Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein dissect Daniel Penny's acquittal, arguing that holding citizens accountable for intervening creates a dangerous disincentive against protecting others from lawlessness. They critique "weaponized empathy" and compare the case to Kyle Rittenhouse, while mocking Al Sharpton's tactics. The hosts also analyze Trump's healthcare stance, asserting insurance is risk mitigation, not welfare, and discuss how the DOJ's raid on Mar-a-Lago unified former supporters against perceived political overreach rather than addressing actual crimes. Ultimately, the episode suggests that selective sympathy undermines public safety and that true justice requires courage to label entitlements as they are. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Weekend Shows and Travel Plans00:05:06
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith.
He is Robbie the Fire Bernstein coming at you with a brand new episode.
How you doing today, Rob?
I'm doing excellent.
And I've got shows, everybody.
Thursday, December 19th out in Jersey, and then December 21st in San Antonio, Texas.
It's off-season porch touring.
So come hang out.
There you go.
Where in Jersey are you doing?
That place that we did New Year's last year at the Williams Center.
Oh, nice.
I really liked that place.
Yeah, it's a cool little theater spot and running a new political theme stand-up show with some other segments.
So it's going to be cool.
Coming out.
Hell yeah.
Hell yeah, dude.
I like that.
And San Antonio is cool too.
That is a market I have not hit yet, but I've been told by a lot of people we got to get out there.
So that's cool.
Go see Robbie the Fire on the road, guys.
And then, of course, we are in 2025.
I know all over the place.
We have.
You got an insane amount of dates.
I did not realize we had this much going on.
Boozmont, Montana in January, but then after that, it's a stacked roster all over the country.
Yeah, it's really great that my people communicate with Rob so well that he finds out by going to my website about his dates.
That's how his dip.
Anyway, okay, whatever.
We're going to be calm and cool and we're going to enjoy ourselves this afternoon.
But yes, we do have Bozeman, Montana is the first one coming up.
But then like Louisville, Fort Wayne, Key West, we're making up the Key West gate.
It is the only, literally the only weekend I've ever canceled in my life.
And I said I would make it up and so we are.
We'll be back out there in February.
I got to headline.
I got to walk around Key West as a big shot.
But this year, I'm excited just to be back there because I had so much fun hanging out and with Tom and Key West.
It's a good time.
Well, there you go.
It's one man's puking and shivering from fevers is another man's.
I got to headline a weekend.
So there, there you go.
Dude, it was, I remember that what, so it was like, we had it booked, which we never do, but it was like a Wednesday through the weekend.
Like it was Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or something like that.
And it was on Wednesday.
I was getting ready, or maybe I guess it was Tuesday night.
So I was getting ready to leave Wednesday.
And my wife was just like, had like some stomach virus.
And it was just like last minute.
And I couldn't get it.
Like, I couldn't get any of the grandparents to come over or anything.
So I had to tell him, I was like, listen, I'm sorry, but I can't get on a plane.
My wife's like, I mean, you know, like one of those like stomach viruses where you got like a fever and where there's just, there's no, I can't leave her with the kids.
There's no chance.
So I was like, listen, I'll move my flight.
I'll come out tomorrow.
Rob will do the Wednesday show and then we'll do the rest of the week together.
No problem.
And then I remember it was literally, it was that Wednesday night.
I'll just, dude, you know, like...
One slow drop of sweat starts.
Yeah, you know how it comes up?
Dude, I remember it came on.
I was putting my son to sleep.
And this is the next night now, 24 hours later.
And I have a flight the next morning again, which I've moved 24 hours.
And literally, as I was putting him to sleep, I put him down in the crib.
And back then, you used to have to like sit in the room with him as he fell asleep.
So just sitting there in the dark quietly.
And I just literally started to go like, man, I feel weird.
Like something's just not quite right.
And in those, it was like maybe 15 minutes of being in that room.
And when by the time I came out, it was like, dude, like making it from his room down the hall to my room was like, I'm not sure I'm going to make it there.
There was no chance.
I literally, I remember when I finally got in bed and my wife was like, oh no, are you getting it too?
And I literally just went, I was like shivering.
You know, it's like the thing where like you put like 17 blankets on top of you and you're still shivering.
And I was like, call and cancel the gigs.
Call and cancel all of them.
There's no way.
There's just no, like, you're like, if there was an Uber at the street, there's no chance I could make it to that Uber, let alone get out.
Anyway, the point is, we will be making up those gigs.
And then we also, all over the place, Chicago, Houston, Denver, Providence, a ton of gigs, comicdavesmith.com.
We will be coming all over the place.
People make fun of me for saying every goddamn time.
There'll be a clip of that.
Uh-huh, you're coming all over the place.
Grow up, children.
Grow up.
I will be traveling all over the place, bringing laughter and joy with my good friends.
Traversing the country with my brother, Robbie the Fire Bernstein, making people laugh.
Okay, so I am getting ready to go ahead on a little family vacation tomorrow.
Our schedule is a little bit off this week.
We recorded our Syria episode yesterday for today.
This one we're recording on Monday for Tuesday.
And then when I get back, I'll have a couple makeup episodes that we'll have to do next weekend.
But I will make sure to get them done.
But as of right now, we did an episode on Syria the other day.
Lawlessness on the Playground00:14:59
One of the things I wanted to talk about, because I do just find this to be an interesting topic and one that I think is kind of important for America to get right.
But as I'm sure the people listening, and I'm sure you, Rob, saw, this morning, Daniel Perry was acquitted, found not guilty on all charges, which is a very, for people who do not know, and this is not a case that I've followed particularly closely, but for people who are unaware, you might recall Daniel Perry was the, I believe, he was a former Marine.
He was a vet for sure.
But he put like a schizophrenic homeless person on the New York City subway in a chokehold.
The guy ended up dying and he was on trial for murder.
This to me, it's hard, not obviously different situations, but it's kind of hard to not see the parallels between the Kyle Rittenhouse and this case.
It seems like another one kind of in that vein, where you've got a dynamic where there is kind of a rampant lawlessness that is something that regular citizens are forced to deal with.
The authorities that are, you know, to put our libertarian spin on this, the authorities which are a forced monopoly, you know, like you don't get to choose if you live in New York City, whether you fund the NYPD or whether the NYPD gets to be the police force of the five boroughs.
That is imposed on you and you are forced to pay for that.
And they are not doing the job.
And then if a citizen steps in and does the job, they can now be charged with murder if it goes the way that it went.
Now, I think in the, I should double check.
I don't know exactly what the charges were.
I don't believe this was a murder one charge in this case, whereas Rittenhouse was charged with murder in the first degree.
But in both cases, it just seems like there is, while anytime anyone dies, it is tragic.
It does seem like there was an effort by the corporate.
I'm sorry.
Yes.
Thank you, Natalie.
So this was a manslaughter case.
The Kyle Rittenhouse was a murder one.
But It does seem like there was an effort in the media to depict them as these cold-blooded killers, which just so clearly seem to not be the actual story, however you feel about it.
Neither of these people, Kyle Rittenhouse or Daniel Perry, neither of them went out looking to kill someone that day.
You know what I mean?
Like that's not, and if there hadn't been other people violating the law and threatening like civilians, none of this would have happened.
And it does feel to me at least like a win for not only like liberty, but like a win for civilization in a sense that they were found not guilty.
I just think that you look, the Daniel Perry case, from what I saw of it, it's, I think he was, he seemed to have some, but not much jiu-jitsu training.
Like kind of new enough to know this is how you put a rear naked choke in, but not enough to know that like you can put someone to sleep in a few seconds and then let go of them like and do it in a very safe way.
Regardless of that, the guy came on to the train and was threatening everybody.
And then you have like a tough man there who leapt into action.
And I think like had he been sent to jail for, you know, I mean, he's being charged with manslaughter.
He's looking at probably decades in prison.
Had he been sent to jail, that would just be an awful signal to just like let law-abiding, decent people know, like, hey, don't step up and protect other people.
Don't do that because you're risking your entire life if you can.
You know, I know for like I'd personally go, I mean, I'm not, you know, I'm not like a big tough guy or anything like that, but I'm an able-bodied man who's like not tiny, you know what I mean?
And like I would, I would certainly in a situation, I think, I mean, I've done this before in my life.
I've never killed anybody, but I've certainly like stepped in between somebody who I thought was a threat to like others.
And I would certainly like, I'd be willing to do that.
I do think to some degree, as a man, there's a bit of a responsibility if you can to like kind of not, you know, not just watch like some woman get her purse snatched and not do anything about it.
But if you were telling me that by doing that, I'm risking not coming home to my wife and kids, then that would probably make the difference for me.
Then like, sorry, I'm not going to sacrifice that.
Like if the choice is between this innocent person or my innocent kids, I'm going to choose my kids.
And so I do just think there's something very positive about the verdict.
I don't know what if you have any strong thoughts on it, Rob.
I think that was very well said.
I get somewhat very focused on incentive structures and the way you lay them out, what that can lead to.
And I think you're right if you have environments where civilians are scared for liability for trying to help.
Not to overly plug, but on the live from the Denver Comedy Garage, I had an experience with a person at the train station who was passed out drunk and I was dealing with the inability to help him.
And that's the story, by the way, if anyone hasn't go listen to Rob tell it on stage.
It's really, really funny, but go ahead.
I'm sorry.
And it's really about this dynamic.
Even though the joke is harsh, it's about the dynamic of, I took this out of the story, but the original framework was that I'd taken mushrooms that night and I was thinking about being a nicer person and I learned don't be because this is what happens when you try and help people.
But like I lived it, it's scary when you're like, I'm trying to be helpful, but I also don't want liability.
And the cops seem to even engage with you in a way to almost place liability on you.
And I guess the flip side, if you're just kind of like running through the incentive structure is you also don't want sociopaths going into the world and pretending like they were trying to help, which the incident that comes to mind is that black kid that got killed who was like wearing the hoodie.
And then you had that guy, Trevor Martin.
And I think there's a lot to be said for who kind of implements the initial chaos of the situation.
And so in this case, if the starting point is a person getting onto a train and he's threatening people and that escalates to a bad place of somebody dying, I think the person who is legitimately trying to help, even if it was, he didn't, he didn't create the chaos.
He didn't start the chaos.
And so I think holding people accountable, if their goal is to try and be helpful, even if they end up not being helpful because they're not trained in how to properly do it, I think this supposed system of, hey, the cops will be there, just call them when you need them, that's not reality.
And I think if you were to pull most people about their experiences on the subway and saying, hey, a homeless guy gets on and screams, I'm going to kill everyone here.
I'm crazy.
I don't mind going to jail or whatever.
And you go, hey, there's a trained Marine here who will subdue that individual.
Except for your 1% of ultra-woke, really dumb liberal, every single person is going to think, oh, yeah, I'd rather that that person is not held responsible if they end up injuring the guy who stepped on a train and said, I'm threatening everybody.
So to speak to your point, I think it would set terrible precedent if this guy was now serving 20 years in jail or whatever, as if it was assault or manslaughter or whatever else, that you're signaling to every single person who would be willing to get involved, don't.
And that's not a better way to live.
Yeah, I mean, I just, yeah, I could not agree more.
And I think like I've thought, I've had a very similar thought many times to what you were saying.
And I'm not saying that it is the full extent of what the law ought to be, but there's definitely at least something where my starting point is always because, you know, in these, and me, when I had Zach and Liz on the show just recently, this is a topic that we brought up.
And it kind of be interested to get into a little bit more of it with you.
But I was just saying I was using the example that I've used a bunch of times before, but bringing my daughter to that playground on the Upper West Side, and there's like a passed out homeless heroin addict there.
And obviously, there's, we could sit here for many, many hours and just talk about the sympathy we ought to feel for that passed out homeless guy.
And I'm not trying to downplay that.
Like, that's a real factor.
And I don't know, obviously, his history.
I never saw the man awake, but I would imagine he had a much harder life than I've had and you've had and had obstacles thrown his way that me and you have not had.
And we're kind of more fortunate than him.
However, you get into a point where you're like, hey, there's a group of parents here trying to take their kids to the playground.
That is the purpose of the playground.
That is what the playground.
Underbridges should just be more hospitable to homeless people.
Can we fix up some underbridges?
Is what I'm trying to say?
And then if they're in the designated area for it, it's tragic, but that's the area for it.
But the park has not been designated for homeless guys sleeping.
And that is a dangerous thing.
It's like we're all everybody, 100% of the people at this playground, the adults there, either have jobs or their spouse has a job.
Like we all work.
We all pay for this public park.
You know, like we don't choose to, but we'll go to jail if we don't.
So we all pay for this.
And then they built a playground here.
And now the purpose of it is for kids.
And like, so I just, I do feel like my sympathy goes, the starting point at least is to the law abiding.
And when I say law abiding, I don't even care like if it's a dumb law.
I mean the like the non-criminal in the purest libertarian moral sense of the word.
Like the people who are there to do what they're supposed to be doing versus the person who's there doing like what you're not at all supposed to be doing.
You're not supposed to be taking your heroin nap on a bench at a playground.
You're not supposed to be walking onto the subway and threatening everybody there.
That's not what it's for.
And then you have this guy, Daniel Perry, who's on the subway because he's going like from his class to home.
That's what it's for.
You know what I mean?
And so I just, I don't understand why we can't have a starting point of like more sympathy.
Like there is something that I've, I've always thought there is this theme that has underridden woke progressivism, particularly for the last decade.
I'm sure going back before then, but particularly for the last decade, where it's like, why the constant war on normalcy?
Why is it a crime to be normal?
Why is it always that we must first sympathize with the not normal actor in this?
Like, I just don't agree with that.
I don't, like, I don't think that's right.
And then it does seem like because this kind of, it's like this weaponized empathy, but only in one selective direction, like you're supposed to feel empathy for this guy.
You know, I saw, it's just disgusting, man.
But I saw like the race hustlers, you know, because like whenever there's a case like this, there's this whole like really gross industry, the one that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson kind of pioneered.
And I don't know the figures at it now, but you know, they're on the courthouse steps.
And the whole thing's really sad.
And I see what they're doing.
They're like, they're using the grief of the dad of this guy who got killed.
And, but they're there.
It's like with a bunch of black people and they have Eric Gardner's mother and they have like a group of black lawyers and they're all talking about the racism in the system and then they have the dad of the guy talking about how unfair the system is and all this stuff.
And you're like, listen, man, like again, I understand.
I have little kids.
I understand when you have little kids, it's easy to, you know, say, well, my kids would never turn out that way or something like that.
And I guess, you know, I don't know, although I'm pretty confident my kids are not going to end up walking on a subway and threatening everybody.
But I'm not trying to downplay whatever obstacles or issues this guy had in his life.
But it's like to be like, you know, if my son was ever like, as an adult out there just threatening people and then got like put into a chokehold and died, I just don't see myself on the steps being like, you guys are all wrong.
You guys have to get it together.
I think I'd be more like, how did I fail so miserably on my most important task in life?
You know, like, I don't think I'd be pointing the finger blaming other people.
But anyway, all of them going off on this, like, how, how it's so racist.
And it's like, listen, while you're trying to work up sympathy for what is a sad story, why is it, Rob, that like, as you mentioned before, where it's like, like the status quo is kind of this like, oh, call the cops and they'll be there is how you're supposed to feel.
But the bottom line, what it, when it, what it really comes down to it, in effect, in terms of what actually happens, essentially, what is being argued is that when a man, a crazy looking man, comes onto a subway car and starts threatening everybody, your job is to sit there and be worried and hope nothing bad happens.
And that's it.
That's what's expected of you, citizen who pays for all of this.
Citizen who's paying for the tracks, the subway, the station, the cops, everything.
At force, you're forced to pay for this and your job is to sit there and like, I guess you hope you don't get killed or assaulted today.
That's it.
You know, and like, I'm sorry, that just can't be, that is so unreasonable of an expectation that anybody like to just be like, nope, that's it.
Citizen Expectations and Fear00:08:27
And then the expectation is like some badass Marine dude is also supposed to sit there.
Maybe, I mean, yeah, wait till he assaults a woman.
Maybe wait till it gets really bad.
Maybe then you can intervene.
I don't know.
That's not exactly clear.
But like two thoughts come to mind is first is imagine you put this person just in a different situation.
So for example, if that guy was on a plane, would we still have the same amount of outrage?
Or imagine if this guy did this exact same thing amongst senators or college kids.
That's a great point.
Or, you know, you got federal protections for assaulting bus drivers or whatever.
So suddenly just because it's the common folk who have to be on the subway, so they need to tolerate it, but in a different environment, the same exact thing, people would go, oh, no, the crazy person's more of a danger.
That's such a good point.
That's such a good point, man.
And like, particularly, I really like this.
I didn't even think that.
But yeah, I mean, imagine it was around senators and congressmen.
Do you think they'd be having that same attitude?
You know, I said this also, by the way, to bring up Liz and Zach.
When I was on their show last, just asking questions is their show.
And when I was on that last time, I was on there talking about my decision to support Donald Trump.
And I remember January 6th came up and I was, you know, just kind of talking about how I don't really care about it.
And like, I was, I, I talked about to the extent which I do care about it, which is that like, I do think Donald Trump handled the 2020 election like a bitch.
And I do think that I think it was a true moral failing on Donald Trump's part.
We get into this in a second because now he's saying he's going to pardon all the January 6th guys.
Of course, he had the opportunity to pardon them.
You know, he's talking about how they're spending years and years in jail.
It's like, yeah, because you didn't pardon them last time.
Not only did he not pardon them, but it's like he sent his people into this situation and then threw them under the bus the next day to save himself.
I just truly never forgiven Donald Trump for that.
But one of the things I was talking about on the show was I was just like, look, what are we really talking about here?
Like when you say, oh, it was an insurrection or an attempted coup or something like that, you're like, okay, even if you're going to call it that, do you think there was a plausible chance they were going to overthrow democracy in the United States?
By the way, do you actually think we have democracy in the United States?
But even if you're arguing the limited democratic processes that we have are preferable to not having them, okay, they were never at risk.
They were never going to be overthrown.
And like, so what does this really come down to?
Did AOC and Nancy Pelosi get scared for a little bit?
Which, by the way, is not even clear that they did.
But as I said on their show, and I try to be careful in the way I word this, because I'm, to be very clear, I'm never advocating for anyone to break the law.
And I'm certainly not advocating for anyone to ever be violent.
I think that as we said, if you remember, we did, me and you did a live stream on the evening of January 6th.
And what I said back then, I still believe to this time, I was like, these people had no idea what they're fucking with right now.
Like, you have no idea.
You just made yourselves like enemies of the state.
And if you think you're winning that game, you are sorely mistaken.
Like you have ruined your life by, you know, oh, we're farting on Nancy Pelosi's desk.
This is funny.
Is it?
I don't know.
We'll see how funny we actually think that is.
But just to be clear, I do not care if those people were scared or intimidated.
That does not bother me.
I do not care about politicians being intimidated, especially after the year that was 2020.
But anyway, to your point, oh yeah, their feelings are supposed to matter.
You see, like if they feel physically intimidated, we're supposed to all cry about that.
Remember when AOC made up the story about being in the bathroom or whatever?
We're all supposed to care about that.
When Taylor Lorenz is scared, we're all supposed to care about that.
However, regular everyday citizens are just expected to take it.
And, you know, particularly in the Kyle Rittenhouse situation where it's like, you know, cities are being burned all across America.
And yeah, you're just, yeah, you're just supposed to take that.
And actually, we think you're pretty racist if you don't.
But this never applies to the elites.
Never.
It's always only in one direction for the plebs.
And like, fuck that.
And then in terms of just addressing incentive structures and what the outcomes are, does constantly inserting race into this and, hey, we have to overcorrect for, well, this guy was clearly a, I don't even know what the argument was.
What, this soldier was always a racist his entire life.
And so he finally saw his option.
That's the opposite to kill a black dude.
And so he stepped in and was like, oh, there might be plausible deniability because he said he was crazy.
Is that actually what anyone's arguing here?
So for all the people who are stepping in and instantly just trying to insert race into this, which incentivize all of us to have to live a more unsafe life where you're letting every crazy person know, hey, you've got until the cops show up and they might never show up.
You know, then you're, you're kind of creating a more chaotic environment where anyone who steps onto a subway, even crazy people, I remember once reading this book.
I can't remember the name of the book, but they had this interesting argument against being able to, you know, basically play the crazy card in court.
And the argument was essentially, well, on every other day, you didn't commit that crime.
So there's some sort of a choice involved here.
And so even if you are crazy and that is a re, you know, the same as like being hammered or drunk or whatever else, like there's some fault here because every other day of your craziness, you know, you didn't listen to that voice in your head that got you to go kill somebody.
So even crazy people like homeless people, sometimes, you know, you give them, everyone still has a little bit of humanity to them and they understand, oh, I better not go and a crazy person knows, hey, I better not go push this giant person holding a knife.
They're typically not speaking that crazy because they still want to live.
So if you're changing the environment of the subway of, hey, you can act as much of a lunatic as you want down here because no one can do anything.
For most crazy people, that registers.
And so that's not better for society.
Yeah, dude, I've had a million interactions with like schizophrenic people on the subways because I just grew up in New York City and I've had my whole life.
And I remember specifically, there was this one guy.
Okay, so there was, I was on the subway platform.
This is me, it got to be 20 years ago or something like that.
But I was on the subway platform and there's this real crazy schizophrenic homeless guy.
And he's like, you know, like as they are, sometimes he's like cursing and screaming about some incoherent shit.
And then there was like a mom with like maybe like a five-year-old next to him.
And he just starts approaching them and he's kind of like growling and looking at them and like cursing.
And I'm just like paying attention to this, you know, like you're just sitting there like, okay, what's going to happen here?
And I remember he comes, he started really getting close and approaching them.
And then he went and kicked.
But it was like a kick that was still like a few feet away from them, if it makes sense.
But it was just, that was whatever the line was, that was the line to me.
And I just like jumped up in front of him and I got like big and started yelling.
I don't remember exactly what I said, but I was like, hey, stop fucking bothering people or whatever, you know, and like yelled at him.
And as soon as I got up and barked at him, he literally went from, he's in this crazy schizophrenic, like, fucking son of a rats, blah, blah, blah.
And then as soon as I got up and was like, yo, motherfucker, he literally looks at me, he cowers down and he goes, okay, don't hit me, don't hit me, I'll stop.
And then just walked away.
And I remember just being so, I literally haven't thought about this in 20 years, but I remember just being like, oh, so like that was in there the whole time.
Like as soon as he thought he was going to get punched in the face, he turned real normal for a second, went, I'm sorry, I'll stop and went away.
And so there is something, and I'm not claiming that I completely understand, understand schizophrenia or whatever, but there is something to that point that you're making.
Progressive Prosecutors and Crime00:08:23
I'm not saying like the book you read is 100% right.
I'm just saying there is a point where you're like, yeah, this is kind of a choice in some way.
You're choosing to schizo out on these people right now.
And it's not a coincidence that like you chose the woman with a little kid.
You know, like you, you chose an easy target where you weren't going to get punched in the face.
And then as soon as I stood up, he very quickly did not want to get punched in the face by a grown man.
Like that was, you know what I mean?
Like it's, so anyway, there's something to that.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Monetary Metals.
I've been telling you guys about them for a while.
I love this company.
Great people who run it.
And they are revolutionizing the precious metal space.
Gold prices have been breaking all-time highs in 2024.
And now you can get your gold to work for you, generating interest income every month, paid in additional ounces of physical gold.
You can earn up to 5% on your gold and silver in their lease offerings.
And accredited investors can even earn double-digit returns in their bond offerings.
Again, all the interest is paid in ounces, which are stored for free on your behalf.
So if you're tired of your gold and silver collecting dust at home or worse, racking up fees, having your metal professionally stored, check out monetary-metals.com to learn how you can start putting your precious metals to work today.
Monetary-metals.com.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Okay, there's a point also on this that I wanted to make.
And I actually, I meant to make this point during the show with Zach and Liz.
And then I think we just got caught up in the conversation and I forgot it.
And I think I, maybe I did, but I don't think I did.
But one of the things that I've been talking about and thinking about this for a few years now, with kind of the dynamic of the rise of progressive prosecutors and crime in big cities.
And, you know, one of the messages I'm always preaching to other libertarians and just in general, I think is important if you're talking about what's going on in the country is That you do have to adjust to what's going on.
You know, it's like my big criticism of Joe Jorgensen giving a speech in front of a bunch of masked up people and not talking about COVID.
Like, what are you doing?
You know, you're for liberty and you're not addressing the elephant in the room.
And so, okay, with the rise of progressive prosecutors and the state of the country, we have this problem in big cities across the country.
Everybody who lives in a big city knows about this, that there are problems with crime, with homelessness in many parts of the country, homeless encampments that have taken over entire areas of downtown different cities, obviously, particularly with Los Angeles and San Francisco and San Diego being really bad.
There is a dynamic now where if you go to a Dwayne Reed or a CVS, everything is behind glass casing because the shoplifting is so prevalent.
And in this dynamic, it's much tougher for libertarians to talk about victimless crimes and, you know, like not throwing the book at people.
And it was much easier, let's say, in 2005 for a libertarian to say, hey, we think pot should be legalized.
We think the war on drugs should be repealed.
We think all of the, you know, now people are almost looking for like, hey, can we get some law and order?
Can we crack down on all of these things?
And I think one of the most important things to point out is that it's not as if there isn't the heavy hand of the state involved in this dynamic.
It's just that it's in the opposite direction.
It's just that it's, it really is, as Sam Francis coined the term, anarcho-tyranny.
I can't think of anything that applies better to that, where you have a dynamic where it's not as if nobody's being prosecuted.
Like those progressive prosecutors will, okay, let's just say there was in New York or in Chicago or in Los Angeles, there was a security guard at a CVS who didn't have a permit, but had a gun on him.
And he stopped somebody physically from shoplifting.
He's going to be prosecuted.
You know what I mean?
Like those progressive prosecutors who want to let shoplifting go, they will throw the book at that guy.
There was this, what was the, you remember the bodega worker in, what was it, the Bronx, who like stabbed a guy who came behind the counter to try to beat him up or something like that?
They threw the book at him.
Now, that one ended up getting pulled back because it became such a high-profile case.
But much like this with Daniel Perry, with Kyle Rittenhouse, the starting point is that you're going to have the book thrown at you now.
And I think that's something that libertarians got to, you know, grapple with and think about and figure out how to talk about that a little bit more.
But again, it's not as if like, because it'd be one thing if like there were no gun control laws and nobody was getting prosecuted for defending property.
The truth is in that case, I don't really think we would even need the cops to do anything else.
I think the American citizens could take care of this problem on their own.
The issue that we have here is that you are going to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if you do that.
So either we need cops to start enforcing sanity or we need them to stop arresting people who do.
One of those two things has to be the answer.
Otherwise, you have chaos and insanity.
Does that make sense?
You get what I'm saying?
All makes sense to me.
There you go.
That's all that I've ever done.
Sadly, you and I aren't in charge to implement these reforms.
As long as that makes sense to you, though, I'm still feeling, I'm still feeling okay about who I am as a person.
All right, let's play a little bit of this.
So Donald Trump did an interview with Kristen Welker from NBC News.
She is the host of Meet the Press Now, I believe.
Although I must confess, I have not really regularly watched that show in many years.
She is, I don't know, what can I say about her?
Thoroughly unimpressive, as far as I'm concerned.
It's just was the next person who moved up at NBC.
This was a fairly interesting interview.
I've not seen the entire thing, but there was, I don't know, why this was just, it was really fascinating to me is, did you see, did you see the part where they're walking?
Because like at one point they're walking in the interview.
At one point, they're sitting in the chairs.
And there's just no, I've just started noticing these things about Donald Trump, which I find really fascinating.
And I think part of it is because I have like whatever part of your brain this is, I don't have it.
It does not exist to me.
But it is very funny.
And I have had this experience before where guys are trying to do this to me.
But the way he just like alphas her is really interesting to me.
And the whole, you know, the Donald Trump thing, like everybody has seen like the video compilations, but you know, when he shakes your hand, he yanks you into him.
It's like a thing he does just so you're like off balance and leaning toward him and he's standing there upright.
Or, you know, there's the famous thing where he's with the world leaders at the G20 summit or whatever.
And he's gonna shun for the picture.
Yeah, he shoves everyone else out of the way and gets to the front and then just like does like a, you know, like, okay, this is where I am in front.
So at one point, they're standing in the, they're in, she's sitting there asking him a question and he's standing and he just starts walking and she just starts walking with him and then he stops and she just stops.
Healthcare Risks and Insurance00:14:11
And I was like, I'm like, Jesus Christ, like, how much does this guy think consciously about like doing this stuff to other people?
It's truly bizarre, but there is something about anyway.
That's really neither here nor there.
Let's jump in.
Let's let's play.
There's a little compilation, a little clips of some highlights from this interview.
So let's start playing that and then we can we can break it down and discuss when we see fit.
For healthcare?
Yes, we have concepts.
Here, go back to the beginning.
For healthcare?
Do you have an actual plan at this point for healthcare?
Yes, we have concepts of a plan that would be better.
Still just concepts?
Do you have a fully developed plan?
Let me explain.
We have the biggest healthcare companies looking at it.
We have doctors.
We're always looking because Obamacare stinks.
It's lousy.
There are better answers.
In your concepts of a plan, sir, will people with pre-existing conditions still have coverage?
And can you guarantee their prices will not go up?
The answer is yes.
They'll have coverage.
You have to have it.
And what about their prices?
What about their prices, sir?
I want the prices to go down.
You promised to end birthright citizenship.
Let's pause it on Dave.
Let's pause it there.
Isn't it what a terrible answer from Trump, man?
I gotta say, I mean, it's just like kind of pathetic.
I mean, somehow he always has a way of Teflon Don just getting away with not having an answer to stuff.
And he's remarkably good at just like answering with certainty, even when you have nothing.
But it is pretty pathetic that it's eight years later and really, you know, 14 years after Obamacare.
I think, am I right about that?
Was Obamacare in 2009?
Maybe he did that, 2009, 2010.
But Republicans have been talking about repealing and replacing Obamacare ever since.
And still to this day, if you ask them what their plan is, they go, well, it's got to be better.
We've got people looking at it.
Prices.
What do you think about prices?
I'd like them to be lower.
2010.
Okay, so it's 14 years.
So 14 years since Obamacare has been in.
Yeah, you got 14 years.
You probably should have come up with what your fucking plan is because you know what the Republican plan actually is?
Obamacare.
He didn't do it here, but I've seen him articulate some, I'll give him these words, some common sense reform that I think would make drastically good improvements.
So one of them, and these are things that I've experienced and I think a lot of people have is one, just transparent pricing.
There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to know what service you're going to get and what it's going to cost.
I actually just had a funny phone call with my healthcare provider this past week where I called up because I was just trying to navigate how I could, I've not seen a doctor in about six years.
I just have to go for physical.
I also haven't updated my eyeglasses prescription in seven years and I'm and I pay for insurance.
So I'm like, I got to take care of this.
So first I have a ridiculous conversation with him in terms of trying to figure out which provider in my area is actually available before the end of the year and I possibly change my coverage.
But then this was the funnier conversation was I asked, am I covered for like a routine, you know, to get a new prescription?
She goes, well, you're covered for the eye exam.
I'm like, okay, well, is that different than getting a prescription?
Is that just one part of the process and there's something else that I'd have to pay for?
And she goes, well, you're covered for the eye exam.
And I go, I understand that, but is that getting prescription?
She goes, well, no, it's different.
And I go, great.
Do you know like what the range on what that might cost me would be?
Well, it depends on what they charge and what our agreement with them is because we will still come in and provide for some of it.
Great.
Well, can you tell me who in my area you have the best arrangement with?
No, we don't have that information.
That's ridiculous.
I spend thousands of dollars a year on my healthcare coverage.
If I'm calling you and you actually have information about who you've worked out better deals with for me to go see, firstly, you should just be telling me that.
And secondly, you want to talk about costs coming down.
It's just providing that information so that other people want to lower their prices.
So I heard Trump talk about that once, that he had worked out a deal.
And I claimed that the Democrats throated it for having to list prices up front.
But I think, I mean, that's such a simple solution.
And the other one I've heard him talk about, because I've personally had this, I cover, I personally only have insurance because if I have the highest deductible plan, I don't use it at all because everything's basically out of pocket until I spend like $13,000 a year.
And even so, I think my insurance might be like $650 a month.
It's not a small expense as a single, you know, and that's with no pre-existing conditions, not looking for any treatment, literally just looking for coverage so that if I get cancer, my parents don't, I don't have to be on the air begging for donations from the fans so that I can get.
So there used to be catastrophic care plans.
My first year that I purchased my self-insurance, I got that.
And it might have been $100 a month.
And that's all it was for.
It was essentially in case you needed catastrophic care paid out about a million dollars a year.
And they got rid of that plan.
That was part of what they took away from consumers when the health insurance companies needed to start providing for pre-existing conditions.
So what that eliminated, I guess, was that they needed more people like me to be basically covering other people's health bills.
And I've heard Trump talk about that.
And then, you know, shout out to our sponsors who provide insurance that gets around the pre-existing, not quite insurance, health sharing that gets around pre-existing conditions so they can give better rates.
But CrowdHealth, by the way, yes, they're an awesome company.
With all that said, I've heard him articulate some good solutions.
And so I don't know why he has to fumble so bad in these moments.
Well, those solutions certainly are.
I mean, I don't know if I even call them solutions, but improvements or whatever.
They certainly would be great.
But, you know, I think one of the major issues is that Donald Trump, look, obviously, he's a unique figure.
And he single-handedly almost is the reason why there are like prospects for some positive things happening with the U.S. government that just wouldn't be happening without him.
But the fatal flaw for Donald Trump has always been his narcissism.
And particularly in the fact, and I think that it manifests itself in different ways.
Number one, that he's always looking to play to the crowd and that he's always looking to be the great one and be the one who was winning.
And it's also that he doesn't really need to do deep reading or learn about anything.
I think they're all outgrowths of his narcissism, you know?
And so he's just totally unwilling, even though he's uniquely positioned to be the guy who could do this, to like just bite the bullet and go like, you know, yeah, if you cover pre-existing conditions, that's no longer insurance.
That's not what insurance is.
And that is a poison pill that will ruin this whole thing.
The whole thing's ruined by that.
And yes, I understand, again, you can always use this kind of weaponized empathy, but that can never, and empathy is good.
Empathy is important, but that can never be a substitute for logical thinking.
You can't like just, well, we have to feel our way toward a common sense healthcare plan or something like that.
And the bottom line, I know we've talked about it a million times on the show over the years, but the bottom line is that you like insurance is a measure of risk, or I should say insurance insurance.
Yes, it's a way to mitigate risk is the idea of insurance, right?
So if you think of any insurance in the, say, like within the free market, like any type of insurance, if you think about like when you buy a ticket to an air on an airplane or something like that, if the ticket is like, you know, $600, they'll be like, hey, do you want to spend an extra $30 to insure this flight?
So it's the idea of just being like, I will take a minor inconvenience to mitigate against a major inconvenience.
And if you really think about what insurance is in the free market, it is to some degree like kind of what the lefties always want.
You know, like it is essentially a transfer of wealth.
It's a voluntary transfer, but it's a transfer of wealth from the people who haven't had a catastrophe to the person who has.
You know, it's everybody, the idea, right?
Like the way the insurance works from the airline company's point of view is that everybody chips in a few bucks.
And then if one person has a huge expense, well, what everybody else chipped in goes to pay for that one person's expense.
It's the people who haven't had the bad thing happen to them, pooling their money and giving it to the person who has had the bad thing happen to them.
And since we all have the risk of a bad thing happening to us, okay, we would like to all agree to do that.
Or not everyone, some people won't.
And then they're screwed if it happens to them, or they're better off if it doesn't happen to them.
It's like everybody gets to kind of take their own risk or decide what risk they're comfortable taking.
But the idea of insuring after the fact is not, that's not insuring.
That's just welfare.
And like, fine, if you want to make the argument for welfare, fine.
I disagree with it, but like make the argument, but that's not insurance.
Stop calling it insurance.
And like, I think like, I don't know, the Republicans should be capable or have the balls to just make that argument.
That it's like Obama just created a huge welfare program here and he demands that the insurance companies are in on this welfare.
And really the insurance companies lobbied to rig the whole system so that their profits go up.
And so it's just the taxpayer paying for welfare.
Like, okay, if you're for that, then fine.
But that's the way, like, we already had a system in this country where we had Medicare and Medicaid.
Okay.
So we already had, and they're considered the third rail of politics and Donald Trump or no other Republican is going to have the courage to take on those.
But it's like, we had a system in this country where if you're very old or if you're very poor, you get welfare.
You get free health care.
Okay.
But now you've just decided to put everybody on it, to insist that everybody be on this welfare program.
And that's obviously a disaster.
How hard is that to argue against?
You know, it's like if the Republicans, you know, they want to talk about this like Doge stuff.
And of course, I'm still very happy with everything coming out of Doge and the fact that it exists at all.
But it's like, what do we got here?
Like the big budget items for the federal government are the entitlement programs, defense, interest on the debt.
You know, like these are the big ones.
And so you're like, oh, you can't go after entitlement programs.
And of course, they're never going to be willing to cut defense spending.
And then it's like, oh, what?
And you can't even go after the Obamacare.
So what can you go after?
And so then like, what are you left with there?
And then you're left with like, oh, you know, the government gave a grant for some study to study turtles or something like that.
Let's get rid of that.
We just saved $10 million.
You know, like, okay, but you're not touching anything big.
Just have the courage to tell the truth or the knowledge to tell the truth.
But it's just like, yeah, this is bullshit.
This is not what it was sold as at all.
All right, guys, let's take a moment to tell you about our awesome sponsor for today's show, which is CrowdHealth.
Let me ask a question.
Does anyone love their health insurance carrier?
No, no one does.
We know that our health system sucks.
It's been bought and sold to the highest bidder.
Politicians, hospitals, big pharma and health insurance companies make huge profits at the expense of your health.
Lobbyists are fighting to make sure they won't have competition and you won't have options.
Not only that, if you're taking care of yourself, you're subsidizing people who aren't taking care of themselves.
You are in essence paying for the consequences of others' bad behavior.
You probably think there are no other options, but I'm here to tell you that there are.
And a great one is crowdhealth.
Crowdhealth is a decentralized healthcare payment system that frees you from the tyranny of health insurance.
You can go to whatever doctor you'd like.
There are no networks.
It's significantly less, it's significantly less expensive than health insurance.
Why?
First, it rips out the bureaucracy of the middlemen.
Some say this is upwards of 40% of the costs.
Second, the people at CrowdHealth take personal responsibility over their health care.
That means they take care of themselves.
Singles can join for $185 a month.
A family of four is $605 a month.
And you can use the promo code POTP to get $99 a month per person for the next three months.
CrowdHealth is not health insurance.
It's a totally different way of paying for health care.
Terms and conditions may apply.
Check them out at joincrowdhealth.com.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Corruption and National Unity00:09:00
All right, here, let's keep playing from the interview.
Is that still your plan?
Yeah, absolutely.
The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens.
Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?
Maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it.
Through executive action?
Well, if we can, through executive action.
You campaigned on destroying the deep state.
Do you want Kash Patel to launch investigations into people on that list?
No, I mean, he's going to do what he's right.
Do you think that's right, sir?
If they think that somebody was dishonest, crooked, or a corrupt politician, I think he probably has an obligation to do it.
Are you going to direct him to do it?
No, not at all.
Are you going to go after Joe Biden?
I'm really looking to make our country successful.
I'm not looking to go back into the past.
I'm looking to make our country successful.
Retribution will be through success.
If we can make this country successful, that would be my greatest.
That would be such a great achievement.
For the sake of you.
Just pause it right there.
Well, you can see.
So, you know, I really always hate this.
And I got to say, I called it out when Obama did it.
And so I'm going to have to call it out when Donald Trump did it too.
You know, when the topic of prosecuting crimes comes up and anybody ever says, well, I want to move forward.
I don't want to look to the past.
You know, that's kind of how prosecuting crime is done.
It's a pesky little part of it, but it always involves looking to the past.
I mean, unless you're in like a Tom Cruise movie where you're prosecuting future crimes, typically speaking, crimes have already happened and then they have to move to the past.
I would love in a like in a criminal murder trial sometime for the defense lawyer to stand up and go, what's with all this harping on the past?
You know, I mean, what are you bringing up?
Ancient history?
My client killed a guy.
He didn't kill a guy.
That was in the past.
Like, what does this mean?
And like, again, I just don't know what to look.
Look, I'm all for like, oh, I want to move forward and I want to make this country successful.
There is not, like, isn't there an obvious counter to that?
That, like, like, I mean, if you got this defense, like, if you got this defense from a defense attorney and said, we shouldn't be, we shouldn't be worried about, you know, who committed crimes in the past.
We should be worried about lowering crime in the future.
Isn't the obvious rejoinder to that?
You're like, yeah, that's how we do it.
That's how we move to a future with less crime is we prosecute the criminals of the past.
And by the past, we mean right now.
What's happening right now?
Like, I just don't like, I don't know.
And I also think that, you know, look, Donald Trump might know what he's doing a little bit better than I do on this issue.
But it's like, why not like let him freak out a little bit?
Let them feel it.
Go, yeah.
Oh, if they didn't commit crimes, then they have nothing to worry about, right?
If they did commit crimes, then I think they got a lot to worry about.
I would just much rather hear that answer from him.
I don't know.
Any thoughts on any of that, Rob?
Yeah, it's an interesting one because I guess you have the, you also just have the risk of if government's constantly playing this game of, you know, what they did to Donald Trump of really just weaponizing the department and tying you down with court cases and, you know, prosecuting things that have never been prosecuted against anybody else.
And you end up kind of with the China system where everyone's corrupt.
So if you're outside of the current regime, then they'll actually bust you for your corruption.
There is some sort of a, I don't have it fully formulated in my brain, but there is some sort of a better approach of we're not looking to, we're not looking for retribution, but the deep state has worked against you.
And we do think that there are certain elements of corruption that need to be exposed in order for us to clean up.
And so the broader topics of whether or not Joe Biden and his family have been financially incentivized to work in ways that is not in the country's interest is something that we think needs to be explored so we can have a better understanding of the broader corruption in Washington.
I'm not personally looking to see Joe Biden going to jail, and I'd like to be focused on making the country great again.
But I do think we need to clean up some of the corruption that has been prolific in D.C. There's some there's some sort of a way to approach the broader corruption topic and to, I guess, more strongly endorse why you want to put Patel in there.
Yeah, no, I agree.
I think that's a fair point.
All right, here, let's play a little bit more and we could do one more response.
Then we got to wrap up.
It's a great achievement.
For the sake of unifying this country, will you concede the 2020 election and turn the page on that chapter?
No.
Why would I do that?
But let me just tell you: when you say the country is deeply divided, I'm not the president.
Joe Biden's the president.
But you're going to be the president.
No, no.
I'm not the president.
So when you say it's deeply divided, I agree.
But Biden's the president.
I'm not.
And he has been a divider.
And you know where he divided it more than anything else?
And it probably backfired on him, I think definitely, is weaponization when he weaponized the Justice Department and he went after his political opponent, me.
Certainly, Democrats have to be aware of the city.
So we could stop on that.
Look, that one's kind of hard to argue with.
I mean, you know, look, certainly, obviously the country was very divided under Donald Trump, too.
I don't know.
There's a weird, when people use the terms, you know, unified and divided and polarized, there's a weird way in which they use them.
I remember being accused of being a divisive figure within the libertarian party.
And then it was like, this was right around the time of Reno in 2022.
And it was like, and then we won with super majorities every single position.
Like we took like 70% to 80% of the vote and won every single seat, all of them.
And you're like, you're being divisive.
And it's like, I think I'm uniting more people than you are, right?
Like if I'm taking 80% and you're taking 20%, I think I've united more people than you are.
I think that the truth is that weaponizing the Justice Department, raiding Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago, all of that stuff, I think united is more the correct way to say that.
United much of the country that this was like horrific and a dangerous precedent to be set.
And, by the way, and i'll just say this, and then Rob, you can have the final word on the show but I will just say that I do not.
You know if I know personally, this is anecdotal, but I know personally people who were like big Trump supporters in 2016 and in 20 and voted for him in 2020 who after january 6th and after all that stuff, were like we need someone else, like Donald Trump kind of had his time, but we need someone else.
And I think there were a lot of people who fell into that category.
And when they raided his home in Mar-a-Lago, really snapped back into supporting Donald Trump.
And when they weaponized the justice system after him, really snapped back.
And you could see it in his poll numbers.
Every time his poll numbers went up, like it helped Donald Trump.
And I just, and this is just my thought on it, but I really think if they had pointed to like a clear crime that Donald Trump had committed and been like, hey, look, like we don't want to be in the business of arresting former presidents, but we also have an obligation here to prosecute a crime when it's very clear.
I don't think that would have unified the country against it.
I think you like, yeah, there would have been some hardcore Trump supporters who would have supported him no matter what, but you probably could have peeled off a lot of his support to be like, eh, Donald Trump did get caught doing something really criminal here.
The problem is you didn't have anything like that.
They just didn't have anything.
They were just all made up invented crimes.
And the ones that weren't made up or invented just didn't need to be handled like this.
You know what I mean?
And so I do think, I think the term is not that it divided.
I think it unified the country.
And it's a big part of the reason why Donald Trump won a big victory in November.
Anyway, final thoughts to you, Rob, and then we'll wrap up.
This was a fine episode.
Kyle Great Predictions00:00:42
And check out The Run Your Mouth on Wednesday.
I have Kyle Ansloan coming on to the Run Your Mouth podcast for a breakdown of what's going on in Syria and some war predictions for 2025.
So come check it out.
Kyle is a great guy to talk to about that.
Make sure, yeah, guys, go support Kyle Ansalone and Dave DeCamp and Connor Friedman, all Scott Horton's guys over there at the Libertarian Institute and antiwar.com.
Keith Knight, of course, the great Keith Knight, regular guest on this show.
Okay, that's it for today.
Thanks for listening, guys.
Hope everyone has a good week.
I will be gone for a few days on a family vacation.
I will be back at the end of the week and we'll get some more episodes out for you.