May 22, 2025 • 32 mins
A CNN journalist interviewed comedian Tim Dillon and tried to smear him as a right-wing stooge. It backfired spectacularly. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, streamer Asmongold's viral take on free speech and what he gets wrong.
Send me a voicenote: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
Subscribe to my 2nd channel: https://www.youtube.com/@MoreBradPolumbo
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Are you on the spectrum?
Speaker 2 (00:00):
I reserve, I'm not, and maybe who knows? I don't
think so how long I need to pay their money
in it?
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Henn strikes again with one of the most absurd attempted
takedowns of a comedian, Tim Dillon that I've seen. In
a minute, we're going to break down this bizarre CNN
interview with the comedian Tim Dillon that went awry, plus
(00:28):
talk about a viral hot take from streamer Asthmin Gold
about free speech and the First Amendment. All this and
so much more is coming up on today's episode of
The Barad Versus Everyone podcast might at least show where
we take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet,
our media, and our politics, all from an independent perspective
of First, like I mentioned, I didn't know a ton
(00:49):
about his work. I wasn't super familiar with him, but
I think I'm officially a Tim Dillon fan, at least
after this one hour interview that the anti woke comedian
whose political views kind of spanned the spectrum. I wouldn't
put him in one clear box, but he's a really
funny guy and he just did an interview with a
(01:09):
CNN reporter who covers kind of online discourse and social
media topics and viral sensations, and the interview did not
go the way she hoped. She tried to spin several
narratives that Tim very calmly and very smoothly dismantled in
front of her eyes. We're going to walk through some
of the highlights of this interview starting with this first clip.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Can you talk about like you had Steve Bannon on
pretty recently, you had jd Vance on in the fall.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
We reached out to Bernie, said no, said he couldn't
do it because of his schedule. We like and respect Bernie.
We reached out to Tim Wallz no response.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Okay, okay, fair.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Enough so, especially in the context of the full interview,
which I did listen to. She was trying to accuse
Tim Dillon of like rolling out the red carpet at
one point, and she says, for all these right wing
people on his podcast and not doing hard hitting enough
journalism and just softballing one side. But he pointed out
to her that they had invited Tim Walls, the vice
(02:12):
presidential nominee who ran alongside Kamala Harris. They had invited
Bernie Sanders, one of the most prominent figures in the
Democratic Party or associated with the Democratic Party. He's technically
an independent and guess what they got, crickets. So you
can't credibly complain that all these podcasters and all these
comedians who host podcasts are just platforming Republicans when Democrats
(02:37):
won't take the invitations when they're offered. We just saw
this with Kamala Harris declining to do the Joe Rogan
interview in part because she was afraid her staffers would
get mad that she spoke to somebody problematic or what
have you, regardless of the fact that it was one
of the most popular podcasts in the world. So this
game that much of liberal media likes to play where
they attack these podcasters for having only one side on one,
(03:00):
it's more nuanced than that. They do have people from
across the spectrum sometimes. But two, it's sort of of
the Democratic Party's own making. So how do you expect
any sympathy for that. I will give a shout out
to a few Democrats like Pete, but judge who will
go into these venues. He does go on Fox News.
He just went recently on The Flagrant Podcast with Andrew Schultz.
(03:21):
I think more should follow his lead on that kind
of thing. Let's take a look at this next clip
from the interview.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Do you feel like you're part of a new establishment
that's being.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Creat I don't think I'm part of a new establishment.
I think it would be pretty difficult to look at
these podcasts. I know it's a popular thing right now,
especially in certain media circles, to say that after running
an incredibly unpopular candidate who is introduced very late in
the race, because an elderly man who could not be
(03:51):
the president, who everyone told whose function is the president
for four years? So to hang this defeat or on
a few podcast and to say that they were the problems,
I don't buy. I just don't buy the narrative. So
I don't think I'm a new establishment. If you weigh again,
a few comedians with podcasts verse all of the people
(04:14):
that supported Kamala Harris, you know, democrat downers, billionaires, big people.
If the idea is that me and a few comedians
have more power than multi billionaires, huge media institutions, of
whole political party apparatus, I just don't think most people
(04:35):
are gonna buy that. I think it seems like a
great way to excuse running an unpopular candidate on a
platform that American people weren't sold on.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Ooh, not him cooking, not him eating her up. I mean,
I just completely agree with Tim here when they try
to blame like, oh, the new establishment or the new
media of podcasts and all this stuff. One, they're totally
ignoring the way that left in many ways, whether it's
traditional media or these politicians, have seeded those platforms. So
(05:05):
then again, you don't get to complain when you're not
represented on them. And Two, they're ignoring the fact that, like,
they still have these massive mainstream media institutions, which, even
though their audience size may not be as large as
it once was, there's still so many of them, and
they have such institutional access. These cable news networks, these
(05:26):
massive newspapers. You know, they are read by the important
and powerful people. So the fact that like the theovon
podcast gets way more views than a CNN broadcast doesn't
mean that theovon now has more power and influence than
CNN Because a lot of the people who tune into
it theovon are marginally attached to politics. Many of them
(05:47):
may not even vote whereas you have the Democratic power
brokers and politicians even on the Republican side as well,
who are hanging on the words of CNN hosts and
who are reading their stories and basing their decisions on them.
To try and they have tried, this to spin podcasters
as the new powerful people is disingenuous when you consider
(06:08):
the weight and uniformity of the still existing establishment, the entertainers,
the celebrities, the actors, the media personalities. And Tim admitted this,
None of this is to say podcasters and influencers and
YouTubers have no power. They do have significant power. But
trying to blame them, it's giving Russia Gate, it's giving
(06:28):
like put in the election. It's giving cope rather than
honest reflection about why Democrats lost a lot of which
not everything was their fault, but a lot of which
really just involves taking a look in the mirror. And
this next clip, El Reeve, the CNN reporter who interviewed
Tim here, seemed to suggest that comedians or comedy written large,
(06:50):
is mostly a predominantly right wing now and Tim set
her straight pretty quick. Take a listen, they're.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Very, very successful comedians that are left of center comedians,
who I mean, what do you mean, like who Chelsea Handler?
I think John Mulaney probably. I think that you would
find Sarah Silverman. I think Bill Burr, Louis c k.
(07:21):
He's never voted for a Republican in his life. Why
because he's an imperfect person. These are massively successful comedians.
They're all more successful than I am, and there's nothing
wrong with that. And they're all left leaning comedian. Is
there this idea that like they're not around or you
can't find them. That's the craziest thing I've ever heard.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
No, no, no, But there's not cultural energy out.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
They're not all as big as they were because I
think careers go up and down.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
I mean I interviewed like a late night comedy writer
like Kimmel.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Allan or do you not have the faith? Do you
think there's gonna be No, I just left comedy.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
I don't see like a ecosystem or like a galaxy.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
So there's this saying that woke people will sometimes say that,
like when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression
and I always roll my eyes about it at it
a little bit. But in this situation I have to say, like,
obviously there are more like outspoken right wing comedians and
comics and people now before. But I think it's that
(08:23):
when you're used to uniformity, diversity feels like you're suddenly
a minority, even though you're still not. Really like the
fact that there are more outspoken right wing comics or
and a lot of them aren't even like right wing.
They just lean right or maybe voted for Trump, but
they the opinions they have are not you know, far
far right or anything. Doesn't change the fact that there's
(08:45):
still all these late night hosts. There's still all these
prominent liberal comedians. I mean, Bill Burr is like an
unhinged leftist, still a very funny guy, but very radical
left wing takes with tons of fans, huge influence. So
it feels to me like maybe for a CNN host
or anchor or reporter, they're just used to comedy being
(09:05):
like an almost exclusively liberal safe space, and now that
it isn't. Now that the vibe has shifted and you
have actually more diversity of viewpoint, which I really appreciate
and I think is great. That feels like suddenly there's
no liberal comics anymore. But just because it feels that way,
doesn't make it true, and I thought Tim kind of
masterfully explained that to her in real time. She also
(09:29):
accused him of playing dumb, and I don't think it
went well for her. Take a listen.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Yeah, the cultural energy is where the culture seems to
be so fractured. I don't know if there's a cultural
energy that's moving in any direction. I mean, I could
you could say it could go on YouTube and go
the cultural energy is right, and you go to a
college campus and you go the cultural energies left, and
then you go to the boomers and on all the
real estate and you go the cultural energy is like
(09:56):
paranoid fear based, checked out and is pull amorphous depending
on what pills and.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
Drinks they've had.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
I mean, I don't know if you can find where
the cultural energy in this country is going, you're doing
a lot better than many.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
You are on the internet.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
I am on the internet, though, dumb. I don't think
I'm playing dumb. I really don't know where the cultural energy.
That means, like the idea that we have one dominant
cultural energy in this country seems crazy to me. The
idea that has have we stopped canceling people for silly things, Yes,
why it got exhausting. Does that mean that everyone's right
(10:37):
wing now?
Speaker 3 (10:38):
No, So I don't think that he was playing dumb,
and I think it came off poorly that she said that.
But I don't fully agree with him, but I do
absolutely take his point. I do think it's true that
in general, there has been a vibe shift in America,
particularly since the election, where people feel much more comfortable
having different opinions, saying outrageous things. Sometimes it's even going
(11:00):
too far and they're getting too comfortable saying outrageous things.
But I absolutely take his point that culture is incredibly fractured. So,
like we've talked about on this show, places like Instagram, threads,
that online culture and ecosystem, you go there and it's
still twenty twenty. They are still places like TikTok. You
go there, it's still twenty twenty. They're melting down over
(11:22):
microaggressions and internal woke civil wars and having struggle sessions
and all that. Then you go to Twitter and parts
of it are like a alright, anti Semitic hellscape. So yes,
the overall culture has shifted, But also I do take
his point that it's fractured in different ways, and some
areas of our culture haven't shifted, and some have shifted
(11:45):
quite a lot. So I don't think he's playing dumb.
I just think he was trying to make a nuanced
point that she didn't really seem to grasp. Elle also
thought she had like a gotcha on Tim here, and
his response was just actually really funny to me. Take
a listen like Fox.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
I guess it's fuck Nation, but like Fox is doing
comedy specials now and then those comedians do the rounds
on like gut film.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Specially very cheap to make and very cheap to produce.
I think CNN also did a few. Didn't they do
Colin Quinns, who's a brilliant comedian. Didn't they put his.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
On we have a comedy show?
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Yeah, Like, I don't think it's if your point?
Speaker 1 (12:22):
And would you be like, yes, I want to work there.
I want to be on CNN's comedy show.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Call me and pay me.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
She really thought she did something when she was like,
and would you work there? Would you really do a
comedy show? And he's like, yeah, just pay me and
I'll do it. That was that was really funny. I mean,
she's not wrong. There's been this blurring of the lines
between news and entertainment. I do it myself. I now
do this kind of entertaining, informative political content. I don't
(12:48):
love it, to be honest. I mean I wish it
wasn't where our cultural moment and our current information era
was at. But it is what it is. So you
just have to play the game. You don't get to
write the rules as an individual part. And I did
find it funny how he's like, heck, yeah, I'll do
a special for CNN plus whatever, Just write me a check.
I think that's the thing people like her fail to realize,
(13:09):
because a liberal comedian would never work with Fox News,
no matter how much money or or audience they could reach.
Whereas conservatives are, I mean, they're just used to being
and not to say even that Tim is a conservative,
but they're just used to being. People with right leading
views are used to being in spaces where they are
not the dominant opinion and are not as mortified of
(13:30):
that as liberals can sometimes be. This next moment from
the interview was just kind of bizarre spectrum.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
I reserve now I'm not. I mean, maybe who knows.
I don't think so long I need to pay their
money in it.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
I was just kind of shocked, she asked, of that
it kind of gave out a nowhere. I mean, I
don't really care. I'm not like offended. I just thought
it was weird. Next Elle talked about why she suspects
that journalists, especially like mainstream establishment journalist types, have such
an issue with the increased prommnants of podcasting and the
fact that podcasters are like interviewing presidential candidates and it's
(14:05):
having so much influence, and she sort of seemed to
stumble on the point by accident. Take a listen.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
It is possible that maybe the journalistic fixation on the
whole podcast thing is partly like, you guys are kind
of taking our jobs but not doing the shitty part,
which is like the uncomfortable thing in the room that sucks,
which is like are you bad?
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Just like like are.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
They are they doing the Are you bad? Is that
what jurnalists we have to do?
Speaker 1 (14:34):
Are you bad?
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Sure? But is that what is your view of me?
And it's a fair question. Is your view of mainstream
American journalism calling out powerful people? Is that what we've
been seeing?
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Do you read republica? Okay?
Speaker 2 (14:50):
But do you know what I mean, like when we know, well,
it's not a monolith, don't think.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
So this was fascinating to me as a journalist sort
of who's also in this new space, because the way
she frames it, Oh, the are you bad? Question is
actually kind of indicative of the problem because the point,
and this is the way that establishment liberal journalists have,
many of them, not all, have approached like interviewing politicians.
(15:18):
Some politicians the ones with an R next to their
name mostly the but aren't you bad? Questions? The well
aren't you Your critics say you're a racist, so aren't you?
Or this kind of thing where they're just like making sure, Yeah,
I might interview this person, but I'm going to be
sure to publicly denounce them in some way that actually
(15:39):
rubs people the wrong way. What they want is for
people to ask tough questions to highlight inconsistencies. So were
I to interview someone like a JD. Vance, I would
not call him any names. I would not read, oh, look,
this critic says you're a racist, fascist, white supremacist. How
do you respond? This kind of thing that they do
where they air just personal insults through critics say, but
(16:03):
I would highlight like actual tough questions, things where the
administration promised something on the campaign that they haven't done,
or things where they've said one thing and done another.
Those are the kinds of meaningful things that actually agree
doesn't happen much. It occasionally happens, but it doesn't happen
much when these podcasters and comedians do interviews, because they
are meant to be softballs. They're not meant to be
(16:25):
hard hitting journalism. And I do think there's a need
for both. I think you need the hard interviews, not
just the easy interviews where you can just kind of
wax poetic. However, she totally fails to acknowledge that the
problem with the traditional approach is that one it always
seemed too openly biased and personal rather than substantive criticisms,
and two it was really only applied in one direction
(16:48):
in a lot of cases. And she highlights somewhere like
pro Publica that most of y'all have probably never heard of.
Pro Publica, to be clear, is a website, a nonprofit
that does investigative written journalist and some of it is
powerful and good. Some of it is even into like
liberal NGOs or democratic politicians, but That's just one example. Obviously,
(17:09):
not all media is the same. CNN, however, though, show
us like compare the way that they interview Republican candidates
and Democratic candidates, Republican and Democrat elected officials. Tell me
there's not a difference with a straight face. That's the problem.
And I'm not sure they get it yet, not quite yet,
at least I mean to kind of typify this. She
(17:31):
literally tried to explain to Tim Dillon why he is bad,
or at least what the strongest argument could be that
he is bad. Like it just very childish and trite
to me. But take a listen.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
This Stehman case for you being bad is you rolled
out the red carpet for jd Vance to make his
case that he's just like you man. He likes jokes,
he hates war. He wants yeah, working class people to
be happy and work in factories and make widgets. And
then that enables him to get in office and deport
people on college campuses for saying this war is bad.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
He's in the group chat saying I don't think the
president realizes what a big strategic mistake this is gonna be.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
But then he also says, but if we're gonna do it.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Here's the deal. And do I criticize that. I absolutely do.
If you watch my show and I'm bad, your case
makes sense.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
If I go on my show and I go.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Jad made me, I realize something's different and they should
be deported and we should do this. I have called
them out since they've gotten in for this, and you
can place clips of it. I watched it, and you've
watched it. If I went along with it, I'm bad.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
So this critique, again, I agree with Tim, only makes
sense if you have people who totally flip flop according
to whatever side they're saying. So they make their name
as free speech warriors and they're suddenly cheering on censorship,
or they make their way their name as free market
capitalists and they suddenly love like big government economic policies.
Then that critique, again, I find a childish to say
(19:08):
they are bad, but it's a legit critique. But if
you're someone like Tim who had this interview with Jadie
Vance but then still has criticized some of the things
that Trump administration has done, I don't really think it
lands at all. But again, I just reject the notion
that democrats weren't offered the same platform on basically every
one of these big podcasts that I've heard of. They
(19:29):
invited Democrats, they invited Kamala or Tim Walls, and they
didn't go. That's their own fault. You should be scolding
them for that, not wagging your finger at comedians because
they only interviewed Republicans when the Democrats are so scared
of their own shadow and their own base that they
won't go to talk to anybody who could be considered problematic. Like,
(19:52):
just no sympathy from me whatsoever. But I did find
this interview overall, like incredibly interesting and I have seen
a lot of his work. But I'm definitely going to
be giving Tim Dillon more of a look after this.
What do you guys think? Do let me know in
the comments and hit that like button while you're at it,
and make sure you're subscribed if you aren't yet. By
the way, guys, remember to check out my new March line.
(20:15):
We just dropped items for the on my last brain
cell line that are new and really great. My boyfriend
worked hard to design them, so do check them out
to support the show. Plus send in your voice notes
for my Friday episodes. Where I react to your woo
car stories and give you my take on your personal
scenarios and situations. The link to sending voice notes is
(20:35):
in the description, and remember to subscribe to my second channel.
I'll actually be dropping a debate I did with a
liberal streamer on trans issues and the Democratic Party and
child transition and other stuff. I'll be dropping it on
that channel soon, so make sure you're subscribed. All those
links in the description. And now we're going to check
in with the really popular streamer Asthman Gold, who I
(20:57):
hadn't heard of until recently but is blowing up and
is now one of the biggest voices on the Internet.
He does gaming, but he also does politics and gives
his political commentary. And that's what we're going to catch
up on today because he responded to this Tim Poole
interview with Adam Connover of like Adam ruins Everything fame
where the issue of free speech and selectively deporting people
(21:20):
on student visas because of their political opinions where that
issue came up and Asmin Gold had an interesting perspective
about it, especially that the context here is the deportation
of a toughs university student and the visa revocation for
her named Rumesa ouz Turk that has made tons of news,
(21:41):
have been very controversial. So that's the context for this.
And this club went viral because it was shared by
Tim Kass News, writing quote, I don't think the Constitution
should apply to people who aren't citizens, asmin Gold opposes
First Amendment protections for foreign agitators like Ramesa Ousterk and
supports their deportation.
Speaker 4 (21:59):
Here's that the claim about a threat to our national
security is grossly overestimated. The climate these people have adhere
to Hamas is growth grossly overestimated. That being said, it
is still completely legal in that an individual who comes
here on a conditional visa not violent confessions of the visa. Sure,
so it's but dude, I'm asking.
Speaker 5 (22:19):
You, like, do you think it's good for America that
like college students who are here on a student visa
because of political speech are being thrown into vans and
having legal things. Be sure, it's narrowly.
Speaker 6 (22:34):
Yes, because they're doing it in support of a terrorist organization.
They're actively disrupting the school, and in a lot of
cases they're breaking the law. If these three if these
three things weren't happening, then the answer would not be yes,
but usually they are, so the answer is yes, legal,
but like you know.
Speaker 5 (22:55):
She's home, she's being put in a prison, and then yeah,
and then she's being like forcibly.
Speaker 6 (22:59):
Depor do you w huge w do it again?
Speaker 5 (23:04):
I think that's good for America.
Speaker 6 (23:05):
Yes, absolutely, get foreign agitators out of our country. You
can't vote here. I don't want to have you protesting
and breaking laws here either.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
Get the doubt like.
Speaker 5 (23:17):
This is okay?
Speaker 3 (23:18):
So you know marginally absolutely you think what do you.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
Think is good? Even marginally?
Speaker 6 (23:23):
Like what's the what's the band?
Speaker 3 (23:25):
Free speech?
Speaker 6 (23:26):
I don't consider people that are not citizens to have
the full rights of free speech. I don't think that
the Constitution should apply to people who aren't citizens. Why not,
because I just don't think it should. That's why it's
the American Constitution. They're not Americans.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
It's simple, So it may be simple. It's also wrong,
incredibly wrong on many fronts. And that's why I was
kind of concerned by this clip because this dude has
a massive audience. Like I'm telling you, guys, he is
one of the biggest people on the Internet at the moment,
and nothing against him versely, but he's using that platform
to push some I think, in some cases just like misinformed,
(24:09):
like not really factually correct ideas about these specifics of
these cases, but then also some concerning broader sentiment. So
let's talk about it first. Remember this is all about
a specific case rmesa oster whose deportation he says he supports,
but then he lists a bunch of things that are
absolutely not true about her case. There is nothing anywhere
(24:32):
suggesting that she supports Hamas, which is a designated terrorist organization.
So if you could show that someone here on a
student visa was somehow providing material support to a terror organization,
that would be legit I think we all agree that
would be legitimate grounds for revoking a visa. All she
did was write an op ed critical of Israel in
her student newspaper. That's it. In fact, the federal government
(24:55):
was asked in federal court by a judge, please provide
me your additional evidence beyond this one op ed that
she somehow supports Hamas, there's a threat to our national
security or anything like that, and they came up empty.
They provided nothing else because presumably there is nothing else,
or why wouldn't they have provided it, and she Romesa
(25:16):
was not actively disrupting her campus. She was not taking
over buildings or disrupting other students' educational experience. That does
apply to some people, but not her. She also wasn't
breaking any laws. Even Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State
and the State Department is the one revoking these visas,
said that she didn't break any laws. To be clear,
(25:36):
I think when you have people here on visas who
are committing crimes, they're trespassing, they're taking over buildings, they're
disrupting classes, I think it's entirely legitimate to deport them
or revoke their visas. But I'm not okay with going
after people and kicking them out of the country, turning
their life upside down just because they air a political
opinion that the government doesn't like. That is not a
(25:59):
huge It is a massive l if you're somebody who
believes in open debate and free expression, and it's a
disturbing precedent that I don't think people on the right
have really thought through to any great extent. I'm gonna
give you guys a great example, So Marco Rubio says,
The Secretary of State says that they have the authority
(26:19):
to deport anybody whose presence in the US undermines US
foreign policy, which is the kind of justification they're using
to revoke the visa of people like Romesa Ulster. Let's
talk about an interesting counter example, doctor Jordan Peterson, the
clinical psychologist and thinker who is extremely popular among conservatives, Republicans,
(26:41):
and a lot of independents and moderates for his wisdom, advice,
political opinions and the like. Well, doctor Peterson is not
a US citizen. He has legal status in the US,
which is in the form of a visa or some
other form if the same kind of thing that the
Trump administration says they can revoke based on beliefs or
(27:01):
opinions that undermine US foreign policy. Well, doctor Jordan Peterson
has been very critical of US support for the war
in Ukraine, and it was the under the Biden administration.
Who knows where Trump is going with it, but under
the Biden administration it was explicitly the position of the
US government that they supported Ukraine and supported massive aid
(27:22):
to Ukraine in their fight against Putin's invasion. Set aside
whether you agree or disagree with that for now, and
just think about the merits of this issue. The Biden
administration could have used the same exact logic that Marco
Rubio is employing now to revoke his status and deport
him from the country. Doctor Jordan Peterson and the same
(27:42):
people who are defending and celebrating this selective ideological targeting
of anti Israel students or guests in the country would
be screaming bloody murder. They would be calling it dystopian censorship.
They'd be calling it a massive violation of the First Amendment.
And I would be agreeing with them, because I actually
believe in those things. But a lot of people are
(28:04):
either hypocrites or they just haven't fully thought through the
ramifications of what they're supporting now. Because let's be very clear,
the exact same logic that the Trump administration is using
now to revoke student visas and kick people out of
the country, not the ones who have actually committed crimes
and taken over buildings, but the ones who've just expressed
(28:25):
ideas like Rumesa oz Turk. That same exact logic and
this precedent, if it's allowed to stand, could and probably
will be used by a future progressive president, an AOC
or God forbid a Jasmine Crockett to kick pro Israel
students out of the country. And something tells me that
many of my friends on the right who are commenting
(28:46):
things like there's no right to a visa, which misses
the point entirely, will not be supportive of that. In fact,
would be horrified by it. But they're okay with it
now because they underlyingly sympathize with more on one's the issue.
But that's not how free speech is supposed to work.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Now.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
As for this argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to
non citizens, it only applies to American citizens that you
hear from Asman Gold and many other people, this is
just not correct. It is objectively untrue. There is Supreme
Court case after Supreme Court case establishing that some of
the Constitution's protections do apply to non citizens, and some
(29:25):
even apply to illegal immigrants. It is not the same
level of legal rights and status as a US citizen, obviously,
but it's also not true that the Constitution just doesn't
protect or apply to non citizens at all. That would
imply the government could go up and just shoot an
illegal immigrant in the head and that would be fine.
That be permitted because the Constitution doesn't apply to them.
Speaker 6 (29:46):
No.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
In fact, the Constitution is designed as a series of
constraints on our federal government and what it can do
to the people under its control or under its purview,
or especially under its jurisdiction, which does include legal immigrants,
especially and arguably even illegal immigrants, but especially people who
have permission to be here. And the parts of the
(30:07):
Constitution that we're talking about in these cases, the First Amendment,
the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, none of them say citizens.
They say Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom
of the speech, freedom of speech, the press, and so on.
They say persons shall not be deprived of life, liberty,
property without due process of law. None of them say citizens.
(30:30):
And that was an intentional choice by the founders and
the framers of those amendments, because many other similar types
of constitutions in the world say citizens. Again, you don't
have to take my word for it. This is something
that until five minutes ago, was a consensus among even
conservative legal scholars the likes of antonin Scalia. There is
(30:50):
federal statutory authority, to be clear, federal laws that give
the Secretary of State wide discretion to revoke visas. But
I actually question the constitutionality of some of those statutes,
and I do believe they will face challenges, so that
could be revisited. But even if we say, for example,
even if we grant the premise that they are legally
(31:11):
allowed to do this, let's say that it is constitutional,
that it is legal, it is still wrong. It is
still absurd to suggest that what some student wrote in
a college newspaper criticizing Israel meaningfully undermines US national security.
There is no there there whatsoever, And it's absolutely establishing
(31:34):
a terrible precedent that liberals or democrats, when they're in
power again, can and will run with to deport and
revoke the visas of a lot of people that you
like and you agree with. So even if the underlying
legality of it is somehow legitimate or true, it's still
not something you should support if you consider yourself someone
(31:54):
who believes in free speech an open expression. That's my
take on it all, and I unfortunately only think that
a lot of the commentary on the right on this
issue is clouded by people's views of the underlying debate
over Israel and Palestine and Gaza, when really it shouldn't
be about that. It should be about the principles, And unfortunately,
I think a lot of them are either hypocrites or
(32:16):
they just haven't fully thought through the ramifications of it all.
But what do you think? Do you guys disagree with me?
I will not kick you out or censor you for
having a different opinion of this community. Let me know
in the comments. Do hit that like button. Make sure
subscribed if you aren't yet, remember to send your voice notes,
check out the merch subscribe to my second channel, YadA
YadA yah, and we'll talk again real soon.
Are you on the spectrum?
Speaker 2 (00:00):
I reserve, I'm not, and maybe who knows? I don't
think so how long I need to pay their money
in it?
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Henn strikes again with one of the most absurd attempted
takedowns of a comedian, Tim Dillon that I've seen. In
a minute, we're going to break down this bizarre CNN
interview with the comedian Tim Dillon that went awry, plus
(00:28):
talk about a viral hot take from streamer Asthmin Gold
about free speech and the First Amendment. All this and
so much more is coming up on today's episode of
The Barad Versus Everyone podcast might at least show where
we take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet,
our media, and our politics, all from an independent perspective
of First, like I mentioned, I didn't know a ton
(00:49):
about his work. I wasn't super familiar with him, but
I think I'm officially a Tim Dillon fan, at least
after this one hour interview that the anti woke comedian
whose political views kind of spanned the spectrum. I wouldn't
put him in one clear box, but he's a really
funny guy and he just did an interview with a
(01:09):
CNN reporter who covers kind of online discourse and social
media topics and viral sensations, and the interview did not
go the way she hoped. She tried to spin several
narratives that Tim very calmly and very smoothly dismantled in
front of her eyes. We're going to walk through some
of the highlights of this interview starting with this first clip.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Can you talk about like you had Steve Bannon on
pretty recently, you had jd Vance on in the fall.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
We reached out to Bernie, said no, said he couldn't
do it because of his schedule. We like and respect Bernie.
We reached out to Tim Wallz no response.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Okay, okay, fair.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Enough so, especially in the context of the full interview,
which I did listen to. She was trying to accuse
Tim Dillon of like rolling out the red carpet at
one point, and she says, for all these right wing
people on his podcast and not doing hard hitting enough
journalism and just softballing one side. But he pointed out
to her that they had invited Tim Walls, the vice
(02:12):
presidential nominee who ran alongside Kamala Harris. They had invited
Bernie Sanders, one of the most prominent figures in the
Democratic Party or associated with the Democratic Party. He's technically
an independent and guess what they got, crickets. So you
can't credibly complain that all these podcasters and all these
comedians who host podcasts are just platforming Republicans when Democrats
(02:37):
won't take the invitations when they're offered. We just saw
this with Kamala Harris declining to do the Joe Rogan
interview in part because she was afraid her staffers would
get mad that she spoke to somebody problematic or what
have you, regardless of the fact that it was one
of the most popular podcasts in the world. So this
game that much of liberal media likes to play where
they attack these podcasters for having only one side on one,
(03:00):
it's more nuanced than that. They do have people from
across the spectrum sometimes. But two, it's sort of of
the Democratic Party's own making. So how do you expect
any sympathy for that. I will give a shout out
to a few Democrats like Pete, but judge who will
go into these venues. He does go on Fox News.
He just went recently on The Flagrant Podcast with Andrew Schultz.
(03:21):
I think more should follow his lead on that kind
of thing. Let's take a look at this next clip
from the interview.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Do you feel like you're part of a new establishment
that's being.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Creat I don't think I'm part of a new establishment.
I think it would be pretty difficult to look at
these podcasts. I know it's a popular thing right now,
especially in certain media circles, to say that after running
an incredibly unpopular candidate who is introduced very late in
the race, because an elderly man who could not be
(03:51):
the president, who everyone told whose function is the president
for four years? So to hang this defeat or on
a few podcast and to say that they were the problems,
I don't buy. I just don't buy the narrative. So
I don't think I'm a new establishment. If you weigh again,
a few comedians with podcasts verse all of the people
(04:14):
that supported Kamala Harris, you know, democrat downers, billionaires, big people.
If the idea is that me and a few comedians
have more power than multi billionaires, huge media institutions, of
whole political party apparatus, I just don't think most people
(04:35):
are gonna buy that. I think it seems like a
great way to excuse running an unpopular candidate on a
platform that American people weren't sold on.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Ooh, not him cooking, not him eating her up. I mean,
I just completely agree with Tim here when they try
to blame like, oh, the new establishment or the new
media of podcasts and all this stuff. One, they're totally
ignoring the way that left in many ways, whether it's
traditional media or these politicians, have seeded those platforms. So
(05:05):
then again, you don't get to complain when you're not
represented on them. And Two, they're ignoring the fact that, like,
they still have these massive mainstream media institutions, which, even
though their audience size may not be as large as
it once was, there's still so many of them, and
they have such institutional access. These cable news networks, these
(05:26):
massive newspapers. You know, they are read by the important
and powerful people. So the fact that like the theovon
podcast gets way more views than a CNN broadcast doesn't
mean that theovon now has more power and influence than
CNN Because a lot of the people who tune into
it theovon are marginally attached to politics. Many of them
(05:47):
may not even vote whereas you have the Democratic power
brokers and politicians even on the Republican side as well,
who are hanging on the words of CNN hosts and
who are reading their stories and basing their decisions on them.
To try and they have tried, this to spin podcasters
as the new powerful people is disingenuous when you consider
(06:08):
the weight and uniformity of the still existing establishment, the entertainers,
the celebrities, the actors, the media personalities. And Tim admitted this,
None of this is to say podcasters and influencers and
YouTubers have no power. They do have significant power. But
trying to blame them, it's giving Russia Gate, it's giving
(06:28):
like put in the election. It's giving cope rather than
honest reflection about why Democrats lost a lot of which
not everything was their fault, but a lot of which
really just involves taking a look in the mirror. And
this next clip, El Reeve, the CNN reporter who interviewed
Tim here, seemed to suggest that comedians or comedy written large,
(06:50):
is mostly a predominantly right wing now and Tim set
her straight pretty quick. Take a listen, they're.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Very, very successful comedians that are left of center comedians,
who I mean, what do you mean, like who Chelsea Handler?
I think John Mulaney probably. I think that you would
find Sarah Silverman. I think Bill Burr, Louis c k.
(07:21):
He's never voted for a Republican in his life. Why
because he's an imperfect person. These are massively successful comedians.
They're all more successful than I am, and there's nothing
wrong with that. And they're all left leaning comedian. Is
there this idea that like they're not around or you
can't find them. That's the craziest thing I've ever heard.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
No, no, no, But there's not cultural energy out.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
They're not all as big as they were because I
think careers go up and down.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
I mean I interviewed like a late night comedy writer
like Kimmel.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Allan or do you not have the faith? Do you
think there's gonna be No, I just left comedy.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
I don't see like a ecosystem or like a galaxy.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
So there's this saying that woke people will sometimes say that,
like when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression
and I always roll my eyes about it at it
a little bit. But in this situation I have to say, like,
obviously there are more like outspoken right wing comedians and
comics and people now before. But I think it's that
(08:23):
when you're used to uniformity, diversity feels like you're suddenly
a minority, even though you're still not. Really like the
fact that there are more outspoken right wing comics or
and a lot of them aren't even like right wing.
They just lean right or maybe voted for Trump, but
they the opinions they have are not you know, far
far right or anything. Doesn't change the fact that there's
(08:45):
still all these late night hosts. There's still all these
prominent liberal comedians. I mean, Bill Burr is like an
unhinged leftist, still a very funny guy, but very radical
left wing takes with tons of fans, huge influence. So
it feels to me like maybe for a CNN host
or anchor or reporter, they're just used to comedy being
(09:05):
like an almost exclusively liberal safe space, and now that
it isn't. Now that the vibe has shifted and you
have actually more diversity of viewpoint, which I really appreciate
and I think is great. That feels like suddenly there's
no liberal comics anymore. But just because it feels that way,
doesn't make it true, and I thought Tim kind of
masterfully explained that to her in real time. She also
(09:29):
accused him of playing dumb, and I don't think it
went well for her. Take a listen.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Yeah, the cultural energy is where the culture seems to
be so fractured. I don't know if there's a cultural
energy that's moving in any direction. I mean, I could
you could say it could go on YouTube and go
the cultural energy is right, and you go to a
college campus and you go the cultural energies left, and
then you go to the boomers and on all the
real estate and you go the cultural energy is like
(09:56):
paranoid fear based, checked out and is pull amorphous depending
on what pills and.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
Drinks they've had.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
I mean, I don't know if you can find where
the cultural energy in this country is going, you're doing
a lot better than many.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
You are on the internet.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
I am on the internet, though, dumb. I don't think
I'm playing dumb. I really don't know where the cultural energy.
That means, like the idea that we have one dominant
cultural energy in this country seems crazy to me. The
idea that has have we stopped canceling people for silly things, Yes,
why it got exhausting. Does that mean that everyone's right
(10:37):
wing now?
Speaker 3 (10:38):
No, So I don't think that he was playing dumb,
and I think it came off poorly that she said that.
But I don't fully agree with him, but I do
absolutely take his point. I do think it's true that
in general, there has been a vibe shift in America,
particularly since the election, where people feel much more comfortable
having different opinions, saying outrageous things. Sometimes it's even going
(11:00):
too far and they're getting too comfortable saying outrageous things.
But I absolutely take his point that culture is incredibly fractured. So,
like we've talked about on this show, places like Instagram, threads,
that online culture and ecosystem, you go there and it's
still twenty twenty. They are still places like TikTok. You
go there, it's still twenty twenty. They're melting down over
(11:22):
microaggressions and internal woke civil wars and having struggle sessions
and all that. Then you go to Twitter and parts
of it are like a alright, anti Semitic hellscape. So yes,
the overall culture has shifted, But also I do take
his point that it's fractured in different ways, and some
areas of our culture haven't shifted, and some have shifted
(11:45):
quite a lot. So I don't think he's playing dumb.
I just think he was trying to make a nuanced
point that she didn't really seem to grasp. Elle also
thought she had like a gotcha on Tim here, and
his response was just actually really funny to me. Take
a listen like Fox.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
I guess it's fuck Nation, but like Fox is doing
comedy specials now and then those comedians do the rounds
on like gut film.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Specially very cheap to make and very cheap to produce.
I think CNN also did a few. Didn't they do
Colin Quinns, who's a brilliant comedian. Didn't they put his.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
On we have a comedy show?
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Yeah, Like, I don't think it's if your point?
Speaker 1 (12:22):
And would you be like, yes, I want to work there.
I want to be on CNN's comedy show.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Call me and pay me.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
She really thought she did something when she was like,
and would you work there? Would you really do a
comedy show? And he's like, yeah, just pay me and
I'll do it. That was that was really funny. I mean,
she's not wrong. There's been this blurring of the lines
between news and entertainment. I do it myself. I now
do this kind of entertaining, informative political content. I don't
(12:48):
love it, to be honest. I mean I wish it
wasn't where our cultural moment and our current information era
was at. But it is what it is. So you
just have to play the game. You don't get to
write the rules as an individual part. And I did
find it funny how he's like, heck, yeah, I'll do
a special for CNN plus whatever, Just write me a check.
I think that's the thing people like her fail to realize,
(13:09):
because a liberal comedian would never work with Fox News,
no matter how much money or or audience they could reach.
Whereas conservatives are, I mean, they're just used to being
and not to say even that Tim is a conservative,
but they're just used to being. People with right leading
views are used to being in spaces where they are
not the dominant opinion and are not as mortified of
(13:30):
that as liberals can sometimes be. This next moment from
the interview was just kind of bizarre spectrum.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
I reserve now I'm not. I mean, maybe who knows.
I don't think so long I need to pay their
money in it.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
I was just kind of shocked, she asked, of that
it kind of gave out a nowhere. I mean, I
don't really care. I'm not like offended. I just thought
it was weird. Next Elle talked about why she suspects
that journalists, especially like mainstream establishment journalist types, have such
an issue with the increased prommnants of podcasting and the
fact that podcasters are like interviewing presidential candidates and it's
(14:05):
having so much influence, and she sort of seemed to
stumble on the point by accident. Take a listen.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
It is possible that maybe the journalistic fixation on the
whole podcast thing is partly like, you guys are kind
of taking our jobs but not doing the shitty part,
which is like the uncomfortable thing in the room that sucks,
which is like are you bad?
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Just like like are.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
They are they doing the Are you bad? Is that
what jurnalists we have to do?
Speaker 1 (14:34):
Are you bad?
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Sure? But is that what is your view of me?
And it's a fair question. Is your view of mainstream
American journalism calling out powerful people? Is that what we've
been seeing?
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Do you read republica? Okay?
Speaker 2 (14:50):
But do you know what I mean, like when we know, well,
it's not a monolith, don't think.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
So this was fascinating to me as a journalist sort
of who's also in this new space, because the way
she frames it, Oh, the are you bad? Question is
actually kind of indicative of the problem because the point,
and this is the way that establishment liberal journalists have,
many of them, not all, have approached like interviewing politicians.
(15:18):
Some politicians the ones with an R next to their
name mostly the but aren't you bad? Questions? The well
aren't you Your critics say you're a racist, so aren't you?
Or this kind of thing where they're just like making sure, Yeah,
I might interview this person, but I'm going to be
sure to publicly denounce them in some way that actually
(15:39):
rubs people the wrong way. What they want is for
people to ask tough questions to highlight inconsistencies. So were
I to interview someone like a JD. Vance, I would
not call him any names. I would not read, oh, look,
this critic says you're a racist, fascist, white supremacist. How
do you respond? This kind of thing that they do
where they air just personal insults through critics say, but
(16:03):
I would highlight like actual tough questions, things where the
administration promised something on the campaign that they haven't done,
or things where they've said one thing and done another.
Those are the kinds of meaningful things that actually agree
doesn't happen much. It occasionally happens, but it doesn't happen
much when these podcasters and comedians do interviews, because they
are meant to be softballs. They're not meant to be
(16:25):
hard hitting journalism. And I do think there's a need
for both. I think you need the hard interviews, not
just the easy interviews where you can just kind of
wax poetic. However, she totally fails to acknowledge that the
problem with the traditional approach is that one it always
seemed too openly biased and personal rather than substantive criticisms,
and two it was really only applied in one direction
(16:48):
in a lot of cases. And she highlights somewhere like
pro Publica that most of y'all have probably never heard of.
Pro Publica, to be clear, is a website, a nonprofit
that does investigative written journalist and some of it is
powerful and good. Some of it is even into like
liberal NGOs or democratic politicians, but That's just one example. Obviously,
(17:09):
not all media is the same. CNN, however, though, show
us like compare the way that they interview Republican candidates
and Democratic candidates, Republican and Democrat elected officials. Tell me
there's not a difference with a straight face. That's the problem.
And I'm not sure they get it yet, not quite yet,
at least I mean to kind of typify this. She
(17:31):
literally tried to explain to Tim Dillon why he is bad,
or at least what the strongest argument could be that
he is bad. Like it just very childish and trite
to me. But take a listen.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
This Stehman case for you being bad is you rolled
out the red carpet for jd Vance to make his
case that he's just like you man. He likes jokes,
he hates war. He wants yeah, working class people to
be happy and work in factories and make widgets. And
then that enables him to get in office and deport
people on college campuses for saying this war is bad.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
He's in the group chat saying I don't think the
president realizes what a big strategic mistake this is gonna be.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
But then he also says, but if we're gonna do it.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Here's the deal. And do I criticize that. I absolutely do.
If you watch my show and I'm bad, your case
makes sense.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
If I go on my show and I go.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Jad made me, I realize something's different and they should
be deported and we should do this. I have called
them out since they've gotten in for this, and you
can place clips of it. I watched it, and you've
watched it. If I went along with it, I'm bad.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
So this critique, again, I agree with Tim, only makes
sense if you have people who totally flip flop according
to whatever side they're saying. So they make their name
as free speech warriors and they're suddenly cheering on censorship,
or they make their way their name as free market
capitalists and they suddenly love like big government economic policies.
Then that critique, again, I find a childish to say
(19:08):
they are bad, but it's a legit critique. But if
you're someone like Tim who had this interview with Jadie
Vance but then still has criticized some of the things
that Trump administration has done, I don't really think it
lands at all. But again, I just reject the notion
that democrats weren't offered the same platform on basically every
one of these big podcasts that I've heard of. They
(19:29):
invited Democrats, they invited Kamala or Tim Walls, and they
didn't go. That's their own fault. You should be scolding
them for that, not wagging your finger at comedians because
they only interviewed Republicans when the Democrats are so scared
of their own shadow and their own base that they
won't go to talk to anybody who could be considered problematic. Like,
(19:52):
just no sympathy from me whatsoever. But I did find
this interview overall, like incredibly interesting and I have seen
a lot of his work. But I'm definitely going to
be giving Tim Dillon more of a look after this.
What do you guys think? Do let me know in
the comments and hit that like button while you're at it,
and make sure you're subscribed if you aren't yet. By
the way, guys, remember to check out my new March line.
(20:15):
We just dropped items for the on my last brain
cell line that are new and really great. My boyfriend
worked hard to design them, so do check them out
to support the show. Plus send in your voice notes
for my Friday episodes. Where I react to your woo
car stories and give you my take on your personal
scenarios and situations. The link to sending voice notes is
(20:35):
in the description, and remember to subscribe to my second channel.
I'll actually be dropping a debate I did with a
liberal streamer on trans issues and the Democratic Party and
child transition and other stuff. I'll be dropping it on
that channel soon, so make sure you're subscribed. All those
links in the description. And now we're going to check
in with the really popular streamer Asthman Gold, who I
(20:57):
hadn't heard of until recently but is blowing up and
is now one of the biggest voices on the Internet.
He does gaming, but he also does politics and gives
his political commentary. And that's what we're going to catch
up on today because he responded to this Tim Poole
interview with Adam Connover of like Adam ruins Everything fame
where the issue of free speech and selectively deporting people
(21:20):
on student visas because of their political opinions where that
issue came up and Asmin Gold had an interesting perspective
about it, especially that the context here is the deportation
of a toughs university student and the visa revocation for
her named Rumesa ouz Turk that has made tons of news,
(21:41):
have been very controversial. So that's the context for this.
And this club went viral because it was shared by
Tim Kass News, writing quote, I don't think the Constitution
should apply to people who aren't citizens, asmin Gold opposes
First Amendment protections for foreign agitators like Ramesa Ousterk and
supports their deportation.
Speaker 4 (21:59):
Here's that the claim about a threat to our national
security is grossly overestimated. The climate these people have adhere
to Hamas is growth grossly overestimated. That being said, it
is still completely legal in that an individual who comes
here on a conditional visa not violent confessions of the visa. Sure,
so it's but dude, I'm asking.
Speaker 5 (22:19):
You, like, do you think it's good for America that
like college students who are here on a student visa
because of political speech are being thrown into vans and
having legal things. Be sure, it's narrowly.
Speaker 6 (22:34):
Yes, because they're doing it in support of a terrorist organization.
They're actively disrupting the school, and in a lot of
cases they're breaking the law. If these three if these
three things weren't happening, then the answer would not be yes,
but usually they are, so the answer is yes, legal,
but like you know.
Speaker 5 (22:55):
She's home, she's being put in a prison, and then yeah,
and then she's being like forcibly.
Speaker 6 (22:59):
Depor do you w huge w do it again?
Speaker 5 (23:04):
I think that's good for America.
Speaker 6 (23:05):
Yes, absolutely, get foreign agitators out of our country. You
can't vote here. I don't want to have you protesting
and breaking laws here either.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
Get the doubt like.
Speaker 5 (23:17):
This is okay?
Speaker 3 (23:18):
So you know marginally absolutely you think what do you.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
Think is good? Even marginally?
Speaker 6 (23:23):
Like what's the what's the band?
Speaker 3 (23:25):
Free speech?
Speaker 6 (23:26):
I don't consider people that are not citizens to have
the full rights of free speech. I don't think that
the Constitution should apply to people who aren't citizens. Why not,
because I just don't think it should. That's why it's
the American Constitution. They're not Americans.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
It's simple, So it may be simple. It's also wrong,
incredibly wrong on many fronts. And that's why I was
kind of concerned by this clip because this dude has
a massive audience. Like I'm telling you, guys, he is
one of the biggest people on the Internet at the moment,
and nothing against him versely, but he's using that platform
to push some I think, in some cases just like misinformed,
(24:09):
like not really factually correct ideas about these specifics of
these cases, but then also some concerning broader sentiment. So
let's talk about it first. Remember this is all about
a specific case rmesa oster whose deportation he says he supports,
but then he lists a bunch of things that are
absolutely not true about her case. There is nothing anywhere
(24:32):
suggesting that she supports Hamas, which is a designated terrorist organization.
So if you could show that someone here on a
student visa was somehow providing material support to a terror organization,
that would be legit I think we all agree that
would be legitimate grounds for revoking a visa. All she
did was write an op ed critical of Israel in
her student newspaper. That's it. In fact, the federal government
(24:55):
was asked in federal court by a judge, please provide
me your additional evidence beyond this one op ed that
she somehow supports Hamas, there's a threat to our national
security or anything like that, and they came up empty.
They provided nothing else because presumably there is nothing else,
or why wouldn't they have provided it, and she Romesa
(25:16):
was not actively disrupting her campus. She was not taking
over buildings or disrupting other students' educational experience. That does
apply to some people, but not her. She also wasn't
breaking any laws. Even Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State
and the State Department is the one revoking these visas,
said that she didn't break any laws. To be clear,
(25:36):
I think when you have people here on visas who
are committing crimes, they're trespassing, they're taking over buildings, they're
disrupting classes, I think it's entirely legitimate to deport them
or revoke their visas. But I'm not okay with going
after people and kicking them out of the country, turning
their life upside down just because they air a political
opinion that the government doesn't like. That is not a
(25:59):
huge It is a massive l if you're somebody who
believes in open debate and free expression, and it's a
disturbing precedent that I don't think people on the right
have really thought through to any great extent. I'm gonna
give you guys a great example, So Marco Rubio says,
The Secretary of State says that they have the authority
(26:19):
to deport anybody whose presence in the US undermines US
foreign policy, which is the kind of justification they're using
to revoke the visa of people like Romesa Ulster. Let's
talk about an interesting counter example, doctor Jordan Peterson, the
clinical psychologist and thinker who is extremely popular among conservatives, Republicans,
(26:41):
and a lot of independents and moderates for his wisdom, advice,
political opinions and the like. Well, doctor Peterson is not
a US citizen. He has legal status in the US,
which is in the form of a visa or some
other form if the same kind of thing that the
Trump administration says they can revoke based on beliefs or
(27:01):
opinions that undermine US foreign policy. Well, doctor Jordan Peterson
has been very critical of US support for the war
in Ukraine, and it was the under the Biden administration.
Who knows where Trump is going with it, but under
the Biden administration it was explicitly the position of the
US government that they supported Ukraine and supported massive aid
(27:22):
to Ukraine in their fight against Putin's invasion. Set aside
whether you agree or disagree with that for now, and
just think about the merits of this issue. The Biden
administration could have used the same exact logic that Marco
Rubio is employing now to revoke his status and deport
him from the country. Doctor Jordan Peterson and the same
(27:42):
people who are defending and celebrating this selective ideological targeting
of anti Israel students or guests in the country would
be screaming bloody murder. They would be calling it dystopian censorship.
They'd be calling it a massive violation of the First Amendment.
And I would be agreeing with them, because I actually
believe in those things. But a lot of people are
(28:04):
either hypocrites or they just haven't fully thought through the
ramifications of what they're supporting now. Because let's be very clear,
the exact same logic that the Trump administration is using
now to revoke student visas and kick people out of
the country, not the ones who have actually committed crimes
and taken over buildings, but the ones who've just expressed
(28:25):
ideas like Rumesa oz Turk. That same exact logic and
this precedent, if it's allowed to stand, could and probably
will be used by a future progressive president, an AOC
or God forbid a Jasmine Crockett to kick pro Israel
students out of the country. And something tells me that
many of my friends on the right who are commenting
(28:46):
things like there's no right to a visa, which misses
the point entirely, will not be supportive of that. In fact,
would be horrified by it. But they're okay with it
now because they underlyingly sympathize with more on one's the issue.
But that's not how free speech is supposed to work.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Now.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
As for this argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to
non citizens, it only applies to American citizens that you
hear from Asman Gold and many other people, this is
just not correct. It is objectively untrue. There is Supreme
Court case after Supreme Court case establishing that some of
the Constitution's protections do apply to non citizens, and some
(29:25):
even apply to illegal immigrants. It is not the same
level of legal rights and status as a US citizen, obviously,
but it's also not true that the Constitution just doesn't
protect or apply to non citizens at all. That would
imply the government could go up and just shoot an
illegal immigrant in the head and that would be fine.
That be permitted because the Constitution doesn't apply to them.
Speaker 6 (29:46):
No.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
In fact, the Constitution is designed as a series of
constraints on our federal government and what it can do
to the people under its control or under its purview,
or especially under its jurisdiction, which does include legal immigrants,
especially and arguably even illegal immigrants, but especially people who
have permission to be here. And the parts of the
(30:07):
Constitution that we're talking about in these cases, the First Amendment,
the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, none of them say citizens.
They say Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom
of the speech, freedom of speech, the press, and so on.
They say persons shall not be deprived of life, liberty,
property without due process of law. None of them say citizens.
(30:30):
And that was an intentional choice by the founders and
the framers of those amendments, because many other similar types
of constitutions in the world say citizens. Again, you don't
have to take my word for it. This is something
that until five minutes ago, was a consensus among even
conservative legal scholars the likes of antonin Scalia. There is
(30:50):
federal statutory authority, to be clear, federal laws that give
the Secretary of State wide discretion to revoke visas. But
I actually question the constitutionality of some of those statutes,
and I do believe they will face challenges, so that
could be revisited. But even if we say, for example,
even if we grant the premise that they are legally
(31:11):
allowed to do this, let's say that it is constitutional,
that it is legal, it is still wrong. It is
still absurd to suggest that what some student wrote in
a college newspaper criticizing Israel meaningfully undermines US national security.
There is no there there whatsoever, And it's absolutely establishing
(31:34):
a terrible precedent that liberals or democrats, when they're in
power again, can and will run with to deport and
revoke the visas of a lot of people that you
like and you agree with. So even if the underlying
legality of it is somehow legitimate or true, it's still
not something you should support if you consider yourself someone
(31:54):
who believes in free speech an open expression. That's my
take on it all, and I unfortunately only think that
a lot of the commentary on the right on this
issue is clouded by people's views of the underlying debate
over Israel and Palestine and Gaza, when really it shouldn't
be about that. It should be about the principles, And unfortunately,
I think a lot of them are either hypocrites or
(32:16):
they just haven't fully thought through the ramifications of it all.
But what do you think? Do you guys disagree with me?
I will not kick you out or censor you for
having a different opinion of this community. Let me know
in the comments. Do hit that like button. Make sure
subscribed if you aren't yet, remember to send your voice notes,
check out the merch subscribe to my second channel, YadA
YadA yah, and we'll talk again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.