pick your fruits and vegetables? And I mean, the people who were before. This is happening, I assume.

I've read estimates that it's about 2.8 to 4 workers to pay for one Social Security recipient. So if that's the case... It's moving toward 2. It's moving toward 2 to 1. 2 to 1? 2 to 1. But that means without children, you need a labor force to come in to maintain the system. The reasonable response to this is to have pro-family policies, which we don't have. Clearly, the Democrats are completely against any type of pro-family policy. Well, I think that here we do have to distinguish between what I think politicians talk about as pro-family policies and what actually induces people to have more kids. Fair, fair.

So I think that both Democrats and Republicans have a record of talking about pro-family policies as though this means paid parental leave and greater tax subsidies for people who are having kids. And, you know, some of that sounds fine to me. Like, listen, if you want to exempt me from taxes because I have four kids, I'm all for it. But here's the thing. I would have had four kids whether you exempted me from taxes or not. Because the real gap in the United States is not between people who are on the margin about having a kid and not because of economic circumstance. The real problem in the United States ain't nobody going to church. That's the real problem in the United States.

You want people to have babies? The reason people have babies in modern society is because there is a religious obligation to have babies. This is the most robust social science finding that is available. You don't even need to do a study. Mormons have lots of kids. Religious Catholics have lots of kids.

Orthodox Jews have lots of kids. Secular atheists have no kids. Muslims have lots of kids. Muslims have tons of kids, right? Why? Because it turns out when you believe that it is your job like your function on this planet is to have kids and then raise them then this is what you're going to do and if not it turns out kids are a giant pain in the ass and a

waste of time and a huge economic expense I mean it used to be back in the olden days they were labor for your farm but nobody's doing that anymore now they're trying to expand so exactly what is the upside of having kids when you could have a cute dog that you carry around in a purse or something? The first thing God says to man is be fruitful and multiply. Before sin even enters the world, God says be fruitful and multiply. It's the original purpose from a religious point of view, the original purpose of man. But this incentive thing that you talk about is really important. The idea of government policy to incentivize people to have children, Seamus and I were actually talking about this before the show,

that it's actually a left-wing point of view that essentially says that good spiritual fruit is born out of materialist seeds, that essentially we're good if the economics are there for us to be good. And reality always works exactly the opposite of that, right? That actually, in the long term for society, materialist success is born out of spiritual seeds. But I would say the fact that we changed all the

economics around having a child are the reason that we now think that it is fundamentally an economic issue. It isn't fundamentally an economic issue, but there is an economic component, and we broke the economic component. It used to be that having children made you wealthier, and now having children makes you poorer, which obviously, in a already spiritually distressed society, does disincentivize people to have children. 100%. We were talking about this a few months ago, that people say, oh, it's too

expensive to have kids, only because the market doesn't exist, because people aren't having kids. So there are less people doing the job driving prices up and it becomes harder over time but uh i agree about the religion components of people having kids i also think there's a propagandistic component coming from i'm malthusians and liberals and i think it's a trick and a lie and shout out to you ben for when you're talking about chelsea handler how this is a woman who made a video where she says she wakes up in the and she wakes up late does drugs and masturbates and she's never happier and you were saying that woman is miserable she's not happy you know my response was i think she's happier than a pig and shit but she's going to be on her deathbed she's going to be in a hospital and when she's 79 or whatever the doctor is going

to walk into a dark sterile room and say miss handler is there anyone i should hospital when she's 79 or whatever the doctor is going to walk into a dark sterile room and say miss handler is there anyone i should call and she's going to say no and he's going to say press the button if you need us and he's going to leave her there and that is a horror story for any human being that is a great point of view from a man who is not yet a father soon to be and god bless you for it but you will discover and it'll be fun to come on the show and talk about this in, say, five years. As has been said by wiser men than I, it is a great act of God's grace that he does not allow people without children to know what they're missing. And so it is, I do think that Chelsea Handler, you know, does drugs and masturbates and is happy. I do believe that Chelsea Handler does drugs and masturbates and is happy. I do believe that she's happy.

She's happy within the maximal amount of happiness that she is capable of attaining to. And she is not even aware, because God is nice to people with no children and blinds them, she's not even aware that she hasn't even scratched the surface of human happiness. She doesn't know that her cup is like, it's like that funny moment in when I was a kid, before Dumbo, there were the little cartoons and one of them was Mickey and the Beanstalk. You remember Mickey and the Beanstalk? And the slices of bread? It's like that. It's the stairs. They get they get up and there's this they're in the giant land, right? And it's Mickey and the boys, they get there in the land of the giants. And they come up to this giant wall. And they can hear the golden harp singing on the other side of

the wall, so they attempt to scale the wall. And it's classic cartoon, you know, I put my hands together, and you step on, then you step on my head, and I finally, you get up, and then you reach down. They finally get up, and it takes all this effort, and they get up on top of the wall, and then they turn around, and the camera zooms out. And it's not a wall at all. It was a step. But it was a giant step. And there are a hundred more giant steps in front of them. And Chelsea Handler is standing at the top of that wall of happiness, looking down at the total amount of misery that she's even aware of.

And she's up on top of it. She's like, I couldn't be happier. And if when she has a child, when you have a child, you turn around and you go, there are 100 more steps of happiness that I did not even know were possible. And I will have to suffer to get up every one of those steps because it's not easy to have a kid. I'll suffer every one of these steps, but I will know more and more and more joy. And I will just say, because every parent knows this, of which I am only now discovering as I am soon to be a dad, is the first images that I saw of my soon-to-be daughter as an indescribable feeling.

And that's why I really hammer in that we are being lied to, and the machine is trying to lie to people. Because I can only say to people who have not yet had a family, and we're working on it, we're not even there yet, I can't imagine what it's going to be like seeing my actual child, seeing just the ultrasound and all of these photos indescribable. And you guys give me this look and you know, and I don't, but I've looked through the keyhole and I just got to say, they're lying to you about what it's like when the media says they've got this Time Magazine

cover, the easy life, and it's two people looking all posh and fancy, and they're living good. I'm like, man. What I will say is this. I believed you guys, and I believed what everybody had been saying about having a family. The story of Chelsea Handler is a horror story. I agree, and I also think that we use in the West the wrong definition. It's a modern definition of happiness. We say that she's happy.

The ancient definition of happiness was happiness over a lifetime, right? It was all of your accomplishments stacked over the course of your lifetime. What we're talking about is pleasure, right? In the moment, she's experiencing pleasure. Okay, pleasure makes you feel good, and that's fine. That's good. Pleasure's good. But that is not what happiness is made of.

The things where you feel the greatest happiness in your life are the things that you've invested time and effort and sweat equity in. The things that you've really done your duty, the things you're proud of. Those are the things that make you truly happy. When you think about your own life, you don't think about the moments of like, even if you're thinking about vacation, you think about what did you have to do to get on that vacation in order? And vacation is never as enjoyable as it is the first day.

The first day when you first get there, you're like, oh my God, look what I've been able to do. And then three or four days in, you're like, but you know you're going to have to go back to work and do it all over again, right? The happiness is what you do over the course of a good life, right? This is an Aristotelian point. This isn't even a religious point per se. Virtue done over the course of a long life ends in eudaimonia. It ends in happiness. And that is an important, important thing. And kids are work, man. They are such a pain in the ass. I got four of them. I got 10, eight, four, and one. Okay. And they're all wonderful and they're all horrible. And they're the best thing that's ever happened to

me by far. My wife, my kids, by far the best thing. The way that I describe it, the way Jeremy is describing, obviously, you know, we're in the same boat as far as having families, is that when you're a single person, your spectrum of joy in life goes from like zero to 10. Okay, like zero is like things suck. They're not good. They're rotten. We've all done it, right? And 10 is like, okay, you had a great day.

Everything was awesome. You had a Chelsea handler. Wondrous day. And then you get married. And your spectrum broadens now. Now it's like up to a positive 20 because when you're with your spouse and it's great, it's the best thing happened in your life. And then to negative 20 also because when something bad happens to your spouse, it's way worse than when something

bad happens to you. Like way, way worse. If something terrible happens to my wife, it's significantly worse than if something bad happens to me. And then you have kids, all limits are now removed. Literally all limits are removed. The best things that happen in your life are always, always 100% of the time, things that are happening with our kids. And the worst things that are happening in your life are 100% of the time, things that are happening with their kids and the worst things that are happening in your life are 100% of the time things that are happening with their kids. If you've ever had a kid with a health problem, so, you know, obviously I had my first daughter, thank God she's totally fine, but when she was born, she was born with a hole in her heart. She had like a full open heart surgery when she was a year and a half old. They cut open her chest, the whole thing. It was,

it was, it was, thank God, great surgeon in LA, actually same surgeon that Jimmy Kimmel then used. His kid had similar condition and then he claimed that it was all about public health care and all this. And on the basis of his kid's surgery, he said this was the case for public health care. I was like, dude, I used the same surgeon. I can make you out. Anyway, but when something bad happens to your kid, it's awful, but your kids are everything. Because in the end, the only thing, when you ask people what matters in life, truly what matters in life, what I think what matters in life, it's always been true and it's still true. Go to a cemetery, look what's written on the headstones.

What's written on the headstones is not masturbated and did pot. What's written on the headstone is the role that you fulfilled, the duty that you did. It is beloved father, beloved husband, beloved wife, beloved sister. It's all the things you were to everybody around you. This is the stuff that husband beloved wife beloved sister it's all the things you were to everybody around you this is the stuff that happiness and true happiness are made of i can also say the last thing that uh you will discover when you have children when you have children that um being an older father is a blessing and it's one of the sad tricks that we should have children when we're young.

But having children when we're young prevents us from seeing something that we get to see as old fathers. Which is that you no longer have any fear of missing out. Like, you've ridden all the skateboards. You've done all the things. You've been famous. You've made money. You've achieved all these enormous successes in your life you've had all these enormous experiences you've been in ukraine at least twice that we've talked about just on this show yeah uh you're just gonna want

to go home and see your kid and when young people have kids they sometimes think this kid is preventing me from knowing the actual fullness of what life is supposed to be and only those of us who've gotten to experience it from the other point of view. I've achieved all the things that you might daydream of achieving. And I kind of resented being on your show tonight. I love being on your show. It's so much fun. I kind of resented it because I was like, well, I'm going to have to be here late tomorrow night for the stupid election.

When am I going to see my daughter, you know? Gentlemen, we're going to go to a members only. It won't be as long as normal because we do got to get up super early. But smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. And you may be saying, but how do we meet people? I mean, for a lot of guys out there, they're having a hard time. Join the Timcast dot com discord server. And there's tens of thousands of people who will talk to you and share similar ideas. So check that out. And again, smash the like button. Ben, do you want to shout anything out?

Well, you go check out my show tomorrow, Ben Shapiro show, and obviously check out our election coverage. Tons of it starting, I think, Election Wire begins at like 2 p.m. Eastern time, I believe, tomorrow. And then we will be live on the air beginning 5 p.m. I believe, something like that. And it's 5 p.m. until the rest of our lives. Yes. The only thing that I would shout out is that we're going to have like the crossover event of the year tomorrow night because Tim Kasten and Daily Wire's election 2024 coverage will, for at least moments of the evening tomorrow, try our best to be one show. It won't be. It's not an all night thing, but we're going to have some some back and forth.

It'll be awesome. Right on. My name is Alad El-Yahu. I'm a journalist here at Tim Kasten News, Daily Wire team. Ben, Jeremy, thank you so much for having us. It was an honor to be on with you guys. Um, Phil,

I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is all that remains. You can follow us on the Spotify, Apple music, Pandora, Deezer. You can find our new videos on YouTube.

and don't forget the left lane is for crime. Mary. Yes. I will also be hanging out here tomorrow and and you should go subscribe to Pop Culture Crisis in the meantime, and follow me on Instagram or X, at Mary Archived. We will see all of you over at TimCast.com in about a minute.

Thanks for hanging out. you