2 Liberals vs. 1 Conservative: BAR FIGHT | Michael Knowles, Adam Mockler, Loren Piretra
Michael Knowles goes head-to-head with Adam Mockler and Loren Piretra in this episode of Bar Fight, where the fired-up live audience chooses the hottest topics to cover. From the protestor shot by an ICE officer to controlling women's bodies no subject is off-limits with live questions from the rowdy Nashville crowd.
- - -
Today's Sponsor:
ZBiotics - Go to https://zbiotics.com/BARFIGHT and use BARFIGHT at checkout for 15% off any first time orders of ZBiotics probiotics.
- - -
Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe
🍿 The Pendragon Cycle: Episodes 1 & 2 start streaming Jan. 22nd exclusively on DailyWire+
🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles
👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.watch/MichaelKnowlesMerch
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
From Amazon MGM Studios comes Melania, every protocol, every precaution, every move coordinated.
This new film takes you inside the 20 days leading up to the 2025 presidential election through the eyes of the first lady herself.
The briefings, the planning, the private conversations, witness what it takes to secure her return to one of the world's most powerful roles, Melania.
Only in theaters, January 30th.
Go to shopify.com slash Knowles, Kennedy WLAS.
The American dream has always been about building something of your own.
Taking an idea, some hard work, turning it into a thriving business that you can call yours.
For generations, entrepreneurship has been the cornerstone of that dream, but getting started used to mean huge upfront costs, technical headaches, a mountain of obstacles before you could even open your doors.
That is where our sponsor, Shopify, comes in.
It's the tool that puts the American dream within reach for anyone who is ready to chase it.
Shopify is the commerce platform powering millions of businesses worldwide, including 10% of all U.S. e-commerce and even the Daily Wire shop.
Best part, you don't need a web designer to get started.
They've got beautiful ready-to-go templates that match your brand right out of the box.
If you need a little extra help, AI tools can help handle everyday tasks.
This year, turn those dreams into and give them the best shot at success with Shopify.
Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com slash Knowles, Kennedy WLAS.
Shopify.com slash Knowles.
Shopify.com slash Knowles.
Did she hit him with her car?
And the same thing with people driving out of the Walmart parking lot.
I don't support violence, but some of you guys have never had your ass kicked and it really shows.
Listen, I've almost gotten hit by a deranged retailer.
You guys are like, yee-ho, for like not feeding babies.
All right.
Welcome, everybody, to Bar Fight.
I'm delighted to be joined by our two esteemed guests, including our first ever returning fighter.
He's dusted himself off, Adam Muckler.
You guys are quite literally taking an 80-20 position on this.
Because they've been lied to about what happened.
If you want a job where you can go terrorize, ICE is for you.
Our second guest, marketing, an influencer sensation.
Least necessary she/her pronouns in bio.
It's Lauren Beretra.
Here's how it works.
We'll be debating two of the three most controversial topics of our day.
The bell rings.
We duke it out for that round.
And then our friends in the crowd can come up to the microphones and pick a fight with any of us.
But do not wait because there is a time limit for each round.
And anyone who comes up to the mic can win special prizes and a seat at our VIP table sponsored by Redneck Riviera Whiskey.
Lady and gentlemen, are you ready?
I'm ready.
It's time for round one.
Yeah.
Okay, now I have all the topics here that everyone picked, and I'm going to try to make it so you don't know who picked what.
I might rephrase it a little bit.
First one, the ICE agent in Minneapolis did nothing wrong.
No one's going to win, I bet.
Okay.
Hold on.
We got some more you can pick from.
Trump is not corrupt at all.
Sounds like weird.
Don't laugh at that.
The next, the next one.
We have a major Somali problem and we need white men to save us.
Whoa.
All right.
Then we will pick that one.
Pro-life politics is about saving babies, not controlling women's bodies.
Whoa, okay.
Trump is putting Americans first.
They don't sound too sure about that one.
I don't know.
The Venezuela strike was as American as Taco Bell.
Wow.
All right.
So we got some close ones.
I think the pro-life one.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Now, whose was that?
Lauren.
It was mine.
Okay, how did you phrase it?
Okay, so hear me out.
Pro-life politics are really just pro-controlling women's bodies.
Let's be real.
You guys don't really care about babies that much.
If you did, if you did, we would want to fund child care.
We would want to give them food.
We took that away.
You guys remember that?
We funded a lot of Somali childcare and Somali food.
I don't know.
It didn't work.
Donald Trump cut SNAP benefits, Medicaid.
He's cut ACA subsidies that just expired.
I don't know how that's helping children.
He's actually taking food out of children's business.
So I'm going to ask the audience a question.
Name one pro-life politician that is riding for child care.
It is that is what?
Riding for child care.
Oh, I hear a lot of people.
How about this?
One pro-life politician who fought against the cutting of SNAP benefits for not only children, but families across the country.
Yeah, we definitely, I think a lot of us oppose SNAP benefits for, well, for the aforementioned Somalis and people who are on fraud.
Like, for instance, one in 10 people in the state of Tennessee was apparently availing themselves of SNAP.
We learned that people that were talking about babies.
Well, we're just talking about babies.
No, when we're talking about SNAP, we're talking about the bad people.
How many babies were fraudulenting their SNAP benefits?
Well, the babies don't apply.
It's usually the parents and some of them can't do that.
So then, how do the babies eat if they can't apply?
How are they doing their fraudulent thing?
One in 10 babies.
I guess my point is that SNAP is not really primarily about babies.
And I think we're getting off the topic that you chose.
Which was pro-life doesn't really care about babies.
They care about controlling women's bodies.
And you're telling me that babies shouldn't get SNAP benefits because one in 10 people have maybe fraudulented their things.
Yeah, I mean, just as a rule, like babies cannot apply for SNAP benefits.
They are not eligible for SNPs.
And they shouldn't because we don't care about babies.
We all agree with that.
We don't care about babies in here.
I mean, I just want to narrow in on your point because I want you to make the argument for it.
The point as I see it here is pro-life politics functions as control over women's bodies, not about babies.
Correct.
And I don't, I don't think I, the first part I don't totally disagree with in the sense that in the sense, well, I mean, you make something of a point in the sense that a vaccine policy or seatbelt laws also function as control over people's bodies.
I disagree.
I think vaccine laws function as a public safety requirement.
Yeah, public health.
For the classification.
This is my point.
Well, for the greater good of public health, but I think when it comes to abortion, it is just restricting women.
And who's making the laws?
It's disproportionately going to be men making the laws that women can't get out of the way.
Right, I'll tell you what.
Let me just make my analogy and you tell me what I'm for.
The vaccine policy certainly functions to control people's policies, bodies, especially if it's about- That's not the primary function.
Wait, wait for it.
I'm going to give you a couple minutes.
Seatbelt laws function to control people's bodies.
No, they do.
You have to lock it in or you could get a ticket.
Okay, are we really hard to talk about seatbelt laws?
I agree with you, Adam.
Yeah.
That's not what they're for.
That's not their chief objective.
And it is the case that abortion laws, like not letting people have abortions, does control women's bodies to some degree.
I want.
But what it's for is saving babies.
It's not about the control.
Okay, but what's the difference between a baby and a fetus?
Have you ever spit in your hand?
If that's what a fetus looks like at like six weeks old, that's not what a fetus looks like.
Okay, you guys need to go back to science class.
Okay, maybe we should fund that in Tennessee.
I have three kids.
I've gotten ultrasounds at eight weeks old.
You don't do them so much at six.
They don't look like you spit in the hand.
You can make out all their little parts.
You can even figure out if they're boys or girls at eight weeks.
No, you can't.
And you can't do that with your spit.
Can I ask you, when do you think life begins?
Well, by definition, at conception.
You think so?
So how do you define life?
A human life or just life generally?
No, a life from a human.
What quality of life is?
Okay, so life.
Life is described by various attributes.
So growth, metabolism, organic matter, movement.
And so we see these qualities and the potential for these qualities at the beginning.
So for instance.
When they're a fetus, they can.
Yeah.
So, okay, I'm going to create a bunch of people.
Fetus just means offspring.
Why are we riding so hard for like a fictional fetus versus?
I let you finish.
I'm going to finish now.
A fictional fetus versus real life human babies and SNAP benefits and childcare and health care and taking care of the babies we actually have.
Yeah.
So I guess my, my point, my very narrow point on abortion is I grant, I think you're partially right.
Abortion laws do involve controlling women's bodies because we say you can't kill the kid.
Yes.
Well, what does fetus mean?
It's a fetus.
It's a baby once it's alive.
It's a lot.
Well, by science, which you love.
So the word fetus just means offspring.
So there's no distinction.
Right.
There's no distinction between that and a baby in as much as it's a human.
You had a point a second ago.
Yes.
So the very narrow point on abortion that I'm making, and I'm open to all sorts of talk on welfare programs and all, that's fine.
I'm not some libertarian extremist.
However, my only point is it would seem to me that we should not kill innocent babies in the womb or out of the womb.
That's my whole point.
Okay, yes, yes.
I'm not for killing babies outside of the wound.
I'm for feeding them and providing the kids with access to the baby.
So then you agree we shouldn't kill them.
We should not have abortion and we should have welfare later on.
Here's what I'll agree.
Okay.
Okay.
That's fine.
Here's what I'll agree on.
You don't want an abortion, which you don't seem to be able to have the ability to have a baby yourself.
You don't have to get one.
Your partner, your wife, doesn't want an abortion.
She doesn't have to get one.
So therefore, choice.
Can we agree on that?
Yeah, okay.
So I think, for instance, I'm not going to engage in an honor killing of my wife if she apostasizes from Islam, for instance.
Now, I'm not going to do that.
And look, if a Muslim immigrant to America, as many have done, actually, wants to kill his wife in an honor killing because she has apostasized from Islam, that's his business, right?
And it's not your business and stop sticking your nose in it, right?
Or no?
Okay.
I think that a lot of liberals.
Here, I don't know how we got from abortion care to get fixation with Muslims, but we got there pretty quickly.
No, you're saying.
So I'm going to bring it back to children and babies.
And what I'm saying, my- I can explain to you the analogy if you like.
It's not relevant to this conversation.
And I don't even expect an explanation.
I think it is.
No, it's not because you guys are like, yee-ho, for like not feeding babies, but you want to control women's bodies.
Why is that?
Why is that?
Anyone want to come to the little house?
I have personally fed three babies in my life.
All right.
That's pretty.
That's not great.
And I only have five kids.
So that's.
No, I'm kidding.
I only have five kids.
So listen, you don't want an abortion.
Don't get one.
But you don't want to murder your wife.
Don't murder your wife.
But surely you would outlaw murder as a matter of fact.
I don't have my wife, which I don't have in my fetus.
Your wife, I don't think, is in your fetus.
Correct.
So therefore, I'm right again.
No, I think the argument a lot of liberals would make is that killing a person is not the same as aborting a baby because the baby is not conscious life yet.
So the okay, well, that's a good point.
The main argument that usually happens here is trying to define when life begins.
And a lot of conservatives say conception, but there are studies showing that consciousness starts at about 20 to 24 weeks.
So hold on.
Adam makes a great point.
I just want to push it one more so you can finish your argument.
If your argument then would seem to be that being killed or not being killed, having those legal protections is predicated on consciousness.
So my question is, do you have the right to go into a hospital ward and kill somebody who's in a coma?
It's based on, no, I don't think so.
There you go.
All right.
We agree.
Now we have questions from the audience.
How's going, Michael?
Big fan.
I've seen that guy before.
Yeah, big fan.
Big fan, Michael.
Don't be fooled.
He looks like a Republican, but don't be fooled.
I'm just remote switching.
If you want to donate me money, I promise I'll put it towards all your charitable policies.
Anyway, I have a question for you, Michael, and it's specifically regarding the topic of abortion.
And if you have a lot, if you let me expand upon this line of questioning, a couple questions.
First one, do you think that abortion is morally comparable to something like the Holocaust, something that conservatives talk about a lot?
Would you agree with that premise that abortion, in the case of Charlie Kirk, he said it was eight times worse than the Holocaust because of the death or the amount of abortion that have occurred since Roe was legalized?
Yeah, I would say you say so.
Abortion is the killing of innocent human life intentionally.
And the Holocaust, as all genocides, entails the killing of innocent human life.
And so in that way, yes, they're comparable.
So you think they're comparable?
So do you think that, for example, political violence would be justified to stop the Holocaust?
Let me give you an example right here.
Let's say that I exist in Nazi Germany at the time, and I see that a Nazi is going to the concentration camp and he is going to kill or put in this icon B to gas a group of Jews.
I think that he would be justified, or I would be justified rather, in killing that Nazi officer on his way to work.
So if you think that abortion is morally equivalent to the Holocaust, how do you feel about violence against abortion doctors?
Is there anything actually wrong with that?
Because these people are morally equivalent in your eyes to Nazis.
So it's a very good question.
I think that a political revolution under certain circumstances could be justified.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains this very well in the Summa Theologiae De Reño.
However, I don't think that vigilante violence is justifiable in almost any case, not because of the justification of the actions that are at discussion, be it the Holocaust or mass abortion, 60 million babies being killed, but because of the downstream political effects that come from that and because there is such a thing as a civil authority.
So in the extreme case where revolution would be justified, there would still have to be order to be undertaken so that greater evils would not abound from an act of justice.
I understand that.
But do you think that during when the Holocaust happened, do you think that it would have been wrong for someone to kill a Nazi officer on his way to the concentration camp to gas a bunch of Jews?
Would it have been wrong or not?
Well, in the case of the Holocaust, we're speaking specifically of war conditions.
So there, there you're in the midst of a massive war, both within Germany and around the world.
It's in a war, Michael.
Engage with the question.
If it's a problem, I am engaged with the question.
If it didn't, I think it would be justified.
My point here is rather that I don't really think that you think abortion is morally equivalent to the Holocaust, or you're not believing that it would be justified for people to kill abortion doctors.
I'm saying that different rules apply during times of war than during times of peace.
So if the president suddenly declared it was a time of war against women who get abortions, then suddenly it's justified.
It's not a war against women.
Okay, fine, Michael.
Very good.
Against abortion, however you want to call it.
You could out there.
That would be a war.
A war is when belligerent parties fight each other for territory and for political control.
Michael's evading the question because it's not a problem.
I'm not in reasoning.
His line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that it is actually morally permissible to commit political violence.
No, I don't think it's a good idea.
It seems like he's against that.
Even during most circumstances.
So this is not comparable to the Holocaust.
It is comparable to the Holocaust.
It's comparable.
It is comparable.
But as I mentioned to you, in the respect of both of these things entailing the killing of innocent human life, it is comparable.
In respect to the fact that one is in a polity during a time of peace and one is during a time of war, they're not comparable.
It's just not very important.
Safe Baby vs. Abortion00:06:00
So they're in different respects.
You would address them differently.
Okay.
All right.
Great questions.
Hey, nice to be here.
Good to see you.
I guess this question is for Lauren.
Is that?
Yeah.
So I just wanted to bring it back a little bit to the topic, which was that abortion is really just a way to control women's bodies, not really a protection of life.
Do you know of any other ways to bring life into this world besides using women's bodies?
No.
Okay.
Well, I mean, it's not really about controlling women's bodies then.
It's about, you know, providing a safe way for life to be brought into this world.
Okay, so how would you define safety?
Yeah, how would you define safety for this fictional fetus?
Tell me.
Yeah, I'm waiting.
The definition of safety.
I mean, I think a fetus is pretty safe for a baby because that's what I'm saying.
Let's talk about a baby.
What is safe for a baby?
What is safe for a baby?
Some wombs.
What is that?
The womb.
Actual place where it?
Okay yeah, i'm still waiting.
I'm still waiting for a baby.
What is safer baby?
The place where it can actually grow into complete its babies are not growing inside the body, baby's out now.
So you forced the woman to give birth.
Now now, what's safety for that baby?
Okay, this is a separate conversation, because now we're no longer talking about bringing life into the world, we're talking about life after it exists in the world.
Exactly, that's the exact topic that we're talking about, and i'll wait.
What's your name?
Gregory Gregory Gregory, i'm gonna ask you again, what is the what's safety for a baby?
It's just not that hard of a question.
Do you need a couple minutes?
I mean, have you ever taken care of a baby?
Have you ever taken care of a baby's?
Taking care of a baby Gregory, making sure it's fed?
Yeah great, okay.
What else does a baby need?
Shelter.
Okay great great, great answers, Gregory.
And now, how does a baby get shelter if that mother is not in a position economically to provide that?
Well, that's a different conversation we're talking about.
I'm not asking these dead seats over there.
I'm asking Gregory, we're we're talking about a different conversation, which is after life has been brought into this world.
So that's what i'm saying.
Do we care about the baby after it's been caught into this world or we only care about the baby?
Absolutely, that's a different conversation that we can have.
No, I think i'm directly asking the question.
I think women have a lot of opinions on uterus as well.
Okay Lauren, i'll tell you what.
Let's say, we all guaranteed that it's it.
There's infinite taxpayer welfare dollars for any woman who wants it, who has a baby.
In that circumstance, would you oppose, would you support outlawing abortion?
No, if we guarantee okay, then it's not really about what you're saying.
No, so you guys know um, how often a miscarriage happens.
You should know.
You have a bunch of kids.
That's not an abortion.
That's not an abortion, it actually is.
So the medical term for abortion, yeah okay, you guys, that's not an abortion.
You can live in your little Doolu, but abortion is an umbrella term for medical care, making up their little reality.
Okay okay, let's say then let's ask human intervention.
When we talk about abortion, we're talking when we let's agree on our terms.
When we talk about abortion, we're talking about the intentional ending of a pregnancy, which some people have.
The legal definition of abortion, abortion is care for that's the issue we're talking about.
An abortion requires human intervention.
A miscarriage does not.
One or more people experience a miscarriage when they have a baby.
To complete that miscarriage you need abortion care.
So there are plenty of women dying in hospital.
Wedding call a hospital, call Hospital Gregory.
Tell me what happened.
False, my sister had a miscarriage.
She would not everyone needs one, but a lot of women do.
It was not, I think adam, you have a bunch of people.
There's a lot of argumentation going on.
I think one of the most contradictory things that bothers me with the conservative position on abortion is that I I everybody should be in favor of minimizing the amount of abortions that happen.
Was it Clinton that said they should be safe, legal but rare?
Now let's check in.
Do you agree we should minimize the number of abortions?
What other people do with their bodies?
It's not my position.
She doesn't agree with that.
She doesn't agree with no, I don't.
Well, my position is among, along with many Democrats in the party, that they should be safe, legal but rare.
That's what the former Democratic president said.
But but the current Democrats shout their abortion right, they say.
They say there's no reason to minimize abortion, wait planned parenthood posted in.
Democrats in power say it again.
What Democrats in power have said this?
Democrats in power, no, Clinton was president in the 90s.
Man, that was a long time ago.
About Clinton abortion files.
Okay, fuck it.
I agree.
Can I say really quickly?
The problem is, in order to minimize the amount of abortions that happen, you should have proper sex education at young ages.
Now, in the state that I grew up in Indiana, there was actually a slashing of sex education at really normal ages.
Like when you're in seventh grade or eighth grade, you can be learning about this stuff.
And when there's a lack of sex education, you have more teen pregnancies, you have more women that get pregnant.
So I think these are kind of contradictory positions beyond like when life starts.
Okay, so we have the moderate Democrat position.
We want fewer abortions and we want all this other stuff.
But what have we said?
And we have the women's perspective on the women's bodies.
What a compliment.
One last point before we move on.
Just this question, Lauren.
You say that the people who want to end abortion, they only want to control women's bodies.
They don't care about babies at all.
If I look you in the face right now, I tell you, I'm someone who wants to end abortion.
And I'm telling you, I promise you, my hand to God, I care about abortion because I don't want babies to be killed.
And I don't really care about controlling women's bodies.
That is not in any way the primary objective.
I just want fewer babies to be killed.
Do you believe me?
No.
You don't?
Okay.
All right.
She rejects me framing that it's killing babies.
Because if you don't, if you don't want an abortion, don't get one.
I'm not in your bathroom following you around.
I don't need to do that.
I don't think about any of you guys having sex.
I tried.
I tried.
Okay.
So who won that round?
Was it Team Libs, whether moderate Lib Adam or less moderate Lib Lauren?
Was it the Libs?
Woo!
No, was it the me?
Look at Gregory's face.
I don't see it.
I don't see it.
It's ambiguous.
I can't tell.
One more question.
Who won the round of questions?
Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol Solution00:02:28
We say, are we hearing Gregory?
Who was it?
Gregory's going home alone with solution in his bottle.
What?
Who won?
Was it the guy dressed like a Republican or was it Gregory?
Gregory, you're going to the VIP table, man.
Here we go.
Enjoy.
Okay, now you're going to get that delicious Redneck Riviera whiskey.
And you know what that goes really well with?
Delicious Z-Biotics.
Folks, you need to go to zbiotics.com/slash barfight.
Let's face it.
After a night with drinks, I don't bounce back the next day like I used to.
I'm an old man now, 35 years old.
Got grays on my head.
I have to make a choice.
I can either have a great night or a great next day.
That is until I found Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol.
Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic.
It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking.
And the science behind it is fascinating.
So here's how it works.
When you drink it, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut.
Now it's the buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that is to blame for rough days after drinking, which I had no idea about until I read this ad.
Free alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down.
So you are actually addressing the root cause.
Just remember to make free alcohol your first drink of the night.
Drink responsibly.
You will feel your best tomorrow.
Trust me, when you've got nights like this, you have to be up early in the morning podcasting, carrying the daily wire on your shoulders.
You want that free alcohol, okay?
Head on over there right now.
zbiotics.com slash barfight.
You get 15% off your first order when you use code barfight.
It's backed by 100% money-back guarantees.
There's no risk as the longest ad ever.
Subscriptions are also available for maximum consistency.
Remember to head to zbiotics.com/slash barfight.
Use code barfight at checkout for 15% off.
Can I offer any of you a pre-alcohol from Zbiotics?
I'm having one.
I'm already a little bit too deep into this, right?
You want one?
You're going to have one?
No, all right.
I'll have one.
That's fine.
Okay, it's round two.
There are three more commercial breaks coming, by the way.
Investigation Into Deportations00:15:22
All right.
Now we pick the next topic.
You've heard them all.
I'll just do a quick one again.
Trump is not at all corrupt.
The ICE agent in Minneapolis did nothing wrong.
It's going to be that one.
Okay, that's my topic.
I say the ICE agent in Minneapolis did nothing wrong.
And here's, thank you.
Here's my argument for this.
It's a pretty simple argument.
The ICE agent was there to carry out federal law in total accord with the law.
And he was following all of his instructions and all of his training.
And he saw that there was an SUV parked in the middle of the street obstructing law enforcement.
At that time, he might not have known, but it was being driven by someone who trained to obstruct law enforcement in this operation.
And so they went up there to try to get her to move.
And she didn't want to move.
She was there for quite a while.
And then the lady hit him with her car.
And so when you, and she literally did that.
So she was dead.
We now know, though there was a lot of confusion at the time, that the agent was in front of the car.
We can slow down the footage and look at the tires.
We can see that the woman accelerated while her tires were aimed at the agent.
We know that when the agent fired his weapon, he fired it through the front windshield, which means he couldn't have been on the side.
And we know that she hit him with the car because of footage from him, body cams, best thing for law enforcement ever.
And we also know that he suffered internal bleeding as a result of that.
So in that case, Adam might not believe it, but it has to be seen.
You at least believe that she was abortion or something.
No, I don't believe that.
It's on video.
What are you talking about?
Do you want to tell what I saw on this video?
Yes.
Which video?
I mean, there's multiple angles, but very quickly, you realize internal bleeding could just be bruising.
But if we're going to follow this administration, what they're saying, it can be.
If we're going to follow this administration's, like what they're saying, do you agree when Donald Trump said that he was viciously hit and he's surprised that the guy's alive?
Did you see that on the video?
Surprised he's alive?
Yeah, I'm surprised that.
Wait, wait, do you agree with Trump?
Do you agree with Trump when he says this guy was viciously hit and he was, he said basically, like, I'm surprised this guy's alive in the hospital.
You're surprised he's alive?
Yeah, yeah, because had the tires not spun out because of the icy roads in Minneapolis Co.
She would have hit him.
Are you guys surprised?
She would have hit him.
Are you guys surprised he's alive?
Come on.
You guys are all coping.
Yeah, thank you.
You're not surprised he's alive.
AI slapper you.
Here's my problem.
You guys are quite literally taking an 80-20 position on this.
And you guys are the 20.
Americans were polled on the justification of this killing.
And 28% of Americans, only 28% thought it was justified.
Almost 60% thought it was unjustified.
Because they've been lied to about what happened.
Do you agree that she hit two?
Yes.
They've seen it.
Including by you.
No, do you agree that she hit him?
I mean, she touched him.
Did she hit him with her car?
And they say, why did I hit people driving out of the Walmart parking lot?
He's standing right there.
You hit pedestrians with your car.
You should go to jail.
You buddied off.
Are you kidding me?
We're not talking about going to jail.
We're talking about shooting her in the head four times and then calling her a bench.
There's a difference.
He got her the verdict.
She had a hot.
She got the hydra.
Let me back up.
The general population does not agree with you.
And let me finish here.
Because they've been lied to.
No, the general population does not agree with you because they saw the videos that happened.
This administration, before the investigation started, said that she was a domestic terrorist and said that the guy was lucky to be alive.
Okay, we'll talk about that in one second.
Do you think it's responsible for them to say that before the investigation started?
Trump said it, I think, like 90 minutes after.
Christy Noam, 45 minutes after, said she was a domestic terrorist.
Do you disagree with Christy Noam?
I think that when you hit law enforcement.
Wait, do you agree or disagree with Christy Noam?
Is she a domestic terrorist?
I agree that she was aiding and abetting domestic terrorism.
So she's not an all-her terrorist.
I wouldn't use that.
Okay, so thank you.
You just said that I'm lying to the American people, but you seem to be conceding that Christy Noam and Donald Trump both lied to the American people.
No, I say I don't agree with you.
What's your wording of that?
And yet what I'm saying is the facts as they describe them happened.
You're denying the facts that are on.
Did I tell you what I saw?
I saw a woman in a car who was waving people past.
And listen, I'm a moderate Democrat.
She was waving him past.
No, no, not him, but cars.
She was waving multiple cars past.
If you guys haven't seen the videos, that's your fault.
Did you not see her waving?
You're not allowed to block traffic.
Did you not see her waving law enforcement?
Is that a death sentence?
If you hit a cop with a car, yes, that's a death sentence.
Okay, I have a question.
You're going to deserve a question.
If she was going to hit someone with her car, why did she first reverse, then stop, then spin her wheel?
She didn't spin the wheel first.
She did.
She accelerated before she spun the wheel.
If you want to get out of your car, why would you reverse?
Why would you reverse?
She clearly was a very confused woman.
I don't know.
Why did she hit him?
So I want to.
We don't know why she reversed because she spun the wheel and then tried to drive off.
She accelerated before she turned the wheel.
Here's what's what self-defense counts.
That's why he shot through the windshield because he was obviously in front of the car.
What about the second?
He reached over the windshield.
He had spaghetti arms and reached over in the moment.
He did just to frame this innocent.
Wait, did he even get knocked over?
Did he even get knocked over?
Yes, he did.
That was on video too.
He wasn't on the ground after.
Yes.
No, he wasn't.
He was standing up.
He was standing.
It was literally video.
Dude, he was going down.
Okay, I'm getting this after.
Yes, when Renee Nicole Good hit him, he got knocked on the ground.
Yes.
So you're not going to be able to do that.
So why isn't there anybody?
Wait, wait.
Did he get knocked on the ground?
No.
No, he did not.
You haven't seen the video about it.
He's still standing.
You guys are all lying because you've been gaslit by this administration to think that ICE can do nothing wrong.
Over the past year.
Hold on.
Listen, over the past year, over the past year, we have seen clips of ICE cracking the ribs of 79-year-olds, grabbing U.S. citizens and bringing them to the ground, deporting people with no due process, and having to bring them back because they admitted there was no due process.
That happened, right?
Are we talking about the January 6thers?
Are we talking about those Midwestern girls?
These are domestic terrorists.
You want to call domestic terrorists.
They're using political force to stop the certification of election.
They're actual domestic terrorists.
You want to call a 37-year-old mother who was shot in the side window, a domestic terrorist?
She wasn't shot in the side window.
Adam, the bullet is through the windshield.
You're just making that up.
You are making up that he was knocked over.
You can't respond to why she reversed.
Why did she reverse?
Adam, it's a simple question.
Did she hit him with her car or not?
She didn't.
Did she hit him with her car or no?
Yes or no?
You're wrong.
You answer.
Yes or no?
Okay, Adam, yes or no?
It's a simple question.
Can I give a legit answer?
You can give me one-word answer.
Yes?
Yes.
Yes.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Can I answer the entire conversation?
Can I answer though?
I want to bring it back.
Tell me why he should not have defended himself when she hit him with her car, as you admit.
Self-defense means there need to be two requirements by the law.
You need to be able to reasonably perceive yourself as an imminent danger, and then you need to be able to use a disproportionate amount of force to take care of that danger.
It's the continuum use of force.
Use of force, continuum.
I want to bring it back to you.
You have to use a proportionate amount of force, right?
You have to use a proportion.
It was not proportionate.
A 3,000-pound SUV is a damage.
I want to bring it back to your order.
He was standing up.
You guys are wild.
You said in your original O Bang, you said that he was doing his job as instructed.
Okay.
Right.
Okay.
So with his instructions, surely there's some other type of escalation steps in that process before shooting her in the face four times and calling her a bitch.
No, no.
Lauren, it's a split second before she's running him over.
It's not like she didn't run him a mile down the road.
So she had a Honda.
He was armed.
Because he shot her in the face.
She didn't, because she turned her wheel and reverse.
Why would she?
Okay, I have one final question.
I really want you to answer this that you continue to kind of weave around it.
Why Why did she reverse her car before driving straight into him?
She didn't drive.
I don't know.
She was a real confused lady.
And I'm really sorry she got killed and she shouldn't have done that.
How did it work out at Nuremberg?
How did it work out in Nuremberg when they were following instructions?
Nuremberg?
Yes.
You can't just execute moms.
You guys are a little nervous if you think you can just execute people.
Huh, okay.
Okay.
We have questions.
We have questions.
Yeah.
Michael, I consider myself a conservative.
I'm in favor of rigorous enforcement of our immigration laws.
But I want to ask you a question about tactics.
Okay.
So even setting aside, I think there are legitimate legal issues here that we could ask about Fourth Amendment issues, et cetera.
But I just want to ask you, let's assume that sort of the public backlash to what's going on right now with ICE, you know, stopping people in the street, pulling them out of the cars, going to door to door is sufficient to cause some sort of landslide in the midterms against the Republicans.
Let's assume that that leads to Donald Trump getting impeached.
Let's assume that leads to maybe by the end of the Trump term deporting fewer people than we saw under Obama.
Would you not admit that maybe tactically mistakes have been made, that this is bad optically at the very least, even if you dismissed the legal issues?
Yeah, I don't think so because I don't know what the alternative is.
You know, what the people voted for is mass deportations.
What we've gotten so far, the Obama numbers.
Do they vote for that?
The Obama, well, when people are trying to run over cops, I voted for that.
Okay, somebody thought you have due process, no?
So was she guilty of.
You don't get due process when you're running someone over.
You just get to, there's nothing.
Okay, so then why won't they let the DOJ do an investigation then if they're so right and correct?
There will be an investigation.
No, they're not.
They shut it down.
There will be an investigation.
No, there's not.
So answer the question.
Why won't they?
Hold on.
I'm answering his question.
Okay, so that's a deflection.
Let's go back to it.
No, it's not your turn to speak.
It's my turn to speak, because we're not really following those rules.
So what is the...
I'm following those rules.
Okay.
Okay, because that's because you don't want to answer the question.
Okay, go ahead.
We'll get to whatever you want to talk about later.
But first, it's his.
This is your topic.
It's my what?
It's your topic.
But it's his question.
This is why she doesn't.
Okay.
It's like the order of events.
This is why we don't understand what happened with the lady running him over.
So to your question, tactically, is this a bad idea?
I don't think so.
Some people say that Barack Obama deported 300 or 400,000 people.
It's kind of fake because they're counting turnbacks among that.
He did deport some people, but it's kind of fake because they're counting turnbacks.
Right now, the border is totally shut down.
President Trump, I think, probably is deported in his first year a little over 500,000 people, like 525 or 530,000 people.
I do believe, and I buy the labor studies that have come out, that there have been a lot of self-deportations because of the optically brutal ICE raids.
I think that's part of it too.
So President Trump says he's deported over 2 million people.
It's possible.
It's somewhere between half a million and 2 million.
Compared to the Biden administration, where they were letting in 3 million people a year, obviously that's a huge turn in direction.
My question is, how are you going to get mass deportations, which most of the conservatives, I think, would agree, we're not even getting enough mass deportations.
How are you going to get that if you don't go from job site to job site, from town to town, and try to round people up?
Is that going to involve bad optics for leftists?
It is.
I just don't know what the alternative is.
Well, I think first it might require more funding for things like immigration judges who could process these deportations.
But I think also we're talking about like the fundamental question is basically if it turns out, let's just assume a hypothetical world where there is a Democratic landslide and Trump gets impeached over this.
And we find as a result of surveying people who voted against Republicans in that election that a big part of this backlash was due to this type of ICE enforcement.
Are you not going to think that, oh, maybe we could have done this a little bit differently?
Well, what's the ultra, so you mentioned we need, yeah, sure, Adam can answer.
The alternative is a moderate immigration policy like we saw under Obama.
Do you know what they called him?
The deporter-in-chief.
Yeah, but listen, they were wrong.
They called Obama the deporter-in-chief.
The problem here isn't the mass deportations.
The problem, as he points out, are the brutal videos coming out of those, that ICE is losing popularity with the public population.
Obama deported a massive, massive amount of people, but we didn't see this.
Do you dispute the turnbacks?
Let me see.
Okay, the department.
Do you dispute the most of them were turnbacks?
Callaways.
There were turnbacks, but not most of them.
They called him the deporter in chief, and he did that without cracking the ribs of 79-year-olds, without shooting U.S. citizens, without deporting people with zero due process, and then bringing them back to the effing country.
Do you agree that Trump has deported more people than Obama?
Yes, but he's deporting people that he shouldn't be deporting.
75% of them have no criminal background, no violent criminal record.
But are they illegal aliens?
He's deporting process.
Are they illegal aliens?
Kilmar Armando?
Yes, but Kilmar.
But then they should be deported.
Do you think people should just do you think illegal aliens deserve due process?
Illegal.
Are we joking?
Wait, do you guys think that's illegal aliens?
Then you're wrong.
The Constitution specifically says in the Fifth Amendment that persons.
We can expedite their due diligence.
Wait, wait, hold on, hold on.
Can you just say if I'm right or wrong?
Does the Fifth Amendment specifically say persons?
And that was upheld in a Supreme Court case that it's persons, not citizens.
In the enforcement of American immigration law, we sometimes do things a little more efficiently.
We, for instance, deported a million people in the 1950s under President Eisenhower.
If we were to give a lengthy trial to the 16 to 30 million illegal aliens who were in the country, we would never virtually any of them.
I'm not asking for a lengthy trial for someone like Kilmar Armando Obregoria Garcia, right?
The thing is, when he got deported over to El Salvador.
No, I'm not.
I have a pretty moderate immigration policy.
I think people should be here legally.
Illegal immigration should be minimized.
We should know everybody that's here.
But like most Americans, guys, this isn't even me living out.
Most Americans do not like to see these videos that are going everywhere.
Most Americans don't like to see grandmas and abuelas being pulled off the street.
And I keep going back to that.
There aren't that many abuelas.
Come on.
There aren't that many.
Wait, are you okay with the U.S. citizens that have gotten caught up?
So I keep going back to this case, but a 79-year-old U.S. citizen got his rib cracked by an ICE agent and is now suing the DHS.
I think it's very unfortunate when innocent, it's a very small number, but when innocent people or American citizens or legal residents are caught up in these raids, the problem is illegal aliens don't walk around the country with a big sign saying I'm an illegal alien.
So the problem was created by those who allowed the millions of illegals to come in and now Trump's cleaning up.
The problem is you guys can never admit when ICE does anything wrong whatsoever.
So there was an article from Slate that came out just two days ago where I never admit anything in Slate.
No, no, this woman provided all the receipts.
This liberal woman applied for ICE and her whole internet history.
She was shitting on ICE.
She smokes a bunch of weed and posts about it.
And she didn't even submit the domestic battery, her history on it.
Like she didn't submit anything.
And ICE still let her in.
So the problem is undertrained ICE agents are being given the funding of national militaries.
Like they're funded more than national militaries.
They're masking up in such a way that emboldens them and then they're going around and terrorizes communities.
Because they're a bunch of people.
You give them the pussies and the machines they make.
They take every and sell loser in small town high school and they're being threatened.
As they should, because they're a bunch of pussy losers.
And like, okay, listen, if you want a job.
Okay.
If you want a job where you can go terrorize elementary school students and pepper spray them, ICE is for you.
What do they do?
Roosevelt High School did.
What did they do after Roosevelt?
Yeah, they went to Roosevelt High School.
First, they went to an elementary school.
Teddy or Franklin.
Was it Teddy or Franklin?
Can you?
So do you admit that ICE does anything wrong?
Can you ever admit that ICE does anything wrong?
Or do you think they should have absolutely immune?
I think I have admitted that.
Like they hired that people pot smoking lady.
I think that was wrong.
Okay, but do you think they have absolute immunity like JD Vance does?
I think they should be given extraordinarily broad immunity.
Yes.
Extraordinarily broad immunity for things they do on the job.
Yeah, for a superficial access.
So they could just go shoot people?
I think Vance is totally right about this, but how did you think he's right?
Since the inception of the people.
Again, I want to bring it back to Nuremberg.
Like, what happened to the people carrying out these atrocities in 1930 Germany?
I don't think removing crime is not a problem.
No, they were following an order still.
I want to bring this back.
What can you admit that ICE has done wrong thus far?
Because most Americans.
I just give you an example.
No, obviously, like a real example of ICE doing something wrong.
You mean not vetting people?
No, I can't think of a particular example.
So were you serious about the pot smoker?
Do you think ICE should be vetting people more for ideological reasons?
The problem is the problem is so massive because there were 16 to 30 million people and ICE was so understood.
Write A Novel About That00:15:21
That's a massive range, bro.
16.
They're illegal.
We don't know where they are.
You call them undocumented.
That's the problem.
We don't have any documents.
We don't care what you call them, dude.
I think that the admissions are.
I'm just saying that's why we have a broad range.
We don't know how many of them there are.
Hey, Adam, I got a question for you.
Sorry.
Sorry.
That was a little aggressive.
No, you're good.
Oh, sorry.
What's up?
I just had a question about the due process for illegal immigrants versus like an American citizen.
Does an illegal immigrant have an entitlement to legal representation?
An entitlement?
Are they entitled to legal representation?
They have all of the, they have all of the rights defined under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
They're not guaranteed legal representation in their immigration case.
Well, are U.S. citizens?
So we can agree that, no, they're not U.S. citizens.
Immigrants are not U.S. citizens.
They do not illegal aliens.
They're not guaranteed.
Can I ask you?
They're not guaranteed legal representation.
Can I ask you, do you think citizens or persons, any person in the United States, deserves due process?
That's not the question.
That's not the question.
No, no.
I'm asking you.
An illegal immigrant question.
In an immigration case, in an immigration case, someone is being deported for being here illegally.
But are they guaranteed legal representation?
No, but that is not all that there is to due process.
Due process is not a problem.
No, that's not that the due process looks different for immigrants versus American citizens, right?
Wait, wait, but they're saying they're immigrants versus American citizens.
They're saying that immigrants get no due process.
Do you guys think immigrants should get any due process?
He's just arguing that due process for the illegal alien deportation cases is markedly different from an ordinary way.
totally fine but what i'm arguing that's a good point that's a good point That's totally fine.
What you're saying is true.
But what I'm saying is there was no due process for the cases like Kilmar Ramondo Obrego Garcia.
Yeah, but then Chris Van Holland went cried down romantic lunch.
Do we have a question over here for you in order to do that?
You can make jokes with your bank jokes about Kilmar Brego Garcia.
Yes.
What's your question?
He's back in the U.S., buddy.
Yeah, what the f?
This guy on the right, you're a big boomer guy.
He's a boomer?
A boomer?
He's a trans boomer.
What's your name again?
That blonde girl?
What's your name?
My name?
Yeah.
Lauren, yours.
Michael, my name is Whitfield.
Michael, my question is for you.
Do you think that Lauren prefers anthropomorphic Minotaur smut novels or AI-generated ice romance novels?
Thank you for the question.
Good.
I don't know what the first one was.
Well, okay, then it's the second.
I say it's the second then.
Is that fair?
Ice porn?
There was a lady, there was a millennial lady who went on TV, or was she went on TikTok or whatever?
And maybe I'm the boomer.
I say she went on TV.
And she goes there, she says, you know, hating men for so many years has trained me to stop ICE.
And she was admitting, it was this amazing psychological admission that a lot of these protests are about like women who hate their dads, basically.
And it's unfortunate.
It's like, that's what all of liberalism comes down to is three words.
Screw you, dad.
But I don't even think it's primarily about the copy.
Can I bring it back around to one final thing?
Screw you, Minotaur.
Can you say, Michael, Michael, you asked me a yes or no question?
Can I ask you one?
Did the ICE agent who shot Renee Nicole Good get knocked on the ground on his ass?
Oh my God.
He got knocked over.
Wait, wait, no.
Is your question, was he flat on the ground?
Everybody said he was not on the ground.
Wait, was he flat as he was saying?
Guys, head and toes flat on the ground.
Was he knocked on his ass?
Okay, he was knocked over.
He was not flat on the ground.
He was not flat on the ground.
Can I please have the honor of showing you that?
No, no, no, no, you bell over here.
I'm granting your point.
I'm granting your point.
I'm granting your point that he was not flat on the ground.
That's a proof.
You guys are being really dishonest about knocking.
He knocks the ice agent.
He knocks the ice agent flat on his sultry ass.
Wait, do you guys think that moon?
No, wait, do you actually think that?
No, I think you want to read AI-generated ice.
Wait, wait, no, do you actually think what you just said?
Do you think he got knocked on his ass?
All right.
Do you think he got knocked out his ass?
I'm so sorry.
Do I think he got knocked on his ass?
No, I don't think he got knocked on his ass.
Okay, then why are we going to get to the camera?
Dude, hey, what's your name?
What's your name?
Adam.
Adam, listen, I've almost gotten hit by a deranged retard in her car.
Okay.
I had a gun in my pocket, which I was not able to bring up here because of safety and everything.
And I had to contemplate, am I going to shoot this black chick or not?
As a six foot four white guy, when a woman who was let out on the street by Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan to take some lithium instead of going to a state-run mental institution decided to drive up to Nashville at 8 a.m. in the morning and try to run me over.
So I know about cars menacing me.
And I'm not afraid of it.
I don't care about your personal experience.
You guys all know that.
No, but he has injuries.
Is this a swimming session?
Did I just crash a therapist?
He's explaining what it's like.
He hasn't been able to do that.
I'm letting you know.
Have you ever driven in LA?
I know you have to be Michael's foil, but I knew y'all have to be Michael's foil here.
It's like barfight or whatever.
But dude, if a federal agent is having a car coming towards them, you're going to.
He was standing on his feet and the car missed him.
The car was going to be a little bit more than a hundred years ago.
If you're not going to be able to do it, they're going to smoke you.
And I will say this.
In no other country in the world will they have as much pause and discretion.
No other country in the world is as good as they're like.
Like, are you like, dude, okay, go to Venus.
No other country in the world is as good as America.
And in America, we have human dignity for our citizens.
I agree.
That's my bad point.
Why would Renee Colgood back up in her car?
And why would she wait for it?
It's called potential energy.
Potential energy.
Potential energy.
Some of you guys, and I don't support violence, but some of you guys have never had your ass kicked.
And it really shows.
He had a lady almost rolling.
I've had my ass kicked.
What?
What are you talking about?
You don't know me.
I've had my ass kicked.
Okay, it doesn't act.
You know, you're not acting like it.
Oh, okay.
Have you gotten your ass kicked or have protected you?
I mean, have you ever driven in LA?
I'm not.
If women, if women pulled a gun, let me stop.
If women pulled a gun every time they felt unsafe, none of you would be here.
None of you would be here, except for Adam.
That's not a good thing.
Now, I will say this, because you remind me a lot of my wife.
And Michael and you argue.
No, you're poor wife.
Hey, you said it.
Okay.
Am I your husband?
If my wife was being menaced by a car and it hit her thigh and she had a gun and she was a man and could draw quickly, she would get charged by someone in the car.
She would get charged.
Because she's not a federal agent.
And if she was in a gay state like California, she would get charged with manslaughter anywhere.
Let's go.
What was your name again?
Dude, you wouldn't get charged with manslaughter in the state of Tennessee.
If it touched her thigh?
Yes.
If it bought her.
Well, you could also get married as a child in Tennessee.
So anything girls here, you know?
So can you in California?
No, you can't.
Not in California, only in the Bible Belt.
Google it.
Okay.
Yeah.
I don't care.
So we, let's do a little, let's do a little role play.
All right, all right, all right.
Clear it up, you two.
The tension.
You can cut the tension with a knife.
Now we have to pick.
We should write a novel.
We should write a novel about that.
We should, now we got to pick who won the round before we get to the more important question of who won the question round.
I think I know the winner.
So who here thinks that the libs won the debate on that topic?
You got to put your cards up.
Blue cards.
I'm sensing some audience bias here.
We got one blue.
We got one.
I love a democracy.
Now, how many think that I won that debate?
Okay.
All right.
We got.
All right.
All right.
Listen, this happened the first time.
The first time he was here, it was all very reasonable people.
So I kept winning everything.
And then we, on the next few debates, there were a bunch of libs that came in.
Oh, yeah.
So it was more like 50-50.
But today, now we have to figure out who won the question round.
I think.
I think we know.
I think we know.
Okay.
Mr. Whitfield, would you please go over to the John Rich Rednick Riviera VIP table?
Is that my prize for you?
That's your prize.
That's your prize.
You can write the novel while you're over there.
Okay, now it's round three.
Yeah, there we go.
All right.
No!
I hope you had z-biotic before you started today.
Okay.
So the remaining topics.
Trump is a great president and not at all corrupt.
Did we do that one already?
No, no.
No, okay.
We have a major Somali problem and we need white men to save us.
We already did abortion.
Trump is putting Americans first.
The Venezuela strike was American as Taco Bell.
I like Venezuela, though.
I like that one.
I know.
I like that one.
They don't like it as much.
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's topic five.
So, all right, I actually think, I think it's between, gosh, I don't know.
It might be between three.
Who says the Somalis?
Who says Trump putting America first?
Not as much.
Who says Venezuela?
Venezuela.
You think it's Venezuela?
What do you think, Mr. Davies?
Venezuela or Somalis?
Venezuela.
All right, let's take it.
All right, that's actually mine.
Okay.
I believe, and I am correct to believe, that the Venezuela strike was as American as apple pie.
Now, I want to be clear.
I support the strike, but I'm not arguing that it was a great strike.
It certainly was.
It was an excellent strike.
But I'm not even making that point.
I'm not saying it was geostrategically necessary, though probably it was.
I'm simply saying it was very, very American.
Some people came out afterwards, said it was unprecedented and unlawful.
It was funny because Kamala Harris said it was unlawful, and it was awkward because her own administration had called for precisely the arrest of Maduro and actually offered 25 million bucks to get it.
So Trump did exactly what she wanted, but saved $25 million, which is great.
But it was very, very American.
And this is because we have been intervening in Latin America since 1846, really going back to 1823 with the Monroe Doctrine, but actively since the Mexican-American War, 1846.
We have intervened 88 times in that period, now 89 times, I guess, because of Venezuela.
We did it something like seven times in the 19th century.
We did it seven, no, more, a little more than that, 77 times in the 20th century.
We've done it three, now, four times in the 21st century.
It was awesome.
It did the founding fathers proud, and it's very, very American.
Wait, can I ask you a question?
Yes.
Following up on that, you just named a lot of the regime changes, or at least removals of leaders in Latin America and the Middle East.
Can you name a single time in the past like 50 years that's gone well for us for the United States?
Yeah, yeah, quite recently in Panama.
It was great.
We got Noriega out just 30 years ago.
Worked out great.
So, I think part of the problem is that the prompt that you sent me...
Oh, I was curious.
Yeah, yeah.
Can you admit that the vast majority of times they've not only gotten wrong, but it's led to the deaths of like hundreds of thousands of people?
When have we done regime change?
This is just history, right?
No, sometimes the Middle East has gone worse a lot.
And Latin America, too.
But Middle East has gone worse than Latin America.
Latin America, we're better at it.
Sometimes it can go wrong.
In Guatemala, it went a little rough, but a lot of times it's pretty easy.
I mean, we've gone in in places like the DR. We go in, we take someone out, and then we kind of reform him.
We put him back in sometimes.
We basically created the nation of Panama out of Colombia.
We've done it in Nicaragua a bunch of times.
So it's been, we've been actually pretty effective there.
I don't think in Latin America, it's turned out well 90% of the time.
So the prompt that you submitted to me was that the strikes on Venezuela were as American as Taco Bell.
And I was thinking, I agree in the sense that you regret eating Taco Bell the next day in the same way, in the same way that most regime strikes are regretful.
Or no, sorry, most regime changes are regretful at some point.
Now, this isn't even me again, living out.
If you look at the history of both, I'm not.
If you genuinely, I want to put America first and I want to prioritize Americans on the ground, not only economically when unemployment is up, not only small businesses, but I think Americans should be prioritized.
And right now, I see Donald Trump being caught up with things abroad.
So not only Greenland, not only Canada, he talks about.
He talks a lot about Europe, but he talks a lot about Venezuela.
I've seen him talk more about Venezuela and Greenland than inflation or healthcare at this point.
And the problem is with Venezuela or with Latin America, almost all regime changes we've done have gone poorly over the course of a few years.
So even with Gaddafi, like this is what.
Gaddafi was awful.
That was a disaster under Obama.
This proves my point, too.
Like, I'm not going to defend Obama on this, but this proves my point.
In the two to three weeks following the removal of Gaddafi, I was doing this research, looking up the articles.
People were celebrating and people were saying this is finally bringing an era of peace.
People were saying now that Gaddafi is gone, the Middle East is going to be reformed.
Well, guess what?
Like two or three months later, they devolved into a civil war with open-air slave markets and they are still in a very bad spot.
So I'm not even going to argue against the removal of Maduro.
I thought the military did a great effing job.
The military was so impressive.
Of course, of course.
I also think Maduro is the enemy of the Western civilization.
I think Maduro is the enemy of America.
So don't mistake me as defending Maduro, but I genuinely think there are problems with regime changes being carried out.
And there are also problems with the president unilaterally striking other countries without the authorization of Congress.
So you're making one big error.
And because you've conflated two things.
I said there have been 88 interventions in Latin America and you've equated them with regime change.
Only 15 of those were regime change.
Sometimes they were interventions to just make the regime act a little better.
But the interventions blew back too.
I mean, we can call it whatever you want.
When you militarily, those are different things.
The key here is, do you think the Venezuela strike was a regime change?
I think it's regime coercion at this point because the regime is still a problem.
But it's not regime change.
Is the regime still there?
It's military intervention.
Wait, that's not a good argument.
The Maduro regime is still there, and you think that looks good for us?
Yes, because I agree with you that sometimes massive upheavals of regime are a bad idea.
The biggest problem, most times.
Maybe, maybe, maybe not.
The biggest problem in Iraq, of course, was not when we entered.
We actually were greeted as liberators.
The problem was when we disbanded the Bath Party, when we de-baffized Iraq and created the insurgency.
So in the case of Venezuela, what we're doing here is not Bush era spreading of democracy, Madisonian liberalism around the world.
What are we doing then?
What we're doing there is kicking China out, kicking Iran out, kicking Russia out.
We're taking oil that is owed to us.
We're taking out Maduro, who's been a target of the United States for 25 years now, well, since the Chavez regime.
And now we're leaving his deputy in charge and we're saying, play ball or else.
What's going to happen otherwise is we're going to treat you worse than Maduro.
Okay, but this is a problem.
Which is a very restraining Donro doctrine.
The Donroad doctrine, baby.
Now we're going to do it.
This is a massive, massive problem.
This is a massive problem.
Venezuelan Oil Controversy00:04:24
A lot of times when interventions fail, it's because there's not a solid backup plan.
I think this would have gone way better.
But there's the backup plan.
Leave the vice president in place.
Okay, that is an awful backup plan.
I think he should have at least endorsed Machado, who is the opposition leader.
That would have been a full regime change.
There's so much.
That would have been Libya.
That would have been Iraq.
going in to pillage their resources like oil, then we were holding...
First of all, some of those are our resources that they stole.
We can debate that, but we can, then oil executives, I mean, just to back up, everyone in this room, most people in this room who voted for Trump probably wanted Trump to put America first.
Right now, what I see is Donald Trump focusing so much so on foreign countries that he is now pillaging Venezuela for resources, for their resources, without helping the Venezuelan people.
How does this help the Venezuelan people?
So then who's it helping?
It's helping Americans first.
I guess you're right.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
It's not.
It's helping oil executives.
It's helping Chevron.
Helping oil execs that were sitting around the United States.
We do not care if you guys die uninsured, by the way.
None of them.
None of them know your name.
But wait a minute.
So it's like you're writing for Chevrolet, but none of them know you.
Donald Trump put U.S. troops' lives at risk during this operation just to make oil executives rich.
No.
Can you guys know that?
This is absolutely true.
Adam, you know, there was a legal order going back five years for the arrest of Nicholas Medellin.
That's not an illegal argument.
I'm not making any illegal argument.
Legality argument.
The previous administration called for this very action.
I'm not making a legality argument.
No, you're saying that, do you think that the Biden-Harris administration only called for that policy?
Do you think the judge who issued the arrest warrant only did so to make oil executives rich?
No, I think that there you go.
And Trump didn't do it either.
No, I have a better answer.
I think that Biden would have at least encouraged Machado to step into power and then help the Venezuelan people.
The problem is what?
We are subjecting the Venezuelan people to take their oil to just benefit us.
This is not a good precedent to set.
You're not making a good argument here.
No, no, no.
How does that get the Venezuelan people?
The dictator of Venezuela was inviting our enemies into the hemisphere, China, Russia, and Iran.
They were sending illegal aliens by the busload, much more than the bus load, into the United States, especially under Joe Biden.
They were sending drugs into the United States.
They were funding terrorism.
And so that was a national security problem for the United States.
This has been the case as a cornerstone of American foreign policy since 1823.
We removed him in 25 years of U.S. policy.
Okay, let me have one more question.
Yeah.
I guess the question is: if Dulcie Rodriguez begins to not play ball and tries to lengthen negotiations, Trump threatened to kill her.
Okay, so we are going to continue U.S. military force?
Yeah.
So, just like we have since 1846.
You guys have no morals.
You guys voted for no new wars, and Michael Noles is up here saying that we might be in a prolonged war with Venezuela if we all Rodriguez.
So, are you okay with Trump starting a prolonged war with Venezuela without the authorization of Congress?
You guys couldn't even change a tire and you're like, war?
You guys are really going to go to war?
Wait, wait.
It's an 88-minute war.
We are talking hypothetically if Nelson Rodriguez doesn't help Trump.
This was literally, were you not listening over there?
Yeah, we're talking about Del C. Rodriguez.
No, no, no, he's going to go to war.
I didn't say there is a war.
I said if Dulcie Rodriguez doesn't get to Trump.
Well, I'll tell you what probably won't happen.
This is probably what happened the last time we replaced the leader of Venezuela: it'll take about an hour and a half and we'll just go to the next guy.
Wait, wait, so you're just going to perpetually remove leaders that are handpicked by if we have Maduro.
Wait, then handpicked by Dulcie Rodriguez.
That's what we've done for centuries.
This is the most ineffective, least American first policy ever.
We've done it since the Mexican-American War.
Anything for Chevron.
Donald Trump, the Mexican-American War, existed before Chevron existed.
Under the Trump administration back in 2019, they did a war games.
All right, finish your sentence.
They did a war game simulation of what would happen if we removed Maduro.
It said within one to two months, there are three scenarios.
Either it devolves into a civil war that cuts us off from oil, either warring militias begin to coup whoever is in charge, Delcy Rodriguez.
And the third one was like even worse.
So all of this, that's why they didn't do it.
All of the scenarios in this war games showed that removing Maduro long term doesn't help.
So you just made the argument that we could be perpetually.
So why should we do it?
No, you just made the argument that we could be perpetually removing leaders for the next few years while they draw out the negotiations, which is the United States being in a war with Venezuela.
Bodily Autonomy and Black Lives00:08:59
That's not what we're not doing.
Okay, Adam said, I want to hear what you have to say.
All right, we got to go.
Let's go.
Yeah.
Hi.
My name's Lauren.
So name twins.
I actually have a comment for you.
First off, totally respect you for coming up here and debating.
But I just think that, Lauren DeLauren, I think if you use a little less ad hominem attacks and going after people's character, we'll all take you a lot more seriously.
Most of the comments you said have been reflecting on our appearances or like our stereotypes.
And I think we'll all listen to you a lot more if you back off on that and start using more facts.
Okay, so thank you, Lauren.
What I will say is, like, I don't get to, everyone feels very entitled to kindness, but in the same breath, they're talking about killing mothers four times in the face, and we're like, woo!
And then you're like, hey, Lauren, be a little nicer.
So it goes not saying be nicer.
I'm saying use facts instead of attacks on character because you should be able to defend your point with facts and not with going after how they look.
And I have, but I haven't gotten people.
No, you haven't actually.
To be fair, it's a combative environment.
And when people are booing you, sometimes it's easy to get defensive when you're on stage.
Yes.
Yeah, but I think this is a good example.
Since we're having a nice little therapy session, like when you were arguing about abortion, you didn't really focus so much on the policy or the fact itself.
You were trying to impugn the motives and psychoanalyze the people who say openly that, like myself, that we just don't want babies to be killed.
Okay, but the topic is wanting to control women's bodies.
And what did we get to?
Wanting to control women's bodies.
Yeah.
And also a fundamental misunderstanding of abortion.
And it's very difficult to have a debate with conversation around facts when people are not connected to reality, which objectively, the definition of abortion, which the room tended to just not agree with, which science is one of those things you either understand, you can't not believe in it.
You just either, it's like two plus two, four.
You make a you make a great point.
You either understand it or you don't.
That's true.
Okay.
Next question.
Okay.
I actually have a question.
I have a question for Lauren on the abortion topic, actually.
My first question leading into this is: Do you believe that Black lives matter?
Yes.
Okay, great.
Second to that is abortion has killed nearly half the population of Black people.
If not for abortion, there would be almost double the amount of Black people that there are today.
Are you glad that those women were not encouraged to control their bodies and give birth to their children?
What do you think?
Bring it back to facts because you guys love facts.
That's a fact.
Fetuses are not people.
Fetuses are not people.
So, okay, so, okay.
Okay, so the fetuses, the black fetuses that were removed from their mother's wombs would have, had they been born, grown up to be black children, black adults, and they would have almost nearly double the population that they have today.
That is half of the black population that has been wiped out because these women were encouraged to kill fetuses.
Okay, so what's your name?
What is your name?
What is your name?
Molly?
Nice to meet you.
Yes, ma'am.
Nice to meet you too.
So babies are not the same as fetus.
So they literally are.
I'm willing to grant your premise.
Let's say that fetus isn't really a baby.
What she's saying is if you, if the abortions did not take place, left unimpeded, those fetuses or whatever you want to call them would have become fully grown black people and the black population of the U.S. would be double.
Why are we talking about the black population when we're talking about control over women's bodies?
If black women want to have the baby, they can have the baby.
We don't only talk about what you want to talk about, Lauren.
I think that we, I think that what we'd say is we'd prioritize the autonomy of these women to make their own decision over them being forced to have a baby.
And where does the state of body grow up in suboptimal environments or be, I mean, if these people got abortions, it's probably because they couldn't support a baby coming into the world.
You guys always talk about it.
You guys always talk about single parent households and you guys talk about these.
If a baby is going to be born to a mother whose father left and he decides to abort or she decides to abort it, I think that she's making a decision to prioritize herself over a baby that we born to a shitty situation.
That's the environment.
That's the argument that we do you think that a baby who has been born to a single mother should be open to a post-birth abortion.
In other words, he's going to grow up in a bad environment.
All these problems that you're ascribing to these young black women, and we all know that, but he's been born, but he's going to have a really tough life, you think.
Should wouldn't it be better for that child to be killed?
No, no, of course not.
No, no, no.
Then why would it be better for five minutes earlier in the world?
That's a murder.
When a person is born, yes, that's murder.
That's homicide, you guys.
Come on.
I guess the point that Adam's making is interesting to me because it's kind of like the free economics argument.
You know, like they said crime rates went down because abortion rates went up, which is a pretty ghoulish argument, if it is even true.
But I guess my point: if the premise of your argument is that a kid growing up in tough circumstances justifies just killing that kid in the first place.
I justify that.
I said the bodily autonomy of women.
That's probably the argument that we make that women.
That's the bodily autonomy of women.
No, no, mainly the bodily autonomy of women to make the decision for their own situation.
So it's really the because those are totally different.
Really, I think you're saying the bodily autonomy is what it's all about, but also they grow up in bad situations.
But if we only isolate the latter one, you would throw that.
I'm saying the argument that she's trying to make basically is that women are prioritizing bodily autonomy over some nebulous idea of the black population growing.
I think that, yeah, they're prioritizing it over their own babies.
Yeah, I think that's wrong.
Okay, then yeah, we don't know.
My whole thing is: if you don't want an abortion, don't get one.
Whatever happened to accountability.
Whatever happened to accountability.
How many people does it take to make-term consequences to choosing to control your own body, whatever it is you're saying?
There are long-term consequences.
And half of the black population not being here today is a consequence of all of those women choosing.
I'm going to run the other side not to give birth to their babies.
There is a consequence to that.
It's not just like.
So what's the fixation with black women's abortions?
Because it's proven.
It's a statistical.
Why do you care about why?
Why did you come up here and choose to talk about black women's abortions?
Why?
Because it'll tug on.
I'm asking Molly not on my phone, Molly.
Yes.
I'm asking Molly, why?
Because it is a statistical example of a long-term example.
May I finish what I'm saying?
It is a statistical example of the long-term effects of abortion.
Why did you choose that out of all the statistics you could have shown?
Because of the left.
Because the left, one of their pinnacle fights over the last 10 years has been Black Lives Matter.
And I'm standing up as a pro-life conservative saying Black Lives Matter.
Okay, so Black Lives Matter.
So Black women who are alive and here and functioning on this earth, you don't believe that they have the right to choose whether having a baby is the right to say that's not the question.
Okay, let's talk about that.
Is the question.
That is literally it.
They do.
So I might have made that choice and half of their population is not here.
I can't hear Molly because everyone's hooting and hollering.
What was your question?
Whatever you just said, I can't couldn't hear that.
Can you say it again?
I have a question about the current.
I'm talking to Molly.
I don't remember what you asked.
So why, like, again, succinctly explain to me why you chose Black Lives Matter and forcing Black women to give birth is your platform of choice tonight.
It's not, there's no one's forcing.
We are encouraging and showing that a fetus is a baby and that every life deserves to have a chance to live.
No one's forcing holding the woman down.
We are encouraging and hoping that they will give their babies the right to life and the opportunity to live a life.
Okay.
And if they're born into shitty circumstances, maybe they'll turn it around and become an incredible leader.
You don't know.
Molly, we agree on a couple things.
We agree that like hope, sure, you can hope one thing.
I can hope one thing.
Gregory can hope one thing.
But what about win?
What about win?
Gregory can hope one thing.
Give it up for Gregory.
But there's a difference between hope and forcing.
And I believe in the autonomy of women.
Well, that's the thing.
That's what the question is.
When it comes to abortion.
We agree on is that hope is not a strategy.
Yeah, that's a theological virtue, though.
All right.
All right.
Hold on.
We got to move on.
Let's get to the next question.
Okay, bringing it back to the current topic.
I would like y'all to answer or explain, define what about international law is legitimate or has any sort of grounding or force.
Because based on U.S. law, every action taken in Venezuela was completely legitimate.
NATO's Changing Role00:10:18
But based on, you know, all of the complaints about it are violations of international law.
So please explain that.
That wasn't my complaint about it.
I didn't bring in a legal argument or an international law argument.
I think there's a decent argument that Trump made legal strikes.
Now, the distinction I'd make, Obama made a lot of, did a lot of strikes under the authorized use of military force in a post-9-11 era.
Trump, when you're striking a country, should probably go through Congress before doing an act of war.
But I'm not going to say it's illegal or it's going to be upheld as illegal.
The reason I say that every president should have to go through Congress, not only Trump, but Obama and Biden before doing this, is because we don't want presidents as Americans to be able to unilaterally strike or do acts of war.
Like, for example, Trump is talking a lot about Greenland lately.
Would you be okay if Trump authorized a strike on Greenland?
I will become the most dick Cheney neocon.
I want F-35s flying over nuke, baby.
I want to greet them.
I want them to greet us as liberators from their Danish overlords.
You realize?
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
It's fine.
Okay.
You guys have no moral foundation.
You guys voted for somebody.
No, somebody's not.
It's being mean too.
Adam's being mean too.
Hold up, hold up.
No, no, no.
This is so true.
Donald Trump said over and over, no new wars, no new wars.
And you guys just cheered for somebody who wants F-35s to fly over a NATO alliances.
I'm exaggerating.
Listen, listen, no.
Donald Trump has not ruled out military force against a NATO ally.
Now, I want to talk a little bit about international law and why it's important just for one second.
In a post-World War II era, after the bloodiest conflict in human history, all the world leaders came together and said, we have to make sure the world doesn't devolve into chaos again.
So they created NATO, which says that you can't just invade countries for no reason.
I'm not f***ing wrong, but to continue, good one.
You guys.
Well, no, it wasn't all the world leaders, right?
There was half the world was aligned with NATO, half with the War Software.
That's a great point.
So developed countries decided to join NATO, then they got to enjoy.
No, the Soviet Union was a developed country.
Okay, the countries that joined NATO got to enjoy decades and decades of not only economic growth, but more technology, more medicine.
The countries that haven't joined NATO are honestly like third world shitholes at this moment.
So NATO exists to keep us safe, to make sure that we have a world order that is in focus, and the United States benefits from that world order.
So I just don't like Donald Trump trying to step all over NATO, trying to threaten our NATO ally of Greenland.
You realize we have U.S. troops on the ground in Greenland, not to invade them, but because they're a ally.
We could call them up and just say, hey, can we put more troops on the ground?
Is Greenland an independent nation?
Greenland is not independent.
No.
You're right.
So we're talking about Denmark.
Okay, we can.
No, no, we have troops in Greenland.
Yeah, yeah.
So we can call up Denmark and literally just say, can we increase troops to Greenland?
Or I'm sure we can communicate with Greenland directly.
Why does Denmark have Greenland?
We're closer to Greenland than Denmark.
That's not how property or international law works.
Isn't that what we're doing?
International law is very interesting here because you mentioned NATO and it's very telling that you misspoke and you said that the whole world was united by NATO.
No, no, no.
That was a product of the Cold War where half the world was divided into NATO and the other half was in the Warsaw Pact.
And so when the Cold War ended now 35 years ago, the role of NATO dramatically changed and the role of the United States as the sole global hegemon changed.
And so there is such a thing as international law.
I'm not one of these people who says international law is fake.
There is such a thing that goes back.
I'm not Matt Walsh.
I do think it's real.
Though the point he's making is a good one, which is that the modern instantiation of international law, like the UN and associated bodies, is ridiculous.
It's liberal international law.
It's not ridiculous.
Article 5 of NATO has prevented nuclear war from breaking down.
The military might of the United States has prevented nuclear war from breaking down.
That's what it is.
And that's all NATO is too.
Wait, wait, wait.
No, no, no.
Wait.
Hey, Adam.
You guys clap for everything.
You're making my points.
One more question.
You're making my points.
The military might of the United States has deterred countries from invading our NATO allies, which would also have military troops if they got invaded.
So the might of the United States as the leader of NATO has benefited from the US.
We provide their military protection.
China and Russia are aggressing on Greenland.
It's strategically necessary.
It's been the policy of the U.S. State Department since the mid-19th century to acquire Greenland.
China and Russia.
We have to take it.
If China and Russia did anything to Greenland.
Under NATO, Article 5 would mean that we retaliate.
Like Russia and China are not.
We're getting a head start.
That's what's going on.
Can I add to this?
You guys have no moral foundation if you're okay.
I appreciate people who've never seen conflict really get emboldened and really like lash out about how they know everything about world conflict.
And as for a lot of people in this country, you know, we've never had conflict on our shores.
New wars being started?
Because that's what he said.
My question is.
Wait, you just said you want F-35s over Greenland.
Now you're saying you're not saying that.
There won't be a war.
It won't last very long.
No moral foundation.
I appreciate the sentiment of no new wars, but my question to you is, do you think that America will survive if we do not take a country like Venezuela with the largest oil deposits?
Because, listen, hear me out.
America creates light oil.
We have a lot of fracking in this country.
Most of our refineries and things that convert heavy oil is what we have here in America, which is on the Gulf of America.
Yay, Gulf of America.
But ultimately, when you have China, Russia, everyone teaming up with Cuba, Venezuela, who are taking over Guyana for all the resources, consider the One Belt, One Road initiative that China is putting in place.
They're giving a lot of money to these regimes to make them look good so they can create infrastructure so they can win the voting power.
And then they're indebted forever to China.
When they take over that region and they have all these resources that we do not, and then they start launching missiles into our backyard right across the Gulf, do you think as the leaders of the free world that we should not intervene and take over Venezuela?
Should we intervene and take over Venezuela?
No, and we haven't done that.
Currently, Del Codriguez is in power.
So your framing is entirely wrong.
I mean, we're running the show.
She is sort of in power, but Ruby and Trump.
Let me ask a fundamental question.
How is America supposed to survive if we're not taking over countries like Venezuela the same way that we both survived and excelled over the past 70 years?
Over the past 70 years, we have seen a massive increase in quality of life, technology, medicine.
And it's awesome, right?
And it's also going to be oil.
And it's because you need oil.
It's because global wars haven't been the same way they did before.
The luxuries of what you love here in America no longer exist.
Okay, are you saying that pillaging Venezuela for their oil reserves and taking pillaging?
Well, you are saying taking the leader of the regime who is working with China and our enemies out of the equation and letting them become an ally.
We want Venezuela to be an ally so we can have access to the country.
We want them to be an ally by taking over their country.
Number two, if you're scared.
Maduro is not on our team.
And LC Rodriguez won't be either.
But let me ask you, are you okay?
Are you doing our right now?
So should we or should we not have taken Maduro as we did?
It's fine if we took Maduro.
That's not even my big problem.
So we're all on the same page.
Just get that the regime has changed over, right?
Listen, no, the regime hasn't changed over.
You're just wrong.
You think leadership has changed over.
Leadership has changed.
Can I ask you if you're so scared about Chinese aggression?
Would you be okay with protecting Taiwan if they were invaded by China?
Yes.
Okay, because they are the closest democratic people.
If you're so scared of Russian aggression, are you okay with stopping Ukraine from being invaded by sending military, not military troops, but military weapons like we are?
So this is, I love how you bring this into the chessboard.
No, no, economics.
I'm asking because you're getting into all of our allies and stuff, but at the end of the day, when you're talking about the Russia-Ukraine war, yes, we should support.
What support should we do in what capacity, right?
And that's where we're never all going to agree.
However, one fundamental thing is America does not create enough heavy oil to maintain the lifestyle and the strength of America without this type of oil.
So where do we get it?
Venezuela.
That's the argument you're making.
And actually, to your point, Adam.
It's just geopolitical truth.
We are running out of heavy oil in America.
And to your point, Adam, I think we agree.
We've reached a synthesis, which is you say, well, you know, the way we should do it is we should get along as we have for the past 70 years.
Well, over the last 70 years, we've intervened in Latin America like 50 times.
We've overthrown a lot of regimes.
So we're going to keep on keeping on.
It doesn't work.
It doesn't work.
And they're creating alliances to create a socialistic party with Cuba and other enemies of America.
Cascading effects.
It's beautifully stated.
Okay.
We have to figure out who won that round.
Was it, and you raise your paddles, was it the liberal team?
You guys, we got one.
We got tried and true blue.
Was it me?
All right, there we go.
It's good.
All right.
Now I kind of saw that one coming.
Now, now, who won the question round?
I think it's obviously the last guy, right?
That was very thoughtful and serious.
I dang, right?
Thank you.
I was talking to Eddie.
I do gun stuff, Second Amendment.
I'll be here all year.
I live here.
Come hang out.
Let's shoot some guns.
Yeah, my gun.
Right.
I just got a new gun.
My buddy Nick Kratos gave me a desert eagle, and it's Catholic, and it's called the Excommunicator.
It's sick.
Anyway, maybe I'll have to bring it.
How about shooting with you for content?
That'd be fun.
Yeah, we can record it.
Do you shoot?
Have you ever?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Wow.
All right.
Let's go.
Liberals are normal people, bro.
I mean, we're just normal people.
Some of the, like a very few numbers sometimes.
Okay, but you could also point to Republicans who raided the Capitol.
I mean, people are always going to be crazy.
Yeah, those guys are, they're going to come shooting with us too.
Okay.
Now, okay.
Now we turn to the VIP table.
I don't know.
Did we solve all of the world's problems or not?
Is there one more topic we have to get to to hash out?
Oh, man.
I don't know.
Ask us anything.
You don't think we solved them.
I don't think you solved them, but I don't know.
I actually don't know.
I don't have a topic.
You don't have enough.
Is there anyone?
Is there any suggestion?
Gregory, let's go.
I say we take on the transgender with the Supreme Court cases that they're hearing today.
We take on that transgender issue just a little bit further.
Okay, so the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in two cases.
The Libs won't let this issue die, which is great for Republicans, because if we were going to get blown out in the midterms, this is like our absolute best hope of turning it around.
Trans Women in Sports00:07:21
And basically, the Libs are arguing that states cannot pass laws banning boys who identify as girls from girls' sports.
And the court heard it, and Katanji Jackson spoke something vaguely resembling English, and Clarence Thomas smacked them down, and the ACLU fumbled.
So is there any particular angle with that?
Let's talk about our fifth place superstar, Riley Good.
Let's talk about trans women.
I think that's that.
You want to talk about trans women?
Do you have anything to do with that?
Trans women in women's sports.
Okay, cool.
I love talking about women's sports.
Adam, is it right, Adam?
Yeah, since you're effectively Bill Clinton, I don't know what you mean.
Yeah, he's kind of like.
What I mean by that is like you're the only moderate Democrat left.
There's a lot of moderates.
Ken, how old are you?
23.
Oh, shit.
Okay.
No, no, you're good.
What's up?
All right.
Do you think men can become women?
Can men become women?
Yeah.
You can change genders from male.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But there's a difference between sex.
Do you think there's a difference between sex and gender?
Do I think there's a difference between sex and gender?
Yeah.
Yeah, I think that they're two different terms.
So when you go up to someone in a grocery store and you're walking up to them, do you think scientifically they're different?
Well, gender is a sociological term.
Yeah, based on like physical appearances, like hair length or other things like that.
And then sex is based on, it's not a joke.
Sex is based on your genitals, right?
Yeah.
So can I ask you a question?
Yes, please do.
Genuinely, no, no, for real.
I'm not joking with you.
Okay, so if you're walking up to somebody in a grocery store, say it's a worker and you can only see them from behind, and all you see is somebody with long, luscious hair.
Yeah, you see some warlock, you see some devour.
I don't know.
Say you're walking up to somebody in a grocery store and you can only see them from behind, and you say they have long, luscious hair, they have jewelry around their wrist.
Do you go based on a vague assessment of social characteristics or do you check their genitals before you check to see if they're male or female?
Uh, before I got sober or after, no, but you said genuinely, which one?
Which one?
Um, I would assume that they were a man or a woman.
Well, based on their with those characteristics, I'm saying, is it based on their genitals or do you base it on their broad characteristics out in public?
Broad characteristics.
So, when somebody out in public has long hair or jewelry from behind, in 2026, that could be a male or a female.
Totally, yeah.
So, absolutely.
So, the difference between sex and gender, as we laid out, is that somebody-hold on, say that again?
I'm sorry.
I'm just, I'm saying that when you're walking up to someone in a grocery store and they have long hair and they have a they have a bracelet or whatever, jewelry, they could be a man or a woman.
Yes, exactly.
Exactly.
Stop there.
Exactly.
Okay, I stop there.
That's all I'm saying.
I have a question.
No, Wait, hold up.
I'm making my point.
I'm making my point.
Okay, keep going.
The point that I'm making here is, and you're, I don't know if you're too smart, too dumb to realize it.
I don't know.
The point that I'm trying to make here.
Maybe.
Yeah.
So when you walk up to someone in a grocery store and you don't know what they are, it's because you go based on social characteristics.
That is gender.
Gender is defined as social characteristics.
Sex are your genitals.
So can somebody be transgender?
Can somebody who has long hair and is a male then transition to look like a female?
Yes.
Yeah, but you're but come on.
Listen.
Oh, yes.
No, no, no.
You said, yes, no, no.
I don't grant that.
Wait, so which part do you not grant?
Hold on a minute.
I do not grant your premise.
Which premise?
What the granted all my premises and now you have?
No, no, no.
Okay, let's hear it.
Because right there, you're conflating gender expression with sex.
And you're declining.
I'm not explaining the difference.
You're decoupling gender expression from sex.
No, and then going, they can change, bro.
You're making my point.
99% of the time, sex and gender overlaps.
But in this 0.5% exception, people can transition.
Like you admit, where's my fundamental axiom wrong?
Which axiom do I have wrong?
You said that you reject my framing.
Again, you're confusing.
How so?
You're decoupling.
How so?
By saying because you're saying that.
You're not even representing, again, you're Bill Clinton.
You're not representing your own side topic.
I'll represent the side.
Your firmware is not up there.
This guy's shaking over there.
He's shaking in the piano.
That's a great question.
No, no, no.
Hold on, Lauren.
Let's just finish this topic.
The point where I think you're diverging is you're saying, and therefore this person can transition to have a transgender.
Wait, can I ask you a question?
Yes.
Do you think somebody who has male characteristics can change themselves in such a way where they appear to be female when you walk up to them in a grocery store?
What do you mean?
You mean like we wear, I mean, jewelry, superficial super sexual.
I mean, either way, it can be like titanium.
I can't figure out which part you're asking about.
Are you saying someone who, by all biological signs, is a man, but wears a dress?
Or like, what do you mean by the characteristics?
I mean, both of those are characteristics.
Yeah, somebody who has a penis, but they have pants on, obviously, so you can't tell, but then they're wearing jewelry.
They have long hair.
I mean, here's the thing.
Dude, I wish trainees tried that hard.
So you can usually talk about children.
You're not even good at it.
Do you know what I'm saying?
I think you're making a great point, Adam, which is, and I, and you're granting it, Wit, which is, yes, there is a distinction between sex and gender.
Of course.
Sex pertains to human nature and it's expressed biologically, primarily.
And gender expression is this social performance.
But the problem is you're making an undue leap, which is you're saying therefore one can transition from one to the other.
Just because these things are distinct does not therefore imply that they should be in conflict with one another.
So the pro-transgender side says, well, you know, you can have guillotine.
Hold on.
You can have guilloons and you can dress like a woman and therefore you're really a woman and entitled to all the rights of women.
But I guess I would say the opposite.
If you're a man who wants to put on a dress, you shouldn't.
You should bring your gender expression into line with your biology and you should act like a man if you're a man.
You have an obligation to do that.
I think that 99% of people's gender aligns with their sex.
I guess the question is: if we just refer to women as trans women, would you guys be happier?
Is that literally the no?
I want them to act like who they really are.
Wait, so do you think gender dysphoria is real according to the DSM-5?
I think people get confused, but we should treat it rather.
Do you think gender dysphoria is a real one?
I'm not sure if you can see it.
I want to go back to DSM3.
I don't want to get the recording.
I want to go back to DSM.
I wasn't feeling like DSM-3 before it was too bad.
Because that's what I thought this was Supreme Court hearing was.
It was about elementary school, children's sports.
We're talking about girls and boys, which is under the age of 18.
They're.
Yeah, but boys still have an advantage.
It's less than after puberty, but they still have to be a lot of people.
What's your question?
So, my question is: what's the fixation around kids' t-ball?
I've not mentioned kids' T-ball.
Yeah, we're not the ones who change the business.
I have a good question about transgender sports.
Hold on, how many times have you run the bell?
What are your kids?
Who Lost Tonight?00:00:56
All right, fine.
All right, we got to go.
In my opinion, no one wins a bar fight.
They're only losers.
So the real question is: who lost tonight?
The question is: who's going to buy the round?
You are.
The question is, I know, I think I technically did.
The question is, who is going to star in Wits romance novel?
And so, who lost?
Was it Adam?
You guys hate Lauren?
Haters.
Was it me?
Where are you?
Come on, she at least got a yell.
Yeah, okay, we got one of his nails.
She lost in the same way.
She lost in the same way Trump lost in 2020.
We still have to do some court cases.
We still have to, you know, concentrate and check the money.
And in the same way, because Venezuela maybe stole it.