Timcast IRL - Nick Fuentes NEARLY ASSASSINATED, Man Took 3 Lives, MANGIONE EFFECT w/Luke Beasley

Episode Date: December 20, 2024

Tim, Phil, Luke Rudkowsi, & Elaad are joined by Luke Beasley to discuss Nick Fuentes facing an attempted assassination at his home, Tim Pool debating Luke Beasley on the politicization of crime statistics in America, and the House rejecting the latest CR bill and the looming government shut down. Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Luke @wearechange (YouTube) Elaad @ElaadEliahu (X) Carter @CarterBanks (everywhere) Guest: Luke Beasley @lukepbeasley (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a wild story, ladies and gentlemen. Look, the first thing I want to say is it looks like the government shutdown is going to happen. We don't know. Maybe Congress will do something tomorrow, but the continuing resolution failed. And so I believe the deadline is Saturday. It looks like the government will shut down at least for a month. Who knows? While that story is very big, we actually were struggling with this being the big political story. Do we want to lead with this or something substantially more shocking and I think worrisome? And that is a man went to the home of Nick Fuentes and it is apparent that he had the intention to kill him.

And I guess only by sheer luck, Nick survived. The individual had already killed three people, it is believed, and broke into a neighboring home and killed two dogs before being apprehended by the police. My understanding is the man lost his life in this conflict. But there is a video from Nick Fuentes' ring doorbell camera, as well as the body camera footage being released from when this woman went to Nick's house. We had this conversation last night in the members only. Based on watching the body camera footage, it appears that Fuentes is 100% in the right in defending himself when this went down. Not that we like any of it, nor do we want any of this to happen, but especially now seeing

this footage of a man walking up with a crossbow and what appears to be a bolt gun yelling, yo, Nick, after having already killed several people. This is terrifying stuff. And the question now is, is this the Mangione effect? Now, I want to stress, Luigi Mangione is only accused. He's not been proven to have done anything. But with the open public support for assassination of perceived enemies, to see this attempt on Nick Fuentes' life is actually rather terrifying. We are hoping and praying this stuff doesn't escalate. And as much as, look, whatever you think about Fuentes, a lot of people don't like him.

That's neither here nor there. The man is allowed to troll. He's allowed to have opinions. He's allowed to make jokes. He's allowed to be a nasty guy if that's what he wants to do. And he has a right to live in peace without this kind of nonsense happening. I'm going to say that we got to talk about this. And of course, the continued resolutions failure. We also need to talk about the FAA shutting down airspace for drones in New Jersey, threatening deadly force if they perceive an imminent threat. So this is going to be wild. Before we get started, my friends, head over to

castbrew.com and buy coffee. A two weeks till Christmas available now. And when you buy a bag of two weeks till Christmas gingerbread castbrew coffee, you get this wonderful picture of Phil Labonte of all that remains as Santa Claus. Or would you call him Shredder Claus?

Shredder Claus, yeah. Shredder Claus. Shreddy Claus. Shreddy Claus, there you go. Casper.com. But also head over to Boonies HQ and pick up your Right to Arm Bears skateboard. If you believe that large bears should be wearing flannel shirts, hats, and carrying shotguns, then the Right to Arm Bears skateboard is the skateboard for you.

Some of them are quickly selling out. This has been a particularly popular board. But of course, we have Step on Snack and Find Out as well. We've sold like 600 of these boards in pretty a while. So you can check that out at boonieshq.com. Also, go to timcast.com. Click Join Us. Become a member because with your membership, you make this all possible.

Really do mean it. You'll get access to our members-only Discord server where you can hang out with like minded individuals. We will not be having a members only uncensored show because tomorrow, first thing in the morning, we have to fly to Phoenix for Amfest. So forgive us, but we will have a good show today because smash that like button, subscribe to the channel. Joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else is Luke Beasley. Good to be with you. Absolutely. Who are you? What do you do? I am a liberal political commentator. Main platform is YouTube, and I do this, but from a different perspective. Right on. We here at TimCast, we're disparaging some of these other younger liberals before the show, but we like Luke because he has a good conversation.

We were having a good conversation before, and so I appreciate you being here. And then there's another Luke here. That's a good name. Welcome back, beautiful and amazing human beings. My name is Luke Grodowski here. If we are Change.org, you're proud. Florida and Polish man, as of course, things are crazy, but they're also incredible. We're talking about getting rid of food dyes, seed oils, fluoride, the income tax, as we're also going to be exposing Diddy, the Epstein list, as Twitter just showed it to be more powerful than all the lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

This is an incredible time to be alive. It's great to be back here, even though I'm dealing with some severe financial and legal problems. As of course, you could go to SaveLukeNow.com and check out what I'm doing. I'm selling limited edition hats for my lawyers. They're great hats. There's only 100 of them. You can get them now. SaveLukeNow.com.

We appreciate your support. But overall, I'm still majorly white-pilled. I'm very excited. And I think we are in for a hell of a ride. And between now and January 20th, I think there's going to be psyops upon psyops. We're seeing a cornered Intel agent go crazy right now. And they're only going to go crazier in the next few days. So strap on.

Wow. Luke, it's so nice to see you. My name is Oman El-Yahoo. It's so good to see you, too. I'm a field reporter at New York Fair. War mongerer. Neo-con. Bloodsucker.

Over here at TimCast. It's good to be here. Luke, it's good to see you. Both Lukes. You guys look like you could be related, both siblings or something. Phil, what's up? Hello, everybody. My name is Phil Labonte.

I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary. Tim? Actually, Carter's here. Oh, Carter's up? Hello, everybody. My name is Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary. Tim? Actually, Carter's here. Oh, Carter's here. What's up, Phil? I'm in for Surge. I think I might.

No, I'm not muted. What's up? I'm so used to Surge, not one. I know, I know. Well, I figured it's the last show of the year. I apologize. Whatever, you know, I'd love to be on the convo. Let's get into it, Tim.

Carter's pressing the buttons. Okay, man, let's start with this tweet from Nick Fuentes. There is video, in fact. Nick Fuentes tweeted at 2.05 p.m. today. Last night, an armed killer made an attempt on my life at my at my home, which was recently doxxed on this platform. The gunman carried a pistol, crossbow and incendiary devices. I believe he intended to kill me.

He is now dead. I am OK. According to the police, the would-be assassin committed a triple homicide in southern Illinois early yesterday before he arrived at my doorstep with his pistol drawn, calling my name. I am grateful to God that I am still alive. Tragically, the gunman broke into a neighbor's home to evade police and killed two of their dogs. While heartbreaking, it could have been so unimaginably worse. God have mercy. Doxing is not a game. This nihilistic lynch mob behavior must end before anyone else is killed. I will now have to uproot my life and relocate. While I can handle whatever comes to my front door, it is irresponsible to accept my neighbors with young families to share that burden. In the meantime, I will have to contract 24-hour

security to protect myself and my property. If anybody would like to contribute to defray the cost, $13,000 a week, he ain't kidding, of private security and rebuilding my studio, here's a donation link. I can only accept cryptocurrency because I am banned from banking services and credit card processing. Thank you. Now, we have the story from NBC5 Chicago. They say far right influencer claims home was among those targeted by homicide suspect. It's actually very nuts that this how they're framing it. They say far right influencer Nick Fuentes said he believes his Berwyn home was among those targeted by a man suspected in a triple homicide who was fatally shot by police late Wednesday night following a home invasion on Fuentes' block. Can you just look at that paragraph? So a guy who killed several people went to Nick's home

with a weapon, calling out his name, then fled when the police arrived, broke into a house, killed two dogs and was killed by police. They're saying only Fuentes believes. I just want to let NBC5 know there is no such thing as defaming the dead. You can just say what everyone is thinking. Now, there is actually a video of this posted by Nick where the man is on his doorstep with a crossbow and would appear. I don't know if it's a pistol. They're saying it's a pistol. It could be a bolt type weapon with, I don't know. You guys might know better than me. Fuentes says the killer parked his car in front of my house and approached my door with his pistol drawn and what appears to be a crossbow. I was live streaming at the time. He rings the doorbell, tries the knob and yells, yo, Nick, this is terrifying. Look, I'm just going to say what

everybody's thinking. There's a lot of people who don't like Nick Fuentes. Okay., I'm just going to say what everybody's thinking. There's a lot of people who don't like Nick Fuentes, okay? And I don't want to get into this purity test of who Nick Fuentes is and what his opinions are. Because right now the issue is an individual who has opinions on the internet and trolls. Someone tried to kill him. This is not okay. It's never okay. And we need this to de-escalate. But my fear is that this would be the Mangione effect. Nick's opinion doesn't matter here.

It could be someone on the left and we would be acting the same way like we would be right now, as of course it is awful and horrible what happened right now. And sadly, the left did lose politically. And I've been warning about this, especially since Donald Trump won the presidential election. The left overwhelmingly doesn't have a lot of political solutions. They do overwhelmingly have a major mental health problem that predominantly a lot of people who believe in their larger ideology do suffer from. So this is something that I think has been in the works. I think the Mangione effect is real. I think there's a reason he's being carried out like he's Bain. I think there's a reason there's a lot of epithets and there's so much lore around this particular story, as I believe there's a larger

psyop happening here in order to gaslight frame and to build up this larger notion that if you can't solve your problems politically, you could just do it physically. And that right there is somewhere where we have to put the stop on it immediately, call it out. And I don't care if it's Nick. I don't care if it's Rachel Maddow. This is something that you don't do. And this is something that could desperately escalate the situation towards grand, dangerous proportions that we don't want to be living in. Yeah, I was confused by some of the stuff you said connecting to like left wing ideology. But I agree that regardless of who it is, regardless of how reprehensible I find Nick Quintez, the solution is not violence. This is something I've articulated a lot in the wake of the assassination attempts against Trump to my audience, which is that if our principles, if our pro-democratic liberal principles include nonviolent solutions to these things, then obviously people trying to take violent solutions to disagreements is exactly against our principles.

But that is the left. What's the left? The use of violence. How do you mean? So, for instance, at like all direct actions, they have something called the diversity of tactics, which is a direct reference to individuals left aligned, covering their faces and engaging in violence. So the Mangione effect, this is not a right wing phenomenon. It's not like Bible thumping conservatives going around calling for death and murder. There are people selling products who are outright of progressive or left ideology advocating and celebrating and outright saying they want to engage in kernel relations with Luigi Maggioni. side because i think we talked about this last time i was on but or the episodes can come out tomorrow it it gets a little bit wacky if you just say you split the country into two sides and then any most extreme example you can find across the two sides you portray the entire side right but i agree people celebrating mangioni when obviously what he tried to do is not the solution to the very problem separate from just the individual immorality in front of murder somebody

even the people saying that's okay because of health care problems seem to misunderstand how we would even solve those more systemic issues but i did make the point of budget times last time again on the episode that's coming out tomorrow sometimes we'll say in a general sense that regardless of political views we all think violence would be wrong to solve those political views but then it becomes a political point you're making like oh liberals democrats that that cohort of people regardless of where they stand on this issue they're a part of this ideological problem i would and last time i was on i we went over this which is that political violence actually is far more common among i would take issue i would take issue with saying democrats because i don't feel like your run-of-the-mill democrats are the type of person

that would be the the type of people that that tim's uh referencing um well yeah but you kind of make it like it's a left thing and even i'm on your side here man hold on let me get through my point man i'm on your side you're both wrong that on. Let me get through my point, man. I'm on your side. You're both wrong. Statistically, that's not even true. And you're both wrong. There's wanted posters for CEOs in New York City. There's people selling out cards of all these CEOs that are on their target hit list. Let's try something else. You hear me, though? That's wrong. It's wrong for people to do that.

When was the last time you saw a right-wing protest? A right-wing protest? Yeah, like right-wingers going out in the street waving flags. That's what I'm saying. But I'm saying that when it's actually more thoroughly analyzed systemically, right-wing ideologies are more responsible for political violence, which doesn't make the instances

of left-wing political violence or promoting that okay. Was that done by the FBI? No, no, no. Let's just probably stop. Actually, independent groups as well. What would you define as a right-wing ideology? Yeah.

I mean, I think we can... Things that ideologically, across the political spectrum, are associated with the right wing. But what does that mean? Like you're saying right wing groups statistically are more likely to be violent. What does that mean? No, like whenever they whenever they study acts of violence that had a political motivation, it's more commonly by a pretty large margin people who associated with right wing. And what and what is a right wing idea? Yeah, we could pull up the studies to specifically define it because I don't want to botch it. How would you define left-wing violence?

So in the United States, it's actually interesting because right-wing ideologies tend to just be disparate. So what does that really mean? Well, right can refer to anarcho-capitalists, certainly don't agree with white supremacists, but in the media,

in these studies you're referring to, they claim they're the same group. But that's what I'm saying. Like if you have an anti-government from a right-wing perspective or super racist from a right-wing perspective so let's we're not going to say that's now we can categorize all the right as that i wouldn't do that but you can you'll do the same thing with the left which is to say that a communist who wants to see a ceo killed is the same as someone who's just on the left it is yes which is ridiculous

and i can you're playing into the very... Let me tell you why it is. But if you make that argument, you're putting people in danger in the very way that we're speaking out against here. Because you're saying those people who want violence are an entire side now, as opposed to making distinguishments. We'll simplify it very easily.

If a group of white supremacists and white nationalists were out protesting, anarcho-capitalists would get into a fight with them. So these are two supposedly right-wing groups. That's the argument? And there are left-wingers who get in fights with each other? Actually, that's not true. On left-wing groups, as I've covered these protests for a decade, they have something

called the diversity of tactics. So what you end up seeing, for instance— You're talking about—yeah. Yeah, so you have liberals— So random protesters, okay. Then when you have liberals—so here's how it works. And here's and here's why you need to. Well, I mean, maybe you don't want to accept that. I don't care. When you get 300 run of the mill liberals who don't believe in violence, black block extremists.

These are not a specific ideology. It could be anarcho left violent factions. It could be tankies specifically utilize those protests for body mass. It's in their it's in their manifestos. It's in their their their meetings and the liberal groups when they're organizing. Shout out to your friend Lisa Fithian. Ask her about this. They tell the liberals respect the diversity of tactics. Now, that is something that you don't see associated with right wing groups because you'll have like right wing militias exploit right wing protests for horrible. When we can find particular examples, I don't have. If you don't have them, then I don't think given our or like an example, would you say that?

And I know someone over there is going to get triggered, but because it's such a prominent one that is on top of my head. You had people who were peacefully protesting on January 6th, and then those who went violent. And I want to say that every single person who's MAGA now are representative. That's not what I'm saying at all. It sort of is. It's because you didn't have the peaceful people intervening to stop. You did actually. Violent people. You did. You actually didn't in any way. You're wrong. You're completely wrong. Obviously, it was not a meaningful enough effort to even assist law enforcement. There's surveillance footage showing some of the men asking police what they can do to help. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm saying that there are left wing protesters as well who will be speaking out against violence at left wing protests.

I know because of. And so we can we can talk about tendencies. And right. And so on the right, you're gonna make anecdotal um arguments about things you've covered a protest and that's why i think last time too my guy taylor lorenz is not a progressive it was like she's she's a run-of-the-mill progressive personality who said we all want more of that on tv oh she was wrong and i spoke out against her so you are in the minority maybe vice president wanted more of it. What? Kamala Harris wanted more. She said that people should be out in the streets.

She said that she would. She was not saying violently. You know that encouraging people to protest is different. She was putting up her bail funds. So you can't just yeah, yeah that away. Just like how y'all, again, you'll do the same thing for January 6th people and then say, but it's not for the violent ones. That was her argument as well. The vice president was not putting up a bail fund.

What? I'm saying that she was not doing that for people who would engage in violence. She absolutely was. Who was getting arrested? Who was getting arrested? All sorts of trespassing

or something like that. No. Property related things. So, for instance, two people who were giving out malta cocktails in new york had their charges mostly uh reduced like reduced and nearly dropped

so not dropped so if if so this is actually a really great quote from cash patel if you are handing out malta cocktails you're talking about federal terror charges and they reduce them to like parole like that's shockingly insane and i would have based on if we went through the individual prosecution probably disagreements with some of those prosecutor decisions. But I will say again, you'll go through, and this is really, to people's feelings, compelling to a lot of folks, and cite particular examples to portray a narrative about the entire other side being violent. But then we actually research it, and it's not true. Right-wing political violence, it is. It's made up.

You can't even name any. I have have research name an ideology and name an instance if someone would you could you're gonna pull up the splc you're gonna pull up the fbi you're gonna pull up extremely biased studies that were done by biased organizations that don't give a damn the point is this the point is you you cannot make an argument with no data no the reason tell me tell me i'm not the one who has access to the data. You have a computer right there. I want your audience to see what I'm talking about. No, for sure. Give me a source.

I'll pull it up. All right, perfect. I think in the last— Are we still logged in the last document I had? Here, one of y'all talk while I pull this up. Should we pull up, like, the ADL's hate tracker map, or what do they have? That's a credible organization that doesn't lie for political purposes at all right as well as the splc as well as the fbi that again fudges data in order to come to a particular political conclusion for political reasons you can't believe a lot of these top institutions since they lie through their teeth can i send this they they even lied about the

statistics about violent crime in america Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. It's the ADL. University of Maryland. And then just disparities in violence. Keywords, extremist groups. UML-led study among violent extremist groups. Is it this one?

Yeah. First of its kind, look at left, right, and Islamist extremists explore similarities and difference. New research co-led by University of Maryland CCJS professor Gary Lafrey finds that some political extremist groups are more likely to commit violent acts than others, a belief that's been increasingly questioned on the rise of left-wing extremist groups like Antifa and right-wing extremist groups like the Proud Boys. There's been a strong presumption among many that while the left-wing and right-wing ideologies vary a great deal in content, they resemble each other in terms of their willingness to use violence to further

their political agenda. However, our analysis shows the left-wing and right-wing ideologies vary a great deal in content, they resemble each other in terms of their willingness to use violence to further their political agenda. However, our analysis shows the right-wing actors are significantly more violent than left-wing actors, said Lafrete, a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice and the founding director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. So let's start with what do they define as The National Institute of Justice, too, when you're ready. What do they define as right wing? Yeah, look into it. So this is an opinion article. How do they define?

It's reporting on a study they did. There's a press release. Yeah, UMD-led studies reporting that. So let's start here. To make it more succinct for you. My argument is based on, let's start with what an ideology is. No, but see, you keep going back to provocative examples of individual acts of violence. The reason

when you started listing off instances, I know because I've been in these debates before how people react when I give you particular examples. It becomes about that example and see that's the only thing that you could bring up or whatever. I don't want to do that. I would rather just make it about the data. Let's analyze level-headedly and let's also acknowledge

this disagreement doesn't take away from opposing individual acts of violence. So what left-aligned groups do is say that everything outside of us is right-wing, and then they're— You're just asserting that without any data at all, or any— I just asked you how you define right-wing and you couldn't do it. I want to make sure that we're accurate to the studies that I'm referring to. You have a report on it that I'm sure helps to specify that.

And if you would find some effort that we're misdefining types of violence then i'd love to explore that uh i think there might be a little bit of missing the forest for the trees here um although i would say in the study earlier it said islamist protests might be responsible for more violence than left or right protests i think we're actually does far and wide have received the most research and policy attention, especially singled out for the deadly attacks, blah, blah, blah. I mean, that's not surprising.

I think we're coming on a culture of people, an extremist that who would be okay with political violence. And we're seeing this kind of culture of assassinations come up, I think, more and more in our culture. But just really quick, can you name any other political violence

on the right other than J6? He just listed off a bunch of examples. I listed a couple of groups, the three... No, no, no, no, no, no. Let me just do this. Let me do it again.

Hold on, guys, guys, guys. I almost... I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. I almost had a prince... Here's how they... Here's how it's defined. This is the ADL's heat map tracker

for violent extremism. Right wing, white supremacy. Right wing, white supremacist. Neo-Nazism. Right wing, anti-government. Right wing, other. Islam wing, white supremacy. Right wing, white supremacist. Neo-Nazism. Right wing, anti-government. Right wing, other. Islamist, left wing. Right wing, anti-government. Right wing, political, unknown, other. Where's left wing anti-government? It's not a faction. Why is white supremacy and anti-government both considered the same thing? Oh, no, no. But left wing only has one category. You can maybe hover over the

I to get more information, but it's specifying between the different types of right-wing. Yeah, white supremacy and anti-government are two totally different things, and left-wingers can be anti-government too. Of course, of course. So then why call anti-government right-wing? Well, like if there's an anti-government leftist who attacks a right-winger for a political reason, that would be categorized under left-wing violence. So right-wing, what defines someone who is then anti-government solely? Why would that be

labeled as right-wing? And how do you determine whether he's anti-government? There are right-wing anti-government ideologies, right, that are of a right-wing nature. What does that mean, right-wing nature? Like if you have a left-wing libertarian versus a right-wing libertarian, what does that mean? The difference is, I'm gonna botch if I start defining libertarianism. Well, if you don't know, what are you arguing? No, I'm arguing that the only research we have bolsters refutation of What percentage of professors are liberals? But you could absolutely. What percentage of professors are liberals? A bunch. 95? A bunch. I don't know. 95 95 so this is the problem we have yeah what is going on let me explain to you so you're just like he's asking you a question asking a question i get

that i'm not a master on how these studies methodologies you don't know but your only evidence is i saw some violence hold on that's sophistry i didn't say my only evidence was me making a question okay so then what's something not anecdotal that substantiates your argument? Which portion of my argument? What are you talking about? Yeah, so instead of just individually, as I'm doing, yeah. Let's go to the RNC protest in 2008 where a bunch of guys got arrested for having firebombs. They were left-wing individuals.

The way that was organized was that the moderate good Democrats that you're referring to intentionally organized what they call green zone, yellow zone, red zone. The red zone actors were people who are intending on using extreme, extreme violence, including lethal force. And they needed the green zone individuals to provide the mass bodies to hide from police. I'll give an example from something. So that's an actual incident that occurred again. And so this is I'm a regular old Democrat. I'm not far left. I'm not a socialist. I'm coming to protest Republicans doing it again. That's that's just a random example. I don't get caught up in individual provocative anecdotes. I would just like to look at a level headed, zoomed out, data based argument. OK, so the problem we have here is that when you pull up

the sources you claim, there are no conservative sources countering left-wing sources. Okay, then that's an interesting argument. So if you can't define what right-wing is... Any data... Stop it. If I... Stop what? Define it. Define it. Stop it. If I took the time to properly write out a definition

of a right-wing ideology, I could present that to you. I can. I don't want to get it wrong, and so I'm not going to throw something out that I didn't know I was going to define right-wing. But what present that to you i can't i don't want to get it wrong and so i'm not gonna throw something out that i didn't know i was going to define right wing but what i do know you don't know is that your argument of literally saying any data that i disagree with is too liberal is like all right i heard that about crime increasing i heard that about everything you're misrepresenting my argument my argument is right now i have pulled up the ADL as a source in your favor. However, it has six categories of right wing and one of left wing. Now, how does that make sense? How can we quantify an ideology if there are six versions of right wing?

Which one is actually the right wing? And how come left is one parent organization? I would actually argue the ADL sides with me in saying left wing encompasses all of it. That means if you're a Democrat, a progressive, a communist, a tanky, an anarchist, any action you take is left wing and it's all the same ideology. Is that the ADL's argument here? Well, maybe that in its categorization is an easier way. If you're a part of any of those left wing ideologies, it's less differentiated.

So it's fair to say on a political spectrum, whenever they're studying it, so that there's like more unique organizations that specify differently. So you as a left-wing individual are part of the same ideology as the people who want to murder CEOs. As much as someone who's right-wing anti-government because they're a libertarian is a part of an anti-government libertarian who attacks a cop. Libertarians aren't anti-government. Well, look at my point. I'm saying that even within the sub-categorizations, I'm not going to say any right-winger who's anti-government

is violent. So the point is... You want me to read you a definition because you really wanted it? Of right-wing? I wish you Googled it. Let's get it. Alright. Right-wing ideology encompasses a broad range of political beliefs and values that prioritize tradition, hierarchy, individualism, and a limited role of government in certain spheres of life. The term right-wing originates from the seating arrangements in the French

Revolution's Legislative Assembly, where conservatives sat on the right side. So is Nick Fuentes right-wing then? He would be really, really, really far right, yeah. But he's not an individualist. What? He's not an individualist. He's not an exclusively individualist. So let's go for it again.

So it starts with a broad range of political beliefs, just like how on the left, there's a broad range of political beliefs. I think communists are stupid, but they're on the far left. So what's the difference between the collectivist right and the collectivist left? Tell me. I'm asking based on your definition. No, I'm asking you. You're the one who brought it up. Do you not know? This is something I talk about in the show literally every single day. And the question is, do you know what you're talking about? Can you answer it yes or no? Do I know what I'm talking about with the distinguishment of the government being- Left collectivism versus right collectivism. I think left wing-

What distinguishes Nick Fuentes from Antifa? Again, tell me. I think you have a great explanation. I certainly do. I'm wondering, as you've made an argument, if you know what you're talking about. How does that connect to my argument? Do you know the difference between various ideologies among the right and the left? You've not been able to define it. I actually know.

I would say I'm not a master in the distinguishments between different ideologies within a side. Then how can you claim the right is more violent? Oh, how can you claim the left is more violent? Because I know many of these different factions. And your observations. From my field reporting expertise and the reading of the research.

Well, then what research? So if we distinguish, say, anarcho-libertarian, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, we can talk about tankies. We can talk about social liberals. We can talk about traditional liberals. And we can talk about the political strategies used by each of these groups. And we can talk about how they've operated over the past 20 years, a combination of news reports, political studies, and field reporting from my personal experience. And I want to talk about right-wing groups. I can do the exact same thing, as I've done this on the ground as well in many different

countries. My question for you is, if you're going to assert the right is more likely to be violent because you read a press release from the University of Maryland, I'm asking you to define which groups. I dug and I dug and I could not find any research, even that came from a right-wing institution that gave over the cross of... Which right-wing institution that gave over the cross of... Which right-wing institution?

I'm saying I couldn't find one. I agree. You can't find a right-wing institution that tracks... Oh, there are right-wing institutions that do studies and stuff. They don't track this. So, so, so... Maybe because they're studying... Do you see what's happening, though?

I think... You haven't done the research. And so you're saying... Apparently, you have even less than me. Sheesh. I have what? 20 years of field reporting on the ground. And every single time you come back to give me substance, bro.

That's what I'm asking. I'm saying I don't know. Caught up. Especially like let me get another example. Crime has been going down. I could go find instances of of crimes taking place. Right. FBI lied about that. That crime is not going down. I could go find instances of crimes taking place, right? The FBI lied about that. Crime is not going down.

They actually altered and omitted those statements. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Crime didn't go down. It actually went up. You do know the FBI revised the crime data? For 2022,

not 2023 and 2024. Right. We're seeing a really good trend on that front. Do you know why... In 2022, it was not a huge revision. Do you know why homicide is down?

Tell me. I'm asking you, not just... You're the one bringing up these questions. Homicides are down because less homicides are happening. You're wrong. Okay, go for it. Tell me. They're categorizing it different or something.

No, it's because of cell phones. And improvements in medical technology as well, and emergency rooms that have been able to make people... What? No, no, no. People are dying. Wait, that, no. People are dying. Wait, that's good. People are dying.

That's good. It was bad. There aren't violent crimes. Dude, dude, dude. Violent crimes at large are down over the last few years. I think it's crime is down, but violent crime is up. No, violent crime... Pull it up.

Pull it up. Violent crime is down even with the revision in 2022. You have 2023, 2024. The reason why I'm not going to argue with on the violent crime thing is crime has generally gone down. And I'm not here to argue it. The point I'm trying to make is you have a surface level, tepid view of a lot of these things.

Your view of political violence is a bunch of stories and wanting me to cite specific stories of right-wing attacks. That's just not interesting because that's not how we analyze data. It just means you're a credentialist and you don't know. like i just gave you another good example that y'all do a lot fox news will run all these provocative stories of crimes taking place that gives me no information

no insight as to the actual broader i have to do with fox news i just use it as the example yeah but don't say y'all and talk about fox is there a specific story you're talking about it sounds like you're alluding to lake and riley or when you say that specifically like fox news is running with these uh these stories that don't depict an accurate you know representation of what's going on in the world no i mean no just stories about crimes happening there was a lot of focus for let me let me tell you why the self why i should cover it but they never contextualize it with here's the broader crime the reason why i asked you the cell phone question is that when when you have people who do like surface level stuff they you know you'll listen to a

youtuber say all fox news is doing is pulling up like a story of an of an individual murder and then acting like it's it's out of control that's something i refer to as a scaling problem uh we know this as social media exacerbates knowledge of issues, making us feel like it's more likely to be occurring when it's actually not. So I have no problem saying that violent crime is down. There's a bunch of different institutions that argue like I think shoplifting has gone way up. So in some areas, it shows that crime is up, but then violent crime is down. Some people say that's the crime that really matters. The cell phone point is actually really important because when you laugh at it, you seem confused by it. We're talking about multi-order.

I was confused why you would bring, I know that technological advancements impacts either crime in general or how law enforcement reacts to it or how medical professionals do. I just was laughing that you brought that up as if to refute my point about how anecdotes of crime doesn't debunk broader crime. No, I asked you about the cell phone thing because people who are single order thinkers can't comprehend how something like a cell phone means homicide is down. I can comprehend it. It's actually really simple. Although there are still stabbings, although there are still shootings, the fact that we can call 911 right away means the person is less likely to die. So you'll end up with a larger amount of attempted murders and aggravated robberies, but less homicides because people survive.

Phones haven't changed that much in between when Trump left office and when I has been in office. I'm talking about the general trend decline since the 2000s till today. There's a lot of contributors. That's one of them. Cell phones is the biggest contributor. It's actually rather surprising. People don't think about these things. Like one of the things that we think as to why crime has gone down is the removal of lead from gasoline. And then you might have someone be like, well, how does that happen? It's like, well, lead was actually frying people's brains in the air. And so to bring it all back, like with the Nick Fuentes story and all that stuff, we take a look at the body of body politic 20 years.

How many right wing protests have there been over 20 years how many right-wing protests have there been over 20 years it depends on how you define protest but many i mean especially during the the pandemic there were a lot of right anti-lockdown protests over the past 20 years you had the tea party protests party protests there too it depends on how you define it too like there's some militias out there they're three percent here and herein lies the problemoud boy type groups. And this is the problem with institutionalized left right dichotomy. The American colloquial right has nothing to do with white supremacists or anti-government or or sovereign citizen movements. Literally nothing. However, the mainstream liberal Democrat position incorporates these groups in some degree into their facets, notably in their protests and in their body politic. So when we say AOC, for instance, is aligned with the left or or how about this? Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both said violence is wrong. no one should be doing this, it's horrible,

but people can only be pushed so far. As if to imply the healthcare CEO actually took an action that warranted the anger of people to be happy that he died. The right doesn't have that. So the Republican Party does not have that. Why for months was Paul Pelosi mocked for having his head bashed? Being mocked is different from advocating for killing. And respectfully too, January 6th was a big deal.

Yes, quite literally. You think it's not encouraging political violence to laugh when it happens to your opponents? No. What about wanting to pardon January 6th rioters? I have no problem with the left laughing when someone on the right is injured. I have no problem. The right left on someone on the left. I know that's not true.

I think it's both. We pulled up. OK, the left and the right. Nobody should be mocking anybody. Obviously, Trump is sending a message that such violence is not as bad as the left wants you to believe. If he's going, oh, you know, whatever he said about and the lies that were spread about it was a gay affair or something.

That's obviously trying to... It's very, very different from saying that the CEO of a healthcare company did something to warrant the anger towards him, like the call for his murder. That's very different. First of all, I don't necessarily agree with that argument,

but also for me, I'm just going to be principled across the board because I'm also against that. Did Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren say people can only be push so far? I'm sure they said something to that effect if you're bringing it up. What did the health care CEO do to warrant anger? What did they do that pushed people so far that they would be advocating for their murder? I'm not going to make an argument that I don't believe in. I'm not saying you should argue for what I'm saying. You can tell me. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren said murder is wrong. I'm paraphrasing. But you can only push

people so far. That statement means the health care CEO did something that warrants people calling for their death. I'd love to see the clip if you want me to break it down. Well, what they're alluding to is that the failure of the health care industries are responsible for their deaths, and therefore they are murderers. And what I'm trying to explain to members of my own side because i'm principled and you can only burn elizabeth warren said you can only push people so far i mean then right there right and so then i would say bad elizabeth warren but that's she's she's mainstream like liberal she's she's a prominent lip is there i'm not hearing that she she's not advocating for biden to pardon luigi no, but I'm saying is there—

You know who is going to pardon violent people? Did Chuck Schumer say anything like that? Did Trump say he's going to pardon— Who's going to pardon violent people? January 6th, the assault. He specifically asked about those who attacked police officers. He said yes. Yeah.

So how long— I mean, do you want to run through the Biden pardons and go through ones that don't— Let me ask you a question. But do you see the distinguishment? I agree there are going to be people on our respective sides we disagree with. Yours happens to be the leader. Well, I don't know how you identify necessarily, but yours would be the leader of your entire movement. If someone attacks a cop, how long should they go to jail for?

I don't know. A while. What's a while? Honest question. Totally depends on the details of the assault. Okay, so they took a cop's shield from him and bashed him in the head with it. I'm not going to give you a specific answer. I would have to look into the guidelines prosecutorily.

I'd have to look at other cases. So then you literally have no opinion on Trump's pardons then? What? I'm saying that Trump shouldn't intervene. Trump is pardoning people on January 6th who were violent and attacked cops. Yep. And some of them— They've been in jail for three years.

Okay. How long should they be in prison for? Yeah, I'd have to look at the individual cases. Some of them wanted been in jail for three years. OK, how long should they be in prison for? Yeah, I'd have to look at the individual cases. What some of them wanted to overthrow the government. So that would add that would mean you're neutral on Trump's pardon then. No, because I think that the prosecutors who brought these cases then brought them in front of a jury and got convictions should be respected. Just like how I don't think that Biden should have pardoned his son. And even though these cases are far more serious, but I think those outcomes should be respected because I respect the justice.

We're more serious than that. And so my point is this, if you don't have a thought on how long they should be in prison, it's fine to say what you do a lot. It's fine to say like, we don't know how the argument fails. You're just going to ask hyper specific, slightly irrelevant questions to me. How is it irrelevant? About because I don't think it's relevant for me to figure out, because I didn't sit in these courtrooms and listen to the details of every case,

exactly how long each one should be in. And how could you advocate for someone to be in jail if you don't know? Well, I can tell you. Because Trump is saying we should subvert that process because he thinks what they did was patriotic and should then pardon them. Has he specifically said it was patriotic to do that?

Yeah, I mean, he like salutes to that song they sang every single... Like, is there a quote where Trump said that January 6th, people who attacked cops was patriotic? I genuinely... Because I want to be fully honest, I will say I'm almost 100% certain he said that at some point. That the people who attacked the police and were violent were acting patriotic? Not in that order, but that... I'm paraphrasing 6th. Yeah. Defendant. And then as we dive more specifically into that, I think you're on the left or the right and you attack a cop depending on the severity of the attack. Like if we're talking about you're at a riot and you punch a cop or shove them six months to a year is probably good. NPR just reported on the 12th that by President Biden commutes

to sentence for fifteen hundred people. Some say he could do a lot more, 1,500 people. No, but he already said that was wrong. That's fine. No, not all those. I was saying Hunter Biden. Luke, do you feel as though more Democrats were willing to justify the BLM riots than Republican elected officials were to condemn January 6th? Well, interestingly, a lot of the—I will answer the left wing in a second, but a lot of the Republican will answer the left wing in a second but a lot of the republican politicians just changed their position so initially it was like unanimously that was bad

now almost all of them apologize for what happened that day and we all as i was explaining one of the times uh here just we all missed the broader danger of trying to block the peaceful transfer power that led up january 6 wasn't the whole thing that was the ending and that was more individuals but trump's effort to prevent biden from coming off is what i really take issue with but no now a bunch of republicans apologize for it which is terrible and then democrats but the question was specifically for the democrats and then and then i couldn't tell you any Any Democrats who were condemning BLM writ large. My guess would be that more Republicans have apologized for the violence on January 6th than Democrats.

But let me get to the caveat. Than Democrats who apologized for violence during BLM. Very limited. They would all say violence is bad. But the cause was. It's the voice of the unheard like MLK, remember? But then I'd get to. I think it's a fair criticism to say,

maybe some were too quiet about the violence. Like, none of them were out there saying, this is fine. Well, they were taking a knee. They were taking a knee, many of them, Nancy Pelosi and some Democrat leaders. Yeah, but you're mixing, like, they would show up to a peaceful protest, and then as a part of that, people would be exploiting them. Maxine Waters with the whole, you have to go find them in restaurants, and you have to get in their face.

Get up in their face. Like, that's not direct violence, but that's encouraging. Here's two phrases for you. Respect the diversity of tactics and snitches get- Keep bringing that up. And snitches get stitches. What? Okay.

No, but then Kamala Harris also was posting a bail fund for BLM rioters and- It's just weird. Y'all are the ones supporting the politicians who say this, like Trump. Who? Say what? Who justify violence. Why did Trump justify violence? I thought we just went through that. We didn't. weird y'all are the ones supporting the politicians who say this like trump who say what who justify violence why did trump justify violence i thought we just went through that we didn't i asked you for examples you said i don't know don't just squint at me tell me what you think no i'm it's

like whenever you don't have an answer you just get confused and say what are you talking about yeah i'm genuinely confused okay let's try this again to me because obviously if i ask you a question and you just don't answer and then you goistry, because I only speak ad hominem, I only speak on I haven't done ad hominem. All you're doing is saying you do this, you do that you do this, you're not actually giving me substance. Oh, no, no, I know I was I was saying I was just shocked that you didn't listen to my substance earlier. But I was Yeah, so the January six, while I'm only gonna speak on things I'm very informed on. So I'm not going to tell you exactly to the month that they should get.

I do respect the fact that they were prosecuted in a court of law. And I don't think Trump to send a message to his base that would happen on January 6th was good, which is why he would do such a pardon, should be pardoning folks who were violent. I think three years is long enough. And that's a wrong stance, but OK. How is it wrong? I just explained it to you. No, no, no, no.

You didn't. You said the court process should play out the way it is. My opinion on the amount of time should be served for a crime is not just wrong because you like courts. No, no, I get that. You need to explain why the time frame I'm asserting should be longer than three years. No, no. I'm saying the default.

You have to have overwhelming, compelling evidence that someone has been wronged to justify a president stepping in and saying, I'm subverting the justice system outcome. Does that, do you agree with that premise? No, that's immoral. So yeah, you're making a fascist argument. A fascist argument? You are making the fascist argument that the hierarchical structure of government is just and should be upheld regardless. Why? Okay, I'm not even going to ask that.

This is... Right, and so the system we have is... I'm just not loving, and this is a way of celebrating violence, that Trump is celebrating those as far as a pardon, and in his rhetoric, and in his national anthem thingy,

people who attacked the Capitol. Why did they attack it? Because they believe lies about the election. There's a variety of reasons why people were violent on January 6th. Largely that they believed the election was still going. You could just be like, hey, that's bad. You don't have to keep going. I've called for their arrest and prosecution.

This is not a shock to my audience. My reporting is responsible for the arrest of a couple of January 6th rioters. My point is that if you've got someone on a misdemeanor charge who's been held without trial, a pardon makes perfect sense, unless you're a fascist, and the system is just. So it's like Benjamin Franklin, who said, it is better that 100 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer. You've taken the Otto von Bismarck approach of, it is better that 10 innocent people escape than one innocent person suffer, you've taken the Otto von Bismarck approach of it is better that 10 innocent people suffer than one guilty person escape. No. Yeah. OK, you have. No, I haven't. No, no, no. Stop. Stop. You

don't know anything about these January 6 cases. You don't know why these people are in jail. You don't know that a man is in Brooklyn right now for three years without charge or trial. And when Donald Trump says these people have been held for too long, you say, no, Trump is wrong. Keep them locked up. That's fucking fascist. Dude, you you have sit here. You have you've been sitting here with no knowledge of the specifics of some of these cases. There is a man in Brooklyn right now. I'm going to say it again. No charges whatsoever brought. He's been in jail for three fucking years for you to sit there and say it is good that he remains locked up is fascism. That is saying the hierarchy, the hierarchical system of the courts and the government is

just and the process is all that matters. And I am saying perhaps three years is enough because I actually have moral logic and an understanding of these cases. Hence, my position on January 6th has always been the people who have attacked police must go to prison. But three years is a fucking long time for assault on an officer. We have seen people on the far left, notably when they were firebombing shit all across Minnesota, 33 people murdered.

And how many criminal charges do we get for this? When they firebombed a police station and forced the police to evacuate. On May 29th, 2020, when thousands of far leftists firebombed the White House grounds and set fire to St. John's Church and injured 100 police officers. How many fucking people went to prison for three years? How many of them who never showed up on that day are in prison for 20 years? Enrique Tarrio wasn't even in D.C. on January 6th. And you are saying that man who only his only crime was, quote, don't leave. That's his only crime. You think he should be in prison for 20 years because you're a fascist.

You don't care what the facts are. You don't care if this is unjust. You only care that the machine state has decreed you are not to be locked up. And this is the problem I have with the left. They don't know the facts. They don't care about the facts. They view morality as a blanket government stroke of the pen, and every person, regardless of their crime, should be in prison for decades. I reject it outright. The people who fought cops should go to prison. They did. It's been three years. But when you've got people who are on misdemeanor charges for having walked into a building at 4 p.m. after the riot, and I know some of these people, they walked into a building for two minutes and walked out and they got 18 months for that.

I don't see you defending the innocent people who walked onto a public grass at a public building after a riot had been completed. You don't know. You don't care. You've taken a tribal position and people are suffering because of it. Now you say that Donald Trump saying the injustice that we've seen warrants commutation or pardons. You say that means he's advocating for violence. This is the ultimate problem. Then you cite a press release from Maryland saying, but the right's more violent. There is a distinction between a white supremacist as a right-wing group and a run-of-the-mill Christian conservative who showed up on that day not to protest. Let's talk about Brandon Strzok. He never went in the building. He was on the other side of

the building. There was a permitted protest. He walked up the stairs and he was yelling. They put this guy in prison. There is Owen Schroyer, who was at a permanent rally, who was yelling death to communists. They put him in prison and specifically cited his speech. My dude, you don't know what you're talking about. And it's fine. I get it. We try to be polite.

We try to be nice. But there are so many young liberals who sit here and say the corporate press told me that these people are bad and the machine state government has decreed it by pen. So I don't care what crime they committed. I don't care what the jury said. I don't care who was on the jury. Enrique Tarrio, who was not there, should be in prison for two decades. Tell me this now. Why is Enrique Tarrio in prison? Yeah. So they are uncovered with him, his plot to overthrow the government Enrique Torres yeah and his organization

what plot who's they give me some prosecutors give me some fucking data stop squinting at me and saying

the prosecutors did a thing you didn't know you didn't read it you didn't read the court papers all you know is the fascist

machine state told you he should be in prison and you're saying yes to them tell me why give me the data I understand that laws on the books have been there for a long time that I agree with.

That if it's proven that you had a plan and you wanted to act on it. What's the proof? And then days after. What's the proof? The proof is evidence brought forward by prosecutors. Say it. Communications between him and the public. What communications?

What did he say? What did he do? Are you, is this serious? Are you going to tell me why you think Enrique Tarrio should be in prison for 20 years, or are you going to say the government decreed it? I just explained to you. The government said so. Is that it?

It's usually law enforcement, which I guess is part of the government. The government said so? Law enforcement that uncovers evidence of communications, a memo that he crafted and sent to his organization. Saying what? That detailed each institution of government that they were going to try to overthrow.

Then just days later, his organization is at the Capitol. I don't think we can even pull up Enrique Tarrio. I'm not quite sure that there's any evidence of that sort. you know what i'll say this uh the idea that enrique tario crafted a memo outlining okay or they uh three months featured witness uh evidence which atario and co-defense included videos thousands of measures encrypted chat groups as well as a public message on parlor honor before january 6th

taro to convene a ministry of self-defense to coordinate Proud Boys' leadership on January 6th. The chat showed that Charrio, stationed in Baltimore, encouraged the Proud Boys as they attacked the Capitol. Let's figure out what that encouragement was. Are they going to actually say in the article? So here's a citation. Proud Boy and three other members of the Fargo groups were convicted Thursday and applied to attack the Capitol. A jury in Washington, D.C. found Tarjo and three lieutenants guilty of seditious conspiracy after hearing dozens of witnesses jurors cleared a fifth defendement dominant uh dominic pizzola and citizen charge and a significant

milestone of justice department which is now secure to conspiracy blah blah blah they will never stop uh okay that's interesting wikipedia asserts that uh they did this but there's actually nothing in the news article that actually uh states that it's true well now now we got a problem let's try this again Let's try a secondary source. Let's see. Ah, there it is. They introduced evidence that Tarjo discussed with associates a plan to have a large crowd in Washington storm government buildings in a scheme they called 7076 Returns, in which

the Winter Palace was used as an apparent code for the U.S. Capitol. In a message, he said, make no mistake, we did this. Do what must be done. And he directed the Proud Boys to do it again. So the question then becomes, in the bigger picture... So are you going to at all acknowledge that you just blew up over something that I was absolutely citing fairly? I don't think you cited it fairly. I think people should be prosecuted for engaging in plans to overthrow our government.

That's kind of... That's a very loose definition of plans to overthrow the government. That's kind of... That's a very loose definition of plans to overthrow the government. Y'all don't seem to be that informed. Wait, look, respectfully, I cover a lot of protests and riots. A lot of people try to protest and occupy government buildings.

Do you think that qualifies as trying to, what is it, overthrow your government? No. Okay, good. But if they had a plan to take control of the government, which was this one. If this was an actual plan, this was the least, leastly, most ridiculous plan ever.

They went after people for having Lego sets of the Capitol. I mean, the level of political prosecution, would you even admit that there was some level of politics when it came to the prosecution of the j6s would you say politics played a played a role in this engaging with this as thoughtfully as possible not trying to grandstand of course often for very justifiable reasons prosecutors will try to make an example of someone who for example tried to overthrow the government to prevent the peaceful power i see why i read such a thing personally i reject categorized as sedition overthrow the government to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. I see why such a thing, categorized as sedition,

would be uniquely bad to prosecutors. And political in that this all involved politics, right? I'm sorry, I have to say this. The Wikipedia article making those claims is not citing any actual proof that they said those things. Because we're harping on these pardons, pardons are obviously an interesting political constitutional quirk that presidents are able to do that.

It really does undermine the law in our country. But Biden's getting a lot of pushback for clemency that he granted for the cash for kids judge who was responsible for sending something like 2,000 children into a Pennsylvania jail, a private prison that he was getting kickbacks for. Do you think that was worse than any pardon Donald Trump could give to any January 6th rider? What? Have you heard of this judge that Joe Biden granted clemency for? A judge who was responsible for sending thousands of teenagers to prison for, you know, otherwise misdemeanor charges while he was getting kickbacks for. Joe Biden was getting a lot of pushback for this.

I've been agreeing with a lot. Have you heard? I'm not going to make a specifically. I've heard of that, but I'm not as read in on it as I should be to speak on it. But I wonder if I was more focused on just because it was the big story and I wanted to, again, advocate principle, his Hunter Biden pardon, which has been the topic of discussion part wise for us mostly yeah it was funny because you were telling us a little bit pre-show that you actually had a first-hand experience with hunter button i don't know could you what can

you tell us anything about your experience firsthand with yeah just at the holiday the legend yeah yeah i i knew somebody at the white house who invited me to the white house party of the holiday party hunter biden was there i found it kind of strange i feel like uh you know i'm sorry right who cares there's a saying that if you're not liberal when you're along uh when you're young you have no heart and if you're not conservative when you old you have no head but the interesting thing about it is like what we define as conservative or liberal are uh amorphous right so like what does it mean to be conservative who wants to try and explain what conservative is a traditional hierarchical uh individualistic or the general ideals that it trends towards what does liberal mean um like enlightenment ideas

vaguely um free speech god then why is it why is it that why is it that the liberal the colloquial liberal are the authoritarians in this country because they're not liberals because Rush Limbaugh in the 90s ruined the word liberal

so like I obviously disagree with that but well so lockdowns let's try lockdowns I'll start there government lockdowns were largely

a liberal phenomenon well initially it was right and left initially it was Trump Trump supported too for two weeks left. It was Trump for two weeks. It was more than two weeks. No, no, no. The initial thing was two weeks to slow the spread.

Oh, yeah. And that was Trump who did that. And then it resulted in basically everybody locking down, but it was the right that ultimately started letting up. And so you ended up with vaccine mandates, mask mandates, which shifted largely into a liberal. Yeah. That's why I say left instead.

Agreed. So that became the authoritarian faction. The left adopted that one. But then like, what do you say about Trump talking about going after the media outlets he doesn't like or- Suing them, that's allowed. Whenever he said, oh no, I know it's allowed.

You agree though that like him saying the government, this was a quote on True Social you pulled up, should come down hard on MSNBC. What's wrong with that? That's fine to you? That's not authoritarian? To me, whenever presidents want to wield a governmental power to go after outlets they don't like their coverage of,

that's re-authoritarian. What do you think about Stephanopoulos defaming Donald Trump? Let's not segue off of the question he just asked. He didn't defame him. We'll have to talk about that,ame him. So when Trump says we have civil liability issues pertaining to defamation and the media, yeah, you sue him. And if the government is an aggrieved party through defamation, then they should sue them. Yeah, I know you'll be losing your absolute mind if Biden was out saying the media like Fox News, I wouldn't be criminals.

I assure you a lot of Fox News. Yeah. And yeah, I wouldn't be. That's an authoritarian impulse to want to punish not outlets that I don't even know what the justification would be, but it's all about people who have wronged him. And if you disagree with that, I think you're obviously staring at the facts. I'm not saying that aggrieved parties should have no recourse, be it the government or otherwise. So if the federal government has lied about

by the New York Times- You think Ann Seltzer deserves to be drained of her funds by Donald Trump? I never said I agree with that. Right, so he's doing it to- He's allowed to file a civil lawsuit. He's allowed legally. I'm saying- Right, it's a personal lawsuit. You can act in an authoritarian manner.

Okay. Well, this is very different from like taking people's jobs away unless they get a medical medication. Well, yeah, those were the individual jobs. The jobs were doing that. Under government mandate, Biden issued a mandate that a company with more than 100 employees had to do it or else. Or masking. Or else. Make it happen. Or masking. It was always an option. You were never forced. Well, they tried to use OSHA to make it. Yeah, they required that if you had more than 100 employees, you were forced to issue vaccine

mandates. And or masks. Sure. Pick one. Yeah. The government forced every company to do this. Yeah. And the government has all sorts of mandates for safety.

And OSHA has no authority to do anything like that. And the Supreme Court found it. Listen, listen, listen. I'm totally fine if this is your argument. That's fine. I'm just saying that— If you think that filing a defamation lawsuit is comparable to the government mandating everybody engage in a medical practice— No, no, no. I'm saying there's nothing more authoritarian than saying we should terminate the Constitution because—

Why did he say that? Election lies pulled up on True Social. The MSNBC comment, he talked about— We went over this one with C Jack on the term of the constitution and I'll give you can't don't defend that it's just

ugh the constitution shouldn't be terminated he didn't say that pull it up please a massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination

of all rules, regulations we went over this with Jack and I know that you guys have a tribal reason why you're not going to I think there's just few things that are so succinctly

an embodiment of someone's lack of dedication to our Constitution. So let me ask you a question. I'm thinking Ann Seltzer. Let me ask you a question. If I said the overturning of Roe v. Wade allows for women to be put in bonnets and red dresses and forced to be impregnated, am I calling for them to be? Yeah, you're alluding to that being. Yeah. So when the Democrats literally said that, you know, that's the argument. Yeah. So when the Democrats literally said that, that's the argument. So you agree that the Democrats want to put women in bonnets? No, I understand that you can both make an argument that we live in some dystopian reality where this is the case. So so so here's my point.

Trump earlier in the message was talking about overturning the election. He was saying he would be the one by the mechanism of terming the Constitution. So this is the election result. I'd call this the Covington effect. When is it the kids, the Covington effect. Was that the Covington kids? Or the Sandman effect. Trump said, Do you throw the presidential election results of 2020 out

and declare the rightful winner, or do you have a new election? A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great founders did not want and would not condone false and fraudulent elections. I'll give you, we talked with Jenk about this a couple of years ago.

Please tell me, please. Are you saying he wasn't obviously saying that we've gone so far because of his lies? You agreed those were lies. What lies? About the election. Which ones? Millions of votes and Dominion was flipping and all these things. Did Trump explicitly say Dominion flipped votes? Yes. Then that's not true then that's not true yeah that was wrong okay well there's a difference between

being wrong and lying and and i'm not here to assert that i can read anyone's mind okay but there were times that the people around him heard him say like can you believe i lost at this who said that oh my gosh i mean come on like dude you're making a lot of statements of fact and i'm asking you just be like hey like who who who claimed okay he made he accidentally made a bunch of false statements and it led to terrible i think trump lies a lot now even if you thought the election was unfair trying to do the fake electric scheme all those things none of it's justifiable that this is uh is so authoritarian scott adams calls so authoritarian right scott adams calls this uh uh what is it one screen one screen two movies effect that's shock yeah you're shocking. That's

crazy. I mean, I don't think we're allowed to. I mean, with the masking, that wasn't an option, though, wasn't it? Just like you had to get the vaccine. I don't remember. You couldn't even go get food. But in this regard, this is a really, really great example of the one screen, two movies. Now, I have no problem saying I totally understand why you believe what you believe. Right. I also think that this country is deeply pitted against, it's two factions that are deeply pitted against each other that can't actually understand the phenomenon at play. That is, nowhere in that statement did Trump say, we must terminate the Constitution. You interpret it as such. That's it. Yeah, that's it. Does it say we must terminate the Constitution? It's a crazy bending over backwards

way. Well, actually, the reason that I say it. It's just a different interpretation. It's it. Does it say we must remain the Constitution? Bending over backwards way. Well, actually, the reason that I just a different interpretation. It's not. It's not. You don't say the election over backwards. You're putting you don't say false statements about the election and then say we should do something that's not constitutional, which is throw an election out months and months after it happened and then go, by the way, it was it was it was a question. It was phrased as actually really simple. In the context you are presenting, Trump is saying, I believe there was a massive fraud against me. The founding fathers would not have wanted this. This fraud they have committed allows for all of the rules to be thrown out. He is not saying we must terminate the Constitution. He's saying Democrats already did. All right. You agree that it's not an argument I made up. This is literally what the conservatives believe.

You're saying that's your interpretation. I'm saying. It's not my interpretation. Well, then what's your interpretation? I am telling you there. What is your interpretation then? Take a stance on it. Trump issued a statement that all rules and regulations, including those in the Constitution,

can be overturned in the event that there is a massive fraud. Okay, thank you. Well, we agree then. That's crazy and authoritarian. Because he was lying about the fraud, and he's lying about the mechanisms by which you address fraud. You just reasserted that you can read his mind when Tim was saying no. Oh, yeah. If one guy thinks an election was unfair and can't present that in the places where you have to present it to get an election overturned, courts, then yes, a lie, false statement, whatever, it's ridiculous and it's dangerous

is the important point. So I think if we want to go through instances where we feel like either side has done authoritarian things, we could do that, but it's wild, wild that y'all are so willing to speak out about what you perceive to be authoritarianism on the left with no understanding of the chief authoritarian crime you could do is trying to prevent the key part of our democratic process, which is the peaceful

transfer of power. So chief authoritarian crime you could do is kill someone without due process. But we won't get into that one tonight. That was Obama. That's right. Yeah. The point here is when we're trying to logically understand what is going on, because clearly it's not so easy to say Trump is evil. Trump is good. There's two different

factions in this country. Trump won the popular mandate. Therefore you could argue, I guess the public thinks Trump is good. In that case, the public interpretation of this in the majority is that Trump wasn't calling for the termination of the constitution. His faction won the majority. Almost every person I've talked to doesn't know that. Doesn't know what? What he said? Yeah. No, people don't know that he's threatened media outlets like he has. He's talked about calling them criminals would be bad.

Why? Because fostering an environment where people who, for the singular reason that they speak out against you politically, which they're allowed to do, are criminals. That's the only thing he would cite is that they've said terrible things about him. And then going further to say the government should get involved in punishing them and then to show his willingness to even before he takes office with him as a much more resourced person trying to punish uh abc which we could talk about that that was ridiculous that they decided and then ann seltzer for doing a poll that was wrong but that's a private lawsuit and he's doing that for a purpose.

So? Which I don't like. I sued Kamala Harris. Awesome. I'm saying I don't like whenever presidents wield their official governmental power or... But it's private. It's not government power. Or their power of their massive megaphone,

understanding he's about to have governmental power, to threaten people who speak out against him. There was no guarantee that he's about to have governmental power to threaten people who speak out against him. There was no guarantee that he was going to have governmental power. No, he's doing this suit now. He's doing the ABC or the ABC was before. Yeah, when it was going on. It was going on prior to him winning, though. No, Ann Seltzer, he just brought this suit.

He did. I think it's a stupid lawsuit. But it's a private lawsuit, so I don't care. What is... You think... Yeah. I'm not going to ask you. I was about to ask you. lawsuit so i don't care what is what you think yeah i don't think it's stupid so i'm not gonna ask you i was about to ask you like why like i don't know like trump could sue whoever whoever he wants i don't know he said that the government should rip cbs off the air abc i don't know why do you know why he says he was lying about what happened

because cbs edited the edit every interview no no no no no no no no edited his interview too they edited two different versions and when they got a bad reaction, they changed her answer. That's very different. They played one. That actually is. The other was for the CBS Mornings. She gave a different answer. No, no, no.

I watched the full unedited thing. She gives a kind of. Either way, the argument is not that Trump. Well, don't say something false then. Either way. No, no, no, no, no,. No, no, no. I'm saying that is true that they issued two different versions. She gave a longer answer, and the first half of it was a little bit more...

There was a lack of... So there's two different versions. Are there two different versions? No, it's one answer that they only took one part of. Are there two videos that are different from each other of the answer? They ran a version... Because they can't play the entire interview on cbs mornings when they're whatever the point is for it we're trying to get to the

wait wait wait so whenever i keep it specific when i play a temple clip and i go hey i was on temple here's 10 seconds of it the full things on temple's channel like they said we're talking about comaleras um please don't talk about me try go back to comalera i'm trying to illustrate a the full things on Tim Bull's channel. Like they did. Be specific. We're talking about Kamala Harris. Please. Don't talk about me. Please try. Go back to Kamala Harris. I'm trying to illustrate a point. You're meandering.

That they on CBS mornings aren't going to play the full interview. So they played a more succinct portion. I'm not arguing that. I'm trying to ask you. I don't think Trump pulling off CBS off the air because they did what they have a right to do,

which is editing interviews. He's not president yet. And you think that as president, he can pull them off the air? I think him saying it is proof of his authoritarian intentions, whether or not he's competent enough to get it done. So if a news outlet does selectively edit for political reasons that actually already is grounds for suspension of a broadcast license, you would be hard pressed to prove there was a political motivation. And you agree Trump's not gonna be able to do it. And I don't think Trump should be running around saying if you edit things in the way that I don't like, if you say things I don't like, I don't even know what his case against MSNBC would be.

But if you speak out against me politically, then I'm going to add you to a list. He recently said yes to Brian Glenn asking about social media influencers. And while, of course, you have a legal right to sue, there's that and the fear he's trying to induce by bringing such bogus lawsuits, like the ABC one, bogus. Against George Stephanopoulos? Yeah. But Stephanopoulos was wrong. He was, in a legal sense, wrong,

but we all agree, the judge clarified that in common parlance, rape is the way we describe it. But Stephanopoulos said the jury said it. Right, and so you would have to prove, but you agree Trump never could have won that case, right? He would have. That's why they settled.

No, no, no. They settled because they're afraid of him and they know that he could drag this sucker on forever. I've been involved in a lot of lawsuits. Getting past motion to dismiss and defamation is extremely difficult and happens in like one ten thousandth time. Given our free speech rights and the fact that you have to prove damages,

you agree for defamation? You don't. That's defamation per se. You don't know what you're talking about. But why do you care about free speech? Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Defamation per se. You are wrong. Okay? You don't know what you're talking about. You don't have to prove that someone knowingly said something. OK, all right.

You were plum wrong. This instance accusing someone of rape is called defamation per se. So when George Stephanopoulos had been previously warned on multiple occasions, ABC News did. The Trump's legal team sent letters saying this is not rape. The jury did not say rape. Do not say this on TV. That's why when when they were approaching motion to dismiss, their lawyers decided we need to settle this and give Trump what he wants.

They could never prove never that he was saying something false enough, given that the judge, it wasn't like some no, no, no judge. Yeah. Look at the judge clarified that rape is what he was found liable of. But George Stephan opposite the jury said this. I understand. And the jury found him liable. And the jury found him liable of something. And the jury did not say this. That pundits can describe. So defamation per se is different from defamation. I'm just saying the judge.

I'll teach you. No, the judge clarified. So George Stephanopoulos said the judge said Trump committed this rape. I'm paraphrasing. And he said the jury said this. The judge said this. The jury did not say this. There's

defamation and there's defamation per se. Defamation is to say something that's false. And with the Times v. Sullivan, you need to have acted with actual malice, meaning you knew what you were saying was false or you acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Under that, you could make the argument that Trump's not going to win. However, this is defamation per se, which doesn't require these. It doesn't require damages and it doesn't require you to act with malice. It only requires that you said something so damaging to a person as if to accuse them of an egregious crime, a sexual crime or having an infectious disease that you actually bypass

those those precedents. In this regard, it was actually rather surprising to see how quickly ABC folded. And for $16 million, it's no joke, they're going to build a museum for Trump. That's the weirdest thing about it. And Stephanopoulos and ABC both had to pay Trump a million dollars. I have been in probably 10 defamation suits and targeted to me and me targeting others. And they never go anywhere. They're impossible. In this regard, George Stephanopoulos had been previously warned, as it's been reported, and he made a false statement about the jury asserted. Trump wins. Yeah. The judge clarified that what the jury

found him liable. I don't know if we're going to get to resolution on this, but what he was found liable of can be described as rape, even if what they do believe technically. Do I believe the you believe you? Yeah, you really do. Come on. I don't know why she would have witnesses that she called immediately after. How did she get in the room? How did she get in the room?

How did she get in the dressing room? Bergdorf Goodman locks their dressing rooms. I'm assuming it was open. No, they don't know. It wasn't answered. They said, we don't know. It doesn't make sense. How was she wearing a dress that didn't come out until a few years later?

A lot of questions that were litigated in front of the jury. It's weird, right? Why didn't Trump bring her to the hotel he owned across the street? Yeah, I'm not really interested in come no how come how come i but you believe it no i'm stating oh yes i do believe it but where where were the customers that burgdorf goodman understanding that the where were the customers where were the customers yeah where have you been there before uh if you go is actually a massive store right i know and the dressing rooms could be very isolated if it wasn't like a super busy day.

Or even if it was, you could still- Nobody recognized the most famous man in New York walking into the Bergdorf Goodman? Isn't that crazy? You believe it? That's funny. It's also substantially by the fact that a bunch of people have had such interactions with Trump. No, but we're talking about one lady who said she was wearing a dress that didn't come out until a few years later. She went to the Bergdorf government across the street from Trump's hotel where nobody noticed either of them. She went

upstairs where there were no customers and was able to enter a locked room with Donald Trump. And, uh, that's just pretty wild of a story. Okay. Do you believe, uh, Christina Hoff Summers too? I don't actually know that case. That was thett kavanaugh one oh oh yeah you do believe her uh it has been yes that she was afraid to fly yes but she flew several times for vacation yeah people are afraid to believe that she installed the second door in her home because she needed an escape i have to tell you but then she especially on that case i would only want to debate it if i freshened up on the details of it what makes what makes someone a liberal or conservative is whether they actually know what they're talking about

because like policy wise i can say i'm pro-choice um traditional democrat pro-choice i can say i think we should tax the rich um i think wars are bad um i think uh you know i like the civil rights act and then also i'm a conservative because I know what the news is because I can say something like well that story is bullshit and then people are like well if you don't agree with it you're not a liberal and I'm like fine I guess I don't know liberals believe weird shit like the Ahmaud Arbery case

or like George Floyd what do you mean George Floyd what happened with George Floyd are you going to make the fentanyl case I'm not going to make it I'm going to ask you what you think happened you're the one who brought it up I'm not going to make it. I'm going to ask you what you think happened. You're the one who brought it up. I was just curious what your belief was about it.

Yeah. I think that someone kneeled. He brought it up, and so he asked you about it, and then you asked him back. I'm just curious about what your opinion is on it. I think you don't have one. I think you don't know what to say. Oh, I do know what to say. I think you're scared that if you say the wrong thing, someone's going to get mad at you. No, no, no.

I'll tell you. Sure. Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd to die because he had his knee on George Floyd's back neck area. And what did that do? Killed him. No, but I mean, like, what's the medical examiner's reasoning? Is it suffocation is the technical term? No, I don't think you know what you're talking about. I think you have a surface-level tribal position where you didn't actually research most of these things,

and you're just saying what you think you need to say. Oh, no, I... I mean, I kept up with the... I mean, I watched the video, and then I kept up with the court case, and then he was found guilty of murder. Why was George Floyd on the ground? Tell me.

I'm asking you... Because they got into an altercation, so he brought him to the ground. That's not correct. Okay. George Floyd was asked to be put on the ground. George Floyd asked the police to put him on the ground. That's not correct. Okay. George Floyd was asked to be put on the ground. George Floyd asked the police to put him on the ground. So I'm just really fascinated to get to your conclusion, which is?

You don't know what you're talking about. Right. I got that part. And this is why I ask you questions. And then you just say, well, what do you think? And I'm like, I'm here to figure out if you actually know what you're talking about or you're just masquerading as a political pundit. Yeah, I'm not really sure on any of the issues we've gone through how that's been expressed. I think you read liberal opinions and then repeat the surface level versions of them. And you can't actually answer to the actual structure of why these arguments come up in the first place. I think this is typical of liberals.

Interesting. Because on the things that we've gone through and then had to look up, I feel completely substantiated. Do you know who Ahmaud Arbery is? Yeah. Who is he? Tell me. Are you joking? I'm asking you if you know who Ahmaud Arbery is.

I'm not going to keep going through this because I know you are going to get me on particular details. I want you- Over and over and over again. I know. I can do it all day. Yeah. You don't know what you're talking about.

No, no, because whenever I go in to prepare a story, then I know I can do it all day. Yeah. You don't know what you're talking about. No, no, because whenever I go in to prepare a story, then I properly read up on it, and then I deliver that story. So on the Aries area... Just say you don't know who he is. I don't know. It's no big deal. If I say, do you know who Amadar Bray is?

You'd be like, no, I'm not familiar. Who is it? I think that was kind of my response. You said, yes. I recognized the name. I said, okay, who? And you go, tell me. I'm blanking on the particular case, to be honest.

Okay. That's fine if you don't know who he is. If you just said, no, I'm not familiar with him, I'd say, okay. Yeah. Kind of my point. You said you did, but you don't. No. Did I even say on that case?

You said yes. Well, I definitely recognize the name. Okay. Well, he was the guy who burglarized that home and ended up dying in the scuffle with the McMichaels. Yeah. I remember. Yeah. But I remember how tragic that was

certainly was tragic yeah what do you think about that case it has been a long time i mean i mean i remember the details of them on the truck and all that but on something i'm not prepared to talk about in an informed manner i'm just not gonna talk about it all right i can accept'm just not going to talk about it. All right. I can accept that. Yeah. Should we then talk about the continuing resolution? Because we've gone an hour without doing that. That is probably a good idea. That's good. It's the last show of the year in studio, so we're chilling.

We have the story from The Hill. House rejects Johnson's plan B to prevent shutdown. That's it. I think I have an image of the of the bills. Let me see if I can find it. Did I not have that pulled out? Here we go. Here it is right here. Take a look at this. The initial one thousand five hundred and forty seven page continuing resolution, followed by the updated, simplified one hundred and sixteen page, I believe it was. And it's still lost, which means we're going to be coming up to a government shutdown

Saturday unless there's some kind of emergency action taken, which I doubt will actually happen. But who knows? I can't see the future. We do have this clip. It's really amazing from Chip Roy. The matter is three hundred and thirty billion dollars. Congratulations. You've added to the debt since you were given the majority again on November 5th. It's embarrassing. It's shameful. Yes, I think this bill is better than it was yesterday on certain respects. But to take this bill, to take this bill yesterday and congratulate yourself because it's shorter in pages, but increases the debt by five trillion dollars is asinine. And that's so I'm just going to go and say, I think we all here agree with the Democrats. It was good to strike this down unless Elad has a different opinion.

I will say I don't have a different opinion just on this Chip Roy stuff I do think Trump was trying to lift the debt ceiling for a time period and then Chip Roy who is a deficit hawk as I understand didn't want to do that and Donald Trump is now calling for him to be primaried. Donald Trump and a lot of MAGAs calling for everybody and their mother to be primaried. My take on it is because the Republicans don't have 60 votes in the Senate, when they get back into session, they're going to have to make concessions to the Democrats to get anything across.

So it's not like they're going to be able to be like, well, we want this and we want that. That's not happening at all. So I'm not so sure that shutting the government down does anything other than make donald trump put donald trump in a position where people are going to go ahead and say well he was bad he shut down the government and then we ended up with a bill that had a bunch of things that we didn't like anyways because you're not going to get it across the line with 60 votes you're going to have to you're going to have to get democrats to vote for it so and so it's not like and it's not like I'm saying that I like either of the bills

that are presented. I would love to see, you know, have a real truly clean continuing resolution that's very short. But I don't know that in the end it's going to work out where it's good for the for the country or for Republicans. I think every single one of them should be primaried. When did we do this last? It was the 50s, right? When like

80% of incumbents were voted out. So I don't know how many people are actually up. I don't know how many people are actually up for re-election next. Also the issue, the real issue at hand here is that the Republican majority is so slim and they're unable to whip their,

the Congress into shape. And that's going to be a problem for Trump in the next, in the 119thth congress as well i think the majority came down to one seat until they hold something like three special elections so i think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this it's again unfortunately the democrats shouldn't have to work with republicans in the house to get this passed but because of you know some people and their niche concerns, they're not able to get it done. The current system is so broken, though. I mean, it deserves people to be primaried. It deserves a government shutdown.

All I want for Christmas is a government shutdown, personally, myself. Permanently? Yes. Yes. As long as it can. Extended. Please. I want people to actually have their voice actually matter.

We showed yesterday that it does. What happened yesterday was a tremendous moment that I think we really need to, in retrospect, kind of think about here, the larger implications of all the crap that they were trying to throw at us. Like, it was just, you know, status quo. They used to be able to get away with this, and they no longer can. They're about to get away with it, by the way. They're getting away with it in two weeks, three weeks. This happens every time with a

I love the idea of, and this is going to blow people's minds, but I love the idea of getting rid of the debt ceiling, and the only reason I like that isn't because I like unlimited spending, but because this is always just theater. It's every year, every six months, there's some kind of theater. What we really

need is to have actual substantive change in the way the Senate operates and have the ability to to get rid of these these omnibus bills overall, have individual bills for individual laws, have one bill just for funding. I don't know the exact route to get that to happen. I'm not saying that I'm the majorities are so slim that that's why the gridlock is here. And then which is why you're going to have to see some cross party working with majority. It's not anything that any of us want either. Nobody's saying this is a good thing. This is probably just the reality that we're going to have to live with. Well, the thing is, if you're not willing to get it done with the people in your party because of the rhinos, then you're going to have to work with Democrats if you don't want a shutdown, which is what's going to happen. They're using that as leverage. And Hakeem Jeffries is milking concessions out of Johnson as a result. Well, what's your perspective on this?

Yeah, these little battles are kind of to me because they almost always in the same way. Little battles. It's just we go through this government shutdown thing. You think the Democrats should bail the democrats he's completely right i do think they need to avoid a shutdown like you might have to do some stuff that were but you need to especially going into the holidays wait but i uh i'm expecting this a bunch of times over the next two years as republicans have the majority because right now there's that huge distinction between your more moderate republic and your macro Republicans. And this will be the issue that really I just don't know where Trump will fall on it, because I know Trump doesn't want to shut down as he's about to come into office. No, he does. Well, you're right. He wants a clean resolution,

but he'd rather a shutdown than have to be saddled with whatever pork and bloat. But I don't believe any of this stuff for a second. Like these guys were so ready to vote yes on the CR and they wanted to get it through and they don't care because the way these things work is that they all go around and say what does it take for you to vote yes and then they're like give me three million dollars for molasses testing which is actually in it and they're like okay and it's just like it's just like a free-for-all to sweeten it up for my district what am i about to get right now for my district to run on in the future yes it's awful and it's unconscionable that that's the way it is, but I don't know that we're going to be able to get any kind of funding bill that doesn't have that stuff because of how slim the margins are. Yeah, exactly.

It's terrible. Like I said, I'm not saying that I'm happy about this. I just don't think that— That's what it always comes back to. And the weak leadership, but the weak leadership is a result of the slim majority that's why johnson can't really whip people into shape because how many congresspeople can he realistically lose here so and then do you think if he because clearly democrats with the first edition of the cr were down to vote for it do you think mike johnson if he ends up having to go that

route again is going to have issues since we're coming up on a speakership vote. There's no incentive. He's going to have to work with Democrats and then he will be called a rhino and then there's no water under the bridge in three months. There's no incentive for Democrats to work with him. We know because they will milk big concessions out of him. They work with him a lot. Because they're going to want a lot of

the stuff that was in it. Where do you think the Ukraine funding came from? Look, we can't play this, can we can we come on democrats wanted to vote for that like the the american people look at that and they're just like what well the the only reason democrats voted no so it's actually funny because we we were watching fox before with the with the live vote count and luke and i were both like wait wait democrats are voting no and then we checked it was like oh they did an updated cr because like you know i'm i'm i'm eating lunch or eating dinner and i'm not watching the news And Luke and I were both like, wait, wait, Democrats are voting no? And then we checked and it was like, oh, they did an updated CR.

Because, like, you know, I'm eating lunch or eating dinner and I'm not watching the news and then you're traveling here. So, like, in the last few hours, they introduced the new. We were surprised to see Democrats were against it. Well, the Democrats didn't vote for the smaller one because it didn't have the pork. The Democrats want the pork. They didn't vote for the new one. And there's no incentive for them to get the smaller seat, to vote for the smaller CR because it makes Trump, it will make Trump look bad if it doesn't go through. It's a big one. They get all the sweetheart deals, all the pork, which is what the Democrats want. They get all the favors and stuff. I don't see any way to get just a small bill that does what needs to be done

through as long as they can blame the republicans let me ask you look do you do you think the first version should have passed uh i expect it's just too so much that i i don't even have an opinion on it this is it's it's it's it's shocking to me after what i will say there are like i think we all agree there were important additions in there, but in terms of the 1,500 pages, you know, to your point about, or someone's, what makes these things get passed. There's going to be stuff that's like, what the heck?

Yeah, but 1,500 pages, they put a new law banning deepfake pornography, which is like, sure, I think that's bad too, but that should just be a bill that you vote on. Like, why are you... is someone going to put in? How about this? Speaker Johnson, I got a pitch for you. I can get all of the MAGA Republicans on board with signing a 1500 page bill.

If you just slide in one small page that says effective January 1st, 2025, the ATF will be abolished. I like that. That sounds great. They're going to be like, wait, wait, we'll take it for three months. The sky's not going to fall if the government shuts down. Quite the opposite is going to happen here. We have to understand, under Reagan, the government shut down a lot. It's okay.

I want this gridlock. I don't want them approving a lot of this stuff. I want to make sure that our money isn't wasted. Our money is being inflated. Our money is being burnt away on reckless, stupid, idiotic projects. I want to know everything we're approving, and let's vote on it on an individual basis. Why can't we do that? Let's do the, if Phil wants a little bit of government,

let those little incentives be voted on individually. Let's flatten this out real quick. The initial version of this bill, which we have pulled up right here, is 15, 1,547 pages. And what, like almost every, all but like seven Republicans were ready to vote yes. And all the Democrats were ready to vote yes.

It's Christmas. I don't care. Spend a trillion dollars. Screw the economy. Let's leave. And then there was a public outcry and a campaign which incorporated Trump and Elon Musk. And it resulted in a whole bunch of Republicans saying, OK, I'm changing my vote. Notably, Anna Paulina Luna, who reportedly had posted she has no choice but to sign this because we need the disaster relief for the victims of the natural of Hurricane

Helene, et cetera. And then the public backlash was no, they should be introducing a single page, one hundred billion dollar relief act. We agree with spending money on that. They should not be holding us hostage. We saw 30 Republicans flip and this ultimately result resulted in a much smaller 116 page bill that Democrats got angry about. That being said, however, more than enough Republicans flipped on this to where. Well, actually, not take that back. If the Democrats voted yes, it would have passed passed outright there would not have been nearly enough republicans it is insane that democrats and their voter base don't fucking care they they well they don't because they can blame they can blame republicans that's why it's all because they have the ability to blame republicans they don't they

actually don't care they don't they're not like oh we need to fund the government they'll use all of the all of the pork and stuff like that they'll go ahead they won't talk about it they're gonna sit all they've been talking about is oh look Elon Musk is the president and blah blah blah all they're doing is is is is deflecting from the actual fact that they're the ones that could have voted to pass this smaller bill and fund the government but they're it's likely that the Republicans are going to get blamed. So yes, it is their majority. They blame them on everything anyway. All of the Republicans are just as bad as all the Democrats,

except for the fact that due to the Republican voter base, it forced them to actually back down. But the Democrat voter base did nothing. They're fine with it. Yeah, I think I was hearing two people's reactions like democrats in congress to that one they have that 1500 one up until i think today yeah and so i think for them it was we had a deal with speaker of the house mike johnson they then introduced another one just like this and it's sort of they had a deal that had a lot of pork and then they got rid of all the pork right i mean that's just so that

and so so essentially what we're saying is the democrats were like we want to spend all this money and we want all these sweetheart deals and then when the republicans said we don't want that we want to just fund the government wait wait the republicans went to the democrats and they all high-fived each other and then the republican voter base said we will remove you from office and the democrat voter base said yeah we don't care at all yeah well the Republican voter base said, we will remove you from office. And the Democrat voter base said, yeah, we don't care at all. Yeah. Well, the Democrat voter base doesn't have that pressure from their electorate. Nope.

But because Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy and Mike Johnson and Donald Trump all had this stuff planned out and then they responded to the voter base, the Democrats didn't have that pressure because the Democrat voter base doesn't care. They're fine with blowing out the money. Here's here's how I imagine it. The Republican Republicans in office are looking out the window at a bunch of people with pitchforks and torches. And the Democrats are looking out the window with a bunch of people bowing to them. Yep. It sucks, but that's the way it is. It sucks that this is probably going to happen. They're probably going to get a bill similar to this in January when Trump gets into office, when he's actually sworn in. The they say, oh, this is bad, this is bad, this is bad.

There's not the pressure on the Democrats to actually give concessions. I'd like to take this moment to try and articulate the problem with continuing resolutions just so that people who don't who don't who don't know can can at least hear my argument. I know most of you probably do. So forgive me. But there are probably some people saying like, well, what's the problem? Why can't we just have this massive spending bill? Why is it an issue? We can start with the easy, the dysfunction of Congress. Congress is not supposed to be that they just rubber stamp every spending bill and take your tax dollars and produce debt to just buy literally whatever they want, like molasses testing. You can explain to me why we need $3 million for molasses testing. I'm sure there's a reason someone has,

but it is a reason why you, the taxpayer, should be footing the bill. The bigger issue is mass spending bills and raising the debt ceiling just means there's going to be more national debt. The U.S. is going to have its biggest line item, interest payments, meaning your tax dollars and newly printed fractional reserve dollars are largely going to just paying off the interest to all the debts owed by the U.S. government, meaning they're going to have to tax you more. It means they're going to have to that we're going to see inflation across the board because of this hyper taxation.

And ultimately, if we continue on this path, we are never going to have sound resolutions like, I don't know, we need to build the Francis Scott Key Bridge. That collapse, that's a bad thing, right? OK, when you jam it next to a bill that bans deepfake porn and molasses testing and you combine these things, you are going to end up with this. The Democrats and Republicans fighting over why this is happening. What we need is what Matt Gaetz proposed, single issue spending bills. They could have easily passed them all today. 100 billion for disaster relief. We all agree. Three million for molasses. No, no, no, no. We're not spending three million on molasses. That's a

weird thing. OK, how about this deep fake porn? Let's debate it. Should we ban that? They should all be separate. Ultimately, the simple thing is your government in Congress doesn't actually vote on bills. They spend most of their time fundraising. That's why they do this. This is a continuing resolution means we house in the house, right? We don't have an omnibus spending package. That's insane. They wheel and remember when they wheeled in the wagon of 5000 pages, because what happens is 90% of the time of a member of Congress is not on the floor saying this bill is outrageous. I oppose it. No, it's great. I support it. They're in their office on the phone asking for money. And you'll get three Democrats and three Republicans and a parliamentarian

saying, what about this bill? And they go, whatever, fine. You get more and more weird and wacky laws in the books that make no sense. No one does their job. And then at the last minute, instead of even an omnibus spending package, they say, let's just continue the existing spending package and jam in 15, 1546 extra pages to get all of the things we were supposed to get for our constituencies that we never actually debated or argued. The way I described it this morning, you guys ever see the movie Bruce Almighty? Yep. It's when Jim Carrey is getting all of the prayers. So he just says yes to all.

And then what happens? Nothing makes sense and it's pure chaos. We don't have a functioning government right now. We have members of Congress who don't do their jobs. We have members of Congress who are spending all of the time fundraising. And the CR is an attempt to actually get something, a notch do their jobs. We have members of Congress who are spending all of the time fundraising. And the CR is an attempt to actually get something a notch in their belt. So when they go home, they can say, hey, got you that molasses spending, didn't I? Vote for me.

That's 100% what it is. But as long as there's not a 60 to 40 majority in the Senate. And I don't know what the majority has to be in the house it's got to be like i think it's a simple it's a simple it's a simple majority but they need like 215 or 220 to have to be safe so that way they can lose some republicans i so i mean as many as possible in the house so say 230 which they don't have and they're not going to have in two years like you have to deal with what you have to play the hand you're dealt. I wish that it wasn't this way. I wish that the sausage making wasn't so ugly,

but this is part of the reason why people get so frustrated with, with politics is when you look at the realities of the situation, actually in the chamber and what you have to deal with. The Democrats right now are just sitting back being like, ha ha ha. Look at you Republicans. This is your mess. This is your mess. This is your problem.

They have no incentive to actually work for the American people. And their constituency is also doing the same thing. The constituency, as in the Democrat, the voters, they're like, ha, ha, look at you. Ha, ha. They're sitting there laughing, too. So it's not about it's not just that Congress is bad. It's that the whole left versus right thing is a massive problem you know it's funny well yeah just saying to democrats it would be for reasons that y'all would disagree with but have jumped in to save

which has caused problems for these speakers politically both mccarthy and johnson a bunch of times it's not like they want to see them just hung out to dry they just demand concessions to to do that you know i mean they're not just obstructing for obstruction's sake. I totally disagree with you. Then why do they keep being the ones who help Johnson and then before that McCarthy? Because they wouldn't be able to get a majority either. Because they don't have,

because they want something in return. Yeah, the Republicans have done this in the past. Everyone complains about it. Congress. That's what I'm saying. But I know what you what you mean about well my point is that like there have been things that because of the way these games are played get in that i don't feel like would pass standalone that i support you know so it's like the cost benefit announced but there's a lot of stuff like they were putting in like pay raises and see but health care enhancements that then you disagree with so i don't know i mean that because in theory i like the idea i don't

support personally i don't support any of it any of it like like i'm more of the opinion of luke like let it all shut like shut it all down oh well like i'm in strong agreement what do you say to like the people who need their benefits and necessary support. So when it comes to that, when it comes to those kinds of things, because I don't think that, that it's a good idea to just cut them off totally, like with, with no kind of warning or no plan to fix it.

I would say that that stuff should be funded, but it should be phased out. My position is Medicare. Yes. Yes. Because it's going to, it's going to go away in 2033. If we don't do something about it. I don't

understand. That doesn't work. The numbers don't work. You can't just say, oh, we've got to fund it more. No, no, we can't. Like, a good example with Social Security, we still have the Social Security tax cap. Isn't that? Yeah. What's the number? 168,000.

I would want to get rid of that before we start cutting Social Security. So essentially you would just say tax people more to pay for social security. No, no, no. Wait, wait. This is good. So 168,000, I think. It's somewhere around there. I think dollars above that should also be getting taxed for social security.

Do you know what Jeff Bezos' salary is? Not that much. His income is not that much. Well, his payroll. His income's high, but his payroll's low. So he doesn't have to pay that. Oh, like for him, that wouldn't be a solution. But my point is that if you're making $200,000 per year,

it's weird to me that some of your money's not being taxed. But if you're making $50,000 or anything under $168,000 and $600,000, then all of your money's being taxed. You know what I mean? I would do that first. With Medicare, I do, then all of your money is being taxed. You know what I mean? I would do that first. With Medicare, I do think just... I agree. That's just...

Yes, I am for taxes. But here's your way out of the problem. But Trump's promising to come in and do another big tax cut bill. Stuff like that. That's great. I don't understand. But why aren't you worried about inflation?

Yes. So if he's going to do his tariff plan and the mass deportation plan... No, no, the tariff plan is not going to get into it. I don't I don't mean to. I want to go back to the point you made about Social Security. It's a good point that if you make fifty thousand dollars a year, you use fifty one hundred percent of your income is taxed for Social Security. Right. If you make your correct two hundred thousand dollars a year, then a quarter of your income is not taxed on Social Security. Yeah, I think that's weird. I'm not saying I know the solution is.

I don't know if it just means tax people more but that's a really good point that makes no sense why are lower income people taxed at 100 percent of their income for social security and wealthier people are not honest question i don't i don't i don't think just increasing it like there's not enough rich people to tax to fund everything but it's a great point that social security is literally where we tax the poor more. I don't get it. Yeah, well that's a good common ground. Yeah. I don't know the solution. That's not even like raising a rate. That's just saying apply it to all. So the reason that a tax

break would be a good thing is because you actually would stimulate the economy, or the intent is to stimulate the economy and an economy that's... That's what Trump promised last time and he ballooned his deficit, his economic... No no no but you're talking about you're talking about covid though because all the vast majority of the vast majority of the of the issues remove covid for both biden and trump trump still added twice that of biden to the debt well i'm not sure about that but but even

still the point the point is if you have if you have growth then you can deal with the with the debt if you don't have growth or you have a small growth then the debt does become a massive problem and in 2033 the all of the the you know all the social security and stuff like that it all becomes insolvent and there's not enough people to tax you can't tax your way out of this you can't tax your way out of it axios trump biden debt you I'm trying to build a graph showing all of it so we can look at the whole map of every year. Yeah. So because I was thinking,

I was asking that, I did, to be honest, you can't tax your way out. You cannot tax enough to cover the unfunded liabilities, the mandatory spending. Mandatory spending that's coming? We've mapped it out before. It's like, with extending how many years

these are solvent. The CBO says, the Congressional Budget Office. Hey, wait, wait. Sorry. Let's just look at Argentina. Well, there you go. He got their debt to zero. For the first time in, like, what?

Their country's history, basically? Yeah. So, we got us a graph. A graph of U.S. debt growth. And hold on. Let me pull this over. I'm going to see if I can extract the image and make it bigger or something. Because this is very small.

How do I do this? I'm downloading it and then I'm going to load it in so that we can zoom in on it. Sorry, guys. To your point while, while you're pulling that up, it's so strange to me that we would be talking about fiscal responsibility that, that a lot of the MAGA folks in Congress are pretending like even though Republicans do have the worst record on the debt over the last century,

we're not talking about fiscal responsibility. We're talking about social security. There's different. No, no, no. I'm saying, no,

the reason I, yeah. So the mandatory. Okay. So the reason that I brought up, uh, yeah. So I addressed that. You could solve so the reason that i brought up uh yeah so i

addressed that you could solve it the way that it's currently structured you would have to supplement funding through a separate bit of legislation but uh to what we're talking about with with addressing debt and deficits first of all they need to get consistent because trump's record on that's horrible was one of my points and then, you don't come into office if you're serious about addressing the debt and immediately decrease how much revenue the government's bringing in. And we didn't explode our revenue. I'm not talking about decreasing the revenue. That's what cutting taxes is.

So everything you talk about is always, well, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump. I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm talking about the CBO has forecasted that the the social security you're not hearing me the the large spike was covid i actually don't know if trump's uh debt was in any way more egregious than any of the past president it looks it looks rather linear yeah i just think if you again since this portrays it in a different visual axios trump Trump Biden debt should pull it up. Trump does have I mean, he added more to the debt than any president.

But again, this one says he ran up twice. I don't I don't know. Right. Right. That's that's COVID. No, no. Exclude. Look, non-COVID. Oh, I see. I see. You're right. Yeah. Non-COVID relief. Trump is more than double Biden. I don't see Trump's position. And I don't give him credit for this one. Is that you want to be under leveraged? His idea is that you want to maintain growth above spending.

And then it doesn't matter if you're. But he failed to do that even before COVID. I think we agree. I don't know. I mean, the economy was doing fairly well regardless. But if you look at the trajectory of Obama's economy, it's not like trump improved the performance um let's start with uh you're laughing about because because because you're us you're implying that you're implying that obama's economy carried over into donald trump and that's why donald trump had some of some of a good economy but all the bad things that happened because of donald trump you're not

hearing me at all at all i'm saying that if it were true that that tax cut bill was going to significantly, so much so that it would help to balance out how much was being added to the deficit, thus debt, if that tax cut bill would be really economically stimulating, then why didn't we see that

in the data year over year going from the end of Obama to the beginning of Trump? You would have seen a change in growth, a change in unemployment drops. I don't know why you're laughing. because of a picture that someone sent to me. So it's just completely unrelated. Totally unrelated. Well, then I apologize for my tone.

It looks like Obama, if you remove COVID, it's hard to know for sure. It looks like Obama's debt was slightly greater than Trump's, but COVID put Trump over everybody else. Yep. So tracking like Obama's debt was slightly greater than Trump's, but COVID put Trump over everybody else. Yeah. So tracking the Obama years, 2008. So this is the year of 2008, which that's not fair, actually. If we go 2009, which is the first year that Obama was actually there, we're looking at like 12. And then he gets out in 2012. So it looks about 10, 10 trillion. And then if you do Trump, it's hard to know because of COVID.

There's a big spike during COVID. And he doesn't deserve, I don't give him a lot of credit for COVID, especially. Right. But we looked at the Biden-Trump analysis, removing it. And then also, Obama was recovering from the Great Recession. The first few years of Trump were economically stable times. This actually is kind of weird though biden biden starts 2021 and he's at like 27 and he ends at 30 35 yeah so it looks like the

biden added a little bit less than obama and trump would have in the long run covet covet makes it anomalous it's hard to track for sure yeah so so my all my point is donald trump one of the things i'm trying to understand not understand one of the other all like all of their spending is no good you know nobody gets credit for this one but it's all horrible track records if you look at argentina though specifically what they did they slashed government spending eliminated entire departments they laid off bureaucrats they cut, and it fixed inflation in their country. I don't see why we're not seeing this as the gold standard for something that we should be doing, because of course, what you're describing is what's been

happening for so freaking long, and the debt keeps going up and up and up. And you want more cancer to help with the cancer, more taxes, more rules, more regulations, more bureaucrats, more spending. I don't want any of that. I want the government to act in a GoFundMe style fashion. If we want something, let the government raise a website where they raise funds for it independently. That's really what I ultimately want. We're screwed. We're in big trouble. And there's going to be a lot of big financial repercussions coming in 2025. And there's going to be a lot of tough situations for Donald Trump, which I don't know if he's going to be able to fix. It's going to be World War III. And I'll give you the real simple version.

Now that the interest on the debt is the largest line item, there's going to have to be a massive stimulus to dump money into the market so they can pay off the interest and the debt, which just devalues the currency, which means anybody holding U.S. debt is going to lose their shit, if you know what I mean. And then, you know,

Thucydides' trap, we're going to war with China, and then hopefully after we go to war, we win. And then we can tell them we have no more debt. Wow. China's been awfully quiet after that, huh? Well, most of the debt the U.S. owes is to itself. So the debt is largely to the U.S. It's to various individuals, contracts, bonds, et cetera.

The government likes to make promises they can't pay because they're like, we're the U.S. government. We got guns. We'll pay you eventually. Nobody, not a single president we've ever had in my lifetime deserves anything related to the spending. Republicans come out and they're like, we need to balance the budget. And then they don't. And then Democrats come out and they say, who cares about balancing the budget? So they don't. And then we just keep spending until, I think the challenge for most. Yeah. Until the insolvency of Social Security.

Yeah. Twenty thirty three is when it is when it's alleged to be insolvent. That's what the CBO says. And it doesn't matter what Donald Trump or or Joe Biden did in the past. Right now, what we're talking about is what goes what's going to happen in the future. And unless there are significant changes to mandatory spending, not discretionary spending. So it doesn't matter that we send pennies to Ukraine or pennies to Israel, because in the grand scheme of it, the amount of money that we're sending to both Israel and Ukraine is irrelevant. We need to deal with the unfunded liabilities, the mandatory spending, the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. They need to be restructured. But you can't touch them without everybody saying, oh, you hate grandma and want to throw her off a cliff. My view on this is I don't know why the government should be isolated from any other market force.

If you work for a company and then you show up to work one day and your boss is like, hey, I'm sorry, we're out of business. And you go, but my health care is gone. It's like, yeah, I'm sorry. Nobody's buying carpets anymore. And so we can't sustain this and we're done and you're not going to get paid. But when it comes to government, they're like, I'm pretty sure there's someone somewhere

we're going to point a gun at to make sure they pay so I can make sure you keep getting your Medicare. And then they go, works for me. Yeah, I mean, obviously it's different being a citizen versus whenever you actually own the currency and stuff. But I agree we need to do something about it which is why i'm critical of like it's crazy to me that back i don't

we can't yeah you do you totally want to bring up donald trump i know you want to bring up donald trump yeah it's just weird that you get in the room with us now he's who do you think they're all concerned about the opinion of all the people in congress who are republicans i'm saying if you guys are serious about the government efficiency stuff and all that, it's so ridiculous that we do what Trump did last time, which would do the opposite of getting us- Oh, no, I agree, but he's not going to do it again. And I disagree with Donald Trump. He's going to structure a tax cut bill that's disproportionately going to help Donald Trump anyway.

I disagree with Donald Trump. That's good. We need to cut taxes. Why do you want more taxes? Why do you want more of them? You can't tax your way out of this. That's sociopathic. That's crazy with the way that things have been going.

It's insane. The last one disproportionately benefited a lot of big companies and wealthy people, but then didn't have the returns and growth that Front promised. So I don't think we should be sacrificing people's Social Security checks for the sake of a wealthy person's private jet write-off thing. I don't agree with donald trump either okay because i think you need to restructure social security and medicare and medicaid my solution so that's what donald trump what donald trump doesn't want to touch that and i think he's wrong

just to get that out in the open so that way you know you can stop associating me with here's the la times that's different than you want to read it of yeah you can read it do i want to read it oh whoever you want to read most american readers react you can read it. Do I want to read it? Oh, I don't know. Whoever. Do you want to read it? Most American readers react. Most Americans got a tax cut under Trump, but the left's messaging made us believe a lie. Matthew Iglesias of Vox.com famously said, Nobody likes to give themselves credit for this kind of messaging success, but progressive groups did a really good job of convincing people that Trump raised their taxes

when facts say a clear majority got a tax cut. Yeah, I did not say raised their taxes. I'm not saying you did. I'm just pointing out that under Donald Trump, clear majority got a tax cut yeah i would i did not say raise their taxes that i'm not saying you did i'm just pointing out that yeah under donald under donald trump most people got a tax cut fact that such a large portion okay well then i know that people got tax cuts who weren't wealthy but my point is that for a priority at all to be cutting taxes in ways that disproportionately stimulates growth wealthy folks it is wild it doesn't stimulate growth no i don't think it stimulates growth if you folks, it is wild. It doesn't stimulate growth. No, I don't think it stimulates growth. If you cut taxes, inflation went down from 25% to 3% in just a year

with Javier Milley literally proposing eliminating 90% of all taxes. If you had 98% taxes, yes, then cutting them would stimulate growth. But at the point where we are now, we have test cases. We've seen Trump's last administration. Sorry to bring it up. I mean, that's the only thing you got. the point where we are now we have test cases we've seen trump's last administration sorry to

i mean that's the only thing you got but the um that's what we're talking about he's well i mean that's what you were that's what you're talking about all the time let me clarify i think the issue of stimulating growth is not as simple as to say it's a tax cut or a tax rate no no no not at all the the issue is that uh it's what the government does when it comes to taxes rolling back regulation would do more than a tax cut would. So if you got rid of a lot of the regulations. Depends on what regulations. Well, of course it depends on what regulations.

But generally. I had this debate with Sam Seder. And I'll take this opportunity to clarify some points. Not that his audience cares. But when it comes to the regulation of harmful materials, which is what we are typically referring to, like lead and stuff. I'm in agreement. there should be more regulations. I'm on the RFK Junior train. Phthalates, PCBs, all of these things need to have regulation.

But if we're talking about general business regulation, we were not able to open a coffee shop in two years. Yeah. I mean, granted, that's a lot of that stuff. Actually, no, I can't speak for you. Local ordinance. Yeah. Regulations are nuts. A lot of times it is local and stuff like that but generally regulations make it difficult to do

business this is not some kind of difficult or it's not some kind of crazy right-wing conspiracy to say that regulations from government make it harder to get things done but let's let's clarify too and it's a cost bit of analysis of of how much is the consumer being protected like a lot of the epa regulations that trump rolled back uh are frightening with what it allows companies to do. Do you know I did it? Do I know why Trump? He was really big on the deregulating. Do you know why he deregulated?

To help companies prosper. He did. Yeah. And so. And I don't like that tradeoff. The companies can do absolutely wonderful and also not dump toxins into waterways the the issue was i don't completely disagree but but the uh the issue was that in china they don't have these regulations so they're basically if you have you seen a picture from like china in the smog

they have like that big lcd screen led screen where it's like a sunrise because it's brown everywhere you go yeah so china's attitude is basically we do not care about the earth we do not care about pollution. And Trump said, okay, we need to stop our factories and our production from going to China. What do we do? There's a few things you have to do. Tariffs is one. And deregulate.

So when Trump goes to, say, like a widget manufacturer, hypothetical, and he says, I want your factory in the United States. What does it take to get you here instead? And they said, Mr. President, we can't. The regulation limits the amount of insert chemical we're allowed to have as a byproduct. So we can't do it. China doesn't care. Not to mention the cost of manufacturing in China is 75 percent lower and we can just ship it back here and we make a 35 percent gain. So then Trump said, OK, what if I remove some of these regulation regulations on, say, carbon emissions and certain chemicals allowing you to produce here? He said, well, then we could, but we're still dealing with a cheaper product. And he goes, if you don't, I'm putting a tariff on your product.

And then they were like, well, I mean, that's going to cost us money. He goes, I don't care. So Trump launched tariffs, got into a trade war, and then deregulated in an effort to bring manufacturing back to the United States. I'm not saying it's good or bad. That's just what he did. Yeah, well, and I would say, while I understand sometimes you're,

of course, wanting companies to manufacture in the United States in a general sense, sometimes that can be beneficial, but that didn't really work for the economic prosperity that he had promised. What do you mean? Just look at the trajectory.

2019 was the best economy we've had in like 40 years. Right, which was like a little inch forward across the projected economic performance that we already had projected pre-Trump coming into office. We can't really play that game, though. You can play it all night long. You can, sure. But everybody always says like—

You can pull up. It's not that I'm saying— They said Obama's economy was miserable. You're talking about Bush. It's everything Bush did that made Obama's economy good. We can't play the game. No, no, I'm saying that, I mean, it's pretty fair to say when you come in office during an economic crisis and then you – it's not that obviously the presidents are doing everything. I'm just saying if we're going to credit and blame and then you oversee recovery and then you hand a pretty good economy to somebody, they can't then because it continues on the trajectory that, again, you can look at the projections that it was set set to that that's because of them you're so like him

right when i was really in if we saw this crazy economic explosion compared to the the performance that was expected based on where things already were then you could look into like was the tax cuts was no no no but but here's here's why you're wrong it's because it didn't work everything you're talking about the recovery from uh from obama it was actually bush right but you can actually every everything that you're trying to, the recovery from Obama, it was actually Bush. Right, but you can actually— Everything that you're attributing to Obama was actually Bush who did it. Yeah, I haven't seen it. No, I don't think it's—I'm making a point that if you say Trump's economy was good, but Obama did it,

then I just say Obama didn't do it, Bush did it. Obama's economy was good because of quantitative easing. Like, Obama's economy was good because free money. Did you know did you know that there was a whole movement against obama in 2011 called occupy wall street yeah obviously obviously recover i'm not saying economic performance because of the president that's silly but that's how people talk about politics a lot and so my point in y'all's argument about rollbacks or regulations or tax cuts is saying clearly because it didn't change it didn't change

the trajectory in a positive direction in any major way these weren't steps that i like the trade-off of i don't like and you said you partially agreed a lot of the regulation rollbacks as it pertains to the environment because i do think that is worse for americans living here and the trade-off of maybe a company manufacturing here isn't worth it and uh and that trade war didn't really there's a lot of people that are young that really are having problems finding jobs, right? I mean, I know unemployment is low, but there's a lot of people that are working multiple jobs

and they're low-paying jobs and stuff like that. So I'm not so sure that jobs being overseas... Well, you were saying that you don't't think that you think that it's a good trade-off to have a good impact on manufacturing jobs in any major way yeah you see it in the data you're saying you're saying that the there's that the manufacturing jobs that are like in china like tim was talking about in china and stuff like that bringing them back here isn't worth the uh isn't worth rolling back uh i'm those jobs back. That would be an interesting philosophical

conversation, but we don't have to go there because he didn't even do it effectively. He didn't do it in any way that would change his job growth compared to Obama. You think we should? In the future? Oh, it would depend on the individual regulation. No, if you're dumping

toxic waste into waterways. I mean, well, generally, that's kind of like a straw man. Just be like, oh, you know, just dump toxic. If you dump toxic waste into the water, then you'll go ahead. I mean, let's be honest. The regulations, a lot of them are weaponized. Because if a company, if they're big enough and they have enough connections through all the regulators, they pass through their poison anyway. Let's look at glyphosate.

Let's look at all these other things. So poison is out there, and it's usually rubber stamped through government that uses regulation to stop any kind of real legitimate competitions against their buddies and their friends in the corporate world and the lobbying world. This whole system is entirely broken, and therefore I'm like, yeah, let's just get rid of all of them because we're selecting the winners and losers in this larger kind of economy, and that's not what a government should be doing. And that's why I'm for deregulating, ending this corruption, ending the lobbyists, ending this bull crap,

and this revolving door with all the regulatory agencies and the corporations that really truly do control them. Generally, I'm of the opinion that Luke's right. It sounds nice when you benefit from the structure. No, I mean, what I'm saying is we do have means to punish people if they pollute. Like, property rights will cover a lot of things when it comes to if someone pollutes water or pollutes air and stuff. Obviously, the reason that we—not that everyone is good. I don't know that obviously is a good thing to start it with, but go ahead.

What? a good thing to start it with but go ahead what you said obviously as in as if what you're about to say was obvious to everyone and it made no sense that there was any opinion other than what you're saying so maybe obviously isn't the great what i'm about to say you're gonna realize that you do agree with it because i was about to say that obviously every regulation is not good but the reason that a lot of them were implemented, whenever I hear these sort of like libertarian, utopian articulations of people's views, the reason we implemented these regulations is because people were being harmed by, again, the environmental impacts of companies. It's not true that through property rights or through individual lawsuits, we solved the problem. That's why the class action lawsuits came up anyways. So while some of them can be too burdensome, the reason a lot of these have been implemented or as it pertains to banking real quick i'm gonna i'm

gonna in the past so clearly we're gonna roll them all back but there was a time when we did and it wasn't good that's why we added i'm gonna prove you're wrong that's true i'm gonna i'm gonna prove you're wrong but i think you're gonna agree with what i'm saying because it's actually i'm just i'm just being silly um the regulations don't typically come because people are harmed. They come because the cost of damages exceeds the cost of the regulation. So basically, if the cost of doing nothing is cheaper than the cost of doing something, they don't do it. You know what I mean? Like New York, for instance, there was a guy went to the Empire State Building, shot up his boss and his workers, tragedy, walkeded outside and the NYPD ran up and started firing wildly and missed him and hit seven bystanders.

Everybody asked, how could this happen? It turns out they don't really train the NYPD to use their guns properly. Why? The cost of training is more than the cost of the lawsuits they have to pay. So these regulations usually emerge when the government realizes the cost of the environmental damage is greater than the loss of the economic boon they get from it. It's all about whether they're going to make more money. The implication of your argument is that the government acts altruistically, and I don't think that's true at all. No, I do not believe that. But that's why you want more regulations and taxes. So when people were harmed,

the reason why the government does it is not the same thing as what prompted the chain of events i don't i i disagree with the so i'm saying obviously actually let me cynical politicians aren't doing things because they're they're just good-hearted most of them no let me just wait let me say this real quick if there is an environmental crisis that is killing people the government will actually do everything their power to cover it up right Right? Only when the harm reaches public outcry and the cost exceeds the revenue, then you get the regulation. So for instance, we can talk about

like unleaded gasoline because we're like, man, lead floating around everywhere is bad. But we never really talk about, you know, Ian brings this up, brake dust. In cities,

brake dust is a huge contaminant which could be causing problems because of all the cars grinding their brakes. It's flooding up in the air. We don't regulate that. Astrazine. Fluoride. We don't.

Yeah, fluoride. In your ideal world, that and lead and everything would just be going all over the place. Not true. Not at all. I think Luke is wrong. Wait, which one? No, I agree with this Luke. And I think Luke Rutkowski is wrong.

It's like, wait, which one? No, I think we do need regulations. I think right now what Javier Milley is doing is a perfect example of deregulating in a kind of sensical way where you slowly do it in a sensible way. Obviously, right now, we can't go into full anarchy. Obviously.

That's not sensible. It doesn't make sense. I think absolutely the free market would solve a lot of the problems, and I think the government overwhelmingly creates a lot of the problems. And if you look at a lot of the ecological disasters, they have the rubber stamp of the government that either particip. Louis and all these other larger experiments, you see larger examples of the government literally spreading the poison themselves. Would a free market capitalistic system thrive off of that? No. A business would harm themselves and their enterprise and their reputation and their customer base if they hurt their customers. So therefore, I would argue overwhelmingly, and I would disagree with you, Tim, that a largely deregulated state would be a lot better than the current state of what we have with all these regulations.

Luke Rutkowski is incorrect. That's your opinion. I need to say only one thing. Phthalates. Go on. Why is your spin drift? Is that your spin drift, Luke? No, that's yours.

The one right over there? That's yours. That's yours right here. Did you drink it? I didn't want to. Oh. I lost my water bottle. All aluminum cans are lined with plastic.

I know. Which leaches PCBs, satellites, or whatever. I'm not saying spindrift. I'm a big fan of spindrift, by the way. But why is it that we know these things are bad, but they're allowed to be in all our products? Yeah. Why? In a totally deregulated state, the amount of things that are going to be leaching into your food are going to be— But people still have the perception that the government cares about them.

I don't disagree. That the government is still out there regulating everything, and therefore they feel comfortable. But if they understood, hey, it's a world where you're going to have to look out for yourself, I think that world is a lot more reasonable than the current one that we have right now with pretending that it actually does care, that it actually does exist in a way that actually works in your favor, because a lot of people are brainwashed to believe, yeah, I'm going to the supermarket. Everything here is hunky dory.

Everything's here fine when there's a crap ton of poison in our food that doesn't exist anywhere else. I don't believe that. I think our government's corrupt largely. Most people agree with that. Corrupt as in either they're lazy or self-interested and not doing their jobs. I agree with you that a lot of people think my food must be safe

because the FDA has checked all of this. Exactly. But it's also, I believe, fair to say that if we totally deregulated, some dude's going to be like, looks like cheese to me, sells it, people are going to eat it. How about when the radon girls were rubbing their teeth with radon because they didn't know better? Now, granted, that's an extreme thing where within a few years their jaws were falling

off. But right now we're in a civilization with tartrazine in our food, with pesticides in our food, with genetically engineered plants destroying everything. And with thousands and thousands of regulations on top of it, regulating all those industries at the same time. But saying government is corrupt does not mean we shouldn't regulate things. I agree with the government's corrupt. But the government's not going to do it. Let me put it this way, Luke. Do you need a car mechanic when your car breaks down? Yeah.

But what if your car mechanic is corrupt and he's cheating you, he's ripping you off? You wouldn't then go, we can't have mechanics because mine keeps ripping me off. That's oversimplification. I think people being more reliant and understanding that the world is wild, that not everything is hunky-dory, not everything is safe, I think is a better perspective of individuals. I think humanity is going forward and people moving forward in a way where they understand, hey, the responsibility is on me. Because ultimately it is.

Because we're living in this make-pretend world. And in this make-pretend world, a lot of people profit off of by lying and screwing us over. You get rid of that incentive. Real quick, Luke. What do you do when we do go that route and then you end up with a sickly, diseased, mentally impaired population voting? Don't we have that now? Hence my point. Yes.

We have that now. We have that now, I would argue, especially with the mental health crisis, especially with the obesity crisis, especially with all the regulations that we have now. I would argue that, yes, there would be some people that would win a Darwin Award, but there would also be a lot of other people that would become more self-reliant, more personally responsible, and there wouldn't be any need for them to come in and take more of your money to give us this make pretend feeling that everything's hunky dory this is a good time to to quote thomas sewell and point out that there are no fixes there are only trade-offs so the amount of regulation that you have or or what have you in my opinion there's probably too much i don't think that regulation stems from good people in the government wanting to do good things. I think most of the time—you implied that. But most of the time—

I said harm happens, so then there's an out—I mean, I didn't use the word outcry, but he did. But I said harm happens that prompts the government to do something. I never— That's the opposite. Government harms people. I disagree. And then they cover it up. I disagree.

Okay, listen, let me finish here. I disagree with your characterization that it's spawned by harm. I think most of the time it's spawned by government and businesses colluding, trying to keep other businesses from starting up, from engaging in whatever market they want regulation. And they draft the legislation. And they draft the regulation. Absolutely. And they draft the rules. 100%. 100%.

I'm totally in agreement about that. So I don't think that regulation is actually meant to save people or protect people. I think regulation is generally meant as a barrier to entry for people. I mean, look at what happens when it comes to women that can't braid hair because they need a license for that. There's all kinds of—the vast majority of regulation is that type of regulation, not the kind of, oh, you want to make sure the water's clean. Most regulation is dumb and pointless for the American people. Luke, I agree with you on principle of a lot of what you were saying with ultimately the decision and what you do is in your own hands and you have ultimate

responsibility for that. But I think it comes to, there's like a certain limiting principle on it. So for example, there used to be no regulation on the tobacco industry and their lobbyists used to tell people that smoking actually made you more healthy and like it was good for you so like i don't know what is your take on kind of the regulation we're also told a lot of things are good for us especially in our medical in our current medical system and that all of that isn't is an absolute lot i'm talking about tobacco industry specifically because i know we could think of examples where yeah it's not good but what do you think about us trying to regulate the tobacco industry specifically? Well, there was medical doctors that were actually telling people that were actually bought off, telling people, yeah, smoking's great for you. Smoking's awesome.

Who were they bought off by? Of course, the lobbyists, the big corporations out there, of course. But when you look at this larger kind of scenario and situation, right, whether it's tobacco or whether it's personal choices and personal decisions that individuals want to make, they still lived in this kind of world where they said the government knows what's best for you. whether it's tobacco or whether it's personal choices and personal decisions that individuals want to make, they still lived in this kind of world where they said the government knows what's best for you. Trust the government. Don't worry. They have your best interests at heart. They do not. And they never did. And there is even a lot of government that has finagled studies, lied studies.

And I can make the same counter argument there. And as Phil kind of described here with the Sowell quote here again there's no perfect answer here it's not going to be everything going perfectly like you want it to go there's not going to be any kind of victims or harm obviously but i would argue there would be a lot less harm a lot less victims if there was less government i know but i think that's pretty clear because on the opposite because on the opposite you know spectrum here we have a lot of forced mandates and a lot of forced products and a lot of things that are absolutely horrible for you, that rot your health, kill your health, that the government mandates and forces you and manipulates you to take. So I would argue you that same question, but I would just spin it back in that same kind of philosophical way. I got him, Elad. What do you think about Israel?

Should we regulate Israel? No, we shouldn't give them any money. We should not be giving them a dime. We should not be spending any money. Endorsed. So one thing that I want to point out, one thing that I want to say is, look, everybody knows that we have a fat society in America, that we're overweight. We have a massive problem with type 2 diabetes and early onset diabetes. Kids are getting diabetes. If we got rid of the corn subsidies, we would get rid of the high fructose corn syrup in all the food,

and the amount of sugar that people intake would be reduced dramatically. And that is because of government subsidies that we have all of the high fructose corn syrup. That is why there are so many people that are fat. So all of the disease, not all of, but a significant portion of the disease that we experience in the United States that people get from being overweight, from being unhealthy is directly attributable to government subsidies of corn

because of corn. And soy as well. And soy is another big one. Yes, fair enough. But the point being is we don't know how many lives would be saved over the course of the past three decades, four decades, if there were no corn subsidies. The one thing I've learned from all of these disparate worldviews is that I think I'm just going to vote Democrat next time, and they can just make decisions for me, and I'll just do whatever they want. It's just easier.

You know? You don't got to think. Luke, do you like Israel or not? Not that Luke. This Luke. Democrat Luke. Israel? and I'll just do whatever they want. It's just easier. You know, you don't got to think. Luke, do you like Israel or not? Not that Luke, this Luke. Democrat Luke. Yeah. Do you like Israel?

How do you feel about me? Like the government of Israel or the people of Israel? No, the country. Does Israel have a right to exist? Yeah, absolutely. Sweet. What do you think about the current Gaza war that they found themselves in? Yeah. He's trying to trap you.

No, no. I'm kidding. Be careful. You might not be invited to the next uh white house hanukkah party i think way too many civilians are currently dying in gaza but not israel i mean what's wrong with you man but then yeah of course prompted by october 7th then israel i mean this is like obvious oh do you want me to answer yeah i'm just fucking around though okay should definitive self and then now netanyahu is making much decisions i disagree with

i could deal with that he's better than you too elad what do you think about the palestinian people i think you think the palestinian state should exist i think it's a myth of uh i don't think they exist as a real people just like trans people don't exist i don't think the palestinians as a people also do not exist as a shocking lie going hard at the end wait what do you think about transgenders do you think men can become women and vice versa uh can they change biological sex no but can they change their gender identity yeah so i guess what is the difference between sex and gender yeah so i mean that's kind of the core of this bizarre, almost semantic debate we have. Other than probably some weirdos online, I don't think any rational person is actually arguing that biologically you just speak for myself i don't yeah but also the democratic party like kamala harris wasn't running on that but y'all try to project onto her and so my point is that can y'all at least engage with the argument from most the mainstream democratic

position is that if someone's gender identity aligns with the opposite one as what aligns with their biological sex assigned at birth and then they go through the extensive process and all of that we're gonna identify them as such because it's not social i need to push back a little bit because i do think the mainstream position in the democrat party is that minors should have access to puberty blockers and and when you don't tow this line for example i think there was a democrat congressman somewhere in new england who said like yeah we're a little bit too entrenched in this issue and he got a lot of pushback on it. But I guess my question for you would be, do you think that minors should have access to sex change hormones or testosterone,

people under the age of 18? Right. So definitely not surgeries. Okay. But puberty blockers. The things that are more reversible. And I really would, I really would say that I understand the sensitivity of this issue, which is why I want the best medical consensus to prevail, which is to say that if you demonstrate—I have to be honest, it's not studied enough. We need more research on this. some data that suggests pretty compellingly that if you were to not do any like puberty blockers or anything with someone who's been has gender dysphoria by the time they're fully through puberty and they're 18 years old now the mental implications of that for the rest of life especially someone who's male um are much more damaging but I'm also not the medical professional, so I don't know.

Do you think that gender identity should be a protected class under the 1964 Civil Rights Act? I'll rephrase it. Do you think that businesses should have the right to discriminate on the basis of gender identity? No.

So, like, if there's someone who's clearly biologically male and they want to use a woman's bathroom or a woman's locker room, not even like a changing room, but like a women's only area. Yeah. You think that they should be allowed to do it? That's tough. Because someone who's like, I mean, we could cite examples, very transitioned, like Nancy Macy's obsession with the one trans congresswoman that makes no sense and what i've seen and this has been researched is that you actually don't see an increase in assault

or harassment if people are going to the bathroom the lines with their gender identity but if you force someone who especially if they very much appear to be the one gender identity, but then they are forced to go on the one that lines with what they were assigned at birth, that actually does increase harassment and assault. So it seems the most logical thing is let's do what we were doing before, which is no one really forced to ask, don't tell. No, you just went to the one that made sense.

If you just start identifying some type of way, and in every way to an observer you look like a really matured man, then probably you go on the i i i i largely agree but it's it is difficult so it's like hard to have a a specific stance like the the individuals we often use for this forgive me for saying your names but they're like the two examples is buck angel and blair white are you familiar with these individuals uh blair white i am yeah blair if was bla Blair walking around, everyone's like, that's a young woman.

They don't realize that Blair is a trans woman. And Buck Angel walks around like that is a burly man. Nobody realized that Buck is actually a trans man. If Buck Angel walked in the women's room, you're gonna have you're gonna have problems. I'm sorry. That's just true. Buck Angel is like a gruff bearded male look like looking like a male. And if Blair went to the men's room, guys largely wouldn't care as much other than to be like, this is weird, you know, because guys don't feel as threatened.

And that's where the challenge comes in that I do agree with. But the the issue largely, which came up in the Supreme Court arguments, was that the the the criteria for civil rights protection is immutability. And the argument from the trans side is that gender is mutable. Ergo, it cannot be protected under the law, and the Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling. What was it, 2019? They ruled that gender identity is protected under the sex category, but gender identity is not immutable.

You can change your gender identity. Therefore, it can't be protected under the civil rights law. It's not a... So I don't know how you handle it, but ultimately then, it doesn't know how you handle it but uh ultimately then it doesn't matter how many you know trans women are in the ncaa or whatever it may be it's just simply we don't care because you are not a protected class yeah i mean this has been one that i'm i get upset with the weaponization of it i'd say like it being attached in the ways that it was

to harris when her campaign was something different but I'm also willing to engage with it. Well, I guess, where do you think the Harris campaign fell when it came to trans issues? Because I feel like there's a little bit of gaslighting, because I do, for all intents and purposes, believe that Harris and the Democrats writ large do believe that people can change genders and do writ large support. Oh, okay, so. But we just made the distinction as to why I believe that. Okay, so Kamala Harris and her campaign did support that stuff.

But, like, we all. You mean identity. You mean identity. Yeah, but that's, like, synonymous with gender. I don't think it's misleading. But to liberals, not to conservatives. Sex spirit. Right.

And so we're just trying to draw, like, we're trying to understand each other. I'm not saying you were wrong to use the words you used. What were we saying wrong about the Kamala Harris campaign then? Oh, just that, just that she never made that a topic of her campaign. That wasn't on her policy agenda. She's not seeking to. It's fair to say that she never made it

a topic of her campaign, but it's not fair to say that it's not something that was made very public by Democrats consistently. Kamala in the past had been in favor of it. She didn't use it in her campaign

of gender surgeries, notably when she said we want to give illegal immigrants entertainment transgender surgeries. She publicly said it. Yeah. She didn't use it in her campaign of gender surgeries, notably when she said we want to give illegal immigrants entertainment transgender surgeries. Yeah. She publicly said it.

I think you're totally right that her campaign did not say these things. That's why it's important we have free speech in this country so we were able to inform people,

hey, she's dodging this issue. She's very much in favor of these things. She just won't say it because she knows it's a losing issue. But even if you look at what Biden and Harris,

I guess, the administration has done on the issue knows it's a losing issue. No, but like, even if you look at what Biden and Harris, I guess, you know, the administration has done on the issue, it's not like they're to the far left of the issue. There have been things they've done that have kind of walked the line we're talking about that pissed off both sides. I think,

I think Jazz Jennings' mother should be in federal prison. You know, see if Ron DeSantis, are they still in Florida? Yeah, they never did anything about that. Man. Let me see if I could pull this up yeah uh it's it i take issue with the idea that there's a separation between gender and biological sex i used to think like blair white hey let me finish

here i used to be fine with the with the idea of and stuff, but the more you actually think about it, it really does boil down to, like, sex spirit. Because it's something that no one can really define what a gender is. How you express yourself. Is it just the clothes that you wear? It's the way that you carry yourself? With her, I'm worried about, like, her mental well-being and her dilation. The minute she leaves my house. We have a dilation problem

That is a concern when you don't have that watchful eye They tend to go back to old patterns. I have woken jazz out of a dead This is so good dilator put the lubrication on it and said here you take this and you put it in your vagina If not, I will Go back it in your vagina if not i will but jazz is bad i want to go back on it taking the dialing jazz out of a dead sleep and taking the dilator and put the lubrication on it and said here you take this and you put it in your vagina if not i will but jazz is bad when did you be in prison jazz jennings do you know that is one of the first trans kids was identified in the press as like

at seven years old as being like a trans child, was given puberty blockers and then multiple surgeries to graft what's what they call a neo vagina. I believe they use stomach lining to do it. There are multiple complications resulting in severe, severe, severe depression and morbid obesity. from the TLC, I believe it's TLC, I don't know, some of the reality TV show where Jazz Jennings' mother says that if Jazz doesn't want to do this, she will wake up in the dead of night and tell her to do it or she will. This woman should be in prison. If a man was caught on camera saying, I wake my wife at the middle of the night and I say, you stick this in you right now. And if you don't, I will. That guy would go to jail. Yep. But for some reason, this is considered normal and acceptable. This is from, this is like an old show. It's been in the air for a long time. We are looking at with with Jazz Jennings and as well as many other people, systemic child abuse to an extreme degree that has largely been defended by the Democratic Party. They don't acknowledge this. I'm not surprised you don't know what this is. This doesn't circulate in liberal circles. I guess they don't watch the show or whatever. But then you have like another really great example, of course, is the book Genderqueer. When the left was claiming the right was calling for banning books, it's like, well, yeah, the ones that have porn in them.

Yeah, but that was like there were so many because we've looked at those lists. I think you would agree. What gets grabbed up in those banning sprees are not just porn books. Somebody wants to ban a book that's like, no, but it's like random. There were like random ones. Right,

right, right. Start pressing me. Somebody wants to ban some random book that has nothing to do with like weird adult materials. Like then we're in agreement. Like that's stupid. But when like Emma Vigeland of majority report outright stated, she wanted children to have access to descriptive scat materials.

I'm like, okay, you must be a pedophile. And then she was like, how dare you call me that? And then they were like, could you believe Tim Pool called it? I'm like, a grown woman said she wanted to give little kids books on what scat means. What am I supposed to call her? I don't know. She publicly stated it. What do you do? Do you think, do you ever hear of the book, This Book is Gay? So a teacher gave it to her middle school students. The parents called the police on her for it

because the book was describing how to use Grindr for 12-year-olds. Like, why would you do that? Yeah. Why would Emma Vigeland in Majority Report be like, that's a good thing for kids to have? They're a big YouTube show, right? And so this is the problem we have. Someone comes to me and says, like, hey, here's a book about, like, an auto mechanic who, you know, is engaging in questionable behaviors.

It's probably like a teenage novel. I'd be like, I don't know if that should be banned. Maybe we should look through it. It doesn't seem too adult. What's the rating on it? Then you look at genderqueer, which is rating is actually 18 plus, and they're giving it to 10-year-olds. And it's like, yeah, okay, well, we shouldn't do that. And then they say we're trying to ban books.

So it's stuff like that. We don't need to rehash it. But this video, I hope everybody sees and everybody hears what she said. Put the lubrication on it. Here you go. Old patterns. I have woken Jazz out of a dead sleep and taken the dilator and put the lubrication on it and said, here, you take this and you put it in your vagina.

If not, I will. That's sickening. She lives in Florida and they've never done anything about this. Yeah, that's absolutely just insane. And that's child abuse. But Luke, the opposite of that is happening. You know, these people aren't being held accountable. Parents in Canada, parents in Europe are literally being sent to jail because they don't want

to go along with the mutilation of their children. What do you think about those specific laws and this overreach of government that goes into people's personal lives and says, you know what, your child is going to not be able to have children forever because they just were influenced by either what they saw or the school or their peers that was kind of propagandized to them that essentially eugenicizes them uh so i can't speak to the i can't speak to what canada is doing but the united states i know i've seen multiple examples of laws supposedly that were getting passed that would do stuff like that and then i looked into them that's not what they were doing um but i i just think

this is something as we hopefully all agree that number number one, if you're underage, there needs to be some reversibility to it. Oh, God, I think we're all in agreement on that. She was underage. Yeah. She was underage the whole time. But there isn't. There isn't. I'm with you.

You can't reverse it. Puberty blockers are not reversible. That's not true. Well, that's not in the language that I saw. So let's just start it like this. With the overwhelming research on this. But let's just say 7 to 10 years old. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Let's just say 7 to 10. With the overwhelming research on this, but... Let's just, 7 to 10 years old.

Wait, wait, wait, hold on. Let's just say, 7 to 10 years old, what happens to a child? What happens to a child? Right, so... Like if they're having gender problems? Basically, the reason why they're saying puberty blockers are reversible is that you can stop taking them. But at a certain point... Yeah.

So if you're on puberty blockers, your body is still growing. It's just not developing secondary sex characteristics and other things associated with the hormones like your joints, your eyes, et cetera, your bone density. So they say it's reversible because you can stop taking it and you live. It's not reversible in the sense that you will never get back the years 10 through 12 to be able to develop bone density as you're growing. So that's not reversible. Yeah, I would just pull up the research. My point is that I don't think I'm the best expert on this. And so that's why, and I don't think y'all are either. And I don't think that the government probably will be best to make calls on which things are appropriate when, other than given our current laws around adulthood, I think permanent surgeries would do off the table.

But then with the other stuff, I just, what about for adults as it studied? I want to see, cause I know that on the other end of the spectrum, like this is one end of the spectrum, right? We'd all agree is wrong.

On the other end is people who live much worse quality of lives. And then it's improved greatly. Their suicidal ideation, et cetera. I got, I got to stop right there is actually the trans man who argued at the Supreme Court said, that's improved greatly. Their suicidal ideation, et cetera. I got to stop right there. It was actually the trans man who argued at the Supreme Court said that's not true. Again, I'm just talking about the research. No, no, no, no.

The ACLU's transgender lawyer arguing on behalf of trans kids said there is no evidence to suggest suicidal ideation decreases with transgender treatment. I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. I'm saying depending on the medical consensus after thorough research should drive our approach to this, just like any other issue. And the obsession on this one with that, with it being taken out of the hands of doctors and and families, as opposed to any other treatment kids get, confuses me. But I'm not the expert, so don't pick my brain on it. No, let's give it to an actual transgender individual who argued at the Supreme Court from City Journal. An astonishing moment took place yesterday at the Supreme Court, this was from two weeks ago, during oral arguments in U.S. v. Scrimetti, the case that challenges Tennessee's ban on pediatric sex change procedures. Chase Strangio, the American Civil Liberties Union's attorney, admitted to Justice Samuel

Alito that the narrative around the risk of suicide in trans identified youth is false before alito and strangers exchange justice sonja sotomayor had asked u.s solicitor general elizabeth proligar about minors with gender dysphoria who attempt suicide proligar responded that the rates of suicide not attempts but actual death by suicide in that population are striking given the government's support for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as treatments for gender dysphoric youth the clear implication of proligar's remarks was that such interventions are known to prevent these tragic and interview common events. So this claim, the rates of suicide among gender dysphoric young people are high, constitutes

a trans suicide myth. When it was Strangio's turn, Justice Alito asked, do you maintain that the procedures and medications in question reduce the risk of suicide? The transgender identifying attorney responded. I do, just as Alito, maintain that the medications in question reduce the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality, which are all indicators of potential suicide. Note that Alito asked about suicide and Sranjo answered about suicidality, the latter of which refers to the thoughts or intent of attempted suicide. Though suicide would be preceded by suicidality, research does not show that

suicidality is a reliable predictor of suicide. According to the CDC in 2022, for every one person who committed suicide, 270 people seriously thought about suicide and 33 attempted. Strangio's pivot to suicidality is a standard tactic, et cetera, et cetera. Then came Mr. Strangio's remarkable concession. What I think that is referring to here is there is no evidence in some in these studies that the treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully, admittedly, is rare. And we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them. However, there are multiple studies and long-term longitudinal studies that do show that there is a reduction in suicidality.

This was actually a very big moment. That's what I said. Did you hear me? I said suicidality. But suicidality is big moment. That's what I said. Did you hear me? I said suicidality. But suicidality is not suicide. I understand that. Right, right. I'm saying this is a mental phenomenon,

so then it's going to be treated, and then you're going to check back like we do with any other thing that relates to the psychology of someone on how psychologically they're being impacted. I'm not going to put this on you, but generally speaking, this is what we would call a Mott and Bailey argument, where the left has repeatedly said, you can either have a transgender daughter or a dead son, implying that they will commit suicide.

As we know, that's not true. Suicidality is depression and thoughts of suicide, not actual attempts. Well, because he's in front of the Supreme Court, this person is being very specific about what the research has shown. And the sample group is so tiny that, yeah, you're not going to see in how long it's been studied, probably actual suicidal outcomes. But that doesn't take away from if you reduce suicidality, you presume that people are less likely to commit suicide. I just think what we do know, whether the science is limited or not, is that desistance rates can be from 65% to 95%. Are you familiar with desistance?

Like regretting it? No, no, no. Detransition would be the result of someone saying regretting the decision. Desistance is if a kid is 10 and they say they're trans. Desistance is when they simply just stop. So this is extremely common. They say the rates are between 65 and 95.

Stop what? They stop being gender dysphoric. Oh, yeah. It's called desistance. So they don't go through any medical transition. They don't go through any social transition. They literally just after a few years say, yeah, that's not the case. I don't know.

And that's a part of the process that they're walked through. But this is without any intervention. So if the reality is, let's just go with the low end, 65%. If 65% of gender dysphoric kids desist after puberty, then what's the point of any intervention? The majority desist. No. Yeah. because the other massive percentage left over are the ones who then go through with treatment. Right, so it could be 95%. I'm saying for the sake of argument, we could lose 65, but I think it's like 95% desist. That makes sense. Like, people throughout their life, a pretty large, not large percentage, a much larger percentage of people than who will end up being trans the rest of their life will have like confusions and dysphoria.

And then ultimately they don't. Right. Which means if you have two 10 year olds. Then there are people who don't and then those are the ones who end up being trans the rest of their life. Okay. Yeah. So then why give children, we shouldn't give children any treatment or any intervention in any way, whether it be surgical or not. Yeah.

I've already articulated my position. So no social transitioning either. No, no, no. Oh, no. Well, no, and I'm saying that based on the research that we're getting, if the medical consensus is such that the best thing for the psychological outcome of a child are treatments that we disagree on the reversibility of, then that's probably the best thing.

We've gone way over and we have a flight at six in the morning, so I've got to wrap it. But I really do appreciate you hanging out and going over with us and coming on. And I really do respect that you came here. It is pretty awesome. I'm glad we found some things we agreed on, and I know we've disagreed on a lot. But I think it's great. I really appreciate it. Better than most of the left.

Thanks. Yeah, that's why we said before, we're like, we like you. There's other guys here. But smash the Like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Become a member at TimCast.com. We're getting on a plane first thing in the morning, so we were supposed to wrap and then not do a members only,

but I'm bad at this. But we had fun. We had fun. We're going to be at AmFest tomorrow. You can follow me on Instagram at TimCast, whatever. I think I said it. Luke, do you want to shout anything out? Just Luke Beasley on YouTube is where you find me.

Thanks for having me. Bang. SaveLukeNow.com is my website. Sign up. We're doing a range day for our members on february uh first we have a lot of wild shows we do a lot of really fun stuff for our members save luke now.com appreciate it i am a lot eliyahu uh catch me under that under all platforms luke thank you so much for being on you look like you've been through the ringer though what do

you got over there i totally i've been up i've been up since too early sorry i'm crashing hard i am phil that remains on twix where you can subscribe to me i'm phil that remains official on instagram the band is all that remains on january 31st 2025 yeah that's the right date january 31st 2025 the new record's coming out number 10 it's called anti-fragile you can go to my x page and you can pre-order it. You can go to YouTube, Amazon Music, Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, and Deezer to check out some new music from that. You can find Forever Cold, Let You Go, No Tomorrow, and Divine. And don't forget, the left lane is for crime. Buy stuff from Luke. I'll just wrap with saying I do apologize to everybody on not getting through Super Chats and not having it.

I felt like there was a lot of great debate, questions, and ideas that were going through that would just be interrupted by that. And I do genuinely apologize because I feel that is somewhat disrespectful. So I do genuinely apologize. I just felt like we were on a roll. We were having a good time.

We went over a half an hour because I thought it was a great opportunity to do so. But I appreciate everybody for being here and for Super Chatting. And again, I sincerely everybody for being here and for super chatting. And again, I sincerely apologize. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody. I know it's not much consolation because I know you did super chat, but

I just thought we had a great opportunity to keep going. So again, I sincerely mean it. We'll see you all tomorrow night. Let's go.