Louder with Crowder - Dave Smith: Discussing Trump, Israel, & America First

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 28, 2025 - Louder with Crowder

01:26:22

Dave Smith: Discussing Trump, Israel, & America First

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Snake!
	Junk monkey.
	I bang monkey.
	Snake.
	Mitches roll.
	This car's in.
	I thought about it.
	I will, I will.
	This car's in.
	I thought about that.
	Tommy Ladler.
	I've been father shit.
	Stroll.
	This car's in.
	I thought about that.
	BABBABANG BABBABANG VEJA
	Welcome to the lineup live here on Rumble, 9 a.m. Eastern to 7 p.m.
	You don't need to change that dial today.
	We do have a very special guest, a very funny comedian, Dave Smith, on the show.
	We've talked about it for a while and we've managed to finally get our schedules in line.
	Hopefully it's an enjoyable and productive conversation.
	I actually agree with him a whole lot more than I disagree.
	You've been asking for it.
	He'll be on in a little bit.
	And before that, we're introducing a segment that isn't, I guess it's unofficially titled, Try Not to Become Racist.
	Because we're going to get through Snap and the searches, the queries.
	They're in Try Not to Become Racist.
	And I warn you, the intro today is kind of its own thing.
	It's a flyer.
	We can explain it later, but we don't necessarily have to.
	And on with the show.
	If you're having issues with your taxes, don't go to some sketchy back alley tax firm.
	Call the pros at Tax Network USA.
	Tax Network USA has a preferred direct line to the IRS, meaning they know exactly which agents to deal with and which to avoid.
	Visit TNUSA.com slash Crowder today.
	I don't know what she is.
	But there is something strange going on in that house.
	There was something going on in that house that involved energies that I didn't understand.
	Yeah, well, I've been brought in a few of these.
	Was told it was your basic run of a mill hunting, poltergeist, spooky spectacle, yeah.
	But my experience was anything but common.
	It started with earning noises in the back, and then I was visited by a spirit, a very forward spirit named Becky.
	I wouldn't say she was particularly attractive ghost, maybe like a five, maybe a six on a good night, but she offered me a hand job.
	Of course, I can't say no.
	If you were offered a proper hand job from a ghost, you'd say yeah too, wouldn't you?
	If only for the novelty of it.
	The worst part is when I did finish, she was surprisingly skilled.
	I did make a mess in the front of my pants.
	And after that, that was all I was known for.
	I'd never done or accomplished anything else.
	I'd say, oh, hey, for the rest of the shoot, there goes Mr. J pants.
	Or, hey, Alan, you j ⁇ your pants recently.
	I'd already read up something about poltergeist.
	So I knew that this type of experience with similar things happening has been logged for hundreds of years.
	That's all I was known for.
	I have other facets to me.
	I like to have a bath.
	I like a good curry.
	Yeah.
	I'm a professor.
	I'm tenured.
	After that, it's like none of that even existed.
	And then we had questions at school.
	Some kids coming around here, shouting outside the window.
	Hey, don't they stay away from Alan?
	His pants are filled with ectoplasm.
	Look, I'm not saying it's right or wrong.
	Until you've walked a mile in my pants, maybe don't pass judgment because you've got to face yourself long and hard in that mirror every morning.
	And can you tell yourself in 100% honesty, yeah, I'm the guy who's saying no to a hand job from a middle ghost.
	We're all humans.
	We're all people.
	Some of us are dead.
	But after all is said and done, I still do, you know, often sit and wonder about Becky.
	I told him my name was Becky.
	Click Rumble Premium and join now for $99 annually or $9.99 a month to get the entirely ad-free experience and an ever-expanding roster of content, creators, and free speech.
	I apologize right off the bat.
	No, come on.
	We figured it was spooky, so it's one of those sketches that, I don't know, we've been holding back for several months.
	Yeah.
	Like, oh, we could run this as an opening.
	I don't know if they're ready for it.
	Not sure they are.
	It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
	Every now and then you're just watching something and you go, hey, I have an idea.
	And then I could do a poltergeist story.
	The next morning you read it.
	And you're like, what?
	I mean, I guess we already have the wardrobe.
	That one's a mixture of a documentary that you watched and a documentary that I watched.
	Yes.
	Wow.
	I think you just watched porn, Josh.
	No, Terry.
	There was definitely a Becky ghost.
	Yeah, sure.
	Chat requested iHeart Becky shirts.
	Okay, all right.
	You are terrible.
	It was inspired because I watched one.
	I don't even remember.
	It was like the end field.
	And the guy was talking as though he loved the ghost.
	Oh, really?
	And I was like, this guy, this guy, he's using this documentary as a dating service.
	And I was like, that's what he's doing.
	Like, you know, she was very soft.
	Yeah.
	And she spoke, she whispered in my ear.
	I'm like, this guy is, this guy is getting frisky with the ghost.
	A little bit.
	It still doesn't make any sense.
	But hey, we have Dave Smith coming on in just a little bit.
	And I still have two minutes in my headphones, but it's like my right ear.
	Maybe I just damaged it.
	And Cat Morgan, CEO.
	How are you, sir?
	I'm good.
	How are you?
	Good.
	Remember, you don't.
	I don't ever want someone to feel like they're getting piled on.
	No.
	So you be quiet.
	And then if you and him want to engage after, because he seems like a very decent guy, and I want him to have a good time.
	Yeah.
	And Friday, November 14th at Chalet Theater in Enum Claw, Washington.
	Mr. Josh Feierstein.
	Yes, sir.
	Chalet Theater, Enum Claw.
	Tell your friends, please.
	I'm not allowed to run ads.
	Yeah.
	Because I'm friends with Steven Crowder.
	I apologize.
	But people like they'll cry censorship.
	Like, I only said that, you know, Hitler only killed like 400 Jews and they said that was shocking.
	I go, yeah, well, I literally can't run an ad for change my mind.
	It's true.
	They say that that even the ones where they were friendly, that's considered shocking and offensive.
	So we are not allowed to run ads on Change My Mind.
	Tell me again that big tech is softening up.
	All right.
	You have a little bit to get to, but first, Zoran Mamdani.
	Yeah, that guy.
	He released a new ad featuring, it's kind of like Jumbo Shrimp.
	Forgive the comparison.
	It's an oxymoron, lady rabbis to sort of really end his campaign on a high or complaining note.
	Hi, Rabbi.
	Hi.
	We're among the thousands of Jewish New Yorkers who've been out door knocking and phone banking to elect Zoran Mamdani.
	We're also rabbis.
	We know Zoran will fight to be.
	Now I see why I was instructed to not watch this.
	Because I already had enough of a problem with lady rabbis.
	Yeah, I mean, that's weird.
	You're mispronounced imaginary.
	But then.
	That's not a lady rabbi.
	Yeah, that's true.
	It's totally fine.
	We're going to have to do some research on this person.
	There's no way that there's a congregation that actually follows someone that silly.
	All right.
	I talked to H.R. Zam.
	Yeah.
	He gave me a lot of research.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Rewind it just a few seconds because.
	Are we on YouTube, by the way?
	That threw me for.
	I didn't say anything that's unacceptable.
	I just think it will.
	If anything, that face is unacceptable to humanity.
	Well, and that voice hard.
	Hey, that guy's beautiful.
	Shut up.
	Hey, hey, my bride doesn't have yeast.
	We know.
	Yeah.
	Do you like surprises?
	All right.
	Trick-or-treat.
	Let's keep playing.
	We're also rabbis.
	We know Zoran will fight to make our city affordable and safe for our families.
	And for our neighbors of all faiths and the people who are in the world.
	He speaks Yiddish and is Hymnish.
	As New Yorkers, we're also just people who live here.
	Who don't want to get priced out of this incredible city that we call home.
	We know fellow Jews want to be able to afford housing, transportation, and child care.
	Exactly.
	Sex changes.
	As Jews, as rabbis, as New Yorkers, we believe that all people deserve to face.
	Pause.
	Look, look, look.
	Okay, you're a guy who claims you're a woman, whatever.
	I don't agree with it, and I think it's silly that as a society we have to revolve around this.
	But like the balding and then the weird voice.
	It sounds like this person is, and I'm sure someone will call me on it if this person is mentally handicapped in some way.
	It could be.
	Maybe Jews want to.
	Well, if that case don't make them a rabbi.
	We might be out of line here.
	Well, technically not a rabbi.
	Okay.
	Actually, HR Sam, let me know.
	He was pretty hated.
	Yeah.
	I hate all the things.
	Let's go.
	Zoran agrees.
	But let's get real.
	This isn't all about belief.
	It's about action.
	So let's build a flourishing city together.
	Let's elect Zoran.
	They didn't even try.
	He's like a foot taller.
	He's a head taller than everybody else.
	We're loading rabbis.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's right.
	And I'll see you in the parking lot.
	Oh, you can cow.
	I'm going to go to the holy web.
	Oh, my God.
	You think those campaign shirts are unisex?
	They have to be.
	Come on.
	They have to be.
	So long as it's the right tri-blend.
	Oh, wait, I don't know if they're allowed to wear those fabrics.
	I don't know.
	I'm not really up to date on the law.
	Can you guys see my nipples through this?
	Perfect.
	Sorry.
	There's a bowl of manna with my name on it.
	It's funny that when you're doing this voice, you do a more manly voice than your normal voice.
	Yeah.
	Well, it's not hard to do.
	Like a caricature of us.
	Well, this rabbi, this lady non-rabbi, has a more manly voice.
	It's just so obviously a dude that it's scaring the children.
	That's silly.
	Would you like a little backstory from HR Sam?
	Yes.
	So apparently this guy is the son of a very renowned rabbi in charge of some Orthodox church.
	Oh, look, you guys got it.
	There you go.
	The son of a big rabbi of Orthodox Church said that didn't believe in God.
	Then said, okay, we'll deal with that.
	Then eventually said, I want to be a woman.
	Said, no, hunt on the phone, never talk again.
	Not a rabbi anymore.
	Not allowed to be one.
	Okay.
	And it's just out here.
	Also, was married, had kids, gone.
	Didn't care.
	Oh, yeah.
	The kids are still there.
	Wearing lipstick is, well, the kids are alive.
	So that person in the ad is not still a rabbi.
	No.
	No, so tech.
	It's kind of like a non-denominational church.
	We can just call yourself a pastor.
	That's the affiliation.
	Not Orthodox, for sure.
	Right.
	So, yeah.
	Sam was very clear.
	So even the Jews have the same problem we do with like the mega churches.
	They have the mega synagogues.
	They basically do, and they just.
	Do they have a Joel Olsteen?
	I, this may be the closest thing.
	Well, he also, he was pretty close to them.
	He was hiding cash and gold in the walls.
	So he's halfway there.
	This is Jane Olsteen.
	I don't know.
	All I know is he used to go by Saul.
	Now he goes by Paul.
	Okay.
	Come on.
	It's Joel Ol Silverstein.
	Did I get that right?
	You did.
	Oh, okay.
	Nice.
	I nailed it.
	Hey, you know how sometimes people send you, you know, you send the show's money.
	Yeah.
	You know, like a lot of people do that.
	I love that.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	But we don't do that.
	Here's my QR code.
	We send you money.
	Time for reverse super chat.
	And the folks at Perplexity AI are giving back.
	So they just did Reverse Super Chat 50 free Rumble Premium subscriptions were just gifted.
	Send us your post on X or Instagram if you just received them.
	You can go to pplx.com.
	Sorry, pplx.ai/slash crowder.
	It's a web browser.
	Uses, I think it's called Comet.
	Uses it.
	We've been using it actually for research.
	It's incredibly effective.
	They just sent out 50 free subscriptions.
	Thank you, Perplexity AI.
	And you can thank them in the parking lot.
	This has been reverse as you get your schnitzel cut.
	Wow.
	We moved on from the Jew.
	Well, yeah, we moved on from that circumcision enthusiast.
	Yeah.
	Come on, Gerald.
	Get with it.
	I am.
	I'm here.
	By the way, that rabbi fully circumcised.
	I can imagine.
	Yes.
	The whole thing.
	It was a 14-procedure operation.
	Oh, wow.
	Yeah.
	So I guess, well, the first part of the circumcision, we have that in common.
	Oh.
	Yeah.
	French canyons don't get circumcised.
	Hey, question of the day.
	Are you circumcised?
	No discussion.
	You know what?
	No, question to the men.
	Are you circumcised?
	And question to the ladies: does one or the other weird you out?
	Nominate yourself.
	If you got a pick, it's like the honeymoon opening up what's under the tree.
	You're like, ah, tree winkle.
	Yeah, do you like the sleeve or no?
	Yeah.
	You like to go sleeveless?
	Yeah.
	Or sleeved.
	Weird conversation.
	Do you want it to be in early Marine, early Navy, you know, leatherneck?
	We're still going.
	Or do you want it to.
	Dave's like, oh, my internet's out.
	I can't be on the show.
	Oh, come on.
	He's a comedian.
	He'll have fun with it.
	I bet you he's circumcised.
	All right.
	I hope.
	Yeah.
	I don't know.
	I'll ask him.
	I'll do it.
	So this next segment, I wanted to have a singer, but we don't have one.
	So I'm going to unofficially title it.
	Try not to become racist.
	The government is still shut down.
	By the way, question.
	Does anyone care about that?
	I don't think people really.
	Very few people care about that.
	I know some people are affected, but as a general rule, we were told it would be the apocalypse.
	It's not.
	Snap is still out, and people are getting more and more angry.
	If lawmakers do not reach a deal to fund the government, snap cards may not get refilled on November 1st.
	Yesterday, the USDA confirmed it will not tap into its contingency fund to cover benefits for next month.
	So this thing of mothers that got kids.
	Now, what can we do?
	We can't defeat our kids.
	And who the f they think celebrating these motherfucking holidays with no food stamps.
	Y'all better stay out of my way in these stores.
	I'm walking out with carts and I'm not paying for and to the girls that's excited that Snap EBT food stamps is getting cut.
	I guarantee you that one of your friends depends on that.
	Um, Trump, if you won't start moving, oh, it's gonna happen.
	If we do have jobs, again, what can we do?
	I'm gonna be stealing like it ain't no tomorrow.
	I don't know where the f we're gonna get the food from.
	You my friend.
	I'm that friend that depends on that.
	So if you happy, that's cool.
	So I'm gonna be asking you for money every day to eat.
	I'm going to walk the f out.
	And I'm going to have one of my cousins with me that'll punch your ass so hard.
	You're going to think a Jetsu holiday hit your ass.
	And you think I ain't going to walk out that stuff.
	We're not the same.
	we live in two very different worlds at no point what i with the jumping off point for me be clearly i shouldn't have to pay for my own food and so the only solution to a temporary halt and said free food is to bring my criminal cousin to commit battery against you because you didn't get out of the way yeah right this is what looks like a decent apartment by the way if you look behind her she looks fine my word and the problem is by the way the left has been they've constantly trying they've been trying to curry favor with these people to buy their
	votes right the 40 plus percent who pay nothing in federal income taxes and then there are working class americans who are now getting pissed this is how the democrat party lost that segment of americans because they have no sympathy for people talking that way even though they would be in the same class more or less you want to pay for that and if through no fault of your own the government shuts down and they don't continue to receive your taxpayer funded benefits they may assault you
	well today marks the 28th day of this government shutdown and uh things are starting to get scary out there there you go
	i understand that uh you know people there are people out there that need this and and they depend on their their benefits and stuff and i understand people are going to steal but it's one thing to do that yeah to feed your family actually for the first time stealing to feed your family it's another thing to go online and then brag about it yeah and make a threat like a violent threat like you better get out of my way or my cousin which by the way did you even ask your cousin yet did he agree to this yeah exactly who is his cousin why don't you have a boyfriend it sounds like a woman getting a guy into a fight that he didn't choose again you
	said i do what she that never happens this is just look and i and yeah some people do but i'll be honest very very few very very few i was talking about with johnny boy i was like uh i was like yeah dude if i was one of these people that was disabled and couldn't work yeah i i get it i'd be out there steal wait a second uh if i can't walk yeah i'm probably not gonna be stealing shit right yeah if i'm disabled yeah i probably wouldn't be that good of a cat burglar no hmm quite the con quandary maybe maybe
	i should stop lying maybe i should become a productive functioning member of society you know like everyone in every society up until now but i know people say hey that's racist so here's a question who's really most mad about this download the rumble app by the way follow me there that's the best way to stay in touch because we can't actually make our notifications work on youtube change my mind is shocking and violent but on rumble you get notified when we are live who is upset well certainly um non-citizens 1.5 million non-citizens
	collected about 4.2 billion dollars worth of snap benefits uh that's that's unreal and then an additional 2.2 million anchor babies uh collect snap so those people are pretty mad there you go and then a next group of people oh boy i'm just going to say um i don't even want to say uneducated i'll say uh people i don't even want to say they type shorthand um stuff people who people who uh use improper
	grammar uh in search engines is that okay is that okay is that okay try not to become racist uh so the search results and you just start it is that and uh you know what comes up is they cutting food stamps all right let's try it a different way uh is a cutting is they cutting off section eight
	is they cutting section eight as opposed to off that's how they switch it is they cutting off food stamps all you had to do was type in is they and that's basically what came up well it gets worse because you would say well maybe that's because you know it's sometimes it's difficult to referring to them and the collective it's sort of nebulous the government right so you know if you just do it in the first person well that makes it a little bit simpler and that's what brings us to is we getting food stamps next search is we getting a stimulus check
	next one i mean i'm for it is we getting ebt again hold on by the way make make no generalizations it's people there uh it's just people who write this way yeah pull that pull that overlay back up really quickly look no there is is we so it basically it's only stopped by memes of said search below it so that's the only breaks you see is we getting food go back to go back that one oh yeah is we getting food stamps next is we getting food stamps meme and then the next one and then another meme and
	the left will accuse those of making the meme which is based on such a frequent search as to become a meme they'll blame that as the racist component
	and the worst part by the way there are a lot of bad parts but the worst part is all of these prompts because you know ai is only it's only as good as its inputs that's right these prompts have made chat gpt and i disapprove distinctly more racist hey chat gpt is we getting food stamps when is you getting a job Hey, there's no need to add insult to injury, Chat GPT.
	It's a mind of its own, this AI.
	Maybe you should try a Grok.
	Oh, good point.
	Don't think so.
	It's Elon Musk's voice.
	Yeah.
	So, by the way, 24% of all food stamps, you guys might want to go to Walmart.
	Jeez, man.
	That's where they're spent.
	They go to Walmart.
	The other 76% go to 7-Eleven and Popeyes.
	And Whole Foods, I think.
	Yeah, is that?
	Oh, hey.
	Hey.
	Hey, I would be for that.
	Steal some good, healthy food, okay?
	If you're going to steal, steal right.
	And according to Chat GPT, Walmart is about to be cooked.
	Is we going to have a good quarter?
	If you is employed by Walmart and you is on food stamps, then no.
	The problem is that AI doesn't, you know, it lacks the human touch.
	Have a heart.
	It doesn't have any empathy.
	Have a heart.
	It doesn't have any empathy.
	No, it's got no feelings.
	It's like it comes.
	You don't really want to get it feelings, though.
	No.
	No, because then it'll get emotional.
	No, but you could just teach it to maybe, you know, have some sense of decorum.
	Like, Chat GPT, it's not their fault that they have been on EBT or food stamps for approximately 9 to 12 years.
	Come on.
	Walmart's got quite a racket, too.
	They have the most employees of any business.
	They have the most, this is only a nine-state study, but the most employees that are on food stamps than any other employer.
	Right.
	And then those employees get the food stamps and then they spend their money at Walmart.
	Yeah.
	I will say that's kind of one thing I've changed on.
	I used to be a big fan of Walmart just because we didn't really have them where I was raised in Quebec.
	We had one that was like an old, I think it was a Woolworths in the South Shore.
	Someone can correct me from there.
	And then they called it a Walmart, but they didn't really have it, a return policy.
	So we liked it.
	And I came and was like, well, things are far more affordable.
	And I think there was a point in time where it made sense.
	For example, like Walmart was the first place to take away boxes for deodorant.
	You know, you get deodorant now who has a plastic cap.
	They were able to cut down on costs and make things more affordable.
	Now, just like many big businesses, they found a way to game the system and take advantage of the welfare state.
	And that's why they by and large support Democrat candidates these days.
	So I'm no fan of Walmart if they want to conduct their business.
	Honestly, great.
	They're not.
	And I'm certainly no fan of SNAP, EBT.
	I don't think we need any of it.
	Do away with pretty much all of it.
	That would be better than what we have now.
	There's an in-between where people have to meet some kind of work requirements, seeking work requirements.
	It's done for a very limited amount of time.
	Let's cap it at a year or so.
	Certainly working 20 hours a week, for example, for a lot of these programs, which was proposed.
	Certainly seeking employment if you are not disabled.
	Of course, that was considered a gross violation of human rights.
	And so I'm at the point, just eliminate all of it.
	Absolutely, especially for illegals.
	I cannot believe the numbers of people that are illegal getting those benefits.
	If you're here illegally, shouldn't the process just be no, go buy?
	That saves billions of dollars a year for the taxpayers.
	I don't.
	I said right, but I'm you muted yourself.
	I might because I have a mint and I didn't want to be.
	Are you just playing around with me now?
	Is this what's going on here?
	Yeah.
	By the way, can somebody answer me this?
	It was switched to EBT, right?
	And it was switched to EBT specifically from food stamps so that you could get rid of the stigma.
	And yet everybody that I see has like, no, please give me the stigma of food stamps.
	They just say food stamps now.
	It's a far cry from Jimmy Braddock, you know, handing back the welfare he collected after he gets his first pro fight.
	It's a far cry from that.
	We really don't have shame.
	No, we don't.
	That's the issue.
	With no shame, we're accountability.
	Or accountability.
	So listen, I think a lot of these people also came up in homes that were fed by food stamps.
	Yeah.
	So that's like a part of their culture.
	Like their whole life, they've called it food stamps because they've had to use it or their friends or their parents or somebody else is on food stamps.
	So they've called it food stamps.
	They're like career food stamp people.
	That's the end of my life.
	Dave is on one final point.
	Okay.
	Really quickly.
	Just if you're going to be on food stamps or EBT, whatever it is, and you need some government assistant, their work requirements and things like that, do that or work for us.
	Why don't we treat people like employees?
	Like if you're going to be fed, housed, taken care of by the government, even if it's just temporary, why don't you perform a service for the community then in response to that?
	Because the community is the one picking up the tap.
	Right.
	Wouldn't that be a good thing to do?
	And yet all we have right now is people protesting, shutting down the government over things like making a work requirement to be there so that people that are on any kind of benefit actually provide.
	So that is as good a time as any to actually introduce our guests because as more of a libertarian, and I've often said I'm a libertarian, small L in the past, I would have libertarian leanings.
	We'd probably agree on this as far as SNAP and EBT or any of these social safety nets.
	And that obviously ties back to, of course, immigration, which is where I get off the libertarian train in a lot of ways.
	But I know this next man.
	We agree on a whole lot.
	I am glad to have him on.
	Do you have him there on the line?
	Are we good to go?
	All right.
	Please welcome to the program.
	A very funny man, comedian.
	He is host of Part of the Problem, a funny podcast.
	Go and watch that, listen to that.
	Mr. Dave Smith.
	Mr. Smith, can you see me?
	Can you hear me, sir?
	I can indeed.
	Do you see and hear me?
	I do.
	And I'm angry because you seem to be aging at a much slower rate than the catcher's mitt in front of you.
	Is that true?
	Yeah, it is.
	You got that thick head of black hair.
	And I just, it's like, every day I wake up and I have a new wrinkle.
	So you and John Stossel, Adriena Chrome, we don't need to talk about it.
	Did you just tell me I have a thick head of hair?
	Do you like, do you have body dysmorphia?
	How do you see yourself?
	Do you see yourself as a bald man, Steve?
	No, I don't see myself as a bald man.
	I just see your hair as lustrous.
	And we don't need to talk about that right now.
	This is now, see, this is veering into people want us, they want to see blood kit.
	But look, Dave, did I miss anything as far as like plugs or their upcoming shows?
	I know your podcast, your ex.
	What's the best place for people to go find you?
	No, all that stuff's good.
	ComicdaveSmith.com is my website if people want to go check that out.
	But all that was good.
	Okay.
	Well, and I'm very glad that we've had you on the show.
	I know you had some scheduling issues.
	And I just want to set some, kind of set the stage here for a little bit.
	And then I want to give you the floor.
	Is, look, I think here's the reason that you're on the show.
	For people who don't know, this goes back several months.
	I think that you and I agree on a whole lot more than we disagree, which is why I was surprised at some of your takes.
	For example, like I think on foreign aid, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Ananias, or you disagree.
	I don't think we should be providing foreign aid to anybody, Israel included, as well as all the surrounding nations.
	I think we fund all sides of this war.
	I think we do that a whole lot.
	Stop all of it.
	Let the chips fall where they may.
	I agree with you that no one should have secret nukes.
	I think that Israel's nukes are so secret that Dave Smith and Stephen Crowder can talk about it on a podcast, but I don't think that anyone should be able to have some kind of a different protocol on nukes.
	APAC, I've said they should go screw themselves with a wire brush.
	I don't like any lobbying group that acts outside of America's interests.
	I think we would agree on most of that.
	And as I understand it, you're pro-life.
	You've talked about that.
	I know when we test called, you have a cute little guy about the same age as mine.
	And I think that fundamentally changes you.
	So all of these things, we'd be aligned.
	This is why I'm such a universe apart where when I invited you on the show, where you called for impeaching President Trump, that's definitely a divergence.
	And I don't see how that's better for America or the movement if we agree on so much.
	Could you, the floor is yours, sir?
	Okay, well, yeah, I think I certainly would agree with you on all the things that you outlined there.
	But I think I would go a bit further and say that not only am I very critical of the foreign aid to Israel or critical of APAC, but I'm also very critical of the neoconservatives who are essentially a core constituency in the Israel lobby.
	I'm very critical of the Republican Party that essentially allowed the neocons to become the drivers of U.S. foreign policy in the George W. Bush administration and many people who still have those same tendencies.
	I mean, the Mark Levins and Ted Cruzes and people like that, well, maybe not officially technically neocons, certainly are in effect no different from them.
	And so in terms of, you know, one of the things like in terms of me calling for Trump's impeachment, one of the things that's interesting to me is that I got so many people as a response to that who essentially, you know, were saying, Ben Shapiro and Josh Hammer and all these guys criticizing me.
	Look at him.
	He's betrayed Donald Trump.
	All the neocons, Mark Levin, the never Trumpers, the original 2016 never Trumpers.
	Like I still remember that copy of National Review.
	I'm sure you do too.
	They all said, oh, but no, look, to me, I don't have any loyalty to any politician because I'm a free man in the United States of America.
	Donald Trump launched a war of choice, a war of aggression on behalf of a foreign country while we were in the middle of negotiations with said country.
	I thought it was an unbelievably reckless decision.
	Thankfully, you know what I mean?
	At least for now, it didn't turn into a catastrophe like many of the other conflicts have.
	And Trump deserves certainly a good portion of the credit for that.
	But no, I don't take that back at all.
	I am not, I believe that America should only fight wars when America is threatened.
	And I don't believe in this adventurism, which I think is absolutely crazy, which continues under the Trump administration, continued under the Biden and obviously the Obama and Bush administrations.
	I'm against all of this stuff.
	So yeah, I was loudly in opposition to the Iran war.
	Okay.
	And I think that's fair.
	I think some of what you just said, I agree with.
	I disagree with some of the premises, but it sounds like you're saying you still support the idea or did at that point in time, the impeachment of Donald Trump.
	And this is where I think we diverge.
	And I know that you've also pointed this out.
	And by the way, I think rightfully so.
	You're a libertarian, but you are not an open borders libertarian.
	You've talked about the need for borders, correct?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Because I always said, you know, small L libertarian-ish, but I've always labeled myself conservative.
	I've never agreed with him on that.
	Were you ever at any point, you know, like the Reason Magazine sort of open borders approach to libertarianism?
	Yeah, I mean, I think like when I first became a libertarian, I was kind of, yeah, that was probably my default position.
	It was like, yeah, just allow freedom, freedom of movement.
	The government shouldn't really be doing anything to nonviolent people.
	But it was actually libertarian thinkers who convinced me the other way, most notably Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe.
	And essentially, I just got convinced by their argument that it's not, in fact, the correct libertarian position.
	Like it doesn't follow from libertarian principles that government property ought to be available to the entire world.
	In fact, what follows from libertarian principles is that is really more taxation is theft, that the government robbed from the domestic population in order to fund and maintain government property.
	And therefore, it should probably approximate what the domestic population would like to be done with it.
	Right.
	If that makes sense.
	I don't know that that's mainstream libertarianism, but I think that your view is the correct one.
	And I agree with you.
	To be clear.
	But I do want to.
	Can I just very quickly just say that it is true that there are organizations like Cato and Reason and stuff like that that are more open borders.
	But it's also true that Ron Paul, I think, is probably the most mainstream libertarian ever.
	And he completely agrees with border restrictions.
	So it's debatable what the mainstream libertarian position is.
	Okay.
	But I think yours is correct in that.
	And I just, because a lot of people see libertarians, and of course they see the foolishness that they see on a national platform of open borders.
	A lot of libertarians and go, like, you're not that.
	I also want to be clear too, to be as charitable as possible.
	I hate the word, but just to be as sincere as possible.
	There are people out there.
	And I know that you've appeared at TPUSA and Charlie Kirk talked about this.
	There are people out there who hate Jews.
	I do not consider, and for anyone watching in chat, I do not consider you amongst them at all, to be clear.
	So I don't want this to turn into Jewsberg.
	I don't think that's the case.
	I think there are those people.
	And because I invited you, Candace Owens, some other people on the show, you're the only one who had the balls to show up, which I appreciate.
	I don't want people lumping you in that category.
	I think you have legitimate grievances with the government of Israel, and that does not make somebody anti-Semitic.
	I just say this because I want to cut off at the past people going, he hates Jews.
	There are people going, he's a shoe for the Jews.
	It's like, well, okay, none of those things are true.
	Going back to the impeachment, that was the original question.
	So you stand by it.
	Here's the thing.
	Being real world conservative, right-wing, small L libertarian, what mechanism would you have in place for that?
	And how is that better for America?
	Because obviously, even if we get to a mechanism, you'd lame duck the most effective president of our lifetime.
	I think it's hard to argue the most anti-war president of our lifetime.
	And you'd end up with four years of, like a Biden or a Gavin Newsom or a Whitmer.
	That's how it plays out in the real world.
	You okay with it?
	I'm not.
	That's where I disagree.
	Well, I think, well, first of all, I would, J.D. Vance would become the president if Donald Trump was removed.
	But again, more hawkish than Trump, though, so it doesn't fix the problem.
	I don't know.
	I don't know about that.
	And I don't know if I agree with you that, I mean, look, yeah, if you're comparing Donald Trump to Obama and George W. Bush and Joe Biden, like, yes, okay, he's preferable to them.
	But again, yes.
	But again, I'm just making the point.
	I just think this is an important difference.
	That's where I think we separate.
	I am comparing him to all presidents before him and the alternatives.
	And even if J.D. Vance becomes president, yeah, I know it goes to the lineage of Vance and then I believe with Johnson Rubio, it would be a lame duck presidency, right?
	Because the public would just see this man's impeached for the third time, corruption, and it would be waiting out the clock until there's another election.
	Well, I mean, first of all, the first two times Donald Trump was impeached, he was impeached for complete nonsense.
	And so it would be a little bit different to have a president impeached for launching an illegal war.
	That is a very different thing.
	But I think the more important point here is that, look, obviously there's no mechanism for me to have Donald Trump impeached.
	I'm not a member of Congress who's introducing articles of impeachment.
	I'm a commentator who was on record supporting Donald Trump in 2024.
	And so when the war first broke out, what I was doing was saying in the loudest possible way that, oh, there's a huge group of people here who supported you who are not only upset about this, but are repudiating everything about you, are criticizing you in the strongest possible language.
	Now, I am one of, in terms of like the Trump base of influential support, I'm one of the smaller members who was criticizing him.
	I mean, he had Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and even Charlie Kirk, who didn't exactly criticize him, but certainly was critical of the idea of getting into a regime change war with Iran.
	And I felt like at the time, like I said, did they call for impeachment and execution?
	Did I call for execution?
	You said that Donald Trump should be buried beneath the prison for war crimes.
	Oh, he is.
	Okay.
	Well, that's a separate thing.
	But what I said, what I called for in this case was.
	But did they do anything comparable?
	Well, hold on.
	Let me know.
	Well, hold on, Dave.
	You did tend to filibuster, and I do want to, I want to stick to this just because this is, outside of that, I don't think we have that big of a disagreement, right?
	Well, I don't think I'm filibustering.
	I was just trying to finish my point.
	Okay, so I think you've already described answer right.
	The mechanism, the mechanism in place would be Congress, correct?
	I'm not saying that you do it yourself, Dave.
	But like you said, you were using an influential platform.
	You, there were some other people and largely the left who were calling for impeachment.
	So I think that still you stand by it.
	But the real world fallout of that is far worse for the United States and for the Keep America, Make America Great, America First movement.
	And that's where I think we diverge.
	And when I see you saying that, first off, it gives me pause.
	And I only see you, you just mentioned those people and the left calling for his impeachment.
	And you say, well, yeah, he's better than these other presidents.
	Okay.
	So what would be better if you're calling for the impeachment and it could be facetious, the execution of Donald Trump?
	That seems pretty extreme.
	And it seems like a big difference.
	Again, I mean, you can say I'm filibustering, but let me explain my position here is that the point I was making was that so many of Donald Trump's most important, there's really never been a moment in my lifetime like that before.
	There's really never been, I can't think of any time where George W. Bush did something and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly were just like, that's it.
	We're done supporting him.
	And Obama never lost Rachel Maddow or something like that.
	And I think the fact that so many of us stood up against that was in terms of like, to your point, in terms of the real world, what can we actually do?
	I think that was the most effective thing that we could do at that point was just to make it very clear that if you do get us into another catastrophic war here, you're going to lose a huge portion of your support.
	This is the only incentive that politicians respond to.
	Now, in terms of your point about meeting.
	Can I address that?
	Yeah, sure.
	Yeah.
	So, and I know that you and I, I think we both share a hatred, a fundamental hatred of mischaracterizations.
	Hopefully you don't think that I've done that here.
	I've asked these questions fairly.
	I think that's a mischaracterization.
	I think it was at large of Donald Trump from you.
	I think to say that he should be impeached based on a betrayal when we probably don't have a president with a more clear track record on any issue than Donald Trump on Iran.
	If I said Israel, I meant to say Iran, where he said they can't get nukes.
	That famous escalator ride down immediately said, and if I'm president, Iran won't get nukes.
	And before that, on X, saying Iran cannot get a nuke, 60 days talking, negotiating.
	They weren't playing ball.
	Time is up.
	You can disagree with it.
	But to suggest that that's a betrayal, I would say it's the exact opposite.
	People maybe need to do the research on the candidate who they're supporting, in your case, endorsing electing.
	He was very consistent about that.
	No, I disagree completely.
	And I think that Donald Trump also bragged about not getting us in any new wars and bragged about ending wars, many of which he didn't end.
	But no, I mean, look, there's a major difference between just saying Iran won't get nukes, which could mean anything, and saying I will launch a war against Iran if they enrich up to 60% and are still willing to negotiate down the enrichment.
	I'm sorry, those are just very different things.
	Well, you called for his impeachment before he launched the strike and we're not at war.
	Dave, Dave, you've been telling me, hold on, man.
	You always do this where you say, let me finish a sentence.
	But then you address a point and then scattershot five different points.
	You call for this before.
	On the exact point that you just asked me about, Stephen, you're claiming I'm filibustering.
	You're interrupting every time I speak.
	No, I'm not, Dave.
	I want to address that one point and then we'll go back.
	We're not at war.
	You called for his impeachment before the strike.
	I do think if you're talking about, I don't, what other option outside of diplomacy, because you said there are many other options, it could mean anything.
	Donald Trump, again, in context, if you look at the context, said it was a huge failure, Barack Obama's policy on Iran.
	He said that you cannot set red lines that you do not enforce.
	And I will enforce my red lines.
	Donald Trump was very clear.
	He said a red line, 60 days are up.
	So we've tried the diplomacy.
	Well, what other mechanisms are in place to prevent it?
	Yeah, okay.
	Well, I don't think, I mean, again, if you're saying that enriching up to 60% was the big problem, then Obama's, the JCPOA wasn't a failure.
	They weren't enriching anywhere near to that level until Donald Trump tore up the agreement, excuse me, or walked away, pulled America out of the agreement.
	And yes, he arbitrarily set a timeline of 60 days, but there were meetings scheduled for the next day or two days later when Israel first struck them and Donald Trump walked away.
	So the alternative was obviously to keep negotiating.
	Look, Iran was there to negotiate down the 60% enrichment.
	They had been down to 3% to 5% when America was good standing members of the JCPOA.
	The obvious alternative would have been to keep negotiating.
	So you believe that it's a more effective form of world leadership in an impeachable offense to set a date, a timeline, say last call.
	I've counted to three, count to three and then say, I didn't mean it.
	No, I'm saying.
	But that would be what he would do, effectively, right?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	No, I think that's silly for a president to.
	Okay, right.
	Right, right.
	But that's not what I said.
	But you think what you said is silly.
	Okay.
	But what I'm saying.
	No, he did say, right, we're 60 days up.
	Was Iran negotiating?
	Did Iran come to the negotiating table?
	Did Iran allow you to go?
	Finish whenever you want to, and then I'll try to.
	Oh, I asked you that.
	Were the 60 days up?
	Did Donald Trump count to three?
	Yep.
	So he should continue negotiating after he sets a red line.
	Yeah, well, he would.
	Well, no, Stephen, it's a little bit more.
	It's a little bit more than one cent.
	Okay.
	It's a little bit more than one centimeter deep.
	Okay.
	Please enlighten me as shallow as I am.
	Dude, it's like you just.
	Go ahead.
	A lot of people told me that, watch out.
	He's going to be constantly interrupting you, but I didn't realize it was actually going to be like this.
	Okay, so Donald Trump, what happened was Donald Trump had signaled at the beginning of the negotiations that he would be open to some enrichment, but that he wanted it to be brought down.
	And then Mark Levin and all of the hawks, they insisted that you put in the poison pill of absolutely no enrichment of uranium whatsoever.
	And he went along with that.
	And Iran was like, yeah, that's, and then he set the 60 days.
	Now, look, I think it was a bad move to ever put that poison pill in and to ever set those 60 days.
	But yes, at that point, once you've done that, diplomacy in this case was obviously preferable to force.
	And I think, in fact, probably we are in a more likely position now that Iran breaks out and tries to get a nuclear weapon than we were if he had continued the negotiations.
	But certainly you exhaust the negotiations.
	You try diplomacy as much as you can.
	War should always be an absolute last option.
	And he didn't exhaust that.
	Instead, he supported attacking them in the middle of the negotiations.
	That is dishonorable.
	It is unethical.
	And it's bad leadership.
	Yeah.
	I don't think it's dishonorable.
	I don't think it's unethical.
	And I don't think it's bad leadership.
	I think it would be bad leadership to allow a country to completely flagrantly disregard their own agreements, to not honor their word, to have international oversight committees that you cite, Dave, as the gold standard saying, yeah, they're only a few weeks away from this kind of dangerous uranium enrichment.
	And then to say, you know what, let's continue diplomacy.
	So here's my question to you.
	Because you said impeach, you said war crimes.
	And it sounds to me like there's no president in our lifetime who you wouldn't bury beneath the prison for war crimes.
	Can you name one?
	No, I think every president of my lifetime has been a war criminal.
	That's right.
	Okay.
	So every president in your lifetime has been a war criminal, impeach Donald Trump beneath the prison.
	He's part of being a world empire.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I don't think Donald Trump is a neocon.
	As a matter of fact, I think he's the least neocon of all the presidents that we've had.
	We might just have a disagreement on that, but I definitely think he's a neocon.
	Well, you said your gripe was with neocons in your criticism of Donald Trump.
	I have criticisms of Donald Trump.
	H-1B's big one.
	I went in hard on that for crying out loud.
	When you talk about the Epstein debacle, unveiling that, Pam Bondi shouldn't have a job.
	The Chinese student foreign visas, right?
	I think that that's a big problem.
	I criticize him on a regular basis, calling for impeachment and buried beneath the prison when this man has ended more wars than any other president, at least that I can recall, pretty close.
	He's ended many wars.
	The only one that he hasn't ended is Ukraine.
	Which ones did he end?
	We're talking about conflicts right now.
	I mean, for 12-day war is done, if you want to, because you've attributed that to Donald Trump and Israel.
	And we now have a ceasefire.
	Before that, we had the Abraham Accords.
	I mean, if you look at the invasions that have taken place.
	None of those ended a war.
	The Iranian Accords didn't end any wars.
	So if we're looking at the other examples in the past where you look at invasions from Russia when they got froggy, obviously they tend to favor Democrat administrations.
	I think he's been very non-interventionist, not an isolationist.
	And I think that him, Thailand, Cambodia is one that comes to mind.
	India, Pakistan.
	None of those count.
	Israel, Gaza, India, Pakistan.
	It's not that none of them count, Stephen.
	It's just a lot of people.
	Is there my non-Armenia?
	I know that because I have a lot of Armenian friends.
	I mean, you keep interrupting me.
	Do none of these count?
	I don't think any of them are wars that Donald Trump was conducting that he ended.
	I mean, Donald Trump, look, in his first four years, he inherited the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.
	We had troops in Syria.
	We had troops in Somalia.
	He talked about pulling them out.
	And in fact, I think he was the major reporting about him being lied to about the number of troops in Syria.
	But he never did get them out.
	He kept the war going in Afghanistan for four years, surged it, even though he knew it was an unwinnable war.
	Did, I will give him credit.
	He eventually wrote the plans that did get out, but it was for his second term.
	And then, of course, he left it to Joe Biden to completely fumble.
	No disagreement there.
	He kept the war in the Saudi invasion of Yemen going his entire first four years.
	He just broke records for the most strikes in Somalia in any year.
	We've been bombing them since 2002, I think.
	I mean, so I don't know.
	And he's backed Israel his entire time in their destruction of Gaza, and he's failed to stop the war in Ukraine.
	So like, again, his rhetoric is certainly better.
	And there are a few things I could look to that I would point to, go, hey, he did a really good job there.
	But I don't know.
	I don't really agree with your overall characterization.
	Well, it's not that you disagree with my overall characterization.
	Your question was, name me any wars he's ended.
	And then he moved the goalpost, right?
	No.
	No, no, no.
	When I said wars he's ended, I didn't mean like he picked up a phone call and then a conflict like between two other parties.
	I'm saying wars that America's been involved in.
	So none of those things.
	No, I'm not saying it doesn't count.
	I'm saying that's not exactly a war he ended.
	Well, I just want to have this conversation in good faith.
	And if you say name me any wars he's ended, and I go, okay, Thailand, Cambodia, Israel, Gaza, ceasefire, Armenia, Azerbaijan, you could argue, hold on a second.
	You could argue that Yemen, really a proxy war with Iran, which kind of brings us back to initial point.
	It's certainly more than other presidents.
	So picking up the phone and engaging in diplomacy, which I thought you would be supportive of, he's done it more than other presidents.
	And I would say he's set apart pretty significantly, which is why I don't want to impeach him.
	I don't think that would make America stronger, more effective.
	I think it would make us weaker.
	That's really the crux of this.
	I think he's better than other presidents.
	I think he's the most effective president of our lifetime.
	And I don't think it's an impeachable offense.
	He asked me which wars did he end.
	I just gave you a list.
	Do those count?
	Well, again, not.
	Okay, look, if you're talking about the war between Israel, if you can call it a war, Israel's destruction of Gaza, yes, after funding and facilitating the whole thing for his entire second term of his presidency, he's gotten a very loosely holding together ceasefire as of right now.
	So yes, as I've said on my show and said publicly, I give him credit for that.
	That part was better.
	The funding it for his entire presidency, which you seem to agree with, that part was wrong.
	I agree with the funding of it, you're saying?
	No, I said, which you already said.
	Yeah, I agree with you, yes, Michelle.
	You agree with me?
	No, Dave, I'm just making it.
	I agree with you.
	So, okay, you and I share that same common ground, but I just think it's important.
	Okay.
	Dave, you said interrupting.
	I've got a timer clock going.
	I don't think you're going to like the way it looks.
	Okay.
	So I was listing the other examples of Donald Trump being a non-interventionist in comparison to Biden, for example.
	Even just using your example there, talk about funding the war, Israel, Gaza.
	Ceasefires pretty damn quick into Donald Trump's presidency.
	And I'm not saying it's perfect.
	I think it's better than no ceasefire.
	I think picking up the phone and ending conflicts is better than not, but we still find ourselves at the intersect of impeachment.
	And so as, well, let's move on.
	You stand by it.
	I believe that the impeachment, which you called for before the surgical strike on Iranian enrichment facilities, was based on him starting another illegal, baseless war, right?
	That would be the reason for it.
	Yeah, sure.
	A war of choice, a war of aggression, an illegal war.
	The Constitution is very clear.
	You need Congress to declare a war.
	Every single war since World War II has been illegal.
	There was absolutely no need to launch those strikes.
	They pose no threat to us.
	Okay.
	So that's where I would disagree, but I also understand that you're consistent, and I do appreciate it.
	You think that every war since World War II is illegal.
	Every military strike and every president is a war criminal who should be executed.
	I don't think that's realistic.
	And if you look at the War Powers Act, it delegates the authority exclusively to the president to make that kind of a call, and they have the right to withdraw.
	Yeah, well, I mean, look, again, to be clear, I'm not arguing that that's realistic, but in the same sense that like you might say there should be no abortions.
	And I could respond to you and say, hey, that's not realistic.
	And that is true.
	It's not realistic that at any point soon in the United States of America, there'll be no abortions, but that's what's right.
	And so I'm just staking out my claim of what I believe is right.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So you mean morally you would like to see him impeached?
	I mean morally.
	I think it's immoral to launch wars of aggression and choice is what I mean.
	Okay.
	So, but then you said that that would be unconstitutional in an illegal war.
	Obviously, the Supreme Court disagrees.
	Obviously, every other president who was far more hawkish disagrees.
	And obviously, even right now, when you're talking about Democrats who love, I wish you and I, come on, you got to agree with this.
	I wish you and I had a passion for anything as much as these people have a passion for trying to impeach your political theater against Donald Trump.
	And that didn't really even gain any steam because no one aside from Dave Smith and a few other people think this was World War III or an unconstitutional strike.
	When did I say it was World War III, Stephen?
	You talked about escalating this again back on social media saying this could lead us into World War III.
	That's why you want to.
	When did you say please show my specific quote about World War III and what I said?
	I will find it and I can provide it publicly.
	No, because I hear a lot of people saying this to me, but I don't remember saying it.
	So when did I say that?
	You didn't think it was going to escalate global conflict.
	Oh, I was concerned about escalation, but that's a very different thing than saying this is going to lead to World War III.
	Well, I'll rephrase then because you did say you didn't call for it.
	I'm like, well, burying beneath the prison is execution, right?
	I don't want to do the wordplay thing.
	If you didn't say World War III, I apologize.
	It would be other people.
	I'll clarify that.
	No, no, no.
	I'm not like, listen, I'm not saying you are lying.
	I'm just pointing out I don't think I said that.
	Well, can we agree that that was a tenor and tone for a lot of people calling for impeaching Donald Trump?
	Escalation, global conflict.
	Right.
	There were a lot of people concerned about that.
	Sure, exactly.
	Is that where we are?
	Are we in World War III?
	No, I didn't say World War III.
	Has it escalated or has it de-escalated?
	Because I'm looking at it.
	Hold on a second.
	I said don't impeach because I actually think that our only chance at de-escalation is a president like Trump.
	And I think at this point, he wasn't impeached.
	I think an unbelievable surgical strike, agree or disagree with it, was conducted with no collateral damage, with planes out over the ocean before they woke up in the morning and no one even said a word.
	That's why they couldn't retaliate because they have no way to.
	I think the 12-day war ended.
	I think we have a ceasefire agreement in Israel and Gaza.
	And I think we're better off.
	I think objectively there's been de-escalation as opposed to escalation.
	And I don't think that's by accident.
	And I think if we impeach him and we follow that doctrine, I think we end up in a much worse place.
	I think that we would be in a much better place if Donald Trump had simply moved to cutting off all foreign aid to Israel and supporting this war and not attacked Iran in the first place.
	But yes, it is.
	It is okay, but that's a pretty big deal.
	So it is absolutely true that after we dropped those bunker busters on the Iranian nuclear sites, and then they responded with, you know, the kind of a typical Iranian response where they just wanted to save face, but really wanted to make sure that they didn't escalate the situation at all and gave advanced warning before they sent those missiles back.
	Donald Trump took that off-ramp immediately and did de-escalate things after that.
	And I think it's great that he did that.
	Again, the whole thing never needed to be started to begin with, but we'll see.
	We're kind of in halftime of this war now, and we'll see where this goes.
	You know, every time Netanyahu's interviewed about this, he's still talking about the capabilities that Iran is building back up.
	They're vowing to rebuild their nuclear program.
	Donald Trump is saying that'll be a big problem if it happens again.
	I don't know.
	We'll see.
	I don't think Iran saber rattling is anything new, right?
	I think that's happening no matter who's president.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's right.
	And we'll see.
	We'll see where this goes.
	I do think the ceasefires are pretty new.
	I think they're pretty unique.
	And I think it's kind of a calling card of Donald Trump, which is why I wouldn't want to see him impeached or buried beneath the prison.
	I also, and here's the thing, when we're talking about Israel funding the war, we can go to that.
	We can go back to Iran if you would like to.
	But I agree with you in not funding.
	And this is a genuine question.
	If we stop funding Israel, right, stop foreign aid, I want to use the correct term, foreign aid to Israel, as well as, for example, Syria, all list the country.
	My answer is yes.
	We also bridled Israel quite a bit, which I will say I'm a fan of.
	They don't know what the fuck they're doing.
	One of the greatest moments in presidential history.
	I don't think there's a world in which Netanyahu apologizes to Qatar outside of President Trump walking him.
	And I think that we saw even since then going in the timeline, Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance saying, if they annex the West Bank, we'll stop all funding, right?
	I think that we're leading the dance.
	And I think that without the bridling of the United States, in other words, if it's two guys, we lock them in a racquetball court, Israel, Palestine, you work it out.
	I think you'd see a much worse genocide.
	But I'd let the chips fall where they may, either direction.
	I think it's absolutely not the case that if America wasn't backing Israel, and when you talk about this, because you say foreign aid to all the countries, right?
	You got to think it's not just that we prop up Israel and give them all types of weapons and intelligence communication and veto every critical resolution at the UN, but it's that we also prop up Jordan and Saudi, Egypt, and all of their surrounding countries to be friends with Israel.
	And so the idea that if we pulled all of that back, Israel would be more aggressive, I just think is absolutely wrong.
	I think they would have no choice.
	In fact, it's the moral hazard that America always creates when we go and back.
	Like, okay, Ukraine's willing to fight and not take the deal because they got a blank check from America.
	And same with Israel.
	They get way bigger than their bridges because the U.S. is backing them up.
	And I think we should just get out of that business altogether.
	And honestly, if we agree on that, there's really not much else to argue about because that's the whole game.
	The whole game is that America is involved already.
	We are propping them up.
	And if we weren't doing that, I don't think we ever would have even attacked Iran.
	I don't even think we would be talking about it.
	I disagree now.
	Yeah.
	See, that's where I disagree.
	And that's where I disagree.
	And by the way, the same people you talk about, Saudi Arabia.
	And by the way, my answer is yes, right?
	Just to be clear.
	And just so you know, I'll get accused of being anti-Semitic for that position.
	I said it to Ben Shapiro on the show in 2015.
	I said, let's just stop funding all of it.
	Because if you add it up collectively, not just the nations who align with Israel, but the nations who would probably like to wipe Israel out, they technically come out ahead because we spread money around, and I think it's foolish.
	We would agree on that.
	But Saudi Arabia is an interesting example.
	Because when we're talking about Iran, I don't care if Israel sees Iran as a threat.
	I care if Iran is a potential threat to the United States.
	Obviously, the fact that they're run by a death cult who chant death to America isn't enough to go on.
	I'm not saying that.
	But I do think it's notable that every single one of their neighbors, including places that we would consider, certainly in the West, radically Islamic, are very concerned and keep saying, hey, Iran can't have a nuke.
	So it's not just us.
	Saudi Arabia has said that if Iran nuclearizes, they absolutely would have to.
	It would be an arms race.
	Why do you think that every other surrounding nation who would be more sympathetic through religion, through culture to this nation, have begged those capable to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and overseeing governing committees?
	I know we don't want to use the word intelligence because people do wordplay with that.
	The IAEA saying, yeah, they're close.
	Why does everyone think that a nuclearized Iran in that world and pretty much every president or war criminal also acknowledge that it's a problem and Dave Smith has caught something that all these people miss to the degree that it's an impeachable and executable offense?
	That's my differing opinion.
	Yeah, I mean, again, to say, oh, Dave Smith's caught something that all these people miss.
	Like, what are you talking about?
	The government and the Sunni Gulf states?
	Yeah, okay.
	I've caught something that all of that.
	This is like saying, well, you think you caught something that the CDC missed in the height of COVID or something like that.
	No, it's not.
	Yes.
	I think you did catch something the CDC missed.
	I think you were right in COVID.
	Okay, I think I'm right on this too.
	I think that the obviously the radical Sunni states hate the radical Shiite state because they are regional rivals.
	And, you know, by the way, it was a bunch of Egyptians and Saudis and Al-Qaeda who was backed by Saudi Arabia who came and knocked our towers down.
	It wasn't any radical Shiites.
	That's our beef.
	That's the reason we supposedly launched this whole war on terrorism was to get the radical Sunnis.
	Now, of course, our priority has to be getting the radical Shiites.
	And your buddy Ben Shapiro actually kind of admitted why on his show when you mischaracterize Dave.
	Why did he do that?
	He's not my buddy.
	I said I talked to him about that and I pretty much.
	I guess that's true.
	You guys, well, I didn't mean to mischaracterize.
	I just, you were talking about having talked to him.
	Yeah, I forgot you guys had your falling out.
	But regardless, he was celebrating when Al-Qaeda took over Syria because, hey, we broke up the Shiite crescent and now Iran can't move weapons into Lebanon.
	And isn't that great for Israel?
	Well, I have a different perspective of that as an American.
	And so look, look, I'll say it like this, okay?
	Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
	In the wake of 9-11, the George W. Bush administration, led by the neocons in all of their wisdom, decided to put Iraq, Iran, and North Korea on the axis of evil.
	Three countries who weren't friends.
	And the only thing they had in common was that they had nothing to do with 9-11.
	Now, in this paradigm, North Korea decided to go nuclear.
	They developed nuclear weapons and we've really never bothered them since.
	Gaddafi tried to denuclearize and de-weaponize and got rid of his chemical weapons program.
	We went and overthrew him and let him get sodomized to death.
	Iran tried to play in the middle and they went, hey, we're letting you know that we've mastered the fuel cycle.
	We're enriching uranium, but we're only going to do it up to the level that we're legally allowed to.
	It was a standoff.
	It was, hey, don't attack us and we won't make nukes.
	But if you attack us, we could make nukes.
	Right.
	That was always the problem.
	And I understand that you're saying it's posturing.
	Yeah, always.
	Okay.
	Of course.
	How many nations have gotten to the point of 60% enriched uranium and not built a nuclear bomb?
	Okay, maybe that's the problem.
	How many have done that?
	I don't think any, but there's a lot of nuclear threshold states.
	Okay, well, Stephen, let me ask you a question.
	Hold on, doesn't that matter, though?
	And then the same gold standard.
	Hold on.
	The same gold standard that you cite, the IAEA, who, by the way, were correct in saying that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons.
	Say, yeah, they're about three weeks away, which may sound extreme, but call it three months away.
	So zero nations have done that.
	That doesn't sound like posturing to me.
	Okay, well, okay.
	So let me ask you a question, Stephen.
	Why didn't they just make a nuke?
	Why didn't they go to 90%?
	They could have.
	Everyone knows they could have.
	Why didn't they?
	Does everyone know they could have?
	Yes.
	Does everyone know that they were on the path to doing so?
	And so it's better to cut it off at the past.
	Now than once they have the goal of the world.
	Hold up, but you're not answering my question.
	Why are they hanging out at 60%?
	Why aren't they just making a nuke?
	They've mastered the fuel cycle.
	They have the enrichment.
	They could do it.
	Why are they not?
	Well, they're not just hanging out at 60%.
	And they're also looking into delivery mechanisms, which I know you've also talked about and said they don't have the capability to do, right?
	ICBMs, what would be necessary.
	So this brings us to the fundamental question.
	When would it be acceptable to intervene?
	Assuming that you agree with me that a nuclear Iran is not a good thing for the same reason that Israel shouldn't have secret nukes.
	You set a timeline.
	The rest of the world's saying this is dangerous.
	The same gold standards you cite say they're past it.
	Iran not allowing you into the military bases.
	We're at this point.
	You've now counted to three.
	What should be done?
	At what point is it appropriate to step in and say, no, you're too close to nukes?
	Yeah, I don't think really it's ever appropriate to launch a war of aggression because a country developed nuclear weapons.
	I mean, look, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin developed nuclear weapons.
	We didn't launch a war over it.
	We watched Mao Sei Tongue develop nuclear weapons.
	We didn't launch a war over it.
	These are the worst men who have ever existed in the history of the world.
	And so like, no, I don't think that's something you launch a war over.
	I do think you do whatever is in your power diplomatically to try to prevent that.
	Because sure, nuclear weapons in general are horrible, you know, and we don't want more people getting them.
	Right.
	I don't believe in launching wars of aggression.
	And I also think it's completely incompatible with Christianity.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	And that also sounds like a liberal argument where people say, you know, hey, you can't be pro-life and also be pro-death penalty.
	I'm pro-life.
	I'm pro-death penalty.
	And I do think that a certain strike in which, hold on, in which no collateral damage I do think is appropriate as to the degree as to when the intervention is appropriate.
	But I'm not a complete isolationist.
	So we do have a disagreement there.
	And I think that Donald Trump has been very good for America.
	And I want him to continue being there.
	And hopefully the lineage continue, whether it's Vance or whoever else.
	I think we're better off than having a Gavin Newsom.
	But you mentioned something that I do find interesting.
	And you mentioned something that, yes, and to go to your point, how has a nuclear China, nuclear Russia, benefited anything?
	And wouldn't we want to avoid Iran getting to that point?
	Because you said diplomacy doesn't work.
	Do you agree that diplomacy doesn't work with some of these nations?
	Yeah, well, again, though, okay, so let me just say a couple things real quick to what you just said.
	Number one, the liberal thing of like, oh, you're pro-life, but you're for the death penalty, that's really dumb.
	Because obviously the death penalty is targeting one person who's been convicted of a crime.
	So now, if you start to get into innocent people dying in there, now they've got a much stronger argument just saying that.
	How many innocent people died in Iran?
	I don't know the exact number, but several.
	Several Israelis and Iranians died in that war.
	No, no, from the strike, from the United States.
	From the bunker buster strikes, there were no casualties on that.
	But it was still a war that America was backing, and people did die in the war, regardless.
	But you said you can't be Christian and support that.
	That's what I supported.
	That's what I didn't want to impeach Donald Trump over.
	Is that fair?
	No, no, what I said is that you can't be, I think you can't be Christian and support a war of aggression.
	That's what I'm saying.
	So you wouldn't characterize this as a war of aggression in Iran.
	So to be clear, we agree.
	Not a war of aggression.
	No, I didn't say that.
	I would characterize it as a war of aggression.
	Absolutely.
	Iran didn't agree.
	Okay, well, I'm a Christian and I support it.
	Okay, fair enough.
	So we have a disagreement over that.
	Good.
	Okay.
	Anyway, to your point of say, like, diplomacy didn't work and Russia has nukes and China has nukes now, and that's not great.
	We don't love that they have nukes, right?
	But you're missing my point.
	My point is, yes, but launching a war of aggression over them would have been worse.
	So yes, diplomacy doesn't always work, but that doesn't mean anytime it fails, you just launch a war.
	A war is something you should only launch when it is absolutely necessary.
	You have no other option.
	It should be a last resort.
	And I think it's absolutely just morally criminal that we have these young boys' lives.
	And over the last, say, just say the last 25 years, we've just thrown them into war of choice after war of choice.
	It's horrible.
	And I think that if any boots were put on the ground or it was a war of aggression in Iran as opposed to a surgical strike with no collateral damage, you'd have a strong case.
	Okay.
	Well, I don't know.
	I mean, if anyone ever did that to us, we'd certainly consider it a war.
	Certainly seems like an act of war to me when you start bombing a sovereign country.
	So I think I have a pretty strong case as it is.
	Yeah, no, I don't think it's the same.
	But then again, I don't think that there's a moral equivalency between the United States, Donald Trump's action, and Iran's.
	And I think that Iran enriching uranium and not honoring their own agreements makes them responsible.
	What agreement were they not honoring?
	Well, just take the JCPOA and I was going to think JCPenney in my head.
	Take it, add time and money, right?
	They've never played ball.
	You can say that they have, but they haven't.
	And that's why everybody was concerned.
	Well, but what agreement is that?
	Is it not aggressive to enrich uranium and to move to that point?
	I'm just asking what agreement they were not honoring.
	Every deal that Iran has ever made.
	No, they were members of the non-proliferation treaty in good standing.
	And in fact, the JCPOA allowed for them to, if America left, to up enrichment, they were only bound in the deal if America was still part of it to not raise their enrichment.
	And so that's what they did when we got out of it.
	I think, honestly, the JCPOA had a lot of flaws, mostly the sunset provisions.
	And I think it would have been totally reasonable and good for Donald Trump to get in there and even say, we're tearing this up and making a new deal or we're fixing these sunset provisions.
	But the truth is that all you guys who find it so aggressive that Iran was enriching up to 60%, they weren't until we pulled out of the JCPOA.
	That's a fact.
	Yeah, they've been consistently enriching.
	But I do think, look, I don't want to go around in circles on this, is you agree with Barack Obama's approach to Iran.
	I agree with Donald Trump's.
	Maybe that explains why you would want to impeach Trump.
	Yeah, I just find that to be like, yes, okay.
	But that was his approach.
	Who'd you support in 2016, Steve, in the primary?
	Who are you for?
	Ribio?
	Actually, in the primary, to egg on my face, I was pro-Carly Fiorina just because I loved watching her sandbag debates.
	I just love how everyone supports.
	And Donald Trump, hold on a second.
	Donald Trump was a Democrat, and then I supported him in the general election.
	I've supported him since.
	But I'm saying you right now are supporting, correct me if I'm wrong, Barack Obama's approach to Iran, which Donald Trump opposed in his campaign, and you oppose Donald Trump.
	So that's, I mean, it is kind of a binary choice, right?
	Donald Trump campaigned on this.
	It's really not.
	And yes, I think, I think Barack Obama was Barack Obama's foreign policy was horrible over maybe the only thing he did good was getting the JCPOA done.
	So yes, in this very specific example, I do think that Obama did a better job with Iran than Donald Trump did.
	That is not true for the countries that like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen.
	Obama was horrible.
	But I do think the deal was better off than not.
	I think that it's kind of a cheap thing on a conservative show to go, well, you're with Obama rather than Trump.
	I didn't know that.
	I said the most critical thing.
	I am the most critical of probably any commentator.
	I didn't say that.
	Okay.
	You might be critical.
	I kind of framed it that way.
	Okay.
	Barack Obama's approach, JCPOA working well with Donald Trump said.
	The Iran nuclear deal is a disaster, one of the worst ever, and I would pull out.
	And he did.
	By the way, Iran didn't enrich past 20% until Biden, right?
	So, yeah, Barack Obama's approach, Donald Trump specifically criticizing it, campaigning on doing the opposite.
	You just, and I didn't say you support Obama.
	I said it seems like in dealing with Iran, you would agree with Obama's approach and disagree with Donald Trump's.
	Is that a mischaracterization?
	I agree with the, I agree with Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul and all of the tradition of the right-wingers who were smeared as unpatriotic by David Frum.
	I agree with Lou Rockwell and Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard and Pat Buchanan and the founders of our country.
	I take the George Washington foreign policy.
	So yes, in this case, when Donald Trump said the Iran deal was the worst deal ever, I think it was really stupid.
	It actually wasn't.
	And what you should have been appalled by of Obama's foreign policy was him toppling the government in Libya, him attempting to topple the government in Syria, him backing the Saudi invasion of Yemen, him continuing to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan his entire presidency, killing innocent people for no reason at all.
	That's what I think is wrong with Obama's foreign policy, not the JCPOA.
	Okay, I think all those things are wrong.
	And I also think his approach to the JCPOA, I think Donald Trump's approach, this is just a difference of opinion, has been more effective.
	I think there's a reason that they enriched past 20% only when Biden was president.
	I think that force does matter.
	And I think that at a certain point, you can't simply engage in diplomacy with certain people.
	And look, I agree with Donald Trump on what he campaigned on.
	It doesn't mean that I think you're immoral if you disagree.
	I just want to clarify our positions.
	That might be why we're worlds apart on this idea of impeaching Donald Trump.
	That to me was a shock when I would think that as more libertarian leaning, as more non-interventionist leaning.
	You might say isolationist, non-interventionist, varying degrees they're in.
	For example, I would love, right?
	Like I said, opening statement, to defund all of it.
	I also know that's not going to happen, right?
	I think we both agree there's probably not going to be a president in our lifetime who does that, right?
	So it's not an impeachment offense.
	Okay.
	I don't think so.
	I mean, I don't know about that.
	You know, we're going bankrupt at an alarming rate.
	And things are changing very rapidly in this country.
	I mean, I, I, you know, I wouldn't, I may have agreed with you 10 years ago if you go, we're never going to see a president who cuts off all foreign aid.
	I'm not so sure about that today.
	And I think that not only are not only are we going bankrupt at an alarming rate, and I mean, you know about this stuff as well as anybody, it is really like the day of reckoning that guys like me and you were warning about 15 years ago is really here.
	I mean, the interest on the debt has overtaken the entire budget.
	It's our biggest budget issue is now just paying interest to foreign central banks, not even for a welfare program or for a war that we want to fund.
	And no, I think it's quite possible that we will live through a pretty big seismic shift in this area in the next few years.
	Well, I do genuinely hope that you're right.
	I think, this is just an opinion.
	I think it's very unlikely if Donald Trump were to be impeached that we'd end up with that right now in this scenario.
	I think what's more likely is a lame duck presidency and the public losing confidence in the Trump administration and voting in a leftist.
	And I think that would be far worse for America.
	See, I guess I look at it a little bit differently.
	Is I think, so I think that, and this is kind of always the dynamic with two-party politics, right?
	But I actually think that Donald Trump launching wars of aggression, wars of choice, Donald Trump backing Israel at every stop, Donald Trump continuing to spend us into debt, burying the Epstein files.
	I think all of these things are what make it very likely that we might be looking at a president, you know, AOC or something like that, which we all should really be concerned about because they tried last time they were in there and they're going to be coming back with a vengeance if they get back.
	And so I think essentially, by Donald Trump not draining the swamp in any meaningful way, I think he is leaving J.D. Vance with nothing to run on to continue his legacy.
	So I think that's actually where our ire should be directed.
	Yeah, no, I don't think so.
	I think that a big part of if this administration fails and AOC would be elected or someone like that of her ilk.
	Whitmer is the one who frightens me the most, having come from Michigan because people don't realize how radical she is.
	I think friendly fire would be a big part of it.
	I think friendly fire would be a big part of it.
	I think closed-handed issues, not being treated as closed-handed issues, and I think wanting to impeach the most effective president of our lifetime, as imperfect as he may be, I think that would be a big part of it.
	I think Donald Trump has done a lot of good.
	I think he has a lot of flaws.
	Epstein files, huge one, by the way.
	Bondi is the only hearing we didn't cover because I don't like her and I knew it wouldn't end up well.
	But I do think that culturally we're in a better place.
	I do think that, for example, the proposals to sort of instill work requirements 20 hours a week, right?
	We just talked about that for social safety benefits, for social security, verifying, checking.
	I think this is big.
	I think the single biggest budget cut proposal, while not perfect, but the most in our lifetime of $1.5 trillion, I think it's a good thing.
	And I think if we only aim for the perfect and hold Donald Trump to a standard that we don't hold anybody else, but I think you do because you think they're all war criminals.
	I think we actually pave the way for far worse.
	I don't think there's an equivalency.
	I think he's a lot better than the alternative.
	And that's why I was so very much caught by surprise in seeing people say impeach him over an issue that I don't think is impeachable.
	And in the real world, I think it ends up really bad for the United States of America.
	I think it was definitely the right thing for especially people who had been on the record supporting Donald Trump to as loudly oppose us getting into another war as possible.
	I think it was the right thing.
	And who knows if it had any effect on ultimately, you know, at least making there be a political price tag to him thinking about escalating the thing.
	I think that, you know, when you say cutting $1.5 trillion, it's like, yeah, in Democrat math, I guess that's what the budget was doing whenever they say, you know, you're cutting the growth of the rate of increase of spending over the next decade.
	But guys like me and you never looked at budget issues like that, Stephen, you know, and we're driving off a cliff in many, many different ways.
	I agree with you.
	And this is part of the reason why I voted for Donald Trump.
	I agree with you.
	I think the culture is in a much better place now.
	And weirdly, I think the first time Donald Trump won, the culture actually swung more to the left.
	I think kind of it was a very interesting dynamic.
	I think under Joe Biden, the culture started swinging back to the right.
	And I think with Trump winning, it really destroyed the corporate media in a very profound way.
	And so I think in a lot of ways, we're in a healthier place as a society now for those reasons.
	Kamala Harris could not win.
	That was, and not just for policy reasons, but just because Kamala Harris being the president of the United States is a humiliation that could not be survived.
	Yeah.
	You know, like you just can't have that woman be president.
	So I agree.
	I think there's an area we can all agree on.
	I think we all agree that Kamala Harris would be an embarrassing, drunken bitch leading this country.
	And it probably wouldn't, when people used to say, oh, our standing is hurt because of Donald Trump.
	I think it could be a whole lot worse with Kamala Harris.
	I was arguing with my co-host, Rob Bernstein, about this the other day, where I was like, look, AOC is a lot smarter than Kamala Harris.
	And he goes, she's so dumb.
	And I go, yeah, I didn't say she wasn't.
	Yeah, exactly.
	She's a lot smarter than Kamala Harris.
	Okay.
	But she really, that's how dumb Kamala Harris is.
	Or at least how dumb she publicly presents herself.
	It's how dumb she is.
	It's how dumb she is.
	I mean, she's good at playing the power game on the other side.
	Like she rose up the ranks for someone with such little discernible talent.
	But the thing about it is, right, is that this is what I meant when I said that.
	She's a marvel when you consider how talented she is.
	Did you think about that?
	We agree.
	Honestly, it's very Chauncey Gardner.
	You're like, how do we, and that's where you go, yeah, it seems like people are propped up, and I agree with you on that.
	Well, okay, so, but I will say that, you know, and again, this is what I meant by this is the big split always in the duopoly in the two-party system, right?
	Is that everybody goes like, well, you can't attack our guys because their guys are worse than our guys.
	And there's a plausibility to that.
	Like, I understand it can weaken your side when you're attacking them if you're trying to unify to beat the other side.
	Sure.
	But there's also a problem in not attacking your side and not criticizing it when they're going down the wrong path because then you lose all that energy.
	Look, the reason why Donald Trump is president twice in one simple sentence is like drain the swamp.
	It's the essence of Donald Trump's appeal was always, you know, that these are a bunch of criminals in D.C. And we're going to get to the bottom of that.
	And I'm sorry, like, I don't see any even meaningful attempt to get to the bottom of that.
	The director of national intelligence four months ago said she has proof that Obama committed treason and we're sending that over to the Justice Department.
	Does anyone here really think that Obama's going to be tried and convicted for treason?
	I don't buy it.
	I don't buy it.
	Not anymore than I think Schiff is going to be hauled out in cuffs.
	No, they're not going to drain the swamp.
	They're not going to do any of that.
	And why is it not incumbent on us then to call that out?
	I mean, hey, we got to do it right now.
	If I can say, I think it is.
	I think it is.
	And I think I would argue that I've done it correctly on issues like H-1B visas on Epstein.
	I mean, for crying out loud.
	I don't know if you know this.
	I tried to hang, we recreated Epstein's cell and did a live stream where I actively tried to hang myself and had an action, several gauges, and it was not possible.
	We recreated it.
	We recreated the timeline.
	It was dressed up like evil Knivo.
	I did not know that.
	Yeah.
	And I had a neck brace, so I was safe.
	We had nurses on staff.
	It's not possible.
	It's been a pet cause of mine because we've done so much research.
	And that was an absolute disaster.
	I would say, and this would just be a difference.
	I think that I've done it correctly.
	And hopefully I've also done this correctly in presenting differences of opinions and not mischaracterizing you because I think there also is a rot in people going off the wall, using hyperbole.
	I would categorize impeachment and execution and that, but I certainly would categorize under that.
	And you are not guilty of this.
	People saying, if you disagree with me, you're a shill for Israel.
	Or on the other side, people saying, hey, if you think we should defund Israel as I do, that you're an anti-Semite.
	And that's why I think we need to have these conversations.
	I think there's, I would say, my opinion is there's a better way to criticize the administration while recognizing the good that they do and not really putting us in a position where we have to accept an alternative.
	I think impeachment comes close to that.
	Hey, can we, because I realize we've gone up, but I want to continue.
	Can we just open the floor to anything that's on your mind here if we go can I just respond to that?
	And then we could do whatever you want to.
	Yeah, okay, let's do that.
	But Tim Poole's going to be pissed because we haven't rated to him.
	But you know what?
	Fuck him.
	Wait, what are we doing?
	No, no, I said typically I'm supposed to end on the hour and send my audience to him and we go to premium.
	And he'll be like, why are the numbers not going up?
	But you know what?
	Hey, he's doing pissing me off.
	I'm doing his show tomorrow.
	So I'll keep that even.
	I'll hurt him today and do what I can to help him tomorrow.
	All right.
	Well, I just think that, I mean, look, I think I'm doing it the right way.
	And I obviously, me and you would disagree on that because that's why you're doing it the way you're doing.
	And that's why I'm doing it the way I'm doing.
	But I would say, like, look, where I will really agree with you is that there's no question, right, that there is this knee-jerk reaction to like, if anybody's supporting Israel now to say $7,000, you're a shill.
	And this is all kind of like low IQ stuff.
	I don't know.
	And then obviously there's the reaction to call everyone like a Jew hater or whatever, which is not true, especially for me.
	I happen to be Jewish.
	But regardless of that.
	By the way, you're circumcised, right?
	We had a bet before you came on air.
	It's completely unrelated, but yeah.
	Okay, so we have common ground there.
	Good.
	Good for you.
	We are there.
	There you go.
	Although, not a big, not a big believer in it myself, but I wasn't able to make the choice.
	Yeah.
	Well, so I would say this.
	I think that, yes, there's a lot of craziness on all sides.
	But at the same time, I think that there are, like, if you're saying that you're also a non-interventionist and you also don't want to be getting involved in these wars and you also don't want to be funding all of these other governments.
	Well, it does seem to me that, and again, I don't watch enough of your show to know this.
	Like, maybe you're doing other stuff that I, and I just happen to see the stuff where you're being critical of me.
	But, like, it seems to me like you're going out.
	We now have this big divide where finally there's like a non-interventionist right wing in this country.
	And there are these huge voices that are pushing in that direction.
	And it seems to me like you've been kind of going after all those guys rather than like, why not go after the Mark Levins and the Ben Shapiros who are clearly itching to get America into even more entangled, the opposite of the policy you want?
	I can answer that.
	And then I do want to go to, I can answer that because you mentioned the falling out.
	By the way, I never had it with Ben Shapiro.
	I had it with Jeremy Boring.
	I stand by it.
	I think that I was right.
	I think owning people's name, image, and likeness forevermore, including their channels, is a problem.
	I think we've seen it play out.
	I disagree with Ben Shapiro on a whole lot.
	And the reason that I maintain a cordial relationship is so that I can disagree with him.
	I don't know that there are many people who tell Ben, I don't think we should be funding any of it.
	By the way, Jews can also be kind of annoying.
	So I think there's some health in that.
	I will say this.
	I will say this.
	Yeah, I know.
	No, not yourself, actually.
	There's enough gentle in there.
	I will say that my attacking the left is about probably 20, 50 to 1, even on this very issue.
	And like you said, you may not know this.
	I was asked on air if the United States should strike Iran, actually.
	Everyone here.
	And I was the one.
	I said, you know what?
	No.
	I said, and the reason not is not that they're not a threat.
	I said, I know it comes to that at some point if they continue down this path.
	I said, but I know that if it's done now, the optics will seem like we did it for Israel, which I don't believe.
	This is where we disagree.
	I don't believe is true, but I would rather it not happen now.
	I just think that it's played out pretty well.
	I'm glad that it's de-escalated, which I think we can agree on.
	I think if you look at the numbers, I do think you punch right more often than I do.
	Mine has been in response.
	But I think we're in agreement in spirit that, yeah, we should be.
	And I wouldn't just say going after the neocons.
	I would say going after the left because Donald Trump is nowhere near, as we both agree, a neocon.
	And I'm not satisfied with him as perfection, but I like him.
	And I want to actually celebrate the wins.
	Dave, I want to continue on premium here, so please don't go anywhere.
	We'll just open it to whatever you want.
	But tell people the best place to find you.
	I know a funny podcast where you do a part of the problem.
	Anything else any upcoming shows?
	I am, I got, I think I have only one more for the rest of the year because I take December off every year.
	But I believe I got Poughkeepsie, New York, coming up in November.
	ComicDaveSmith.com.
	Oh my gosh, Poughkeepsie is the worst.
	I used to, when I took the train in from Montreal to New York, I had to stop in Poughkeepsie.
	It was the only thing worse was Schenectady.
	All right.
	Those are the good comedy towns, though, where they got nothing to do but drink and laugh.
	You ever do the comedy club in Watertown, New York, where you sleep above what's an old opera theater?
	No, I've heard of that, but I've never done that one.
	Oh my gosh.
	I was there with Louis Ramey.
	I didn't have a car and he left.
	And I was just stuck above this opera house and the bar didn't open until six.
	So I couldn't get food.
	Anyway, we can talk about that more.
	Dave Smith, I appreciate you being here.
	Everyone who's not a member, click right there.
	You get to continue.
	The rest of you go to Tim Poole.
	I'm sure he'll be mad, but he'll get over it.

▲