All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 13, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
01:06:21
Here's Exactly Why Trump's Ukraine Plan is Triggering Dems & NeoCons
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, 69, now it's time for new believable people and we must do it.
If we don't control insiders, this will be...
Hi there.
Hope you're well.
You may have heard recently as breaking news that Ilhan Omar is facing calls to be deported because newly unearthed documents reveal that she in fact married The thing here is we've known this for years, we've taken it a step further and we make no apologies for it so let's go back to the vault
Your lipstick is color Don't bother you a lot I know exactly what goes on Ilan Omar married her Owned biological brother
I wish this was a joke But I'm completely serious, yeah Some people did something I will just say I have no interest in commenting about my personal life.
And will you tell all your friends Omar married her sibling?
This song was super necessary, this song was super necessary.
And will you tell all your friends Ilan married her sibling?
This song was super necessary, this song was super necessary.
Let's go!
Don't bother trying to explain it to me, I know exactly what goes on with your I know exactly what goes on with your bro.
How about I'm here fact checking your stuff?
So mess up there, can keep the details covered to get a visa you slapped your brother.
And will you tell all your friends Omar married her sibling?
This song was super necessary, this song was super necessary.
And will you tell all your friends Ilan married her sibling?
This song was super necessary, this song was super necessary.
Let's go!
Super Hands!
I'm super worried you're asking these questions.
This goes to questions.
You understand what no comments mean?
Just in case you claim this song's misinformation, here's a pic of the marriage certificate, yeah.
No one never asked and you will never tell, but we know the truth is that you honeymoon with your bro.
And all of this is super gross!
Unholy matrimony!
The only thing worse than Hezbollah!
Is terroristic incest!
You two wet and consummate it!
Unholy matrimony!
Your grandkids will look like they're from The Movie Delivery!
You two wet and consummate it!
Unholy matrimony!
Your grandkids will look like they're from The Movie Delivery!
The Movie Delivery!
Click the Rumble Premium button to join now for $99 annually, or try it for $9.99 a month to get the entirely ad-free experience and exclusive daily content from this show, Nick DiPaolo, Mr. Guns N' Gear, Tim Pool, Russell Brand, Donald Trump Jr., Dr. Disrespect, and an ever-expanding roster of content creators and all the free speech you can eat, eat if you could eat it.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
My back is doing a little better.
I have this little pillow.
Seems to help.
Now you're hurt because you bent over.
I thought I'd broadcast like this.
So, so much to get to today.
Obviously, everyone is talking about Russia, Ukraine.
Please, right now, download the app if you are not already an app holder of Rumble.
You only get notifications when we're live.
We own live.
The lineup is increasing.
You just saw Tim Pool yesterday.
And today is one of those days where we very well may be suspended from YouTube.
We're okay with it.
So, let me just do this right now.
If you're on YouTube and you see this, go to Rumble.
It's a weekday show, 10 a.m.
Eastern.
And please, share this right now because we're going to get into some controversies.
It's actually the mildest topic that we just covered.
Ilhan Omar copulating with her brother.
If you can believe it, that's the least offensive portion of today's show.
She did more than copulate.
Yes.
Yes, she did.
So we're going to talk about the Ukraine plan, Russia, addressing both sides.
I am going to tell you that I think this is the best case scenario right now.
That doesn't mean it's the best case scenario possible.
And you know what?
I think the most important thing is to send a message to Europe right now.
No one wins.
So the only win that we can hope for is telling Europe to unscrew themselves and start taking care of their own business.
How about that?
Comment below.
We have a window in time to do it, and I'm okay with it.
Stop thumbing your noses at us, you arrogant pricks.
The left is claiming that Donald Trump is lawless because of his executive orders.
Hint, anytime the left claims to care about constitutionality, they're lying to you.
And we're actually going to have President Donald Trump on the program with the circuit judge today who tried to block one of his executive orders, and they've agreed to have a discussion regarding that.
That'd be interesting.
So, Captain Morgan, CEO, I hope you're doing well.
Mr. Feierstein, I hope you are doing well, sir.
Let's go first to this.
You need to remember.
Because we care about your daily affirmations.
Especially if you're a trans Wiccan on meds.
Four trans femme affirmations for body positivity.
The goddess gave me this beautiful body.
I will take care of her and tend to her needs.
I can move freely in dance.
Sexuality and simplicity.
Nothing about you is simple, but I need protein.
My body doesn't define my gender.
No, your testicular cancer does.
So I can change my body to align with my gender as I see fit and feel comfortable.
I'm glad you are.
Dysphoria, depression, and oppression can often have us paralyzed.
So we need to be consistent with our spellcasting, just like being consistent with our meds.
I'm gonna go with it's mostly the meds.
That's what I think.
Well, maybe if I make my dick disappear...
I think it was the meds.
It's the meds.
It's the meds.
Be consistent with your spellcasting.
And pharmaceuticals.
It's the pharmaceuticals.
Yeah.
Don't throw it all in the same pot.
One of those actually has an effect.
What?
Guardium Leviosa.
It's not going up.
Why did they pick the demon voice filter on that?
I'm not sure.
No, that's just from years of hormone abuse.
These are good meds.
Let me get some.
We couldn't find some of the meds, baby.
Yeah, that's Zoloft.
Oh, yeah.
We're going to need a stomach pump.
Oh, I feel secure in my feminine body.
Why are they so orangey?
Oh, that's right, they're Tic Tacs.
Now, Tuesday and Wednesday, and I know this is going to be the theme of today.
The left screams fascism.
The left screams oppression.
Because they experience some things that they don't like.
You know what?
I've got to do this.
Give yours to me.
No.
Mama bird him.
Shoot him like Daffy Duck.
I only share my spellcasting, not my meds.
I'll have to get your recipe book.
So, the left says this is an example of fascism.
And I want to be really clear here.
There is a difference between the White House press briefings and these press, I guess, conferences that take place in the Oval Office.
Brilliantly played.
If you don't fully understand the subtext, you may actually give credence to the left's wailing and gnashing of teeth.
So, AP reporters, Associated Press that used to be considered the gold standard, they've been blocked from covering these White House events in the Oval Office.
And, of course, everyone is furious.
They say fascism should be noted.
That has not stopped the Associated Press from trying to sneak in.
Now, they are...
That's not going to get you in.
They're not getting in because they refuse to refer to the Gulf of America as Gulf of America.
They're still saying Gulf of Mexico.
So, this is an issue because it's important to this administration.
And there's no guesswork with this lovely new press secretary, Ms. Levitt.
This is the latest installment of Sweet Caroline.
So, Levitt reiterated press policies at the White House.
Listen carefully.
Which White House official made the decision to bar the AP reporter from the Oval Office and the diplomatic reception room last night?
Well, first of all, let me just set the record straight.
Pause one second.
Rewind.
I just want you, before you listen carefully, I just want you...
Especially if you're on audio.
Yes, these are both women.
When you hear, could you explain that it's been barred from the press conference?
And then you hear a lovely feminine voice.
I know it shouldn't matter, but it does to me.
Okay, let's play from the top.
Which White House official made the decision to bar the AP reporter from the Oval Office and the diplomatic reception room last night?
Well, first of all, let me just set the record straight.
It is a privilege to cover this White House.
It's a privilege to be the White House press secretary.
And nobody has the right to go into the Oval Office and ask the President of the United States questions.
That's an invitation that is given.
And there are hundreds of outlets on this campus.
Many of you in this room who don't have the privilege of being part of that pool every single day and getting to ask the president questions We reserve the right to decide who gets to go into the Oval Office And you all have credentials to be here including the Associated Press who is in this briefing room today Now This is important because for example when we started Mug Club, which is now Rumble Premium We had a lot of people approaching us saying hey Hey free is the enemy of premium and they wanted us to take away all of our free content
The reason I... Use this example because it was very important to us that you never remove content that has been available to the public, but you can add more.
They have added more.
They still have the basic press briefings, the White House briefings.
Now they've added press briefings of conferences straight from the Oval Office.
That's his office, the President's office.
That's a bonus.
That is very, very well played.
Gives them some extra control without.
I mean, for proof, you see that man voice Collins was there herself.
Cameron Collins.
Yes.
She went on to make it really clear as to why they're not allowed in the Oval Office.
I was very upfront in my briefing on day one that if we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable.
And it is a fact that the body of water off the coast of Louisiana is called the Gulf of America.
And I'm not sure why news outlets don't want to call it that, but that is what it is.
The Secretary of Interior has made that the official designation in the Geographical Identification Name Server, and Apple has recognized that.
Google has recognized that.
Pretty much every other outlet in this room has recognized that body of water as the Gulf of America, and it's very important to this administration that we get that right, not just for people here at home, but also for the rest of the world.
Let's just all agree to call it Hurricane Harbor at this point.
That's like a party to me.
Or Oily Shrimpville.
I don't want slides there.
Just bring a bottle of Dawn.
You'll be fine.
Like sun lotion?
Do you guys say this is an attack on free speech?
Or should the AP be allowed to call it Gulf of Mexico?
Aren't they supposed to be?
Report.
This is the name change.
It's the legal name.
It really does seem as though they're being petty and they want some kind of a win.
I would actually consider this one a loss, especially when you are dealing with the lovely Caroline.
I've never wanted to be a podium so badly in my life.
Stop it.
Also, wouldn't that count as deadnaming?
Yes.
Yes, it does.
Do not deadname that golf.
Yes.
He's progressive, dude.
And you had something you wanted to mention.
Yes, so we have new shirts available today, so we're kind of calling it the Christ Collection Online.
Go to CrowderShop.com.
We've got one on right here.
I am a son of a true king.
I can't, but I know a guy with the cross.
Be strong.
All kinds of great shirts that you can go out and wear and have a positive message for people.
And hey, maybe they'll ask you some questions and you can tell them about God or tell them about this show if you don't know anything about God, but just wear the shirt.
I've got a self-proclaimed Christian on my shirt, but, you know, the Ten Commandments says thou shalt not steal.
Exactly.
I think that's the Eighth Commandment.
Colbert is more of a cafeteria Christian.
Kind of weird.
By the way, limited time only for these shirts, so make sure you grab them if you like them.
Let's go to Ukraine.
Look.
I'm going to read for you what Donald Trump has said.
We're going to get into what Mr. Hegseth has said and why this is a good play at this point in time.
It's not lost on me.
There are no winners in war.
We don't find ourselves in an ideal situation.
But right now, at this moment in time, it's the right thing to do.
So this morning, Donald Trump dropped a new post on ending the war in Ukraine on Truth Social.
He said, great talks with Russia!
And Ukraine yesterday, good possibility of ending that horrible, very bloody war, three exclamation marks, because it's very bloody.
And it's all, all caps.
And this is where we, we're going to go through this here, kind of three key facts that I think you need to, this is really the only option left right now.
Your choices are, continue this war.
And by that I mean the United States funding this war, right?
Because Ukraine wouldn't be able to do anything without the funding of the United States.
Continue many, many more lives lost, likely millions, and end up in the same place.
And we will show you irrefutably why that is very likely the case.
I argued at the beginning of this that it was a foregone conclusion.
This is where we would end up.
And I think what's most important here, and Donald Trump, President Trump, and Hegseth, they are taking this opportunity to tell Europe to unscrew themselves.
And start doing their own work.
Let the United States focus on the United States and Europe, NATO. You want to play these games, start paying your fair share, and hey, maybe you won't be able to brag about those entitlement programs so much when you have to defend your own borders.
It's time for insane in the Ukraine I'm sad we won't be able to use that stinger so much anymore It's really him.
I know.
I thought it was just a lookalike.
So what happened at the brief timeline yesterday, right, Donald Trump, it broke, and we actually covered it as it was happening.
He spoke with Vladimir Putin about ending the war in Ukraine.
So the left equates that to he's buddies with Putin and he's on Putin's side.
Okay.
Right after that, Donald Trump also confirmed that he had spoken with Zelensky.
Okay.
So, he had spoken with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, who's been president for a while, too.
I don't know if you know, they don't have elections.
No, not well.
The beacon of democracy.
You kind of, you suspend them sometimes.
You suspend them.
You suspend them.
Sometimes.
Indefinitely.
Ukrainian officials then confirmed with footage of Zelensky immediately following the call.
*Gunshot*
*Gunshot* *Gunshot* *Gunshot* *Gunshot* What?
It's an inanimate f***ing object!
You're an inanimate f***ing object!
Look, it's a bad day.
Yeah.
So the conversation, of course, inspired meltdowns.
And I know that there's no good team here, but the Europeans, the Democrats, the neocons who really, really wanted this war to continue.
And talking to people in the defence establishment, what I'm hearing are things like this.
They, the US administration, are doing this above Zelensky's head.
Well, that's not that hard to do, right?
And on the overall approach, which is that no way will Vladimir Putin get all he wants, which is Ukraine, but Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky will lose a huge amount of Ukraine.
This is what I'm hearing of the US administration.
The bastards are going to do this.
So it means that not only is unprovoked aggression by Russia against Ukraine now OK, every other former Republican, the Soviet Union, is vulnerable to the same thing without any indication that the US will do anything about it.
And I think the people who are paying...
The closest attention to this outside in Ukraine are in Beijing, where they see the United States unwilling to act against unprovoked aggression in the center of Europe.
What are they thinking now about Taiwan?
I'll tell you what, it's the exact opposite of that, you, Rube.
This is specifically so that we can be prepared for a conflict that does involve American self-interest, Taiwan.
And Secretary of Defense Hegseth made that very, very clear.
This is the issue.
They are being dishonest to you.
Also, this could happen anyway.
Does anyone actually think that Putin is going to be marching on Poland?
First off, I think there was an argument to be made back.
I didn't necessarily think so.
But at this point, it's not even feasible.
And if that does happen, hey, NATO, step up and do your job.
It's not America's job.
It's disingenuous.
They're doing this to specifically subvert your understanding here that this shows Taiwan.
No, no, this is the opposite of that.
We're letting Taiwan know, hey.
You guys are a priority for us, not another corrupt installed government, Ukraine and Russia.
They're both bad.
There's evil and worse with Ukraine and Russia.
Can we agree on that?
And by the way, I wish I loved war or anything as much as John Bolton loves war.
Gosh, they're going to clip that of me now.
It looks like he also loves Scooby Snacks.
Yes, he does.
He does.
He does.
A terrier.
Nailed it.
And then President Trump said this specifically about Ukrainian aid.
We're getting security on our money.
We're going to have it.
They have raw earth, and they have oil and gas, and they have a lot of other things, and we're asking for security in our money.
They've agreed to it.
Ukraine has agreed to it.
It doesn't mean you are not sending anymore into Ukraine.
No, we are, but we want it secured, and the money is going to be secured.
Because if we didn't do that, then Putin would say he won.
We're the thing that's holding it back, and frankly, we'll go as long as we have to go, because we're not going to let the other happen.
Very balanced, which of course inspired a meltdown from the Russia stance.
So you can't please the Ukraine bros.
You can't please the Russia stans.
And I know that both sides are mad with us because, look, balls and strikes are balls and strikes, okay?
To be clear, this is a fruitless endeavor.
The territories aren't going to change, right?
The battle lines.
To think that this is going to go back to a map that we had pre-2014 Ukraine is simply not feasible.
The idea that Russia right now is going to march on Poland is just, it defies reason.
And if it...
If it were to happen, hey, that's NATO's job.
And without the United States, guess what?
There is no offense mounted by Ukraine.
And we're tired of the rest of the world demanding money while you tell us that you have free health care and free internet and whatever it is that you gays in Europe do.
Let me tell you why this plan makes perfect sense at this moment in time.
Number one, President Trump started from a position of strength.
Right after his inauguration, he wrote this on truth.
I'm going to do Russia, whose economy is failing, and President Putin a very big favor.
Settle now and stop this ridiculous war.
It's only going to get worse if we don't make a deal, and soon I have no other choice but to put high levels of taxes, tariffs, and sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States and various other participating countries.
Could be many.
We can do it the easy way or the hard way.
The easy way.
It's always better.
He made it very clear.
And the thing is with Donald Trump, President Trump, you know he could do the crazy stuff that he says he may do.
He's made a career off of being unpredictable.
It's not lost on me if you think that we are sending the message to Vladimir Putin that he can simply invade and win.
That's not the reality of the threat, and that is not the message that is being sent right now.
Key fact here, number two, this war...
Has been a stalemate for a very long time outside of the lives lost.
So first of all, NATO membership was a non-starter, right?
For Putin, who said this last year, we were talking about Ukraine.
He said, if there is no neutrality, it is difficult to imagine the existence of any good neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine.
If you don't remember, Biden met, I believe it was Zelensky, talked about perhaps NATO, those rumors went, and then, boom, it popped off.
This has always been a sore spot.
And it's been an agreement.
With Russia.
Right?
Ukraine.
NATO. They're not supposed to join NATO. I know people now say, oh, that was never going to happen.
Yeah, but you discussed it.
And you demanded it.
So, this war has been a stalemate.
Let's look right now at the lines of control.
Okay, here's a map for you.
Alright?
See that?
That's where we are.
Okay.
Now, let's look at the lines of control exactly two years ago.
How many more years do you need?
Jeez.
Think about that.
That's unbelievable.
Those aren't the same picture.
Exactly.
There's a little bit more territory up north, but...
That's two years.
The casualties, and they're very, very hard to get an accurate number.
We provide the references, links in the description.
So we've tried to use more left-leaning sources in case people want to accuse us of bias.
Depends where you're getting them.
In Ukraine, 400,000 plus dead or wounded.
Russia, 600,000 plus dead or wounded.
It's one of those give or take...
Half a million, depending on the numbers that you use.
Pluses could be much, much higher.
Could be much higher.
Most of the numbers include severe injuries, along with deaths and casualties.
The point is, you're in the seven figures, and the lines of control are the exact same.
They're the exact same, it's just more money, not to mention the billions of dollars missing.
At what point do you say, okay, this is a war that doesn't make sense?
It's a big war that doesn't make sense.
Right.
Like, people want to compare this war to our war in Afghanistan or Iraq, but those numbers are nowhere near the same.
Not even close.
Not even close.
I mean, I think it was Operation Endury Freedom, I think it was a total of like 32 or 35,000 total wounded and dead.
It was like 3,500 dead, maybe.
Yeah.
And then, you know, 35 total.
Compared to that, and that's 20 years?
Yeah.
What do you think is going to happen if this goes on for 20 more years?
No, exactly.
You're going to run out of people.
So the alternative right now is to continue the funding to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
You think in three years, in four years, in five years, you think that the lines of control are going to change?
Let's fund it.
Billions of more dollars, millions of more people.
They'll just end up dying, and you'll end up with the same net result.
That is the most likely scenario.
That was pretty much the foregone conclusion at the start of this war.
It doesn't mean that invading Ukraine...
Was right.
No one is saying that.
Of course.
We are living in reality at this point, and we have another problem that I think has been highlighted by this war, and I would argue, as Americans, should concern us most, but that's me, Mr. Selfish American, is that we have now seen that Europe is woefully inequipped.
Inequipped.
You don't want to stare directly at the sun.
Did we do that?
No, you don't need to admonish me.
Aw.
Fine.
Give me one.
Admonish.
Yeah, let that thunder roll.
That Europe is woefully ill-equipped.
It's because the word woefully was before.
It's hard to say.
And this includes this whole NATO... All of this, they can't deal with their own problems.
They can't deal with their own crap.
It is a given that the United States will be the never-ending supply of funding so long as we are virtue-signaled, brow-beaten into submission on behalf of interests that are not aligned with our own.
I think the most important point that can be made at this point, you can comment below if you disagree, is to tell Europe, hey, hey, Start removing the entitlement phallus from your asses and start taking care of your own countries.
It's not our job to step in.
And I say this to someone who lived in Canada.
American military.
Okay, let me change one thing.
Defend your own border.
Go!
How about France send somebody to Mexico to take care of the cartels?
Right, exactly.
Go for it, guys.
And we have an opportunity right now because they are in a little bit of the hot seat.
And you know what?
They should be.
It's like, hey, enjoy your hot seat.
Maybe you should clean this up at this point.
Start with just paying your fair share, NATO nations.
Not even close, with the exception of one.
We'll get to that.
So yesterday, former Fox Sunday morning host, now Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, said that Europe was going to have to do just that.
Any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.
We ask each of your countries to step up on fulfilling the commitments.
That you have made.
And we challenge your countries and your citizens to double down and recommit yourselves not only to Ukraine's immediate security needs but to Europe's long-term defense and deterrence goals.
It's your yard.
Keep your dog in it.
Vice President J.D. Vance said pretty much the same thing during the campaign.
The second biggest criticism I make about the war in Ukraine And our approach to it is that we are subsidizing the Europeans to do nothing.
The Europeans are not carrying their fair share of the burden, especially when it comes in provision of weapons, and they're de-industrializing their own country at the same time that they say that Putin must be defeated at all costs.
Side note, isn't it cool to see men again?
Yeah.
Hey, Seth Vance, comment below.
If the little wins, right?
You have to enjoy the small victories.
Actual men.
American, man.
I like seeing headsets with the American flag pocket square.
Yeah.
Love that.
Straight out of central casting.
Love that.
I hope he drinks a little more.
Look more manly.
He said he wouldn't.
Well, I mean, can we just focus in on your...
This has been going on for literally centuries, but let's just focus on over the last hundred years this has been going on.
This exact same battle over this exact same piece of land with the exact same participants doing this.
And Europe has just basically been sitting on their thumbs the entire time.
Right.
It's not like this is a new problem that they're like, oh no, this came out of nowhere.
This has been going on for a very long time at different levels.
Everything you just said is correct.
But what gets me viscerally angry is being raised in Canada where they would badmouth the United States, say, ah, you guys are just a bunch of gun-toting yahoos.
And in Europe, if you have an American passport, oh, you Americans are so blah, blah, blah, blah.
You know what?
First off, we don't like you.
That's why we left.
Second, you get all this free shit, even though you live in small IKEA apartments, they have to have a combo washer-dryer unit that always leaves your clothes damp.
Because you can't afford real estate.
The United States spends twice as much on defense as all of Europe.
And Europe has over 100 million more people than the United States.
Shut up!
This is one of the greatest tricks that has ever...
Holy crap on the left.
It's one of the greatest gotchas.
Tricks that's been pulled on a people ever.
The fact...
That you have Americans out there thinking it's our duty to fund Ukraine when you get NATO right there!
We're the only ones expected to fix it.
We're the only ones expected to save people.
And we're the only ones who are expected to take blame and accept fault.
No!
How about that?
Only Poland.
And God love...
The Polacks.
They contribute a higher share of their GDP to defense the United States.
They're like 3.9 or 3.4.
And again, that's because Poland doesn't want Putin to march on in through there, which seems highly unlikely at this point.
I'm not concerned about it.
I think Poland can also help handle themselves if you see what Ukraine has done.
And the good news is NATO would actually have a responsibility to help Poland.
But all of this was predicated.
What about Poland?
I don't know.
Isn't that your job?
Right.
But by the way, with Poland, they're not just sitting back saying NATO will come to our defense either.
No.
They're actually preparing to defend themselves, and that's exactly what we want every country over there to do.
To some degree, it is your land.
If you can keep it has been the historical mantra.
Right.
Forever.
It's almost like erasing history doesn't work.
They're actually learning from it.
And Poland, by the way, they've been browbeaten on the international stage.
Like, we're going to kick out Muslims.
The UN's like, no!
We're like, yes, yes.
And it's not just...
And by the way, it's not just the military.
Right?
We're expected to foot the bill militarily for the entire world.
Okay, great.
The United States.
Yay us, except you guys all act like we're a bunch of pricks.
Okay, fine.
Europe spends a third less.
Yes, and by the way, when I say yes, Europe on R&D compared to the United States.
One country?
And Japan.
Yeah.
All of Europe.
All the whole thing.
All of Europe.
And for all of the arrogance that you hear, and when you also hear this from American Democrats saying we should be more like Europe, you know, these leisure societies who have...
Given the world nothing for the last several centuries, you go, well, hold on a second, they're not spending anything on military compared to us.
They're not spending anything on R&D, and that includes technology, that includes pharmaceuticals, you know, life-saving tools that are created.
Well, then you look at the entitlements as a percentage of the GDP. France, 32%.
Austria, 29%.
Italy, 28.9%.
Germany, 28.8%.
Denmark, 26.9%.
We still have way too much at 23, but it's significantly lower, and South Korea said, hold my beer out with 12.2%.
Which brings me, by the way, at this point in time, no apologies to a deal I would take tomorrow.
So since all of this has transpired, Canadians...
Euro trash.
They're all over X and social media saying that because of this, we should kick the United States out of NATO. Here's Mariska then Ellen.
Ukraine in NATO makes more sense than the Americans in NATO. Just kick the Americans out.
Ukrainians actually defend Europe.
Alan Fryer, I assume, is, I don't know, I assume a Brit.
Never thought I'd say this, but both NATO and the G7 should reconsider continued U.S. membership.
Fellow Rakhtar.
Just want to remind everyone, Ukraine's land, Ukraine's choice, the U.S. is not the center of the universe.
They are free to make shitty choices.
They are free to make shitty recommendations.
But Europe and Ukraine are also free to tell the U.S. to go and F itself.
Okay.
All right.
We're free to make crappy choices?
We're not the center of the universe?
You know what?
I'll take your word for it.
We shouldn't be the center of the universe.
Namely, shouldn't be the center of your universe.
Largely because yours is shittier, ours is better.
So you don't want us here because you don't want us to pull funding?
How about this?
Going forward, we will offer no funding.
You want us out of NATO?
That is a deal that I would take tomorrow.
I'm pissed now!
Now!
Hey, Europe, thanks for the renaissance.
Now kick rocks.
Just think of the arrogance.
I know.
It's like, okay, where's your soapbox?
Is it medical innovations?
No.
Is it medicine?
No.
Technology?
No.
Military?
No.
Winning any wars in the last couple of centuries?
No.
That war would have been over a long time ago without us.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Absolutely.
Oh, yeah, you're right.
We could have helped out.
We could have ended this war two years ago by not sending any weapons and letting that whole country become Russia.
Yep.
And then put it right on NATO's border.
Piss off.
Probably would have resulted in far fewer lives lost because it would have been quite swift.
Not saying it's a good thing.
It's just you don't get to demand our money and then Shermanize as to how we give it to you.
Key point here, number three, when you listen to Mr. Bolton with the...
Rocky, bullwinkle, halftime mustache.
He was saying, what kind of a message is this sending to...
You can go back in time when this war started, where we talked about...
The unholy alliance that could take place between Russia and China, because they weren't good bedfellows, and if they do cozy up, that could be bad.
And we talked about how we needed to be ready for the Pacific theater, not because we value Taiwan more than the United States, but because we actually have our own self-interest at stake.
And if you understand the worldview, the ism from this government, of course you would know that Bolton is full of crap, because Secretary Hegseth said on Sunday, I believe it was, I don't know when he said it.
He was a Sunday morning host, but I think he said it this week.
I get confused.
He discussed, specifically, hey, hey, hey, I just want to be clear.
Ukraine is not Asia.
Asia is our priority.
The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland.
We must, and we are, focusing on security of our own borders.
We also face a peer competitor in the communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland.
And core national interests in the Indo-Pacific.
The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing trade-offs to ensure deterrence does not fail.
Ah, hold on a second.
There it is again, treating the government like a business!
Not a never-ending supply of funding, unlike how NATO considers it, how they view it, unlike how the Democrats view it.
It's just more money, more money, more money, more money equals good.
So when people like Bolton, those absolute retards, when they say, yeah, this is actually sending a message to Taiwan that we're not going to help them, you don't live in the real world in understanding supply, understanding demand, understanding scarcity.
The United States defense industry, our industrial base here, cannot support war in both theaters in Ukraine.
Russia and in the Pacific.
A lot of the weapons that would be needed in Taiwan have been sent to Ukraine, meaning it cannot be sent to Taiwan.
So HIMARS, ATACMS, or is it A-T-A? It's hard to say.
ATACMS. ATACMS. 15mm shells.
These are all the kinds of supplies that Taiwan would need and instead are being sent to a different theater of war where the control lines haven't changed at all.
By the way, it's 155mm shells.
15mm.
What did I say?
15?
No, 155. 155, Mike.
Those are big.
I was thinking of my bathroom mirror.
Not me!
Again, I don't need to get bragged with a frickin' admonish.
155mm shells, obviously.
Son of a gun!
I don't even know what a 15mm shell would look like.
It's not a shell.
It's not a shell.
It's like a...
I mean, still, it would be like, you know, it would be a big handgun round, right?
It's the one you bought from Temu.
Like a mortar.
That's all you got?
The little game.
Mine that's ten times bigger.
So, and by the way, the CSIS of the War Games, they've run some scenarios here.
The United States would run out of...
Quite a few critical munitions within one week in a fight with China.
Well.
Based on what we have right now.
That sucks.
So anyone telling you that this is simply enabling a tyrant and that this is buddying up with Russia, this is really what it comes down to.
What's the alternative?
We know what NATO's is.
We know what Ukraine's would be.
More money, more money, more money.
How does that fix it?
And you know what?
I'd issue that challenge too.
That same solution for all of our problems.
Department of Education, okay.
We think we need to reform it.
You say more money, more money, more money.
Okay.
Social Security, something needs to change.
You say more money, more money.
VA, something needs to change.
You say more money, more money.
What is the alternative at this moment in time?
February 13th, 2025. Can anyone give me an answer beyond more money?
Because mine is no money, and Europe needs to stop being an entire...
We ain't talking cigarettes.
YouTube dump, I don't care.
No, absolutely.
You shouldn't care.
We have an article from 24 plus years ago saying that they needed to start funding more.
There's some problems in your neighborhood.
You guys need NATO countries.
Start spending more on military.
You can go back even further than that.
So Europe has known about this problem for a very long time.
And by the way, let's go back to the two previous administrations or three ago.
Obama, 2014, Crimea.
You guys want to make sure that Russia doesn't feel emboldened and that they can step outside the box a little bit?
Don't let them take Crimea.
If that really is the red line that you say it is now, why weren't you sending troops in 2014 to make sure that he couldn't keep Crimea going?
And you would push him out completely and put troops all along the border.
No, you wanted the United States to act.
You wanted the United States to fund it and to send our troops because you guys are a bunch of pansies.
I think we are busy in Syria.
Step up or shut up.
We're busy everywhere because everyone's like, oh, world police.
I'm done with it.
You ever been in an argument with someone who forgets the entire lead-up to where you say something that is maybe off-color?
It's like, well, hold on a second.
You're forgetting the part where you asked us to come in, you little shit!
You're forgetting the part where you had your hands out.
You said that we would be history's greatest moral failure if we didn't step in.
For crying out loud, it's all the time.
Okay, okay, you don't want us to meddle?
Hey, you're not asking for money in Africa, right?
Oh, that's right.
You're furious about that, too, if we don't spend $500 million.
Oh, okay, I'm sorry, that's right.
I'm done with it.
The policy, and you're seeing it from this administration, is, hey, guess what?
No money.
You come to us, treat it like International Shark Tank.
Give us a pitch.
The answer's still probably no, but give it your best shot.
They're acting like a teenage girl gets drunk at a house party, calls her dad to save her, and then he gets there, puts his arm around her, she goes, no, don't.
Not in front of my friends.
That's creepy, but yes.
That's an oddly specific reference.
It's oddly specific if that's the first place you would go.
I believe right now...
We do have this entire segment on lawfare.
Do we want to go?
Hank Seth is answering questions at a NATO summit.
And by the way, click that button right there to join Rumble Premium.
$99 annually or $9.99 a month.
Everything that you get.
You've already heard about that at the front of the show.
Also of NATO.
Look forward to working very closely with him and his team.
Thank you.
And before we're talking about what we've done at the ministerial, I want to reaffirm a few things from this podium.
First, as we see it, NATO's strategic objectives are to prevent great power conflict in Europe, deter nuclear and non-nuclear aggression, and defeat threats.
To treaty allies should deterrence fail.
Second, the US is committed to building a stronger, more lethal NATO. However, we must ensure that European and Canadian commitment to Article 3 of this treaty is just as strong.
Article 3 says that allies, and I quote, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, We'll maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Leaders of our European allies should take primary responsibility for defense of the continent, which means security ownership by all allies, guided by a clear understanding of strategic realities, and it's an imperative given the strategic realities that we face.
And that begins with increasing defense spending.
2% is a start, as President Trump has said, but it's not enough.
Nor is 3%, nor is 4%, more like 5%.
Real investment, real urgency.
We can talk all we want about values.
A great deal of back payments in there is what he's saying.
But you can't shoot values.
You can't shoot flags, and you can't shoot strong speeches.
There is no replacement for hard power.
As much as we may not want to like the world we live in in some cases, there's nothing like hard power.
It should be obvious that increasing allied European defense spending is critical, as the President of the United States has said.
Also critical is expanding our defense industrial-based capacity on both sides of the Atlantic.
Our dollars, our euros, our pounds must become real capabilities.
All right, Defense Secretary Pete Hexel.
Oh, you don't want to do it.
Oh, you cut out.
Oh, what are you going to offer to this bitch?
All right, Defense Secretary.
What do you have to bring to the table?
The answer is nothing.
By the way, hold on.
I just want to see what he goes.
Our dollars, our pounds, and our, what did he say?
The euros.
And I love how he left out Canada's silly money because he did isolate Canada a minute ago.
He's like, basically everybody in Europe and Canada has to make sure they do it, but then he didn't list their silly currency.
Looney Toonies.
Do we want to try and go to some other place that's covering it, or do we want to move on to the...
Trump executive orders segment.
Let's move on to this and we'll get some highlights for that.
But I think what you saw basically right there was like, do your part.
It's your house.
Exactly what you were saying is what he just said to everybody in NATO. And that has not happened in a long time.
Nope.
Even when Trump was in the White House the first time, he was very hard on them.
But we didn't have speeches coming from a guy like that.
Like Josh said, that's when you have an infantryman in sec def position.
Yeah, definitely.
Somebody who knows what he's talking about.
The whole time that they were doing his hearings and he was nominated for it, that's what they did.
They called him a Fox host.
We jokingly said it earlier, former Fox host.
You know, like we say, former Vice President Biden and all that.
But the truth is, he's a former infantry major.
Yeah.
I saw somebody go, oh, here's the difference between our last Secretary of Defense and this Secretary of Defense.
One is a four-star general and blah, blah, blah, blah.
And one is just some guy who was in the Army.
No, he wasn't just some guy in the Army.
He was a major.
Yeah.
He was an 0-4.
He was an infantryman.
He went on three deployments, I think.
Maybe more?
At least three deployments.
He led men into battle.
That's who you want to tell in that speech.
To all those suits in the room, like, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Well, there's a big difference, too.
There's a different class of general when you look at people like MacArthur or Patton and you look at some of the generals there at the Pentagon who haven't seen combat this century.
This is a guy, whether you're a general or not...
Today, a guy like him has actually gone into combat, armed this century, and has also been in a position of authority.
Someone who's been in a position of authority but only pushed a pen for the last 20, 30, 40, 50 years may find themselves a little bit out of touch.
That's not exclusive to the military.
This is, and again, this is a change in tone, and I can't see how the left could be upset.
You cannot, please, someone out there who is a Ukraine supporter, okay?
Comment.
How could you possibly be supportive of Ukraine and at the same time be upset with what Hegseth just said?
You can't be supportive of Ukraine and not expect Europe to take care of its own stuff.
Look, we just want more effort.
That's all.
We'll provide some help, but hey, if you guys really want to be serious about this fight, maybe you guys bring some knives.
Yeah, exactly.
Actually, I think we're going to go ahead and find Hegseth.
They said that actually they'd like to stay with it.
They think that'll be better, and I think we're hearing that from Chad as well.
So we'll do that.
We'll stay, and we'll do this segment next week on...
Oh, but we had President Trump and Judge Dredd for a debate.
They'll reschedule for us.
Don't you worry.
I don't know.
The sitting president will reschedule for us.
No, no, no.
He's not busy.
He's nice like that.
We were very much looking forward to President Trump versus Judge Dredd.
Let's be honest.
Yeah, it was going to be great.
It was a lot of work, but we still can do it.
Yes, we just have to, you know, find Mr. Hegseth.
Oh, I thought they had found him.
Oh, yeah.
We're working on it right now.
I'm seeing them going through the TV. Yeah, it's Ella Enchanted.
I can bring it up on the overlay machine for now if we want.
All right, let's do that.
Okay, bring it up on the overlay machine until we get it on the real thing.
The United States shouldn't otherwise make.
I just reject that at its face.
There's a reason why negotiations are happening right now.
Just a few weeks after President Trump was sworn in as President of the United States.
Vladimir Putin responds to strength.
In 2014, he invaded Crimea, not during the presidency of Donald Trump.
Over four years, there was no Russian aggression from 2016 to 2020. In 2022, Vladimir Putin took aggression on Ukraine.
Once again, not while President Trump was president of the United States.
So any suggestion that President Trump is doing anything other than negotiating from a position of strength...
is on its face ahistorical and false.
So when you look at what he may have to give or take, what's in or what's out in those negotiations, we have the perfect dealmaker at the table from a position of strength to deal with both Vladimir Putin and Zelensky.
No one's going to get everything that they want.
Understanding who committed the aggression in the first place.
But I challenge anyone else to think of a world leader at this moment who, with credibility and strength, could bring those two leaders to the table and forge a durable peace that ultimately serves the interests of Ukraine, stops the killing and the death, which President Trump has been clear he wants to do, and hopefully ultimately is guaranteed by strength of Europeans who are there prepared to back it up.
Why not invoke Article 5, then, for the NATO peacekeeping forces that could potentially be deployed?
Like, how does that deter President Putin?
Well, I would say, I want to be clear about something as it pertains to NATO membership not being a realistic outcome for negotiations.
That's something that was stated as part of my remarks here, as part of a coordination with how we're executing...
Okay, we're going to the...
These ongoing negotiations, which are a laying realistic outcome for negotiations.
That's something that was stated as part of my remarks here, as part of a coordination with how we're executing these ongoing negotiations, which are led by President Trump.
All of that said, these negotiations are led by President Trump.
Everything is on the table in his conversations with Vladimir Putin and Zelensky.
What he decides to allow or not allow is at the purview of the leader of the free world, of President Trump.
So I'm not going to stand at this podium and declare what President Trump will do or won't do.
What will be in or what will be out.
What concessions will be made or what concessions are not made.
I can look as our team has what's realistic, likely on an outcome.
I think realism is an important part of the conversation that hasn't existed enough inside conversations amongst friends.
But simply pointing out realism, like the borders won't be rolled back to what everybody would like them to be in 2014, is not a concession to Vladimir Putin.
It's a recognition of the hard power realities on the ground, after a lot of investment and sacrifice, first by the Ukrainians and then by allies.
And then a realization that a negotiated peace is going to be some sort of demarcation that neither side wants.
But it's not my job as the Secretary of Defense to define the parameters of the President of the United States as he leads some of the most complex and consequential negotiations.
Is that deploying troops, NATO troops?
Is that what she meant?
We were switching the feed at that point, so I don't remember.
Look how they put Zelensky next to this guy.
Given the position you've now staked out, what leverage exactly is Ukraine being left with, especially if the U.S. also plans to wind down its military aid?
And then quickly, if a NATO ally is attacked by Russia or any country, will the U.S. unequivocally uphold its obligations under Article 5, regardless of that country's...
How about the rest of NATO?...to the alliance, and that's part of the alliance, right?
You point out Article 5, you point out Article 3. It's just a cheap...
I'm not saying it's cheap coming from you.
Mr. Ben Schwartz?
But it's just a cheap political point to say, oh, we've left all the negotiating cards off the table by recognizing some realities that exist on the ground.
President Zelensky understands the realities on the ground.
President Putin understands the realities on the ground.
And President Trump, as a dealmaker, as a negotiator, understands those dynamics as well.
By no means is anything that I state here, even though we lead the most powerful military in the world, hemming in the commander-in-chief in his negotiations to ultimately decide where it goes or does not go.
No more kowtowing.
When Barack Obama was bowing to foreign leaders, this guy's going...
Measure it!
It's huge.
Also, by the way, good combo with the cordovan brown shoes and the blue suit.
Looks sharp.
I don't understand what they're saying, that we've pushed out Ukraine in the negotiations.
No, we haven't.
We're talking with both parties right now to say, like, hey, you guys need to go to the table.
Yeah.
And I can't stand Putin.
No.
But I really can't stand Zelensky, because Putin, you know, I was a scorpion when you met me, the old fable, the scorpion and the frog.
That's Putin.
Zelensky kissed Biden's ass and then immediately kissed Trump's ass.
We're really glad that it's Biden.
And then we're really glad that it's Trump.
That man has no consistency of principle ever.
At least you know that Putin is totalitarian.
We might have even though we have them.
There is something to relationships and deals in real ways whether militarily or economically or diplomatically that he sees that are possibilities that could forge together a lot of opportunities to show that solidarity that Vladimir Putin will clearly recognize.
Look at the difference in NATO Secretary General Mark Rood.
Any peace deal must be enduring and talks must involve Ukraine closely.
That kind of language versus what Hegseth is saying.
Hegseth is saying very clearly, here's the situation on the ground.
What we have to do is realize that that is not going away.
And he's like...
The other guy, we need an enduring peace.
It must involve them closely.
Like, he's very, like, ethereal.
Like, you can't pin them down on anything.
Of course you want it to be enduring.
What are you actually saying here?
Just by the way, you know what also?
Again, like I said earlier, I was kind of joking, but Karine Jean-Pierre, okay?
Angry lesbian press secretary, Carolyn Levitt.
Yes.
Feminine.
And look what Secretary of Defense, you have a man who was in the military in a position speaking.
Hey, this is toxic masculinity, a man who speaks with authority and takes no bullcrap.
Isn't it wonderful to be back to the...
You guys thought that recognizing there are only two genders was just a culture war?
Nope.
It's the framework of our society.
You want to send that guy out there, not the pansies who we had working in the last administration.
And the same goes for quite fetching press secretaries.
Well, to the first part of your question, that's not ultimately my decision.
The President will lead these negotiations alongside our Secretary of State, our National Security Advisor, and numerous other officials that will be involved.
And ultimately, we've played our role in talking to our NATO allies about what that would look like.
President Trump, I want to point out, I've got the truths right here that he posted, called both, in case we missed it, Vladimir Putin and President Zelensky.
Called them both.
Any negotiation that's had will be had with both.
I also am very encouraged by what the Secretary General has said here.
Clearly attuned to the realities of the moment, the need for peace, and that the NATO Alliance and European members will play a role in that.
Ultimately...
A small role.
President Trump speaking to those two countries is central to the deal being made, but it affects a lot of people.
And you know what?
Just think about it.
The left doesn't want to solve problems.
This man wouldn't be there if Hirono had her way because she...
It could not be less relevant.
The guy likes two bourbons before he gets on a flight?
Hey, if this is him two bourbons deep, give him another one!
Yep.
What's your favorite bottle?
We'll send you one.
I don't understand what NATO has any say in this at all for.
It's not a NATO country.
Am I crazy here for thinking?
Am I being too simplistic to think that, you know, it's been two years of this war, you've tried your best to be, I don't know, whatever kind of arbitrator you think you are?
Yeah.
What business do you have here?
I mean, he's saying it, obviously.
Well, NATO is basically using us as the proxy.
In other words, like, well, technically we can't, but they're concerned about if Ukraine gets marched over, right?
So they're concerned about it.
Well, thanks to us, it hasn't been.
Yeah.
Yes.
So why don't you just sit down?
In your poor little chair there.
Sit on the ground, Indian style.
From our country, Indians from our country.
And then we'll handle the negotiations, little boy.
Yes, exactly.
We'll do the sit Indian style, but less meth.
Less.
Not no.
Some whiskey.
When you and President Trump speak about raising it to 5%, do you mean European allies only, or do you mean the U.S.? As well.
You guys only, until you catch up, you red-taped glasses bitch.
What are we at?
What are we giving?
3.9 or 3.8?
We were higher than 4 at one point.
I believe now it's like 3.3.
Does that include the $175 billion we sent to Ukraine?
Right.
Yeah, exactly.
That's a good point.
And many nations pay far, far less than 1%.
So they've got to get to 5. Then maybe we'll think about upping it.
Once you meet all your back payments, how about that?
Our 3.9 is also higher than all your 5s combined.
3.3, sorry.
3.3.
And just leave in place what is necessary for nuclear deterrence.
I know there's a revision going on.
I don't expect you to name any numbers, but maybe give us an outlook of what we should expect.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think nobody can or should contest the extent of America's willingness to invest in national security.
We have a budget of $850 billion spent on defense.
I'm in the business of ensuring that every dollar of that is used wisely, which is why we're pushing a Pentagon audit and making sure that we're cut in fat so that we've got more at the tip of the spear.
3.4% is a very robust investment, larger than most of our allies within NATO. Any defense minister or secretary of defense that tells you they wouldn't want more would be lying to you.
I understand that.
Ultimately, we have our own...
Gosh, guys.
Commercial, what is...
We're supposed to pay for the premium thing.
Well, we had to watch on YouTube because it wasn't on the other servers we use.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
But YouTube is dead.
All right, good.
Go.
...at the $900 billion that America has invested around the globe to include the NATO alliance and saying that's not enough.
So, ultimately, we are...
Very much committed to the NATO alliance and to our allies.
But without burden-sharing, without creating the right set of incentives for European countries to invest, then we would be forced to attempt to be everywhere for everybody all the time, which in a world of fiscal restraints is, again, to get back to that word reality, just not reality.
So, yes, we will continue to spend robustly our expectation of our friends, and we say this Let me ask you really quickly,
I'll just pop in here.
Does anyone here believe that this guy is anything other than Sharp?
He's a sharp guy.
Everyone here would agree whether you like him or not.
He's sharp.
Okay.
The reason the left uses the term that's reductive so often is because they hate distillation.
They hate effective communication that brings results.
Everything is nuanced.
Everything is gray.
This guy just gave you some historical context, just gave you current international context, and stuck the landing and said, the reality is you have to spend more on your...
Country.
And called him friends.
Yeah.
We expect more of our friends.
Exactly.
He made it so that, like, oh, you shouldn't be guilty.
You should feel guilty that you're not helping your friend.
It's very different from, yeah, we're always going to stand with our allies.
And we've been allies for a long time.
Reality is you guys got to spend more.
Start being better friends.
That's reductive.
Great.
Want to bet they're going to start spending more?
Shins of the communist Chinese are a threat to free people everywhere.
To include America's interests in the Pacific.
And it makes a lot of sense, just in a common sense way, to use our comparative advantages.
European countries spending here, in defense of this continent, in defense of allies here, against an aggressor on this continent with ambitions.
That strikes me as the right place to...
And I don't say that in a condescending way.
I say that in a common sense, practical way.
Investing in defense on the continent makes sense.
We support that as well.
It also makes sense comparatively and geographically for the United States, along with allies in the Pacific, like Japan and South Korea and the Philippines and Australia and others, to also invest in allies and partners and capabilities in the Pacific.
To project power there in service of deterrence.
I don't see any German ships in the Pacific.
That deterrent effect in the Pacific is one that really can only be led by the United States.
We wish we could lead everywhere at all times.
We will stand in solidarity with allies and partners and encourage everyone to invest in order to have forced multiplication of what we represent, but it requires realistic conversations.
Those with disingenuous motives in the media I don't mean to look at you.
I'm just saying anyone that suggests it's abandonment are trying to drive a wedge between allies that does not exist.
I love this guy.
We are committed to that NATO alliance.
We understand the importance of that partnership.
But it can't endure on the status quo forever in light of the threats we face and fiscal realities.
Europe has to spend more.
NATO has to spend more.
Has to invest more.
And we're very encouraged.
By what the Secretary General has said.
And frankly, behind closed doors, what a lot of our allies have said as well.
Acknowledging that reality.
And that's why when I say make NATO great again, it's what President Trump set out to do in 2017. The press said President Trump is abandoning NATO. He's turning his back on our NATO allies.
That's what the headlines read in 2017 and 2018. What actually happened?
That tough conversation created even more investment.
To the point where now almost every NATO country is meeting the 2% goal that was said to be egregious when he first said it.
Yep, absolutely.
There were many nations that were spending 0.6, 0.9, 1.2.
It wasn't even close.
You can search the archive and see our entire segment on that as it happened in 2017. Don't buy the lies.
We're going to continue with this, but I should let you know, too, if you are not a Rumble premium member, you're going to miss tomorrow.
Tomorrow, Gerald Morgan actually has a special, Mug Club Undercover, exposing...
Okay.
Exposing a proactive agenda in the church with the LGBTQ alliance.
I know, you thought this was a conspiracy.
Isn't it crazy now that you realize our tax dollars were literally trying to convince people to be gay?
That actually happened.
In Serbia?
You tell me how you get it.
Go try and be gay in Serbia, let alone be elected as a representative.
We now know.
We now know.
Thanks, Doge.
So you're going to be talking about that.
We have some exclusive undercover footage tomorrow at 10 Live.
Can we blast that tune again before we go?
Well, before, when you're done.
Okay, so continue, but before, no, not before we're done, because we actually, we're going to watch really quickly.
We're going to break from Exeth.
Continue, of course, on Chat Thursday, but actually, there's, we're going to present a review here as well.
The Madam President in this film, G20, played by Viola Davis.
Uh, she's, I guess, an action hero, and so I was told not to watch this because they wanted me to flip my shit live.
Madam President?
▲
Export Selection