Friendly Fire: Gavin for President, Greenland for Sale
Will Gavin Newsom be the next president? Ben Shapiro gives the juicy details.
Matt Walsh calls for civil rights for white people.
Where is all the desire to own Greenland coming from?
Find out inside an all-new Friendly Fire tonight at 5 PM ET on The Daily Wire.
Ep. 06
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/FIRE to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
Kalshi - Visit https://kalshi.com/friendlyfire to see live prediction markets and sign up today to trade on the outcomes that matter most to you.
- - -
Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe
🍿 Season One of Real History with Matt Walsh premieres Monday, January 19th.
🍿 The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin Episodes 1 & 2 start streaming Jan. 22nd exclusively on DailyWire+
🧙🏻♂️ Pre-Order The Pendragon: Rise of the Merlin Board Game! https://dwplus.watch/PendragonBoardGame
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Gavin Newsom just tweeted something out about me that's hilarious.
Really?
You think JD would mog Gavin Newsom?
Yes, I do think it would mog him.
I'm really enjoying Neocon at Wall Street.
I have also been lusting after Greenland my whole life.
I don't buy that.
Oh, come on.
I know it's uncouth to say it, but like in my room.
For Media Matters, he's joking.
It's not true.
He's not joking.
Matt, first time that Matt wants to talk foreign policies.
So I'm like...
I'm all ears, man.
Let's do it.
I mean, no, don't put it all at me.
This is more for you guys.
I know, I know, but normally we mention any place that is outside the United States, and I can see Matt's eyes glaze over.
Greenland is the only country outside the U.S. that I care about.
And it's meant to be inside the U.S.
I just love that we have as a listed topic, the slave trade.
Yeah, no, I'm hoping.
Matt is going to take the Aristotelian pro position.
That's funny because you said that.
I was thinking about Aristotle, too.
Will Gavin Newsom be the next president?
Daily Wire is very on Ben Shapiro just became Paul Allen sitting down with Patrick Bateman of California.
We will hear all of the juicy details.
Then, Matt, I believe, is calling for a civil rights movement for white people as he releases his new mini documentary on the slave trade.
What is a slave?
No, I don't think it's called that.
Anyway, he's going to be giving the history on that.
And then we will be going all the way into Greenland.
I don't think it's coincidental.
Denmark has said that they will not sell Greenland to the United States.
Then France came out and they said the French military will defend you.
And then immediately Denmark said, okay, listen, we'll make a deal.
So we will get into all of those things on friendly fire.
Gentlemen, wonderful to be with all of you.
Happy New Year and Merry Christmas.
Christmas is still on until February 2nd, as far as I'm concerned.
Wow.
I didn't realize it lasts that long, Michael.
Why?
We've got through to Lent myself.
Yeah, I actually, I count Christmas as lasting through until the next Advent.
So I've still got all the decorations up in my set.
It's amazing.
I haven't seen you guys in a little while.
And Ben, you were just over with Mr. Slimey himself.
I was with Gavin Newsom at the governor's mansion in California, which, by the way, is very tiny.
It is the tiniest governor's mansion.
It is a very, very small building in Sacramento.
You have to brush thousands of homeless people out of your way just to get to it.
But it was definitely an interesting experience.
I had a little bit of time off-camera with Gavin Newsom.
I'd met him briefly before.
And like most politicians, he's very good in person.
I will say that just as a class of people, politicians in person, way better than politicians on camera, just generally speaking.
And we all know a bunch of politicians.
And I think that this is the general rule about literally all of them.
So off-camera, he's very friendly.
He's very garrulous.
He will kind of get a little more honest with you than he might in terms of his positions on camera.
And then I was out there because he had invited me to come on his podcast.
That's a podcast where he has, I guess, once every couple of weeks, I believe.
Usually it's somebody of the left.
Occasionally, he'll have somebody of the right.
Famously, he had Charlie Kirk on the show.
This is back during last summer.
And it was about a two-hour show.
It was a little bit under two hours.
We covered a lot of ground.
Before I get to your epic sit down with him, because I want to know if he's going to be the next president.
I really hope he's not.
I want to get to an even more epic topic, which is, of course, the Pendragon cycle, Rise of the Merlin, which is coming out.
It's coming to Daily Wire Plus.
This is the latest reason that you have to subscribe, become a Daily Wire Plus member right now.
This just amazing, elaborate, multi-continental journey.
If only we had waited a little longer to make it, we could have shot it in Greenland.
Just a beautiful, beautiful series.
And by the way, if you go check it out right now, you can go to dailywire.com slash shop and get the Pendragon Cycle Rise of the Merlin board game, which is very, very cool.
Depending on how long this goes, maybe we can all play it together, guys.
I love board games.
Send me one of those.
It's good.
This is looking, I don't know.
We spent some money on this.
This is a nice-looking board game.
Anyway, go check it out right now.
Become a Daily Wire Plus member, January 22nd.
It all happens.
And then possibly in January of 2029, our whole country falls apart if Gavin Newsom becomes president.
It turns out that that series is the only thing more ambitious than Gavin Newsom.
We have a trailer, right?
Play the trailer.
What was it like, Marlon, to be alone with God?
Is that who you think I was alone with?
There's a new part of work in the world.
I've seen it.
A god who sacrifices what he loves first.
I learned of Yazoo the Christ.
And I have become his follower.
Trust in Yezu.
Great light, great darkness.
Such things mattered to me then.
What matters to you now, Mistress of Lies?
The Pendragon cycle.
Rise of the Merlin, a seven-part series.
Premieres January 22nd, only on Daily Wire Plus.
I mean, it is as good or better than anything that you will see on HBO, and you won't get the gratuitous sex and the insane nihilism.
Sorry, I know it's a massive disincentive for, oh, wow.
Well, no, because they said we were going to play the Pendragon trailer, and they came in and gave me this fake sword.
I said, what is this for?
So this is a bit where I'm supposed to pull this.
I don't know what I'm supposed to do with this, but they gave me the sword and said, well, you could do a bit where you have a sword.
What's the bit?
Like, I have a sword.
What am I supposed to do?
Please go for the lady in the lake.
That'll be.
Is anyone in my head?
You want to tell me what the bit is with the sword?
Is there a thing I'm supposed to be doing with it?
Just don't hear me.
No.
I think I'm supposed to just have the sword, and you guys are supposed to laugh hysterically because Matt Walsh has a, you know, is holding a sword.
You could use it to smash in the windows of illegals in Minneapolis or something.
You use it for like a very practical political purpose.
It's plastic.
It's not even a real, it's plastic.
If you should buy Matt a real sword, then you can get a subscription to Daily Wire and you can watch Pendragon and then we can pay for actual metal swords that Matt can use to go and, I don't know, chop down trees in whatever part of rural America he is in right at this very moment.
Anyway, back to Gavin.
So Newsom, I will say that he is good on his feet.
He's squirrely enough that he knows his talking points well enough that if you hit him on California policy, he's able to sort of shift responsibility.
His big moves, he likes to shift responsibility onto local officials for failures and then take credit for any state successes.
Or he likes to make sort of grandiose claims about the robustness of California.
And if you point out it is not as robust as he has said that it would be, then he'll start talking about Louisiana.
So you see that sort of stuff happen a lot.
So for example, I was dinging him on California's income tax policy because it's driving business out of the state.
And his immediate response was, well, yeah, but we're fairer than, say, Louisiana.
And here's how that kind of went.
I think we have the clip.
Actually, lowering the income tax rates in this.
California has tax.
I mean, there's 16 states right now.
Let's talk about those 16 states.
Why don't we talk about California?
That's the point.
Well, I'm going to tax their low-wage earners more than California taxes its high-wage earners.
Let's talk about lowering those tax rates in those 16 states.
Okay, so again, notice what he tends to do is he will misdirect away from the actual topic.
And even when it comes to the topic of taxes, he'll misdirect.
Because the point I'm making is not a fairness point.
It is an efficacy point, meaning you're driving every taxpayer out of your state, which is what's happened in California.
He'll shift it over to Louisiana, and then he will have his online minions talk about how he owned everybody by showing that you pay a lot of tax in Louisiana as a poor person based on excise taxes and such.
So that's kind of one of his squirrely strategies.
There's certain places where he is less squirrely, and that's kind of what's interesting.
I will say the thing that I found interesting is his overt attempt to moderate his sort of online persona.
So there are a couple of points where he did this.
One of them most obviously was on ice.
So his crazy social media account, his press office account, which has been dedicated to trolling President Trump for a while, had tweeted out that they'd engaged in ICE, had engaged in state-sponsored terrorism.
And I asked him straight up about it and really pushed him on it.
One was a narrative that was immediately pushed by the Trump administration and Secretary of Homeland Security, Christine Noam, that she was a domestic terrorist who was attempting to run over officers with her car and was legitimately trying, not just this officer, but multiple officers.
That was the original statement.
I said at the time, I thought that was untrue.
And then your press office tweeted out that it was state-sponsored terrorism, which, I mean, Governor II have to ask you about that.
That sort of thing makes our politics worse.
Yeah.
I mean, it does.
I mean, our ICE officers obviously are not terrorists.
A tragic situation is not state-sponsored terrorism.
Yeah, I think that's fair.
Okay, so again, you can see him trying to take his own press office and just chuck it under the bus.
He's doing a couple of things.
One is he will kind of rhetorically appeal to the radicals in his base.
And then when he's called on it, then he will back really quickly away from it because he still wants to win moderates for 2028.
By the way, our sponsor, Calci, in the prediction markets, shows that he is right now the leader in the clubhouse among Democrats for the 2028 nomination.
All right, hold on.
Before I want to hear, because you saw him actually personally, I want to hear what you think about him for 2028.
But before you sully the opinions of the, you know, you sway our fellow DW guys here, do you think, Drew and Matt, do you think that Newsom's the guy for 28?
No, I think he's the Jeb Bush of the Democrats.
I think, you know, one of the continual arguments we have had on this show and when it was backstage is, you know, Ben and Jeremy would always say that if Michelle Obama runs, she'd win against anybody.
And I think, I don't think it's underestimating the American public.
I think it's misunderstanding the American public.
They actually are.
The American public actually is keyed into issues more than the media wants them to be.
The media wants them to look at people, what they look like and how they behave and whether they do this or that and what words they use.
But the people actually do care about topics and issues, especially when they affect them.
I think Newsom is a haircut, a sleazy haircut.
And I think that that doesn't play.
I think the fact that they, anybody who runs against them is going to bring up the fact that they have spent $40 billion almost on fixing the homeless issue and their homelessness has gone up 30%.
Where's the money for the bullet train?
Where the hell did those billions of dollars go?
Money disappears in California because like any one state, one party state, it's full of graft.
It's just a completely different thing.
But Drew, wouldn't you also say that Bill Clinton and Joe Biden were greasy haircuts?
I mean, sleazy haircuts?
Bill Clinton was one of the great, and Barack Obama.
This is the other thing about Democrats, by the way.
We've had three Democrat presidents over the last several decades.
Obama and Clinton were two of the greatest politicians of my lifetime.
They were fantastic wholesale politicians.
And Joe Biden won under very suspicious circumstances.
Let's face it.
I mean, very weird circumstances.
So I don't know.
The drift in this country is to the right.
The drift in the West is to the right.
And in Europe, they're basically stamping it down, but we don't have the capability of stamping it down.
And I think Gavin Newsom is toast the minute his record comes up.
And the social stuff, the way he handled COVID, the way he had everybody, he shut down John MacArthur's church try to and harass them while he was dining out at a French restaurant with his friends without a mask.
I mean, the guy is just, he's too easy a target to really make it once the national attention is on him.
And I just don't think he's, look, I understand he's ahead in the polls.
Anything can happen.
It's way too far away to actually predict it.
I'm not making a prediction, but he's just not the guy I'm looking at.
It's AOC who kicks me up at night.
Is the question whether he's going to win the presidency in 2028 or whether he's the Democrats guy in 2020?
Even start with just the nomination.
Yeah, because, well, among Democrats, I guess I could put this sword on.
Gavin Newsom, among Democrats, has something that no other Democrat has that I'm aware of on the entire national stage, which is that he can actually talk to people.
Like he could sit down and talk to Ben.
He can go on any podcast and have a conversation.
And yeah, he's lying the entire time, but he's willing to do that.
I mean, can you name any other Democrat at any level who could even potentially run for the presidency in 2028 who could go on, say, Joe Rogan and have a conversation for two and a half hours?
Gavin Newsom could easily do that.
And again, although what he's saying is almost always false, everything he believes is wrong and he's lying almost always, he's at least able to go do that in that environment.
And he's the only Democrat, not only the only Democrat in the field right now who could do that.
He's the only Democrat in the last 20 years who has that kind of ability.
I think what so that's an argument for why, all things being equal, he has a good chance of being the nominee for the Democrats in 2028.
I don't think he's going to win the presidency for a lot of the reasons that Drew just articulated.
You think from the body, assuming that JD is the presumptive nominee, you think JD would mog Gavin Newsome?
Yes, I do think he would mog.
I agree.
I do.
But then not that I know what mog means, but I think he would.
No one does.
But the problem for Gavin Newsom is that, like, the obvious thing for a Democrat is that he's a white male.
And in a primary, like, would the Democrat voters be willing to say, hey, we tried a woman and she failed.
We tried a black woman.
She failed even worse.
So now we're just going to go back to a white guy because they're the only ones who can win.
I don't know that the Democrats are going to be a nidget or something like that.
So I'll say this.
He is smoother on his feet than virtually any of the Democrats that I've talked to.
And I've talked to a fair number of them.
He is also, I think that there's a more than decent likelihood he's the nominee in 2028 because his chief rival is AOC, meaning that AOC is not a black woman.
She's a Hispanic woman, actually.
And if you look at the Democratic voting base, particularly in the South, that is a heavily black voting base.
There is no evidence that that crosses over to quote unquote the people of color category, a category that has never existed nor will ever exist in real life.
And you've already seen cases in which the black vote has mobilized behind a white person to stop another white person or a Hispanic.
So I would not be surprised if he's able to pull out the nomination.
I will say that, again, the game that he's playing, which is a smart game, is he's usually rhetorically radical with regard to President Trump personally.
And with regard to Trump, that makes you real popular inside the Democratic Party.
But he's trying to moderate on a lot of the issues where he actually is most radical.
Like in that interview, he suggested that he's cooperating with ICE, which I find very difficult to believe, shall we say.
In that interview, he tried to pretend sort of moderation on the trans issue.
His state is not moderate on that issue at all.
And that brings up sort of the second question that you're raising, Michael, which is how does he do in a general election if it's J.D. Van?
So obviously the number one question there is going to be, how's the U.S. doing?
If the economy sucks, J.D.'s got a real problem.
And I think everybody acknowledges that circumstantially, that's just the reality.
As far as sort of head-to-head as candidates, I will say that my biggest question mark for JD is, can he grow any part of Trump's coalition?
I look at Trump's coalition and I think to myself, Trump has maxed out in many ways many parts of that coalition.
What is the part that JD grows that Trump was unable to grow?
Because this was a fairly narrow election.
If you look, it was a couple hundred thousand votes in a couple of different places and very, very high turnout because, again, people really, really love Trump in a way that, you know, again, that's not a rip on JD.
That's just a reality.
But you've been saying for a while, Ben, and this is something I totally agree with, that almost all of this is going to depend on the economy, which I think is getting better.
I mean, even the Wall Street Journal, which has been hysterically depressed ever since the tariff thing comes out, is admitting that the economy is actually turning around and doing pretty well.
And the other thing is also, you know, again, I don't think we talk too much and the media likes this.
They want to talk about everything as people's faces and their style and the way they talk.
And I admit all that is important, but people actually do pay attention to certain things.
Like, for instance, the parade of U-Hauls leaving California looks like a Howard Hawks cattle drive.
I mean, people are just like deserting the state.
And the state, as we all know, is paradise if you left it alone.
If you took the people out, it would be paradise.
And it's just, he's ruined everything that he touches.
And I just, I mean, listen, I left his state to be left.
We all left his state.
We all left his state because, again, I don't think that his state was well run.
But there is one thing that I do know, and that's that you need life insurance.
You do.
That's just the reality.
You need to start the new year with clarity and security.
You need to lock in your life insurance today because let's face it, you and I specifically mean Andrew Clavin might die this year.
Policy Genius is an online insurance marketplace that allows you to compare quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side for free.
Their license team helps you get what you need fast so you can get on with your life.
You can easily find what you need.
Coverage amounts, prices, terms, no guesswork, just clarity.
And Policy Genius will help you find your most affordable policy that meets your needs.
They'll answer your questions, handle the paperwork, advocate for you throughout the process.
Policy Genius has thousands of five-star views on Google and TrustPilot from customers who found the best policy fit for their needs.
Drew, tell me about what you're going to do to protect your family should you die this year.
Well, actually, you know, I don't like to bring this up because it violates my contract, but I actually died last year and the payout from my life insurance was so good that my wife was able to marry her tennis instructor and live really the way she had wanted to for the last 45 years.
So I think it's really, it is important.
Like you disappear, your money, your earnings go with you, and that leaves your family in the large.
So yeah, it's important, especially for people like me or people like you, Ben, who might finally, they might finally catch up with you and just carry you.
Well, that's a dark thought for me this year.
With Policy Genius, real users have gotten 20 or $2 million policies for just $53 a month.
Ease the way to protecting a wonderful life.
Head on over to policygenius.com slash fire to compare life insurance quotes from top companies, see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com slash fire.
So here's my question.
Drew, I agree with you, obviously, about all of Gavin Newsome's policy failures.
The real questions, and I even agree with you, obviously, about the economy.
It's hard to disagree with a 5.3% GDP growth in Q4, following a 4.5% GDP growth in Q3.
I mean, those are really, really good numbers.
Here is the problem.
And I go back to it, just coalitionally speaking.
You look at Trump's coalition.
It's a very weird coalition, right?
It's a different coalition than the sort of historic Republican coalition.
It's blue-collar voters, his heavy share of Hispanics, slightly outsized portion of black males, particularly, and skewing younger than traditionally.
It's hard for me to see exactly where JD grows any part of that coalition.
He's going to win fewer Hispanics than President Trump did.
Trump has a sort of weird capacity to move beyond his own person.
He's kind of everybody's idea of a rich person in their various ethnic group.
It's really, really funny.
Like if you talk to, you know, if you talk to my people, you talk to the Jews, he's like, oh, yeah, he's like every rich Jew that I know.
And then you talk to like a white Italian guy.
He's like, yeah, he's just like the rich Italian guys I know.
You talk to a Syrian, he's bizarrely every person and no person at the same time, Donald Trump in a weird way.
That's not true of JD Vance, who is a very talented politician, but clearly a politician.
And so you take sort of Trump's comments about ICE, and he's not going to, it doesn't come across the same way as JD Vance online.
My chief critique of JD in this way is that I think JD is too online and he needs to get off X.
This is also my chief critique of everyone because I think X rots your brain.
If you're a politician and you're using that as your echo chamber telling you which direction to row, I think you're going to end up rowing in the middle of the morning.
Hold on, Ben, doesn't that undercut your point on Trump, who is the tweeter-in-chief?
No, no, no.
Trump is not on X. That's not true.
Trump tweets, but he does not read X. Trump is not online.
Trump literally, they print out things for him and put them in front of him.
You know this.
This is a factual truth.
Trump does not spend any time at all on CNN.com or New YorkTimes.com.
They literally print out, if there's a tweet that he has seen, it's because his staff literally prints out the tweet on physical paper and puts it in front of him.
Okay, but how does Gavin Newsom grow the coalition?
Because isn't this conversation?
How does Gavin Newsom grow it?
So the way that, so again, when it's two choices, then shrinking your coalition is growing the other guy's coalition.
So if you have a Hispanic voter, he's only going to go in one of two directions.
If that guy does not vote for JD Vance and now he votes in the election, doesn't just go home, he's going to vote for Gavin Newsom.
So I think that Gavin Newsom does win a larger share of Hispanic voters than Donald, than Kamala Harris won in the last election.
Listen, I don't know.
I think there's a counterargument here.
One is a lot of people were predicting that Trump had maxed out his coalition the first time, and people were upset.
They weren't getting exactly what they wanted, all these disappointments.
And then what happened?
He goes on to win the popular vote the second time.
So if J.D. were able to maintain Trump's coalition, that alone, he'd be great.
And let's say that things change, because obviously in 2024, almost half the voters were millennials and Zoomers, skewed a little younger.
In my meanderings through the young right, I think the young right does like the vice president a lot.
For sure.
But the other thing, so you know, to me, that's a bonus.
I do think this guy is very, very talented in that he came up as this, you know, Ohio guy, this guy who wrote a very famous memoir about his lower class upbringing and he goes on, succeeds at very high levels.
He plays well in Silicon Valley.
He plays well with rural people who want industrial policy.
He plays well, you know, I think he's got a lot of talent.
But this actually gets to my point vis-à-vis Newsom, which is Newsom is overestimated.
We're all talking about how slick he is.
The thing he's most famous for in politics is just being really deceitful.
And Nikki Minaj had that whole line.
He goes, oh, he's so sexy.
He's so slick.
He's so this.
So I think he's being overestimated in the ways that people overestimated guys like Beto O'Rourke.
These also rans who fell away.
I don't think it's always great to be the top guy in the race a year or a year and a half out.
But second of all, there was a great interview once between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
And Clinton said, he goes, you know, George and I have benefited from the same thing, which is we've both been underestimated.
Me because I'm a nice guy.
And they thought I was all nice and they thought he was kind of dumb.
And you think about the winning presidential candidates, they tend to be very underestimated.
Trump doesn't know anything.
He's totally ignorant.
Go ahead and run, Donald.
Right, yeah.
Barack Obama, he's black in a racist country.
Bill Clinton, he's Bubba.
Bush is stupid.
Ronald Reagan's a cowboy.
On that subject, though, I have to say, last time we were here, which is not that long ago, I would have bet money, and I'm not a betting man, but I would have bet money on JD Vance being the nominee.
Right this minute, I'm a little uncertain if we're actually talking about the next nominee because he's not, you know, every time, I mean, Trump has been going very hard on foreign policy, and he has people around him in the press conferences, mostly Rubio.
And Vance is nowhere to be seen because Vance is one of these guys who's trying to take MAGA and turn it into isolationism, which it never was.
I don't buy that.
Oh, come on.
I don't exactly.
Why isn't he in these meetings?
Well, I'll give you an example.
So this was very interesting.
I don't know if you guys caught this interview with Sauhrab Amari right after the Venezuela strike.
Saurabh posted it again, and he said, Wow, these comments the vice president made a couple weeks ago really hit differently now.
And he was being asked, you know, his involvement in the admin.
And he said, I'm getting it a little off.
It's not verbatim, but this is the thrust of it.
He said, look, if, let's say, hypothetically, there were an action to be taken by the administration that would look really good for Marco, that I would not be all that publicly involved in, in part because you don't have the president and vice president in the same place often outside of the White House, where Marco would be center stage, and I would seem to be more in the background.
If I were optimizing for 2028, I would try to kill that action.
But if I were optimizing for the good of the country and just to be a good person, I would encourage that action.
And it's kind of unclear what he was talking about there.
After the Venezuela strike, it seems clear as day to me.
That's what he's talking about.
I think the idea that JD is some isolationist or he's positioning himself that way.
He's been very close with Tucker Carlson, who I don't know if Tucker Carlson believes anything at this point.
I have no idea.
But I mean, he's actually kind of on the phone, remember, on that signal call that was bugged.
He was the guy who was calling for restraint.
You know, he's not always like, it doesn't seem to be online with the president's foreign policy, which frankly, I think is working out great right now.
You know, I think it's going very well.
So I don't know.
I'm not saying, look, I'm not counting him out by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm just saying the guy who looks great is Marco Rubio.
And I can't.
Here's the thing.
I think Marco has basically already said that he is not going to run if Shady runs.
And I think that that's probably true.
And I think that right now, if you're looking at the vice president, obviously his benefit is that he is the vice president.
No one's underestimating that he's incredibly talented.
He for sure is.
I think that there are a couple of systemic factors that are running against him because I sort of did a bit of a deep dive into this.
I mean, the reality, he's the vice president who currently has a 40% approval rating.
Vice presidents who have a 40% approval rating running after presidents who have a 40% approval rating don't typically do amazing in general elections.
And so, you know, maybe that changes.
Maybe that changes radically.
But I think that the sort of core assumption that a lot of Republicans are making, that there's sort of a cakewalk into the presidency for the vice president, that I don't see.
And I will say that I do think that the memory, if you do care about the very online, every meme of Marco Rubio, the big meme of Marco Rubio, obviously, is Marco having a different job every day, right?
Is the Secretary of State now he's like a gladiator.
Now it's just him in that pose being like annoyed that he's been given a new job as king of Venezuela or now the new governor of Greenland or whatever it's going to be today.
And then all the memes of JD are the JD is fat with weird hair.
And like that's not kind of where you want to be, just in sort of meme land.
I disagree.
It gets back to me.
You should talk to your guest clavicular, okay?
Like your guest clavicular.
No, but I don't think clavicular.
Which is hilarious.
I don't think the looks-maxing, you know, meth-addicted 19-year-old is representative of the American voter.
And I hope not.
This is why I disagree, though.
And it gets to my point on Newsom, is I think it was so smart of the VP to lean into the goofy meme.
And the reason I think it was so smart is you want to be underestimated so that the reality can surpass expectations.
So even down to the physicality, the fact that the meme is he's like this big fat guy, but then you see him.
He's not a big fat guy.
He's actually a pretty relatively thin guy.
The meme is that he's kind of like short.
He's actually very tall.
The meme is that he's kind of dumb.
He's extremely intelligent.
So I think all of those things play really well.
Even to the point ideologically, some people tried to pin him down on he's an isolationist or he's this or he's that.
But he's defended the administration's actions in Iran, in Venezuela, quite vociferously.
And so I don't know.
To me, like if I were in this position, I would not want the memes to be making me out to be the really cool guy.
Frankly, you even saw this with Trump in 2015, 2016.
All the meme reasons that he was like a big, dumb idiot.
And I think to be underestimated actually puts you in a better position.
And he's not taking himself too seriously.
So which is a rare quality for politicians.
People appreciate.
But the question is, for Republicans, what other Republican, I mean, to go to Ben's point about Trump's coalition, what other Republican has a better chance of at least maintaining most of Trump's coalition, if not expanding it.
And I don't see anybody outside.
I mean, there are others who might have a shot.
There are others who I could like in that spot, but I think JD Vance certainly would have the best shot of that.
And as far as approval ratings go, it's like every president and vice president my whole life has had terrible approval ratings, it feels like.
I don't think it like means anything.
It's part of the political reality we live in that you just hate whoever's in there and they get bad approval ratings.
And it still just goes to, I don't see anyone else in the, and this could change, obviously.
We're still a couple of years out, but I don't see anyone else in the Republican field who I'd look at them and say, well, we know what Trump's coalition is, and that guy over there really is going to resonate with that coalition more than JD Vance will.
And I have to say, by the way, I wasn't suggesting he won't be the nominee or the next president because that has been my certainty.
I'm just saying that my certainty is a little less certain nowadays.
Sorry, go ahead.
Go ahead.
Well, just what Matt was saying.
I agree with this.
I think the incumbency is a big deal.
And think about having Donald Trump's policies without Donald Trump, the Trumpian of Trump that people don't like.
A lot of people don't like his brashness and his big mouth and all that stuff.
And if we thought we could get MAGA without Trump, I think a lot of people would turn up.
Oh, see, I totally agree.
I disagree with this, actually.
I've completely flipped on this.
I think that MAGA is Trump.
I think that MAGA without Trump is boring and stupid in many ways because I just don't think as a concept it holds together.
Everyone keeps trying to say, what is MAGA?
And so you have the isolation of saying MAGA is America first, meaning America alone.
And then you have people who are saying, no, no, no, what MAGA really means is XY.
MAGA means whatever Donald Trump says MAGA means.
That's the reality.
And trying to take away the sizzle from the steak and then say, yes, but now it's very nutritious.
Like that's not the thing.
And if I were going to look at, here's what I've said about JD, I'll say about Rubio too.
Every politician must form their own coalition.
Anybody who thinks they're just going to pick up the last guy's coalition, they're wrong.
It never, ever, ever works.
In weird circumstances.
No, Biden did that, didn't he?
But in what way did Biden do that?
He was just running on Obama's third term, basically, in case of strange circumstances.
Okay, the 2020 election, as I think we will all acknowledge, those of us who think that he won and those who bizarrely think that he lost, are the we will acknowledge that was the weirdest election of our lifetime and that those circumstances are not replicable absent some sort of massive pandemic that shuts down the entire world.
Right.
Unless we do it again, I mean, which could.
But the biggest problem is that if you look at, here's the thing.
I look at J.D. and I look at JD's coalition and it looks like Trump's coalition, but smaller.
I look at Rubio's coalition and if I were going to build a coalition as a Marco Rubio, it would not actually be Trump's coalition.
It would be Rubio's coalition, meaning more college-educated white people, more Hispanics, fewer blue-collar white voters, right?
I mean, that's actually what his coalition would look like.
Probably more women, right?
Like his coalition just looks different.
And when we dismiss that kind of thing, it ignores the fact that that's actually what Trump did.
He didn't just replicate George W. Bush's coalition.
He built an entirely new coalition where he went to low-propensity voters who weren't voting and got them in his camp.
My guess is somebody like Marco Rubio drops some low-propensity voters and maybe convinces some more higher propensity voters who voted for Mitt Romney, but not for Donald Trump to come back.
Now, again, I'm not saying that means that Rubio wins or that J.D. loses.
I'm just saying that when I look at JD Vance, I cannot see how if Donald Trump got 77 million votes in the last election cycle, how JD Vance gets to 79 million votes in the next election cycle.
Very difficult for me to see that.
And that's a problem for Republicans.
That's not a question just for J.D. That's a problem for Republicans.
They should keep that in mind.
So when I'm saying Gavin could be the next president, I'm not talking about Gavin because he's so intellectually superior and such an amazing candidate.
I'm saying we have now had a series of binary elections in which everyone was kind of squirrely about all the candidates.
Then we came down to the final two and there were a couple of core bases who were like, yeah, I love it.
And then a huge swath of the middle was like, man, this is, man, this kind of sucks.
And if you look at the Gallup poll right now, more than 45% of Americans are now identifying as politically independent, not because they actually are, but because they don't want to be identified as either member of either party.
That's right.
But see, this is the thing.
I mean, as you've pointed out, Ben, Trump's policies, you know, eliminate Trump.
His policies are fairly middle of the road.
I mean, I think some things he's more right and some things he's more left.
But he's not a radical in any shape or form.
It's just that our politics has been so radicalized that he sometimes looks like it.
And I can't help feeling that you could pick up the Trump MAGA and present it in a somewhat more statesmanlike way.
And, you know, I always feel that what the people are asking for is normalcy.
They're asking to kind of get back to the way we're supposed to be.
And I could see Vance selling that really easily.
I don't see why he can't do that.
The other issue, I see your point, Ben, that I agree with it, that MAGA is what Trump says it is.
But I think where I disagree is I think that Trump actually has a pretty coherent policy vision, though it's often called incoherent or capricious.
And you see this especially with foreign policy.
Like, what does America First mean?
I was just debating some guys on this the other day on Piers Morgan's show.
And there's some people who insist America First means conservative or libertarian isolationism.
I don't think that's what Trump ever meant.
Some people that say the alternative is a liberal internationalism, whether we're talking about, I don't know, like George W. Bush or something, spread liberalism and democracy overseas.
I think Trump is this third option, which is a conservative imperialism.
I think he's been consistent about it.
He ran in the first term on destroying ISIS.
That obviously doesn't mean you're just going to only focus within your borders.
But when he does intervene, it seems to be in this way that's a little bit more restrained.
We're going to have these real tactical, you know, in-and-out kind of hits in the Middle East, and then we're going to focus a little more in the Western hemisphere.
But in the Western hemisphere, that's going to have cascading effects that do affect Iran, Russia, China.
And so to me, it's a third option that is kind of coherent and that therefore could be replicated by whoever succeeds it.
He's also always thinking about China.
He's always setting us up to fight the Cold War with China.
I mean, everything he does, you know, when you look at Venezuela, the Chinese ran for their lives like a lot of running Chinese after they took Maduro out of there.
They were setting up shop in Venezuela, and now not so much.
You know, now they're sort of thinking, well, maybe we can use this as an excuse to go into Taiwan, which eventually they'll do, but they're not in Venezuela anymore.
And I think Trump is thinking about that all the time.
I think everything he does in terms of China.
I mean, I totally agree with that.
I think that the danger in trying to intellectualize MAGA is that I think that when you abstract into sort of absolute terms what his foreign policy is, then when you zoom back in into what the specific decisions that are made are by somebody who's not Trump, they don't necessarily match up.
I think that, for example, you could make easily the case right now, and I'll make two varying cases.
One is that President Trump is what I think he is, which is sort of a hawkish realist, which is that he only wants to get involved in the most minimal possible way to achieve the maximum possible effect on behalf of American interests abroad, and that's not restricted to the Western hemisphere, right?
That he will bomb the Fordo nuclear facility in Iran if he feels that that's necessary.
Maybe he'll go ahead and he'll take a military action in Iran if he believes it'll be necessary right now, but only if it achieves his desired effect.
He's not going to just do something like fire a missile at a camel and hit him in the ass, sort of for show, right?
Like, so that's that's sort of one version.
And then there's an equally coherent version that I find really off-putting and I think would be wrong in policy, which is this sort of multipolar hemisphereism, right?
This idea that what Trump's actually trying to do is create a Western hemisphere free of foreign intervention, but he's totally fine with Russia dominating both the Near East and Eastern Europe and maybe a little bit Western Europe, and he's fine with China dominating Taiwan and the Far East, right?
That vision has actually been put forward by people who consider themselves in sort of the MAGA camp.
And because Trump is not, I would say, rhetorically coherent in the way that he approaches these issues, even though I think you can read the policy line in the ways that I've presented.
And I think the first one is much more accurate than the second.
I think that's why you're seeing concerns about, you know, when people say, well, what is MAGA?
Those are real open questions because again, ideology does sort of matter.
And President Trump doesn't really have one.
And so he's the best pragmatist you'll ever find without a root idea.
What that means is very difficult to have an ideological error.
How do you have an ideological error without an idea?
It's a great thing who listens to the MAGA people talk and thinks, thank God somebody's finally talking about America's benefits again.
Yeah.
And who hears that?
Like these guys come out and they say, you know, we want this to be good for America because that's who we work for.
I think it was Rubio who said that.
And I thought, thank you.
Like you suddenly remembered that all this stuff that we hear, like, you know, you're a racist if you don't open your borders.
It's like, screw you.
This is my country.
I want to defend my country.
It's a multi-ethnic country.
It's got everybody here.
I don't want to let in foreigners.
That doesn't make me a racist.
And I just, I think this is the first time I don't hear us being accused of anything.
They remember that we actually pay their salaries.
Yeah, there's something kind of funny about when Trump goes in and he says, we're going to Venezuela for the oil, which is not even exactly true.
I mean, like, we would be justified in part, but it actually does have a lot more to it and a lot more principle and everything.
And Ben, I think you make a great point, which is you can't quite tell exactly what this is, or you could read in two things because there is a retrenchment that's going on.
There's no question about that.
That's what the assertion of the Don Road Doctrine is about.
That's what Greenland is about.
And the question is: is the retrenchment a way that we can make sure that we're strong, we're, you know, we're not spread too thin so that we can preserve American strength around the world?
Or is the retrenchment this kind of surrender that says we just don't want to be involved anywhere else?
And I agree, it's kind of ambiguous right now, but I just don't see any real American politician on the right running to say, I want to make America weaker.
You know, that's the opposite of what MAGA literally is.
Well, then you'd have to become a Democrat.
That's right.
That's their actual platform.
I mean, Gavin Newsome just tweeted something out about me that's hilarious.
Okay.
Really?
Yeah, yeah.
He tweeted out like, here's what Ben Shapiro is hiding.
And it's like, gets president, gets Gavin Newsom, gets Ben to criticize Trump's tariffs.
What?
What?
Gets Ben Shapiro to oppose the invasion of Greenland.
What?
Gets Ben Shapiro to say the Republicans are going to have a hard time in the midterms.
Man, with that kind of wow.
Wow.
They nailed you.
You got mobs.
Brutal.
I got.
You got news.
Okay.
Brutal.
All right.
Speaking of a very hard right turn, Matt, you, I think, are what you're defending slavery now.
You want, you want to bring slavery back?
Do I understand that right now?
Very pro.
Well, it's a look, it's a controversial issue with slavery.
Are we for it?
Are we against it?
There are arguments.
There are arguments on both sides, guys.
Of course.
Both sides make interesting arguments.
Of course.
Hysteria.
Because you can't be on the show, please.
For Media Matters, he's joking.
It's not true.
It's well.
He's not joking.
Sorry.
Go on.
Go on.
So, you know, I've got this little this, not little, but we have a series coming out starting on Monday, Real History.
And they're shorter, you know, shorter documentaries on various topics, various historical topics that have so often been lied about, misrepresented.
And these are generally going to be topics that are talked about a lot.
I mean, people talk about slavery all the time.
But I think the average American doesn't understand the topic very little because schools lie about it, media misrepresents it, Hollywood, and there are all kinds of realities around these topics that are never talked about at all.
And we're going to start with slavery.
And it's, look, it's very interesting because although slavery comes up a lot in our political debates, like I said, I think the average person knows almost nothing about it because we're not taught about it in schools.
And that's because the history that we've been taught, and this isn't just something that started five years ago in the age of wokeness or whatever.
This is something that goes back generations.
I mean, I can remember being in public school 30 plus years ago, and it was the same thing.
And that's because the education about American history that we get in the mainstream is designed to make us hate ourselves, hate this country, and feel guilty about it.
And that starts with slavery.
So in the series, we're going to begin with a look at the global look at slavery.
Slavery existed as an institution across the entire world for thousands of years.
If it's possible to carry the guilt of slavery in your blood, somehow, as we're told white Americans do, if that's possible, then every single person who exists on the planet carries that guilt because slavery existed everywhere on the planet.
And then we kind of narrow it in to slavery in America.
Because even if everybody will acknowledge that, oh, of course, slavery existed everywhere, then they moved to, yeah, but slavery here was more brutal and it was worse.
And that is also not true.
And we get into some of the facts about, you know, where did these slaves come from?
Well, they came from Africa.
How did the slave traders, the European and American slave traders, get their hands on those slaves to begin with?
Well, it turns out that there were entire African empires who this is what they did.
I mean, this is how they became empires, is that they enslaved other African tribes and sold them.
And not only that, but if you were captured by one of these African tribes to be sold as a slave, the best case scenario for you is that you'd be put on a ship and shipped specifically to North America.
That would be the best case scenario.
These are basic facts that I think most people don't know.
As you mentioned, or as you maybe intended to mention, this is coming out once a month on Daily Wire Plus.
It's awesome.
Obviously, we all agree with all of that.
Can I just sound like a little bit of a lib, though, for a second?
This is one of my most lib opinions, but it's correct.
You know, when they talk about the legacy of slavery and the enduring, you know, challenges that come because their great, grandpa was brought on a slave ship.
I don't think they're totally wrong.
I don't think that comes from, I don't, you know, in the sense that like, look, I'm smoking a Mayflower cigar, a brand new blend that's extremely exquisite that I'm not yet going to debut for you all.
But I love the fact that some, a very small number of my ancestors, came here on the Mayflower.
That makes me feel good about the country.
It makes me view the country in a certain way, makes me feel a kind of pride and ownership in the country.
If my ancestors had come on a slave ship, even if I were rich, I were a rapper, I had, you know, gold teeth and everything, and I was materially really well off, I would view the country differently.
I would have a different relationship to it.
And I think as conservatives, we say that heritage matters and tradition matters and all that.
All I'm saying is I kind of get it.
And if I were a black guy in America, that would color my view.
That's true.
I think that's true.
I also think it's important.
Matt, I completely agree with the history you're saying.
I know that history and you're absolutely right about it.
But I also think it's important while we're saying this that we should put out the idea that slavery is bad.
You know, we think it was bad there.
It's bad here.
We're against it.
I think, you know, this is the Daily Wire.
Official Daily Wire, you know, our co-founder is a Jew.
Let's take the Moses idea here, like let the people go.
You read Aristotle and he says, well, some people are born slaves.
You just want to slap them.
And it's like, Aristotle, stop that.
Aristotle means different things.
But people should not own other people.
And I just think that, you know, of course it's true that it actually is true.
I mean, I live in the South and people come up to me and they say, well, slavery wasn't so bad.
And I think, okay, but can we begin with no, you know, like don't hold people's slaves.
And I think we could put that on our masthead maybe.
But other than that, it is true that it was, you know, I won't say it was better here.
It's just an evil.
But it is true that we didn't start it.
We bought people from, we bought people who had already been enslaved.
And if you read, I think at one point, Matt, I sent you the memoir of Mungo, the guy who made it into, I believe it was Nigeria, the explorer.
And he just described a world of slavery when he got to Africa.
I mean, he had some, I can't even, I can't remember the number, but he said something like 40% of the people were slaves.
And of course, if you got caught by the Arabs, they also castrated you, which was like an unpleasant thing in and of itself, because you couldn't just then claim you were a woman and play soccer for the team you could beat.
You know, it was really bad.
So, I mean, I think, you know, I agree with Knowles as well.
I think I do understand.
The guy who sold me my gun was a black guy, and he said, he said, believe me, I believe in gun rights because if I had gun rights, I wouldn't be here.
So I actually disagree with Knowles on this, and I'm with Walsh, I think, on the question of this kind of generational, I would feel differently about things.
I think that the history of black Americans is one of the most glorious things, meaning like moving from slavery to freedom, moving from abject slavery to participating in the building of the greatest country in the history of the world and becoming leaders in a wide variety of fields in that space is an amazing history.
And the idea that you should carry with you some sort of generational stigma or shame or that you should feel internally as though that is like, obviously, history has consequences and you feel those consequences over the course of time.
But I'm not willing to sort of grant the premise that a history of slavery is so deep that it ought to make you think that today's America is the problem.
This is also the America that fought a civil war to abolish slavery.
This is also the America that did the civil rights movement.
That's not what Knowles was saying, though.
Yeah.
Can I just say one thing here?
So actually, two things.
First of all, to Drew's point, that slavery is bad.
That's debatable.
No, it's actually a slavery.
Drew Walsh's job is just to give me a heart attack.
Yeah, this is like, this is good.
Hold on a second.
No, obviously slavery is bad, but I do think that assessing that there is a conversation that there's an important point in bringing up that it was a global institution, which is that it was bad.
But when you're assessing the individual moral guilt of people who were involved in slavery, say 500 years ago or 600 years ago, their individual moral guilt is severely mitigated because it was a global institution.
And at this time in history, they just didn't have concepts like universal human equality just simply did not exist for the majority of human history.
And that means that slavery was bad, but it also means that to kind of look at it through a modern lens and assess the kind of moral guilt on those people that we would on a slave owner today is incoherent.
But secondly, to the black Americans today, I agree that the fact that they, you know, if this is your actual your heritage, of course, there's plenty of black Americans who came here afterwards, and so that's not their heritage.
But if it is.
It's all in Minnesota, you mean?
Right.
Exactly.
So if that is your heritage, then that's relevant.
Your heritage is very relevant, of course.
But what is incoherent is to be mad about it.
To be mad today that slavery, you know, that your ancestors were enslaved is completely incoherent, not only because it happened a long time ago.
I mean, there is that.
It happened a long time ago.
It didn't happen to you.
So to be mad about a thing that didn't happen to you doesn't make a lot of sense.
But also there's the other part of this, which nobody really wants to say.
And every time I say it, I get in a lot of trouble, but I'll say it again, which is that, okay, let's just be real about it.
If you're a black person in America today and your ancestors were enslaved, you are better off today because of that than you likely would be if your ancestors had not been enslaved.
That's the reality.
If your ancestors had not been enslaved, then guess what?
Either you would not exist, most likely, or if you do exist, you'd exist in Africa.
And it is better to be in America than to be in Africa.
That is not an argument that slavery is okay.
I'm not making an end-justified means argument.
I'm only saying that to be mad about a thing that ultimately has actually benefited you today makes no sense.
Would you prefer that you are in Africa right now or that you are not?
I actually disagree with that.
Yeah, Mills is right.
I mean, look, Mills has actually said something that makes sense and is almost profound, which I think we should all stop for a minute and just understand that a miracle is taking place.
I retired.
I finally did it.
No, I mean, it doesn't matter whether it's rational or not.
And Ben, I completely agree that even though you have these feelings, you should be able to overcome them and understand that you've been given the gift of being born in America, and that's a beautiful thing.
And I agree with that.
But, you know, heritage does matter, and it does infuse you with a certain feeling.
And you hear the name of the famous black comedian who went up against the trans people, Chappelle.
Chappelle.
You know, I'll hear him say, like, it was really the black people who freed themselves.
And you think, like, no, it wasn't.
It was white soldiers fighting.
It was people from, you know, Maine and Vermont coming down and fighting for liberation.
It was not black people who freed themselves.
You know, there's a sense of shame that goes with this.
There's a sense of shame.
You know, when I was growing up, I think Jews had a sense of shame that stemmed out of the Holocaust.
You know, why didn't you fight back?
Why didn't you stop them?
Which is a complete, obviously a complete false understanding of what happened in that country and what it was like to live through it.
But people feel these things, and they affect the way you see the place that you're living in.
And I think that's basically what Knowles is saying.
And feelings, you know, I hate to break this, Steve Ben, but feelings matter.
You know, the way people feel affects their lives.
And so when you see things like, when you hear the word pride, you immediately know you're dealing with shame.
When you hear black pride, gay pride, you immediately know somebody feels ashamed.
And I think that you can't make it go away the way the left wants to make it go away by proclaiming that you're proud.
Okay, am I wrong?
Am I wrong about what I just said, though?
Am I wrong?
No, you're not wrong that the, you know, I have had to say to say that if you're going to say to me, slavery was bad.
Slavery was bad, but I'm glad I'm here.
I have had black people say that to me, and I understand it.
But, you know, still, the history counts, and I think we can have some kind of compassion for that and understanding for it.
I mean, on a practical level, obviously, Matt, history is all contingent, right?
It's a bunch of if-then statements.
So if X had not happened, then Y would not happen.
But that doesn't mean that you have to be super happy that X happened, you know, in and of itself.
So that, of course, is.
I'm not saying you should be happy.
No, no, I'm not saying you should be happy.
I know you're not.
Yeah, I'm not justifying it or saying you should be happy about it.
What I'm saying is that to now in your life today, to be angry about it, just doesn't, it doesn't make any sense because if the thing hadn't happened, then you would not exist and or you would exist probably in a worse situation than you do now.
I mean, I think that what we need is more specificity, actually.
What is it that you're angry about, that a bad thing happened in history, or at the concept that may still be walking around of, say, black inferiority, right?
That there's still some people who think that and that's what leads to slavery.
And so that's what you're actually angry at.
That's justifiable.
You know, you're right in the sense that anything that happened historically, you can be angry at the, if you had been then, there, would you have been happy?
No, you would have been very angry.
You've been upset, right?
And I think we all agree with that, but I think we should be more specific about what it is we mean when we say angry at that.
What is the that that we're doing?
I guess one way to think about it is just because we're conservatives, we're not libs, ideologues who think that, you know, one action of politics can just erase the totality of human experience.
You would say, well, look, the 13th Amendment was great, but it doesn't, it's not a magic wand, you know, the 14th Amendment, or all the way up to, I don't know, Civil Rights Act of 1964 or whatever, all sorts of bungled policies that have actually made things worse in many cases.
But in any case, those aren't just magic wands that erase a human identity or heritage or a feeling of tradition or place in a society.
And so I guess My point is basically boiling down to, I kind of get it.
You know, identity really, really does matter.
And the libs are totally wrong about their conclusions from that.
But it's not to say that that isn't a real problem or a real phenomenon.
They're also wrong about what identity is, but I take your point.
I think one of the things that's actually quite important also is that if slavery was a human universal, then the people who abolished it ought to get outsize credit.
Yeah, absolutely.
Mainly the British, right?
Yeah, no, I mean, really the British.
But the truth is that, I mean, slavery existed in legal form in Saudi Arabia into the 60s.
And there is still slavery that is happening on a pretty wide scale, particularly in the Middle East today.
And very often it's people who are being brought there as wage laborers and then they're being basically, their passports are taken away.
They're being held there.
They can't get out.
I mean, that sort of stuff is happening right now on the ground in a lot of places on Earth.
So, you know, the stuff that we take for granted is not easily taken for granted.
Well, it's controversial stuff, and you can only make controversial stuff if you have subscribers like ours, which is why you should head on over to dailywire.com and go check out Matt's brand new series where he will be offending, I assume, a wide variety of people over the course of the next year with actual historical takes.
So that's exciting stuff.
Speaking of taking stuff, are we going to take Greenland?
Should we take Greenland?
This is, by my count, the first foreign policy intervention in American history, at least since the Louisiana Purchase, that Matt supports.
Matt, you are pro just F-35, like Don Rumsfeld flying over Nuke and taking the ice.
I mean, I am.
I want Greenland.
I have also been lusting after Greenland my whole life, and we just need to go take it.
Look, I am often labeled an isolationist, and depending on how you define that, maybe I fit the bill.
But my actual very simple foreign policy view has always been, I've said forever, is I'm in favor of anything that America does that actually advanced the interests of Americans.
And I think that very often we do things, especially in faraway places, that supposedly are to advance the interests of Americans, but actually aren't doing that and aren't really intended to do that.
But if that's the goal is to help Americans make America's life, make the lives of Americans better, then at least it's potentially in the realm of something that I would support.
And with Greenland, I mean, I can easily see the advantages.
I mean, there's, of course, what Trump always talks about, the national security advantages.
There's also, you know, there's the resources that are there.
It's a resource-rich country.
You know, only like 12 people live there anyway.
They're not making use of it.
I will say that, you know, I think there are actually, actually militarily invading Greenland probably wouldn't be necessary, first of all.
I mean, you just send in one team of Navy SEALs, you'd topple the whole country in 20 minutes.
Just one, send in a SEAL.
You can send in one seal.
One like that.
One actual SEAL, yeah.
Yeah, one actual SEAL.
So that, you know, but but but doing that, I think it would, it wouldn't come to that.
That's a different conversation.
Maybe they could work something else out.
I will just say, though, that it's interesting to me when people today get so offended by the very notion that we would try to acquire land, that we would try to grow sort of the empire, and in particular, that we would try to do it by force.
It's interesting when people are so offended by that because how do you think America right now as it's currently constituted came to be?
You know, America became what it is today, the continental United States plus Hawaii and Alaska.
That happened through purchasing land in some cases, going to war, taking it by force, displacing people, kicking them out, and taking the land for ourselves.
That is how this country came to be.
We conquered this land and we did it because we believed that, you know, manifest destiny is what God wanted us to do.
We knew that the American empire should reign and we had leaders who were looking out for the interests of our people.
And that's how the entire world has taken the shape that it's taken.
This is the way that it goes.
So that doesn't mean that I'm going to support any effort to just go and conquer land, but it does mean that I'm not going to automatically rule it out because that's the only way that America exists in the first place.
So it's worth talking about.
Man, I don't know what I'm going to do.
I'm really enjoying Neocon Matt Walsh.
This is like my favorite version of Matt Walsh.
This is really exciting.
It's not neocon.
I know.
I'm joking, Matt.
I would never call you a neocon.
I know.
You're a bad person.
You're calling all the things to call me.
I'm looking forward to it.
Globalist chill.
I think that's going to be a good thing.
Matt Walsh, they got him.
They finally got him.
They got Walsh.
I got to.
Matt makes an interesting point, though, which is like, we're supposed to be growing and strong on us.
And it occurs to me, the last time we seriously added territory was 1959, which coincidentally is the last time we were like really strong and growing.
You know, it seems like since the 60s, everything's been kind of going downhill.
And, you know, if we did acquire Greenland in a serious way, that would expand the size of the United States by 22%.
Not in terms of people, obviously, but in terms of land.
That would be a huge shrimp.
The amount of shrimp we'd have.
The delicious shrimp would be.
There is a real question, though.
Does this violate the NATO treaties or international law?
But I believe, I don't like to say this out loud because I know it's going to blow back on me, but I believe that empire is a phase in the life of great nations.
And I don't think you can help it.
And I think it's coming our way.
I'm sort of hoping I'll be gone so you guys have to deal with it.
But still, I think ultimately that there's just an amoral truth about the fact that you grow or you die.
And I think war with Denmark is going to be so much fun.
I love the foreign minister of Denmark.
He looks like a lawn troll, and he's very civilized.
He's sings at the White House.
He's such a civilized little guy.
And he says, I agree with Trump in many ways.
But we can talk it out.
And I think, yeah, let's just invade.
Come on.
Let's go.
Oh, my God.
Okay.
So as the apparently Abraham Lincoln to all of your imperialist ambitions to grab Texas and open it to slavery, apparently.
Yeah, I am not in favor of the invasion of Greenland.
I think it's great that you have to say it, though.
Media matters, Ben Shapiro.
I am not in favor of the invading agreement.
Listen, I'm fine with cutting whatever contract we want to cut with Greenland.
If we can pressure them to selling the thing, that's fine.
If we want to grab their mineral rights, that's cool too.
But I'm wondering, I do love the fact that really all this has come down to is that Donald Trump really wants to rename that place Trumpland and just increase the map and be like, this is the thing that I got.
Because that's clearly what this is, right?
We have a military treaty with Denmark.
We can build whatever the hell we want there.
Like right now, if we just decided to put 20,000 troops in Greenland without invading, we could just build a base and put our troops there.
We literally can do that under current treaty.
So this idea that the Chinese are about to grab Greenland.
The Russians are about to wade ashore in nuke and they're going to start shooting all the dogs from their dog sleds.
They're going to hoping now that Trump took the Venezuela ladies' Nobel Prize.
I was hoping that they would come down.
I can't even admit that.
That one also, I can't even, like, oh my gosh, the taking of the, the taking of the Nobel Prize is so, like, are you kidding me?
Like, what are we doing now?
You know what it feels like to take of the Nobel Prize?
You know how on eBay there will be some guy who won an Oscar and then he goes bankrupt and then he sells his Oscar.
And so you're sitting there and you've got like Marlon Brando's second Oscar just on your mantle.
What do you do if you're Trump walk around like, here's Maria Kachat Mamachado's?
I like the idea that she insisted she insisted the White House, she insisted he takes this little peaceful girl.
It's like, I insist you take my Nobel Prize.
All right, all right, I'll take my picture.
Yeah, and oh my gosh, it's so good.
And obviously when we build the greenhouse in Greenland, then President Trump will obviously put the Nobel Prize in the greenhouse in Greenland.
Well, I think, look, I think it's a good, even if you disagree with going in and conquering Greenland and making them our slaves, because that's another part of this.
We have a dog.
They're already in the Greenland.
You absolutely have to say that.
But even if you disagree with that, the fact that Trump has the desire at all to kind of like expand the nice way is that's what presidents, I like that.
I mean, that's what our leaders should want to do.
And like you said, 1959 was the last time when it felt like we were a country.
Well, I would say it's actually 1969.
To me, 1969 was the last time when it felt like America was reaching for something.
And that's when we landed on the moon, of course.
And we actually did land on the moon, first of all.
But I think there's also this kind of, and I know it's not the most compelling foreign policy argument, but there's this kind of spiritual truth, which is that if you're a great country, then you should be trying to expand, trying to reach for something, explore, go to unknown places.
I mean, this is when America has been great.
We talk about make America great again.
Well, when America has been truly great, it's when it was driven by that desire, by manifest destiny.
And then it's kind of like, well, we expanded.
We took over the continental United States and we had Hawaii and Alaska.
And then we said, well, where is there left to go?
Then we started going up.
And we're not really doing that as much anymore.
At least that's now kind of in the private sector with Elon Musk.
And and so Trump is the first leader in a while who says, no, let's continue to try to expand and grow this empire.
And I think that that's.
Yeah.
I think like you said, Drew, if you're not if you're not growing, you're dying.
I think there's like a real truth to that when it comes to nations.
There's a fact, too, which is we had been, you know, since the middle of the 19th century, the State Department has been eyeing Greenland.
We've tried to buy it multiple times over the years, including the 20th century.
And it is kind of weird that Denmark controls Greenland in that, you know, Denmark has been downhill ever since Claudius killed Hamlet's dad.
You know, like it has not been, it's not been a good few centuries.
And so you think it's bizarre that they're there.
When Trump was in the Oval Office, he said, Denmark said they're going to double up their defenses.
They added another dog sled.
That's real.
I thought that was a joke.
That's not a joke.
That's real.
They have the serious dog sled Arctic defense, which I'm sure they're great people and great dogs, but that's not really going to cut it.
And so there's this argument that, well, this violates the spirit of NATO or something.
And I think NATO is a Cold War organization.
It was developed in the Cold War to protect the American Empire against the Soviet Empire in the Warsaw Pact.
And it doesn't mean exactly the same thing after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
And yeah, really to all of your points.
Well, no, not as much to Ben's, you know, because he doesn't want us to just gobble up the whole world.
But to Matt and Drew's point, you know, we're great.
We grow.
We become empires.
That's what we do.
And you just look at the map and you say, this is kind of weird, especially with a more aggressive China and Russia, whether or not they're actually going to land and put up a PF Changs and nuke.
Like the fact that they're a little more on the move now means that, yeah, I think we need to get a little more serious, guys.
And, you know, Denmark, I think you're going to get on board.
And I do think they're going to get on board.
By the way, Calci says, according to our sponsor, it's Calci, 42% shot, or 42% of the people who are betting on it say that we're going to take Greenland.
So we're going to find out.
And if that's, you know, you might be able to tell.
We'll see if there's like an insider spike right before Trump declares that we've taken Greenland.
So Honestly, my main objection to taking Greenland is just, it's not even truly ideological.
It's more like, why is this a priority?
Like, Trump is like, we must deter Russia.
We must deter Russia from going after Greenland.
Like, you know what's a really great way to deter Russia?
To fight it, to have the Ukrainians fight them.
Like, there's like engaging a gigantic ass land war in the middle of Eastern Europe.
And it's like, no, no, no.
No, they're not taking Greenland.
This is where we draw the line.
I care much more about Greenland than Ukraine.
Am I in the minority here?
No, you're probably not in the minority, but you're wrong.
So those are not the same thing.
I think the shrimp is the one that turns me toward Greenland.
And I keep kosher.
I don't care about the shrimp.
That's what's happening right here.
See, that explains that.
It always comes down to that.
It always comes down to this.
You know, and because we added Hawaii as a state in 1959, the vastness of the American Empire C to C, we can actually have coconut shrimp once we take Greenland.
That's going to be so delicious.
Guys, we have to go.
We have to go and we need to go to shrimp.
Wonderful to see all of you.
Wonderful to see all of you out there.
Go become a Daily Wire member right now, and you can hear Matt Walsh vigorously defend slavery.