12/9/25: Young Voters Flee Trump, Jasmine Crockett Primary, Congress To Bailout Israel, Piers And Fuentes

Krystal and Saagar discuss young voters flee Trump, Jasmine Crockett primary, Congress to bail out Israel, Piers Morgan w/Nick Fuentes.

 

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of this show.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
So there was a lot of talk in twenty twenty
four about the way that young people voted more for
Trump than I think any Republican president since George W. Bush,
so significant shift there, especially.

Speaker 4 (00:43):
Among young men.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
Those games appear to have rapidly evaporated. There's some new
pulling out making the case. Let's take a listen to
Harry Enton.

Speaker 5 (00:52):
He started off this term is net approval rating among
voters under the age of thirty at plus ten points. Hey,
that's pretty gosh darn good.

Speaker 1 (00:59):
But you come over. We're now according to CBS.

Speaker 5 (01:01):
News you gov. This isn't falling into the water, This
isn't going underseas. This is going into a deep, dark
black hole. Look at that minus forty six pots. That
is a shift on the net approval of fifty six
points in the wrong direction since February age eighteen to
twenty nine. On Trump in the economy. Back in October

(01:22):
of twenty twenty four, who did those under the age
of thirty trus Harris or Trump? It was Trump by
ten points. A corner to the Marquette University Law School, Paul.
Look at where his net approval rating is now on
the economy minus fifty two points, very similar to what
we saw on the CBS News you gov poll in
terms of his overall drop in support on the net

(01:43):
approval rating, and this minus fifty two varies.

Speaker 1 (01:46):
Yeah, it's just stunning.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
And Trump's drop among young people, especially among the youngest demographics,
vastly outstrips his drop and approval rating from older demographic groups,
although he's dropped among every age group. But let's put
this next pole up on the screen. This is from
Yale polling, and they have it broken out by you know,
smaller age demographics, so not just like under forty or whatever.

(02:08):
And you can see the single largest drop in Trump's
approval from twenty twenty four recalled vote is among eighteen
to twenty two year olds. And I don't know if
you guys remember this is the same poll and the
polster here, the head of Data Science rights that in
our last poll, Yale pulling drew national attention for documenting
the right word shift among young voters and especially the

(02:29):
youngest voters eighteen to twenty two, where they found actually
a big split between eighteen to twenty two and then
twenty three to twenty nine and thirty to thirty four
that has now evaporated. You still have more Trump disapproval
among thirty to thirty four than among eighteen to twenty two,
but that gap is pretty narrow. And like I said,
the biggest single shift comes among that youngest age group.

(02:52):
I think you know, Cyber, I'm curious for your view
on what is going on there. We could see three
up on the screen. Just to add to some more
numbers here to the mix. You've also got some uh
this is I think a Harvard polar This might be
from the Yale pole as well. In any case, this
is again among young voters, and heading into the midterms,
huge enthusiasm gap among Democratic young voters far more excited

(03:17):
to turn out to the polls and vote in the
midterms than Republican young voters. So you know, clearly that'll
be significant. You did not see that gap actually at
the same time leading into the twenty eighteen midterms, which
did also end up being good for Democrats. So you
see an even you know, a major enthusiasm edge here
which could end up being significant.

Speaker 4 (03:36):
But you know, I mean to me, it's a few things.

Speaker 2 (03:38):
It's a betrayal of the brand of like I'm the
outsider and I'm you know, I'm going to fight the
corrupt bad guys, and now you're the guy in the
Epstein files covering up the Epstein files. I think that
is a blow to his brand. And then it's the economy,
Like the people who are the most screwed by the
current economy and also, by the way, by the all
in on AI, we're going to get rid of all

(03:59):
the entry level jobs in the near term, and then
we're going to get rid of all the jobs in
the long term.

Speaker 4 (04:04):
The people who are most.

Speaker 2 (04:05):
Screwed by that are young people, so it makes sense
they would have the most dramatic shift against him.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
I think it's very simple.

Speaker 6 (04:11):
It's economy, Epstein Israel, so those in Israel and Epstein
are interchangeable. So economy is what is that things are
not getting better is yet broadly people don't have a
lot of faith that things are going to get better.
There's no vision, you know. More recently, it's kind of funny.
I've seen some right wing like Matt Walla. She was like,
what is the Republican Congress done exactly in the last year,

(04:31):
And I was like, yeah, it was called the Big
Beautiful Bill. Yeah, first of all, you don't even know it.
But second yeah, it was tax cuts. It was just
an extension of the twenty seventeen tax cuts which we
had five years. It wasn't very broadly politically popular. It
mostly solidified, you know, the current tax system, and it
gave a few more tax breaks.

Speaker 4 (04:48):
And cut that's it, and cut medicaid right.

Speaker 1 (04:50):
And it cut from medicaid.

Speaker 6 (04:51):
I mean, I don't know if young people are paying
attention to that one, but like, look, my point has
always been about taxes. Is it's about opportunity costs. We
only open the tax code every five years. So if
you're paying attention and you saw that opportunity, you're like,
where's my first time home buyer credit, where's my you
know this, where's my ACA premium?

Speaker 1 (05:10):
Where's a reduction in my tax here or here?

Speaker 6 (05:13):
Where is a potential tax credit to help me get
None of that happened. So the biggest blown opportunity in
the interim you had the ACA problem, which this is
very underrated because this is an issue. The ACA things
specifically mostly applies to old people who are on Obamacare
as they wait to go get Medicare. If you take

(05:33):
a look at the statistics and the small business owners
like you or I. But the point is is that
that elevated the conversation of healthcare. And I do actually
think I'm sure you had this experience when I turned
twenty six or whatever.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
You need to first get your health care. You're like,
hold on what you have? How much out of the
pay check?

Speaker 3 (05:48):
Like that's a kind of a ride of passage for
a lot of people who were younger. And because health
care inflation is so high, even for employer sponsored, they
have that they have the crushing costs. And then there's
there's no plan or vision. If you're in your mid
twenties and you're twenty five. If we're not going to
reopen the tax code until twenty twenty nine, so you've
got four more years to go, that's a huge part

(06:09):
of your life of which you don't have any faith
things are getting better. Epstein goes to the insider insider
versus outsider revolutionary kind of. I mean, look, I think
young people.

Speaker 6 (06:20):
Probably supported Trump because they want to blow shit up,
and I don't blame them. If you think back to
my when I originally made a case for RFK and
for all these other people, I was like, yeah.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
People are fed up, blow the system up. Right now.
It went two ways, right, there's two ways that that
could go.

Speaker 6 (06:35):
It could go the current way where everything is kind
of majorly influential to whatever weirdo or a billionaire.

Speaker 1 (06:42):
It happens to be in Washington. That's apparently is the
way it ended up.

Speaker 6 (06:45):
But you know, ultimately, when people say they want radical change,
like they're not asking for some neoliberal bullshit. Ultimately, that's
why Zorn is kind of the democratic response to that.
So that's fundamentally the betrayal of what it is and
then Israel is a huge part of it where prioritize
the small country. Tucker always says it best, in my opinion,
you just can't have a nation of nine million rule

(07:06):
over three hundred and thirty million. It's violates natural law.
A lot of people get very upset about that. So
you put those three things together, you put the internet,
you know, and you got to give some credit to
the podcast guys and others who people sport Trump.

Speaker 4 (07:18):
Oh, I think that's a but don't have a stage
group for sure.

Speaker 6 (07:20):
I'm saying you have to give them credit in terms
of they turned relatively quickly, like four months five months
in it was dusted. You know. If I think if
you look at you guys covered Tim Dillon yesterday, right like, Look,
I mean these guys, they don't have a lot of loyalty.
They're not connected to the system in the same way
that a lot of those are, and they'll they'll they'll
switch on you.

Speaker 1 (07:38):
That's not a knock.

Speaker 6 (07:39):
I think they should. It means you're honest. It's just
just like that when you put.

Speaker 1 (07:43):
It all together.

Speaker 6 (07:44):
Me you've even got Rogan out there talking about mass deportations, right,
So it's like you got everything together where it's it's
just there's a recipe for a disaster.

Speaker 4 (07:53):
I think the AI thing here.

Speaker 1 (07:54):
AI is big. I think it's no I mean.

Speaker 4 (07:56):
It ties into the economy.

Speaker 2 (07:58):
But I think it's really significant actually for this age group,
because number one, they're the ones who, you know, young
people tend to be early adopters of tech, so they're
the most familiar with it, right, they understand it the most.
Both it's you know, limitations and the fun applications and
ways you can use it to like cheat on your
papers in college at this point, so most familiar with it.

(08:19):
But also they're the ones who are kind of on
the front lines of the really damaging impacts. You know,
there's already if you look at the unemployment rate for
college grads that has gone up dramatically, and there may
be a variety of reasons for that, but AI is
part of that story. And certainly those entry level jobs
that these young people would be slotted into ordinarily, those

(08:41):
are the ones that are most under threat, either because
of the current reality of AI or because you have
companies that see where this is going You're like, well,
I don't really want to hire for this. I'm going
to wait and see if I can just use the
people that I have and give them some AI tools
to increase their productivit. I'm not going to pay them war,
mind you, but to increase their productivity. So I don't
have to hire these young people coming out of college anymore.

(09:03):
I don't have to train them up. I don't have
to deal with that. I'll just throw some more AI
tools and more responsibility at the people that I already have,
So they are really on the front lines of seeing
the impact of AI in society as well. There was
another thing that I found really interesting in terms of
heading into these midterms. You know, we're sort of in
a similar place as heading into twenty eighteen, where it

(09:23):
looks like, okay, there's a backlash against Trump, there's gonna
be midterm gains for the Democrats. That's already pretty much.
I think everybody expects that's the way things are going
to go. But there's a significant difference in terms of
the type of voters Democrats are picking up this time
versus the type of voters that they were picking up
into their coalition last time. Let's put C four up

(09:44):
on the screen. This was interesting. I hadn't seen this
analysis done before, so this is from the argument and
the sourcing here is from Catalysts, which does data analytics,
as a Democratic aligne firm that does data analytics in
any case, the headline of the chart is the new
blue wave looks very different from the last one. So
last time, almost all of the gains coming into twenty

(10:08):
eighteen were from who white college educated voters. The single
largest gain was eight points from white college educated and
from white voters in general. This time around, there's zero
in the category of white college there's actually zero Democratic gains.
Now perhaps they've just matched out that category, but all

(10:32):
the gains, the most significant gains this time are with
non white, non college voters, so an eleven point Democratic
swing for non white voters and a twelve point Democratic
swing for non college voters. Now, on the one hand,
that is good news for Democratic party that has been
struggling with non college voters, that has seen their edge

(10:54):
with non white voters bleeding during the Trump era, so
in a sense, that is good news. On the other hand,
in terms of mid terms and turnout, it is the
analyst here described it as a less efficient coalition because
these are not the people that turn out in every
single election, you have to actually do something to excite them,
to make it so that they're not just going to

(11:15):
go you know what, I'm just staying home, like screw
all these people, where they actually feel feel like, okay, affirmatively,
I'm going to come out and vote for a Democrat.
But I found that very interesting in terms of the
dynamics this time around versus last time, and again, I
think a lot of it just comes down to the economy.

Speaker 6 (11:32):
This is swing swing coalition to wit Winge demographic swings back.

Speaker 2 (11:37):
Yeah, Latinos a particular, like non college Latinos in particular,
are such like maybe the core swing demographic at this point,
and very sensitive of course to the economy. I think
the immigration stuff plays in as well, where they just
feel like their whole identity under attack. But this is
a group that has really swung very strongly dependent on

(11:58):
who they feel like it is going to be better
on the economy, and there has to be a major
sense of disappointment and stress over the state.

Speaker 4 (12:05):
Of things right now.

Speaker 1 (12:05):
One hundred.

Speaker 6 (12:06):
I think economy is number one on immigration maybe, but
I mean this is not a baby demographic. I mean,
there was all this discourse about the Puerto Rican thing
after Tony Hinchcliffe and Puerto Ricans still turned out massively
for Trump, Like these are not pearl clutters, right, Like
at the end of the day, I think economy is
literally number one whenever it comes down to it. And
this is no one can say that they're wrong, Like

(12:27):
no one can say that they are wrong. I use
that term and shittification like it's true for everything. And look,
maybe I have rose colored glasses on about the past.
I'm certainly, I'm sure, but I don't know if you
saw this. There's this new gen Z trend romanticizing twenty twelve.

Speaker 1 (12:43):
Yeah, you know what I lived. It was awesome. Okay,
I'm gonna be o. It was great. I loved it.

Speaker 6 (12:48):
And part of it was that was before the time
when social media truly dominated our lives.

Speaker 1 (12:54):
So there's a different But.

Speaker 6 (12:55):
There's also the cost element, like the young social lifestyle
everyone talks about, Oh, gen Z doesn't go out to
bars anymore. I'm like, yeah, well when a cocktail is
twenty eight bucks. Look, I don't promote drinking. I think
drinking is bad, but if you want to drink a
lot when you're young, go for it. I certainly did.
And yeah, I think it probably worked out for the
men of it. You know, when I was out there

(13:16):
hitting the bars at age twenty two, the age of
the four or five dollars deals and all that existed,
I don't think that really exists anymore. I'm talking about
even in downtown Manhattan, like you could go out maybe
seven eight, I mean, what's it now, twenty five, twenty four,
something like that. You go out to dinner. I've told you,
I don't even drink anymore. My bills are starting to
tick up. Seventy eighty hundred dollars. You go out to drink,

(13:36):
you know, eat dinner with your wife, Neither of you
are drinking, and you're paying nearly one hundred bucks with tip.

Speaker 1 (13:42):
You're like, what the fuck?

Speaker 6 (13:43):
I mean, I remember when this was twenty five dollars meal, right,
And that happens for everything.

Speaker 1 (13:48):
There's also this whole thing about.

Speaker 6 (13:49):
Going out to eat now, It's like, well, when going
out to eat, when fast food alone, you know, have
you ever have you been a five guys lately?

Speaker 1 (13:56):
My wife asked for five guys. Yeah, I go pick
it up. It's twenty dollars, little cheeseburger. Fry. I go, okay,
I mean again, am I insane?

Speaker 6 (14:04):
I actually remember when it was twelve, And there's just
a big difference between all that. So if you are
younger and you're you know, just trying to go out
and to meet people or whatever.

Speaker 1 (14:14):
I mean, you know, who has one hundred and fifty
bucks to go aheat? Even ubers. Listen.

Speaker 6 (14:19):
Back in twenty twelve, there was this great thing called
uber pool where we would pay two ninety nine and
ride around in cars with strangers. Yes, it took much longer, but.

Speaker 1 (14:28):
It was cheap. It was pretty fun. We got I
rolled all over the city for ten dollars. I don't
think you can even do that anymore, right, So it.

Speaker 4 (14:36):
Didn't even occurred to me they got rid of uber
pol O.

Speaker 1 (14:37):
Uberpool's long gone. Yeah, I miss it. Rip, I enjoyed it.

Speaker 4 (14:40):
I rip to that. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (14:43):
It was also like twenty twelve was the early phase.
It was like you had the benefits of social media
without it just being you know, super algorithmic and taking
over everything leading to all this out like radicalization.

Speaker 4 (14:56):
It was a very sort of like almost innocent time
on social absolute ernest.

Speaker 6 (15:00):
Yeah, very it was pre pre Greade Awakening. The Great
Opening was twenty fourteen, so there was no woke bullshit.
The social media was you know it was it was
it was like BuzzFeed is.

Speaker 3 (15:10):
Happening right, and Twitter and then it's like Twitter just
took down the Egyptian you know what was the Egyptian?

Speaker 1 (15:18):
Yeah, Mo Baric and everyone's home.

Speaker 2 (15:20):
It was like, oh, this is going to be this
great democratizing thing.

Speaker 4 (15:24):
And then it just turned and.

Speaker 6 (15:25):
Listened and here's the counter, here's the county. The economy
was going to ship. Afghanistan was ramping up, the global
War on terror, the drone strikes were all happy listen.
There was still a lot bad, but I actually there
really was, and again very naive, but there was hope
for especially people who were my age.

Speaker 1 (15:42):
I'm trying to think twenty twelve. I was like twenty
or something like that.

Speaker 6 (15:44):
I was like, Hey, we're gonna get out of this,
Like we're gonna be okay, Like we're gonna get out
of a rack. Yeah, Obama fucked up Afghanistan, but like
we'll figure it out.

Speaker 1 (15:50):
It's gonna be fun.

Speaker 6 (15:51):
Yeah, and all of this, we're gonna get things like
right back on track.

Speaker 4 (15:55):
And then things Yeah, social movement like you know, Occupy Wall.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
Street was Yeah, that was twenty ten.

Speaker 4 (16:02):
I think it was like twenty ten.

Speaker 2 (16:04):
But there was like a sort of you know, there
was an optimism that we could actually like change things, right.

Speaker 1 (16:08):
Yeah, we believed in our political system. We are a little.

Speaker 6 (16:11):
Bit some of us still believed naively in our political system.
I would say I had much more faith in the
system at that time, and it was it took.

Speaker 1 (16:18):
Me on no doubt about it, much longer to be like,
oh fuck.

Speaker 4 (16:21):
This, yeah, no doubt about it.

Speaker 2 (16:25):
All right, So let's talk about the Texas Senate race,
because I mean relevant to the conversation about latinos A,
non white voters, non college voters shifting back towards the
Democratic Party.

Speaker 4 (16:35):
Texas Senate race.

Speaker 2 (16:36):
Now, Texas is like Democrats white whale or whatever. Is
that the expression. They always think they've got a shot
at it. They never do actually have a shot at it.
Probably going to be the same again this time. But
you know, this is shaping up to potentially be an
extraordinary reckoning in this midterm. So who they pick is
a Democratic candidate matters a lot. So yesterday we had

(16:58):
a lot of movement in this race Previously you had
James Talerico and Colin Allredd who were in the in
the race, and Tallarico. You guys probably seen him. He's
like young guy and it was attracted a big following
and went on with Joe Rogan. Rogan was into him,
you know, he's he's tried to, I think, really use

(17:20):
some of the language and try to appeal to like
a left liberal kind of a kind of a kind
of a lane. Okay, so like Elizabeth Warren adjacent kind
of a lane. Right. And now yesterday we had the
entry of Jasmine Crockett, who has made a national liberal
democratic brand for herself as like one of the fiercest

(17:43):
fighters against Trump. Now ideologically there's she's kind of like
standard Democratic positions, but she's bad on Israel. She took
crypto money. I don't think she supports Medicare for all.
But the woman has a lot of charisma, she has
a lot of stour power. She has a great ability
to trigger the right, which is something that Democrats are
really valuating. So she announces she's getting into this race,

(18:06):
and I think part of the backstory there is through
the Texas redistricting, like her district got kind of screwed.
So she's like, all right, I guess I got have
to go and jump in the Senate race. So when
she announces Colin Allred drops out. So now it's basically
Jasmine Crockett versus James Talerico. Jasmine had I think very
interesting and very uh, I guess controversial launch video that

(18:31):
she put out. And for those of you who are
just listening, it's just her. She's it's her face, like
a close up of her face effectively staring into the
camera while Donald Trump clips of Donald Trump insulting her
and specifically insulting her intelligence play. Let's go ahead and take
a look at this.

Speaker 1 (18:49):
How about this new one.

Speaker 4 (18:50):
They have their new star, Crockett.

Speaker 7 (18:52):
How about her?

Speaker 5 (18:53):
She's the new star of the Democrat Party, Jasmine Crockett.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
They're in big trouble, but you have this woman Crockett.

Speaker 3 (19:01):
She's a very low IQ person.

Speaker 1 (19:03):
I watched her speak the other day. She's definitely a
low IQ person. Crocket.

Speaker 3 (19:09):
Oh man, oh man.

Speaker 1 (19:12):
She's a very low IQ person.

Speaker 3 (19:15):
Somebody said the other day she's one of the leaders
of the party.

Speaker 4 (19:18):
I think you gotta be kidding.

Speaker 1 (19:21):
Now, are they going to rely on Crockett's going to
bring them big.

Speaker 2 (19:27):
So that's the whole thing. Just her of turning to
the camera. That means, what do you think, Zager?

Speaker 6 (19:32):
This is just the classic twenty eighteen bullshit. You know,
stand for nothing, Trump hates me.

Speaker 4 (19:38):
Okay, but do you think it'll be politically affected?

Speaker 6 (19:40):
A one hundred percent's gonna win. And that's listen. I mean,
let's be realistic. This is part of the problem. Tall
Rico is actually trying to intellectualize this way more because
when you were talking about the standard left liberal thing, yes,
he's trying to go after the new Texas Democrats. So
the thing is Texas like Houston suburbs, Dallas suburbs. These
people are mitt Romney Republicans.

Speaker 1 (20:02):
I grew up with them.

Speaker 6 (20:03):
They're like Christian but they're you know, like country club,
they're rich, you know, mostly now they're Democrats. Well, you know,
the tallar Rico kind of like, I'm Evangelical, but I'm
a Democrat and you.

Speaker 1 (20:14):
Know, like, yeah, feel it's very Budha Judge exactly.

Speaker 6 (20:18):
And by the way, who was Buddha Judge's Cork constituency.

Speaker 1 (20:21):
Remind me, right, the upper middle class liberal. Yeah.

Speaker 6 (20:24):
So that's who he's going after. The thing is, though,
is that right now, those same people are radicalized as
much as like with Boomer shit lib memes. So Jasmine
Crockett is the logical endpoint of that they hate Trump,
like there's actually not a lot going on beneath the scenes.
So Jasmine Crockett is the logical endpoint for the Texas

(20:45):
Democrat because for a lot of the people there, for them,
they feel like they live in occupied territory. Right They're like, oh,
we have a Republican governor and Dan Patrick and all
this other crazy Ted Cruz and John Corny.

Speaker 1 (20:56):
We want somebody to stick it to Trump.

Speaker 6 (20:58):
And so that's why Tallarico again, to me, he's almost
trying to like over intellectualize the process. She gets it
stand for nothing, just be against Trump. And by the way,
it's gonna work one hundred percent. She's gonna win one
hundred percent. And that's what was I mean. I'll eat
my words, I guess if tall Rico does win. But
the thing is, she doesn't have a shot now because

(21:20):
at least in my opinion, because what you just talked
about the core swing demos that Tallarico Crockett, what they're
trying to do is just take anti Trump energy. What
I think the lesson of the Zoron Mamdani campaign is
is that you have to take anti Trump energy and
marry it to something else, and with that you can

(21:44):
win over the Trump voter.

Speaker 1 (21:46):
That is not happening.

Speaker 6 (21:48):
Beto ro Rourke already ground tested the anti Trump strategy
in twenty eighteen lost Ted Cruz by two points. You
will never have that again because now there are still
enough Latino republic who made it. Like, not all of
them are going to swing back right, but even if
some of them do so, the margins just don't exist.
Like the statewide data is now in and it's very

(22:08):
clear Texas, even with shifting demographics and all of this,
you would have to win over a pretty historic number
of these traditional Latino voting Republicans. Not happening in Juder
Jasmin Crockett definitely not happening under Colin, under Tolerico Colin
all read by the way, he kind of tried the
inverse of this, the kind of.

Speaker 1 (22:27):
Like football he's a football buff guy. I think he was. Yeah,
he was a football player.

Speaker 4 (22:32):
He's like he's like a centrist. Yeah, he's Democrat.

Speaker 1 (22:35):
But he tried the like.

Speaker 6 (22:36):
Ohm standing up to Trump and I played football, you
know that type of thing. That shit didn't work. Like
Beato is as close as they were ever going to get.
That was twenty eighteen. The shifting demos like no, sorry.

Speaker 2 (22:47):
So let me let me caveat by saying, like, neither
of these candidates exactly my ideological cup of tea, Like very,
I mean, Talergo took Mary Modelson money. He's tried to
shift his position on Israel. We want to talk to
him because I want to know more specific about worries
so gambling. So yeah, the problem with that she's taken
crypto money, although I don't actually I try to look.

(23:08):
Her record doesn't seem that bad on cryptom. She voted
against the Genius Everybody, every Democrat voted against the Genius Act.
In any case, she took the crypto money, she's really
not She's really bad on Israel. She's not for medicare
for all right, So neither of these candidates is like
my ideological cup of tea. I think in the primary,
I think you're right right now, the polymarket odds have

(23:30):
her up fifty one to forty eight, so they have
it effectively tied in terms of the polymarket odds for
whatever that is worth. You already see her garnering endorsements
from House members. Ayana Presley came out and backed her.
So that's going to give her some momentum within the
Democratic Party.

Speaker 4 (23:49):
And I just have to.

Speaker 2 (23:50):
Tell you, on pure raw political talent with no ideological valance,
the woman is a star, like she is a star.

Speaker 4 (23:58):
And I think the reason.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
Why that launch ad was again not what I would do.
I would want to foreground affordability and specific plans, et cetera.
But why it was very politically clever for her is
because it puts on display her greatest strength, which is
again triggering the right, which in the same way the

(24:21):
right loved and still does love the candidates who can
trigger the Libs.

Speaker 4 (24:27):
Democrats now are in.

Speaker 2 (24:27):
A place where if you can get Fox News mad
at you and you can get Trump coming after you,
they're like, yes, that is what we want to see.
The other thing it does is it cast her as
the main character, right. It puts her at like I
am already at the center of this thing, and so
I think she has a lot of strengths. Taalerico. You

(24:49):
know there's there's something even though there's there's a lot
that he says that should appeal to me, he has
this very to me dated dial like part of what
was cool about Zoron. Obviously the policy is the most
important part, but he had this very modern ascetic the font,

(25:10):
the vertical video, the cuts, the authenticity of it, the
you know, I mean, it just felt very natural to him.
Tallerico's launch ad is him standing in the back of
a rusted out pickup truck with the church in the
background and the Texas flag here and this fake crowd
gathered around him, and it feels like two thousand and six,
and I don't know, there's something about it that to

(25:30):
me is just like off putting instantly. And again it's
not fair because again this is not about ideological valence
or like where he stands on the issues. But there's
a stylistic issue for me with him that I'm having
trouble overcoming. And I think maybe it is also like
lingering Pete boodagesch trauma, because Pete also did the like
sort of had a similar stylistic approach, similar way of talking,

(25:55):
also grounding himself like, oh, I'm the Christian, so I
can speak to the Christians and all of this stuff.
So primary, I also give the edge. Well think about
this to Jasmine Crockett.

Speaker 6 (26:03):
Look, that is again, I'm from there. I've seen this
movie before. That's like a blue dog Democrat strategy. The
shit doesn't work. It's been dead since twenty ten. There
used to be my congress. It feels very sultate, work
anymore driven, you know, want this like I'm a rancher.
It's like a who is the Montana guy John Tester?

Speaker 1 (26:20):
Yeah? Same shit? All right?

Speaker 2 (26:22):
He lost for him, but he he did very well
in that state given the overall politics, because that was
that was authentic. He actually really was a rancher, right,
he lost like his hand, like his finger or something
and ranching eyes like that was that was authentic to him.
Tallerico feels very like, Okay, we got the consultants together
in a room, and you're a young guy, so we

(26:42):
need you and make you appear like larger and like
you've got this crowd behind you or I don't know.
It just all feels very very crafted and inauthentic. Jasmine
crockets ad obviously is also consultant driven and crafted and
all of that, but it does feel like this is
her like her, she puts herself at the center, she

(27:02):
puts herself in the spot, like she does know how
to pick these fights. And so yeah, I think a
lot of Democrats are going to they already love her
right because of the way she's picked these fights and
are going to like that aspect of her in this
campaign as well. In terms of the general election, Like,
it's definitely I would bet on the Republicans. I think

(27:23):
it's definitely theirs to lose. I wouldn't account her out.
I feel like there is a just assumption that she's
going to perform poorly, that she won't be a little
peel to swing voters, et cetera. And listen, if there's
one thing I've learned from the Trump era, it's that
that like charisma and that star power, it overcomes a lot,
and she has she has that quality. So you know,

(27:46):
I don't I, like I said, I would definitely think
the Republicans it's their seat to lose.

Speaker 4 (27:51):
They've got a shot at it.

Speaker 2 (27:52):
But when you have this tremendous reckoning of the Trump
era and discussed with what the Republican Party represents, one
of the people who have swung the hardest against Trump
or non white, non college voters, of which there are many, many,
many of in Texas. You would expect that Texas would
be a place where Democrats would perform much better than
they ordinarily perform the state. So I am not willing

(28:15):
to write her off completely for the general election in
the way that many others have.

Speaker 1 (28:19):
I'll make my stock better. Right now, is Stock on
camera again, I'll do it, you know, I'll do it
even she even loses by a point.

Speaker 6 (28:25):
There's no way I'll say it, because it just doesn't exist.
Where like her strategy is one that will easily win
a primary. By the way, if she were in a
closer state, I actually think she would have more of
a shot. But the state has fundamentally had a major
political transformation over the last since the last time that
a Democrat came close. Like the Beto strategy just it

(28:46):
doesn't work anymore. I mean, the margins expanded in twenty
twenty four, and the idea that you could bank just
on you know, those type of voters to come out
for you, I just don't see it. Especially by the way,
there's gonna be a raucous Maga primary, which is currently
happening with John Cornyn and all of them. So the
Republicans are actually going to be a little bit more
engaged in this race than normal. It's not just going
to be normal smooth sailing. There is an argument that

(29:09):
that's bad, but it does mean that they're gonna be
paying attention.

Speaker 1 (29:12):
Paying attention means you come out to vote.

Speaker 6 (29:13):
And by the way, I mean, she's a gift, all right,
you know, in the way that she triggers the right.

Speaker 1 (29:18):
Yeah, but that that is useful to we're.

Speaker 6 (29:19):
Getting people to come out and hate vote, you know,
against you, for everybody who may come out to vote
for you.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
I think she stands for nothing.

Speaker 6 (29:24):
I also, I mean, look, I know, look, she's a
lightning rod and that's fine, But like I think he's
genuinely kind of dumb. Like I don't I've never heard
her say a single smart thing. She's a complete narcissist.

Speaker 3 (29:35):
She has a background of herself on her iPhone's.

Speaker 2 (29:39):
These people are all I agree that given that is
a given. I don't think it's like I don't see
any sign that she's not an intelligent person. I think
she is an intelligent I think she's very savvy in
the way that she's positioned herself.

Speaker 4 (29:52):
And like I said, like.

Speaker 6 (29:53):
Ideolized Trump is for gaining attention. That doesn't mean you're
a smart person, Like were talking about politics, But.

Speaker 2 (30:00):
Yeah, I'm talking about politics. What matters Are people voting
based on, like you know, your SAT score? I wish no,
they're not. She has star quality. And here's the other
thing is at the Senate level, it matters. The individual
candidates matter more matters some I think what we learned
in the off year elections is that it doesn't matter

(30:23):
that much who Democratic can run a Mikey Cheryl. You
can run a Abigail Stanberger. You can run you know,
an Afton Bane in Tennessee. You can run what's the
dud's name, j Jones, who, like you know, said he
wanted to murder as Republican.

Speaker 4 (30:37):
But you can run him and win.

Speaker 2 (30:39):
I think a lot of this is going to be
about the national wins much more than it is going
to be about.

Speaker 4 (30:47):
The individual candidates.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
Now, I'm not going to say the individual candidates and
local condition don't matter at all. Of course they do
at the state wide level. At the congression level, I
don't think they really matter all that much. But whatever,
will put that aside. But I think the bigger dynamic
is going to be what is the national mood and
the wind is whether it's Jasmine Crockett or James Tallerigo
or bet org or whoever they put in, the wins

(31:09):
are at Democrats back.

Speaker 1 (31:10):
Right now, I'll tell you where she would have a
better chance.

Speaker 6 (31:12):
Actually, I think governor, because there's a lot of evidence
that voters vote very differently statewide versus national.

Speaker 2 (31:17):
They vote less on a less partisan basis the street
state offices.

Speaker 6 (31:22):
Versus like if you look at Kentucky, North Carolina, there's
a lot of red states with blue state government with
blue governors exactly Maryland famously right Larry Hogan, But they're
not going to vote for him for Senate. They people,
you know, you got to give them some credit, Like
in general, they understand the power of a United States
Senate seat.

Speaker 1 (31:39):
It's going to be very, very difficult.

Speaker 6 (31:41):
And in the history of the red states which would
have elect blue state democrats, those have all been wiped
out post twenty ten, with very very limited exceptions. And
that type that was successful doesn't look like her. Maybe,
I mean, you know this like raging narcissist triggering thing.
It's for the Republicans. Sure shit has you know, don't

(32:02):
get me wrong, but it usually does not work in
a state excuse me. It usually does not work in
a state of the opposing party usually need like like,
if you're running in a blue state, I'd be like, oh,
you know, it's there's no question about it. But she
doesn't have that Larry Hogan type energy I guess that
you would need as a Democrat I think to win.

(32:24):
But listen, it'll be you know, it'd be a good test.
We'll see same thing. The sock bet stands. I'll do
it if we need to.

Speaker 4 (32:31):
All right, what margin margin?

Speaker 1 (32:33):
I'll tell you one percent.

Speaker 6 (32:34):
If she loses by less than one percent, so it's
like a spread, like, what is it plus one?

Speaker 1 (32:38):
All right, we'll give her a plus one spread.

Speaker 6 (32:40):
So she loses by more than one, I won't If
she loses by less than one, I will eat the stock,
and if she wins, I'll eat two. All right, there
you go. I'll even spot a couple of points to
the audience. Speaking of Congress is going to move to
the NDAA. A lot of very important stuff going on
here in Ohchington. Let's put this up here on the screen.

(33:02):
Marjorie Taylor Green, one of the few Republicans still left
in the House of Representatives for the majority, has announced
you will not be voting on the NDAA like quote
funds our military and is once again filled with America's
hard earned tax dollars used to fund foreign aid in
foreign countries wars. So let's take a look what's actually
in said NDAA. Despite promises to end the war in Ukraine,

(33:26):
another four hundred million dollars for the quote Ukraine Security
Assistance Initiative for twenty twenty six, twenty seven. You'll be
happy to learn that for Israel, we have the following
five hundred million for Israeli missile defense, eighty million for
US Israel Anti tunnel cooperation, fifty million for US Israel
anti drone technology. We've got another one hundred and seventy

(33:48):
five million for the Baltic Security Initiative. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia.
You've got a few hundred million there for the Government
of Iraq. Syrian militias. What's that Syrian militias? You know
which militia do exactly? Do you mean one hundred million
to support Middle Eastern countries to increase security along their borders.

(34:09):
So you know about half a bill there for the
Middle East, for this is for the pro al Qaeda
government over there in Syria. You know, a few cool
one hundred mil for the Israelis, a few cool hundred
mil for Ukraine, and so yeah, pretty much looks exactly
the same that it always has been. ZTEO News doing

(34:29):
some good breakdown here over the Israel stuff. Let's put
that next one up here on the screen. This is amazing,
by the way, the US bill would actually fill the
Israeli weapons gap caused by embargoes. So other nations that
are boycotting and Israel and are you know, stopping them
from acquiring certain weapons.

Speaker 1 (34:48):
What the US bill would do.

Speaker 6 (34:49):
Is go around and would then buy said weapons and
make sure that we deliver it to them.

Speaker 2 (34:54):
We're going to analyze, make sure we need to spend
our government money analyze and making sure the Israelis have
absolutely everything they need, that they're not impacted by these
embargos from their genocide whatsoever. And then we will make
sure to fill the gaps in anything that is not
being provided that country by countries that have more of
a conscience.

Speaker 1 (35:13):
In America, first indeed.

Speaker 6 (35:14):
And so actually, you know what's kind of interesting here, guys,
is this this could be in trouble because you've got
a lot of you know, the margin right now the
House of Representatives is like two votes. Let's put D
three up here on the screen. This is from Politico.
They're talking about what you missed in the NDAA. They also,
you'll all be happy to learn, is that they are
making sure to waive any of the existing sanctions on Syria.

(35:38):
We wouldn't want al Qaeda to pay a price, now
would we, now that they're pro Israel in Syria?

Speaker 1 (35:44):
That would be conscionable.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
Weave a lot of sanctions, but yeah, it's funny that,
but this is the one that we choose to do.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
Yeah. Look, we can debate sanctions all we want.

Speaker 6 (35:53):
So they work, they not work. There's a lot of
evidence they mostly don't work. But you know, if you're
gonna do it, if you're gonna wave it, you should
waive it for a good reason. And in this case,
like what are you doing it for? So you can
meet the pro Israel al Qaeda in Syria? Okay, all right,
got it? And like I said, hundreds of millions more
here I love this, you know, making sure to backfill

(36:13):
all of the Spain, Itali, Italy and Germany weapons transfers
my buying said weapons, make sure that Israel has absolutely
everything that it needs. Now, Originally I thought, of course, Ukraine,
we're not even gonna I'll get to that money pit
here in a second. I'll but disappear into the pockets
of Zelenski and his cronies. Just you know, he needs

(36:33):
just a few more one hundred million to make it
all work. But what is amazing to me is I
originally had thought, oh, well, you know, Marjorie won't vote
for it, so maybe it'll be in trouble.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
But you informed me this morning.

Speaker 6 (36:45):
I had forgotten that many hockeys Democrats will probably bail
them out because they support the Ukraine the Israel section too.

Speaker 1 (36:52):
So it's great to live in a uniparty state.

Speaker 4 (36:54):
Yeah, bipartisanship still very much.

Speaker 1 (36:56):
It's a lot.

Speaker 2 (36:58):
Don't listen to the haters who say they're is know
by barisanship in Washington. Now, so I mean you're you're losing,
Marjorie Thomas Massey. I'm gonna probably not going to vote
for it either. That means you can only lose one
more person. I think that's the math. And so if
you did have more Republicans defect, the expectation is that
there are a handful of hawkish deems who would make

(37:19):
sure to step up and.

Speaker 4 (37:20):
Fill the void.

Speaker 2 (37:21):
One other thing I provision I did want to mention
because this was, you know, related to a central Donald
Trump campaign promise from where he talked about how he
was going to expand access to IVF blah blah blah. Well,
Mike Johnson, who is this, you know, ideological Christian zealot.
He has removed a provision that would have provided IVF
coverage for military, active duty members of the military, so

(37:43):
that in spite of Trump pledge to strengthen access to
the procedures. So you know, it's one of the line
items here. There's of course, this is a Christmas tree
type of builder's all kinds of stuff put in here.
But one of the pieces that got stripped out for
you know, religious ideological reasons here, seemingly from the speaker
house himself, was this provision that would have provided IVF
access for active duty members of the military.

Speaker 6 (38:06):
Wow, yeah, great, let's continue here. D four up on
the screen. We wanted to stay on top of this.
We had told you before that there are many Republicans
who are weighing resignation. Well now it says that there
may be twenty in the next few weeks who will
announce that they will not retire, running for the exits
before things get worse. It's a terrible job, I think,

(38:28):
in my opinion, con always asks, especially in the House
of Representatives, but especially now, and when you're headed into
a minority, you're going to be doing nothing. You're just
going to have to be, you know, Trump's impeachment defense guy.
And that's a great job for you know, Jim Jordan
or anybody like that who just loves to go on
Fox News and be like, here's a word to do

(38:49):
to stand up to the radical Democrats today if you
actually care about getting anything done.

Speaker 1 (38:53):
Already, being a minority sucks being.

Speaker 6 (38:55):
A minority under Trump, where ninety eight percent of what's
going to happen on the Democrats' investigation of Trump. Get ready,
you know it's going to be Bengazi committee all day long.

Speaker 1 (39:04):
Not a criticism.

Speaker 6 (39:05):
That's fine, that's what opposite parties do when they take
over the House or Representatives.

Speaker 1 (39:10):
But that's the reason why, and they don't want to
take their marshinals.

Speaker 4 (39:12):
Well, yeah, that's right. It's always a sign.

Speaker 2 (39:14):
You always see, like in years where it's expected that
it's going to be a Republican way, you see a
bunch of Democrats retire because they just don't want to
deal with being in the minority. They're like, all right,
I'm done here this time. The indication is you've had
more Republicans who have retired or outright resigned, like Marjorie
Taylor Green is not serving out the rest of her term,
and so that is an indication of where the political
wins are heading and the expectation from basically all of

(39:37):
them that we're going to be in the minority. So
I'm not sure I want to stick around for this.
I mean one question, First of all, we don't know
how many. You know, this says up to twenty, well
up to twenty is a pretty broad range, so how
many exactly? The other question is, you know, do others
of them take the Marjorie Taylor Green route and leave
before their term ends, triggering more special elections and putting

(39:57):
the House majority in jeopardy even before we get to
the mid term elections, which again given the narrow margin
and given the way these special elections have been going,
is I think certainly very much on the table that
that Mike Johnson would lose control majority control of the
House even before we get to twenty twenty six, right, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (40:20):
So it's going to be interesting.

Speaker 6 (40:21):
And then I just had to put this in here
because you know, only been saying it for three years.
D five put it up here on the screen. You
gotta love this. New York Times they woke up from
their coma. They say Zelenski's government sabotage oversight, allowing corruption
to fester. Oh really, And they say at Times investigation
found president of Vladimir's Lensky's own administration removed guard rails.

Speaker 1 (40:43):
And you know, to prevent graft.

Speaker 6 (40:46):
And they point to this very specific example involving a
gas company guy.

Speaker 1 (40:49):
This is the tip of the iceberg.

Speaker 6 (40:51):
And you know, did you guys cover probably not which
the head negotiator literally we played a side of him
last week, the head negotiator for Ukraine's peace steel he
had to resign because of corruption his own defense. Guys,
I don't think we did, because we covered that, we
did the stot and then the next day literally resigned,

(41:12):
resigned because of can you imagine that, Like you're negotiating
piece and the next day you're like, oh, actually I
gotta go because they got me.

Speaker 1 (41:20):
I tweeted out the story.

Speaker 6 (41:22):
They got some close Selenski advisors, business partners with hundreds
of millions in cash and euros in the middle of
their apartments when they're being busted. Zelenski is literally at
war with his own independent aid to the extent that
there's any independent agency trying to cover and what do
we do.

Speaker 1 (41:39):
We hand him another four hundred million.

Speaker 6 (41:41):
It's amazing to me. It's amazing to me, Like the
one of the reasons. Look, I get the Europeans why
they're all bought into this. If this war ends, it's
a disaster for him. It's a gravy train. Like this
is the only thing propping up the entire Zelenski regime.
They have big they have profited to the tune of
hundreds of million. And it's pathetic because at the time

(42:02):
when we used to talk about it in twenty twenty
two and twenty twenty three, when it wasn't popular to
point out how corrupt this country was, they said, you
were a Russian propagandist if you wanted an independent agency
to review and coincidentally, Segar one of the greatest government
agencies in US history, with a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan.
It just issued its final report and I read it.

(42:23):
I've been reading those for twenty years, and it's final
report detailed the hundreds of billions that we wasted in Afghanistan.
And the only reason we even know about so many
of that is because of that independent agent. We still
wasted it. Now, you would think, you know, eventually that
we would get an accounting. Now we don't even have
the mechanism to account. We're going to rely on some
New York Times investigation or whatever Ukrainian opposition will come

(42:45):
in and just point out only the Zelenski corruption, not
their own and all this so you know, who knows
how many billions we pissed away in this war and
how many people died as a result of it.

Speaker 1 (42:56):
Even if you do support, you create and.

Speaker 2 (42:57):
It has a major ongoing impact because, as you know,
part of the deal that is being crafted, which seems
like it's not really particularly going that well at this point,
the Russians don't like if the Ukrainians are rejecting view whatever.
It doesn't seem like that's really coming together, but who
knows what's happening behind the scenes. In any case, part
of that is okay, you're not going to be a NATO,
but you get to be in part of the EU.

Speaker 1 (43:17):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (43:18):
Well, the EU has guidelines about corruption, anti corruption, so
they're looking at this and like, not so sure we
really want Ukraine, given the track record right now, to
be part of the EU. So it has consequences, you know,
not only which is significant in terms of where our
tax dollars have gone and who's into whose pockets they
have gone in, and what little interest our political class

(43:40):
has taken in answering that question, but also in terms
of what happens in the future, you know, whenever this
war is brought to some sort of an ugly conclusion.

Speaker 1 (43:49):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 6 (43:50):
I mean, look, I don't think I'm not optimistic for
a deal. Trump is not focused enough on it. The
Russians have their own you know, they look the Russians
like they don't really need this deal. They're fine, they
don't care about killing as many of their people as possible.
The only people who need a deal is Ukraine. Because
they're dying and they're keeping them losing their territory. Putin basically,

(44:12):
behind the scenes is said, look, we're gonna take this
shit no one way or the other.

Speaker 1 (44:15):
You could give it to us, or we're gonna bleed
another one hundred k. They don't care.

Speaker 6 (44:19):
Their economy is fine, their population seems to support the war.

Speaker 1 (44:23):
I don't get it, but they do.

Speaker 6 (44:24):
Okay, I'm not Russian. I guess they've been convinced of it.
The Ukrainians are the ones who are moving in the
opposite direction. They got enough people killing, and they've got
enough people been killed, and they're willing to negotiate at
least a little bit. And the Europeans are blowing smoke
up their ass about how oh, don't worry, we'll fund
you in the interim and as long as nothing happens,
it's good for Ukraine. Because what did I just show

(44:45):
everybody in the NBAA hundreds of millions are still pouring
in just enough to keep them in the fight, you know,
to continue to lose more territory. And so look, we're
gonna end up in the same place no matter what.
So they think that they're being smart by holding this
off off.

Speaker 1 (45:00):
They're being dumb.

Speaker 6 (45:01):
Because they're just going to continue to lose their territory.
They refuse to wake up to reality. They demand NATO
protection security guarantees.

Speaker 1 (45:08):
And Trump wants to give it to him. He's the
one who's to blame here.

Speaker 6 (45:11):
It's been a year now, you know, basically since he's
had an opportunity, and nothing is moving in any direction.
So if you're pro Ukraine, you should be mad, and honestly,
if you're mine, you should be even more mad because
you're like you said, this was going to end, and
you just keep pouring money into the conflict, do nothing
and dragon dragon feet people are dying by one hundreds,
you know, hundreds of thousands.

Speaker 2 (45:29):
Well, and remember the messaging from him, this will be
easy to say, yeah before I even take office, or
I'll do it on day one.

Speaker 4 (45:35):
I mean that was what he said. And people bought
into this brand.

Speaker 2 (45:38):
Oh he's a great deal maker if anyone can get
it done and be him blah blah blah. And you know,
and I think people were not really buying in that
it was going to be literally handled on day one.
But if you look at his polling, this is one
of the issues where his rating is the lowest because
you know, it is another major blow to his brand.
You're supposed to be the great deal. This was supposed

(46:01):
to be so easy for you. And here we are
a year in and you know, we had some rumblings
of Koka. Things are coming together. And look again, I
don't know what's happening behind the scenes. I have no
special knowledge, but we haven't heard much about progress being made,
and it seems like both sides are bulking at the provisions.

Speaker 6 (46:15):
I doubt I would be so doubtful. Look, we're about
to go into Christmas. You know, things go on hiatus,
the money gets passed, get a couple hundred million more,
Zolenska and his guys get to go to Vienna and Paris.

Speaker 4 (46:28):
It's at the point now where it's easier just to
put it on the back.

Speaker 1 (46:31):
It's Afghanistan.

Speaker 6 (46:32):
Now, We're just can keep pouring money into this shit,
and it'll get worse and worse, and one day it'll
blow up and then everyone, oh my god, how do
we all let this happen. It's like, well, it would
have been easier to solve this shit in twenty twenty two,
but everybody said, oh, I'm gonna.

Speaker 3 (46:44):
I'd rather pay high gas prices for Ukraine. How about
work out for you?

Speaker 6 (46:48):
They'll lost way more territory since that time, So thanks
for you know, destroy whatever we keep ranting.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
So let's talk about this pretty remarkable change between Piers
Morgan on his program and Nick Fuentes over the course
of two hours. I was among the millions that watched
all of it. I know, you millions, I think, so, yeah, million,
that's what Peer said. He was wriging about it being
millions anyway.

Speaker 1 (47:16):
But you know, uh two point two million, Yeah, there
you go.

Speaker 2 (47:20):
Yeah, there were you know, there are a lot of
clips you guys probably seen already some of the things
that floating around. Maybe you have or have not. We'll
get to some of the ones that have been clipped
out the most. But there was a different exchange where
Nick acknowledges that his politics are basically the same not basically,
he says they are the same as the politics of

(47:40):
Israeli Zionists, that he wants the same thing for the
US that they want in Israel. And in a certain sense,
I thought that was maybe his most accidentally revealing comment.
So let me go ahead and play that and we
can talk about that.

Speaker 1 (47:54):
On the other side, there's a genocide going on right now.

Speaker 7 (47:57):
It's not against how many Christians, it's against Christians in
the world.

Speaker 1 (48:03):
That makes one point some billion.

Speaker 3 (48:05):
We are losing as the civilization of mass migration. And
here's the difference. In Israel. They have my politics. In Israel,
they want to maintain a Jewish majority. If they had
it their way, it would only be Jewish people. They're
fighting like hell so that Jewish people can have as
much territory a Jewish state, they can be proudly Jewish
in their own land. Whereas in America we are being

(48:27):
besieged by ten million Ilegal immigrants in four years and
then Whites and Christians are going to be the minority.
And that's true in Canada, Australia, all the countries in Europe.

Speaker 1 (48:37):
So you could say there's two.

Speaker 3 (48:38):
Billion people, but what's the proportionality, what is the percentage
of people being born that are white? Where's the arrow
pointing where are we going to be in fifty years?
In fifty years, there might be in Israel in fifty
years there is anna people like Christian.

Speaker 2 (48:53):
So the reason I think Saga that this is very
instructive is because we have all spent a lot of
time now thinking about Israeli society, diety in Israeli politics,
thinking about how that is going for Israeli is let alone,
how that is going for the world. And so Nick
is saying here, my project of ethno nationalism is the
same as the Israeli project of ethno nationalism. So as

(49:15):
much as he is critical of them, he actually admires
their commitment to an ethno state with Jewish supremacy. He
just wants it to be white people who are on
top of you, white Christians who are on top here
versus Jews, as it is in Israel. And I think
we can all see very clearly from recent experience what
that actually looks like. I mean, in terms of Israeli society,

(49:37):
they have major issues. They're suffering, you know, an exodus
of especially the sort of like college educated you know,
elites who are leaving the country. You have a massive,
you know issue in terms of like the social welfare
state and people who actually want to work and pay in.
You have, of course extraordinary violence. You know, all this
language about oh, we need Israel because it's the only

(49:58):
place where Jewish people can be safe and it's quite
the contrary. It's probably the place where Jewish people are
the least safe. It requires and necessitates and apartheid regime
because you're constantly terror in terror of a demographic replacement
and of Arabs Palestinians becoming the majority. So then you
end up doing both violence, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. It

(50:22):
leads to mass state violence, like multiple wars on multiple fronts,
bombing all of these countries for the Greater Israel projects
so that you can make sure that your ethno state
is demographically secure, like that is their project. And here
Nika saying, yes, that is what I want for the

(50:42):
United States. So that's why I think that that comment
to me was so.

Speaker 1 (50:46):
Interesting, not just interesting.

Speaker 6 (50:48):
That is the fundamental problem for the American Zionist project,
because the American Zionist project is that Israel is defense
of Western values, and he is saying, actually, no, it
is representative of my vision for an ethno nationalist American state.

Speaker 1 (51:05):
And in a lot of ways he's honest about it.

Speaker 6 (51:08):
Right, He's right, And I think that's part of the
problem is we all, at least most of us, with
our eyes open, we see that society now for what
it is now. I would say, if you look at
the right left valance for a lot of the criticism
of Israel, it comes to a two thing number one.
From the left, it's almost entirely based on human rights concerns.

(51:28):
On the right, a lot of it is about this
tiny country. I said before, it's violates natural law. A
country of nine million that rules three hundred and thirty million,
or at least has a vast amount of influence. But
you know, look, Americans, even people who are skeptical of immigration, like,
let's talk about the Trump people. Whenever the Trump people
overtly make immigration stuff racial, it becomes much less popular.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
Is that correct?

Speaker 5 (51:51):
Now?

Speaker 1 (51:51):
Why?

Speaker 6 (51:51):
Because what do people mean when they say they want
immigration restriction or something like that? You point to control
over your border. Now here's the other thing too. If
you actually ask people whether they want ethno nationalist politics,
they're like no, actually, I mean, look, first of all,
it's a little fucking ridiculous to hear a guy who
admits that his family is Italian and Mexican start talking

(52:13):
about heritage American. Like seriously, okay, all right, you know,
if we want to play this game, my wife's.

Speaker 1 (52:18):
But my wife's blood goes back to Plymouth Rock.

Speaker 4 (52:21):
All Right, I've got I've got my heritage American correst my.

Speaker 1 (52:25):
Kid, even though it's a jeet mongrel.

Speaker 6 (52:28):
According to the groy Burst has got more heritage American blood.
All right, if you guys want blood and oil, like,
we can do that, rolling it back uh to the
I mean, this is.

Speaker 4 (52:41):
Just something you and I both have in commons. We
both have Mongrel children.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
So preposterous.

Speaker 6 (52:46):
Does it not annoy anyone else that only in America
that he can become so assimilated to be a Italian
Mexican espousing ethno nationalists, white politics. You know again, my
wife's ancestors have been horrified at a Italian post eighties
Catholic Catholic saying.

Speaker 1 (53:07):
That he's a white American. I mean, does this not
drive anybody else crazy?

Speaker 6 (53:11):
All right? But okay, moving back about the ethno nationalist part. Yeah,
this is the logical conclusion of like zionus Israel and
that's a nightmare. Yeah, because Israel has always relied on
we are better than everybody else. Yes, we are better
than these barbarian Muslims who live.

Speaker 3 (53:33):
In dough by the way. Look, this is I lived
in guitar. Okay, I don't want to live in Islamic country.

Speaker 6 (53:38):
It fucking sucks if you ask me, completely completely out
of step with most Western values. I don't want that
bullshit over here. But they want that to That's what
I'm saying. They want that in their own version to
be important here. That's part of what drives me crazy.
They're the most identitarian people in the world.

Speaker 2 (53:56):
Think about what we have seen in Israel, associate yourself
with their politics. To me at this point is it's
honestly wild. Just this week we didn't even get around
to covering because there's so much psychoshit that they do.
Benevier and his acolytes, who are members of the government,
their new symbol, their new pin that they're wearing around.
It's meant to look like the hostage ribbon, but if

(54:20):
you look closely, it's a noose. It's a noose, the
symbol of racial terror, like the nation national global symbol
of racial terror. That's what they're wearing. Why are they
wearing that? Because they want the right to execute the
Palestinian detainees that they are holding, some of whom are children,
none of whom ultimately are very few of whom ultimately

(54:41):
even face charges. They're just randomly pulled. If your military
age men, you're just assumed to be guilty. So there's
that we all witness the right to rape protests and
the way that the rapists are celebrated in the country,
Like that is a natural extension of the Israeli Jewish

(55:02):
supremacist ethno nationalist project, as is the apartheid, as is
the violence, as is the ethnic cleansing, and as is
the fact that you are not interested in making peace
with your neighbors.

Speaker 4 (55:15):
Like all of that.

Speaker 2 (55:16):
Violence comes from this one rotten seed of we must
do anything we have to do, and it doesn't mean
nobody else matters, only we matter, and we will do
literally anything to maintain our demographic majority. So let's just
be really like he is telling you, those are his politics,
and that is perfectly in line with everything else that

(55:36):
he said. And the reason I appreciated this interview with
Peers is because Nick has been doing like he just
did one with Stephen Crowder that was so fucking embarrassing.
I'm sorry it was Stephen Crowder that would humiliating. It
was humiliating because from the jump he's you know, he's
clearly afraid of Nick and his audience, and everything's like,

(56:01):
now you've said some things I don't agree, but I
think you were just joking. I think you're taken out
of context. Like let me, you know, let me give
you the floor to explain that you're really much more
reasonable and moderate that these bad people want to make
you out to be. The Tucker interview also embarrassing. Right,
he's been going on this tour and now he's sort
of like can't be denied anymore. So you know, everybody's

(56:23):
going to talk about him, and everybody's going to talk
to him, and mostly what he's been getting is softballs
or they don't have his words directly there, so he
doesn't have to directly address them. Now, there are parts
of this that I would have handled differently. But you know, Pierce,
like to his cart, he's good at this type of interview.
He's not afraid of confrontation, he's quick on his feet.

(56:44):
He had a moment where he like caught He had
a couple moments where he caught Nick in some you know,
some things that were like logical inconsistencies that I thought
was very clever to do in the moment. He doesn't
handle everything the way that I would, but he kind
of forced Nick to actually be straightforward, what are your
actual views?

Speaker 4 (57:01):
Are these jokes or are these not jokes?

Speaker 2 (57:04):
And I think that was at this point where we
are with him being uncanceled and him being in the
mainstream and having all this influence and all of that,
I think that was important to do. So let me
go ahead and play one of those moments. So you know,
I Nick actually called me out for always calling him anots,
prefacing with the fact that he's a neo Nazi every

(57:25):
time I talk about him, because I think that is
an accurate description of his politics. So one of the
clips that Pierce played was him saying, like, how great
and cool he thinks Hitler is, and he challenges him
with that, Let's go ahead and take a listen how
that goes.

Speaker 7 (57:37):
Do you think Hitler was very fucking cool? Yes?

Speaker 1 (57:42):
I do one of those, and I'm tired of pretending
he's not well.

Speaker 7 (57:47):
To be honest, this is the problem, you see. It's
a bit like when you just say I'm a racist.
You're a racist who thinks Hitler's cool, but you're not
anti semitic if you're a Jewish person watching this, what
are they thinking?

Speaker 2 (57:59):
So there you go. Yes, I think Hitler is cool.
I'm tired of pretending he's not. Let me go ahead
and play. Also this moment where Peers challenges hit him
Nick with some of the things he said in the
past and ask them, well, I mean, aren't you just basically.

Speaker 4 (58:12):
Admitting here that you're a racist?

Speaker 2 (58:14):
And Nick says yes, he affirms, yes, you could say
that I am a racist.

Speaker 4 (58:17):
This is f three. Let's take a listen.

Speaker 3 (58:19):
I'm a new generation of white person. I'm not living
around blacks. Sorry, you know, I want white kids and
I don't want my white kids bringing home black people
to marry. It's racial for me. And call me racist. Oh,
very Christian to you. I don't give a fuck.

Speaker 7 (58:41):
I mean, it couldn't be clearer really, unless you want
to say that's another regal jokes. But you're basically saying, yeah,
I'm a racist, aren't you?

Speaker 3 (58:50):
Uh yeah, yeah, I'm fine with that. You're fine with
saying you're a racist totally. I think everybody's racist. I
think everybody, if we're being honest, is racist. I think everybody.
The only people that aren't racist or pretend not to
be our white people to their detriment.

Speaker 2 (59:07):
There was a funny moment right after that because Nick
had taken great offense at Tucker playing for him something
he'd said about his dad which indicated his dad was
for your peer, did I say, oh, I said, Tucker, sorry.
Peers played something for Nick that he had said about
his dad that indicated his dad was how dare you
seeing my dad is racist? And then here he's like, well, yeah,
everybody's racist, and so Peer's like, but wait, your.

Speaker 4 (59:28):
Dad is the one non racist person.

Speaker 1 (59:31):
I thought that the whole dad thing was weird because whatever.
But my point is just.

Speaker 2 (59:35):
Like I think it was clever because it got him
sort of angry and frazzled off the jump. Now listen,
to be clear, Knicks fans think he did a fantastic job.
He thinks PEPs was owned. He thinks they think it's
so base that he was like, yes, Hitler's cool, and
yes I'm a racist and all of that, Like they're
totally happy with his performance. To me, I think it's

(59:55):
very useful to have this new interview where he says overly,
yes Hitler' school, Yes I'm a racist, I support the
politics of you know, apartheid Israel. That's what I want
for the United States. Okay, good, Like good people need
to know I agree exactly where you are and not
do this like playing cute and coy and like, oh
I want to work with the left and I'm really
reasonable and no, I've been so mischaracterized.

Speaker 6 (01:00:15):
Well even in Trump criticism, you know, I mean, look,
it's been very effective, very recently. He is very Look,
he's smart, Like, let's give credit where it is due.
He's a very calculated person. Like when he does his
normal guy interviews with I don't know, like Bradley Martin
or something like that, he'll sit and he'll very cogently
explain the problems with US support for Israel, and you know,

(01:00:38):
stuff that has broad based support. But this stuff is
also important to Couch. I mean, look, you know, the
gropers are correct in that quote. He did a good job.
He very accurately represented himself, you know, very accurately. If
you knew anything about him, this is exactly what it is.
And I'm not going to sit here in pearl clutch.
I'm pretty confident enough in American politics. And more to say,

(01:00:58):
I don't think most people are cool with it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:00):
I just don't.

Speaker 6 (01:01:01):
And like that's the part where look, this is this
kind of bigets like media responsibility for couching in everything.

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
What this isn't important?

Speaker 6 (01:01:10):
By the way, why are we even paying attention beyond
like this is a thing, because the thing is And
again this is in my opinion, kind of rewinding back.
I think the last time we talked about Fuentes, I
ultimately blame much of the quote liberal Zionist or right
wing Zionist project for this bullshit because they are the
ones who try to defend ethno nationalist Israel who murders

(01:01:32):
women and children in the language of American interests and
of liberal Western values, which a lot of Americans believe in,
And they kind of broke that open and that criticism
window where ultimately it really was like Nick and a
few others who were willing to say no, this is bullshit,
and like that's the vacuum that was ultimately filled. And

(01:01:53):
so and you know, look, even now with the pro
Israel right, everyone is basically saying the same shit about Muslims.
You know, this like rampant like low iq islamophobia as
literally by the way, go read that. Charlie Kirk letter
to NETANYAHUO. He even says there and there was a
whole poll tested strategy. They're like, we need to attack

(01:02:15):
Islam to like move away from people attacking. But this
is what these like Zionists never understand it, guys. If
you openly normalize talking generically about cultures and moving away
from talking about people as individual or openly talking about
people as a race, and specifically like openly normalize like
grouping people in together, Historically that's always been really bad

(01:02:38):
for Jews, right, But they seem to think that it's
not going to blow back on them. He is only
taking it to a very logical conclusion. And so that's
why is Israel comment combined with the race that it's like, yeah,
that's that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:50):
Is that that's a project. Listen.

Speaker 6 (01:02:51):
I mean, look at America, like in general broadly what
we mostly have come to terms with again, even coming
to immigration. I know you disagree, but there are a
lot of people who still voted for Trump on the
immigration agenda. I again think it was about control and
one of the things I mean, even in this whole
like race thing, whenever he talks about I think you've
really said at one point, race is not skin deep, right,

(01:03:15):
which okay, I mean yeah, if you believe that, I
mean that, that's fine. I guess you know, not a
lot of good evidence. Actually, whenever it comes to us culture.

Speaker 1 (01:03:24):
This is my look.

Speaker 6 (01:03:25):
I don't love I don't love the race IQ discourse.
I don't think there's any a lot of really good
that comes from it. But if you want to, if
you want to look at educational attainment by race and
all that, you would be amazed at the difference. Let's say,
in the term white, white is a meaningless term. The
income gap between a quote unquote French heritage American compared

(01:03:45):
to a Italian American or a you know, Serbian or
Caucasian American like from the Caucuses is almost a difference
between like white and black. You can also do that
in terms of Asian. My point is like Laotan versus
is Japanese or Indian. Now, I don't want to go
down this whole road, but my point on that is
that if it was just not skin deep, then that

(01:04:07):
wouldn't be the case because their skin color or their
race would determine it. I think a lot of it
is cultural, and in fact that is value based, and
it transcends in fact, it's kind of an inspirational story
if you ask me.

Speaker 1 (01:04:22):
You know, we've I read this piece.

Speaker 6 (01:04:24):
It was in Killet years ago, actually talking about Black
Americans and you know the legacy of hate, you know
that Harlem Renaissance and Caribbean Black Americans versus some of
the legacy of like Jim Crow South and why exactly
there were educational differences in income. Yeah, it's all culture,
turns out, and you can't even say, oh, guy, genetically

(01:04:46):
they're the same. They're both descendants of a slavery based island,
you know system.

Speaker 1 (01:04:51):
So actually it's all cultural based.

Speaker 6 (01:04:53):
I think that's kind of cool, very inspirational actually, but
nobody you know, and again I think entertaining this is
but I guess at this point, like we have to
talk differences, you know, and all this, and so look
and by the way, you know, I don't think people
want to go down this whole road of you know,
they're talking about the Somali fraud thing. I'm like, okay,
you want you want to talk about fraud, like you
want to talk.

Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
About fraud, like we can.

Speaker 4 (01:05:14):
Let's let's discuss what Scott yeah about that?

Speaker 6 (01:05:16):
Okay, but let's also look at I'll say it, the
Hissidic Jewish culture. Right, Well, guess what go in to
New York City. You can look at landlords and all
people racists do this all the time, who are anti Semitic.

Speaker 1 (01:05:26):
Do I think that's because they're inherently Jewish? No?

Speaker 6 (01:05:28):
I think that ultra insular communities of any sort often
can use their different their network effects in order to
pull off fraud.

Speaker 2 (01:05:37):
I mean, Nick, coming from an Italian background, this is
something very much about the Italians, you know, the mob
and the way that that all worked. I mean, yeah,
it's a very common phenomenon, especially with immigrant communities, especially
if there is you know, especially actually if there's some
sort of discrimination against that community and that makes them
even more tighter knit and they're looking out for one.

Speaker 1 (01:05:56):
Don't don't let my own people off the hook. I'm
not a race. I don't believe, you know, in all,
A lot of Indians commit fraud, a lot of them.
You know why.

Speaker 6 (01:06:02):
In India it's a non rules based system where corruption
and graft is rife. Culturally, it's a huge problem over there,
and so they come over here and some of them
who use the same practice. Does that mean all Indians
are corrupt.

Speaker 1 (01:06:16):
Love it?

Speaker 4 (01:06:17):
No?

Speaker 6 (01:06:17):
In fact, is it inherent to our brown condition? Or
is it a legacy of the Institution's on Now, I'm
fine with that. We can talk about that shit all
day long, but let's not all pear clutch over it,
and let's definitely not make it some sort of like
skin color.

Speaker 1 (01:06:32):
You know.

Speaker 6 (01:06:33):
My point is, it's America. We should all be treated
as individuals. I'm happy to discuss culture all day long,
from Somali's to Hasidic Jews to anybody else. We can
talk all day long about merit. That's ultimately why I
think a merit based, individual based system and evaluating everyone
as ultimately as the US Constitution inherently at its best
wanted us to look at, is fundamentally why I think

(01:06:53):
the American project is still sounding good. We have tried
his vision before it was called the Jim Crow South,
beyond openly just being a place where people were lynched,
or they'll love that one.

Speaker 1 (01:07:04):
They're always talking about how the lynchings were always that bad.
It's amazing.

Speaker 6 (01:07:08):
No, it's if you never dealved into Southern know about that,
oh man, Southern revanchism is a whole.

Speaker 2 (01:07:14):
Other well, and there's I mean, for me, I think
the culture piece, like I give that some credence. I
also think material conditions are incredibly important, even when you know,
that was one of the things that was frustrating me
when Peers and Neck were going back and forth on
like crime statistics, is you have to talk about material
conditions to get a complete picture there as well.

Speaker 4 (01:07:33):
And Peers because he doesn't.

Speaker 2 (01:07:35):
You know, he doesn't really have an opposite or like
an alternative ideological frame, so it doesn't have a lot
of grounding to come into those discussions, like he doesn't have,
for example, a class based frame to apply or even
you know, you would bring more of a cultural frame
to it to apply, like he doesn't have it. But
in any case, putting that aside, you know, I think

(01:07:55):
there's another dynamic here. First of all, most of what
says about black people, about immigrants, most of this has
not been a problem for the Republican Party. You know,
most of this is pretty mainstream in terms of the
Republican Party. You can just ask Steven Miller and look
at what the president says about Somali, about Somali's not

(01:08:15):
even Somaliam or like Smali, US citizens Somali Americans to
see the way that this racial lens has become the
dominant lens of Republican politics. And it's ironic because you know,
in a lot of ways they position themselves as pushing
back on the racial lens or the identity lens that

(01:08:37):
came from liberals and the left. You know, that's what
wokeism is, right, It's a racial lens, but from a
left wing perspective.

Speaker 4 (01:08:47):
And now they have applied their own.

Speaker 2 (01:08:49):
And I mean this has always existed and Republicans is
not like new, but now it's I think more front
and center than it's ever been before and with more
overt power in the person of Steven Miller and others
within the White House. Just look at the way the
DHS account post where they have this very explicitly racial lens.
That's how you end up with the refugee program shut
down except for africaners coming out of South Africa. Right whites,

(01:09:09):
literal whites only refugee policy. But where Nick comes in
from their opprobrium is when he applies it to Jewish
people as well. And so you know that's why, like
you say, okay, you blame liberals. I think there's a
lot of blame to go around for the flirtation liberals.

Speaker 6 (01:09:28):
For the right wing Zionist movement trying to they're trying
to have it both with that's, yeah, trying to say
denaturalize and deport all Somali's because we don't like ilhan Omar.
But if if all Jews, if you can plate for Israel,
you're an anti semi and.

Speaker 2 (01:09:42):
You should be and you should literally be criminalized rightly
and locked up, and that should be made it actually illegal.

Speaker 1 (01:09:48):
Yes, No, I blame it right wing Zionis for his rise.

Speaker 2 (01:09:50):
And the other and I agree with that, and then
I to zoom out more broadly. You know, I don't
think we should any of us should be surprised that
radical politics is ascendant. That is more overt, you know,
his product of certainly like Internet culture, but also just
a product of the fact that the neoliberal project has
run its course. It has failed to deliver on its promises.
People are slipping in their living standards. They're living less,

(01:10:12):
I mean, their life expectancy is literally shrinking, like the
most basic metric of how society could do. So from
a more macro perspective, you know, that's where I sort
of pin this phenomenon. But I also feel like, you know, Nick,
in this interview, he's very confident. He's like, young people
agree with me, and I'm winning. I'm winning the argument.
I don't see a lot of evidence for that. In fact, look,

(01:10:34):
I don't know this poll is. Who knows how accurate
this is. Many people don't even know who Nick Fuentas is.
But his favorability among the American population right now is
six percent. Okay, if you put a random person's name
in there, you're likely to get more than that. And
interestingly though, actually if you dig into the cross tabs,

(01:10:56):
the place where he has his greatest support of course
young men. But if if you break it down by
racial groups, it's actually black people and then Latinos and
then white people only three percent favorability, so it's like
twelve percent. And so you know, I think the I
think the Israel criticism reads to a lot of people
as like anti establishment and also reads if you don't

(01:11:18):
listen to him all the time and you don't hear
him saying or you think he's just joking when he
says like I know I am actually a racist and
I actually don't want to be around black people, and I,
you know, cross the street when I see them, and
I don't want to live in their neighbors, and I
don't want my kids to bury them. Like, if you
aren't paying enough attention to hear all of those things,
it may also read as like concern for equal rights

(01:11:42):
and concern for humanity, because that is one of the
dominant frames with which people view Israel. So anyway, I
thought that polling was interesting, even as I take it
with the grain salt. And this is not to dismiss him,
because I think a lot of the discourse right now
about oh it's all bots and it's all inorganic and
foreign influence and whatever like. There may be some of that,
but he genuinely has a devoted following. You can see

(01:12:05):
them I r L. They turn up at events all
the time, They watch his interviews religiously, they post his
content like. This is clearly a fan base that exists
and is very influential and incredibly impactful with young especially
with young Republicans.

Speaker 6 (01:12:21):
Say it is a bot thing is ludicrous. It's literally
not true. Look it is. He is a very popular person.

Speaker 3 (01:12:28):
Okay, he's popular now now I think to say is
the most influential amongst young Man is a little it's
a little twitter brained. In my opinion, I think Ben
Shapiro is actually far more influential.

Speaker 1 (01:12:39):
I wish that were not the case. To be king,
I don't agree with that.

Speaker 4 (01:12:43):
But he's fallen off. He's fallen off.

Speaker 1 (01:12:45):
I think he was.

Speaker 4 (01:12:46):
I think he's fallen off all look at his view count.

Speaker 6 (01:12:50):
It's not just this view He still has one of
the most popular podcasts in the US, is a top
ten political podcast.

Speaker 1 (01:12:54):
Is many more down loads, even in ours. I wish
this were not.

Speaker 2 (01:12:57):
Also, I think his audience is older. See I love
his numbers, Wilson, his numbers. I mean Tim Poole was
talking about this, like all conservative influencers outside of the
Groper lane and outside like Canvas is doing very well,
Talker's doing well, Nick is doing very well. But the
pro Israel Republican commentators, they're all falling off.

Speaker 1 (01:13:16):
Yeah, that's a YouTube thing.

Speaker 6 (01:13:17):
But if you look at the podcast charts, the Matt
Walsh's of the World of Charlie, The Charlie Kirk Show
was huge. You know before this, it was a top
ten bandon War Room. This is not just old people
like to say to deny that theyre do not have
a big audience, Like really whitewashes that there is a
whole Again, this is just Twitter brain Like there is
applicant out there who listens to the best Ben shpiersh show.

Speaker 2 (01:13:40):
But they're older. I mean, look at this, Look at
the poll Look look at the polling with young Republicans
on Israel.

Speaker 1 (01:13:45):
Yes, but that's I mean, that is that's just I'm.

Speaker 4 (01:13:48):
Not saying it's only Nick Funtas.

Speaker 2 (01:13:50):
But I think I think Ben has lost a lot
of whatever purchase he had with young people, which I'm
not convinced that he ever had a lot of purchase
with young men or women, but he was. But whatever
purchase he had with young people I think has been
severely eroded by the fact that Israel is so central
to him and that that has become for the young right,

(01:14:12):
that has become a real litmus test.

Speaker 6 (01:14:14):
Look, I don't disagree, but again I wouldn't take podcasts
our Twitter virality exactly to the bank. Like Megan Kelly
is the number one conservative podcaster right now, Ben Shapiro
is number yeah, number two.

Speaker 2 (01:14:27):
Like Look, but again, podcasts tend to be older than
YouTube or data.

Speaker 6 (01:14:33):
Twitter it's really our data shows them. I mean, they're
much more on our YouTube demographic. I don't know, okay exactly,
I would have to look, but I again, I would
not take it all the way as like this is
the number one.

Speaker 3 (01:14:45):
Now.

Speaker 1 (01:14:45):
Look, let's give him credit. He has literally.

Speaker 6 (01:14:47):
Banned on most podcast platforms, so if he was able
to compete fairly, maybe he would be as big. But
I also think there's an element of people who live
on Twitter too much, like take this much more to
the bank, to be fair, that has a Republican elite
problem because a lot of of Republican elites are only
on Twitter, so it can be verily influential at that level.
But there's still a lot of like normal frat dudes
out there who are not supposedly necessarily into Nick Fuintez.

(01:15:10):
Let's say they're listening to Tucker Carlson right now, who
is one of the bigger younger audiences.

Speaker 2 (01:15:15):
Candace is up here, Yeah, but they're all they're like
Nick fuents adjacent, you know what I mean.

Speaker 4 (01:15:22):
I mean, they're not. I think it is fair.

Speaker 2 (01:15:24):
I'm just talking about in terms of Candace, yes, in
terms of the Israel criticism that is the dividing line, right,
Candace is an Israel critic, Tucker is an Israel critic,
Nick is an Israel critic, right, And so yes, that
they have more strength with younger audiences.

Speaker 4 (01:15:43):
That's my point.

Speaker 2 (01:15:43):
Okay, that's my point, right, And the Shapiros and the
Timpooles and Stephen Crowders of the world have fallen off
because in the same way, this is a litmus test
with Democrats overall, and I'm not even just young Democrats
over you know, it is a I think a litmus
test with young Republicans. And I do think that that
is a big part of why Nick Fuent has has

(01:16:04):
seen such a rise right now, because he's taken the
ideology that is a senate in the reublic the racialist
ideologists is sendate in the Republican Party and has been
flirted with by all these people, and he's saying it outright.
So that's number one, So it comes across as a
truth teller. Number two, it has been disallowed to have
any sort of Trump criticism, and so the only place
you would get that previously was like, you know, outside

(01:16:26):
of yourself and Emily like there's a few other voices
basically that exist on this channel alone. But outside of that,
if you're going to get someone on the right, it's
going to be Fuentes and then to a lesser degree,
Tucker and Candae, so that there was like a market
opening there as well. And then yeah, I think Israel

(01:16:46):
has just become such an incredibly central dividing line. But
in any case, to bring this back around to the
interview with Peers, I thought Peers did a serviceable job.
I appreciate just the you know, direct getting on the
record of yes, I'm a Rasis, Yes, a misogynist, Yes,
I like Hitler, like having all of those things said
on the record. Now, okay, all right, we know what

(01:17:07):
you are. We can deal with this. You're not doing
this hide the ball thing anymore. Appreciate that. And to me,
affirmatively affiliating yourself with the ethno nationalist politics of Israel
is very useful because we can all see what that
means and where it leads. We don't have to imagine,
we can see it right now in real time. Is
that what you want? Is that what you want?

Speaker 1 (01:17:28):
Actually?

Speaker 4 (01:17:29):
Now what I want?

Speaker 6 (01:17:29):
A lot of Republican critics of Israel, a lot of
them are horrified by.

Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
Their they don't want to live in that society. That's
what they don't want right to.

Speaker 6 (01:17:38):
I mean literally it is funny, you know if you think,
if it's like, why does the logical conclusion of ethno nationalism,
like rewind the clock here, go back one hundred years,
you basically saw the same level of like breaking out
rapists or whatever down in the South.

Speaker 1 (01:17:50):
Yes, this shit.

Speaker 2 (01:17:51):
Because when you dehumanize people, this is the natural that's
the natural extension. And especially when you have this like
demographic project word is an existential threat. If some other
groups starts having babies and they're otherwise, then it's it
leads inevitably to apartheid, ed nic cleansing, violence, genocide. Like

(01:18:11):
that is the track that Israel has always been on
since it's founding, because of its core ethno nationalist Jewish
supremacist ideology, and especially since they tried to like kick
the people off their land and you know, set up
shop in a place that it came.

Speaker 1 (01:18:26):
To add in the war, it came to head in
the war.

Speaker 6 (01:18:28):
And saying that is actually again it's one of the
more revealing things of all this just the final thing
to tie about yea, when I was saying about influence.
What I meant is not the Israel thing. What I
meant was, look, I could be deeply naive. I do
not think the vast majority of young Republicans are overt.
I think that race is not skin deep. I just
don't think so. I mean this is based on my

(01:18:50):
own experience. Now, listen, there's a shitload of Groper's out there.
Don't get me wrong, They're one hundred percent and the
irony culture, but in g.

Speaker 2 (01:18:57):
They're very engaged, which gives them makes some punch about that.

Speaker 6 (01:19:00):
That's what I meant about the Twitter thing, where like, yeah,
you can get a lot of interactions, but that doesn't
mean I mean, look, I know how every time I
meet somebody who watches the show, not on Twitter, barely
politically engaged, they're like, yeah, I listen to the show,
love the show, you know, something like that, going about
my daily business. That's kind of what I meant by Shapiro,
Talker Candice, all these people like they have much more
I think normal audience. Now to the extent that the

(01:19:22):
normal audience exists, and why Nick is appealing is Nick
speaks very eloquently about being a young man, disaffected, young
white man, in America. I sympathize with that. I talk
about it here too, right, not just white part.

Speaker 2 (01:19:34):
Diffected, disaffected part in America, disaffected young men.

Speaker 1 (01:19:39):
I talk.

Speaker 6 (01:19:40):
He speaks very eloquently about what that's like. He speaks
eloquently about what he thinks is like too feminized of
a cult.

Speaker 3 (01:19:46):
Now he takes it pretty far faroo, but shouldn't.

Speaker 6 (01:19:52):
He is very obviously, just like with Israel thing and
taking it to full blown anti semitism.

Speaker 1 (01:19:58):
He takes something with.

Speaker 6 (01:19:59):
A real gripe you know in society, and you take
it full on. But he speaks, you know, he's capable
when he wants to of speaking about that. He also
he's very witty. He is funny, and he has some
very skating criticism of Trump. All the ingredients for a
broad appeal are all there. This is just being honest,
you know, from from a purely like analytical perspective. And

(01:20:19):
then the grand opening of Trump, maga scophancy and right
wing media unable to critique israel sick infancy from the
Ben Shapiro's on the World created this storm. And the
funny part is they are just like him, like the
way they talk about Somali's is the way he talks
about Jews, You're just like, you can't, We're not gonna win.

Speaker 4 (01:20:36):
And he he also talks about Samies that way, by
the way.

Speaker 6 (01:20:39):
Yeah, the point is he's the logical conclusion in many
ways of the way that they want to defend their
own Israel politics, and he's saying, actually, I'm the real
representative of Israel.

Speaker 1 (01:20:50):
Are I kind of agree with that?

Speaker 6 (01:20:52):
And so it's all just a question now of which
way we don't to go. So to the extent that
this is an important interview at all, it's because there
are people, I think a lot of right wingers who
are grappling with the what it doesn't mean to be
an anti Israel republican? What doesn't mean to be anti
Israel and not a leftist? And they have difficulty in
their options of the Ben Shapiro or the Fuintes and

(01:21:14):
all that. And it's like, you guys, you know, you
don't have to pick either, maybe operationally you kind of do.
And then similarly on the left, people are like, oh,
can we make you know, common cause or whatever? Because
he's what did he say is like we want to
work together or something. It's like, you know, like they
don't want to work with you, right, or at least
they probably should if they want to win, you know, Right,

(01:21:35):
it's really a question about like political effective coalitions and
like what it means for this and so yeah, that's
my final Like ty Bow here is I think Nick
is a creation of the right wing Zionist movement. I
think broadly also, it's a representation of why we need
better spaces for people to actually talk about all of

(01:21:56):
those issues, which we do here on this show all
the time.

Speaker 7 (01:21:59):
He is.

Speaker 6 (01:22:00):
You know, there's a reason that the fringes become popular
in moments like this, and it's because there's no mainstream
legitimacy and then you have a revolutionary like Trump gets
elected on their backs and then basically becomes more so
that makes you lose even less faith in the political system.

Speaker 1 (01:22:15):
So I get it. And it's not an excuse at all.

Speaker 6 (01:22:18):
I guess it's more of a it's a real leadership
question really if you're a Republican, especially to be able
to find some way to talk about this eloquently, and
I haven't seen a single person really be able to
do it.

Speaker 1 (01:22:30):
Now. It's kind of tragic, actually, because I think this
is just going to keep rolling.

Speaker 6 (01:22:35):
Ye all right, yep, long, long winded. We'll see everybody.
It will be a great counterpoint show for tomorrow. Thank
you for bearing with my voice. I'm sure it was
grading for some of you. Try my best.

Speaker 1 (01:22:46):
We'll see you all on Thursday.