All Episodes
Previous
Oct. 1, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
14:56
The Left is Violent | Change My Mind 2025-10-01 18:11
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So this is to start the conversation, and then the conversations result in this.
But I will say I assume you're raised in the church, or raised Christian family.
Yes, yes.
Yeah.
And SMU is relatively moderate as far as schools.
Yeah.
There is a whole dark world that awaits you, and I want you to put the armor of the Lord on the right.
I'm from Connecticut.
I uh okay, all right.
There you go.
Plus you got the McMahon's there, they do some great stuff, but all right.
Well, thank was it Andrew?
Yes.
Um I know this is unconventional.
Is it cool if I pray with you real quick?
Yeah, absolutely.
We've done that so several times.
Um Dear Heavenly Father, I just I just thank you for Steven and what he's doing out here.
Um I just ask that you can use his voice as um to be an ambassador for your will.
Um I I thank you for the ability to have this this beautiful day, this beautiful breeze, and have conversations out here.
Um I just ask that you are uh our president with and bless everyone that is in attendance today, as well as everyone in our country, um those who are struggling and uh and sometimes most importantly to pray for God is our enemies and those who fervently disagree with us, even if they want us dead, we have to pray for their salvation and for them to come around.
Um and we just appreciate having this gift of life that we're able to do this and able to hopefully do your will and do this in your name.
We pray this in Jesus' name.
Amen.
Jesus' name, amen.
I apologize because I looked around a couple times to make sure no one was coming in high.
Oh no, but thank you so much.
Thank you, but blessing.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
That means a lot.
Thank you.
Okay, so you see the conversations thus far, a little of column A, a little of column B. Which ones do you enjoy watching most?
Comment below.
And by the way, none of this happens without your support.
Consider joining Rumble Premium.
By clicking the link in the description, you get 100% more of the daily show that we do weekdays, 11 a.m.
Eastern, as well as a whole bunch of other programs and everything ad-free.
Let's go on to this next subject.
Chris tougher.
Chris.
I don't know how familiar you are with uh what this series is, but first time hearing it's a most fun.
I know the meme.
So I didn't see that one coming.
I as far as when it happened, I was like, ah, it was just me at a table.
Yeah.
Um I'll tell you what it's not.
It's not clips and reels and shorts and dunks and gotcha and clickbait.
Uh if this conversation is productive and we're both having it in good faith, it'll be uploaded in its entirety contextually.
Uh it's an opportunity for us to rationalize, to reason our positions on what are viewed as controversial topics.
Yeah.
Um so before I get to the premise, and by the way, you can take us if you want, all the we always make the sources publicly available.
Fantastic.
So if you just take that, that's yours, the QR code, you can go check the references.
Thank you.
Um and and fact check me in case I'm lying to you.
Because people, I don't know if you know this.
People in media do that shit.
Yes.
Uh could you do me a favor?
Yep.
Uh, and just so we agree, kind of read this political violence, terrorism.
This is defined by the current sources being cited out there.
And I'll summarize it for people watching.
Uh hopefully we find common ground on the idea.
Political violence is when violence is used as a means to a political end.
So let's say you vote Democrat um and you accidentally hit someone with your car today.
Yeah.
Who happens to be a Republican?
That's not political violence.
Yeah, absolutely.
But if you go, I'm gonna give me a Republican, that would be political violence.
We agree on that?
Yes, we're gonna do that.
Okay.
So what I'm asserting today is sorry, I know we just touched on it, but it's okay.
Okay.
I'm fine if you're good.
Uh is that by and large, the tone, tenor, temperature right now, certainly in 2025, of political violence is coming overwhelmingly from the left.
And uh I think this leads nowhere good unless the course corrects if you disagree, you're welcome to change my mind.
So I would disagree one in the statement that these blanket statements of the left is violent, hurts the idea, creates a divisiveness in lost versus that.
I agree with what you're saying.
I've been hearing your stats as well, that yes, it's it's disproportionately on the left as of late, and the stats I've seen as you defined.
I think So you agree with that.
I agree with that.
Well, it would it surprise you that a lot of people don't agree with that.
They say they say, well, there's more violence on the right.
That's the talking point.
However, even if there is more violence on the right, or even if there is more violence on the left, I think violence as a whole is a problem.
But I think you're also going to have violence as you radicalize groups regarding.
Sure.
Uh may I address that?
Just because uh we are a little bit tight for time right now, I apologize.
Um and I hear about radicalizing a lot.
Um and by the way, the reason for that is you know I can fit it on a sign.
Yeah, and then I provide the context when we sit down.
So I'm maturing the rhetoric of the left, right?
They say the right commits more crime.
I go, well, no, actually the left is violent, but then I think I explain it contextually.
Absolutely.
We hear about radicalizing a lot.
So and I think that does happen.
I don't think it's possible to be in a right wing echo chamber because all of media, all of Hollywood, all of mainstream press, these institutions in academia lean heavily left.
I think some people can silo themselves off, but still you're people on the right are more aware of those, the positions on the left than than vice versa.
But we hear about radicalizing.
Let me ask you this.
Okay.
You disagree with that?
I would definitely don't.
But let's assume somebody's watching all the right-wing channels.
Is there anything that you can think of more radicalizing than a moderate conservative who sat down and spoke peacefully being politically assassinated as an act of terrorism in cold blood and then gleefully celebrated thereafter when we tried to host peaceful memorials to mourn the death of our own, showing up, attacking, desecrating, spitting at every single vigil and memorial, and then blaming the right and saying we need to tone down the temperature.
In other words, if you're a young conservative who watched Charlie Kirk, or could have been me, by the way, sitting in that chair because there have been many attempts.
Yep.
I don't think there's anything on earth that could be more radicalizing than that, because the left still kept blaming the right.
They didn't take the off rank.
Okay, but I would also argue we don't know all the motivations behind why the shooters are doing.
Sure we do.
Also, we can't okay, but it was come out and stated that that he was like doing this for left-leaning political reasons far before, but far before you could have even known what it was.
A lot of the statements.
Are you aware that by the way, I know this is just because it's relevant.
We had a leak under the DOD.
So we were the my team right here, they were the they were the people who broke the news that there were engravings on the bullet casings.
Okay.
That were anti-fascist, that were weird, trans sort of 4chan type stuff.
That's the OWL notices bulge.
And the reason it was leaked to us from someone at DOD, DOJ, is because they were concerned that it would be buried.
So when we released that, which of course now we know is true, it's been confirmed, we were tarred and feathered as liars and fake purveyors of fake news.
So we knew it before anyone else, and I've been following it since he said it was an act of political violence.
He said that he killed Charlie Kirk because he was hateful and fascist.
That's enough for me.
That okay.
That is wrong.
Absolutely.
And so I can agree.
Well, not wrong.
Do we agree that it's pretty clear what the motives are if the person who does it says it?
Yes, if he's said it, I mean, you could still And engraved it?
The engraving though doesn't necessarily isn't necessarily leftist.
Like, I think you could definitely make an argument that it is leftist, but you could also make an argument.
One, you could easily make an argument that they you wanted to add division.
Shooting Charlie Kirk with a bullet engraving that says, fuck fascism, when Charlie Kirk, and by the way, yours truly have been accused of being fascist for a decade, and then you read the writings of him saying he's hateful, that seems pretty clear to me.
In other words, you sent a bullet with the engraving, fuck fascism at the person.
Absolutely.
People said Charlie Kirk was a fascist.
This person believed it, shot him because he believed he was a fascist.
Is that not clear?
That is clear.
What I would say though is that doesn't still necessarily mean it's far leftist.
But even if in this case it is far leftist, I still don't think Would we agree that the reasoning for the murder was the rhetoric of the left?
They are the ones who accuse people like myself and Charlie Kirk of being fascist in comparisons to Hitler.
If they weren't doing it, no one would think we're fascist.
No, not on both sides.
We don't accuse the left of being fascist and Hitler.
I agree, that's not necessarily happening, but I think that rhetoric in general, this far push, we are pushing so heavily towards a dust us versus them statement on both sides, on both the left and the right, that that the other guy is evil and the other guy is wrong.
And that is true of a lot of both people that I know personally and in general.
And we gain nothing from an us versus them mentality.
Ever.
The only time you can get benefit and value, that's the whole point of your show is to build a relationship with somebody and talk through your problems.
Uh and it's when you recognize that the other.
Build a relationship based on truth, though.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
And I don't believe, I don't believe in linking hands with people who celebrate the assassination.
And the problem is it's 62% of those on the left.
62% you gov poll after Charlie Kirk was killed.
62% on the left believe that it was somewhat to completely acceptable political violence.
77% of self-identified conservatives said no.
Snap poll before Charlie Kirk was killed.
Six to one, left supports violence over the right.
Another poll from Rutgers after Donald Trump, right?
The attempted assassination, over 60% on the left supported it.
You don't find that from conservatives against Kamala Harris.
Over 60% firebombing Teslas, over 60% assassin.
So in other words, you do have to look at the rhetoric, you do have to look at the acts of violence, and you do have to look at the preponderance of evidence, the totality of the polls that shows one side of the political aisle justifies, supports political violence as a means to an end, and that is the left.
That's exactly right.
Let me give you some context for January 6th.
Do you realize that more people, more people at ICE facilities in the state of Texas have been killed by left-wing violence in the last week than all of January 6th combined.
Yes, there weren't deaths or killing during January 6th, and major ones because it was the it's the capital.
But my point is, why do you reach back to January 6th for what about is right up the street, you have more violence than January 6th.
Also, I and we haven't gone three days in the last two weeks for that leftist violence.
In other words, there's no equivalency.
What about January 6th?
I I agree, but however, also you have to recognize that for one, the aspects of ice, I think that is a major issue and a major problem.
And if we could have time to go into that, I know we don't have to.
I'm sorry, I'm so sorry.
They're boon now because of security.
Amazing to go into.
But that right there is a major problem as well.
And I think there is something to be said.
How so?
Uh with ICE and all that?
Uh the lack of due process given to immigrants being deported.
Okay.
So what you just said, I just want you to bear with me here.
That kind of rhetoric, that there's a problem with ice, no due process, people who are here illegally are not entitled to the same due process as American citizens, and that kind of rhetoric is why people shoot up ICE facilities.
They're doing their job.
A slight change in deportation policies, and by the way, I mean very slight, because Barack Obama did it too.
He had to give speeches on it because he was like, guys, we have to deport some people.
A slight change in border policy is not something that warrants any kind of justification for the fomenting violence that we see from the left.
ICE is doing their job, and illegal aliens are not entitled to due process.
They never have been.
Nope.
To American citizens.
To natural American citizens, naturalized American citizens.
Okay.
Someone happens to set foot in our country, if they're a terrorist, they're entitled to due process, as opposed to, and we're not, by the way, executing them, we're deporting them, we're sending them back to their country of origin.
Yes, because that is what makes America amazing.
Is that you are innocent and proven until proven guilty.
Where are you getting this idea that anyone who enters the country is entitled to our constitutional rights and due process?
Where are you getting that?
People in the US.
But where are you getting this idea?
In other words, that's not anywhere in our laws and our founding and our constitution, that anyone who comes into this country illegally is entitled to due process and our constitutional rights.
They're not.
Where are you getting that?
In the the we the people under the US, it is the.
They are not we the people, they're not Americans.
They are they're not allowed to be here legally.
But we're should criminals, should violent criminals be allowed to vote on law that relates to crime?
Why?
Where are you getting it?
Because of the fact that you feel that they should, what's the basis for it?
Because that's how the Constitution is stated about the people that's not.
That's what I'm saying.
So where are you basing it if not that?
Fine.
But the problem is you have people saying, hey, ICE are breaking up families.
Hey, they're violating human rights, civil rights.
Hey, you know what?
Let me put it this way.
And we do have to get going.
If I believed, if I believed that uh Joe Biden, if I believe what the left believes about Donald Trump and me as a voter, if I believe that Joe Biden was rounding up and killing white Christian men, if I believed that Joe Biden was a fascist, if I believed that Joe Biden was committing genocide, if I believe that Joe Biden was doing all of this would strip us of all of our found uh foundational fundamental rights and would never relinquish the reins of power or have a democratic election again, I'd be in the street with a gun.
Those on the left believe every single one of those premises about Donald Trump and his voters.
So do you understand why there's the violence?
Also, again, I would say that.
Just like the beliefs about ICE.
Because you're saying every single one of the voters on the left.
Everybody on the left believes every single thing.
I believe a majority of people on the left believe that.
They believe what you believe about ICE.
These are men doing their job.
A slight change in border policy.
That little rationalization leads to violence.
Just like Charlie Kirk was a fascist and it was engraved in a bullet.
I so here's the other side.
I absolutely agree with you that like we should not be labeling people as necessarily things.
They have beliefs.
Okay.
Um they like there are beliefs that I like, I do not think Charlie Kirk should have been shot absolutely.
I know.
And by and I I know that.
But too many on the left do.
No, no, absolutely.
I and I but I still believe that like some of his beliefs were homophobic.
But you I don't, I'm not saying that he was a homophobe.
And I think that's such a major thing that like that people have beliefs and we can talk through them about that.
We can't though.
That's and that's the we do have to live on this.
We can't because we get killed.
That's the point.
When the left, so here, when you say don't label, when people and the left says tone it down, tone it down from sitting at a table and having a conversation with anyone who will listen because they took his life anyway and they tried to take mine.
Only the left does that.
No one on the left is afraid or has to have a quarter million dollars worth of security to have conversations.
We need to address the problem.
It's the reason for crime stats.
I agree with you.
We should sit down and have conversations.
That's why I'm having it most people can't because we get killed.
And that's a fundamental difference.
I still rushing us okay.
I still disagree.
Okay.
I mean I still disagree that that it is an inherently only that I didn't say only I said by and large.
It's not proportionate.
Oh far more violence from the left than the right and the means of enforcement is violent.
The means of enforcement from the left is violent.
I think there's also something to be said on the point that which we would have talked about but that there's further oppression being pushed from the from the right on basic liberties but that is more violence.
If we had time to get to it I would but taking away our guns taking away our speech taking away our kids if we don't transition them that's the left's platform and you find it from every single major leftist Joe Biden Kamala Harris all the way down it'd be tough.
It would be a conversation I'd love to have but they're booting us because they don't want me to get shot which kind of makes the point Chris I would argue the universe not at the shop but great to meet you guys.
Thank you brother no I thanks for being a good sports.
▲
Export Selection