All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 1, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
15:36
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, raised with a Christian family?
Yes, yes.
And SMU is relatively moderate as far as schools.
There is a whole dark world that awaits you, and I want you to put the armor of the Lord on.
Oh, I'm from Connecticut.
Oh, okay.
There you go.
Plus, you got the McMahon's there.
They do some great stuff for it.
All right, well, was it Andrew?
Yes.
I know this is unconventional.
Is it cool if I pray with you real quick?
Yeah, absolutely.
We've done that several times.
Dear Heavenly Father, I just thank you for Stephen and what he's doing out here.
And I just ask that you can use his voice to be an ambassador for your will.
I thank you for the ability to have this beautiful day, this beautiful breeze, and have conversations out here.
And I just ask that you are present with and bless everyone that is in attendance today, as well as everyone in our country, those who are struggling, 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.
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.
In Jesus' name, amen.
I podised, I looked around a couple times to make sure no one was coming in.
I don't know.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, brother.
God bless you.
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 Tuffer.
Chris.
Bye.
I don't know how familiar you are with what this series is, but.
First time hearing.
Okay, so that's why I know the means.
I didn't see that one coming.
As far as when it happened, I was like, oh, it was just me at a table.
I'll tell you what, it's not.
It's not clips and reels and shorts and dunks and gotcha and clickbait.
If this conversation is productive and we're both having it in good faith, it'll be uploaded in its entirety contextually.
It's an opportunity for us to rationalize, to reason our positions on what are viewed as controversial topics.
So before I get to the premise, and by the way, you can take this if you want.
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.
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.
Could you do me a favor?
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.
Hopefully we find common ground on the idea that political violence is when violence is used as a means to a political end.
So let's say you vote Democrat and you accidentally hit someone with your car today who happens to be a Republican.
That's not political violence.
Yeah, absolutely.
But if you go, I'm going to get me a Republican, that would be political violence.
We agree on that?
Yes.
Okay.
So what I'm asserting today is, sorry, I know we just touched Hannah, but I'm fine if you're good.
Is that by and large, the tone, tenor, temperature right now, certainly in 2025, of political violence is coming overwhelmingly from the left.
And 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 loss versus that.
I agree with what you're saying.
I've been hearing your stats as well, that yes, 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.
Would it surprise you that a lot of people don't agree with that?
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, regardless of that.
Sure.
May I address that?
Just because we are a little bit tight for time right now, I apologize.
And I hear about radicalizing a lot.
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 matching the rhetoric of the left.
They say the right commits more crime.
I go, well, no, actually, the left is violent.
But then I think I explained it contextually.
Absolutely.
We hear about radicalizing a lot.
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, people on the right are more aware of those, the positions on the left than vice versa.
But we hear about radicalizing.
Let me ask you this.
Okay, you disagree with that?
I would definitely do that.
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, 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-ramp.
Okay, but I would also argue we don't know all the motivations behind why the shooters were doing.
Sure, we do.
Also, we can't do it.
We do.
Okay, but it was come out and stated that he was doing this for left-leaning political reasons.
He said it before, but far before you could have even known what it was.
A lot of the statements.
Are you aware that, by the way, 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 people who broke the news that there were engravings on the bullet casings 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 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.
Okay.
That is wrong.
Absolutely.
And so I can agree.
We're not wrong.
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 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 nest.
Okay.
That doesn't 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.
I would agree that the rhetoric on both sides, though.
No, not on both sides.
We don't accuse the left of being fascists 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 us versus them statement on both sides, on both the left and the right, 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 their problems.
And it's when you recognize that the opposite.
You build a relationship based on truth, though.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
And I don't believe in linking hands with people who celebrate the assassination.
And the problem is that 62% of those on the left, 62% YouGov poll after Charlie Kirk was killed.
62% on the left believed that it was somewhat too completely acceptable political violence.
77% of self-identified conservatives said no.
Snap poll before Charlie Kirk was killed.
Six to one, the 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% assess.
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 an exact problem.
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, 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?
Right up the street, you have more violence than January 6th.
Also, ICE.
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 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 had time to go into that.
I know we don't have to.
I'm sorry.
I'm so sorry because of security.
It's easy to go into.
But that right there is a major problem as well.
And I think there is something to be said here.
How so?
With ICE and all that?
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.
Constitution peoples in the U.S. are entitled to due process.
Nope, to American citizens.
To natural American citizens.
Naturalized American citizens.
Someone happens to set foot in our country, if they're a terrorist, they're entitled to due process.
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 until proven guilty.
Where are you getting this idea that anyone who enters the country is entitled to our constitutional rights in due process?
Where are you getting that?
People in the U.S. 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 we the people under the U.S. They are not we the people.
They're not Americans.
They're not allowed to be here legally.
But should violent criminals be allowed to vote on law that relates to crime?
They should be allowed to have due process.
Why?
Where are you getting it?
Because of the fact...
Aside from you feel that they should, what's the basis for it?
Because that's how the Constitution is stated.
It's not.
It is.
That's what I'm saying.
So where are you basing it, if not that?
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.
If I believed, if I believed that Joe Biden, if I believed 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 believed that Joe Biden was doing all of this, would strip us of all of our 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 a violence?
Also, again, I would say that is...
Just like the beliefs about ICE.
But that is a generalization again.
Because you're saying every single one of the voters on the left.
Everybody on the left believes that.
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.
So here's the other side.
I absolutely agree with you that we should not be labeling people as necessarily things.
They have beliefs.
There are beliefs that I do not think Charlie Kirk should bullshot.
Absolutely.
I know.
And I know that, but too many on the left do.
No, absolutely.
But I still believe that some of his beliefs were homophobic.
But I'm not saying that he was a homophobe.
And I think that's such a major thing that people have beliefs and we can talk through them about that.
We can't, though.
And that's the, we do have to live in 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 don't know.
I'll let you close.
I just because they're rushing together.
I still disagree that, I mean, I still disagree that it is an inherently only, that the...
I didn't say only, I said by and large.
It's not proportionate.
Far more violence from the left than the right.
And the means of enforcement is violent.
The means of enforcement from the left is violence.
I think there's also something to be said on the point that, which we won't have to talk about, but there's further oppression being pushed from the right on basic liberties, but that is more violence than that.
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, Kamal 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 is not out of the shot, but great to meet you guys.
Thanks for being a good sport.
I'm sorry we had to rush.
Maybe next time we can do it for longer.
Please take that and peruse those.
Absolutely.
Okay.
God bless.
Well, that was a long time coming, and I want to thank everyone who made this even possible, and everyone who came out, everyone who had civil conversations.
But I'm not stopping here.
There are more conversations to be had, more places to visit, and more minds to change.
Today was a good start, but it's just that, a start.
And we'll continue right here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection