Viva & Barnes - Let's Tackle the "Infighting" on the Right! Live w/ Shawn Farash!
Aired: 2026-04-14
Duration: 01:10:14


=== Polling Places and ICE Agents (01:45) ===

[00:00:00]  Of the interwebs.
[00:00:01]  This will be the closest many of you get to the average dinner at the Freiheit family.
[00:00:06]  A discussion that shall be heated, but productive nonetheless with Sean Farage.
[00:00:11]  This is not Sean right now.
[00:00:12]  I'm just going to play a clip to intro this show.
[00:00:14]  Be sure to share the link around as we speak and let's get ready to roll.
[00:00:18]  Behold, if Iran was not trying to build a nuke, why won't they agree to stop trying to build a nuclear weapon?
[00:00:27]  Answer that for me.
[00:00:28]  And then once you answer that for me, Maybe you'll sell me on your position.
[00:00:32]  But you can't seem to answer that for me.
[00:00:34]  It's like when I pointed out, and we all point out, Democrats don't want ICE agents at polling places, right?
[00:00:40]  But they tell you that illegal aliens aren't voting in elections.
[00:00:43]  Well, if illegal aliens aren't voting in elections, why are you so upset with ICE agents being at polling places if the people who ICE is looking for don't show up to polling places?
[00:00:53]  The answer is because the people who ICE is looking for do show up to polling places.
[00:00:57]  Illegal aliens are voting in elections, and Democrats don't want them to get caught.
[00:01:02]  Iran does not want to commit to stop trying or commit to never try again to build a nuclear weapon because they're trying to build a nuclear weapon.
[00:01:13]  They won't commit, as JD Vance said, to stop pursuing the tools to try building a nuclear weapon because we destroyed the tools that they already built.
[00:01:24]  The nuclear facilities last June are destroyed, but they're trying to achieve more centrifuges, more equipment to further enrich the uranium that they have that they're in possession of right now.
[00:01:34]  It's been enriched at 60%, which is Far beyond the threshold for civilian energy production.
[00:01:38]  Vance pointed out they will not commit to stop pursuing new tools and equipment that will help them achieve a nuclear weapon.

=== Mark Levin vs Woke Reich (02:38) ===

[00:01:46]  We'll pause it right here for one second.
[00:01:47]  I'll agree with Sean on one thing before we bring him in.
[00:01:50]  You know, if Democrats say that there's no illegals voting, the safest possible place for ICE agents to waste their resources would be at voting booths.
[00:02:00]  We're going to have a discussion today because Mark Levin put out a tweet earlier today and it really pisses me off.
[00:02:06]  And I say, I'm reluctant to use the word feel because of the way it has been infamized, if that's a word, glamorized, or made popular by other people who say it feels like something's off.
[00:02:17]  That's not how I'm using the word feels.
[00:02:20]  Right now, it seems that there have been camps drawn, cliques established, the cool kids and the not cool kids.
[00:02:29]  Not that Mark Levin is not of the cool kids, but he sure as sugar thinks he's speaking for them right now.
[00:02:34]  When he puts out posts like, more conservatives need to start treating the woke Reich podcasters and their ilk like the Klansmen or neo Nazis, many if not most of them are.
[00:02:45]  Sorry, I should say this again and grammatically say it.
[00:02:48]  More conservatives need to start treating the woke Reich podcasters and the ilk like the Klansmen and neo Nazis, many if not most of them are.
[00:02:55]  We don't debate or platform them.
[00:02:57]  We don't treat them as legitimate in any way.
[00:02:59]  We.
[00:02:59]  We, he's at the cool kids' table now.
[00:03:02]  We denounce, condemn, mock, and expose them.
[00:03:05]  The left media use them to try to delegitimize us and promote the Marxist, Islamists, and Democrats.
[00:03:12]  To which I say this is literally the strategy the left adopted and exactly how the left alienated, then lost its base, and then the last election.
[00:03:20]  It's the opposite of what should be done discussion, disagreement, listen to the grievances, or do this and expect the exact same outcome as when the left alienated their own.
[00:03:30]  The idea.
[00:03:31]  That someone has the monopoly on saying who should get platformed and not, and who you should listen to and who you should engage with.
[00:03:38]  There's a reason why you will very rarely see any so called leftists sit down with me for a discussion.
[00:03:44]  The only ones who do it actually are sort of like the call them activist leftists, the Pisco ladies of the world, you know, people who enjoy the discussion.
[00:03:53]  As for the rest, they make their own disgusting, stupid, what is it called, purity test silo.
[00:03:59]  Jen Psaki will not come on my show and she would never have me on her show.
[00:04:03]  She prefers to have her.
[00:04:05]  Silo of insanity, her silo of ignorance, and then treat everybody else who they won't let into their silo of ignorance as the dirty, the unclean that we don't interact with because their ideas are somehow so better, they never get challenged and then they get their asses handed to them.
[00:04:18]  And this is exactly what Mark Levin and a few others, I won't even say on the right, are doing right now.

=== Criticizing Trump's Endorsements (05:18) ===

[00:04:24]  Now, I know Sean.
[00:04:25]  I've had Sean on before.
[00:04:26]  I like Sean.
[00:04:27]  We get along and I say we can have a good hot debate, so hot on our channels.
[00:04:32]  And he agrees to it.
[00:04:33]  And I, and I, not even going to be such a hot debate.
[00:04:35]  What we need. Is exactly the opposite of what Mark Levin says.
[00:04:39]  Mark Levin, thinking now he gets to demonize elements of the right as the woke Reich, and then says the liberal media is the one using them as their tools.
[00:04:47]  Well, they're just going to go off of your categorization of them being woke Reich to use them to delegitimize the right.
[00:04:53]  So, congratulations, Mark Levin.
[00:04:54]  You've played into the tools of the left, not vice versa.
[00:04:58]  So, I reached out to Sean because he's been putting out some posts that.
[00:05:02]  I like, insofar as if I want to pick a fight, that it's an easy way to pick a fight by comparing and contrasting posts of the present with posts of the past.
[00:05:09]  And I did it over the weekend and I actually felt bad.
[00:05:11]  And I wanted to, you know, reach out.
[00:05:13]  I reached out to Sean afterwards and he agreed to come on.
[00:05:15]  Sean, bring yourself on in here.
[00:05:17]  And I'm going to start not with a groveling apology.
[00:05:20]  I do want to say that when you retweet things, because of the mob mentality that exists on social media, people don't view it as a tongue in cheek jab, they view it as like a declaration of war.
[00:05:32]  And I felt bad when I reposted your tweet about Lindsey Graham.
[00:05:35]  Because in my mind, the point I was making was quite clear.
[00:05:37]  And then the way it gets weaponized, bastardized, or misinterpreted on the internet, I felt bad for that.
[00:05:43]  So I did not mean to try to start a war with you.
[00:05:45]  And I didn't mean to try to mock and humiliate you.
[00:05:48]  I wanted to make a point, which I think I made, but it gets misinterpreted.
[00:05:52]  So with that said, Sean, thank you for coming on.
[00:05:54]  How goes the battle?
[00:05:55]  No, it goes well.
[00:05:57]  And I saw the post, and I have to be completely honest.
[00:06:01]  I don't know what the point was that you were trying to make respectfully.
[00:06:04]  So I would like to know what your position is because you see what happens in the comments, right?
[00:06:07]  Oh, yeah.
[00:06:08]  It's like it just becomes crazy.
[00:06:10]  So, I mean, as far as I remember, and this was on Friday, I think.
[00:06:13]  It was Friday.
[00:06:14]  I was up in Ohio.
[00:06:15]  I was at a Warren County GOP event, great group.
[00:06:18]  We were speaking, motivating guys and gals to get out, you know, vote in their elections.
[00:06:21]  They had me out, you know, to do a little bit for them.
[00:06:24]  It was fun.
[00:06:25]  But right around that time, I saw this happen.
[00:06:27]  I said, okay, you know, what.
[00:06:29]  What's the issue?
[00:06:30]  I still don't like Lindsey Graham.
[00:06:32]  I don't like that Trump endorsed Lindsey Graham.
[00:06:34]  And I disagree with his endorsement of Lindsey Graham, as I've maintained for a very long time.
[00:06:39]  But where I stop is okay, I disagree with something that the president is doing, but I'm not going to pitch a fit about it and get worked up, right?
[00:06:49]  Where some, and I'm not saying you do this, but I see this a lot from people online.
[00:06:56]  And by the way, both sides will pitch fits.
[00:06:59]  I'm not trying to say that hysteria and tantrum throwing is unique to one group of people.
[00:07:03]  Okay.
[00:07:04]  But where I've seen some where the president disagrees, says something they disagree with, and it's like total hysteria.
[00:07:12]  And I don't know whether or not those folks are nuts or if those folks are trying to get attention.
[00:07:19]  And I think it's the latter versus the former, but I would love to know what my point was.
[00:07:24]  You're trying to hear, yeah.
[00:07:26]  Well, so I mean, that's where, not presumed knowledge.
[00:07:29]  In my mind, it was clear.
[00:07:30]  And I want to bring up the post because it was the day that Trump endorsed Trump.
[00:07:35]  War whore Lady Lindsay in his run in North or South Carolina?
[00:07:39]  It's South Carolina or North Carolina?
[00:07:41]  Tabernouche.
[00:07:42]  He's in South Carolina.
[00:07:43]  And this is actually a couple of months after he put the endorsement out.
[00:07:45]  He endorsed Lindsey Graham, I believe, in either April or May of 2025.
[00:07:49]  And I put up a thing and said, I'm not too sure about this.
[00:07:53]  If I were Trump, I would have stayed out of it, let the voters of South Carolina decide.
[00:07:56]  And I got ripped for it from a lot of people, which is fine.
[00:07:59]  Whatever.
[00:08:00]  Have your opinions.
[00:08:01]  And now this was on Friday when Trump, I guess, again re endorsed.
[00:08:04]  Lindsey Graham.
[00:08:05]  I have had Mark Lynch on my channel a couple of times now, and I kind of, I mean, I obviously like the guy.
[00:08:09]  I think he's more Trump, more of a Trump supporter than Lindsey Graham is.
[00:08:14]  My point with this, and maybe it's not all that clear, is that what pisses me off, and you do engage in it, and when you call people black pillows and panickens when they criticize Trump, and then you come out, you know, you have publicly said, and I got to read it because it's kind of important.
[00:08:29]  You say, Glad to see everyone hates Lindsey Graham.
[00:08:32]  I was called a de simp when I questioned Trump's endorsement of him back in March.
[00:08:35]  Hey guys, welcome to the party.
[00:08:37]  Lindsey Graham is a warmonger.
[00:08:39]  And is working against your agenda.
[00:08:41]  Where have you been?
[00:08:42]  Now, my issue with this is that it seems that some people think that they get to condemn and Demonize and delegitimize people when they criticize, but they themselves want to retain that right on core issues and then just justify the way they criticize Trump.
[00:08:57]  You say, and this is what also pisses me off well, I criticize him, but then I move on.
[00:09:01]  So, like, all right, so I say my piece, but I don't belabor it as if that's how you're going to get any change.
[00:09:06]  And so, when I do it, it's righteous and justified.
[00:09:09]  But when other people do it on other issues, and the warmonger being another one, they're panic ins, they're black pillars, they're grifters, shills, whatever.
[00:09:16]  And that to me pisses me off because it seems like just a way for you to justify your criticism when you do it.
[00:09:22]  While reserving the right to condemn other people's criticism when they do.
[00:09:25]  That was the point.
[00:09:27]  Okay, right.
[00:09:27]  And so to address that, the people who I refer to as black pillars or doomers, right, or these or grifters are, and this is my position.
[00:09:36]  This is how I come to that conclusion criticize the government all you want, right?
[00:09:41]  This is a constitutional republic.

=== Avoiding Forever Wars (15:45) ===

[00:09:42]  We're supposed to do that, right?
[00:09:44]  And I've maintained that for a long time.
[00:09:47]  It's when your criticism of the government, it looks like people who criticize the government, their criticism is not gaining enough traction.
[00:09:54]  So they have to go Howard Stern and start shock jocking to gain attention.
[00:09:58]  Okay.
[00:09:59]  Whereas the thing to do right now, they lick the finger, they stick it in Israel.
[00:10:05]  Everything, how could everything go back to Israel?
[00:10:08]  Seriously, everything.
[00:10:10]  If I say, oh, I don't know, I think I could justify, oh, you're taking money from AIPAC.
[00:10:14]  Well, this is not an argument that's in good faith.
[00:10:16]  If you have a problem with Trump because he's attacking Iran, fine.
[00:10:21]  I have my concerns about the Iran war.
[00:10:24]  And I've said so publicly on my show.
[00:10:26]  I've said so on radio.
[00:10:27]  I've said so on other podcasts.
[00:10:29]  I'm not expecting everybody to keep up with my every word, by the way.
[00:10:32]  I'm not that important.
[00:10:33]  Okay.
[00:10:33]  I acknowledge that.
[00:10:34]  But here's the thing I've publicly stated that I have concerns about this war.
[00:10:39]  But I'm not coming out there saying it's a war for Israel.
[00:10:44]  Iran wasn't going to get a nuke.
[00:10:46]  Again, you played the video at the beginning.
[00:10:48]  If Iran wasn't getting a nuke, then why won't they turn over their 60% enriched uranium, which is enriched three times past the threshold of civilian energy production?
[00:10:56]  Why are they doing that for fun?
[00:10:57]  Well, for negotiation, but it's nowhere near the military grade level of enrichment.
[00:11:01]  But we'll get there in a second because we definitely will come to that.
[00:11:05]  I mean, I can hear the people screaming in the crowd.
[00:11:07]  I, too, I don't disregard everything that anybody says if I've determined that they are all roads lead to Israel.
[00:11:14]  Because I think on the one hand, there's statistical overrepresentation where I can understand that observation even if I disagree with it.
[00:11:20]  That being said, you don't get to disregard everybody's opinion on the straw man, all roads lead to Israel, when some roads do.
[00:11:28]  And so, this Iran war in particular, forget all the other stuff, forget the Israel behind the Charlie Kirk assassination.
[00:11:33]  I'm not there yet, though, you know, Bibi didn't do himself any favors with some of his statements.
[00:11:38]  The Iran war, whether or not it's for Israel, it is undoubtedly to the benefit of Israel.
[00:11:45]  So, whether or not that's the intent, that's the outcome.
[00:11:47]  You have What's his face?
[00:11:49]  Marco Rubio coming out.
[00:11:50]  And, you know, maybe misspeaking or maybe spilling the beans, depending on which way you want to go for it.
[00:11:56]  But the bottom line is it's basically accepted.
[00:11:58]  I think it's accepted that we would agree among us whether or not Israel duped Trump into it.
[00:12:05]  It was something that was determined to be in both of their interests, and Trump went along with it.
[00:12:09]  So that road does go to Israel to some extent, where if Israel does not exist politically in the picture, America might not be at war with Iran right now.
[00:12:18]  I mean, you would concede that at the very least.
[00:12:21]  Well, I look at what Donald Trump said since the 80s about how Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.
[00:12:25]  So I don't necessarily agree with that all the way.
[00:12:28]  I want to look at it this way, by the way.
[00:12:31]  Look at what Iran is doing with the Strait of Hormuz, right?
[00:12:34]  Chaos, total chaos, with them essentially extorting, holding the world hostage via oil, energy, transportation, et cetera, through the Strait, all because they said that there are mines in the Strait that, by the way, they can't locate.
[00:12:48]  They don't know where they are, but they're saying they're there.
[00:12:50]  And because Iran is so untrustworthy, right?
[00:12:54]  I don't think we could trust them.
[00:12:56]  All right.
[00:12:56]  You have to take their threat seriously, like a bomb threat on an airplane or in a school.
[00:13:00]  Because what if there actually is a bomb?
[00:13:02]  What if there actually is a mine?
[00:13:03]  You're going to let a billion dollar ship run into a mine.
[00:13:06]  The cargo is going to get lost in the strait.
[00:13:08]  You're going to then deal with a potential environmental disaster, a disaster of epic proportions that could shut down the strait.
[00:13:14]  So you have to take them at their word on that front.
[00:13:18]  Imagine the leverage they have behind a nuclear shield.
[00:13:22]  That's not good for, take Israel out of the equation.
[00:13:24]  That's not good for anybody.
[00:13:26]  These guys, look.
[00:13:27]  They've chanted death to America.
[00:13:29]  Just because someone says death to America does not mean you go to war with them.
[00:13:33]  But I'd like to bring up Matt Walsh, who a year ago had a totally different position than he does now.
[00:13:39]  And I'm going to read you verbatim what he said.
[00:13:43]  If it is actually true that Iran has tried to or is right now trying to kill our president, then absolutely we should invade the country and annihilate the whole regime.
[00:13:56]  Obviously, the United States should personally kill every person in the Iranian government if they're trying to assassinate our president.
[00:14:04]  Okay, March 6th, March 6th, 2026, a federal jury convicted Asif Marchant, also known as Asif Raza Marchant.
[00:14:14]  For the murder for hire and attempting to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries.
[00:14:19]  Marchant was a trained operative of the Iranian government's global terrorist force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
[00:14:26]  So now you have, in a court of law, it has been proven that Iran tried to assassinate the president of the United States.
[00:14:33]  This guy was convicted for it.
[00:14:34]  A year ago, that was criteria for Matt Walsh to, as his words, not mine, invade the whole country.
[00:14:40]  That sounds like boots on the ground to me.
[00:14:42]  And yet now, Because the wind is blowing in a different direction, he's taking a totally different position.
[00:14:48]  Whereas Donald Trump, since the 80s, has said Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
[00:14:54]  Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
[00:14:56]  Take the assassination attempt out of it.
[00:14:58]  He says Iran can't have a nuke.
[00:15:00]  And we know why Iran can't have a nuke.
[00:15:02]  Now, does Iran getting a nuke put harm towards Israel or to the United States more?
[00:15:09]  In this state right now, where we are, it's worse for Israel than it is for the United States because I'm not so sure Iran can reach us.
[00:15:17]  But it's also bad for, as we learned on their failed strike on Diego Garcia, they've shot a ballistic missile 2,600 miles, which is again far beyond the range that they told us their missiles can go.
[00:15:30]  Not trustworthy.
[00:15:31]  Okay.
[00:15:32]  So it's also to the benefit of Europe, who are our allies, NATO allies, right?
[00:15:37]  Which I think is an organization that we're getting the short end of the stick on, but that's a discussion for another day.
[00:15:42]  So it's not just a benefit to Israel, it's a benefit to many of the other countries in the world that rely on the Strait.
[00:15:48]  If Iran has a nuke, Imagine the negotiating power and leverage.
[00:15:53]  This is a lot different than North Korea having a nuke, right?
[00:15:56]  Because what does North Korea control in terms of energy?
[00:15:58]  Nothing.
[00:15:58]  Iran controls the strait in which 20% of the world's oil flows through.
[00:16:04]  If Iran has a nuke, and we can't trust them not to use it because they're not their religious fanatics, who their book commands to behead the infidels.
[00:16:14]  If Iran has a nuke, they hold the rest of the world hostage.
[00:16:18]  We have to make sure we don't piss them off.
[00:16:20]  Because we can't be so sure they're not going to use it.
[00:16:22]  They're not afraid of mutually assured destruction.
[00:16:24]  So, what Donald Trump is doing by trying to disarm Iran and make it impossible for them to obtain a nuclear weapon, it's not just to the benefit of Israel, it's to the benefit of a lot of other countries.
[00:16:38]  And I know the argument should be well, is it really to the benefit of us?
[00:16:41]  Well, yes, because if Iran is calling the shots behind a nuclear shield for the rest of the world, it hurts all of us, including the United States, including the leverage that we have on the world stage.
[00:16:52]  Everyone knows we're not launching a nuke.
[00:16:54]  Everyone knows that, unless you're Marjorie Taylor Greene, who said so on CNN, you know, which is what I'm talking about.
[00:16:59]  Getting hysterical.
[00:17:00]  Donald Trump wrote a post on social media about ending a civilization, caveated it with, I hope that doesn't have to happen.
[00:17:06]  And she's on CNN saying 25th Amendment because he's going to drop a nuke on Iran.
[00:17:12]  That's what I'm talking about when I talk about black pillars and doomers.
[00:17:15]  That's a ridiculous line of thought.
[00:17:17]  Now, I'm biting my tongue not to intervene because we've got to do one issue at a time and not what we call the spaghetti on the wall.
[00:17:25]  This started off with you disregarding people who say that this war is for the benefit of Israel, when then ultimately conceding, yes, there would have been other arguments for this, et cetera, but that argument is not untenable.
[00:17:37]  Having just had an election where we were talking about no new wars or no more wars in the Middle East, you can understand how people are righteously betrayed, whether or not you agree entirely with it.
[00:17:49]  The argument of pulling up a video from 40 years ago of Trump saying Iran can't have a nuclear weapon, and we're 40 years later.
[00:17:57]  Always apparently, you know, two to three weeks or two to three months away from Iran having a nuclear weapon, you might not be making the point that you think you're making on the one hand.
[00:18:05]  A video from 40 years ago is far different than the election of 2024.
[00:18:08]  And so, what we're talking about right now is the real politique consequences of that election in which you've, you know, Sean, I pulled up tweets from you.
[00:18:18]  There were no new wars in the Middle East in 2016 to 2020.
[00:18:21]  No other president has done that.
[00:18:22]  And so, you have an election in 2024 where that was the selling point.
[00:18:27]  And if the argument was going to be, well, I've been saying for 40 years that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.
[00:18:31]  So if I get elected, I'm going to go right into a war within the first year with them twice, then you might have had a different outcome on the election.
[00:18:38]  But then you would be able to say to the people who are righteously offended now, well, that's what we ran on and that's what the election was about.
[00:18:44]  Not, I feel duped now because I was conned according to some or misled according to others into a GOP ticket of peace, no new wars, no regime change, no more blood in the Middle East for oil.
[00:18:57]  And now they're criticizing.
[00:18:58]  The decision to go 180 against what he said in 2024, not what he said in 1987 with Barbara Walters.
[00:19:04]  Okay, so I'm glad you brought up the GOP platform because I have it on the screen here and I could link to it presidency.gov.
[00:19:11]  Bring it up.
[00:19:12]  This is the 20 points.
[00:19:13]  Yeah, the 20 points.
[00:19:14]  Point number eight prevent World War III, restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East, and build a Great Iron Dome missile defense shield over our entire country.
[00:19:23]  Okay, does not say no new wars, it says prevent World War III and restore peace in Europe.
[00:19:28]  Now, I understand.
[00:19:29]  Do you think that's.
[00:19:31]  Do you think that's semantic?
[00:19:32]  I don't think it's semantic.
[00:19:33]  I don't convince anybody.
[00:19:35]  I don't think it's semantic.
[00:19:36]  Hold on, wait, wait.
[00:19:38]  It says restoring civilization.
[00:19:40]  Wait, wait, wait.
[00:19:42]  What does it say after the end of civilization?
[00:19:45]  Read the whole Trump Truth Social Post.
[00:19:46]  What does it say after the end of civilization?
[00:19:48]  Does it say that Trump wants it to happen or does it say that he doesn't want it to happen?
[00:19:52]  Holy crabapples.
[00:19:53]  Sean, it doesn't matter.
[00:19:55]  We went from no.
[00:19:55]  It does matter.
[00:19:56]  It does matter.
[00:19:58]  We went from no World War III in the points to.
[00:20:01]  An entire civilization is going to die tonight, never to come back.
[00:20:04]  Do I want it to happen?
[00:20:05]  No, but it probably will.
[00:20:07]  But it didn't.
[00:20:08]  Probably doesn't mean he's going to do it.
[00:20:10]  Did he do it?
[00:20:12]  Did he do it?
[00:20:12]  The issue was not that he didn't do it.
[00:20:14]  The issue was that he said it.
[00:20:16]  Yes, it is.
[00:20:17]  No, the issue is that he didn't do it.
[00:20:19]  My issue is that he said it, which was World War III level.
[00:20:22]  I'm not saying genocidal stuff.
[00:20:24]  I'm saying if your argument is that he didn't go through with World War III civilizational ending actions, so he gets credit for that, to say it is the problem.
[00:20:33]  And to say something that you know you can't do is also bad negotiation.
[00:20:37]  He said it with the caveat that he didn't want to do it.
[00:20:40]  No, that's not something I can say.
[00:20:42]  Everyone's ignoring that.
[00:20:43]  I don't want to hit you.
[00:20:44]  Don't make me do it.
[00:20:45]  I didn't do it.
[00:20:45]  Oh, well, then that's good.
[00:20:47]  At least you didn't.
[00:20:48]  And you're not going to jail, are you?
[00:20:50]  Because you didn't swing, right?
[00:20:51]  So, the threat is.
[00:20:53]  Prevent World War III.
[00:20:54]  The threat is.
[00:20:54]  How do you prevent World War III?
[00:20:56]  Do you think.
[00:20:57]  I'm starting it.
[00:20:59]  But we didn't start World War III.
[00:21:00]  Are we in a World War?
[00:21:02]  Are we in a World War that I don't know about?
[00:21:04]  What time are we going to deal with people who have predicted World War III, where it's a World War II7 at this time?
[00:21:10]  John, you again are playing the semantic debate where unless it's declared to be a World War, then it's not a World War III.
[00:21:15]  I'm not in a World War.
[00:21:17]  Come on.
[00:21:18]  Come on.
[00:21:19]  Come on, is a Peter Griffin argument.
[00:21:21]  It's not one that convinces me.
[00:21:22]  We are, by definition, in a world war.
[00:21:24]  It hasn't been declared yet.
[00:21:25]  So the likes of you and Misfit Patriot could say, unless they declare it a war, it's not a war.
[00:21:29]  It's just a kinetic strike.
[00:21:30]  It's just an excursion.
[00:21:31]  This is a war.
[00:21:32]  It's obviously a war.
[00:21:34]  We are in a war right now that is involving three countries' military the United States, Israel, and Iran.
[00:21:41]  Nobody else is involved.
[00:21:42]  This is not a world war.
[00:21:44]  That is silly.
[00:21:45]  And I think everybody who's listening to this, why are we dead set on declaring what's happening right now in Iran where we're not even fighting right now?
[00:21:52]  We're just blocking.
[00:21:53]  That there's a ceasefire, that this is a world war.
[00:21:55]  How is this a world war?
[00:21:57]  You know what World War I and World War II looked like.
[00:21:59]  This does not look anything remotely similar to that.
[00:22:02]  Not even close.
[00:22:03]  Incidentally, the way they started was regional conflicts being set off with a certain cataclysmic event, which arguably, whether or not it would have occurred anyhow, it was regional wars that coalesced into a global war because of countries offering to back other countries and then backing them in when the conflict started.
[00:22:19]  But again, it's colloquial.
[00:22:21]  I believe it is a world war.
[00:22:22]  There's still war with Russia and Ukraine that plays into this.
[00:22:25]  There's conflict between.
[00:22:25]  It's a separate event.
[00:22:26]  Well, but as were all of the regional wars in World War I before it coalesced into dominoes falling down because of issues, a cataclysmic issue with France Ferdinand or whether or not it would have happened with other issues, they were regional until they coalesced.
[00:22:39]  So, right now, you have interests of all the players involved in regional conflicts and you have an escalation here.
[00:22:44]  So, let's, I don't know what a world war, what we're going to agree on by way of definition.
[00:22:47]  Are you at least conceding now it's a war and that anybody who said in the first two days, this isn't a war, it's just strategic strikes, we can now sort of disregard their assessments of fact and reality?
[00:22:57]  I would say, I would say right now, That this would meet the definition of war andor acts of war.
[00:23:02]  Yeah, I absolutely would.
[00:23:03]  Good, good.
[00:23:03]  That's a good session.
[00:23:04]  So now it's not a forever war because it hasn't been going on forever, right?
[00:23:07]  It's only been going on for a month now.
[00:23:08]  No, no, no.
[00:23:10]  And I have been honest about this.
[00:23:11]  I have my concerns that this can turn into a forever war.
[00:23:16]  And I've said that since day one.
[00:23:18]  I have said that since the immediate start.
[00:23:20]  I may not have posted it verbatim on X because I don't post every thought that I have verbatim on X, but I said it on the radio, publicly, on my show, publicly, on other shows.
[00:23:32]  Publicly, that I have my concerns that this could turn into a forever war.
[00:23:37]  And that would not be good.
[00:23:38]  I would not support this if this is turning into a forever war.
[00:23:41]  But here's what I do.
[00:23:43]  Sorry, Sean, go ahead.
[00:23:44]  The only time you know that it's been a forever war is eight to 10 years in and thousands of American soldiers in and no military victory in.
[00:23:51]  So you only know it's a forever war after it's followed the course that it seems to be on right now.
[00:23:57]  But set that aside, the people who are raising those concerns, and if you raised them, good for you.
[00:24:00]  I don't know if you took shit because maybe you're on the good side of the aisle to raise those.
[00:24:04]  The people who raised those concerns from the get go were called Black Pillars, Panikins, Trust the Plan, it's just military strikes.
[00:24:10]  That's what they were called in the beginning.
[00:24:12]  So I can't answer.
[00:24:13]  I can't answer for what other people call them.
[00:24:15]  I can answer for what I do.
[00:24:17]  If I see righteous criticism and concern, Hey, I'd rather we not do this.
[00:24:23]  Um, but I'm going to see it through.
[00:24:25]  I'm not going to call you a panic in.
[00:24:26]  I'm not going to call you a black pillar.
[00:24:28]  If I see someone take a social media post, okay, about the end of civilization, but I don't want it to happen and then start calling for the 25th amendment.
[00:24:39]  That is not a rational line of thought.
[00:24:41]  There's no amendment is not in place because.
[00:24:46]  Someone posted something on social media that you don't like.
[00:24:49]  That's ridiculous.
[00:24:51]  And that's the person I call a black pillar.
[00:24:53]  That's the person I call a doomer.
[00:24:55]  That's the person I call a panic in because you are literally clutching pearls over something posted on social media that you think was worded too harshly.
[00:25:06]  Okay, have your opinion about it.
[00:25:08]  Say you don't like the way it was worded.
[00:25:10]  Trump used the F word on Easter.
[00:25:12]  Say you don't like it.
[00:25:13]  Fine, have your opinion.
[00:25:15]  25th Amendment, I think you could concede, is a little too far.
[00:25:18]  Well, incidentally, I do concede that.
[00:25:21]  I don't blame the person, I don't blame Alex Jones for hyperbolically bringing it up, nor do I.

=== New War Arguments Explained (15:20) ===

[00:25:28]  And all of this gets lost when Barnes responded to that.
[00:25:31]  He said, 25th is harder than impeachment.
[00:25:33]  So, you know, go the route of impeachment.
[00:25:36]  But getting back to the main issue right now is where you're basically conceding.
[00:25:39]  Yeah, I didn't like the post either, but at least he didn't do it.
[00:25:43]  Is basically the summary of your position on that post.
[00:25:46]  No, I didn't have a problem with the post.
[00:25:48]  I actually had no issue.
[00:25:49]  I was neutral.
[00:25:50]  How about if he did follow through on it then?
[00:25:52]  Would you have then had a problem with the follow through?
[00:25:54]  It depends on how the follow through would have went.
[00:25:56]  We're looking at hypotheticals here.
[00:25:57]  No, you're looking at him follow through on his tweet.
[00:26:00]  If he ended civilization in Iran, would you have been okay with that?
[00:26:05]  Which civilization are we talking about?
[00:26:06]  The Mullah civilization?
[00:26:07]  If he killed.
[00:26:08]  Tell me what he meant in that post.
[00:26:10]  I don't know what he meant.
[00:26:10]  I'm not Donald Trump.
[00:26:11]  I only sound like him.
[00:26:12]  I don't know him.
[00:26:13]  I don't know what he meant.
[00:26:16]  That's also, I mean, that's sort of the problem.
[00:26:19]  That is the problem if people don't know what you mean.
[00:26:22]  And if it's nuking a country, ending a civil war, what does that mean?
[00:26:25]  I mean, first of all, it's not nuking.
[00:26:27]  Nobody was dropping a nuke.
[00:26:28]  Nobody was dropping a nuke.
[00:26:30]  Well, that's a little too much.
[00:26:33]  But nor do I suggest that's what he was going to do.
[00:26:36]  As I said from the beginning, there was never any realm of the universe where he followed through on that post, which is why I thought it was wrong and bad and strategically incorrect.
[00:26:44]  But the question to you is, Had he followed through on that post, then you would have had a problem with it, but you didn't have a problem with the post itself.
[00:26:50]  No, I would have had a problem with it if he had followed through on that post and massacred Iranian civilians.
[00:26:58]  Yeah, that's an issue.
[00:26:59]  Okay.
[00:27:00]  Massacred.
[00:27:01]  I mean, you're talking hundreds of thousands, millions of deaths.
[00:27:04]  I'm just saying ending civilization.
[00:27:05]  I mean, that's what the post said.
[00:27:06]  I don't know what I'm talking about.
[00:27:07]  When he says ending civilization, when he says ending civilization, I don't know what he means.
[00:27:12]  I read it as this ending civilization.
[00:27:16]  He talked about power plants and bridges.
[00:27:18]  When I think of civilization, I think of like.
[00:27:21]  You know, Bear Grylls, when he's out in the woods and he finds civilization where there's working lights, running water, and energy and things upon that.
[00:27:28]  I thought what he meant by an ending civilization was he was going to take out their power plants, he was going to take out their bridges, and he was literally going to send them back to a primitive time, in terms of a primitive time, okay?
[00:27:40]  Like no lights, no power, no energy.
[00:27:43]  Yes, there would have been death.
[00:27:44]  There's no doubt about it.
[00:27:45]  People would have died because he used the word die.
[00:27:47]  But when I heard ending civilization, never once, not ever did I believe.
[00:27:52]  That the possibility of dropping nukes or indiscriminately murdering civilians en masse was on the table.
[00:27:59]  And by the way, he didn't follow through, which is good.
[00:28:03]  He, when you, once Iran put those humans on those bridges, which by the way, that's, that's a problem too.
[00:28:09]  And I don't see, I don't see, uh, uh, uh, condemnation of that, which is interesting.
[00:28:14]  You know, Trump's social media post gets condemnation and gets criticism, but Iran putting their women and children on these bridges in the path of bombs when these women and children had no idea.
[00:28:25]  What they're going out because they don't have internet.
[00:28:27]  Nobody is talking about Iran.
[00:28:30]  I don't know what you know of what they know.
[00:28:32]  I don't know of what they know.
[00:28:33]  Well, they have no internet.
[00:28:34]  But the longest internet blackout in history in Iran.
[00:28:38]  True.
[00:28:39]  Now, but hold on.
[00:28:40]  Back it up one step.
[00:28:41]  So, the ending civilization, and I love the bunch.
[00:28:45]  Anybody who brings up my Canadian heritage, you're a moron and you should reflect.
[00:28:50]  Anybody saying the word panic in, you are a moron and you should reflect and deal with the arguments.
[00:28:55]  Anybody saying this is Viva spewing the Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly MSM talking points.
[00:29:00]  Congrats, you're not listening to anything and you don't want to have the discussion.
[00:29:03]  Go back into the cool kids' table.
[00:29:04]  You think that's where you belong.
[00:29:06]  Good for you.
[00:29:06]  The issue then now is you say, okay, you didn't think he was going to end the civilization.
[00:29:11]  Had it resulted in mass death of civilians and whatever, you would have had a problem with that.
[00:29:15]  And then we'll just take it one step down.
[00:29:17]  Had it resulted in bombing every energy plant and every bridge in Iran, would that have been a problem for you?
[00:29:24]  I would not have had a problem with it, no.
[00:29:26]  Because those energy plants and those bridges are used by the military.
[00:29:29]  And these guys deal in one language and one language only, and that is force.
[00:29:34]  Okay.
[00:29:35]  And that is why I believe a ceasefire was agreed to after that post.
[00:29:41]  And as the clock kept ticking, Pakistan threw the Hail Mary and said, how everybody hold off.
[00:29:46]  Let's try and do talks.
[00:29:48]  Okay.
[00:29:49]  That's why I think the ceasefire happened.
[00:29:51]  He forced via force and threat of force negotiations.
[00:29:56]  A mediator stepped up.
[00:29:57]  Pakistan, good, good.
[00:30:00]  I'm happy there's a ceasefire.
[00:30:02]  I'm happy bombs aren't falling.
[00:30:04]  I don't like war.
[00:30:06]  I don't like it.
[00:30:07]  That doesn't mean I'm going to be opposed to every act of war going forward, but I don't like it.
[00:30:12]  I would prefer if Iran tomorrow said, here's our uranium.
[00:30:17]  We won't pursue the nukes.
[00:30:19]  Let's call this whole thing off.
[00:30:20]  But they won't do that.
[00:30:21]  Well, but let me ask you this.
[00:30:23]  Now, okay, they probably won't do that now, whether or not that could have been done beforehand.
[00:30:29]  The amazing thing is the argument, as you presented it, is all roads lead to war because if this is, in fact, a terrorist regime that you can never negotiate with, You never should have negotiated with him in the first place.
[00:30:39]  There literally is nothing.
[00:30:40]  No, that's not my argument.
[00:30:41]  That's not my argument.
[00:30:42]  Okay.
[00:30:42]  That's not my argument.
[00:30:43]  My argument was I don't like war.
[00:30:45]  So let me just tell you my position, much like the administration's position, is you go through, you go up and down every avenue before you drop the bomb.
[00:30:56]  Can we admit that Trump did that?
[00:30:58]  He's tried to negotiate before last June.
[00:31:01]  He said, if you don't come, if you don't do something, we're going to drop a bomb on your nuclear facilities.
[00:31:06]  No, he won't do it.
[00:31:07]  He won't do it.
[00:31:07]  He won't do it.
[00:31:08]  He did it.
[00:31:09]  Okay, here we go again.
[00:31:10]  Because, and it's a catch 22 because you have the taco people, Trump always chickens out, and then you have the people who are mad that he did something.
[00:31:17]  What is he supposed to do other than nothing in that regard?
[00:31:19]  Well, on the one hand, the one thing he's supposed to do is not make posts that he knows that he can't follow through on, which would give the taco to the people.
[00:31:27]  I don't make that argument.
[00:31:28]  It's a stupid argument.
[00:31:30]  The post that he made, he spoke the language that the enemy, in this case, Iran, speaks.
[00:31:38]  They speak in force, they don't deal in anything other than force.
[00:31:42]  First of all, if you're going to understand the way he spoke it in what you think they understand or learn, you know, speak by way of fourth, if they are people who literally live to die for martyrdom, you're not speaking a language that's going to deter them, period.
[00:31:56]  So that argument is silly on the one hand.
[00:31:59]  Don't mind how the Iranians view what Trump said.
[00:32:01]  And on the other hand, then why was there a ceasefire?
[00:32:04]  Well, first of all, some might argue over the basis of the ceasefire and whether or not it was, in fact, Trump agreeing to something that he had to because he couldn't follow through on that post.
[00:32:12]  But now there was one other thing I just wanted to mention before I forgot, and now I think I forgot it.
[00:32:17]  It had to do with, darn it.
[00:32:20]  It'll come back in a second.
[00:32:22]  The issue, no, but come back to the argument that you are saying this is a terrorist regime.
[00:32:27]  They only understand power and they only understand force.
[00:32:31]  You think that that's how the tech, fine.
[00:32:33]  If that's your view, then there is no point in ever having discussions with them.
[00:32:38]  This was always the course of action.
[00:32:39]  And it should have been stated as such so that people who allied with Trump, the Tulsi Gabbards, who believe what they did, which sort of doesn't undermine, but sort of Not contradicts, it doesn't exactly jive with what Trump is saying.
[00:32:53]  The people who are on the RFK train, the people who believe that there would be no new wars in the Middle East, and certainly not for the benefit of countries that are not America, you should have run on that.
[00:33:04]  And then you wouldn't have to have the argument as to why people are now complaining that this is not what they voted for.
[00:33:10]  Well, I'm sorry if this is not what you voted for, but you should have done your homework then.
[00:33:15]  Because again, he never promised not to go to war with Iran.
[00:33:19]  That was not a promise.
[00:33:20]  The promise was no World War III, which we're now debating is this World War III?
[00:33:25]  And I think if you.
[00:33:27]  It was actually no new wars.
[00:33:28]  And then.
[00:33:29]  No, he said that that's what he accomplished was no new wars.
[00:33:32]  He never ran.
[00:33:33]  The 20 points never.
[00:33:36]  Ever.
[00:33:36]  No, 20 points is one thing.
[00:33:38]  The words were no new wars.
[00:33:39]  And that's when the likes of some people on your camp.
[00:33:43]  Came out and said, Well, this isn't a new war.
[00:33:45]  It's been fighting for 47 years, so it's not a new war.
[00:33:47]  That was literally the 180 on the talking point.
[00:33:50]  So you can't pretend that didn't happen.
[00:33:51]  So the argument is now that happened.
[00:33:53]  That's fine.
[00:33:54]  Again, I can't speak for what other people are saying.
[00:33:58]  I can speak for what I'm saying.
[00:33:59]  And yes, Iran has been killing our people in the region for 47 years.
[00:34:03]  Does that mean we're at war with them?
[00:34:06]  Whatever.
[00:34:06]  You could debate the definition of war, okay?
[00:34:10]  In my opinion, this Iran strike that started February 28th, 2026.
[00:34:17]  Is a new war.
[00:34:19]  Okay.
[00:34:20]  I believe it's a new war.
[00:34:21]  I'm not going to play the semantics game.
[00:34:22]  Well, this has been going on for 47.
[00:34:24]  I'll add that in as context to say how we got to this point.
[00:34:29]  But no, I don't believe this is an old war that Donald Trump is quote unquote finishing.
[00:34:33]  Whereas, but I also believe at this point, because of what we know about Iran, because of what we know, why won't they turn over their uranium?
[00:34:43]  Okay.
[00:34:43]  Do they want it for fun?
[00:34:45]  That was the point.
[00:34:46]  Thank you for triggering my memory.
[00:34:47]  Yeah.
[00:34:48]  The nuclear.
[00:34:48]  The nuclear.
[00:34:49]  Yeah.
[00:34:50]  Why did they want it in the first place?
[00:34:52]  Well, in the first place, they were using it as, call it some form of protection.
[00:34:57]  Nobody messes with North Korea.
[00:34:59]  And by the way, the argument that, well, North Korea doesn't control energy, the argument that North Korea has nothing to lose is not necessarily an argument as to why they wouldn't use a nuclear weapon.
[00:35:09]  I don't subscribe to this argument, but people who say North Korea's had a nuke and it hasn't impacted my life one bit whatsoever, the people of North Korea, entirely different.
[00:35:18]  When it comes to this now, does it make it more or less likely, having shown Iran and the world for that matter, what happens if you don't have the nuke?
[00:35:25]  Because nobody's bombing North Korea.
[00:35:27]  Nobody's wiping out their leaders like they did in Iran.
[00:35:30]  The question is now, there had been, call it failed negotiations, but it's kept Iran at bay for 40 years if they were always two or three months away from getting a nuke.
[00:35:38]  Negotiations, stick and carrot sanctions, had worked for 40 plus years.
[00:35:46]  The question now is now the world sees that if you don't have the nuke, they will.
[00:35:52]  Kill your leaders.
[00:35:53]  They will threaten to bring your society, your civilization back to the Stone Age.
[00:35:58]  And does it make it more or less likely that Iran abandons its pursuit or finds alternative methods of acquiring it and now potentially having a different intention to use it versus use it as a protection to make sure that they get left alone like North Korea?
[00:36:13]  Well, I think their intention was always to use it because their leaders over the last 47 years have said they're going to use it.
[00:36:19]  Okay.
[00:36:19]  So, I mean, they're on state media saying, we're going to use it and we're going to lie about it to the world.
[00:36:26]  Like these are things that happened, right?
[00:36:28]  And when I go, when I bring back, by the way, Donald Trump's.
[00:36:31]  Video from the 80s.
[00:36:32]  That's one video of him 40 some odd years ago saying Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.
[00:36:37]  He also said it in 1996.
[00:36:39]  He also said it in 2011.
[00:36:40]  And by the way, he said he bombed the shit out of them in 2016.
[00:36:47]  So for folks who say, I didn't vote for bombing Iran, the guy said if he can't negotiate with them, he'll bomb the shit out of them to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.
[00:36:57]  He said it.
[00:36:58]  I didn't say it.
[00:36:59]  It wasn't one of my bits.
[00:37:01]  He said it.
[00:37:01]  Okay.
[00:37:02]  So you may not have gone to the polling place and said, Hey, I'm voting for a new war.
[00:37:07]  Fine.
[00:37:07]  Totally cool.
[00:37:08]  That's not why you went in.
[00:37:09]  But you voted for a guy who has been open and honest that he would bomb Iran if he thought it would prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
[00:37:17]  These are just facts.
[00:37:17]  Well, they're facts that might, well, I say the facts of what he said periodically is correct.
[00:37:23]  It might not prove the point that you're suggesting because, on the one hand, it just allows somebody to say A and not A.
[00:37:28]  And then after four years of no new wars, Celebrate that achievement.
[00:37:32]  But then, if you need a new war, we'll say, Well, I've always said I'm going to bomb the shit out of them, but I also ran on the fact that I didn't start a new war, I'm the first president to have not started a new war, let alone in the Middle East in four years, and run on that achievement.
[00:37:43]  And then the question becomes okay, you've said A and not A, so you'll get your sound bites and you get, you know, everybody who wants to defend the argument will cherry pick what they want.
[00:37:51]  The bottom line, however, is that you have an election in 2024.
[00:37:55]  You have what appear to be not sufficient material changes in fact, certainly not after the obliterating their nuclear.
[00:38:05]  Facilities in July that would warrant this level of escalation, seemingly at the behest of, or at the very least to the convenient benefit of, Israel, as confirmed by Marco Rubio, Speaker Johnson, and to some extent, Trump himself.
[00:38:19]  You know, he tried to attenuate it.
[00:38:22]  But those are also the facts that, but for them saying, well, they were really two weeks away this time, even though we said we obliterated their facilities in June, now we've got to go in and get into a new war that is now into its sixth week.
[00:38:35]  And That is now the struggle.
[00:38:37]  Now is to reopen the straits that were open before the war even began.
[00:38:41]  I mean, and I'll steal, man, I appreciate people say, well, the straits were open before, but they had a military, they had a navy, they had all this other stuff, which we've blown up now.
[00:38:48]  So when we get it opened afterwards, they'll be sufficiently weakened.
[00:38:52]  Weakened, maybe, if we believe it as we believe that when they said it in July or June, deterred, hell no.
[00:38:59]  The argument is going to be they're going to be even more encouraged, and they might be able to work with the likes of North Korea or Pakistan, which came out and had some nice things to say about Israel.
[00:39:07]  That's sarcasm.
[00:39:08]  Had some unfavorable things to say about Israel, and now might see what happens when you don't have a nuclear weapon.
[00:39:13]  So the question is now deterrence, does this deter the Iranian regime, who you believe is a terrorist, hellbent organization on martyrdom, virgins in heaven, decapitating, et cetera, et cetera?
[00:39:23]  You think this is going to deter them if that's what their incentive was in the first place?
[00:39:27]  I think they're not going to have a choice.
[00:39:29]  They've lost a ton of their ballistic missile capabilities.
[00:39:32]  And I want to touch on this the idea of the obliterating the nuclear facilities, because I hear this one a lot, and I like to go down this road.
[00:39:41]  So Let's just hypothetically, right?
[00:39:44]  Say that Sean Farage does not want Viva to mow his lawn.
[00:39:46]  So I destroy your lawn mower.
[00:39:48]  Viva will not mow his lawn.
[00:39:49]  I've obliterated it, it's gone.
[00:39:51]  But then Viva goes to Home Depot and buys a new lawn mower.
[00:39:54]  So now you can mow your lawn again.
[00:39:55]  Iran buried their nuclear facilities in a mountain.
[00:39:59]  We destroyed those facilities.
[00:40:01]  But they were trying to acquire new equipment to further enrich the uranium, which again has been enriched three times past the civilian energy threshold.
[00:40:13]  When was it enriched?
[00:40:15]  To 60%.
[00:40:15]  As of what year?
[00:40:16]  60% was last year before the strikes.
[00:40:19]  Last year before the strikes, before the Isfahan strikes, it was enriched to 60%.
[00:40:25]  60%, which you don't do that in a mountain if you're doing it for civilian energy.
[00:40:33]  Okay?
[00:40:33]  Like you just, that's not what anybody, any other country in the world who provides civilian energy, okay, via nuclear energy production, they don't keep their facilities in a mountain.
[00:40:45]  It is important to get core facts correct.

=== Nuclear Facts and Intentions (09:52) ===

[00:40:49]  And this is why I think this one that you're arguing, it wasn't 2024.
[00:40:52]  It's AI, but my recollection was that they had reached enriched uranium as of 2021.
[00:40:58]  So the 60% purity had been now five years old, give or take four or five years old.
[00:41:03]  And again, if that's the argument, then that would have been the argument going into the election.
[00:41:08]  No new wars, but the predicate is there for an immediate war in Iran because they've reached 60% uranium enrichment, which they did in 2021.
[00:41:16]  I'm not going to get into whether or not it was the result of Trump pulling out of the JPCOA, whatever the acronym was back in 20.
[00:41:23]  The JCPOA, yeah.
[00:41:25]  But so that if that's the argument, well, they reached 60, they reached it in 2021, then that argument should have been made in 2024.
[00:41:34]  And it can't now serve as a fact.
[00:41:35]  We already knew for the last five years is now the new basis to justify this incursion when we said we obliterated their nuclear capabilities in a strike.
[00:41:44]  The very fear of that strike is that it would lead to what we're actually going through right now.
[00:41:48]  And the people who were raising that flag then.
[00:41:51]  We're called all sorts of names again.
[00:41:54]  I'm not reading the chat, and it doesn't bother me that way, but you have to understand this.
[00:42:01]  The argument that they can never have a nuclear weapon, which all will agree upon, you'll never be able to negotiate with them.
[00:42:10]  And you'll basically never be able to know this unless you effectively, once you've abandoned negotiations, as basically, I say not you, but people seem to think you can't negotiate with terrorists.
[00:42:22]  So there never was a purpose of negotiation.
[00:42:24]  This was always on the table.
[00:42:25]  And it's going to justify everything and anything because diplomacy won't work.
[00:42:29]  You've set up an unfalsifiable argument for war that was simply never presented.
[00:42:34]  As an election issue for people to decide upon.
[00:42:36]  In fact, it was quite the opposite.
[00:42:38]  You have to try.
[00:42:40]  Okay, I agree that you can't negotiate with terrorists, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to prevent and avoid this type of outcome, right?
[00:42:50]  If I go into negotiation with somebody who I 95% believe is negotiating with me in bad faith, but I want to give that person every chance that I can before I have to escalate.
[00:43:02]  You got to understand this is Trump.
[00:43:04]  He wrote about this in The Art of the Deal.
[00:43:06]  Okay, step one is to negotiate.
[00:43:08]  Step two is to escalate.
[00:43:09]  Step three is to take a maximalist position.
[00:43:13]  And step four is to nudge the baseline forward.
[00:43:16]  It's the old three steps forward, but we got to give two steps back, but it's a net gain of one step.
[00:43:21]  Okay?
[00:43:22]  This is what he does.
[00:43:24]  And this is what I think he had to do it.
[00:43:26]  He couldn't just go, I can't negotiate with these people, bombs.
[00:43:29]  Because then everyone would say, well, why didn't you try?
[00:43:31]  So now he can come back and go, I tried, didn't work, bombed the nuclear facility.
[00:43:36]  I tried again, built up my forces right around their country, didn't work, bombed their country, toppled their regime or their leadership structure six layers deep.
[00:43:45]  And now we have a ceasefire.
[00:43:48]  Now they're trying again.
[00:43:49]  He's trying, he's trying to avoid.
[00:43:53]  The worst possible outcome.
[00:43:55]  Okay.
[00:43:55]  But it takes two to tango.
[00:43:57]  And unfortunately, his dance partner is somebody who has no interest in doing the dance correctly and is doing nothing but stepping on his feet.
[00:44:03]  That's what's happening.
[00:44:04]  And that's, that's, it's unfortunate that it, it, it unfortunately looks like it may lead to more conflict in the region than anybody wants.
[00:44:18]  I don't think Trump wants to be in there.
[00:44:20]  He knows this is not politically advantageous for him.
[00:44:22]  He's got to know.
[00:44:23]  Okay.
[00:44:24]  But, I don't think he necessarily looks at this and says, it doesn't matter because at the end of the day, Iran doesn't get a nuke, which you and I both agreed they can't have one.
[00:44:33]  It would be a bad thing if they were in possession of a nuclear weapon.
[00:44:37]  We don't want to see that happen.
[00:44:38]  So now we have to ask ourselves, how do we make sure that doesn't happen?
[00:44:41]  And I think Trump is showing us he tried to negotiate, it didn't work.
[00:44:45]  And now we're escalating.
[00:44:48]  And we'll have to see how it plays out.
[00:44:49]  But if they don't get a nuclear weapon, it's a win, not just for Israel, for the world, it's a win, for everybody, for stability in the region, it's a win.
[00:44:57]  But this is.
[00:44:59]  The issue here is the intention versus the capability.
[00:45:02]  Now, the one thing that neither of us can really do is whether or not we believe the government information we're being told.
[00:45:11]  The trope is that they've been two weeks away for 40 years.
[00:45:14]  The other argument to that is you don't have the intelligence that they have within the military, so you have no basis to deny that.
[00:45:22]  The flip side to that is: A, intelligence is notoriously bad and has proven itself to be notoriously bad historically.
[00:45:29]  And for a country that's been two weeks away or two months away for 40 years, whatever they've been doing that does not involve the decimation of an entire civilization, A, has been working to the extent they were actually trying to do what they were trying to do, and B, as if the decimation of an entire civilization is not going to be something that is going to convince other countries or that country itself, the new regime, that they need one even more.
[00:45:55]  And so, I mean, I guess the issue is you say he tried to negotiate.
[00:46:01]  I don't know what material facts have changed in the last year.
[00:46:04]  That justify this 180, which is causing some of the most ardent supporters to say this is specifically what we did not vote for.
[00:46:10]  Now they're saying, trust us, bro.
[00:46:11]  They were really close this time and we needed to do it.
[00:46:13]  We needed to do it.
[00:46:14]  And if it turns into a forever war, we needed to do that as well because they can never have a bomb.
[00:46:19]  And I don't want to draw too many comparisons between Iraq, but they're getting more and more similar.
[00:46:23]  The issue is you say, well, now we have to trust the intelligence that says they're still on the cusp of it, even though we obliterated it back in July.
[00:46:31]  And somehow they're just as close as they were six months ago as they were.
[00:46:35]  Well, they're trying to obtain new centrifuges.
[00:46:37]  They're trying to obtain new, they're getting the new, but so then how far away are they now by the best analysis?
[00:46:46]  I mean, that's I mean, 60%.
[00:46:48]  Everyone, the analysis that I've read about 60% enriched uranium, which again, it's been that way for five years, and if that's the argument, it should have been made in 2024.
[00:46:56]  I understand that, but the fact of the matter is, why does a country need 60% enriched uranium?
[00:47:05]  You want to say for the first, for 2021 to 2024, they were using it as leverage.
[00:47:09]  To hold over the head of this administration, Joe Biden.
[00:47:12]  Is that why he unfroze $6 billion worth of frozen Iranian funds on the anniversary of September 11th?
[00:47:20]  Maybe.
[00:47:21]  Maybe that's why he did it because they called him and they said, we're going to keep enriching.
[00:47:25]  The fact of the matter is, They have 60% enriched uranium, and you don't need 60% enriched uranium if you're not trying to pursue a nuclear weapon.
[00:47:36]  That capability, the uranium and the equipment, needs to be taken from Iran.
[00:47:43]  We both agree they can't have a nuke.
[00:47:45]  You cannot have them with 60% enriched uranium and just trust that they're not going to keep going.
[00:47:50]  But so then, effectively, what you're saying is this was always the plan.
[00:47:53]  And if you didn't know that it was the plan, then you have no basis to complain or.
[00:47:59]  Express your concerns that this would.
[00:48:01]  Sean, these are not new facts on the one hand that can warrant this change in direction of administration.
[00:48:07]  Now, but set this aside, let's come back here.
[00:48:09]  You also have concerns for a forever war, but this will be the pivot if and when, and just assume that the intelligence is even accurate.
[00:48:17]  You will justify a forever war to yourself if the forever war prevents Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon.
[00:48:22]  That is where the next level of the moving goalpost is going to go.
[00:48:26]  I don't want a forever war.
[00:48:27]  I'm concerned about a forever war.
[00:48:29]  I also don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
[00:48:32]  I don't want us to be stuck in Iran, though, for 12 years to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.
[00:48:37]  So I would hope, I would pray that this administration, led by people who I did vote for, okay, I did vote for this team, all right.
[00:48:45]  I mean, I didn't know who was going to be Secretary of Defense.
[00:48:48]  My point is, I voted for the President of the United States to appoint the best people that he thought were the best and most qualified people to lead these departments of our government.
[00:48:58]  I would hope, I would pray that if this.
[00:49:04]  Quest to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon can't be resolved in the short term militarily.
[00:49:11]  That this administration, the Trump administration, gets creative and finds a way to do it without having to keep a military presence in the Middle East.
[00:49:19]  That's what I'm hoping for.
[00:49:20]  That's what I'm angling for.
[00:49:22]  That's what I'd like to see.
[00:49:24]  Well, okay, it's interesting.
[00:49:25]  You say you voted for Trump and the administration for him to appoint the people that you would rely on.
[00:49:31]  You have people within the administration who have diametrically opposing views on the necessity, on the proximity of Iran to obtaining or finalizing a nuclear weapon.
[00:49:40]  And you'll say, well, I trust Trump to disregard the or not accept the words of Tulsi Gabbard, but then rely on the words of others who can get into this.
[00:49:54]  I guess at this point, this is the broader argument or the broader discussion if we've learned nothing, you can have a president, you have intelligence, which has a history of getting things wrong.
[00:50:06]  Falsifying stuff, lying about stuff, even lying about stuff to Trump to get him into further conflict, like General Milley did, not telling him how many people soldiers were left in Syria.
[00:50:15]  You have a deep state military industrial complex that survives, thrives off wars, has provided false intelligence, incorrect intelligence in the past, and that if you're following the playbook, and I appreciate Iran is not Iraq, yeah, as others have now pointed out, the average IQ in Iran is higher than the average IQ in Iraq, and you might be dealing with a more sophisticated and harder to deal with regime, but The argument is obviously going to be nothing's a direct parallel.

=== Questioning Government Intelligence (03:48) ===

[00:50:41]  History doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
[00:50:44]  This reeks of everything of the moving goalposts that occurred from day one to 10 years later in Iraq.
[00:50:50]  The idea of regime change and then having something of a more reasonable regime come in has never proven itself in any of the major regime changes, with the exception of Venezuela, which might have been the mistake of everyone thinking this would go like Venezuela.
[00:51:03]  So, in as much as we don't know the intel and we don't have access to it, the argument that you don't know, therefore you can't have an opinion or you can't question the government is the argument they make every single time.
[00:51:14]  It's an unfalsifiable argument that basically.
[00:51:16]  That's not the argument that I make, though.
[00:51:17]  No, I understand that.
[00:51:18]  I can't answer for what people.
[00:51:19]  I can't.
[00:51:21]  This is one thing, and I'll say I grew up listening to sports radio.
[00:51:24]  If there's one thing I used to hate, it's when an athlete came on a sports radio station and said, You've never played, therefore you can't talk.
[00:51:32]  Well, you could piss off because I'm going to talk about you because you dropped the pass in the end zone and you cost the team the game, right?
[00:51:38]  Like, that's it.
[00:51:39]  So I'm not going to say you can't have an opinion because you don't know.
[00:51:45]  What I do have a problem with are people who allude to.
[00:51:50]  Or kind of imply that they know something, but they never share what they know.
[00:51:57]  I will push back on that.
[00:51:58]  If you've got the knowledge, share the knowledge, brother.
[00:52:02]  If you don't have the knowledge, don't imply that you've got the knowledge and that you've seen things and that you share it or stop, right?
[00:52:10]  I mean, it's because there's a lot of this like, well, it was for Israel.
[00:52:14]  Well, okay, you have the Marco Rubio clip that everyone likes to play, but the administration has offered and Rubio has come out and said maybe he misspoke as he's allowed to misspeak.
[00:52:24]  Human beings are not perfect, right?
[00:52:26]  So I'm not saying that we're in here, and I'm certainly not going to concede the point that we're in here because of Israel.
[00:52:33]  Certainly not.
[00:52:33]  But my point is, and I want to be very clear I am not anti criticism of government.
[00:52:39]  I am not anti questions.
[00:52:41]  I am absolutely not somebody who says you can't question the government because you didn't do this or you haven't done this or you don't know that.
[00:52:51]  Everybody in this country, right, left, up, down, middle, whatever, has.
[00:52:57]  Their first amendment right, their God given right to question their government and speak freely.
[00:53:02]  I will fight till I'm blue in the face.
[00:53:05]  I will fight till I'm blue in the face, uh, for, for anybody who wants that right.
[00:53:10]  What I have a problem with is when the questions become soft accusations.
[00:53:16]  Why are we in this war for Israel?
[00:53:18]  What proof do you have to fit in a war for Israel?
[00:53:22]  We don't need to devalue this debate with those types of arguments.
[00:53:26]  But forget it.
[00:53:28]  And incidentally, it doesn't change anything anyhow.
[00:53:31]  So, true or not, we are now where we are.
[00:53:34]  And the question is why?
[00:53:36]  The question is those who are voicing their discontent being written off and the impact that that's going to have.
[00:53:43]  Come next midterms, come next election, which is also the broader point.
[00:53:48]  I said, like, you know, you could have probably convinced more people to support this war if there had been this type of discussion back in 2024, as opposed to the discussion that there was, versus now people being gaslit into saying, or into people telling them, you did vote for this.
[00:54:02]  You just didn't hear what Trump said in 1987.
[00:54:04]  You didn't see the clip from 2016.
[00:54:06]  And you were silly enough to only rely on the discussion in 2024, which now the argument is, well, there were some facts that have been true as of 2021 that we're invoking right now.
[00:54:15]  And whether or not this has ever worked in the past.
[00:54:17]  That's the question to you.
[00:54:20]  If, forget intelligence, and I'm not claiming to have access to knowledge that I don't have, you can make predictions based on the way things have gone under similar circumstances in the past.

=== Political Fallout of Strikes (05:08) ===

[00:54:30]  This reeks, and it's getting more and more as more time goes on, reeks of Iraq 2.0, where you have intelligence.
[00:54:38]  Iran's been very close to a nuke for 40 years, weapons of mass destruction.
[00:54:43]  And then when you don't have the weapons of mass destruction, oh, well, then they had Scud missiles if they weren't.
[00:54:47]  Supposed to have under the international agreement at the time.
[00:54:49]  So, therefore, it justified it regime change.
[00:54:52]  They're going to welcome us with open arms because we're going to be freeing them.
[00:54:56]  And we haven't seen that in Iran any more than we saw it in Iraq.
[00:54:59]  And so, the similarities at some point, you do have to take a step back and say, well, it reeks of what happened in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan.
[00:55:12]  And then the problem is, by the time you're saying that, you're too far in where the mentality now is sunk cost fallacy, where We have to stay now.
[00:55:21]  We can't possibly get out right now because A, it'll be so much worse if we do, and B, we're going to lose our stature on the international scale.
[00:55:28]  And I guess at one point, at some point, the question is when do you start to not even necessarily agree with, but concede the validity of the argument that this is going down the Iraq war?
[00:55:39]  And it's not because of the criticism, it might be because of this is the way it goes.
[00:55:44]  The war was never meant to be won, it was meant to be eternal.
[00:55:47]  Well, again, I already concede, well, not concede, but I already qualify with the concerns that this could be a repeat of the past.
[00:55:58]  I've been, again, I've been very open about that.
[00:56:01]  When it first happened, I was like, ooh, you know, I'm not so sure, but I'm going to wait.
[00:56:06]  This is the team I trust to make it.
[00:56:08]  This is the team that I believe is best equipped.
[00:56:12]  And I don't know.
[00:56:12]  I might sound like the idiots who did this in 2002, like a Tucker Carlson who said the Iraq war was justified, who.
[00:56:20]  Changed his position with new information.
[00:56:23]  With new information.
[00:56:24]  Learned from history.
[00:56:25]  Sure.
[00:56:26]  Well, sure.
[00:56:27]  But I may sound like somebody who said, oh, the Bush team and all his secretaries are the best guys for this job.
[00:56:34]  I may sound like that.
[00:56:35]  That's fine.
[00:56:36]  I believe right now, today, April 14th, 2026, that the team in place, Pete Eggseth, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, and the rest of the folks who are involved, Raisin Kane, et cetera, the folks who are involved on the military side of these things, I believe this is the team best equipped to prevent this from turning into a forever war.
[00:56:58]  I believe that.
[00:56:59]  I believe that with every fiber of my being.
[00:57:03]  But I do have concerns that things could go wrong.
[00:57:07]  No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[00:57:09]  Napoleon said that, right?
[00:57:10]  You know, in the sports world, they say, how did that really bad team put up such a great fight against the really good team?
[00:57:18]  Well, they get paid too, right?
[00:57:19]  No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[00:57:23]  I am not writing the end of the book.
[00:57:26]  In its third chapter.
[00:57:28]  And a lot of people are assuming that this is automatically what's going to happen.
[00:57:33]  Have your concerns, but there are folks who are already sold on the fact that this has already failed.
[00:57:40]  It has been six weeks.
[00:57:42]  We have unfortunately lost 13 lives.
[00:57:45]  We are going back.
[00:57:46]  Iran now with this blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, allegedly, I'm basing it off reports that I saw, wants to resume talks again and come back to the negotiating table because this strangles their economy.
[00:57:58]  You've talked yourself out of talking to them.
[00:58:01]  They want to come back to the table and talk, but I've already written them off as insane maniacs.
[00:58:05]  But you have to, no, no, it's not an absolute thing here.
[00:58:09]  I don't trust them.
[00:58:11]  But you always have to expend every single avenue of diplomacy before you escalate.
[00:58:18]  This is how he does it negotiate.
[00:58:20]  Escalate, maximalist, new baseline.
[00:58:24]  And this is a cycle that's going to keep repeating.
[00:58:26]  He's done this with China on trade.
[00:58:28]  He's done this with Russia and the Ukraine war, which unfortunately is still going on.
[00:58:32]  Nothing you could really do.
[00:58:35]  You didn't give the two best examples of where it was employed with success, but set that aside.
[00:58:41]  Okay.
[00:58:41]  And by the way, first of all, I like this.
[00:58:44]  This is, A, the type of discussion that people should have because people are going to watch and say, you're not a nutcase, Sean.
[00:58:50]  The only question is going to be, and it's not going to be judging this by the outcome, it's going to be assessing which concerns were more accurate or what panned out more accurately over time.
[00:59:02]  My major issue is.
[00:59:05]  The political fallout of this and the absence of discussion on the issue.
[00:59:10]  Because, you know, set aside the whole war itself.
[00:59:14]  And, you know, my practical advice and what's done cannot be undone.
[00:59:18]  This should have been done after the midterms.
[00:59:20]  You know, the question is how close were they, even if you believe that they were close to a nuke, do it after the midterms when you're actually, you know, depending on how that goes, when you can do it with the least amount of political fallout.
[00:59:31]  And as of now, you know, the blowback is going to be what it is.
[00:59:35]  We'll see.
[00:59:35]  And hopefully it's not going to be as bad as hopefully there's a miracle.

=== Pragmatics of the Raid (10:36) ===

[00:59:38]  And, and, and I, you know, I, We'll see what happens at the midterms.
[00:59:42]  But the issue of blaming the people who are now saying this is not what I voted for and browbeating them into saying, well, you'd better continue voting for this and it was what you voted for.
[00:59:53]  And we don't want to listen to your criticism coming into the midterms.
[00:59:56]  I think that's part two of the problem here, which is set aside what path the administration is on, shunning and disregarding very, very influential voices, whether you agree with it or not, I think they are influential voices.
[01:00:10]  Doing even more damage above and beyond the political fallout of this.
[01:00:14]  And I don't understand why, say, the administration or some of the people who are the most vocal supporters of this particular war are hellbent on not engaging in the dialogue, but demonizing the very people that they're going to need come 2026.
[01:00:25]  Well, and I'll say this, okay?
[01:00:29]  Again, I like having the discussion.
[01:00:31]  I appreciate the time that we had.
[01:00:32]  This hour actually flew by.
[01:00:34]  So, I mean, this was a lot of fun.
[01:00:35]  So I appreciate you having me on.
[01:00:37]  Thank you.
[01:00:38]  I like to have the discussion, I like to exchange ideas, and I don't shun people simply.
[01:00:44]  For criticism.
[01:00:45]  But when I have to see these quote unquote influential voices, Marjorie Taylor Greene posted it too, 25th Amendment.
[01:00:54]  That's when I start to get annoyed.
[01:00:56]  And I say, You don't think that's a little much?
[01:00:59]  I think you conceded, That's a little much.
[01:01:01]  The 25th Amendment is not a social media thing.
[01:01:04]  I think it was legally untenable, but do also bear in mind, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene's not coming out of the blue.
[01:01:09]  And back when they were fighting, I was like, My goodness, Trump and MTG and Trump and Massey should be making up over these issues, not digging in their heels.
[01:01:16]  Especially over the Epstein issue, which now, given Melania's most recent statement, people will refuse to agree there's been any sort of vindication by Massey, but they should not have been fighting over these issues.
[01:01:27]  And the people who said they should, the people who are saying these are real issues and you have to address them were called names back with Epstein when it became the theme to not care about it, even though it was the theme to care about it prior to.
[01:01:40]  So, you know, MTG coming out and saying 25th, that's not out of the blue, you know, that's after her being called a traitor and all that stuff.
[01:01:47]  But it's still ridiculous.
[01:01:48]  It's still ridiculous.
[01:01:49]  Well, it depends.
[01:01:50]  So the president calls you a name.
[01:01:51]  The president calls you a name, and that's the reason for the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment.
[01:01:56]  Who are you, Marjorie Taylor Greene?
[01:01:58]  Even you would concede that if the goal were to actually end a civilization, then you might entertain the idea of a 25th.
[01:02:07]  If you knew that Trump's goal, I'm not saying it was, and I don't believe it was, I don't think he was ever going to act on it, but if you did believe that there was a real risk that he would actually either nuke or bomb everything back to the Stone Age, I think that you said you'd accept, which is problematic on its own, but set that aside.
[01:02:22]  If you thought there was a possibility he'd use a nuke, would you then entertain the notion of a 25th that maybe this is not rational talk anymore?
[01:02:30]  I would not entertain the 25th Amendment over a nuclear threat.
[01:02:34]  I would, at that point, I would, at that point, Ask Congress, I would add the House and Senate to draft up a resolution or some sort of war powers to prevent him from launching a nuke.
[01:02:46]  I don't want the president removed for making a threat.
[01:02:49]  No, I don't.
[01:02:51]  I don't think making a threat on social media warrants removal from office.
[01:02:55]  No, I'll never take that.
[01:02:56]  Well, the threat depends on the nature of the threat.
[01:02:59]  If it's an indication of an unhinged, mentally unwell person, I don't think Trump is there.
[01:03:03]  And incidentally, not to protect Robert Barnes.
[01:03:05]  Even he said, we're not there yet either.
[01:03:07]  It's harder to get that than impeachment.
[01:03:09]  And, you know, If anybody wants to impeach, the Democrats have never shied away from that.
[01:03:13]  But then he said in that clip, which was weird, tackle the president because Alex Jones said, I've never heard you call for a coup.
[01:03:20]  And he said, This is how bad it is.
[01:03:22]  But he said, Never.
[01:03:23]  Well, first of all, never until that moment.
[01:03:25]  He said, I'd never heard you call for a coup before.
[01:03:27]  Now you have two guys on the screen calling for a coup.
[01:03:31]  How is this any different than what Rachel Maddow does on MSNBC?
[01:03:35]  The answer is it's not.
[01:03:36]  Tax returns, Stormy Daniels, and now a social media post, Viva.
[01:03:41]  Come on.
[01:03:41]  That's a bridge too far.
[01:03:44]  That 25th Amendment over a social media post is crazy.
[01:03:47]  That's not how rational people behave.
[01:03:49]  No, I think people will disagree with you if you say, even if he meant nuking, then you wouldn't talk about a 25th.
[01:03:54]  Some people are going to disagree with you there, but that's your assessment.
[01:03:57]  That's fine, but he didn't say that.
[01:03:58]  So I'm living in what he said.
[01:04:00]  He didn't say the word nuke.
[01:04:02]  He said he didn't want to do it.
[01:04:03]  He said it probably will.
[01:04:04]  He said, I don't want that to happen.
[01:04:06]  And that post, 25th Amendment.
[01:04:10]  That to me was unbelievable.
[01:04:11]  Yeah.
[01:04:12]  And first of all, Alex, my argument to that was when Alex said, You know, they're turning the water's turning the frogs gay.
[01:04:20]  It didn't mean he was turning them gay.
[01:04:21]  It meant that something was wrong there.
[01:04:22]  When he says, How do we 25th them?
[01:04:24]  You know, it's hyperbolic.
[01:04:26]  And if you'd known Robert, you know, the joke has always been that you gotta, you know, being a yes man to Trump doesn't help Trump anymore.
[01:04:33]  And, but I'm not defending it because I, A, I disagree with it.
[01:04:36]  I don't think you, I think the conniption fit that people threw over it actually just amplified the message.
[01:04:41]  And so, congrats.
[01:04:42]  I mean, everybody accusing everybody of clickbait looking for attention and engagement.
[01:04:45]  Well, congrats on A, giving it more engagement and B, doing that yourselves by commenting on something which you think is so outlandish that it needs, A week worth of lambasting.
[01:04:53]  Sean, can I get some?
[01:04:54]  I want to get the tip questions because it looks like you're getting some compliments in here, but I think I know from whom.
[01:04:59]  Anybody who's.
[01:05:00]  Let me see.
[01:05:01]  Do you have a few more minutes?
[01:05:03]  Yeah, yeah, yeah, 100%.
[01:05:04]  Let me do this here.
[01:05:04]  I want to get to the questions.
[01:05:05]  We got Stephen Legion Studios.
[01:05:07]  Viva, how do you keep someone from using a nuke when they don't care about mutually asserted destruction?
[01:05:11]  North Korea is insane, but they don't want to die.
[01:05:14]  You've baked it into your question.
[01:05:16]  The idea that if they get a nuke, the first thing they're going to do is end the world.
[01:05:20]  If that's how you view it, Then, A, that's the premise.
[01:05:24]  And then, B, how do you stop him?
[01:05:29]  I guess the same way that they've been held off being two weeks away for 20 years and negotiation and maybe what Israel had done, you can go with strategic strikes to set them back if you really believe that that's what's going on and facilitate overthrowing the government.
[01:05:45]  I don't, in as much as they said that was going to happen anyhow.
[01:05:49]  But you bake into the question a premise that will always lead to the very same conclusion.
[01:05:55]  The answer is you can't do everything you can, even if it means ending the civilization.
[01:06:00]  Barry N. McGroen, Sean is owning your ass.
[01:06:02]  Listen to him.
[01:06:03]  Barry N. McGroen, Sean is the best part of the show.
[01:06:05]  I know who Barry N. McGroen is, so these comments do not surprise.
[01:06:09]  Rodeo, Trump was saying things for Iran's sake, not ours.
[01:06:13]  It is the art of the deal.
[01:06:13]  We know Trump uses rhetoric.
[01:06:15]  Yeah, well, I mean, we've addressed that point.
[01:06:17]  King of Biltong says, I normally drop a rant kindly asking Viva to put Biltong.
[01:06:22]  Today, I want to reiterate my offer to Sean for some Biltong.
[01:06:25]  Also, BiltongUSA.com, use code Viva.
[01:06:28]  Sean, Biltong is like South African beef jerky, it's flipping delicious.
[01:06:31]  Ooh.
[01:06:32]  I'm a keto guy, so that might be up my alley.
[01:06:34]  It's amazing.
[01:06:35]  Viva is turning into Barnes.
[01:06:37]  Common sense has left the Viva building.
[01:06:39]  First of all, one would be so fortunate as to turn into Barnes, intellectually speaking.
[01:06:43]  I disagree with him on certain issues.
[01:06:45]  Hold on, I didn't mean to take that out.
[01:06:46]  But this is not the insult that you think it is.
[01:06:48]  And it might do you some good if I only knew to turn into a little bit of Barnes yourself.
[01:06:52]  Denise Ann, too, says, I completely agree with Sean.
[01:06:55]  And King of Biltong says, Sean, seen you on Ben, loved your Trump boom shakalaka.
[01:06:59]  Please reach out to Biltong USA.
[01:07:00]  All right, I'll screenshot this and give it to you afterwards.
[01:07:02]  And then over in our Viva Barnes law, I know we got some questions there.
[01:07:08]  How do I toggle this with my fat fingers?
[01:07:11]  And let's go tipped here.
[01:07:12]  We got Schnookums.
[01:07:13]  Why do I seem to remember the centrifuges at one time, if not now, come from French or German corporations?
[01:07:20]  I don't know about that.
[01:07:21]  And Irene Pelagian says, Why does Sean seem to think the US has the moral authority to say which of any nations gets to have nuclear weapons or not?
[01:07:29]  I mean, I can answer that question the way Sean would.
[01:07:31]  It's just a matter of might is the, you know, not might makes right, but as the world superpower and anything that would challenge them.
[01:07:38]  They have the ability to do it.
[01:07:39]  And it's not a question of right or wrong.
[01:07:41]  It's just a question of the pragmatics of the situation.
[01:07:43]  Well, that's the idea of peace through strength.
[01:07:45]  That's the way I would.
[01:07:46]  That's the way I would.
[01:07:47]  Yeah, but yeah.
[01:07:48]  The problem is there's a difference between peace through strength and peace through war, which.
[01:07:52]  Well, sometimes, again, sometimes you threaten a guy, I'm going to beat your ass.
[01:07:57]  And sometimes you have to beat his ass.
[01:07:58]  I mean, unfortunately, that's where we're at.
[01:08:01]  It's unfortunate.
[01:08:02]  Sean, we're going to raid Tim Pool, I guess.
[01:08:05]  Anybody go raid them.
[01:08:05]  And if you can, we'll do some questions for the Rumble Premium and.
[01:08:09]  The logo.
[01:08:09]  Yeah, I can.
[01:08:10]  Okay, cool.
[01:08:10]  Awesome.
[01:08:11]  So let's go.
[01:08:11]  We're going to do a raid.
[01:08:12]  Oh, before we lose everybody, Sean, tell them where they can find you.
[01:08:15]  I put your links in the chat, but let them know real time.
[01:08:18]  Appreciate you.
[01:08:19]  Rumble.com slash LFATV, 10 a.m. Eastern to 11 a.m. Eastern Time, Mondays through Fridays on X at Sean, S H A W N underscore, Farish, F A R A S H.
[01:08:32]  And I want to show everybody what it looks like because they might not know it's yours when you get there.
[01:08:36]  This is it, right?
[01:08:37]  LFATV?
[01:08:38]  Correct.
[01:08:39]  That's the channel to follow, and I'm live there every morning at 10 a.m. Eastern Time.
[01:08:43]  All right.
[01:08:43]  And Sean, do I have your thing?
[01:08:45]  I do have your.
[01:08:46]  Well, let me see here.
[01:08:46]  I'm going to bring up your post.
[01:08:48]  Anyways, the links are in there.
[01:08:49]  So go check it out.
[01:08:50]  And here is your ex.
[01:08:51]  And now we're going to go raid Tim Pool.
[01:08:54]  So go say hi.
[01:08:56]  And we're going to take some questions from the chat.
[01:08:58]  Boom.
[01:08:59]  Shakalaka.
[01:08:59]  Speaking of boom, Shakalaka.
[01:09:01]  All right.
[01:09:01]  Let's see.
[01:09:02]  Sean, what else did I forget to?
[01:09:03]  Oh, well, let's go back to all of this from the beginning.
[01:09:07]  I appreciate that the position is, you know, and it's my position as well constructive criticism, not for the purposes of destroying the administration, but for the purposes of expressing your righteous concerns and hope that they will support it.
[01:09:17]  No problem with that.
[01:09:18]  Lindsey Graham, where you say, when you come and say, like, the man is acting against the agenda of the Trump administration, and yet Trump, not reading the room, is still endorsing this war whore.
[01:09:29]  Some people are going to say, well, you know, how do you complain about being a war whore when you support another war?
[01:09:34]  But I think we fleshed that out for an hour so people can put those two together.
[01:09:39]  What is the best way to talk sense into him, except by making noise in as much as that's all that you can do?
[01:09:46]  Beat Lindsey Graham in the primary.
[01:09:48]  That's the way to do it.
[01:09:49]  Okay?
[01:09:50]  Because if you look at some of the endorsements that Donald Trump has made, some of them have been terrible, and I have been very vocal about them.
[01:09:57]  Mike Lawler up in New York, where I used to live in New York, I didn't live in Lawler's district.
[01:10:01]  Guy's a total hack.
[01:10:02]  He's pushing that Dignity Act nonsense now.
[01:10:04]  He endorsed Tony Gonzalez in Texas.
[01:10:07]  What happened?
[01:10:08]  Tony Gonzalez lost and he got exposed, but he bowed out.
[01:10:12]  Okay.
[01:10:13]  The best way, the best way.