Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can you explain to me the left wing equivalent of
the Alpaso, Texas shooting.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Guys, you guys killed thirty people in the COVID twenty
twenty riots.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Anyways, we have to say.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Hey guys.
Speaker 4 (00:16):
For today's episode of the Barat Versus Everyone podcast, we're
going to do something a little bit different and talk
about some of the biggest stories of the week with
two hugely influential online voices. One is a left of
center YouTuber named Adam Mockler with over a million subscribers,
and then from the right, we have Blair White. He
tranced into republican YouTuber who also has massive reach online.
(00:40):
We talk about whether the left has a political violence
problem or whether Republicans are the real culprits given the
recent spate of attacks and examples of political violence both
in real life and being glorified online. Plus, we mix
it up over Elon Musk versus Trump and the so
called Big Beautiful Bill where we actually find some agreement.
(01:01):
All this is coming up.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Buckle up.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
It was a feisty conversation, but I really enjoyed it.
Do hit that leg button, make sure subscribed if you
aren't yet, and let's get into it all right. Joining
the show today. We've got left wing YouTuber Adam Mockler
and conservative YouTuber Blair White. Thank you guys so much
for coming.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
On, Thanks for having me, Thank you. I'm excited.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
So we're going to mix it up, hopefully, have a
constructive but calm conversation with some different viewpoints, some very
different viewpoints with you two on the show today. But
the first thing we have to talk about is something
I think basically everybody agrees is horrible. I've seen it
condemned across the spectrum, the political spectrum. That's the firebombing
attack against several Jewish people who were protesting for the
(01:45):
return of hostages. This comes just a week or so
after a really terrible attack on two Israeli embassy employees,
and I guess, rather than get into the specifics of it,
I think it's a launching point for an important conversation
about something I'm concerned about, which, obviously the Free Palestine
movement is not exclusively but is associated with the left
(02:08):
and the left in general. I'll start with you, Blair.
Does the left have a problem with violent extremism?
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Well, not just that, but also a denial of it,
Whereas I feel like, obviously the right is not a
stranger to a violent extremism, but I feel like we
kind of keep count of those people a little better.
Like I think the right has always been painfully aware
that we you know, we have the KKK people on
our side, we have the Nazis, we have the people
who are more prone to that. But those people have
(02:35):
always been rightly you know, clocked as that, Whereas I
feel like a lot of people on the left that
engage in certain things don't ever get hit with the
actual label of domestic terrorists or even just the adjective violent.
You know, you have the fact that there's still some
people that debate whether Antifa was you know, just a
oh it just means they're against fascism, or are they
(02:57):
willing to do certain things with those beliefs that you know,
we don't believe in as Americans, because we don't believe
in violence. To get our point across, and ultimately, that's
what separates us from countries and belief systems encoded into
law in certain countries that actually permit violence and permit
you know, murder in certain circumstances. It is really really
unfortunate and I just hate it. You know, as a Christian,
(03:20):
I feel like I'm watching, you know, these two other
religions that are primarily on the other side of the planet,
and I'm watching bloodshed and hatred and it just feels
like it's getting to a point where I don't really
know where everything is going. And it kind of it
makes you check yourself when you're talking about this stuff
that you don't want to say the wrong thing. It's like,
(03:43):
I don't know, it's a lot and it's a lot
of responsibility to even commentate on it, I guess, is
what I'm saying. Obviously, you know, blanket condemnation of violence,
but it's also more complicated than that. But it's hard
to put words to that sometimes because it's time to
sometimes be humble. Also that like, as Americans, we don't
know what's going on over there to any sort of
large extent, and it's a tough one.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Yeah, So I agree with you. We don't have the
solutions to solve the hundreds and hundreds or even thousands
of years long Israel Palestine conflict here today. But Adam
to you, I mean, do you see this as a
problem on the left, or do you think it's just
isolated fringe figures.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
I think that it's isolated fringe figures, but we have
seen an increase of it happening. But any increase is
absolutely trounced by the amount of right wing violence we've
seen over the past decade. If you want to talk
about the recent firebombings, that dude was an Egyptian immigrant
named Muhammad Salomon. And I really don't think this dude
was progressive or woke. I don't know specific views, but
(04:43):
I would have a tough time categorizing a lot of
either Islamic fundamentalists or people who support Israel Palestine as
left wing. But even if I were to concede that,
because I'm sure a lot are, absolutely you still don't
see even nearly the same amount of violence coming from
the left that you've seen from the right in the
past decade. If you want to talk about anti Semitism
in particular, there was a Tree of Life shooting which
(05:04):
killed I believe ten people. There was another synagogue shooting
a few years before that. The attacks on black churches
or synagogues far outweigh any college protest students that are,
like you know, screaming from the river to the sea.
So I just I disagree with the fact that when
Blair said that the right seems to acknowledge their problem.
More I also disagree, or you said something to that effect.
(05:27):
I don't want to misquote you, but you said the
right seems to acknowledge the extremism problem they have. I disagree.
I think you guys elected somebody who, in a top
down way, emboldens that extremism. If you want to talk
about anti semitism in particular, Trump did have a dinner
with Nick fuent Does a few years back. Even if
you want to put that to the side, Trump has
emboldened a lot of this anti Semitic rhetoric over the
past few years. So I think that when you want
(05:49):
to talk about extremism, we should talk about number one,
the statistics. Let's grounded in reality with stats. We can
compare the stats. Seventy six percent of extremist violence that
is lethal has been done by right wingers over the
past decade. But also let's look at the top leading
figures in the party. Is there any figure in the
Democratic Party that has used as much bombastic rhetoric as Trump?
(06:12):
This isn't exactly like political extremism. But even on Memorial Day,
Trump sent out this all caps true social posts. So
the idea that the right acknowledges their extremism when the
dude who they elected sends out these extreme ass posts
and riles up his fan base, I just I disagree he.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Posts crazy stuff. For sure. You won't catch me denying that.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
I think the difference is, you know, I'm not even
going to necessarily quibble with you that, for example, the
firebomber not a left wing guy. I don't know his
personal politics, and there are these instances of like right
wing people committing her heinous crimes like you got instances.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Sorry, it's a repeated pattern.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Okay, But the difference is, like you, you won't find
anybody who was like, yeah, the Tree of Life synagogue
shooter was right, whereas I don't know, Adam, do you
use TikTok?
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Because I have a specific question in.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Mind, I uh, yes, sort of, not as much as others.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
I can for the audience, maybe I'll insert one here.
But have you seen these somebody just do it videos
all over TikTok?
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Do you know what I'm referencing?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Yeah, it's viral every day. You can't even scroll past it,
and I don't have a left wing algorithm.
Speaker 5 (07:13):
That's for the person out there who's planning on doing it.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
You know.
Speaker 5 (07:17):
It's the thing that we all wake up every day
hoping we'll see in the news and we're like, man,
no one's doing it. Keep going your plan, it's going
to work. If not, it'll inspire the next person. And
we are all rooting for you. You have our support,
you have our admiration. We might make a national holiday
out of you, and I will definitely put money on
(07:39):
your books, and if you're into this sort of thing,
I'll write you some letters of the naughty sort should
you find yourself behind bars for it. But we're all
rooting for you and hoping that you do it quickly
and get away with it. How do the people I'm going.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
To be right here, We all know it needs to
be done. Right If I do it, are you all
going to convict me? Because somebody got to do it?
So can someone just do it? Can someone just do it?
Just do it?
Speaker 6 (08:14):
Every day that I wake up, I just hope someone
takes one for the team. Just go out in a
blaze of glory. We will always keep money on your book.
We will write you letters every day, We'll put your
face on prayer candles, build statues of.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
The concern that I have Adam, is not necessarily the
perpetrators having one skew, because either way I can condemn them.
But I see what the young progressive base, and there's
extensive polling on this, like almost a genuine blood lust,
like an actual support for the assassination attempts against Trump,
for violence against Tesla, against Elon Musk. Do you you
(08:48):
don't see that on your own side at all?
Speaker 1 (08:50):
I do see it. But I want to ask the
question to you if I were to point to you
Lindsey Graham's tweet where he said I hope Greta knows
how to swim, which you could argue as inciting violence.
That's coming from a sitting senator who's sixty nine years old.
You're talking about twenty two year old TikTokers.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Can you point things that are a democratic.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Politician who has said something to that effect.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
There are montage videos, and I encourage you to look
them up of democratic politicians, celebrities, people in office, people
as high up as Joe Biden and Kamala Harris making
jokes about somebody killing Trump. Somebody is hurting Trump violence
all the time. You have Maxine what is your name,
Maxine Waters, the infamous, You have to surround people outside places.
(09:32):
You have the transgender shooter at the Christian school. You
had I'm sure you don't even know this, because most
Democrats don't even know. I mean, or I can ask you,
how many people do you think died during the COVID
twenty twenty riots. Was it a resultive left with the mid twenties?
It was almost thirty, So people, you know, this is
what I mean, playing a tip for tat game of
(09:53):
like what side's more violent? I guess you can just
look at points in history and you can flip flop
back and forth, or you can condemn it totally. And
on top of that, you can go to the next
step to acknowledge rather than just deny all the instances
of violence on the left and say that they're isolated.
Because we can sit here and list every single instance,
you could say, I could, you know, list one right back,
(10:13):
and then I could do just one by one for
almost thirty people during the COVID twenty twenty riots, And
then I could be petty and compare that to January sixth,
where only one person died and it was actual Trump supporter,
So there's a million tip for tats. It's just about
how violence is the thing that separates us from these
countries that are about to take themselves and the rest
of the world into World War three. Like it doesn't
(10:34):
it is what it is. It's viral every day, people
saying to somebody, go kill Trump every day and the
same is not same is not present on the right. Also,
if you go to any of these left wing protests
right now that are you know, on the surface, it's
just about being anti elon being Trump. But if you
go and I've been to them, because I've covered them
and done videos, half the people are, you know, holding
signs supporting Luigi and wanting more death and more murder.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
We'll collect, We'll come to it, okay.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
But it's just the point to be made. It's like
to act like one side has a monopoly on violence
or violent thought or words that you can consider, you know,
turning into violence later from the top down. Trump's the
one that got shot at twice in the last election cycle.
Like it's it's not even but even so we can
just say f all violence it's right, and I.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
Get a response to that after Bruh, let me yes,
I will just read this polling data and then Adam,
I'll give you the floor for a couple of minutes.
So this is from a tough study in partnership with
the Network Contagion Project Murder justification. Thirty one percent and
thirty eight percent of respondents said it would be at
least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk and President Trump, respectively.
(11:41):
These effects were driven by respondents that self identify as
left of center, with forty eight and fifty five percent
at least somewhat justifying murder for Elon Musk and President
Trump respectively.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
I see it viral. I see it in the data.
A real progressive sentiment here, Adam. But a few minutes
for you to just respect.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Yeah, I'll respond to the Luigi stuff in one second.
But Blair said we could sit here for a while
and go tit for tat on all of these different cases.
I mean, yeah, really I can. We can go tit
for tat. But I'll tell you right now, seventy six
percent of extremist killings over the past decade, we're done
by right wingers. So even if we put aside all
anecdotes or all specific cases, or the idea that I
could list off a name, then you list off a name.
(12:21):
I don't want to do that either. So let's just
look at the stats from the ADL or the FBI.
It's seventy six percent done by right wingers, a lot
of them mass shootings. So then sorry, I wrote down
some of the notes I didn't forget. Then Blair said
essentially that a lot of the TikTok algorithm is saying,
like there's a lot of videos of people saying somebody
the effect of just do it, just do it, viral
(12:43):
every day, viral every day. Sure, but I'd like to
go back to one of my first points again. Number one,
look at the stats and who actually commissed these crimes?
But where is this coming from? In a top down manner?
Are TikTokers trying to incite violence? Or is that different
than yes? So yes, really quickly, can there's.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Endless montage videos of Democrat politicians engaging in that as well.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
I can point to you, guys, trucks that Republicans used
to drive where Biden was hog tied in the back.
I can point to you, guys Trump calling for Mark
Milly to be executed in slightly different words, calling dude.
I can point to you, and was that a left
winger or right winger doing which one? Which one was
a left winger doing it?
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Because the first of all, I think the first one
was an MK Ultra victim, if we're being honest, that's
a little bit off the table, okay, But the second one,
you know, it was about Ukraine and they were on
the left. Why is it so important to you that
you guys like don't have a monopoly on violence in
your mind? Like, why is that such an important thing
you're hanging on too?
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Not a monopoly on violence? But can you point to
me one Democratic senator who has said something like Lindsay
Graham said, And you keep saying, they are these montages
of people saying.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
So Lindsay Graham, I think was I doubt that was
meant one hundred seriously, But I do think it's a
contemptible comment for him to make about Greta getting you know,
drone striked by the IDF or whatever. I mean, if
he meant that at all seriously, even if he mentioned.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
It's not hard to say that's wrong.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
So you're talking about the.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Weird denial of the fact that you can even say. Ye,
it goes viral every day from Democrats saying they want
to kill Trump. But Wnsey Graham's tweet.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
I you have called the violence from people on the
left on TikTok that is terrible. But can you point
to can you tell the difference between someone going into
a Walmart in El Paso, Texas and shooting twenty three
people dead with like white supremacy ingrained on their rifle?
And can you tell me exactly how this Luigi hype
has manifested. So you guys are reading off some polls
(14:43):
saying that like.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Yes, we can do that. Like I said, I would
rather avoid it. But there was also a non binary,
transgender shooter who went in to a Christian school and
killed a bunch of angels, children of God themselves.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Okay, so if we went to do that, or we.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Can just say you grat move on to the next topic.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
If we went and we played the game who would
run out first?
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Oh, it's weird. Run No one on the right, right, right,
No one on the right is denying that we have
losers who do loser ship, and no one's denying that
we have extremists on our side. I see it all
the time, and and but there's this weird denial, the
fact that you can past how big of a deal
it is. The argument ends when you can just say that.
(15:26):
Every day it goes viral, the masses of Democrats calling
for the murder of Donald Trump, who was already shot
at twice.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Can I say one thing, one, I absolutely explicitly condemn it.
But if we played the next you know, if we
played this tip for tat game, who would run out
of people first? Can you explain to me the left
wing equivalent of the Olpaso, Texas shooting.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
You guys killed, you guys killed thirty people in the
COVID twenty twenty riots.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Yeah, anyways, we have to say mass shooting versus six
months of millions of people rioting and people dying.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
That's not like the million shooting dye.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Okay, But here's the thing riots done for political reasons,
where someone dies on accident. It's not the same as
a white supremacist with white supremacism stuff like carved into
his gun.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Can you can you say more to the metric of
like who's pro violence or less pro violence? Okay, if
you want to take it to the macro rather than
just like this Minimore, which side is more poor pro war?
Right now? The left is inarguably more pro war. So
it's like what, they're more pro violence as long as
(16:29):
it's in a different country where they don't have to
The bloodthirst is one hundred percent, has not always been,
but it is absolutely tipped more on the left side
right now. And it actually is better if we can
just say all of it is wrong.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Like according to the FBI and the ad L, you
guys commit more mass shootings and then you cite BLM
riots in response to the Walmart L. Passo shooting.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Yes, the Buffalo supermarget. Yes, people, I mean.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
People being killed by the dozens during riots, and that's
not even counting all the injuries. That's not even killed
by the More to terrorism, there's more to terrorism than
just actual murder as well. There's a lot more to it.
There's a lot more to it. There's intimidation, there's running
people out of cities by burning them down for three
months straight. There's physically assaulting people, which you see all
(17:19):
the time on campuses. Terrorism is not just literally ending
of life. It's also physically harming people and using terror
to even get what we want. The argument ends with
the fact that every day it goes viral, you guys
wanted to kill the president, and you guys are invariably
inarguably more pro war, which means you just want more murder.
But over here where it's not having to affect you,
that's just objective speaking, that's objective.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
My final point, if I can say one last thing,
is that when you look at all the stats, of
course it's bigger on one side when you look at
who's actually perpetrating this. I don't I mean, yes, any
TikToker saying that, I will explicitly condemn anybody saying that
it's really dumb.
Speaker 6 (17:55):
Why.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
I mean, you can just say theer where it's like, okay,
what about the three million likes per post, It's like,
you guys support people killing people in the streets because
you don't agree with their role in a health company.
You guys agree with more war. You guys, guys. Every
day I ever wanted to kill the president and he
got shot at twice. You guys didn't get shot at.
(18:16):
It is what it is. This day but he did
sit here and say that that is wrong.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
The point here is that I think whether it's you know,
the Al Paso incident, the Walmart shooting, whether it's this
recent bout of political violence, I think they all agree
it's morally wrong. But what I will say is no
one really defends most of these things, but there is
this widespread numerical polling based support that we see in
(18:46):
our algorithms with this content that's like joking and I.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
Don't know, Adam.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
I'm specifically on the free Luigi point. So for context
for listeners, this is Luigi Mangioni, who is alleged but
like it's very clear that he did do it in
my view, to have killed a healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson.
We have data on this as well. An Emerson College
poll found that forty one percent of eighteen to twenty
(19:12):
nine year old voters believe that the killing was somewhat
or completely acceptable, compared to forty percent who believed that
it was somewhat or completely unacceptable. I mean that scares me,
and I guess we don't know the political affiliation of
every one of those people, but I imagine many of
them are progressives who want universal health care and all that.
(19:34):
That scares me because this is basically open support for
political terrorism, assassinating people to send a political message. I mean,
without mentioning Republicans. Can you speak on that, Adam.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Yeah, I think that that is definitely an extremist strain
of thought. And I think a lot of people, especially
the younger people, speaking as a young person, are a
little bit morally confused on whether they understand why he
did it, as in, like, the healthcare system is complete
f and we need better healthcare, and they're so morally
confused that they take that to the next level where
(20:05):
they think that they're okay with the entire act. And
I'm not going to take it to Republicans, but I
just I guess the question that I would pose is
how does this rhetoric online manifest in person, because I
guess I am going to take it to Republicans really quickly.
When Trump spread all these things about Pelosi and Paul
Pelosi and Nancy Pelosi that manifested in the form of
(20:25):
someone beating Paul Pelosi in the head with a hammer,
and then Don Junior made fun of it that same month,
I want to ask Blair.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
I think that's wrong.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Okay, Blair, I'm sure Blair thinks it's wrong too. But Blair,
can you tell me like what Luigi supporters have done,
like what how is this manifested?
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Is a question?
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Well, first of all, Brad asked you to not bring
up Republicans when just being able to say that murder
is wrong, we should want to know it. So I
want to point that out. But I also want to say,
obviously the Paul Pelosi stuff was gross as well, but
our guy got shot at twice.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
And do you have an answer to that?
Speaker 2 (20:57):
To pretend as if that is isolated for me Luigi supporters,
pretend that that is isolated from you brought up Republicans.
I can answer and talk about Republicans too, including them
being shot by Democrats.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
At least answer my question later.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I'll get there. I'll go there. But you talked about
two things, So I'm going to answer you about two
things a.
Speaker 4 (21:15):
Moment, and then I'll come back to you, and then
we'll move a lot.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Try not to interrupt, to pretend as if Trump getting
shot at twice was not the result of the worst
near decade at the time of hateful rheer about Trump,
regardless of how you feel about him, the amount of,
like I said, things that you can point to the
public figures have said we have to take him out,
even just in pop culture SNL like with Snoop Dogg
(21:40):
doing the thing shooting him in the head, just over
and over and over again. I was on tour when
he got shot, and I just played a montage video
and it was three minutes long. Every Democratic person making
jokes about killing him, taking him out, taking him out back,
and then he gets shot at twice. So that is
an example. Since you keep wanting the top down thing
that's so important to you, the top down is there
(22:00):
for sure, and then you see the bottom up, you know,
condoning top down comments like that going viral every day
with Democrats wanting that. So it's okay with the people
on the ground, and it's okay with their leaders. That's
just what it is. And to deny that is weird.
But to answer about Luigi, first of all, to say
what is it manifested to, I mean that movement's a
relatively new one, so I guess we probably shouldn't be
(22:22):
holding our breath. I mean, it took a few years
for Trump to get shot at too, but.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
It could kill again, someone else could kill.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Percent if here's where on a macro level, how that
manifest and actually is toxic for society. It slowly muddies
the water of morality which you admitted to that people
are confused about what is what is wrong when murder?
When murder is the thing that people can't find perfect
consensus to. Okay, that's wrong. There's something deeply wrong, and
(22:52):
any movement that supports it, Like I said, I go
to these protests, have a quarter I'll be fair, a
quarter of the people have like Luigi's hot signs or
we have to get a Luigi for Elon Musk or
whatever the like. So because automatically, within like the first
few months of this movement, someone else hasn't died or something.
(23:13):
I mean, that's not really saying much. It took a
few years for them to try to kill Trump too.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
Oh so final work, just a moment for Adam and
then we're going to move to our next topic.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
I know that I brought up Republicans when I wasn't
supposed to, but I've shown a lot of restraint by
not bringing up January sixth to one time, not once.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
Whole topic to bring it up right away in fairness, I.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
Mean, it would have been a decent argument to make,
but there's a lot better statistical and you know, like
top down arguments. So I guess when it comes to
Luigi thing, if we want to go back to the
original prompt, which is, does the left have a problem
with extremism? Here's my final answer. There is a burgeoning
problem with extremism on the left, but I think it's
a function of extremism on both sides, growing because of
(23:56):
the social media environment that we find ourselves in. People
are going out and doing these free Luigi protests. That's
not unique to the left, this type of extremism. And
in fact, like if you want to talk about extremism
on the rights, more than half of sitting Republicans are
okay with January sixth or just like refuse to condemn it. Meanwhile,
(24:16):
I'm pretty sure every Republican that you'd ask, save like
maybe a few that won't be named, would be like, yeah,
these protests calling for Luigi saying Luis's good guy, that's terrible. So, yes,
does the left have a problem with extremist thought, I
wouldn't say the left, I would say a small fraction
of like people who protest. But at the same time,
(24:37):
I don't even know how many of these pro Luigi
socialist people vote Kamala or Biden at the end of
the day. So is there a growing extremism problem, Yes,
but it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
There's still leftist There's a lot of people on the
right who fall into more of the Nazi camp who
don't like Trump because he is not, you know, anti
ju enough for them. And they still, you know, a
lot of them didn't vote for Trump because they felt
like he wasn't pro life enough, or he wasn't you
know whatever. So they're still on the right though, So
I still have to take ownership for things that appear
on that side of the political spectrum.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
And I condemn it. I condemn it as I'm sure
you would condemn most of the attacks that I could list.
But I guess if I framed it in this way
to end it off, would you agree if I said this?
Over the past decade, right wing extremism has been more prevalent,
and it still seems to be. But now there is
a burgeoning problem of left doing violence.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
I don't I don't believe, I know I know it's
very difficult, you know, for leftists to think that like
Andrews will come up when they google things aren't like
one hundred percent of the truth. One of the factors
on the right is we have a severe distrust of
things like the FBI and the ad L. So I
don't believe those numbers at their face. That's the first thing.
The second thing is what you guys have to understand
(25:44):
is you have a denial of the extremism. That's the
main problem. You can't even get to seeing it because
you're in denial of it. So you don't need to
threaten anybody with bringing up January sixth, because it would
have been a dumb thing to bring up. I thought
you were being smart by not bringing it up. To compare,
because to compare a one day thing for which one
person who was on the team of the protesters died
(26:06):
compared to thirty people losing their life over stupid stupidity
in the summer of twenty twenty, all at the hands
of Democrats, there isn't any comparison. So I actually thought
you were being smart by not bringing.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
The Trump is the one who stirred up January sixth.
What did Biden say about BLM? Did he say to
stop the riots or keep the riots going?
Speaker 4 (26:25):
He condemned it, but he was pretty big about Black
Lives Matter. Up next, we're going to talk about the
Big Beautiful Bill, the massive spending and tax package that
the Trump administration is pushing. Republicans in Congress are hammering through,
but the girls are fighting. As I like to say,
Elon Musk is coming out and tweeting against this package
(26:46):
pretty strenuously. He wrote, I'm sorry, but I just can't
stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork filled congressional spending
bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted
for it. You know, Oh you did wrong, You know it.
So that's pretty strong language.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Blair. I'll come to you first.
Speaker 4 (27:06):
Because I know that you've been appreciative of Elon in
the past, as have I, although I've personally soured on
him quite a bit. But on this one, I'm team Elon.
I mean, the Trump administration keeps denying it. But this bill,
the Big Beautiful Bill, which I kind of ridiculous name,
but legislation often has ridiculous names. It would add somewhere
between three to five are even seeing six trillion to
(27:30):
the national debt over a decade. That to me is
a betrayal of what MAGA voted for. Trump said he
would reduce the debt or even balance the budget, not
push through something that would explode it. Are you team
Elon or team Trump on this.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
I'm definitely team Elon. I think that it takes conviction
to you know, he's not falling into like welcoming arms
or anything, or people don't want to give him, you know,
his flowers for actually dissenting, He's not going to get them.
So it shows, you know, conviction and current. So I
appreciate that, and I agree. You know, first of all,
ugly abomination is crazy during Pride months, so you should
(28:06):
probably watch his mouth. But also, you know the bill.
The bill is horrendous. The bill is horrendous, and the
title of it, it's not confusing why they titled that.
It's the same reason why you know, black lives matter
call those alves black lives matter. It's like you give
it a name that sounds good, and then a certain
percentage you know, twenty five percent of the population is
too low IQ to look past that, and you definitely
(28:28):
see those Republicans on X who you know, don't understand
that this does fall on you know, Trump's shoulders, and
it is his fault. The really bad things in the bill,
like the stuff about how all fifty states can't regulate
AI or decisions made bay AI for the next ten years.
The amount of atrocities that can happen in a ten
year period with AI is really scary. And then obviously
(28:51):
that's a trampling on states rights to do that. So
it's it's horrendous, and it's a reminder that, you know,
the older I get, at least it's very clear that
this is why maybe I get a little more like
annoyed with the tip for tat stuff, because when you
look at it, the left right paradigm really is a
scam in a lot of ways. It's not to say
that voting left or right depending on the climate and
(29:14):
the situations and who's up for office doesn't make sense
on at different times. So at different times it will
make sense to have to vote a certain way, So
it doesn't suddenly mean that it made more sense to
vote for Kamala. If I had known this was going
to come before I voted, I still would have voted
for Trump for many reasons, but it's just a reminder
that you know, we're getting f no matter what it is.
(29:35):
It's really scary, and especially when it comes to the
surveillance state stuff that Trump pushes through, it's it's very
I don't know, I'm no stranger to being disappointed by
Trump obviously, like I call him the King of the vaccine,
been against that since the beginning. So it's no foreign
(29:56):
concept that Trump on some things clearly gets the call from,
you know, the people in the room that are the
real president.
Speaker 4 (30:03):
So well, I'll go to you, Adam on this in particular,
let's not I'll ask about Medicaids separately, so let's not
get into that. Let's focus on the tax and deficit
implications of the big beautiful bill. For me, the deficit
is my main concern because I'm a fiscal hawk. But
I will say Democrats seem opposed to the idea of
(30:25):
extending the Trump tax cuts at all from his first term,
and were they not to do that, that's one of
the main things this bill does. Most Americans would see
a tax hike. Do you support that? Do you think
most Americans should or should they find a way to
enshrine these cuts.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
I want to go tit for tat with Blair on
this one. No, I'm just playing, I'm checking.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
But the question.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
In all seriousness, Well, first of all, just to back
up for one second, and then we'll talk about the
tax cuts and the permanence of them. I think that
the bill just is antithetical to a lot of what
Trump ran on, and I agree with a lot of
what Blair said. Some of it he ran on, obviously,
doge cutting waste for on abuse, now he's blowing up
(31:06):
the debt. He ran on helping the middle and lower class.
And this actually brings me into the taxes pretty perfectly,
because while yes, I do think the extension of the
twenty seventeen tax cuts and jobs ACKed would be solid,
without that, taxes would go up, It's more about the
disproportionate permanence of the tax cuts for the richest of
the rich. And then again, yeah, just the disproportionate tax
(31:29):
cuts that go towards rich corporations. And then I know
you said we'll get to medicaid later, so I don't
even want to dig into that. But one of the
big problems democrats have, I just want a caveat. Democrats
aren't just mad that there are certain tax cuts. We're
not even mad that the tax cuts from twenty seventeen
are extended. It's the fact that it seems very much
so like you were pulling money from the House Energy
(31:50):
and Commerce Committee Medicaid in particular, to then make space
for those tax cuts. That seems to be the problem
with a lot of Democrats.
Speaker 4 (31:56):
Yeah, we'll get into the medicaid thing in a moment,
but Adam, I'll just challenge you on this a little bit.
It is true that if you run the numbers and
see who to the tax cut to benefit the most,
it will skew towards the upper echolons of income earners.
But Adam, that's because they pay most federal taxes. If
you look at federal income taxes, which is the main
tax we're talking about here, it is disproportionately paid by
(32:19):
the highest earners already. So if you're going to be
cutting taxes, you're always going to end up with these
numerical analyzes that show up to you know, mostly benefits this,
but the corporate tax as well. It's actually there's economic
literature on this largely born by workers through lower wages
and lower investment. Even democratic aligned tax organizations estimate that
(32:41):
portion of it being born as high as one third.
So I guess the idea that these tax cuts mostly
go to the rich. A majority of people will get
a tax cut. A lot of the dollar total value
may go to higher earners, but that's because they pay
more taxes and not just part of a tax cut.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
No, I definitely understand the fact that if you're paying
four million, or if you're making four million dollars, then
you're going to be paying a lot more. But I
guess my question that I would pose to you or Blair,
is how do you justify the permanence of the tax
cuts towards the upper eschlot? And meanwhile, like the lower
tax cuts expire again.
Speaker 4 (33:13):
Well, all the tax cuts should be made permanent if
they're going to make them, because in my view as
a fiscal hawk, the point of lowering taxes is to
improve incentives and encourage people to invest more, work more.
And if it's temporary, then it doesn't because people plan
in five, ten, fifteen year timelines. But what happens is
(33:34):
they make them temporary as a budget gimmick to reduce
the score from the Congressional Budget Office about how much
it will add to the debt. If they made them permanent,
then instead of the three to five trillion we've been
talking about, it'd be a much bigger number. So that's
why they do that. I will I'll bring in Blair here.
Do you think, though, with the kind of populist strain
of MAGA, is it a bad look to be doing
(33:56):
these tax cuts? I support them, right, but for richer
people and corporations right now, I don't really know.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
I know that one of the few good things about
Trump is that he does allow sort of that core
magabase to reel him in on certain things sometimes, Like
I remember early on in his first term, he was
sort of like jiggling the the war bells against who
(34:24):
was it. We almost literally went to war at the
start of Iran Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then it started to,
you know, churn up again at the beginning of this term,
and I feel like he's kind of dialing it down
much more peaceful talk in the Middle East. He was
there a few days ago. I'm not a fiscal hawk.
I know that. I just hope that he makes decisions
going forward that try to save his reputation with you know,
(34:45):
pure maga, because I feel like that's going to be
the right direction regardless. But I don't know Adam.
Speaker 4 (34:50):
So on the Medicaid issue, let's start with this because
there's all these estimates about how you know, seven million
people or so will lose health insurance under the Medicaid
cuts that are in bill. First, do you think illegal
immigrants should be covered by Medicaid?
Speaker 3 (35:05):
No?
Speaker 4 (35:05):
Okay, So to the extent that this bill removes people.
That's one of the main Medicaid reforms is that it
cuts funding for states that do extend access to illegal
immigrants for Medicaid, which is taxpayer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants,
to the extent that some of that seven million is
just those people being taken off the rolls. Do you
(35:27):
support that aspect of it?
Speaker 1 (35:29):
I support it, But what I would say is that
they are targeting eight hundred billion dollars worth of cuts, correct, Yeah,
about about it might be a little bit under that.
The immigrant thing will get you nowhere near there, nowhere
near that.
Speaker 4 (35:42):
Another big piece of it, though, is the work requirements.
Essentially part of the number is in part of the
millions losing access is from them instituting work requirements and
then people don't comply with them and get kicked off
the rolls. So you hear this SOB story about how
people are going to lose their health insurance, But the
(36:03):
work requirements just require that you seek work or even
volunteer or do other stuff. I mean, if we're gonna
kick people off who can't meet that standard, should I
really feel bad about that at them?
Speaker 1 (36:14):
It's not just a SOB story though. There was a
study in twenty twenty three done that shows that I
believe ninety two percent, like the vast majority of people
covered by medicator either already working or they're not working
for some reason that's like a qualified exemption. There's a
good reason that Medicaid covers. So there's there's zero evidence
that these work requirements will do what Trump wants them
(36:36):
to do. But also there was a study in Arkansas
where they put work work requirements in and I think
like fifteen thousand people lost their jobs because this created
extra hurdles and extra red tape that disproportionately affected either
disabled people or older people who didn't really know how
to go online and figure this shit out. Or Yeah,
just there are harmful repercussions and again I want to
(36:58):
go back to the point when ninety y two percent
of adults covered by medicaidor working already. This is not
going to get you to that eight hundred billion dollars.
So we've had the immigrants, we have work requirements. That's
not going to get you to the eight hundred billion,
not even close. I think the estimate was the work
requirement thing saves one hundred billion.
Speaker 3 (37:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (37:14):
So the question is the rest of those cuts come
from a number of different provisions, including like a slight
a significant cut in future expansions, and it gets complicated fast.
But I guess for me, you see this kind of
Doom's Day rhetoric anytime we talk about cutting something like Medicaid.
Millions of people will lose insurance. People are going to die.
(37:37):
And my thought is that the estimates always rely on
the assumption that they don't get other health insurance, which
seems to me dubious. Many of them might get married
and go in their spouses, they might purchase insurance, and
the Obamacare exchanges and unpleasant experience I personally just got
to do recently. But if we want to be fiscally
(37:58):
conservative or responsible at all, that's part of the problem
you brought up, doche Dosh is kind of a doomed
effort because they're fiddling with waste around the margins. If
you want to stop the budget disaster, you have to
cut Medicare or Medicaid or the military budget as well.
Trump is not willing to do that, which I think
he should. But why is Medicaid treated as off limits
(38:19):
from Democrats? Is what I'm asking If they also claim
they want to restore our fiscal house, I.
Speaker 1 (38:25):
Can give a substantive answer to that, But can I
ask you didn't Trump run specifically on not cutting Medicaid,
Like if he would have ran on that on this
bill right here, eight hundred billion dollars in Medicaid cuts,
would he have been would that have been a good pitch?
Speaker 3 (38:37):
Orould he know he ran on don't touch any of it?
Speaker 4 (38:39):
But also, I'm going to balance the budget, which I
called out as the time as like the math is
not mathing.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
Yeah, So when it comes to why Medicaid in particular
is off like people don't want to touch it. I can't
speak for like the vast majority of Democrats, but I
think that when you look at Medicaid and when you
look at how this has been done in the past.
You could call it a SOB story, and I get
what you mean, and I've seen people we'll try to
turn into that, but no, this has been tried in
a few other states. It was Georgia and I believe
(39:04):
Arkansas where they put in work requirements and they had
to remove this because eighteen thousand, it was like fifteen
to eighteen thousand people had lost coverage due to increased
red tape. So, when you're doing this and you're affecting
the most vulnerable communities, Democrats in general are in favor
of more social safety nets and redistribution of wealth. Even
the non socialist liberals are in general for a little
(39:26):
bit of redistribution of wealth. So, going back to what
I originally said, one of the main concerns is what
you hear, like Elizabeth Warren say is farther left than
me or any like center left democrat, is that the
most vulnerable communities might lose coverage due to increased red
tape or just overall policies that Trump passes, and it's
so that rich people can get tax cuts.
Speaker 4 (39:48):
Is that not fair to say, Well, it'sjority of people
can get tax cuts, and then a lot of it
flows to wealthy people because again they pay more taxes with.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
Permanent tax cuts for wealthy people. So even with that caveat,
I think that's a fair right for Democrats to have
say like, hey, why are you cutting coverage from the
most vulnerable communities so that the vast majority of this
flows into permanent tax pas.
Speaker 3 (40:08):
I'll bring it in here.
Speaker 4 (40:10):
It's not great optics, I will say that much. But
are there other things in the big Beautiful bill that
you think are redeeming, like, for example, the border security
funding that I mean, I at least think we sorely need.
Speaker 2 (40:21):
Yeah. So, I mean, the Big Beautiful Bill is really big,
and so you know, life is not black and white.
So there is grain, there is nuance, and there are
some good things in it. But oftentimes those are the
things that get you to be okay with the more
nefarious things. So for example, there is some like anti
trans minor stuff in there that I've heard that he's
(40:42):
making it harder for a trans children to get surgical Well.
Speaker 4 (40:46):
Yeah, medicaids health insurance program, the government health insurance program.
Medicaid will no longer cover gender transition treatments. So hormones,
puberty blockers, surgeries, anything for miners, and I believe potentially also.
Speaker 3 (40:59):
Which I disent agree with, medicaid. So yeah, you can
speak to that blair.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
Which I would one hundred percent agree with, and I
also agree with it when it pertains to adults as well,
because I think a lot of this is cosmetic and
a lot of it isn't necessary. The problem with that
those are still several states that are still covering sex
changes for people in prison, which is like, then it's like, okay,
but if people in prison, why not regular citizens? But
that's another topic. The point is, you know, that may
(41:25):
make people who are looking at the medical stuff feel
a little more safe, like, Okay, we're getting rid of
like paying for these barbaric surgeries and everything that their
favorite libs of TikTok and conservative influencers you know, speak
out about and rightfully so. But there's also stuff in
the big beautiful bill that erodes your right to not
be subjects to medical experiments when it comes to AI,
you know, AI making decisions about your health, and then
(41:46):
you can't sue anybody. So it's like there's more to
it than people understand, and that's why. You know, they
gave it the name for a reason, for optics, and
they included things like, you know, sticking it to the
trans kid stuff because there's other stuff that has dire
implications for every adult and every kid as well.
Speaker 4 (42:03):
Yeah, I'll just say that's why it's scary. I call
me old fashioned, but I think we should go back
to funding the government one department at a time rather
than these massive Cromney bus bills. Adam, just I want
to move us to our final topic, but just quickly,
do you think it's fair for them to cut off
Medicaid coverage of for gender treatments for minors or do
(42:24):
you oppose that? No, it's fine, Okay, that's up someone
I will say, a Democrat, But okay.
Speaker 1 (42:31):
I mean maybe, I mean we're in a new era.
We're in a new era, man, all right.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
Yeah, Democrats had no choice. After the election. They understood
that the you know, ninety ten issues that they're willing
to sacrifice for some of them are able to now
be like, actually we can get rid of that.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
Whereas I am a very inclusive, like like very inclusive person,
I'm not going to fight over whether Medicaid should include
some of the stuff. My question would be, does it
cover other cosmetic surgeries?
Speaker 3 (42:55):
I wouldn't. I can't tell you, but I doubt it,
probably not doubt it.
Speaker 2 (42:59):
Insurance doesn't really cover cosmetic surgeries.
Speaker 1 (43:02):
I will say though, the one big beautiful bill I
do agree with Blair really solid name. I heard Caitlin
Collins on CNN the other day calling it that, and
I'm like, what a win. It's a way for beautiful name.
It's going to be the biggest, the most beautiful, even
though it's costly.
Speaker 4 (43:14):
Okay, and thank you guys so much for your time.
I'm really enjoying this conversation. I imagine people will have
to let me know in the comments.