All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Nov. 27, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
57:35
20241127_dems-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-with-ana-kasparian
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Cabinet Bomb Threats 00:10:48
Breaking news I want just to mention to you.
Several people nominated to roles in Donald Trump's incoming cabinet administration have been targeted by bomb threats.
Trump, whatever the audience he addressed, he never modulated his accent.
Camilla Harris does that.
Hillary did it.
Obama did it.
Don't ever let anybody or any circumstance take your power from you.
I mean, she just looked like a broken woman.
This was the woman who was selling us joy.
I see myself as a 22-year-old at three in the morning at a bar talking to a best friend.
Don't let anybody take your power away from you.
Which political party has made my life worse?
It's not the Republican Party.
You have to give me one promise that you guys aren't going to do me dirty in the thumbnail.
Victor Davis Hansen is an acclaimed author and an award-winning historian.
Earlier this year, he released an update to his book, The Case for Trump, an authoritative take on how an abrasive celebrity businessman became better placed than anybody to tackle a world royal by war and cultural division.
Clearly, the majority of Americans now agree.
But now it's time for theory to become practice.
How does Trump weigh the anti-war sentiments of his supporters with a stridently pro-Israel bent of his cabinet?
How does he end the war in Ukraine without handing a propaganda victory to Putin?
And can his extraordinary anti-establishment coalition survive the transition from populism to power?
Well, Victor Davis Hansen, George Bernard.
Victor, great to have you on Uncensored.
Thank you.
I spoke to President Trump yesterday.
He called me just for a chat, which I found amusing on one level, but also because he's a phonaholic.
Not entirely surprising.
I've known him 20 years.
I've got to say, and I said this publicly, I've never heard him sound so happy and relaxed, certainly since he became a politician, or more focused and determined on leaving a legacy of being a great president.
I genuinely believe from speaking to him yesterday that he feels he's got a mandate and a head of wind that can enable him to be an historic transformative president.
What do you think?
Yeah, I think he does have a mandate.
I don't think it's based on 50% of the vote, although that's the first time a Republican had done that since George W. Bush in 2004.
But all the issues that he embraced on the border security, lessening crime, diminishing crime, foreign policy, billing up reforms and billing the Defense Department back up, DEI cultural issues, all of them, the hyperinflation, he was polling about 60%.
So he embraced issues that were about 60 to 65% across the board.
Harris's team now is in retrospect saying, well, we didn't have the messaging right or we should have done this, but that's not the problem.
The problem was that all of the issues that they embraced did not warrant 50% support.
So he thinks he has a mandate based on the issues rather than just the overwhelming.
It was an overwhelming eclectoral college win.
I think the other thing is he's kind of a Nietzschean figure.
He figures that they've impeached him twice.
They tried him as a private citizen.
They tried to take him off the ballot in 16 states.
They conducted five criminal and civil suits.
I think you could call them lawfare.
And there was two assassination attempts, and they all failed.
So he feels that anything that didn't destroy him made him stronger.
And there's nothing left that he has to worry about.
Not that they won't try it again, but he feels that he's overcome all these things in the past.
Yeah, and also, of course, he's now, because he's won and is now the president, he can control that side of things.
I mean, all the legal stuff's basically going away very, very fast.
I want to play you a clip.
This is from a podcast called On Pods Save America, where some top Harris Waltz campaign staff, including David Pluff, who, of course, used to work for Obama, spoke out for the first time about some of the key decisions.
Take a listen to this.
In a 107-day race, it is very difficult to do all the things you would normally do.
On the trans attack, one, obviously it was a very effective ad at the end.
I ultimately don't believe that it was about the issue of trans.
I think that it made her seem out of touch.
If there's a belief that if only we had responded to this trans ad with national and huge battleground state ads, we would have won.
I don't think that's true.
She was ready, willing to go on Joe Rogan.
Would it have changed anything?
You know, it would have been a...
It would have broken through, not because of the conversation with Joe Rogan, but because the fact that she was doing it.
You know, listening to them, Victor, I just got the feeling of people who really don't really understand how they've managed to lose so badly, when in fact, I think it's reasonably straightforward.
A very poor candidate who'd been a very poor candidate the first time she tried to run as a Democrat nominee and was rejected very quickly by her own side who recognized she was not very good.
But secondly, Trump was massively better trusted to potentially fix the cost of living crisis and the illegal immigration crisis.
And also because he represented what he called in his victory speech a core of common sense.
And that Carmela Harris represented, as that very effective trans ad showed, she was for they them, Trump's for you.
In that one very simple ad.
There was the difference between the two parties and the two candidates.
One is common sense.
Of course, you can't have biological men ruining women's sport.
The other one was, yeah, of course you can.
And I do think it was that three-pronged thing, plus what you just said about the fact he took on the law fair.
They tried to jail him, they tried to shoot him and so on.
All that helped him.
But do you think those three things ultimately were what drove people to vote for him?
Oh, yeah, I think that's exactly on the money.
And I mean, they've offered all sorts of excuses that they only had 100 days.
Well, Trump only had 100 days.
In fact, he had months that he was dealing with courts and suits and fines.
He was tied up and off the campaign trail.
But the thing that he, the marquee theme was he was able for the first time in my lifetime to replace racial tribalism with class solidarity.
In other words, he said to people, if you're a Mexican-American truck driver, if you're a black electrician, if you're a poor white carpenter, you have more in common with each other than you do with your elites on the bicoastal domain.
In other words, the people at Stanford University do not represent the working man in Michigan or the Latino, La Raza, Latinx media spokesperson does not represent the people I'm living around right now here in the San Joaquin Valley.
And that was a radical idea.
And if you look at the actual data from the 2016, 2020, and 2024, he really didn't increase much the white working class or the white vote at all.
And he was about the same.
He went up a little bit with women.
But where he made unbelievable gains were in Mexican-Americans, Native Americans, Asians, and African Americans.
And had he not made those gains, he would not have won.
And that's what they do not want to confront, because that's the keystone of the Democratic Party, victim, victimization, victimizers, oppressor, oppressed.
And they have this kind of Marxist binary, and people don't buy into it.
And especially minorities don't buy in.
They don't like, I think a key signature thing real quickly was in Obama.
It was an iconic moment when he took those African-American activists, very intelligent young men, and took them to the side and said, you don't know what's good for you.
You're a captive to racism and sexism.
And I can tell you what your real interests are.
Yes.
That was kind of revealing.
It was so condescending and patronizing.
And it was, he may as well have said, you have to vote for Kamala because she's black like you.
And actually, I think you've brought up a great point, which is, I think, a lot of the voting for Trump in the end was colorblind.
They just weren't voting because of ethnicity.
They were voting for a common shared concern about big issues, which Kamala Harris simply wasn't able to articulate any meaningful policy about.
And I will say to people, whatever you think of Trump, his position on things is very crystal clear.
You know, there's no ambiguity.
He's one of the great marketers in the history of politics.
And you know what he stands for.
But rather like with Hillary back in 2016, if you'd asked people on the streets of 20 major American cities all over the country, give me five things she stands for, they'd have really struggled to tell you.
Whereas with Trump, they could have rattled them off with no problem.
And I thought the same this time, that she eventually, having started off with, we're going to have a joyful campaign, Carmela Harris very quickly morphed back to Hillary's way of doing things in 2016, which was basically call Trump a Hitler, a new Hitler, a Nazi, a fascist, and so on, demonize all his supporters, and then surround herself with very pampered prima donna multi-millionaire celebrities and hope that their stardust would translate to votes.
And it didn't.
It didn't work for Hillary and it didn't work for her.
I think there's two things.
I think you're getting at.
Again, you're right on the money.
There was this question of who was junior, genuine, and authentic.
Trump, whatever the audience he addressed, he never modulated his accent.
Camela Harris does that.
Hillary did it.
Obama did it.
He didn't change his clothing.
He came out to a bunch of a group of farmers.
He didn't put on the caterpillar hat, the boots.
He always wore the tie.
And whatever people thought of him, they thought, this is what you get.
The other thing was this time around, unlike 2016 and 20, he was able to exude a message that it's okay to vote for Donald J. Trump.
When he walked into Madison Square Garden and you have Joe Rogan, Tulsi Gabbert, RFK, Dana White, there was such a mix ideologically diversity, middle class.
It just exuded and people started to say, I can say that I'm for Trump.
If I'm a celebrity, I'm a media person.
I'm not afraid anymore.
And that really gave him a momentum that he was ecominical and he was bringing people.
And I don't know how it's going to work when you have RFK, Tulsi Gabbert, all of these different people.
But one thing that he was also saying finally was, whether it's good or bad, right or wrong, I'm not going to do what I did in 2016 and consult the wise men in the Beltway and the New York-Washington Nexus.
Musk's Ukraine Gamble 00:07:35
There's not going to be a Jim Mattis, a Rex Gillerson, a John Bolton.
We're going to get people who are immune from the enticements of the administrative state.
In fact, it's even weirder than that.
He's appointing people that have been victims of the very agencies they're tasked to run, especially Jay Bacharia and NIH.
That's a $50 billion grant.
And if I were the people at Stanford University that tried to destroy him that have hundreds of millions of dollars of health grants, it would not be a very comforting thought.
Not that he's going to retaliate, but I don't think these people are going to be compromised.
And they're not going to, you're not going to have an anonymous saying, I'm working inside the bowels of the administration and I'm trying to thwart Donald Trump as we did in 2019 and 20.
How important do you think is Elon Musk in all this?
Because I think he's actually very important.
You know, you've got one of the smartest brains in the world who thinks massively big picture and who showed with Twitter, which he rebranded as X, on day one.
He went in and basically fired half of the workforce.
And you know what?
It carried on.
And in fact, a recent poll showed that it's now basically a 50-50 split of users between Republican and Democrat, having been massively skewed to the Democrat side before Musk bought it, which I thought was really interesting.
He's made it a much fairer marketplace of ideas simply by removing a lot of the barriers that were being aimed directly at right-wing people.
But how important is Musk, do you think?
Oh, you're absolutely right.
Very important.
In fact, in an ironic way, sort of his light-handed way, the way he jokes almost deprecates from the actual value of his achievements.
He's one of the rare American Renaissance figures of the last century.
Everything he touches turned to gold.
I mean, he was the only person that ever took on the big three with Tesla and won.
NASA is in shambles.
And he basically single-handedly reinvented the space program.
Same thing with Starlink.
And the thing about it was he gave an can-do, worth it campaign that says, yes, you can, no, you can't.
And it was very similar when I was a young kid of the JFK campaign.
He said, I'm going to get the country moving again.
We're going to explore space.
Don't believe.
It didn't turn all out that well, as you know, but the idea that Elon Musk was going to conquer space, he was going to build an electric car, he was going to take over Twitter and save it and make it a free speech platform.
That gave a sense that Trump was willing to reach out to almost anybody if they shared his same confidence that the best days of America are ahead.
It was Reagan ask.
It was like JFK.
And then the addition of Bobby Kennedy, as I said earlier.
And then Elon Musk, once he did that, he brought a lot of people like David Sachs or Peter Till came back.
There was a sense in Silicon Valley, it's now going to be better for us under Trump because he's going to make the country competitive.
He's not going to allow China to do what it's been doing.
And he's not the evil devil or satanic figure we thought.
Yeah, I completely agree.
Let's turn to Ukraine because I did speak to him about that yesterday.
I won't repeat what he said, but it's certainly it's not an easy thing to resolve the situation in Ukraine.
I mean, look, nor is the Middle East, obviously, but at least there, there's a deal now with Hezbollah, and you've got to assume that it won't be too long before there's a similar deal to end the war with Hamas.
But Ukraine-Russia is more complex, isn't it?
How do you think Trump can actually resolve this?
Before I answer that, I think you're hitting on another truth that there is a contradiction because he's inheriting administration that has lost deterrence, whether we define by Afghanistan debacle or the Chinese balloon or the two wars.
And he's a Jacksonian.
He's not an interventionist.
He's not a nation builder.
He does not want to get into optional wars, but he's going to have to show force to avoid getting in optional wars by restoring deterrence.
So when he looks at Ukraine, his opponents say, well, he's going to get out.
He's not going to do that because he'll have nothing to bargain with.
He's a businessman.
So I think he's going to try to adopt what a lot of people in the United States have been talking about for over a year, and that is not the, it was not the policy of the Obama administration, the Trump administration, the Biden administration to physically, militarily bring back the Donbass and Crimea once they were stolen.
Obama lost those and no one said we're going to go to war to get them back.
After February 24th, for some reason, that became the new agenda that every Russian had to get out and we were going to fight to the last Ukrainian.
So I think what Trump is going to do as a businessman, he's going to try to tell both sides, what do you want?
And he's going to tell Putin, It wasn't sure you were going to institutionalize that theft of Primea and Donbass, but you have historical ties to those areas.
We understand that.
We want you to go back to where you started.
You can tell all the Russian people that only you institutionalize those new acquisitions that you got in 2014.
You have a new alliance now that everybody, you're very proud of with China, et cetera.
We will not put Ukraine in NATO.
That's another goal.
And we'll tell the Ukrainians, You're not going to be in NATO.
We're going to arm you to the teeth and you save your country.
And I think that's about the best you can do at this point.
I don't think the problem is that the neoconservative interventionist right and the hyper-left pro-Ukrainians, they keep talking about wounding Putin and this and that, and Putin's going to lose.
Putin's not going to lose.
The Russian army historically does very poorly when it goes into another country.
But when the war is a matter of on its borders or inside Russia, it never loses.
This reminds me so much of the 1939 winter war.
Everybody said Russia was completely incompetent.
They went into Finland.
They lost a half a million people.
Mannerheim and the Finns were so heroic.
And what happened?
The Finns finally were ground down and had to make a deal.
And that was worse off than when they first started fighting Russia.
So I think that's what we're going to see.
The other thing is, as I was going to say, if the combined dead, wounded, and missing on both sides are about a million and a half.
And there's about 12,000, 12 million refugees missing from Ukraine.
They're running out of people.
This is well beyond the Battle of the Somme or Vardan.
This is the worst bloodbath in Europe since 1942 and 43 at Stalingrad.
And I don't think people ever talk about that.
They don't, you know, and here in America, we'll say, well, we're winning.
We've got to give this and this.
But nobody says you're destroying Ukraine in your own way to save it.
And so there has to be, and I think Trump is the only major figure that has the ability to stop it without just letting Putin take over the country.
Finally, Victor, I mean, there's a lot going on in the world, but actually historically, oddly, perversely, perhaps, there are fewer wars being fought right now than in recorded history.
People are living longer, healthier.
Globalization's Hidden Cost 00:02:44
There's less child poverty.
The water's cleaner, and so on.
There are lots of metrics to suggest there's never been a better time to be alive.
But in a way, social media, which has been a brilliant invention in many ways, but has also constantly pumps out negative imagery, creating an impression, particularly for young, impressionable minds, that they've never had it so bad.
What do you feel about that?
I mean, what's the way out of that, do you think, as we go forward?
Well, I think the big change came at the millennium with globalization, which is really a synonym for westernization, if not Americanization.
And there was a lot of downsides to it.
It really, it created a new politics because people with muscular labor, their jobs were outsourced to cheaper places or capital was offshore.
And the bi-coastal people who had these universal skills in the media, insurance, investment, academia, they prospered as never before.
And I'm speaking from my family's farm that was basically destroyed by globalization in 2003 and four.
I had a twin brother who was farming.
He went broke.
So I understand that element.
But on the other side, I mean, we were giving, there was a standard of living that was inconceivable before globalization, say in the Amazon basin or Africa.
People had eyeglasses.
They had antibiotics.
They had access to knowledge.
So on the whole, it's been a positive thing.
And I agree with you.
But here in the United States, globalization created the figure of Donald Trump as a politician because he was the only one who said to people, yes, we're all wealthy and people like myself with my overseas investments and my brand name that's now known on.
We profited in a way that we could never have imagined in the 80s and 90s when I went broke.
However, there were a lot of losers and I'm here to try to even the playing field and redirect.
And that was a message.
never understood why any of the old Republican standards, McCain, the Bushes, the Romney, and even his rivals, you know, really bright people like Marco Rubio and Scott Walker.
Nobody was on to that except Donald Trump.
And that was very hard to digest because it shouldn't have been true.
He was a billionaire and he was always considered selfish and a money grubber.
But actually he had an empathy for the casualties in America of globalization that no one has ever matched.
He still has it.
Yeah.
And he was also, I mean, in all the time I've known him, nearly 20 years now, he was always on the case about China and how it was ripping off America and how dangerous it was that they owned so much American debt and everything else.
So he, you know, he, in fact, if you go back to Trump and what he was saying 20 years ago, there's not a lot of difference in terms of his worldview.
Voters Fight Back 00:07:42
He's just in a position now to do something about it.
And I think having spoken to him a few times recently, but particularly yesterday, that he recognizes the scale of the opportunity and he is much more relaxed than he was the first time around because not everyone is attacking him in the way they did then or marching through the streets screaming and shouting about him.
Actually, there's been an acceptance.
Okay, he won fair and square and he won big and he has a mandate and a lot of Americans from right across the spectrum want him to succeed.
It's a very different mindset for someone like Trump who's a pugilist at heart.
But actually, if you metaphorically put your arm around him a bit and say, go on, we're behind you.
It's amazing the difference that can make to someone's temperament, I think.
And I'm detecting it in him.
You're right again.
The thing that people misunderstand about him, for all the crudity and vulgarity and oral attack, rhetorical attacks on people, it can be very cruel.
He's actually not a vindictive person.
And when you look at some of these appointments, what RFK has said about him, what JD Vance said about him, he's not as thin-skinned as everybody said.
So they say, well, he's going to go weaponize, weaponize, go out.
I don't think he is.
I think he's going to change these administrative states and make them more efficient and much smaller.
But I think his, I know that he's got a big ego, but that translates into, I'm going to make America have a greater GDP, lower unemployment, lower inflation, reform, go to space, have a big military, and make us preeminent, admired.
And I have no time to go after Jack Smith or Merritt Garland or Hunter Biden.
I don't think he's going to do that.
I think that's what drives the left crazy.
I completely agree.
I don't think he's got the time or inclination now.
He doesn't need to.
He's not.
He doesn't need to.
Victor DeSto, Hanson, what a fantastic treat to have you on uncensored.
Thank you very much.
Well, thank you, Piers.
I appreciate it.
Hope we can do it again soon.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, thank you.
Well, enough review from the opposite side of the aisle, but maybe not as opposite as you may think.
Anna Kasparian is a progressive journalist and commentator, best known for her work alongside my old friend Chenk Uger and liberal network, The Young Turk.
She has some strident views on where it all went wrong for the Democrats in this election.
And she's faced an avalanche of personal attacks from liberal followers for denouncing President Biden, Gavin Newsom, and wokeism, among other Democratic deities.
So has Anna Kasparian left the left?
Let's find out.
She joins me now.
Anna, welcome to your uncensored debut.
Thank you for having me, Piers.
We've tried to lure you on many times, but you haven't taken the chenk route of coming on just to shout at me.
But it's good to have you finally.
And we'll get to chenk later, don't worry.
I just want to talk to you so much.
Well, you need to give me one promise.
Go on.
You have to give me one promise that you guys aren't going to do me dirty in the thumbnail for this video.
You promise?
You know what?
I can't promise because we've done some absolute, we've done some corkers recently, particularly involving Chenk.
But as he knows better than anybody, a great thumbnail drives more traffic.
And that's the game we're in.
We want people to watch what we're doing.
Otherwise, what's the point?
So we are very proud of our thumbnails.
I mean, if I look attractive.
If I look attractive, that might actually draw some more eyebrows.
So think about it.
Wow, you're playing that card.
Well, I admire it.
I admire it.
Listen, to be serious, you've made a bit of news recently.
We've got a little sock to start with of your reaction to when Trump won in 2016.
I have no respect for women who voted for Trump, okay?
I think so poorly of them.
And the reason why is because, look, I don't think that you're a single-issue voter.
I just think you're dumb.
Okay.
I think you're fucking dumb.
When you vote for someone who openly treats women like second-class citizens, who talks about them as if they're nothing more than a piece of meat, who has been accused of sexually assaulting them, who has been caught on tape talking about groping them and grabbing them by the pussy without consent.
Yeah, you're an idiot.
You're an idiot.
So, Anna, have you moderated your view of Trump voters this time around?
To say the least, that video I am not proud of, I will say that.
And, you know, I had a very emotional reaction to news that Trump won in 2016.
I was totally blindsided by it.
And to be quite frank, I think that attacking voters is one of the worst things you can do.
These are our fellow Americans, regardless of who they vote for, what they think.
In order for this great experiment in America to work, we have to respect each other.
And so that was eight years ago.
I'd like to think that I've matured since then.
And I hope that I can prove that maturity through the work that I do today.
You said five days before the election, you posted this, I think, to X, I don't support Trump.
I also don't think it's helpful to call him a fascist or a Nazi.
Those words actually mean something beyond not liking a candidate.
I mean, I completely agree with you.
And I respected you for saying that because actually the over-demonization of Trump, all it did was help him and damage the left anyway.
I mean, it was an act of self-harm because most reasonable-minded people went, well, hang on, Hitler killed 12 million people.
What are you talking about?
And if he was such a terrible fascist, why didn't he behave like a fascist for four years when he had the chance?
And the truth is he didn't.
You know, January 6th was awful.
And I wrote that at the time and said it at the time.
But other than that, where you could construct an argument for this was the kind of thing you would see in a sort of a banana republic, there's nothing about Trump's first term which screamed fascism to me.
And I felt that that persistent attack and the he's the new Hitler was just ludicrous.
Well, it's insulting for like the Jewish community that of course was victimized by Hitler.
It kind of downplays or minimizes the severity and the brutality of Hitler and what he carried out.
But you know, I think that what just to play devil's advocate, those who kind of use phrases or words like fascist in order to describe Donald Trump, you know, they're not using it in an academic sense.
They're using it in regard to some of the authoritarian tendencies that we heard about regarding Donald Trump in his first term.
And you can argue, well, there's a lot of hearsay, there's a lot of comments from disgruntled former administration officials who claim that Trump said these things behind closed doors.
If you want to make that argument, that's fine.
But even if, let's give those individuals the benefit of the doubt and just assume that Trump did, in fact, say those things during closed door meetings, it still doesn't rise to the actual definition of a fascist, right?
I mean, where are the brown shirts?
Where is the militarized citizenry that's going to carry out Trump's dirty deeds?
It's just, it's a type of hyperbole that I don't think Democrats, and I'm not talking about the voters, I'm talking about Democrats in positions of power genuinely believed.
I think what they did is use tactics of fear and division in order to accumulate votes and support in lieu of having an actual imagination of what this country could be if they implement policies that make the lives of ordinary Americans better.
Gender Language Wars 00:09:56
The Democrats have made a deal with the devil, and the devil is their corporate donors.
And since their corporate donors want very specific things for the donations that they're providing to these politicians, and usually that's a policy that does not bode well for American workers, what Democrats tend to do is lean into tactics of fear or they talk about culture war issues, right?
They lean into the culture war.
And every election cycle, they get more and more maximalist with what they claim they want to carry out on these culture war topics.
And they've gone too far.
And I think Americans have kind of fought back against them.
You gave some, I mean, three events that you've referenced, which made you reassess your political alignment.
The first one was when you revealed you've been sexually assaulted by two homeless people in LA in 2022, and you were accused of stigmatizing your unhoused neighbors, which was a staggering response to a woman revealing she'd been sexually assaulted.
Tell me about that.
Right.
I mean, you know, I hate having to like relive it, but yeah, I was walking my dog and there were two men coming toward me.
But, you know, living in Los Angeles, there is a large homeless population, and I had never been, you know, victimized by anybody before.
So I didn't think much of it.
As I was bending over to pick up my dog's mess, you know, one of them grabbed me by the hips and with an erection just started thrusting at me very violently.
I was terrified.
I was alone.
I didn't have a weapon on me.
And so, you know, it took a while for me to get over that because whether I like it or not, I have to walk my dog.
Sometimes I have to do it at night, right?
And so I had to kind of think about that every single time I was taking my dog out to walk.
And so I had just opened up about it on our show, not really thinking that it was going to lead to backlash.
I wasn't even looking for sympathy.
I just, it was on my mind and I just talked about it.
And it led to just this wave of you hate homeless people, you're stigmatizing homeless people.
Don't call them homeless people.
They're unhoused, which I don't even understand why unhoused would be better than saying homeless.
By the way, these are the things that we're talking about.
This is what the left likes to do.
They like to change the language instead of actually addressing the issue at hand.
Yeah, and these are the same people who supposedly are there for women, right?
And fighting for women and supporting women and believe women, all this kind of thing.
But when it actually came to you, they just were prepared to throw you on the horrific bus.
And far from treating you as a victim, they almost made you out to be the villain of this story.
They did, but I want to be clear about something.
I think that this is a small but incredibly loud and influential faction of the Democratic Party.
This is not indicative of all Democrats.
This is not indicative of all Democratic lawmakers.
This is a small group of activists who like to bully, who like to go to city council meetings, who like to go to various rallies and essentially be loud, be threatening, be aggressive until they get their way.
And for far too long, the Democratic Party has been terrified of these little mobs of people, these little mobs of activists, and have basically just carried out what these activists want.
And I just think that they need to be a little smarter than falling prey to the whims of various activist groups because they are not representative of the majority of Americans.
The majority of Americans, especially in a state like California, want homeless people to be housed, but they also understand that this issue is far more complicated than the housing first policy of throwing anyone who doesn't have a home into an apartment, right?
Because the fact of the matter is we have severe mental health issues out on our streets right now, people who are struggling with severe drug addiction.
Some of these people actually do have families to go to or homes to go to.
They need a different type of service.
They need rehabilitation, not harm reduction, where we're just passing out needles and crackpipes thinking that it's going to solve the problem.
It has not solved the problem.
It has made the lives of these individuals struggling on the streets far worse.
And it has also made the lives of hardworking, taxpaying Americans in states like California a lot worse.
When I look at my life right now and I ask myself which political party has made my life worse, it's not the Republican Party.
Locally speaking, the Democrats have complete control and they have nearly destroyed my family's livelihood.
Okay.
We are living in trash and squalor everywhere.
And unless the Democratic Party actually acknowledge these issues and solve these issues, rather than stealing our taxpayer money and funneling it to their nonprofit friends, they keep doing this, they're going to keep losing.
And I'm going to keep speaking out against them.
I don't care how much they hate Trump.
I don't care how naughty the Republicans are being.
Right now, the people having a negative impact on my life is the Democratic Party, and they need to change their ways.
When we say we want to change the status quo, it doesn't mean we want to live in anarchy.
It doesn't mean that we want to have $24 billion of our taxpayer money in California stolen by these nonprofits.
It means that we want working people to be rewarded for their hard work.
We want affordable housing.
We want better working conditions, higher wages, better health care.
These are things that Democrats used to purport to want to do.
They don't do any of it anymore.
And so I'm done with them until they change their ways.
Yeah, I completely understand it.
You also got blowback when you posted, I'm a woman.
Please don't ever refer to me as a person with a uterus or a person who menstruates.
How do people not realize how degrading this is?
You can support the transgender community without doing this shit.
And I completely agree with you.
The way that language about women has been eradicated at the altar of transgender activism, I find utterly obscene.
Then you add the ridiculous assault on women's rights to fairness and equality in sport, the invasion of women's safe spaces.
You know, we had a First Minister of Scotland, the head of the Scottish government, who had to resign because she took a male rapist and put him into a female prison when he just put his hand up and said, by the way, I'm now a woman.
Because he wanted to get out of a male prison where he'd be treated badly and get near to new prey.
That was Nicola Sturgeon.
She was the first minister of Scotland.
It's incredible.
But the reaction you got, I can imagine what it was because we've seen what happens when J.K. Rowling and people like that when I've done it.
You know, you put your head over that parapet, you get unbelievable abuse and threats and so on.
Is that what happened to you?
Yeah, I mean, I did not expect that tweet to go as viral as it did.
I didn't expect the kind of hatred I got in response to it.
But look, that's okay.
It's fine, right?
I'm a public figure, and whether I like it or not, I signed up for any type of, you know, harassment, abuse, whatever that you get online as a result of stating your opinions.
Look, the main point I want to make about the transgender community is that these are human beings.
Okay, they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.
And when it comes to any issue that has a real impact on their lives, housing, employment, all of that, there should be protection for this community and we should respect the fact that they're human beings.
At the same time, there are some issues that arise where the rights of one group, in this case, the transgender community, kind of conflicts with the rights of another group, the rights of women.
And what I think is important is that we actually have a real dialogue, a civil dialogue, about how we move forward in a way where both parties feel that they're being treated fairly and with dignity.
I think that's a good idea.
But I don't think that's the foundation for the conversation.
Right, but I do not like, for example, I like flying a lot.
I fly with British Airways normally, and I'm used to a nice, smooth-talking British Airways pilot announcing, Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to your flight.
They're not allowed to say that anymore.
They're not allowed to use the words ladies and gentlemen in case there happens to be somebody who doesn't identify as a lady or gentleman on board, right?
Which is likely to be a tiny, tiny number of people, right?
On a plane of six, seven hundred people, how many are we talking?
One, two, maybe, maybe none, right?
But for them, the entire language about the vast majority of people has to be eradicated, to which I say, where are my rights to be called a gentleman or a woman's right to be called a lady?
It may seem a small thing, but it's all part of the same process of eradicating gender-specific language for a tiny minority and against the interests, in my opinion, of the vast majority.
Where are our rights as the majority to actually have the language that we would like?
Well, I was unfamiliar with that story.
What do they say in lieu of ladies and gentlemen?
They just use gender-neutral language.
So I can't even remember, but it's like they call us passengers and it's all just very stilted and gender-neutral, as you now see in hospitals and schools and everything else.
I mean, I know there's a girls' school in England, for example, which is actually called, I think it's the Altringham School for Girls up in the north of England.
But you're not allowed to call the students who go there girls because there may be trans people offended.
But they've kept the title of the school as a girls' school.
So they sell entry to this school to prospective parents as a girls' school.
But once your little girl goes there, no one will call her a girl, including the teachers.
Trump Supporters Aren't Monoliths 00:16:05
That makes no sense.
If it's an all-girl school, why would it be a problem?
I guess that's a good idea.
Yeah, look, the way that I basically deal with this is I have a team of producers that help me produce the Young Turks daily.
And I always refer to my team as, like, if I'm texting them about an element I need for a story, I'll always text with, hey, guys, I need X, Y, and Z. Most of the people in my team are actually women.
And so none of them are, I actually ask them, I'm like, are you guys at all offended that I say, hey, guys?
It's just kind of the way we spoke.
Like in my generation, we kind of address a group of people as well.
Who cares?
You're fine with it.
Because guess what?
Because guess what?
Most people are fine with it.
Most people don't care.
I just want to go back to what I said earlier about the small, loud group of activists.
Just because they're louder doesn't mean that they're representative of the general population.
I really do think that it's up to these various entities, these various governmental agencies to kind of take a stand.
And I think in some cases, our language does change, and I think it makes sense.
But in some cases, it changes because you have activist groups pushing for it and it doesn't make sense.
So let's be a little smarter.
Let's use our common sense.
The third thing that you cited was a story of a guy called Jeff in your apartment block who you became friends with before you realized he was a Trump supporter.
And that changed your view of what a Trump supporter actually could be like.
Tell me about that.
Well, I think that in Trump's first term, a lot of people placed themselves in silos.
So I was very much in a left-wing silo where I, like, I kind of refused to have any kind of relationship with someone who had voted for Trump.
And so as a result, I was allowing kind of like the Democratic Party and mass media to paint a picture of all Trump supporters without really investigating it.
I just kind of accepted what their summation was.
Jeff, who I love, and I kind of feel bad because now like a lot of people are talking about him and he didn't ask for me to mention him.
But anyway, you know, I met him at a time when I needed help.
Like I was moving into this building.
My husband wasn't available.
He was going to a fire academy training.
And so at that time, I'm like lugging my husband's heavy bicycle up the stairs.
And Jeff comes across and just says, can I help you with that?
He grabs the bike and he helps, he basically helped me move in.
And this guy doesn't know me.
This guy really had no reason to help me.
But he dropped everything he was doing and decided to dedicate the rest of the day to helping me out, getting to know me.
And throughout, you know, the subsequent weeks and months, we got to know each other better.
Really, really sweet guy.
And then one day we're at an HOA meeting.
I remember we're sitting together on the couch as the meeting's going on.
And a woman in our building stood up and she said something negative about Trump.
And I was shocked because Jeff whispers in my ear, you know, oh, if she's going to be trashing Trump, then I'm out of here.
And that made me realize, oh, he's a Trump supporter.
And so I investigated that a little more.
I was curious about his politics.
He was a lifelong Democrat.
He loved JFK, you know, voted for JFK.
And he just said, you know, I feel like we should support our president.
Even if it's someone that you did not support, you did not vote for.
He's our president now.
And so he explained where he was politically.
But it actually didn't matter to me because I got to know who Jeff was as a person prior to understanding or knowing about his politics.
And so that didn't just wake me up to how, you know, Trump supporters are not a monolith.
It woke me up to the fact that all of us are complex human beings and we should not have one side of us or one element of who we are define the entirety of our character or the entirety of who we are as people.
So that's what I was trying to say.
You come under a bit of flack both for your pivot, as it seemed, from left to right.
The attacks have been led by Laura Luma, who I'm on record as saying is a complete lunatic.
But she said, here we have another political opportunist in the form of you, Anna Kasperian.
Anna's a malicious and pathological liar who has spent years with her co-host, Check Yuga, lying about and trying to cancel every outspoken Trump supporter, including myself.
She spread delusional lies about Trump.
And now, in a low-cock top and a full face and makeup, she wants to tell some make-believe story about a guy called Jeff, who all of a sudden made her realize that 80 million people are all unique individuals and not Nazis.
Come on, nobody is buying this garbage.
Anna's trying to remain relevant to the changing media landscape after she's made serious cash bashing people like me who actually busted my ass to help Trump get elected.
She's a full-blown liar.
We need to reject people like this.
Blah, What's your response to Ms. Loomer?
Well, my response is actually going to clarify something you said a little earlier, which is my pivot from the left to right.
I would not describe what I'm currently espousing as right-wing.
I have been basically on economic policies, I'm very much left-wing.
I have rejected the Democratic Party because they sell a bill of goods that I'm not interested anymore.
Same with the Republican Party, generally speaking.
So I consider myself unaligned and I have moderated my views on a handful of some social issues.
So that's where I am right now.
I really am unaligned.
Neither political party represents my best interests.
With that in mind, I think Laura Loomer is worried that I'm going to vie for some sort of role in Trump's White House or in the Trump ecosystem.
And I just want to let her know I'm not vying for any of that.
I'm very happy where I am at work.
I don't want to push you out of whatever position you have in the Trump universe.
Like the fact that she brought up my physical appearance, I thought was interesting.
I'm sensing a little bit of jealousy, if I may say.
It seems like it.
It seems like it.
And I'm not really looking to roll around in the mud with someone like Laura Loomer.
So I just want to say that.
I can't think of anything worse.
Everything's going to be okay, Laura.
Yeah, I think of all the million things you could suggest that I might at least want to do, number one would be rolling in the mud with Laura Loomer.
But what people have said is they said you were quite outspoken.
I'll play it to you.
This is what you said when Dave Rubin pivoted.
Let's have a look.
There has been this prevalence of prominent figures who identify as the left, right, or on the left, who then later start to, you know, cozy up to right-wing figures.
And then it turns out that they completely move to the right wing because they're essentially paid to do it.
They're used as tools by the right wing to essentially spew right-wing talking points while purporting to still be on the left.
In fact, Dave Rubin's a great example of that.
Dave Rubin used to work with us.
He identified as someone on the left.
Yeah, go ahead.
Forgive me, Anna.
Dave Rubin made a video for PragerU, why I left the left.
Oh, I know.
He does not, in fact, state to the world, but he's still on the left.
I don't know who you have in mind, so I can only address the one name that you gave.
So, I mean, have you pulled a Rubin, as some people suggest?
I mean, I'm still pretty left-wing, and I'm still working at the exact same place.
Look, I don't know, maybe I was wrong about Dave Rubin, but I just felt that he, first of all, after he left TYT, he did lie about us, and that bothered me because we were still friends, and I didn't understand what was going on.
So I was discombobulated about what was happening with Dave after he left TYT.
He did leave on good terms, so it was weird.
And, you know, he kept saying that he was this classical liberal, but had trouble defining what that meant and had trouble reinforcing or at least backing up some of the claims that he was making about, you know, his newfound identity.
So, look, live and let live.
Dave is doing his thing.
I did feel that his pivot was strange, but maybe it was sincere.
Who knows?
Well, you know, it's interesting.
Somebody accused me of being a Republican.
It was Brian Tyler Cohen, I think.
He said, you're obviously a Republican.
Wajah Ali was one of them.
And I said, look, I'm not a Republican.
I'm somebody who identifies as liberal, but who has increasingly felt in recent years that I have absolutely nothing in common with modern day far-left woke supposed liberals whose whole behavioral pattern is not remotely liberal.
It's actually a form of modern day fascism, which is incredibly ironic, given that they would say fascism is the one thing they hate most in the world.
And I feel a bit like Bill Maher and people like that who have become more popular, actually, to conservatives because they said the same thing.
And I'm kind of like that, where I would say I'm probably a centrist now.
I don't identify as to the right or conservative, but I certainly, I have nothing in common with the woke left at all.
I find them preposterous people.
Yeah, I think a lot of people feel that way.
I probably feel similar to you to some extent, maybe not as extreme.
I don't refer to myself as a centrist per se, but I definitely feel far more independent now than I ever have in my life because you're right.
I mean, you do look at the two political parties, dominant political parties in the United States, and I just, I used to identify so strongly with what the Democratic Party represented.
But as they have kind of devolved further and further down this like rabbit hole of maximalist policies for like very specific groups of people, and that's the other thing.
I'm just so tired of constantly focusing on how our identities or our race, our gender, our sexual orientation, how different that makes us from one another.
No, you're a working class American.
You've got a lot more in common with an Asian working class American, a transgender working class American, you know, a gay working class American than you do.
With a black person who was chosen to be the head of a major Fortune 500 company.
I probably have less in common with that woman than I would with a working class American from a different background.
Yes, I think a white woman who's a CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
I have less in common with her.
Totally agree.
I think Trump brilliantly tapped into that.
I think he recognized that.
And the fact that so many black Americans, Latino Americans, Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, white Americans, the fact they all turned out to vote for him in such big numbers shows that he managed to smash through all the ethnicity and religious divides and everything else.
And he just tapped into things they all cared about, which were cost of living, illegal immigration, and I would also add the woke culture, which has become increasingly antithetical to what most people want to see their lives led like.
They don't want to live in a life of fascist kind of control where everyone gets cancelled for saying the wrong thing or reading the wrong book or laughing at the wrong moment of a joke, etc.
I want to play a clip.
This is Kamala Harris.
For some inexplicable reason, the Democrats put out this clip last night of Kamala Harris, which is, I can't even imagine the logic other than chucking you under a bus.
Let's take a look.
I just have to remind you, don't you ever let anybody take your power from you.
You have the same power that you did before November 5th.
And you have the same purpose that you did.
And you have the same ability to engage and inspire.
So don't ever let anybody or any circumstance take your power from you.
I mean, she just looked like a broken woman to me.
This was the woman who was selling us joy, who looked utterly miserable, still talking in a kind of generalized word-salad way and also and talking nonsense because, of course, the Democrats just took a massive drubbing and it's on her watch.
So of course they're all going to feel not as confident and strong as they were before.
They need a radical rethink, I think the Democrats.
But it was kind of sad, wasn't it, that video?
I mean, I got to be, I thought it was kind of funny.
Like, I see myself as a 22-year-old at three in the morning at a bar talking to a best friend.
Okay, that's what I sound like.
Don't let anybody take your power away from you.
So like, okay, but I still believe in you.
I still believe in you exactly.
But putting that aside, you know, there's a part of me that feels a little bad for Kamala Harris because I do feel that she was basically set up to lose, right?
I mean, you have Joe Biden coming out of the gate saying that he's going to tap a black woman for his VP.
When you do that, what it signals to the rest of the country is that, you know, you're going to pick a token to make a point and it's not based on merit.
And I think that's an issue and it doesn't look good.
But then on top of that, really, the person who deserves a great deal of blame, actually the people who deserve a great deal of blame, is Joe Biden, who refused to drop out of the race, decided to run for a second term, even though he had promised not to run for a second term.
And all of the campaign officials surrounding him, who, by the way, just yesterday on Pod Save America, admitted that after Biden had that disastrous debate performance, they didn't have a plan B.
They didn't engage in a plan B.
The only thing they were hyper-focused on was keeping Biden in the race.
How irresponsible is that?
Because even if, best case scenario for them, Biden is somehow able to eke out a win, which of course now we know based on their internal polling, that wasn't going to happen.
But let's say if it did happen, they're totally fine with having an elderly man with that level of cognitive decline leading this country.
They're okay with that?
No, it's ridiculous.
And then they want a fearmonger about Trump.
I'm sorry, but the Democratic Party has lost its credibility entirely.
Totally agree.
There's some breaking news I want to just mention to you, quite serious, actually.
Several people nominated to roles in Donald Trump's incoming cabinet and administration have been targeted by bomb threats and swatting.
Caroline Levitt said last night and this morning, several of President Trump's cabinet nominees and administration appointees were targeted in violent un-American threats to their lives and those who live with them.
Law enforcement say the threats included a bomb threat on the home of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who's about to become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Obviously, a very disturbing development.
What do you make of that?
We should be condemning political violence or threats of violence in all forms, regardless of who that violence or those threats of violence are directed to.
I'm so sick of this atmosphere in America, okay?
Donald Trump won the election.
Not only did he win the Electoral College vote significantly, but he also won the popular vote.
A Republican hasn't been able to do that since 2004.
And for the individuals who are upset about that, I hear you.
You should be focusing on rebuilding the Democratic Party.
They lost this election.
Violence on Both Sides 00:02:42
Directing violence toward the winners, directing violence toward cabinet appointees is unacceptable and really does seem hypocritical considering the fact that we keep hearing over and over again how violent the right wing is.
I mean, during this election cycle, all the violence that I've seen has been carried out by individuals on the left, with the exception of the first assassination attempt against Trump.
We still don't know what motivated that guy, but his politics were all over the place.
But the second assassination attempt, obviously someone on the left, these threats of violence toward cabinet appointees, it's unacceptable.
Let's please be smarter than this.
Yeah.
I want to end on a lighter note.
We started by talking about Chenk.
I want to end by talking about him very briefly.
We have a Cenk mashup to show you.
Oh, what?
I'm going to attack you.
I'm going to attack.
Come on.
This guy's a fool.
One Palestinian you find acceptable to make a peace deal with.
You won't because you don't want peace.
All you want to do is slaughter more Palestinians.
This whole thing is based on a lie.
These are vicious, vigilante thugs, and they have done more violence than all of the peace protesters in the country combined.
Where are the arrests?
Where's the outrage?
Where's the indignation?
You pretend that you care about protecting students, but you only care about protecting one side.
Hey, if someone kicks out somebody from with a stretcher, I've paid illegal bills.
Attack people.
I just wondered, Anna, whether you had any advice for me on how to deal with Chenk's obvious anger management issues.
I do have advice for you.
Let it go.
All right.
Let the man talk.
Let the man do his thing.
Look, I know that for some, he comes across as, you know, too aggressive, a little too animated, but understand where that's coming from.
It's coming from a place of authenticity and sincerity.
And for him, you know, it's righteous anger.
It's righteous rage.
And my style might be a little different from his, but I'm a Cenk write or die.
Okay.
I know his heart is in the right place.
And I'm going to defend him.
And I'm going to just tell you, you know, you're welcome.
You're welcome because I know that he's helping you get those ratings, Pierce.
You know what?
You're welcome.
I'll be honest.
I love Chenk.
I love his passion.
I love his energy.
I love his combative debating style.
He's welcome here anytime.
As indeed are you, Anna Casper?
We finally got you on.
I hope you've enjoyed it.
Please come back again because I think you guys are exactly what we want on the show.
You're uncensored.
You speak your minds.
I love it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you, Pierce.
Export Selection