Will Cain Country - Will Cain And 'Destiny' Debate What It Is To Be American, PLUS Is The Trump Trial A Better Boost For Biden Or Trump?

Episode Date: April 16, 2024

Story #1: A conversation and a debate about America with popular Streamer, YouTuber and Political Commentator Steven Bonnell II (AKA ‘Destiny’) Story #2: The New York hush money trial against former President Donald Trump is turning out to be the biggest campaign advertisement in history. But will it be for the benefit of President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump? Story #3: After being drafted number one overall in the WNBA draft, Caitlin Clark’s new salary has been revealed and people, like Pittsburgh Steelers’ QB Russell Wilson, don’t think it’s enough. Do WNBA players deserve more?   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, a conversation, maybe a debate with one of the most prominent streamers on the left, destiny. Two, the New York hush money trial against Donald Trump, the biggest campaign advertisement in history, but for Joe Biden or Donald Trump. And three, now number one overall pick in the WNBA draft, Caitlin Clark. salary has been revealed, just over $300,000, over four years. I've left people like Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Russell Wilson saying, these ladies deserve more, but does Russell Wilson understand economics? It is the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, and always on demand, wherever you guys.

get your audio entertainment at Apple or Spotify. Just hit subscribe or on YouTube right under the live description. The text description of this live show, hit subscribe to the Will Kane show. You can get down, for example, to the brass tax of the Trump trial in New York City. We broke down what you need to know with law professor and Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley yesterday. Plus, you can get exclusive interviews like those with Dwayne the Rock Johnson or Tony Robbins by hitting subscribe to The Will Kane Show. Today, we have something unique, something that I would hope would be all the more common. And that is, we have a conversation with someone from the left. In fact, he's one of the most prominent streamers from the left. He has almost a million subscribers on

YouTube. He was previously incredibly successful on Twitch. He has gone viral for debates with the likes of Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro and Candice Owens, Pierce Morgan, and Tommy Laren, and he is joining us today here on the Will Cain Show. So let's get started with story number one. Stephen Bunnell II, otherwise known as Destiny, is joining us now on the Will Cain show. There's already a comment from someone named Pembroke here asking or saying, oh, my God, destiny at Fox News, that was not on my apocalypse bingo card.

So Destiny, welcome to Fox News. Hey, thanks for having me. How does it feel to be in the belly of the beast? You made it all the way to New York City, and you walked in to 1211 Avenue of America's. You made it to the 15th floor, and you're sitting in a studio at Fox. Feels amazing, you know. Just waiting to work my way up to what? Never mind.

I'm excited to be here. It's fun to be here, yeah. Work your way up to what? To Hannity? Work your way up to Newsmax? What do you want to say? I was going to say, Sean Hannity, but I don't even know who works here anywhere because I know Bill O'Reilly isn't here and everything, and I don't watch cable news much anymore, so.

I'm not sure, but yeah, whoever is, whoever is still here. Well, listen, I don't know where this is going to go, and that's fine. I'm happy to see exactly where our conversation goes. We'll talk about some of the news of the day. We'll talk about Donald Trump's trial in New York City. But let me just start with this, man. Tell me about yourself. Like, you have really risen.

I think it would be unfair to say over the past couple of months, because over a decade now you've been successful streaming on various platforms. So, you know, what is it about you that is so willing and interested in talking to people like me, that you're willing to engage and debate where so much of the attitude on the left is you shouldn't platform people that disagree with you. You shouldn't debate because it gives credence to opinions that I would assume, at least in some cases, you and I will have very big disagreement, and you may even find abhorrent. So why are you so interested in debate? I think there's three big reasons. I think the first one is that I grew up very conservative, and I come from like a debater-type family. My mom is Cuban, and that whole half of my family are very much into shouting matches and screaming at each other.

And afterwards, we're always cool, but that's just always been that kind of household orientation. And then growing up conservative has kind of given me a lot of insight into what a lot of conservative people think. It's not like, you know, they just hate ordinary people or, you know, they hate women because of abortion, or they hate black people because of opposition to be a limb or whatever. It lets me understand the opposing view a little bit more, so I can counter it better. Second reason is because I came up in a very kind of brutal online era where the people online were incredibly mean to each other. So that kind of gave me the ability to talk to people in a very kind of rough way. And I would say around 2016 on the internet, most of the online political conversation was either like Ben Shapiro, facts don't care about your feelings types, or like very soft people on the left who didn't want to have adversarial conversations.

So I had an advantage there. And then the third thing is I have a really strong commitment, I think, to a lot of the core democratic, like liberal, like liberalism ideas of freedom of speech and debate and marketplace of ideas and all that. Well, let's start with number three. I believe you that you have a very strong commitment to free speech and that being not just a fundamental principle of the left, but one would hope and one would think a fundamental principle of America. But it is one that seems to have been betrayed on the left. I mean, there's been an open embrace of censorship, and as we just talked about, even at a more abstract level, just an unwillingness to hear from points of view that you disagree with, much less interact with them. What do you think's happened to the left when it comes to free speech? I think that any time somebody gets a lot of power in an area, freedom of speech becomes one of those things that can be used to challenge them, so they kind of don't like it.

I think that freedom of speech is a thing that you have to protect for the unpopular side, obviously, because the popular side doesn't need those protections. going to challenge it anyway. So whether we're talking the left and kind of the hold that they have on a lot of culture, or whether we're talking about Donald Trump when he's the president and he wants to sue media because they don't like what they say about him, I think that whenever people have a lot of power in a particular area, freedom of speech becomes a very threatening concept to them and that power, so they kind of want to stifle it as much as possible. I totally agree. I don't think that any either side ideologically has shown a historical consistency to the principle of free speech. It just so happens to be at the left

controls almost all the mechanisms of power, certainly behind the scenes. And with that comes the protection of censorship. I would draw a distinction between Donald Trump suggesting he would sue the media in the case of defamation. It's probably impossible for Donald Trump to prove a defamation case. I mean, he's such a public figure. But I would think he'd have a legitimate claim in many, many cases about openly malicious and false statements towards him. I would distinguish that from, you know, the government looking to impose upon private companies censorship when it comes to COVID or a quote-unquote election denial or whatever it may be. Those are two different approaches to censorship. Yeah, I agree, but I'm not aware

of any time the government imposed on social media. They said they had to censor something. I think a lot of social media companies, I think in good faith, we're trying to figure out how to navigate certain information environments, we'll say, where there's a lot of conflicting information coming out from a lot of different sources and people are trying to figure out what is their responsibility to society? What are the ways that they can conduct themselves to keep people safe and healthy while still respecting, you know, like user-generated content and everything else? So I think COVID was genuinely a very challenging time for people figuring out what it is they wanted to support or what they believed in or the types of values they

should uphold and then how that was competing against things like concerns over public health and whatnot. But you don't think Destiny, for example, what was revealed from guys like Matt Taibi and the Twitter files at the government leaning through the FBI and other mechanisms leaning heavily on social media companies, Twitter for one, but we can also know that it was Facebook and others to take down content. You don't think that crosses a First Amendment barrier of the government interfering with free speech? From what I saw, no, I highly encourage people to read the Twitter files if they actually think that, but I didn't see anything like that. There were times when the FBI, Twitter was working a lot with the FBI, for instance,

and saying, oh, do you think there are spam accounts? Do you think they're bad accounts? But there are times when the FBI was submitting, what, like over 100,000 accounts? So they had flagged as being malicious or bots or Chinese or whatever. I don't think Twitter banned any of them. So it doesn't seem like if Twitter didn't comply with the FBI, it didn't seem like it was a whole bunch of pressure there. It was more just the FBI saying like, hey, this might be a thing, check it out.

And when it came to, like, for instance, that I think it was the New York Post, right, that had that story about Hunter Biden, like we got all the leaks from Twitter, from the emails where they were debating internally, you know, how do we handle the story, what should we do with it? and none of that was like, we need to do this because the FBI is coming after us. It seemed like genuinely a lot of employees that were really trying to figure out what the right thing to do was. Yeah, but that's the soft power of government. I mean, if a cop comes to your house and says,

hey, you really should start behaving in XYZ manner, you know, it doesn't really matter what the law says. The implication is the power of the cops can modify, will modify your behavior. And while the FBI wasn't perhaps saying directly take this down, their suggestions, their suggestion came with an implication of power behind the scenes. As Congress, for example, or the DOJ, as part of Congress, looked at different ways to begin to regulate social media. Facebook runs in fear of regulation from the government. I mean, like, there's soft power everywhere.

You can get into, you can have a discussion about that, but if that's the case, I mean, what, what harder soft power than the president implying he should, that the media is the enemy of the people and he should be able to open defamation suits that they're publishing stuff about. that he finds defamatory. I mean, we're going to talk about soft power. Considering the FBI never took any legal action or anything or official action against any of the social media companies for not banning suggested accounts, I would argue that the soft power of the president of the United States declaring the media and enemy of the people and then threatening to open up defamation lawsuits against them or threatening to suspend the Constitution to search for voter fraud or stuff like that. I think those are far more scary breaches of norms and utilization of soft power to have like a chilling effect on public discourse. What do you, I mean, you yourself, once you ban from Twitch for having conversations, and I understand it's a private company. Now, we're moving beyond governmental influence into just the cultural embrace of the idea of free speech, which, by the way, is a huge part of America.

It's not just that it's guaranteed by the government, but that we as a culture have generally understood the marketplace of ideas is what's healthy for a society. You yourself were censored, I think, kicked off of Twitch. Yeah, I mean, I disagree, obviously. They're a private company. They have the right to do it, yeah. But you think that's a problem? I mean, I saw conflicting reports on why you were kicked off. Was it because you hosted Nick Fuentes, because you said something about trans athletes. I don't know why you were kicked off. It was a lot of debates with Transpiel at the time. There are multiple ways in which you could talk about freedom of speech. And I'm glad at least you pointed out. There's a difference between like the First Amendment, restricting the government from creating laws or bridging your right to freedom of speech.

But there's also private companies and how they approach freedom of speech too. I think that private companies should be relatively open to a lot of different ideas, you know, within whatever they feel is appropriate for their platform. I guess Twitch feels like the type of speech that I embody is not appropriate for their platform. So they decided to go in a way that doesn't include me. Obviously, I disagree with that. I disagree with that pretty heavily. But, I mean, that's a fight that you have on either the personal, professional, or cultural level, which is a whole different beast than the government level. I'm curious.

I'm just going to follow my curiosity. because I don't know anything about this. I said you are extremely successful on YouTube. You were extremely successful on Twitch. Was that a huge financial setback for you to be banned from Twitch? Yeah, it was pretty significant, yeah. But I've always kind of diversified my revenue streams because I know that depending on the topics you talk about,

you can get into hot water. So I don't like to restrict what I'm saying or restrict the topics that I approach just because of who's paying me money. So I always make sure to kind of have my fingers and everything or to have different revenue streams set up so that if I lose one, I'm not completely out of commission. And you're killing it, right?

I assume you were as well, killing it on Twitch. I mean, I'm asking that out of curiosity, because I don't know, the streamer economy seems to be something that is, you know, probably for the 1% and you were and probably still are in the 1% of streamers. But, I mean, we're talking about serious money, a serious business streaming. Yeah, I'd say 0.1%. Yeah. No, yeah, I do very, very well.

I'm very successful. I'm very lucky. I'm very happy. You know, I'm great for my fan base. I'm grateful that I grew up in a country that. allowed me to have these conversations and pursue, you know, all the things that I did. And arguably, only in the United States could all the opportunity that I've had exist here. So, yeah, I'm super happy about how my life has turned out so far, yeah.

So what do you, that's a good place. So, you know, you say you grew up on the right in a conservative household. You know, I think one of the most fundamental philosophical debates right now that divides the left and right. Once we get beyond sort of the news of the day and the important but specific disagreement, we have. I think that at least on the right, and I'll share with you this point of view, which you say you probably already know, one of the divides seems to come down to the very nature of the United States. You just spend some time praising the United States, but there is

at least a big sentiment on the right that the left has fallen out of love with America. They just don't love whatever is essential about America that has made a unique experiment on the world stage. I already see you kind of rolling your head back and forth. You disagree with that you don't think you think the left still loves the idea of america uh absolutely not i i agree with you that there's a huge problem on the left with not having love for this country with only looking at the negative aspects of it and i think it's incredibly sad but uh unfortunately that because there are different things i could look to the left for and there are different things i could look to the right for and listen you know we're all kind of crazy but there are some things i could rely on some

sides for and you know the left obviously has no love for uh you know country military and you know like that but the right has a respect for had respect for things like rule of law or had respect for you know like the integrity or honor of our country and some of our large businesses uh you know i could rely on the neocons at least for that and it feels like unfortunately that kind of like populist undercurrent has swept away a lot of what i thought used to be kind of admirable from the right uh for instance i know these are going to be really prickly topics but i personally okay i'm on the left i'm a huge proponent of capitalism i'm a huge proponent of globalism i think that the vaccines, that the United States spearheaded, is like the ultimate example of the union

of government. It was Donald Trump and his warp speed program that pushed that as quickly as possible. It was capitalism. It was U.S. business and innovation that manufactured stuff, or did the research and development. It was globalism. It was us working with biointech in Germany. It was manufacturing those nanded libid particles, I think, in, I might have been in Norway or Denmark. All of this was a really cool thing, I think, that came together with a lot of different forces. because of how politicized everything is today, the right won't even take credit for when America does something well. And then obviously the left won't take credit for a lot of things the United States does well. I think I personally don't like Elon Musk or his politics a lot.

I really don't like his politics. But man, the rocket stuff, it was really cool. SpaceX is really awesome, watching the things come back to Earth is sick. And regardless of if you think Tesla's are not the best car or not the best build quality or have, you know, Q&A problems or whatever, the Tesla cars probably pushed forward electronic vehicles by like 10 or 15 years, at least. I don't like that the politicization of every single topic has made it. So it seems like neither side right now is willing to acknowledge anything good about the country. Okay.

You know, I saw a video of you saying that you fall into the trap of destruction a lot, and I can sympathize with that, meaning you can tear down someone else's argument. I can sympathize with that. I spent a lot of years, Destiny, on ESPN, and I remember there's this commentator. He's a play-by-play guy's name is Joe Tessator, and he has this really distinct delivery and voice. He said, Kane, you are a counter-puncher. I'd go against Stephen A. Smith, and I'd hear his argument, and it would be very easy for me to, humbly, but accurately, it would be very easy for me to destroy Stephen A. Smith's argument. But that's different than making a positive argument that is looking for a solution, or just one that is one that is one that,

forwards a case without looking to tear down someone else's. So I want to do this. You said a lot in that answer. You talked about the populace right. You talked about the vaccines. You talked about the private industry. And you talked about the left. I want to see if we can dig into all of us.

Let's start with the left. So you said why the left, you said the left does have this underlying, I don't know, lack of love for America. Let's talk about why for a minute. To me, it's like, you know, a woman who always says that she, loves you, but she fundamentally wants to change who you are. At some point, it's like, well, do you really love me? If everything about me you want to change, what is it about me that you love? That's what I think often about the left. They have this utopic vision of the

future that totally distances itself from what made America as an experiment unique. It sees America as racist, as flawed, as bigoted in every fashion, as misogynistic. And because of that, I think, the left looks constantly across waters to Europe or someplace. else as some better model with I think very little firsthand experience or even academic understanding of what works or doesn't work in those countries. That would be my diagnosis of why the left doesn't love America. Why do you think it doesn't love America? I think that people in general have a very hard time seeing shades of gray, and this applies to all aspects of life, not just politics. It could apply to personal relationships or work colleagues or whatever. And I think that

America has a history that has problems and issues and things that we've done poorly, things that we've done horribly, whether we're talking foreign intervention, whether we're talking domestic policy, obviously things like slavery, falling into things like Jim Crow. And I think that when you look at the messy history of the United States and really of every single country in the planet, it's easy to look at the bad things and think that because of those bad things, everything is bad. And I feel like the left falls into that trap a lot where when you look at the past and you see issues or problems in the past, hard to give credit for the things that are good, and you only fixate on the things that are bad,

and then going forward, people do this weird mind trick where they start linking together too many what should be discrete ideas of like, oh, America's a good country, and they hear, oh, America did nothing wrong. Like, that's what people hear when you say that. So I just think there's this, right, yeah, it's just, yeah, fallacious tendency to link everything together. And you can't accept it like, oh, we have a really awesome country. And we've also made some big mistakes in the past, but we've moved on from them, which is like really cool, and we continue to grow and learn. Yeah. Also, by the way, that we've made mistakes in the past, and everyone acknowledges what those are, but we still remain the most successful experiment in a mass

civilization in human history. I find this very similar to the racism debate. So, you know, if you take any singular particular case, I don't know, we could talk about Michael Brown or whichever one, and you start pushing back on the facts of that individual case. Well, this doesn't add up, you know, hands up, don't shoot, witness testimony, that didn't happen. Before, you know it, you're running at 100 miles an hour and somebody says, oh, you don't think racism exist. And I didn't say that. But if I push back on the specificities of one particular incident,

you extrapolated it into this entire thing about what I believe about America. And I think the left has done that. They've extrapolated out our sins into an indictment of the core of the country. And by the way, with that, not understanding kind of what I think you hinted at, every country, every experiment in human civilization has dealt with tribalism, racism, and

quite honestly slavery, every single one. There is no perfect society that managed to escape that, that, I don't know if it's, I don't know if it's instinctual, I don't know if it's an instinctual, you know, habit that humans have gone to at various times, but every single civilization has portrayed those mistakes and those weaknesses, so did America. The question isn't what defines us as our mistakes, but what makes us unique on the good? And I think that evidence is just overwhelming. Yeah, I would agree with that, although I think the problem we run into now is people aren't really sure. Like you brought up earlier that people on the left don't know what made this country great. I'm not sure at the moment

if anybody knows what made this country great. It feels like everything has become so political and people are living in completely different factual realities now. You know, you bring up the Michael Brown case, there are a lot of those BLM cases where when you start to dig into the facts a little bit more, you're like, this is a lot, there's a lot less a sure thing than I was originally led to believe. But I would argue that similar stuff happens with, say, like the Trump indictments, where people have a very strong opinion about a thing. And then when you ask them questions about like, well, do you know anything about like the electorate slates or do you know anything about, you know, any of the particular facts of the case, people like, well,

I didn't hear about that or I don't believe that. Or even if you're telling me that and it is reported, you know, the indictments are rigged and corrupt and the DOJ is rigged and corrupt. And I don't believe any of that, except for when they indict Hunter Biden, I believe that. But when they indict Trump, that's not real. And when they investigated Trump and Marlago, that's not real. But they investigated Joe Biden, that was real. And I don't, like, everybody is so that the epistemic, the truth factor has become like an extrably tied to your political positions such that people are only willing to accept political truths that, or fundamental truths that like drive with their political opinion. And I think that's a huge problem in the left and right now. We live in

totally separate realities. Okay, by the way, I don't disagree with that. We live in totally separate realities. It's like we're watching the same movie screen, but seeing two different movies. And I'm not going to forget, and I am going to come back to your challenge of the populist right and your praise of the vaccine. But I'm going to stay here for a moment because you kind of open the door to some specificities. Let's do this for a moment. Let's talk about the most recent specificity. And that's Donald Trump in New York. So first of all, Let's start broadly. Do you not believe that there is a form of lawfare taking place against Donald Trump? I wish you had the conversation in six months. Of the four cases against Donald Trump, I don't like the New York one.

I think the other three are pretty strong. The two federal ones for sure. And the Georgia one, I think, has a lot of merit. The New York one is what it is. I don't think it's the worst case of the world. I think that if it was against Biden, I think that if Biden would, is using his money during an election season to pay off somebody to, you know, sensibly benefit him in the election. I think that conservatives are making a really big deal about it. But, yeah, I don't have, like, strong. Well, but the question isn't, the question isn't what conservatives would say on the Internet. The question is whether or not the Department of Justice or the legal system, in this

case, the Manhattan District Attorney, would pursue the charges. And we have a one-on-one comparison. It's not Biden. It's John Edwards, who was a Democrat, who had an affair, who paid off the affair. the Federal Elections Commission and the Department of Justice looked into it and said, no, it's not there. It's not a strong case. In fact, no, they did pursue it and they got poured out.

It was immediately dismissed, which led in this case, the DOJ and the Federal Elections Commission, to look at this case with Donald Trump and go, we can't win this. This is weak. And they passed. It took a politicized DA in a politicized jurisdiction, meaning the electorate there that will make up the jury. it took that to bring what was, what is it, misdemeanor charges that have passed the statute of limitations, charge them up to felonies, and try to get something, which he may get. He may get a very left jury to end up with the result of convicted felon Donald Trump.

But that doesn't mean the case is good. It'll be one on appeal. And that leads everybody to go, with specificity to your point, understanding the facts, go, this is nothing but political. It's nothing but lawfare to affect an election. I mean, I wouldn't say it's nothing but political. The federal government passing on some charges that a state decides to go after isn't the most surprising thing in the world. Federal cases tend to be airtight.

They have, what is it, isn't it like a 97% conviction rate on charges that they bring forth to people? So it's not surprising that a state might be more willing to explore something that a federal government might not. Also, in terms of turning the state charges, the misdemeanors into felonies, I mean, there is a legal process by which they do that. And that's if the misdemeanor was done in the commission of another crime, which here, I think had to do with election. What crime was it? Like, my understanding, I don't want, this is the only case that I had a study in depth, but my understanding is that the co-mingling or the utilization of like a campaign, like a campaign

donation that doesn't get reported properly, that that's essentially what the co-end payment was. And if the bookkeeping error was done, ordinarily it would be a misdemeanor crime, which are correct, the statute of limitations would have passed, but if that bookkeeping error was done in order to hide a campaign donation that went unreported, then the bookkeeping error would have under the commission of that crime, which makes the bookkeeping crime a felony, which is how they got the upgraded charge now. Well, this is where I have to outsource some of my facts. I mean, Jonathan Turley, who was on this show, on the Will Kane show yesterday, said that it was reported

within the next quarter. And by the way, you know, you talked about the feds and the state choosing different things. Well, that's usually driven by jurisdiction. It's not the jurisdiction of a Manhattan district attorney to look into federal election law crimes, especially when the federal election commission has looked into it and said, no. And in fact, Bragg hasn't even specified. You and I are talking about it, and people are saying, is that what he's looking for as far as a federal election crime? But he hasn't well specified what it is.

He hasn't said what the felony charge would be. Well, I guess we'll find out when it comes. This is the only indictment I didn't read. I hate that this is the one of the four. Like I said before, I don't like this case personally. I think the Mar-a-Lago one is very strong. I think the other federal Jack Smith's case, the big federal one is big. And I think the Georgia one has already turned out.

I think good convictions plea deals essentially are ready. But yeah, I don't know. The New York one I'm not fully sold on, but I don't know, maybe as the trial commences, maybe we find other stuff. I totally respect when someone says I'm not fully read in on this particular one. But I think the takeaway, Destiny, is if this one is so weak, it's just such a good illustration that what is being done here is not a true pursuit of justice. And by the way, most people think the Marilago case is the strongest, but even then, not the strongest case in the world. the Jack Smith case, as we speak right now, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on January 6th defendants on the obstruction of justice law, and whether or not it applies to people rioting at the Capitol. But the point is what the Manhattan case illustrates is none of these are pursuit of the justice.

They're all a pursuit to try to tar Donald Trump before an election because polls suggest if you can say Donald Trump convicted felon, you might swing some independent voters. Could it not be that they think that he committed legitimate wrongs as well? I can understand that it's hard to separate. What? Well, no, I've seen you tweet this. You've said, look, it could be that one guy broke the law more than the other guy. Yeah. That also requires us.

Go ahead. I was going to say, it could be that there is a strong feeling from Brexit. He really does feel like Trump committed a grave error here that, you know, you did lie about your bookkeeping stuff, and you did do it in order to influence his election, and that's a big deal. I mean, whether or not that's law firm... That's a huge benefit of the doubt. It is, but I mean... I mean, here's the thing. Republicans historically have always been strong defenders of right to own and bear firearms

and big proponents of the Second Amendment. I enjoy it, the Second Amendment, a lot. I just got a sick new pistol two days ago. I really like shooting guns. However, man, Hunter Biden catching... What was it? That was a conviction for lying on a 44-73 because there's a video of him doing drugs and owning a gun at the same time.

I don't know if there's ever been a federal charge of... been the history of all of going through 4473s in my entire life, but nobody seems to care about that because it's Hunter Biden, even though it's like a gun thing. So, I mean, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, unless they've shown me a lot of reason why I shouldn't give them a bit of the doubt. And I will agree that in New York, Praxis said things in the past where it's like, man, you really should shut up. You really shouldn't be saying, you know, these types of politically charged statements about wanting to go after Trump or whatever publicly. Yeah, I'm not going to, I'm not going to die on the hill of defending that New York case, but I do try to give the benefit

the doubt where it's possible. And it could just be that he really does feel like something wrong has happened here. And if he hasn't, and you know what? If it's BS, I hope that Trump wins in court. I hope he beats it. Okay, let's put a pin in this, because I think it's comes back to something else I want to talk to you about at a broader level. Because my contention is it's a symptom of a DOJ that has been politicized against a single man,

or better yet, I mean, even broader, I think, against a certain ideology. Well, it can't be that, right? Because the DOJ said they wouldn't do anything here, right? This is New York State, right? For this case? Yeah, fair point. The others, the Marilago case and Jack Smith case, DOJ. But you brought up Hunter Biden, and those were DOJ-related cases.

But how about the justice system at large? But once we get down to the state case, then it's going to be different justice systems in different states. And I respect and appreciate that. And we'll come back to this. The populist right, this is where we're going to tie this in for a minute. You don't like it. And you did tweet or you said something like, I miss neocons, which is kind of a weird thing to hear. like 10 years removed from the left.

I mean, Destiny, I actually, I appreciate the pivot in the movement of Republicans over the past 10 years towards populism, less elitism, more in touch with the electorate, more concerned with the middle class, more concerned, I think, not just in rhetoric, but the every man out there, the person who's getting censored on the Internet in every way and less interested in your appreciation of globalism, of, you know, I don't know. blurring lines and borders across this world. I just think that what we've seen is a healthier, better Republican Party under the banner of populism. There's no way you could think that. I can't possibly be true. I feel like there are... I do.

There are so many fundamental things about the conservatives in the 2000s that I thought were defensible and maybe even good. Like one of those was a supposed to be like a reverence for rule of law. like doing things that were legal, having, that was always one of the biggest defenses of our border, was like, listen, if you're going to come here, you should come here legally. It's important that people follow laws. And I feel like after January 6th, I remember before January 6th, the idea would be that if you saw people on camera fighting with cops, those are always leftists. They're always, they're BLM people, they're the crazy progressives, they whatever. Like that was what was, that was

supposed to be. It was always supposed to be crazy people on the left. But, man, past January 6th and looking at how conservatives talked about the cops and the Uvaldi, the Texas. shooting and then the general huge disdain they have now for all of our intelligence agencies because apparently the whole government is poised against them. I don't know. It's really sad. It feels like the respect for any sort of institution or rule of law is like completely out the window. You've got this nobody wants to give credit to any of our large businesses anymore, which for all their faults, like Facebook and Amazon, like it's cool. And Tesla and SpaceX, it's cool that America is the place where people come to make these huge businesses. It's awesome that

These places are, yeah, you can always cut me off out too. I can ramble forever, but... No, no, I'm not. I'm not going to cut you off. Yeah. I'm not going to cut you off of me. You're saying so much. Yeah.

You're saying so much that I want to respond to in one answer. No, okay. Don't intermingle rule of law and respect for institutions. Those are two separate conversations. And for that matter, big business is a third wing of this. We'll stick with rule of law from it. I don't see the publicans have distanced themselves from the rule of law. Can you tell me, what is something that you think the populist rights

likes about America right now, not like they liked where we were, like, yeah, but as you answers, I'm curious, like, what do you think the populaceite loves about America or respects about America right now? I'm curious. Yeah, go for it. I'll answer your question. I think the populace right loves the spiritual culture of what it means to be an American and doesn't co-mingle or confuse that with the institutions of America. I think the populace right understands that America is not a sitting body of representatives in Washington, D.C., but it's the small-town businesses on the main square in Sherman, Texas, or it is the people in church or the people in communities in people in charity giving back, or the entrepreneur that built this country,

the risk-taker. I think the Poppist Right understands Americans, but doesn't confuse that with the government being America. And now that I've answered your question, let me put some of what you said back to you. Rule of Law. I don't think the right has distanced itself from the rule of law. I think what it asked for is equal application of the law. And that's why we talk about Trump. And that's why Hunter Biden comes in or Joe Biden comes in. You're right. There are perhaps more questions about cops on individualized basis because you brought up Evaldi.

But the real questions are about the equal application of law from institutions like the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Justice. Can I ask, you brought up before for the spirit of America. and I'm curious Scalia once gave I don't know if it was testimony but for somebody he was talking to a panel in front of Congress

and it was a speech about a parchment guarantee you ever heard this before are you familiar what I'm talking about? Yes. Yeah.

So for people listening I guess Scalia basically talked about how the United States Constitution doesn't really provide for more freedoms than other constitutions that if you looked

I think for the documents relating to the founding of the Soviet Union they had way more in the Soviet Union's documents I don't think it was called the Constitution. I wish I remember the words, but they had way more rights that were both

positively and negatively guaranteed to Soviet Union citizens than what you could find in the Constitution. But then Scalia would talk about, however, in the Soviet Union, that didn't matter. The institutions didn't exist to guard those rights. The environment didn't exist to grant whatever positive or negative freedoms you wish you had as a citizen, that he called these parchment guarantees. And I agree with what you say that in the United States, we're awesome because of our entrepreneurs, we're awesome because of a whole bunch of different things that make America a unique place, but I think that part of what allows this to happen are the institutions that we have. The idea that I can start a business and I can sell food to people, and I know the food is probably

going to be safe. We have an FDA that regulates that, that I have the right to start a business and sell goods and services to people across state lines because the federal government says that everybody has to use the same currency. I don't have to worry about any weird interstate crossing the borders of doing anything. I know that if I do business internationally, there's a coherent like federal government that negotiates in terms of like trade and tariffs and everything and they unilaterally can do that. I know that there's a lot of things the federal government provides and ensures American citizens that allow us to thrive in the way that we do. As much as I love America, I don't believe that American stock is like inherently genetically better than any other

stock around the world. However, I think that the combination of all the people that come here to pursue what we have combined with our institutions that safeguard and allow for that flourishing. I think it's that unique combination of things that have allowed. Americans to flourish and I don't think we could have gotten as far as we've got without our institutions yeah okay just to be clear enough this is a great conversation I'm gonna address every point that you made you know I didn't make the argument for an inherently superior genetic stock you know I'm sorry when I brought that up I wasn't meaning to imply I'm just saying like I don't

think Americans are intrinsically better than anyone else I think it's a combination of both the people here and the institution well but you understand the existence you understand the existence and the unequal value of various cultures so one culture can be superior to another culture. Yeah, of course. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And so my argument is the American culture, and it's not a recent phenomenon. I think it is part of the whole identity of America that it was founded by essentially that

pioneer frontier spirit of risk takers and entrepreneurs and people that literally pushed West is part of what still remains today, and that highly individualized view of how you build a society, family structure unit at its core, is what is unique, in part, to American culture. Let's go back to Scalia. Yeah. I love that moment. I know what you're talking about. He's testifying before Congress.

And first of all, and I think you do understand this as well. You acknowledge it because you use the terms positive and negatives. There's no comparison. I mean, Scalia may have been tongue-in-cheek saying these things. There's no way he ever thought that the Soviet constitution or the South African Constitution, which is based on, which Ginsburg praised, which is based on positive rights, is superior to a negative rights constitution like the United States. Well, I think for the Soviet Union, there were negative rights guaranteed for, like, gender equality and there were a whole bunch of other, like, things that we've gotten through Supreme Court decisions, I think.

But, yeah, you may be done on that. I think it was mostly what distinguished those constitutions from ours was the existence of positive rights. So in other words, you had a right to a home, you had a right to leisure, you had a right to a job. Those are positive rights. But those are inherently anachronistic to negative rights. You can't have both. Because if you have a right to a home, somebody else doesn't have a right to their materials or labor. they're required to build you the right to a home.

So the United States is built on negative rights, property being one of those, but freedom of speech, freedom of religion. It's freedoms that are granted by our Constitution's estimation by God that does use the government as a guarantor of those freedoms, but it doesn't provide you things in a positive sense that the Soviet, and there was a couple other models like South Africa did so. But his point that he's making destiny is, you know, you can run off a wish list. kind of holds it up of different rights. And he said, it's a parchment guarantee.

It's just on paper because you didn't actually have that in the Soviet Union. Nobody got those things. But what he was making the argument, I think my memory is correct, as opposed to the way you described it. He wasn't making the argument for institutions in that case like the Department of Energy, the CIA, the intelligence apparatus, the Department of the Interior, as an enforcer of the Commerce Clause in order to ensure that Americans can actually. actually live under these negative rights. He was making an argument instead about checks and balances in Washington, D.C. that ensures that no power is consolidated. He was talking about two branches of Congress, a judicial, a legislative, and an executive, all ensuring that no man, no group, no administrative state could interfere with the negative rights of Americans.

Yeah, I mean, I feel like these things can run concurrently in a lot of ways. I guess I would have to go back and relisten exactly. But I think that, I mean, and arguably, are the federal executive institutions or bodies I'm talking about come from the executive branch, and obviously there's a whole conversation to be had about how much power should the executive branch have in terms of things like the FDA, the Department of Energy, and all of that, versus how much are they regulated by Congress. I guess the point that I just want to focus on, or the point that I would really like to emphasize is even if I take that Scalia was just talking about, like, the balance of powers in our government,

which are another thing that I think Republicans aren't always the happiest to have existing at all points in time, although to be fair, the Democrats do as well, I think that the structure of the United States has been integral, essential in the thriving of America and the successes that we've had, that for as much as American culture might have contributed to things, American culture is largely existing within kind of the boundaries or borders that the American system, you know, allows it to. Yeah. Yeah, but so my point is, I agree with Scalia.

Yeah, I think the – so he says in there, like, you can make all those promises, but ultimately in the Soviet Union, it was the party that decided what you got or didn't get or how it ran. In America, it's not run by the party. And so this ties into the conversation we're having about Trump, and you bring up rule of law versus my point of the equal application of the law. And you brought up institutions. So the populist right has lost trust in institutions. When I say institutions, I don't mean those separation of powers that Scalia is talking about. the branches of government insurers no party takes control. But I'm talking about a permanent Washington administrative state that is there.

And the bandwidth of differences, by the way, from Republican to Democratic administrations, is largely narrow. And I think that's actually why Trump was so hated, because he represented a potential disruption to that narrow bandwidth that the administrative state ensures. Other people call this the deep state. But it definitely exists. No matter who's in office, there is a group of bureaucrats that run almost all those institutions that you love that ensure America is essentially on autopilot and anybody that

interferes. I think anybody interferes on X with certain types of speech, anybody that interferes with an obstruction of justice charge, or anybody that interferes running for president will be undercut by that permanent Washington. Okay, if I could communicate one idea, let's say that I agree with all of that. This would be the only thing that I would beg people to consider. When it comes to ordinary members in government or when it comes to ordinary citizens, I genuinely believe, and I think you have to believe this. I think if you don't believe this, I think you're un-American, and I think that you have a pathology that has to be that with, okay? I genuinely believe that most people are trying to do the right thing. I think that fundamentally, when you look at the values,

and we can talk about the gayest guy from San Francisco with the most ruralist farmer from Nebraska, on the fundamental values, I think most Americans broadly agree. We want to be able to be happy. We want to be able to be healthy. We want to be able to have our families to work, to do our stuff. I think generally most people just want that. And then we fight around the edges on things like a lot of cultural issues or how high should our taxes be. I think that broadly speaking, I feel like most people are trying to do the right thing. I think if you approach it from that point of view and you look and you see what's going on,

the average conservative, not the people at the top, not the people that went to court, but the average conservative says our election was stolen. I don't think that that person is thinking, I bet it wasn't stolen, but I'm just going to say this to cause mayhem and I want to screw with everything. I think that they genuinely have questions of like, well, I saw videos with boxes coming out. Or I heard that we weren't allowed to watch the ballot counting. Like I have legitimate questions. Like, how is it the fact that somebody can send out an envelope, get one back?

And we know that that voter is actually the one that filled it out if the ballot and the envelope are separated. I think these are legitimately good questions and they deserve good answers. But the problem is everybody starts from this foundation of they're rigging it, they're lying about it, they're trying to destroy the country. And when you start from that foundation, nothing works. because if we have any core value as Americans, it's the fact that we are so unbelievably different than each other, but we all manage to live under the same system and governed by the same laws, and we trade and do business with each other, live next to each other, and somehow society seems to work that way for 250 years, and it is continuing, hopefully, for

at least a little bit longer, yeah. So you said something super deep that I'm not prepared to answer. I mean, you basically started with the – so look, I believe in Americans. I truly do. you did introduce sort of the Hobbesian versus Lockean view of man's essential nature. Is it good? And I don't know, to be honest. I don't know if man is essentially good or essentially flawed.

But either way, that's where culture comes in. I mean, honestly, I know I think you're an atheist. I'm not sure. That may be what's said on your Wikipedia. But I think that's where religion comes in, that there are guardrails placed on humanity. In the best cases, those guardrails are placed willingly and voluntarily, culturally, to keep us within virtuous behavior. But I think this is going to be a good segue into some other conversations that we left hanging, and that is the VACS and continuing on the conversation

of institutions. I think that Americans, with that inherent goodness that all want something similar, I'm going to grant you that premise for the most part. I don't think most people are represented by the way on the internet you know whatever we see on x or wherever else i don't think that reflects america um i think that people have lost trust in your institutions that you appreciate because those institutions have earned our distrust so for example this is going to bring all these things together to some extent you spent time early in our conversation praising the vax okay now the vaccine has its pros it has its cons it has its flaws it has its benefits Like anything else, okay?

That's the truth. And there's a lot of really earned skepticism towards pharmaceutical companies throughout their history on other products that when you apply to this product and the liability protections they've received, you should probably approach things with a level of distrust. You shouldn't come at this with like, rah-rah America did this really quick. But more than that, destiny, all of that censorship where we started, that free speech conversation, the way the institutions behaved towards any. that exhibited that skepticism or earned distrust, and we could apply this to voting as well

in election, you know, denial or skepticism, when you behave that way, and by the way, I think this would appeal to you, like, here you are talking to me, you're debating, which shows an inherent level of confidence in what you believe, right, or your ability to go back and forth with me. If you didn't come on, I think that would be a sign of insecurity. I think it is a sign of insecurity for people not to interact with people that disagree with him. So when our institutions go, shut up, shut up, you're censored, you're out, you're a conspiracy theorist. On all of these issues, elections or vaccine or whatever, it compounds the distrust,

making Americans not crazy, but actually sane in reading the tea leaves of what's going on in America. I agree with you. I think it's a really bad, or it was really bad, the way that things were handled during the pandemic, especially with all the companies deciding to follow suit, where they're like, hey, well, we're going to go ahead and just start shutting all this speech down. We don't challenges to the vaccine. We don't want challenges to any of the COVID narratives. We're just going to have like basically the government story and everything else is getting banned and shut down. I think that was a huge mistake. However, I can understand an ordinary person having trouble sorting through the statement and sorting through the seemingly contrary positions at times

of the CDC, a Fauci, NIH, of anything else. But I think that our job in the media is to sort through these opinions and find out, well, why are they saying what they're saying? And then it goes back to what I said before to where are they doing this because they're evil and they're trying to mislead us or is it genuinely people who are trying to figure out like well what is the correct thing to say or do to maximize essentially the outcomes of the country you know without I'm trying to avoid super prickly issues but I mean when COVID came about nobody knew what that was going to look like by the end of it this was unprecedented it was a massive worldwide pandemic we hadn't dealt with something of this nature before it was like the most

transmitted virus I think through all of human history in an incredibly short period of time And you look at like a little island nation of Samoa, I was just reading about this the other day, that I guess RFK made a trip there, was speaking to people that were all being nice to say vaccine skeptic there. And I think in the months after he left, there was like an outbreak of measles where like 83 people died. And people blame, well, you know, before the government had made mistakes relating to how they communicated vaccines. Or I think they vaccinated some kids and they accidentally mixed a muscle relaxing in with some of the vaccines. So some kids died. And instead of people thinking like, wow, the government is messing with. up, we should be skeptical, which, by the way, as Americans, we are always government skeptical,

and we should be. But instead of being skeptical, people immediately said, oh, we're not going to be skeptical. We just know that they're evil. And one of the truly tragic things is, for the vaccine stuff, when you look at the United States and what happened, I think there's a lot of really good conversation to be had about what should a lockdown look like, what should a vaccine mandate look like? But we don't have that conversation out. Now it's just, well, how much money was Fauci making when he was shoving the evil Vax down our throats or, you know, how evil are Republicans when they just want everybody to die because they don't care about anybody in the country. And that's, like, where the conversation starts and stops.

Yeah, go ahead. By the way, the mandate is a whole other level to this conversation. By the way, did you say I don't want to go into prickly topics because you were concerned about Fox? Oh, no. I bring up, I try to ground everything I say in it as an example so that it doesn't seem like I would just randomly think, but just randomly talk about. But if I keep bringing up examples that we disagree with, then I understand I'm getting you further and further away from the point. So, yeah, I'm trying to find agreeably. No, what I thought you were saying, and I think you would be accurate to do this is you want to be careful of prickly topics, because this conversation,

right here might get censored, which I think goes to illustrate my point, even like broaching this topic as we stream on Facebook or YouTube, we run the risk of it being flagged in some way, which is exactly the kind of conversation that we should be having, which again, distrust, breeds distrust and I don't know. We only have a little bit more time together, I think, but I have some curiosities I want to pursue with you, okay? So you have in the past described yourself as a libertarian and other times as social democrat what is your what is your political philosophy um i would say i'm probably social democrat far left or center left or if i'm arguing people farther left than me i'm a nazi i guess it just depends on who i'm talking to but

i'm a strong proponent of capitalism i think markets are real they need to be respected i'm a big believer in the welfare state i think that we need to do things to help people at the bottom uh you know have opportunities to climb to the top any child that's smart enough to be educated well and go to a good college should never have a financial barrier people shouldn't be homeless that's insane to me in this country. But also there needs to be room for private entrepreneurs. We feel like Elon Musk for people like Jeff Bezos to thrive and to succeed. So yeah, I'm a big believer in capitalism, but I think that we should use a lot of those wins that American economy, the American economy generates in order to help the people at the bottom so that they can continue to succeed

and be educated and contribute as well. So I'm going to read you a comment that you posted on Twitter. You didn't make a rebuttal. You didn't make a rebuttal. It's actually somebody commenting about you. And you just said they characterized me like an anime. villain and this is somebody that posted on on one of your feeds in the first eight minutes destiny said one of the few things that is truly relevant to understanding him he believes in nothing nothing besides what is more or less mainstream consensus thought and that is how he has longevity he twirls in the wind dances on the wires of course of discourse there is no destiny there but some kind of abstraction listen okay that's going to be hard for you not to take

his ad hominem but i don't know you so i don't know you so i don't know you so i don't know you so i don't know if this describes you well or not. But I would say this destiny. I think this describes a lot of the modern left. I don't know what philosophically or principally ties the left in a coherent vision. It does feel very of the moment, so much so that Barack Obama probably would have been dismissed as a Nazi, because of his positions on gay marriage or whatever you would choose. that it is progressivism by its very nature is like what's next and yesterday is evil

and it makes it feel what like well whatever's popular whatever's blowing in the wind whatever's mainstream is what's good and I think in a lot of ways we look at and go

that's how you end up in a place where you can't define what a man or a woman is I mean if we look at if we were to play like a logic game like an IQ tester we were to say okay what's more similar On the top line, we've got Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and then we have Joe Biden. And then on the bottom, we've got, you know, Bush, Bush and Donald Trump.

Who has changed more over the past, like, three presidents of their party? I think that the, I think that Trump is represents a significant departure from Biden was literally Obama's VP, right? I think Trump represents a significant departure. Well, sure, but I'm just saying in terms of like shared ideological foundation for lawmakers. I think the Biden is way more similar to the line of Democratic candidates or presidents than Trump is to any of them. There are a lot of things that Trump does now that I didn't know Republicans would ever stand for. My mom is very traditional. I agree.

Listening to her talking about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and then listening to her defend Trump's comments, I'm like, man, really, mom, you're okay with that? Or him attacking prisoners of war or POWs like McCain or like the military. I don't ever know Republicans would stand for that. I feel like Trump has done some stuff that's like, if you were to talk about like different ideas coming and going and whatever's popular, I feel like Trump, represents not more than Biden right now. But see, I agree there's been changing. I like the pivots that Trump represents on republicanism, meaning I like that there's more of attention to the working middle class.

I like that there's some trade protectionism baked in. I like that there's a more doveish attitude toward war across the world. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, there ain't no way he could be a Democrat. I don't care what he says today. The Bill Clinton in 1990s, there's no way he could be a Democrat in 2024. for? I mean, probably, but I mean, literally every part of the old Republican institution has been completely thrown out, right? You know, McCain and his daughter, all of the traditional Republicans that don't fall in line with Trump, like every single part of the old Republican

establishment. I mean, look at the majority speaker positions in the house where the Republicans lost their majority speaker seat for almost a month. The Republican Party is tearing itself apart right now trying to figure out, like, are we Republicans and conservatives? Are we just like people that fellow Donald Trump, literally wherever he goes, I think the Republican Party is having a much bigger crisis of identity right now than the Democratic Party is. I think that online, it's weird because the left is very loud online and they seem like very crazy and extreme. But when you look at the actual lawmakers in Congress, it's more or less, like, it's farther left than it was, but it's kind of stock Democrat stuff.

Like, it's a pretty easy continuation of Obama stuff, but the Republicans, whew. Okay, I want to ask you, finally, I want to ask you about your personal life. I think you talk about your personal life, right? A lot of people do, yeah. So tell me if I have it right. Bisexual, open marriage, but now divorced from the relationship that was in open marriage. Accurate? Yep.

Okay. Do open marriages work? Some of them probably do. Some of them probably don't. I've been in a lot of relationships. That probably is carrying a lot of weight. That probably is carrying a lot of weight. I mean, it might be, but the 50% divorce rate in the United States today among ordinary heterosexual.

ordinary marriage couples is also carrying a lot of weight. I will say also for my... Is it 50 still? I don't know if it's 50 still. Well, I keep saying it. I haven't been corrected on it yet, so I'm going to keep going with 50 until somebody knows that I'm wrong. For my ex, I loved her very much.

She was Swedish and I was American, so the only way she could live with me is if we got married. It wasn't as though, like, we went into the church and we were like, listen, I love you forever, we're going to be together forever. It was more like, you literally can't even visit me unless we get married. So we loved each other, and, I mean, the guys are the federal government. That's enough for getting married. So that was that.

But then, I mean, obviously the marriage didn't work, but I mean, I've had a lot of ordinary heterosexual straight. Did it not work because of, because it was open? No, I think it didn't work because I don't know how much you do media stuff, but my life is just, my life is insane. I have a lot of crazy stuff that goes on, and I'm working constantly. Like, I just flew into New York City today to do your show. I'm doing two more, and then I fly back tonight, and then I'm back to work. And, yeah, I think my life is just very incompatible with any type of, any type of ordinary human relationship, everything at all, yeah. I mean, it's a joke.

I mean, it's literally, I think, a comedian's joke. You know, like, everybody, like, says, oh, yeah, open marriage. But in the end, human beings are human beings. And jealousy is a constant. I just, I mean. I understand what you're saying, but I don't know how. Right now, what's one of the biggest fights going on in terms of marriage is a guy that wrote an article about how happy he was, that he was traditional.

He was a virgin until his marriage, until his marital night, that he waited and dated one girl and did everything correctly, and he wrote that article on, posted on the Fox News website, I think 11 years ago, and now Stephen Crowder and his wife are embroiled in one of the most brutal back-and-forth battles for custody of their children and for a division of assets that the entire internet is witnessing right now. And that was like a marriage that was totally by the books. But nobody will attack that marriage ago. Well, you know, just because it was closed, these are the issues. So I understand that people disagree with my lifestyle choices. And you know what? That's great. And I'm glad they do. And they can even voice it because

it's America. But it's also America so we could live our lives and do our different things. and yeah. We touched on this. Do you, I said it, I didn't hear your response. Do you think the family is the functional foundational element of society? Yeah, I would be hard-pressed to think of something that is more fundamental than that, other than the individual, I guess. But yeah, families are probably the cornerstone.

It's what gives us a desire to do anything for the future, right, is for what we passed out our children. It's what gives us a desire to structure our neighborhoods and our societies the way they are, you know, around educating our children, keeping them safe and everything. So, yeah, I would say so, yeah. And I mean, if that's the case then, and I'm not looking to debate you personally and your choices on whatever. But like, if that's the case, then all these, you know, approaches to open marriage or whatever, don't they disrupt that fundamental foundational element to build society? I mean, I think that it's important to understand why families are good for children and then to make sure that if you're having a child and everything is working well, that those elements are respected.

So, for instance, my ex and I might have had, you know, like an adventurous life in terms of what we did together or, you know, within our relationship or outside of a relationship. But I mean, if we would have had children, obviously the structure of that would have changed pretty significantly. You know, there's not going to be crazy stuff happening in the home when we've got kids present. You know, life is going to change accordingly as it always does when you have a child or two or three. All right. So listen, man, first of all, I know you said you're going to do two other shows while you're in New York. New York. I appreciate you flying up and going into Fox to do this. I appreciate the interaction the back and forth. This was not necessarily the most pointed debate

where I know we would have vigorous disagreement on things. But if there's ever anything like that in the future, you're welcome to come here on the Will Cain Show, and we can have a pointed debate on specific issues as they come up, and they will come up, and you're welcome here, and I appreciate you coming on Destiny. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. And, yeah, I hope that everybody's remembers.

There's really awesome cool things that happen to this country. That can only happen to this country. That's true today. It was true 10 years ago. It'll be true, hopefully, in the future. And, yeah, we should focus more on, like, those positive things and kind of work towards building them and critiquing them rather than, yeah, just throwing everything out and saying it's all broken, and we have to start over a gun.

Look at you. You're trying to avoid falling into your own trap. I'm trying my best, yeah. Creation is much, creation is much more fun than destruction and harder. But, all right, destiny. Thanks so much for being on the Will Kane Show. Thanks for having me.

All right, there you. You can check him out, by the way, on YouTube. It's Destiny, I've got it right here. It's Destiny at YouTube and on Kick and on X at the Omni Liberal. He debates a lot of people, as we said in the outset. of the interview. All right, coming up, the trial of Donald Trump in New York City will be one of the biggest campaign advertisements. It will swing an electorate. But the question is, who is it a campaign advertisement for? Joe Biden or Donald Trump? Next on the Will Kane show.

This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcast.com. Or wherever you download podcasts. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Buy your tickets now. I get a free chili dog. Tilly dog, not included. The Naked Gun. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. The biggest campaign advertisement in history, the trial of Donald Trump, but is the ad for Joe Biden or for Donald Trump. It is the Will Cain show streaming live at Fox News.com on the the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page.

Hit subscribe right now here on YouTube. It's in the text description underneath this live stream. Then you'll get the Will Kane show whenever you like. Or at Apple, Spotify, Fox News podcast if you want to listen in audio format. Some viewers commenting, Tanjura, says conservatives need to distance themselves from Trump and Elon Musk. I disagree. As mentioned in our debate with destiny, I like the populist movement of the right. this handle, which I don't think I can say, because I don't know how to translate it, but

yeah, he says this will cane guy is far less unhinged than I'd hoped for. I don't know what you were hoping for. You know, going into that conversation with Destiny, it was a little bit of like, you know, all the viral stuff is like this, the big explosive moments between Jordan Peterson or Candace Owens or Pierce Morgan. And I don't know, I feel like that was somewhat representative of the stuff that used to take place on first take. And maybe if Destiny comes back on the Will Kane Show, we have a specific debate about a specific topic, you know, instead of going deep, which we went deep pretty quickly, there are those moments, but I didn't want to do something that I feel like just is there for the fireworks, that is there

for the saccharin. I wanted something with substance, with nutrition. So I want to see how he actually thinks and share how I actually think and see, you know, I don't know if it's represented involved, wherever this divide is in America. Thomas Anderson said, the left is the side that keeps saying America is already great. And Douglas Lindsay says, Stephen is making some sense. Who knew? Not me. Yeah, I agree. I thought there was a lot of interesting stuff to come out of that interview there with destiny.

So the trial of Donald Trump is dominating every headline on every website and every social media post and every television channel. It will go on now for the better part of a month. And the question is, will all of this earned media benefit Joe Biden or benefit Donald Trump? Let's take a quick survey of history. First, dating back to 2016, any type of attention for Trump worked to the benefit of Trump. MSNBC, CNN, every element of not just the left, but the mainstream middle, screamed about the threat of Donald Trump. But in the end, it worked to his advantage. He literally probably lived on the maxim that all attention is good attention.

Now, you could argue that didn't translate in 2020. Then comes all of the indictments. Every single indictment led to an increase in popularity for Donald Trump. But that was, again, among the Republican base. So how does that play in a general election? Well, most polls suggest that he'll suffer if the result of this trial is Donald Trump convicted felon. But what I would suggest is combining that historical perspective with a the current environment, the current polls, my suspicion is this doesn't work out for Joe Biden,

that it works out for Donald Trump. Because what the public needs is simplicity. The public needs to come away with convicted felon Donald Trump. This trial and exposure gives depth about the politicization of this trial. You learned that they were misdemeanors that passed their statute of limitations. You learn how they're inappropriately charged up to a felony. And the more you learn with the more earned media, I think serves as an advertisement, for Donald Trump.

All right, coming up, Caitlin Clark now has sold out her jersey in an hour. She's a number one pick in the WNBA, so was I wrong that you're about to see a ratings boost in the WNBA? That's next on the Will Cain Show. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants.

Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Is Caitlin Clark about to become or take the WNBA to the top? It's the Will Cain show, not streaming live, at least in video format, on YouTube or on Facebook. We're having technical difficulties. Luckily, it came at the end of our interview with Destiny. Placations says on YouTube, let's get a once-a-month Will Cain Destiny debate. Maybe. We'll have to see.

I don't know what our technical difficulties here with the Internet are today with my video stream, but we have audio format. I'm going to take you through real quick why people seem to fail to understand economics. Iowa Hawkeye Star, Caitlin Clark, went number one overall in the WNBA draft last night. She, of course, has driven ratings for women's college basketball. And her jersey sold out within an hour. As it turns out, it's called the Indiana Fever. Little did I know.

That's what they're called, the fever of Indiana. And that left a lot of people afterwards who had seen her salary going, what the hell? Caitlin Clark will make $350,000, roughly, over four years as a rookie in the WNBA. First year, $74,000. Final year of her contract? About $95,000. Russell Wilson, of the Pittsburgh Steelers, said, this is an injustice. These ladies deserve to be paid more money.

Well, I don't know how he defines deserve, but he approves. apparently doesn't define it according to economics. I said last week that Caitlin Clark would not bring, in my prediction, ratings over from women's college basketball over into the WNBA. Maybe I'll be wrong. And if she does, I'll be happy to watch the ratings soar. And then, and then we'll be happy to watch the salaries for WNBA players go up. Right now, by the way, the highest paid players in the WNBA make about,

$250,000 a year. But the truth is, higher salaries are not demanded, are not deserved according to the law of economics. Here's some comparison. The NBA generates $10 billion a year in revenue. The WNBA, about $100 million. Adam Silver, the commissioner of the NBA, which, by the way, subsidizes and owns the WNBA, has said it's never turned to profit. Never. That means it runs in the red. It doesn't make any money. Subsidized by the NBA.

That means they're a long way from seeing salaries get anywhere near other professional athletes. But their salaries do reflect the beginning of other leagues that went on to huge popularity. I want to know Babe Ruth's salary for Major League Baseball in 1914? Babe Ruth made $600 that year. Let's adjust it for inflation. $600 in $2,024 is $20,000 a year. Babe Ruth made $20,000 a year in 1914. By, by the way, his sixth year in the league, he was making $20,000 in 1920 money.

Adjusted for inflation, that's $325,000 a year. Major League Baseball has started to develop a more commercial market, probably in no small part driven by someone like Babe Ruth. Maybe Caitlin Clark can have a similar effect. But what she has is a salary that not only reflective was probably somewhat inflated for a league that doesn't make money, isn't yet popular, and therefore not economically undeserved, but economically representative. Maybe again, and I hope for her sake, that she takes this league to popularity and to the top.

Maybe she takes this league to a point where she can make. salaries that make Russell Wilson proud. But until then, this is simply the law of supply and demand, the number of people that watch the WNBA, not the number of people that talk about it on X. And this is a matter of how much money a league can generate. Until now, this salary is more than just for Caitlin Clark and the players of the WNBA. All right, that's going to do it for me today here on the Will Cain Show. Make sure you hit subscribe, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and go back, you can share and watch

our conversation and debate with destiny. I'll see you again next time. music app. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gowdy podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com.