Ben Shapiro vs. 25 Kamala Harris Voters — Surrounded

[0:00] In this country right now, 300,000 minors, we have no idea where they are. [0:03] Oh, that is nonsense. [0:05] That is not nonsense. [0:05] No, it is. [0:06] They are not lost. [0:07] They're released to their sponsors who have to go through background checks. [0:09] You have no idea what you're talking about. [0:11] They don't all have to. [0:11] You think 300,000 minors are lost in America? [0:14] Are you crazy? [0:14] I'm saying... [0:15] Why, hello there. [0:18] I'm Ben Shapiro, and I'm co-founder of The Daily Wire and host of The Ben Shapiro Show. [0:22] And today, I'm surrounded by 25 Kamala Harris supporters. [0:26] My first claim is Kamala Harris' attempt to put DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, [0:34] at the center of her policies, is destructive. [0:46] How's it going, dude? [0:47] Where did I get one of those hats? [0:49] Oh, my boy made it for me. [0:50] Nice. [0:52] So, yeah, you know, first of all, we're standing on stolen indigenous Tongva land, right? [0:59] This is... [1:00] Are you moving anytime soon? [1:01] No, but the fact of the matter is, I'm born and raised in California. [1:05] We're talking about diversity, equity, and vision. [1:08] We should. [1:09] So why don't we... [1:10] We absolutely should. [1:10] You could do it today, right now. [1:12] Great. [1:12] We should. [1:13] But that's not my point. [1:14] The point is, you're saying that diversity, equity, and inclusion is destructive. [1:18] Yes. [1:19] Right. [1:20] So, when we look at this country that is built off the backs of slavery and white supremacy, [1:28] taking the lead, building the roots and foundations of everything that you know and believe today, [1:33] it's ironic to see a black and Indian woman who's rising up to the occasion against society, pushing them down. [1:45] And this isn't just the fact that they're black and Indian and a woman. [1:48] It's the fact that those demographics... [1:50] Can you give me an example of how society pushed Kamala Harris down, please? [1:53] The demographic of people is what I'm talking about. [1:55] Well, yeah, but you suggested that Kamala Harris is being pushed down by society. [1:59] I'm not suggesting that. [2:00] No. [2:01] I mean... [2:01] So, my point is saying that... [2:03] I'm sorry. [2:03] ...by the majority. [2:05] Please return to your seat. [2:06] Good to meet you. [2:07] Whoa. [2:13] Whoa. [2:14] Hey, Ben. [2:15] Hey, how's it going? [2:16] Nice to meet you. [2:17] So, my opening question to you would be, why is that a destructive thing? [2:21] Why is that a bad thing when, for a long time in this country, I feel personally that white men have had an advantage over some communities that have been discriminated against. [2:32] So, why would you say that that is a destructive thing and not, you know, maybe making up for lost time? [2:37] Sure. [2:37] So, let me explain what I mean by diversity, equity, and inclusion. [2:40] So, the basic theory of diversity, equity, and inclusion is spelled out by people like Richard Delgado, who's sort of one of the founders of, for example, critical race theory, [2:46] is that essentially, disparities equal discrimination. [2:48] That if you see any disparity between one group in the United States and another group in the United States, that is the result of some exterior discrimination. [2:54] It is not the result of individuals within that group acting differently. [2:57] It's not the result of cultural differences. [2:59] It's not the result of aggregated differences within individuals within that group. [3:03] And that, to me, is a failure of logic. [3:05] It also is destructive in that it separates group from group, particularly in the United States, on the basis of race, which is not the best way of actually bringing Americans together or forming policy that is the best for all Americans. [3:15] Do you think there's room for nuance, perhaps, though? [3:18] Like, yeah, maybe not everybody, but there certainly has been a large sect of people that has had it harder because of the color of their skin or their sexuality or their gender identity. [3:27] Could you acknowledge that maybe there's, you know, a middle ground there where it's not all, but there is some people who certainly have had a disadvantage? [3:33] I will say that history has consequences, obviously, and that if you are talking about historic marginalization of particular groups, that has consequences. [3:40] The problem is that when you design policy in order to rectify for cosmic injustices or historic injustices, you actually have to try and measure out whether underperformance, say, economically, is due to those historic injustices. [3:50] If so, how much? [3:51] What is the corrective policy that is actually aimed at achieving best opportunity for all? [3:56] The diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that are directed at separating race from race and then benefiting one race, for example, at the expense of another ignore the fact that there are individuals in those groups, that history does not fall on everybody equivalent. [4:06] Frankly, genetics and intelligence don't necessarily fall on an individual level, right? [4:11] You and I, we don't look the same. [4:12] We might have different heights. [4:13] We might have different qualities. [4:14] That is just the way that, you know, God or nature has bestowed skill sets on everybody. [4:19] What exactly is the government supposed to correct for? [4:21] And if you took this entire group and you separate it in half, just draw a line anywhere, it's a circle, right? [4:26] Anywhere you draw a line, you're going to get disparities between the two groups on either side of the line without regard to race, without regard to sex, and without regard to, for example, sexual orientation. [4:34] But does that mean that that hasn't played an effect in that story at all? [4:38] I'm not going to, you'd be a fool to claim that, again, past injustices have no effect on what's happened today. [4:45] Thanks so much. [4:47] Watching you guys gear up to run is really entertaining. [4:55] That was so nice, everybody. [4:56] Thank you. [4:56] So you believe that certain economic disparities between racial groups are caused as a result of economic, no, cultural differences? [5:09] Sure. [5:09] And so what is the backing on this? [5:12] What would you say contributes to your belief in that? [5:16] Okay, so not all cultures, for example, value studying in school the same. [5:21] You can check this by the amount of hours that kids of particular cultures study. [5:25] So, for example, Korean Americans study a lot more than, for example, Latino Americans, in terms of the number of hours that kids study. [5:32] It would be hard to suggest what to attribute that to other than sort of parental guidance and what exactly the priorities are of the parents. [5:40] This is true, by the way, between white people. [5:42] Okay, so when I talk about disparities between groups, you can talk about white Appalachia, and they're very different values with regard to studying than there are for, say, upper class white Americans who are living in Brooklyn. [5:50] Right, that's not the exact same thing. [5:52] So cultural differences are not just racial differences. [5:55] I think that anybody who tends to sort of clumsily map that on and pretend that that's all the same, that's obviously not true. [6:00] But cultural differences do explain enormous amount of group disparities across incomes. [6:06] To take a perfect example, if you look at single motherhood rates, they're not equivalent across groups. [6:11] Those are going to have massive differences with regard to outcomes for children. [6:14] So if you're talking about cultural differences, again, cultural is just a rough way of saying how people act within a group on a large scale. [6:22] And that is going to amount to some generalization, but that generalization is going to tend to, shall we say, concur. [6:30] It's going to correlate very highly with outcome. [6:33] But culture is acclimated over time. [6:36] It becomes a thing over time. [6:38] And so do you not think that these historical disadvantages that certain ethnic groups have been through over time has created this culture where in which they're unable to put themselves ahead? [6:48] You do say that Asian-Americans are more likely to study. [6:53] Yes. [6:53] But we have to take into account that after the Chinese Exclusion Act, Asian-Americans were given a certain type of reparations, which allowed them into the country. [7:01] And in order for them, they were given visas, which allowed them to come into the. [7:08] Yes, they were given easier processes into visas. [7:10] Yes, which allowed them into. [7:12] No, it's a form of reparations, which they were once excluded from coming in. [7:18] And so giving them an easier opportunity to attain these visas allowed them into the U.S. [7:23] And mainly the individuals who were able to attain those were people with higher educations, which is why it may seem that Asian-Americans within the country who come in typically with higher incomes as well as higher educational backgrounds. [7:35] It may come off as that they are more studious than Latino-Americans. [7:39] But what we have to take into account is that Latin America and Hispanic people have faced a lot, a lot of tremendous setback due to historical atrocities. [7:51] It's not their culture, per se, what you see within. [7:56] Is there any individual agency in here or is it all historic circumstance? [7:59] Everything is based off of history. [8:01] Everything acclames, everything is an accumulation of history. [8:03] So to take the single motherhood example, for example. [8:05] The way. [8:07] That was fun anyway. [8:17] Hey, how's it going? [8:18] How are you? [8:20] Good to meet you. [8:21] So your basis is saying that culturally people don't have the same advantages, right? [8:26] I'm saying that not every culture sort of initiates the same action within groups. [8:32] So in part, you're saying that you're part of each culture. [8:35] You know what goes on in each culture to say these things. [8:37] No, I'm saying that I can analyze the activities of a particular group with reference to their [8:41] actual behavior. [8:42] So if you go into my culture, we're told that we can achieve anything through hard work. [8:48] We have to work 10 times harder, but you're not part of our culture. [8:51] So you're explaining something that doesn't have to do with you. [8:54] But in turn, you're saying that that culture, unfortunately, does not value the same thing that [8:59] the next culture does. [9:00] So revealed preference tends to be a better way of doing social science than subjective [9:03] perceptions. [9:04] Revealed preference is how people act in the world. [9:07] So for example, if you have one group of people who say, we really, really value our kids studying [9:11] and then their kids don't study at all, that would be a revealed preference. [9:14] Everybody has a reason to say their kids study. [9:17] People who say in corporate America, you have people who value nepotism versus actual studying [9:24] hard. [9:25] What is that called then? [9:26] Okay. [9:26] So the idea that people generally value nepotism over studying hard, I'd like to see the evidence [9:31] of that given the fact the vast majority of wealth in this country is not created through [9:35] nepotism or through inherited wealth. [9:36] But Donald Trump was given nepotism, was he not? [9:38] I mean, he's one example among a bajillion people who are very, very wealthy in this country. [9:42] I'm very wealthy now. [9:43] I certainly wasn't born very wealthy. [9:45] But then you can't speak on Donald Trump's experience, can you not? [9:48] That just happens to be the case. [9:49] Okay. [9:49] I mean, you can laugh at my particular history, but I grew up in an 1100 square foot home in [9:54] Burbank, California with four siblings in one bedroom. [9:56] In Burbank, I'm sorry, but in Burbank versus growing up in South Central being told that [10:05] you have to excel 10 times harder than the next person, but then you're not part of the [10:09] culture, to say that you can actually come to these disparities is kind of farsighted. [10:13] I mean, the idea that you have to work 10 times harder coming from South Central based [10:17] on, for example, test scores, obviously not true. [10:19] We've had affirmative action programs in this country for solidly 40 years. [10:22] But now affirmative action is gone. [10:23] It's out the door. [10:23] Now DEI is present. [10:25] DEI is actually saying that we need to have diversity, equity, inclusion. [10:29] So you're actually putting a footing in the door for different races, different genders, [10:33] different women, different men, everything. [10:35] So now you're saying that because this program is gone, this one isn't. [10:39] Sorry, you've been voted out by the majority. [10:41] Please return to your seat. [10:46] Yeah, like a jackrabbit. [10:47] Thank you, guys. [10:48] I appreciate that. [10:50] Hi. [10:50] How's it going? [10:51] Nice to meet you. [10:51] Nice to meet you, too. [10:52] So I kind of want to shift the conversation about DEI a little bit away from culture, [10:57] because I don't know if that's necessarily like a helpful conversation to have. [11:01] And I really want to talk more about representation. [11:04] So one in five Americans currently is Hispanic. [11:07] This country, like it or not, is not a homogenous country. [11:10] We are a very diverse country. [11:12] Do you not think that our legislators should be representative of the overall population? [11:16] I don't see a way that you can have a, quote, unquote, representative legislature with 435 members of Congress in a country of 340 million people, [11:24] because you can divvy that up however you want. [11:25] It's not by race. [11:26] You can do it by sex. [11:27] You can do it by gender. [11:27] You can do it by sexual orientation. [11:29] How exactly do you decide what is, quote, unquote, the representative group? [11:32] And also, I don't believe that individuals ought to be represented based on group identity. [11:36] So, for example, I'm Jewish. [11:37] I don't think Jews are actually overrepresented in Congress. [11:39] I don't think that we ought to decide exactly how many people in Congress are Jewish based on the Jewish population of the country. [11:45] I think that's actually a pretty silly way to do representation. [11:48] Well, we don't have to do it systematically, but fundamentally, there is an issue with the fact that we are not fully represented. [11:54] Like, the entire population is not represented. [11:56] We have never had a black female president. [11:58] I still have to pay taxes. [11:59] We've never had a Jewish president. [12:00] The whole concept is no taxation without, well, we have had a white male president. [12:03] We've had, like, 45 of them. [12:04] Whether Jews count as white or not has been sort of an object of debate for quite a while. [12:08] We do. [12:08] Okay. [12:09] You do. [12:09] So, I mean, it depends according to whom. [12:11] And that's a pretty recent development. [12:13] Okay, so. [12:13] Basically, everyone. [12:14] It's a religion. [12:16] Do you not agree that you are a white man? [12:18] I mean, I think that it depends on the context in which we're discussing it. [12:21] So, what are you, Ben? [12:22] Are you not a white guy? [12:23] I mean, I'm a man of Jewish ethnicity, which is sometimes grouped with white and sometimes not. [12:27] I mean, that's the more accurate way to put it. [12:28] But when we're talking about. [12:29] What else would you be grouped with? [12:30] With Jews, which is an ethnicity. [12:34] So, you're not white at all? [12:35] I mean, again, it depends who's doing the grouping and how. [12:38] I've seen Jews grouped with white and Jews grouped with not white. [12:40] I've seen. [12:40] And are we just pretending that doesn't exist? [12:43] That's a reality. [12:44] However, as far as your generalized point, which is that we are supposed to identify people by group identity. [12:48] If we don't have a black female president, somehow black females have not been represented. [12:51] So, Barack Obama was in no way representative of black females because he's not a female. [12:55] He's black. [12:55] He was representative, but that's the point. [12:57] So, he was half representative. [12:58] How do you do the math on this? [12:59] And why? [13:00] You shouldn't do the math on it completely statistically, but the fact is. [13:02] You shouldn't do the math on it at all. [13:03] You should treat people as individuals. [13:05] You should treat people as individuals. [13:06] Well, if you don't even want Kamala Harris to attempt to create DEI initiatives in office, [13:10] then there isn't even going to be a conversation about it. [13:12] I mean, I don't think there ought to be a conversation about why we ought to be represented by race or by sex. [13:18] I think that we are each individual people with individual ideas, and if that person represents my ideas, [13:23] I don't care what sex, race, or sexual orientation they are. [13:26] I mean, to an extent, yes. [13:27] No, entirely. [13:28] But there is an issue with the lack of empathy in office. [13:30] We need to be able to empathize and legislate for the people that are living in this country. [13:35] Do you not believe that? [13:36] I was not aware that empathy is relegated to particular race solidarity. [13:40] No, but I mean, it's easier to be empathetic towards people whose experiences you can fundamentally understand based on your identity. [13:46] Like, do you not believe that people have an inherent bias based on identity? [13:49] So first of all, I mean, we can start with the empathy itself. [13:51] I'm not sure that empathy is always the best basis for actual public policy, [13:54] because when you have group solidarity and empathy based on group solidarity, [13:57] you're going to attempt to actually benefit the group with whom you have solidarity. [14:00] So that actually cuts against generalized public policy. [14:02] But that's like a fundamental thing that just exists, which is why we need representation in government. [14:06] Okay, cute. [14:07] Thank you. [14:08] He got it this time. [14:16] All right. [14:17] Nice. [14:18] Good to see you. [14:18] How are you doing? [14:19] Doing all right. [14:19] How are you, Ben? [14:20] You know, it's been a day. [14:21] Yes, it's a little bit of like an interesting setting being surrounded by 20 people that disagree with you. [14:26] I mean, the truth is I grew up in L.A. and then I went to law school in Cambridge. [14:30] So I'm a little used to it. [14:31] Yeah. [14:32] I've been here before. [14:33] Anyways, let's talk about DEI. [14:35] Do you think that Trump should have won 2016? [14:38] I'll wrap it in. [14:39] It's conceptually relevant. [14:40] I'll demonstrate the relevance. [14:41] Okay, sounds good. [14:43] By what measure? [14:44] Do I think he did win or do I think he should have won? [14:45] Do you think he should have won? [14:47] I mean, yes, I'm happy that he won. [14:48] If the question is, am I happy that he won? [14:49] I'm happy that he won. [14:50] Okay, well, I'd say that Trump won 2016 because of- [14:53] By the way, I did not vote for either candidate in 2016. [14:55] That's a decision made in retrospect. [14:56] Awesome. [14:57] So I think that Trump won 2016 because of a modality of DEI. [15:02] Essentially, what I'd say is the Electoral College, right, strives for inclusion of smaller states with lower populations by over-representing them in the overall vote. [15:11] Like, you could correct me if I'm wrong or the sand fact checkers can. [15:14] And I'm pretty sure that over the last 25 to 30 years, Republicans have won the presidency given the Electoral College, not given the overall popular vote. [15:23] So if you're against DEI, if you don't want inclusion on the basis of race, inclusion on the basis of gender, or even what you're saying earlier, we could even say inclusion on the basis of class. [15:33] Why do you want inclusion on the basis of population, rural areas, states, et cetera, in the Electoral College? [15:38] We should actually use a better example. [15:39] I'm just asking if I have to leave the U.S. Senate. [15:41] The U.S. Senate is a better example. [15:42] The U.S. Senate, this would also apply to the U.S. Senate. [15:43] Right, okay. [15:44] So let's use the U.S. Senate because the U.S. Senate is actually even more unrepresentative of the general population than the Electoral College, which is at least a rough approximation. [15:50] It'd just be funnier to hear you say that you shouldn't have voted for Trump in 2016. [15:54] But we could talk about the same as well. [15:55] Yeah, that's a different subject, but I'm very happy that he won, even though I didn't vote for him. [15:59] And we can talk about Trump later. [16:00] We've already done a bit. [16:01] I'm sure we'll do more. [16:02] As far as the idea that every elected body has to be elected based on population as opposed to based on the area of geographic distribution or the states that actually pre-existed the federal government, [16:14] the way that the Constitution of the United States was created was a contract between sovereign states, which is one of the reasons why, for example, you have a United States Senate as opposed to just a House of Representatives. [16:24] So is that a form of DEI? [16:26] That seems like a stretch to me. [16:27] The kind of DEI that I'm talking about specifically would be separating human beings based on inherent characteristics, like, for example, race, as opposed to suggesting that the United States Senate, [16:38] which is obviously unrepresentative of the general population in many ways, is somehow bad as a check and balance, right? [16:43] Well, seemingly, my point is that this is another modality of DEI. [16:46] I've, like, no problem with you explaining to me, right, why the Senate or the Electoral College would be given the U.S. Constitution and, like, some contractual agreement that they had between the sovereign states, [16:54] that's fine, but what I'd say is that your claim here would just imply that the Constitution upholds DEI within our electoral processes. [17:01] If your claim is- [17:01] So do you think that the Constitution upholds DEI in the sense of including smaller states with less representative populations? [17:06] I think that is a true stretch of the meaning of DEI, but I get your point. [17:10] I mean, if the idea is that the only thing that is not pure DEI in a democratic context would be sort of popularly represented votes, [17:17] then I think you can make the case that basically you should get rid of every representative institution. [17:21] We should go to a pure democracy because- [17:22] Well, I'm not making a case for what we should replace it with. [17:24] I'm making the case that it would uphold DEI. [17:26] We could talk about, right, what other systems should function in the case of the Electoral College or in the case of the Senate, [17:32] but that's a completely different conversation than are these systems upholding DEI. [17:36] So again, I think that you're definitionally stretching DEI. [17:38] If DEI is the basic idea that all disparities equal discrimination and must be rectified by government interventionism, [17:43] which is sort of the definition, then stretching that to mean the Electoral College seems like you're going pretty far afield to defend a very broad concept as specifically badly applied. [17:52] Wait, one second. [17:53] I don't think that we need to say that DEI is equivalent to disparities equal discrimination. [17:57] We could just see that DEI is like a qualm for disparities in general, right? [18:02] And what we apply here in this certain modality when we're talking about the Electoral College, [18:06] when we're talking about the Senate, [18:07] is we're trying to qualm the disparities of the lack of population in rural areas. [18:12] We're trying to qualm the disparities of smaller states compared to larger states. [18:16] And seemingly, you haven't really given me a response to this apart from calling it a stretch, [18:20] but I do appreciate you for- [18:21] No, I mean, it seems to me like the argument that you're making is that in order for there to be calm [18:25] and sort of conciliation inside the United States, [18:29] particular racial groups have to be given particular benefits. [18:33] Okay, because that was the argument with regard to the states in the United States, right? [18:35] When the Constitution was formed, the way that you came to an actual agreement in the Constitutional Convention [18:40] is states were not going to sign on unless they got particular guarantees of the interests of those particular states, right? [18:45] So if you're claiming that that's DEI, then the response that I would have is right, [18:49] because that's how you have to come to an agreement. [18:50] So if you're going to make the parallel argument with regard to DEI in, for example, the racial context, [18:54] you'd then have to make the case that the only way that you can have conciliation in the United States [18:57] is for particular racial groups to be given specific racial benefits, [19:01] and otherwise the country is going to split apart, [19:03] which is an argument with which I generally disagree, [19:05] even if I agreed with the way the Constitution was formed. [19:08] Yeah, so I mean, I don't see like your parallel here, right? [19:10] I think that DEI could exist in multiple modalities. [19:13] My argument in nutshell is nothing more than the fact that we see disparities existing in rural areas [19:18] compared to metropolitan areas. [19:20] We see disparities existing in the size of a state and its overall population, [19:23] and you're qualming these, and you're resolving these through an over-representation. [19:30] And I understand that your argument is, but my single-handed point here [19:34] is that you would say in some sense that this is a reconciliation [19:37] to introduce more inclusion in the sense of a state-to-state in their population. [19:46] So if you'd make the concession that this is DEI, [19:48] would you say in the same sense that we shouldn't have other DEI practices? [19:51] I don't make the concession that that falls within the definition of DEI that I've used, [19:54] and if your claim is that I'm now in favor of, for example, subsidies to rural areas [19:58] at the expense of urban areas, I'm not actually in favor of that. [20:00] So do you think that DEI would only apply in the context of race? [20:02] No, it could apply in the context of class. [20:04] It could apply in the context of identity. [20:05] Okay, if it could apply in the context of race, class, and identity, [20:08] why can't it apply in the context of a state's population and their representation in our government? [20:11] I mean, if they were to receive special bennies at the expense of other members of the population, [20:15] they are, they are. [20:16] Yes, like Alabama or Arkansas are literally receiving special benefits [20:20] insofar as a greater level of representation in our Senate and in electoral processes [20:24] compared to people in California. [20:26] I mean, that's my, one second, that's my buddy Parker over there. [20:29] He lives in California, right? [20:31] And I live in Colorado. [20:33] So I literally have more representation person for person in the sense of Parker's vote [20:38] compared to my vote, because individualistically speaking, I'm from a state that has more representation. [20:44] And the same thing could be said for multiple other states across America, especially in [20:47] the Senate. [20:48] There's two senators that represent me and everyone else in Colorado, and there's two senators [20:52] that represent him and millions more people in California. [20:54] How are you getting from point A, which is the California has two senators and Colorado [20:56] has two senators, to point B, which is that we should have incredible racial carve-outs on the [21:01] basis of group identity at the behest of the federal government? [21:04] That is a very, very large stretch. [21:07] And to get from point A to point B on the basis of the constitutional structure seems like [21:12] you're going pretty far afield. [21:13] I appreciate what you're trying to do, but, you know, the rubber band only goes so far. [21:16] That's the end of this claim. [21:18] That's great. [21:19] I appreciate it, man. [21:20] Hopefully we can talk more. [21:21] My next claim is that Kamala Harris's extreme pro-abortion stance is morally indefensible. [21:54] What's going on, dude? [21:55] Hey, good to meet you. [21:57] Okay, so I just want to clarify the claim. [21:58] For sure. [21:58] Okay, so the claim that I'm making about Kamala Harris, let's first say, like, what [22:03] her, what I believe her position to be. [22:05] Okay, so she has not stated any, any abortion law that she would not veto, right? [22:10] So the partial birth abortion ban act, for example, or late term abortion bans, she would [22:14] presumably veto that as president of the United States. [22:16] That's the position that I'm taking in this particular prompt. [22:19] Okay, so that is the position that I find morally indefensible. [22:21] Okay, so again, I'm a very, very pro-life person, but I can see at least the, the sort of [22:26] nuanced arguments that some people on the left try to make about abortion, even if I disagree [22:29] with those arguments. [22:30] The argument that she's making, which is effectively abortion until birth should be in no way regulated, [22:35] I find that to be morally indefensible. [22:37] My understanding right now is that a majority of Democrats would not support abortion through [22:40] birth. [22:40] My understanding is the, the more popular position, I don't think any state lets you go through [22:43] birth. [22:44] Maybe I'm off on that. [22:44] Maybe there's a couple. [22:45] California and New York, actually. [22:47] Okay, understood. [22:49] But yeah, I think the key claim is, is basically, I think most Democrats would want abortion [22:53] within the first few weeks prior to the development of my personal moral starting point of life [22:58] is that the mind is the seat of consciousness. [23:00] The brain is the, you know, is where yourself is. [23:02] If you replace your heart, you have a robo heart, you're chilling. [23:05] If you replace your brain, you're a different person, you're dead. [23:07] And I think that when that brain first starts to develop, that's sort of where I see the [23:10] beginning of life and where the fetus gets their first moral consideration. [23:14] Would you agree that abortion before that point is tolerable? [23:16] No, I don't agree with that. [23:18] But again, quick question, just as far as defining the positions. [23:21] Yeah. [23:21] So would you agree that late term abortion is indefensible? [23:24] Yeah, I would. [23:25] Yeah, that's not my position. [23:26] I would not support that. [23:27] Okay, so you actually agree with me on the prompt. [23:29] Okay, so now we get into the broader abortion conversation. [23:31] That's fine. [23:31] I mean, no worries. [23:32] That's totally cool. [23:33] So yes, no. [23:34] Do you feel like a majority of Democrats support through like the moment before birth? [23:38] A majority of Democrats have not supported any abortion legislation on the federal level [23:44] in my entire lifetime, nor do I suppose that they will. [23:47] So if there were to be a consensus 15-week abortion ban, for example, which is about the [23:51] status in Europe, I would assume that virtually all Democrats would vote against that 15-week [23:56] abortion ban. [23:58] So while I may agree with your more moderate position, or at least use that as a starting [24:02] point, that is certainly not where the Democratic Party historically has been, nor is it where [24:06] the Democratic Party is right now. [24:07] All right, awesome. [24:07] Understood. [24:07] And just to understand where you begin your moral consideration for a fetus? [24:12] Where I consider it? [24:13] Yeah, yeah, yeah. [24:13] At conception. [24:14] Right? [24:14] So I believe that life begins at conception. [24:17] You now have a human being with potential, not a potential human being. [24:20] And then the question is exactly what the moral value of that human being is. [24:24] Once you acknowledge that there is, in fact, a countervailing interest to, for example, [24:27] a woman's quote-unquote right to choose, once you acknowledge there's an independent interest. [24:32] Thank you so much for your time. [24:33] Thanks. [24:39] You made it. [24:39] You made it. [24:40] You're good. [24:41] You can relax. [24:41] Hi, how are you? [24:42] Doing well, how are you? [24:43] Hello. [24:44] Nice to meet you. [24:45] Oh, wow, you look better in person. [24:46] Okay, so. [24:47] That's very sweet of you. [24:49] I don't often get that, so thank you. [24:50] Okay, it's fine. [24:51] But yeah, so yeah, how do you define abortion really quickly? [24:54] Abortion would be the forcible termination of an unborn human life. [24:59] Yes, but like, why do you hold that definition? [25:01] Like, would you not assume like something like a C-section would be considered an abortion? [25:05] No, because the baby is born alive. [25:07] So how would that be an abortion? [25:08] Why would, what does the definition of abortion have to include the death of a fetus? [25:11] Because that's literally the definition of abortion. [25:13] It literally isn't though. [25:14] Where are you getting this definition from? [25:15] Where are you getting your definition from? [25:17] Let's go to like, what, like, do you like in like Mayo Clinic, like any, any like hospital you've ever gone to before? [25:22] Because a C-section ends with the birth of the child. [25:25] Right, but. [25:26] I know, but abortion. [25:26] Both I and all three of my siblings were born via C-section. [25:29] But abortion generally. [25:29] Yeah, I understand this. [25:29] I'm here, I'm talking to you. [25:30] I know, baby. [25:31] Thus, I was not aborted. [25:32] I understand this, but like, yes, but like, no. [25:35] Well, yes, but like, no. [25:35] But no, you could simply say that abortion is simply the ending of a pregnancy, right? [25:40] So the ending of a pregnancy outside of the natural birth of a fetus. [25:43] So I don't see that. [25:44] I don't see why you would say that like it would have to end in the death of a fetus, which is why I'm pro-abortion all nine months, right? [25:48] Because say if a woman is not able to pass a fetus in the natural way, we can have these other abortion processes that would say like, okay, like she needs some type of induction that doesn't include the actual natural expulsion of a fetus. [26:00] But it doesn't always end in the death of a fetus, so I don't see how you could say that her, Kamala Harris' stance is immoral in this sense. [26:06] I just don't understand how you're removing the death of the fetus from the equation about abortion. [26:09] That's literally the entire moral issue. [26:10] You and I would not even be arguing if we were talking about C-sections or about natural birth. [26:14] But it seems like at this core, though, we disagree on what the inherent definition of abortion is. [26:18] Okay, then you could leave away, you could, I mean, we could very easily solve this. [26:20] Let's just not talk about the word abortion. [26:21] Let's talk about the forcible termination of a baby. [26:23] Okay, okay, so then what do you value in the fetus then? [26:26] The life of the fetus. [26:27] Okay, so then what is this, you said it begins at conception? [26:29] Yes. [26:29] And why is that? [26:30] Because that is literally the biological definition of when an independent life begins. [26:33] Yes, but like, why does it have moral value? [26:35] It has moral value because that's literally the biological definition of when a human life begins. [26:38] Right, but like, why does that have moral value, though? [26:40] Okay, why does any life have moral value? [26:42] I would value sentience. [26:43] But why? [26:44] Right, because this is simply what we value, like, you and I value. [26:47] Like, is it okay to unplug like a brain-dead patient, for example? [26:50] I mean, the question is whether it's okay to unplug a brain-dead patient. [26:53] It's actually quite a controversial one in sort of religious circles. [26:55] But as far as why, I'm just wondering. [26:58] If somebody's in a coma and you know they're going to wake up, do you have the right to unplug them? [27:02] Well, a coma's not brain-dead, though. [27:03] We know that there's future sentience there. [27:05] Like, it would be like a matter of like a contract of like past future, like, I'm sorry, past, present, or future sentience. [27:08] But like a person in a coma has a potential of future sentience. [27:11] I agree. [27:12] And guess what? [27:13] Fetuses also have guaranteed future sentience. [27:15] Well, no, because you're only valuing one half of the conjunct. [27:18] That's not, right? [27:19] It would be past, present, or future. [27:20] And now you're changing the topic. [27:21] I mean, we started with what's the value of the fetus. [27:23] Thank you so much. [27:24] Thanks a lot. [27:30] Whoa. [27:38] Just for, honestly, God, just for that, I forfeit. [27:40] That's like some serious efforting right there. [27:42] Well done. [27:42] I'll take it. [27:43] Really well done. [27:43] Thank you. [27:44] Yeah. [27:45] So on the topic of abortion, I think we have a big focus on the moral aspects of abortion. [27:49] But I do think we should talk about the legal aspects of life. [27:51] Because when a baby is born, two things happen. [27:54] Birth certificate, social security card. [27:56] When there are a fetus, I mean, when it's like cells in the body, you don't get the birth certificate. [28:00] You don't get a social security card because it's not alive. [28:03] It's not born yet. [28:03] Therefore, when it comes to like the moral repercussions of having abortion, I feel like that's very different than legally. [28:09] Because if a cluster of cells in a woman was equivalent to a baby, I should be able to have tax deductions on that kid. [28:16] I should be able to have child care from the government. [28:18] I should be able to have child support from the father. [28:20] But since like the clusters of cells is in fact not a baby, I feel like morally, you can say whatever. [28:27] But legally, a clusters of cells is not like alive. [28:30] So sort of hiding behind the legal positivist position, I think, to shield against the morality here is a problem. [28:34] And I'll tell you why. [28:35] So when it comes to, first of all, don't threaten me with a good time. [28:38] I'm perfectly happy to have people pay paternity for children that are currently in utero. [28:43] Like that's fine with me. [28:44] In fact, I think that'd be quite good. [28:45] I think it would incentivize fathers to stay with the mothers and actually be more responsible. [28:49] But if we're talking about legal status, there are plenty of people in the United States, for example, who don't have legal status right now. [28:54] Who don't have a social security card, for example, in the United States. [28:57] Obviously, we can't kill them. [28:58] They're legal immigrants. [28:59] We shouldn't murder them. [29:00] There are lots of people in the United States. [29:02] Legal status does not in fact equate to moral status in any sense of the term. [29:06] I mean, it's true, for example, that children can't vote and don't actually have control over any of their decision making. [29:11] I have four kids of my own and I control their decision making because they're very small. [29:15] That doesn't mean that I get to kill them. [29:16] So the idea of legal status thus being the basis of a moral status is putting the cart before the horse. [29:22] The truth is that it's because things have a moral status that we give them a legal status. [29:26] And obviously, you can see that state by state. [29:27] For example, even in the state of California, they had something called Lacey's Law for a while. [29:31] I think it's still applicable where if somebody killed a pregnant woman, that could be treated as a double homicide in criminal law. [29:38] That sort of stuff applies all over the United States. [29:40] So using the legal as a substitute to sort of evade the moral question ignores the fact that people make law in the states based on what their moral perception of the issue is. [29:50] The law follows the moral perception, not the other way around. [29:53] Yes, I agree. [29:53] But I think there is a problem with the moral perception, especially when you consider that morality varies all across America. [29:58] It's not uniform anywhere. [30:00] And that's a big problem, especially when you see in the South when they're having like six week abortion bans, which is detrimental to women's health. [30:06] Because as we see in Georgia right now, there were two women who were pregnant, who went to a hospital, get health care, and they were denied that care because there was confusion surrounding abortion laws. [30:15] That's why I focus more so on the legality aspect of it, because that's something that's uniform. [30:18] That's something that could be known. [30:19] It isn't uniform though, right? [30:20] I mean, it does vary state to state. [30:21] I mean, as you yourself just acknowledge. [30:22] True, yes, it does. [30:23] So, you know, when it comes to sort of the, we can get into the specifics of those particular Georgia cases. [30:27] One of them particularly has been relatively badly covered. [30:30] It's about a woman who took basically both doses of the abortion medication. [30:34] She took it without the supervision of a doctor. [30:36] She then experienced essentially sepsis, and she went to the hospital late. [30:40] And then under no interpretation, by this point, she had twins. [30:43] Both of the fetuses were unfortunately dead by this point. [30:45] So it actually was no legal problem with performing a DNC at that time, and the hospital misinterpreted the law. [30:49] So, you know, without getting into more details about that particular case, the real question when it comes to abortion is, was, and always will be how we weigh two separate considerations. [30:58] One is the moral value of the life of the fetus, and the second is the woman's right to choose. [31:04] The problem is that these are sort of mutually exclusive, meaning that I don't have a right to choose about your life, right? [31:08] About whether I get to kill you or not, or about the children that I have who are already born. [31:12] And so the right to choose is obviated by the acknowledgement of a moral status on the part of the child, and vice versa, right? [31:20] If you're willing to say that the child has no moral status, whatever, then there really is no problem with abortion. [31:25] The big moral problem I have with the sort of Kamala Harris position and the position that I have. [31:29] I think I got the judges over here. [31:40] All right. [31:40] Hey, nice to meet you, man. [31:41] Plus, I'll see you again later, dude. [31:42] All right. [31:43] Nice to meet you. [31:43] Hey, Cam. [31:45] Hey, appreciate you being here and having an open discussion. [31:48] Yeah, you bet. [31:48] It's fun. [31:49] Let's say that just hypothetically, right? [31:51] Baby's born. [31:53] Mama can't feed the baby. [31:55] She's not breastfeeding. [31:57] Baby dies. [31:59] Morally, do you feel like that would be better than if the baby would have just been, like, aborted before it was born? [32:08] I mean, I'm not sure that there's any... [32:11] I mean, I think that it's significantly worse to purposefully kill a child rather than accidentally or through circumstances kill a child. [32:17] Not accidentally, right? [32:18] She cannot... [32:20] She didn't purposefully kill the child. [32:21] She can't afford it, right? [32:22] I mean... [32:23] She can't afford to have the baby. [32:24] And so you're saying that Kamala Harris is extreme, but your stance is that women are being forced to have children even if they decide that for whatever reason. [32:37] I don't care. [32:38] I don't care. [32:38] But for whatever reason... [32:39] Why don't you care? [32:39] Because you're giving me a very specific example. [32:41] It's not between me, because it is not between me. [32:43] Rabbit. [32:43] It is between that mom, her health, her relationship with whoever she believes in. [32:49] It is not on me. [32:50] So here's sort of the problem. [32:51] You're extrapolating from a very emotionally laden example to everything. [32:56] And I'm wondering how you're doing that. [32:57] So you give me a case in which you have a woman who, for whatever reason, literally cannot feed her child for some reason. [33:02] Adoption's not available. [33:03] There are no food stamps. [33:04] There's literally nothing. [33:05] She's in a desert by herself, and the baby's going to die. [33:07] Is that abortion equivalent to a woman who decides to, you know, because she doesn't want the baby for economic reasons or because it's going to crimp her lifestyle? [33:14] Like, whatever. [33:15] You said you don't care about the reason at all. [33:16] That's your words, not mine. [33:18] So she's 15 weeks pregnant. [33:19] She wants to kill it. [33:20] That's the same. [33:21] Why? [33:22] You're asking me why it's the same. [33:24] I'm asking you why, like, why isn't it the same? [33:26] Why is a baby who can't be born say that if she doesn't want to, if she says that I can't economically afford this child. [33:35] That's like somebody going and saying, I can't economically afford this car. [33:39] And the car salesperson is still taking them on a test drive. [33:41] Like, what's the point if they've already told you that they are not going to be able to economically afford it? [33:45] Unless you give them, like you said, okay, what about abortion? [33:51] Well, there's how many people in foster care that aren't being adopted right now today? [33:55] Should we kill them or what? [33:56] I'm not saying we should kill them. [33:57] I'm just saying that should we wait at least until all those people? [34:02] You tell me. [34:02] No, you tell me. [34:03] You're the one who's suggesting there's no matter of moral apathy, whether those kids were born or not. [34:06] I don't think so. [34:07] So if kids are in foster care and not being treated well, they're being abused. [34:10] They're not being fed. [34:11] That is a horrific problem, yes. [34:12] They're being locked, that the food, the food, the fridge is being locked and they're told they can't go get it because there are people who are only in it because they're getting a check. [34:20] You're saying that that is morally superior to killing them, yes, to before they're born. [34:26] So you're saying that torturing a human being who's born like they are a real life. [34:31] I'm not the one in favor of torture. [34:33] You're the one in favor of unborn people. [34:35] If you can't, if you're, if the only way you survive is food and water and you rely on someone else to provide that to you and they're not providing it to you, what would you call that? [34:47] I'm confused by it. [34:48] I know you are because your argument contradicts itself. [34:51] No, it really, really doesn't. [34:53] I mean, the argument that you're making is that a born child deprived of food and water never should have been born. [34:58] No. [34:58] I don't see why that follows. [34:59] That's not my argument. [35:00] My argument. [35:02] Well, okay. [35:12] We're going to take this chair. [35:13] Look at that. [35:14] Hey, Ben. [35:15] Like a bro, my friend. [35:16] All right. [35:17] How's it going? [35:17] Let's break open a beer or something. [35:18] So first question, can men get pregnant? [35:21] Men cannot get pregnant. [35:22] Okay. [35:23] Awesome. [35:25] So. [35:26] Definitionally. [35:27] Definitionally. [35:27] Okay. [35:29] Do men experience SA, sexual assault? [35:33] Sure. [35:35] Got it. [35:36] What about the existence of trans men? [35:38] What about the existence? [35:40] Do you mean women who believe that they are men? [35:43] What are we talking about here? [35:45] Women experiencing gender dysphoria. [35:47] So my other question is, do you benefit from white supremacy in any way, shape or form? [35:51] I'm going to need more specifics on what you mean by white supremacy. [35:56] Here, let me give it to you, Ben. [35:57] Sure, please. [35:58] So I'm a transgender man. [35:59] Okay. [36:00] I've experienced SA. [36:01] Okay. [36:02] And abortion rights affect me directly. [36:05] So if we're talking about the American dream that you live, why don't I have access to that? [36:10] Because there's no legislation, what, in the history of America that legislates a man's body. [36:17] So why does mine have to be legislated? [36:19] I've got a vagina. [36:21] I'm not interested in what your genitalia are. [36:24] Clearly you are. [36:25] I mean, it's all over everything you make, buddy. [36:27] I'm sorry. [36:28] I hate to say it to you, but it's kind of obsession you guys have. [36:29] I think you can read on my face that I radically am not. [36:31] When we're talking about abortion- [36:33] No, I mean, you can present it here, but in most of the content that you have, you attack [36:39] my community constantly. [36:40] And you don't even realize guys like me exist, who actually share a lot of similarities to [36:44] you and everything, because I'm a married man of 20 years. [36:47] I've got a wife. [36:48] I recognize that you exist. [36:49] I disagree with your claim that you're a male. [36:50] I was sexually assaulted, right? [36:52] And I didn't have access to that abortion care. [36:54] Do you believe that I should have carried that child to term because I was sexually assaulted? [36:59] No, I just want to make sure that that's what you believe. [37:01] Because as a transgender man, I have seen your side of the entire political debate never, [37:07] ever having the conversation of what an American freedom is. [37:11] Because why am I not allowed to live my American freedom as a man? [37:13] And, you know, I mean, you get your choice as a man to live and free and all that part. [37:17] You're really moving around terminology very wildly here. [37:21] And so are you, because that's the tactics you play in your game. [37:24] And you've done it the entire time. [37:25] You've jumped from one subject to the next. [37:27] You speak so fast, and I know how you work. [37:29] So how does it feel to have it in your face? [37:31] Well, I mean- [37:32] Because I'm sick and tired of the shit that you have put against my community, [37:36] especially black trans women, because you constantly disregard all of our needs [37:41] and then use us politically as a pawn when we're 1% of the population. [37:45] Why not focus on the economy itself? [37:47] All of us are struggling, and you want to focus on trans people. [37:50] You want to focus on a black woman. [37:52] When this is clearly a glass cliff situation, America's falling apart, [37:55] and let's give it a woman right when it's all falling apart. [37:57] When we've had, what, 50 men run it and it looks like shit? [38:01] Look at where we're at. [38:03] Truly, where do you think that we're heading? [38:06] I mean, it's so funny to watch white supremacy just fall apart the way that it is. [38:10] And you ride so hard. [38:12] Because guess what? [38:13] In other countries around the world, women are not having children. [38:16] And why is it? [38:17] Because of the patriarchy and all the violence that men perpetuate [38:21] and all of this idea that abortion is somehow going to solve it all [38:25] by forcing women to have abortion instead of focusing on the real problems [38:28] that we're facing in our society. [38:30] We're just going to completely ignore that. [38:32] And we're just going to go, you know what? [38:33] The line item is, let's make women have babies [38:35] so that we can continue this capitalistic society that we have. [38:39] Why are we doing that? [38:40] What? [38:41] I mean, why? [38:42] Because you want to push white supremacy [38:43] and because you want to make your check? [38:45] It does great for you. [38:47] Meanwhile, people like me have to live with the consequences [38:49] of all of your rhetoric that you put on a daily basis [38:52] and including my entire community [38:55] and the intersectionalities of black women, [38:58] men that experience SA, trans people, everyone that comes in. [39:02] And I'm so sick of the idea that you can come in with this burrata, [39:05] that you're this big guy that knows things because you can talk fast, [39:08] you have statistics. [39:09] But really, what does it really matter at the end of the day [39:11] if you are harming the entire American? [39:13] And this guy's been accused of rape, Trump, in like court documents [39:21] and you're backing the guy. [39:22] Like you have children. [39:23] How could you do that to your own? [39:26] Don't you have a daughter? [39:27] Like what is wrong with you, dude? [39:29] I've never seen such a party just completely just like the American idea [39:34] what we believe in as a country is not what you're perpetuating. [39:37] It's diversity. [39:38] It's giving you tired, hungry, and poor. [39:40] The Google phone you have in your pocket [39:41] is because of all of the diversity we've had. [39:44] Pause. [39:46] Pleasure to meet you. [39:48] Okay. [39:55] There's a lot of tension in the room now. [39:58] Let's stay cordial. [39:59] Let's stay respectful, please. [40:00] Please, please. [40:02] Hi, how are you? [40:08] Nice to meet you. [40:09] So let's say that I'm voted out by my friends here [40:12] and I stand up and immediately collapse onto the ground. [40:15] Paramedics rush in and through some magical means [40:17] they determine that the only person who can save my life is you. [40:19] You can do that by giving me a transplant. [40:21] Can you be forced to give me a transplant? [40:23] I cannot. [40:24] Why? [40:24] Because I do not have a parental relationship with you [40:27] and thus I do not owe you a duty of care [40:29] in the same way that I would if, say, you were my son. [40:31] Can a parent be forced to give a kid a transplant? [40:33] Yes, a parent can be forced to give a kid [40:36] an enormous number of resources or should be. [40:38] Can you be forced to give me blood? [40:41] No. [40:41] Do you believe that the average person [40:43] should be able to be forced by the government [40:44] to do something with their body? [40:46] It depends what, because that is the nature of law. [40:48] Why can you not be forced to give me an organ? [40:50] Because I do not owe you a duty of care [40:52] sufficient to remove an organ from me. [40:54] Because you cannot be forced to use your body [40:55] to sustain my own. [40:57] And that is the crux of the abortion argument. [40:57] Because I do not owe you a duty to care. [40:59] Because you cannot be used, [41:00] you cannot be forced to use your body to sustain my own. [41:02] And that is the crux of the abortion argument. [41:04] And the problem is, and it's very morally inconsistent. [41:05] You're ignoring the parental relationship. [41:07] But because there's a point here, [41:08] there's a very morally inconsistent part [41:09] to your argument right here. [41:10] If you do not believe that you should be able to be, [41:12] you should be forced to sustain my body [41:15] using your own, [41:16] then you should also not believe [41:18] that a woman should be forced to sustain a child [41:20] that they do not want to carry in utero. [41:23] It's the same basic argument. [41:25] It doesn't matter how you get there. [41:26] Let's say that you crash into me on the way out of here. [41:28] Well, no. [41:28] If you hit into me. [41:29] It's actually not the same argument. [41:30] But it is. [41:31] If you say that you run into me on the way out of here. [41:34] If you crash into me, [41:35] it doesn't matter that that is the reason why I'm in that state. [41:38] You cannot be forced to give me blood. [41:40] You cannot be forced to give me an organ. [41:42] You cannot be forced to use your body to sustain my own. [41:44] An abortion includes a pre-existing physical connection [41:47] between the two bodies. [41:48] So a better example would be [41:49] the so-called dead violinist example [41:51] or dying violinist example [41:52] that was put forward by a philosopher. [41:54] I can't remember her name. [41:55] The basic idea there [41:56] is that you wake up in a room [41:58] and I'm connected to you, right? [41:59] And you have some sort of health condition. [42:01] I'm connected to you [42:02] and I'm giving you a blood transfusion. [42:04] And if I remove that, you'll die. [42:06] Do I have a duty not to remove it? [42:07] I think there's actually a fairly decent case [42:09] that I actually do have a duty [42:10] not to remove it. [42:10] No, you do not. [42:11] You do not have a duty to be forced to... [42:12] Why are you dividing my moral position? [42:14] You do not have a duty [42:15] to sustain someone's body using your own. [42:17] Thank you. [42:25] It's been tough to get in there. [42:29] Yeah. [42:29] Yeah. [42:30] I'm 5'2. [42:30] You made it. [42:31] I'm the only one in the room shorter than you. [42:33] Okay. [42:35] So, honestly, my understanding of Kamala's plan [42:38] is a return to Roe v. Wade, [42:40] but in the legislative level. [42:41] That seems to be the majority opinion [42:43] by the American people. [42:44] They were not for the removal, right? [42:46] Trump is not really for an abortion ban, right? [42:50] I mean, he himself has said he is not. [42:52] Okay. [42:52] Yeah. [42:52] But, unfortunately, the way he governs, [42:54] he puts those three folks in the Supreme Court. [42:56] They do it. [42:57] His vice presidential pick really wants to do it. [42:59] He's claiming now that people, [43:02] everybody wants it to the states. [43:03] Nobody wanted it. [43:04] That was not the demand. [43:06] I think people are just kind of interested [43:07] in protecting their freedoms. [43:08] It's a bigger discussion about freedom. [43:10] And I think Kamala Harris is going to be [43:11] the presidential pick to protect the freedoms. [43:13] Okay. [43:13] So, again, I think that we have to define [43:15] what we think Kamala Harris's position is. [43:16] I think that it goes well beyond [43:18] simply restoring Roe v. Wade, for example, [43:20] which is an extremely flawed legal decision. [43:22] A wide variety of legal scholars [43:24] ranging from right to left. [43:25] Ruth Bader Ginsburg used to point out [43:27] that that was a very flawed legal decision. [43:28] I think we can't pretend that, like, [43:29] this is, like, a bipartisan thing. [43:30] Roe v. Wade was a problem. [43:31] The bipartisan thing was having Roe v. Wade. [43:33] No, you might like the results. [43:34] You might like the results of Roe v. Wade. [43:35] The actual legal decision is a bad legal decision. [43:37] I think that... [43:38] That's the end of this claim. [43:40] I'm glad you finally made it, though. [43:42] Hopefully I can come back. [43:43] Yeah, exactly. [43:43] Hey, before we go any further, [43:46] we want to take a moment to say thanks so much [43:48] to Straight Arrow News [43:50] for powering the fact checks in this video. [43:52] Straight Arrow News is an app and website [43:54] that is on a mission to raise the bar on journalism [43:56] in a time of media bias and mistrust. [43:59] Their team of journalists believe that [44:01] unbiased news should be the standard [44:03] and not just the exception. [44:04] So they report down the middle with facts, [44:07] delivering news without bias, [44:08] filter or spin. [44:10] Plus, their media mistool allows you [44:12] to discover news that's being underreported [44:14] or not even reported at all [44:15] by different sides of mainstream media. [44:17] That's why we are so happy to be partnering [44:19] with Straight Arrow News. [44:21] The work they're doing gives us a complete picture [44:23] of the news straight from our phones and tablets [44:25] with their app. [44:27] Go to san.com slash surrounded [44:30] or click the link in the description to check it out. [44:32] By clicking that link, [44:33] you're not just supporting this channel, [44:35] you're also supporting a group of journalists [44:37] that are raising the bar on news [44:39] and focusing on serving you unbiased, straight facts. [44:43] Thanks again to Straight Arrow News [44:44] for partnering with us on this episode. [44:47] Now, let's get into it. [44:49] My next claim is Kamala Harris's border policies [44:51] will turn America into an unsafe and bankrupt nation. [44:59] Some of my colleagues here in the circle [45:02] really talk about why they appreciate [45:04] Kamala Harris's right shift [45:05] when it comes to border policy, [45:07] trying to deter the amount of people [45:08] that are coming through the southern border. [45:10] That's not something I'm particularly passionate about. [45:12] So I'm more inclined to talk about specifically [45:14] why you, somebody who purports himself [45:16] as someone who's uber-capitalist, [45:18] want to remove the labor pool from this country, [45:19] which always increases to business and economic growth. [45:22] Right. [45:23] So I'm not interested in removing the labor pool [45:25] from the country as a general rule. [45:26] However, I don't believe that it's an economic benefit [45:29] to the United States to bring in a low-skill, [45:32] low-education labor pool [45:33] that is drawing significantly from public benefits. [45:37] For example, there are very good data to show [45:40] that there's huge reliance on, say, emergency rooms, [45:42] educational facilities. [45:44] Based on the Center for Immigration Studies, [45:45] there's a net cost to low-wage, [45:47] low-skill immigration coming into the country. [45:49] So you're in favor with emergency rooms [45:50] just deterring people based on what they look like [45:52] or what might be perceived as someone [45:54] with a lack of citizenship? [45:55] No, I'm very much in favor of limiting [45:56] the amount of illegal immigration to zero [45:59] and then allowing a fair bit of legal immigration [46:02] with fewer social benefits available. [46:02] So you're more interested in decreasing the pool [46:05] of people and population in this country [46:07] so there are less emergency room visits? [46:09] Or are you more in favor of actually documenting [46:11] these people so we're able to track [46:12] exactly who is coming through? [46:14] I'm kind of lacking what your argument is. [46:16] It's not about number. [46:17] It's about the people who are coming in. [46:18] I believe that everybody who comes into this country [46:20] should come in through a legal mechanism [46:21] and that the United States ought to be able to select [46:23] the people who are coming in [46:24] who are the best, brightest, and most useful [46:26] to the American population [46:27] because that is the prerogative of any nation. [46:29] So do you think that the way that we do allow people in [46:31] through our legalization process, [46:33] especially with how much egregious obstacles [46:35] people have to go through might incentivize people [46:37] to come through non-legal means? [46:38] I mean, on average, it takes about 10 years [46:42] for somebody to gain citizenship in this country. [46:44] And if somebody is fleeing political persecution, [46:46] I really find it interesting how conservatives [46:47] always like to talk about the response [46:49] to certain behaviors instead of what the root cause is. [46:51] When oftentimes United States foreign policy [46:54] is what creates the destabilization of countries, [46:57] which is why people try to come to places [46:58] where they can't get economic benefit. [47:00] I mean, you're lacking, your employee, Matt Walsh, [47:01] was kind of schooled on this with Ryan Grimm, [47:03] where he talked about specifically Haitian policy, [47:06] where the government of Haiti has been destabilized [47:08] over and over again by Western imperial nations, [47:10] so that those citizens are trying to flee something [47:12] with political persecution. [47:13] I mean, is it your contention [47:15] that anytime there's a destabilized nation across the world, [47:17] even if the United States had a hand in it, [47:19] then we then have a moral obligation [47:20] to take in every citizen of that country [47:21] who wishes to flee? [47:22] No, I think that's a huge straw man. [47:24] I'm not saying that every single person [47:25] from a destabilized country [47:26] needs to take refuge in the United States, [47:28] but I think it's important to add that context [47:30] so you can understand why people are coming here. [47:32] That's a case for a different foreign policy. [47:33] That's not a case for an immigration policy [47:35] The idea is people are coming in here [47:36] to mooch off of our emergency rooms [47:38] or mooch off of our social services, [47:39] which is just not true at all. [47:40] I mean, I know that's your big contention. [47:42] That is not my contention. [47:43] My contention is I'm not claiming [47:45] that the intent of people is to mooch off the system. [47:48] The result of people is that they may be [47:49] a net draw on benefits rather than a net contributor [47:52] to the economy of the United States [47:53] or to the culture of the United States [47:55] because I want people who are coming here [47:56] who actually have some sort of belief [47:58] in, say, American-style freedoms. [48:00] I don't think everybody from all over the world [48:01] has the same ideology as a constitution. [48:03] So you're aligning with Nick Fuentes [48:04] that a lot of these people [48:05] just don't have the exact same culture. [48:07] Medud. [48:07] These people don't have culture [48:09] and they can't come here. [48:09] I know that you're making that face. [48:11] I know that he's an individual [48:12] that you guys obviously disagree. [48:14] He's somebody that increases calls for violence [48:17] against people of certain communities. [48:18] I'm not saying that you're identical, [48:20] but I'm saying on this issue in particular- [48:21] He literally makes Medudios trying to stab me. [48:24] See this disdain in your face, though? [48:25] This is the type of disdain I have [48:27] for the exact ideology that you guys are in agreement. [48:29] I don't understand why there is anything wrong [48:31] with the idea that you ought to screen people- [48:33] Do you not think that people can assimilate? [48:34] For their viewpoint. [48:35] Of course people can assimilate, [48:36] but you ought to select from a pool of people [48:37] who are most likely to assimilate. [48:39] That doesn't mean that everybody has- [48:40] Do you think everybody on earth [48:41] has an equivalent ideology? [48:42] Try and get into the country. [48:43] We shouldn't screen for ideology at all. [48:45] How would you screen for ideology? [48:47] Like a basic test to show what people actually value [48:50] when it comes to attributes? [48:51] Sure. [48:52] What would that test look like? [48:53] I mean, I think that it would look [48:54] very much like a citizenship test. [48:55] But this is not determining the ideologies [48:58] of this person coming in. [48:59] This is a determination of what facts or history [49:01] that people can actually ask. [49:02] No, but people would actually have to understand [49:03] the basic ideology of the United States. [49:04] How many U.S.-born citizens do you think [49:06] could pass a citizenship test? [49:17] Good to meet you. [49:17] So Kamala Harris supports the bipartisan border bill [49:20] that was negotiated by conservative Senator James Langford [49:24] and supported by Mitch McConnell. [49:25] Do you not support that bill? [49:26] I do not support that bill. [49:27] So what is your solution then? [49:29] I mean, my solution is that this actually [49:31] ought not be done in a comprehensive fashion. [49:33] So I have a general critique of the way [49:35] that we deal with immigration in the country. [49:37] Instead of trying to solve all problems at once, [49:39] which is very likely to end in nothing, [49:41] all you ought to first do is you ought to close the border. [49:44] But the border is closed right now. [49:45] Do you agree? [49:45] The border is certainly not closed right now. [49:47] What do you mean? [49:47] There's a small trickle of people coming over. [49:49] The numbers are similar to the end [49:50] of the Trump administration, no? [49:52] Well, now because of executive order, [49:54] they have been reduced significantly. [49:55] But- [49:56] Do you not agree that the same number [49:57] as the end of the Trump administration? [49:59] Right now, it is on a monthly basis, [50:01] but that's after letting in six and a half million [50:03] illegal immigrants. [50:03] So do you think Trump was failing then [50:05] at the end of his administration? [50:06] I think that Donald Trump did a better job than Joe Biden. [50:08] He certainly did not do a perfect job [50:09] on illegal immigration. [50:10] So Joe Biden is matching what Donald Trump [50:12] is doing right now. [50:13] So you applaud Joe Biden? [50:14] After letting in six and a half [50:15] to 11 million illegal immigrants, [50:16] I don't think you get to fill in that gap [50:17] by doing like four months of good border policy. [50:20] Those are border encounters. [50:21] We don't know how many of those people were turned away. [50:23] We don't know how many of those people [50:23] are still in this country. [50:25] But those people make up a significant portion [50:26] of our labor force as well, [50:28] including in states like yours, Florida, [50:29] where they make up like 5%. [50:30] So your argument is that it's not happening [50:33] and it's good that it is. [50:34] It's not happening? [50:35] What do you mean? [50:36] That the illegal immigration pool is not very large [50:39] and also it's good that it is large. [50:40] I'm saying you guys make up numbers all the time. [50:42] It's like 20, 30 million. [50:44] No, that's from the Wall Street Journal. [50:45] I'm not making up that number. [50:46] Well, Donald Trump said he wants to deport [50:48] 20 million of these guys. [50:49] What do you think of that? [50:50] I mean, I think that if we were going [50:51] to look at deportations, [50:52] we obviously ought to trench it out [50:53] based on criminal record. [50:54] We ought to trench it out [50:55] based on usefulness to the economy. [50:56] I think we ought to look at each person individually [50:58] and determine whether they ought to be deported or not. [50:59] So that is probably going to lead [51:01] to a small trickle of people [51:02] being kicked out of here. [51:03] So that's not going to accomplish your goal. [51:05] Well, I mean, who said that my goal [51:06] was to mass deport 20 million people [51:09] all at once? [51:09] So you want 20 million undocumented immigrants [51:11] to stay in America? [51:12] No, no, that is not what I'm saying. [51:14] I failed to see how you got from [51:15] I would like to go through one by one [51:17] in the same way that we do IRS tax forms [51:19] for literally every American [51:20] who pays taxes in the United States [51:21] and go through illegal immigrants [51:22] and determine who ought to stay in the country [51:24] and who not ought to stay in the country. [51:25] What army is going to go over [51:26] these 20 million people [51:27] and with what resources? [51:28] Where are you going to detain them? [51:30] How are you going to get them out of the country? [51:31] I mean, you'll detain them [51:31] and you'll deport them [51:32] increasing the resources of ICE. [51:33] The biggest problem [51:34] with regard to- [51:35] Oh, with ICE. [51:35] Similar to the bill [51:36] that was rejected by you and- [51:38] Well, I mean, you're neglecting [51:39] the part of the bill [51:40] that allowed a baseline [51:41] of 5,000 illegal immigrants [51:42] border encounters [51:43] before the executive branch [51:45] automatically kicked in [51:46] border enforcement. [51:47] So I've been down to the border. [51:48] Don't you agree? [51:48] I went down to the border [51:50] and let me tell you what I saw [51:50] at the border [51:51] and then we can go. [51:51] Oh, okay. [51:52] Saw with your own eyes. [51:53] Not just saw with my own eyes, [51:54] talked to the border patrol agents. [51:56] The way that the Biden administration [51:57] was treating the border [51:58] for the vast majority of their term [52:00] was to treat a claim of asylum [52:01] without evidence [52:02] as evidence [52:03] that the person [52:04] ought to be given asylum. [52:05] And so the first priority [52:06] was for border patrol [52:08] to be activated [52:08] to go to places [52:09] where Mexican drug cartels [52:10] were leaving people [52:11] at the border en masse [52:12] and then to process those people [52:13] and let them into the country [52:14] within 72 hours. [52:15] The goal of this [52:16] for the Mexican drug cartels [52:17] was to clear large swaths [52:18] of the border [52:18] of border patrol agents [52:19] specifically [52:20] so that in those unoccupied areas, [52:22] fentanyl and drugs [52:23] could then be passed, [52:24] human trafficking [52:24] can then be passed [52:25] in those unoccupied areas. [52:26] So you mentioned these cartels. [52:28] You agree these cartels [52:29] are profiting off [52:29] human trafficking, right? [52:30] Of course. [52:31] So why don't we open up [52:32] legal means [52:32] for these people [52:33] to come in here? [52:34] Then they don't have [52:34] to give the cartels money. [52:35] They're making more money [52:36] off human trafficking right now [52:37] because of our immigration system. [52:39] It doesn't allow more people [52:40] and the Republicans [52:41] do not have a bill [52:42] to allow more people [52:43] to come here legally. [52:44] I mean, so your answer [52:45] to illegal immigration [52:46] is just magically [52:47] legalize everyone. [52:48] No, it's to open up legal paths [52:50] so these people [52:50] don't have to leave [52:52] their livelihood [52:52] in these countries [52:53] and carry a bag [52:54] and walk through the jungle [52:55] with their kids. [52:56] By the logic that you're using, [52:57] we could make murder [52:58] absolutely not a thing [52:59] by simply pretending [53:00] that murder is now legal. [53:02] What? [53:03] Your suggestion is [53:04] that millions [53:06] of illegal immigrants [53:07] ought to just become [53:08] legal immigrants [53:08] and then magically [53:09] this would solve [53:10] the entire problem. [53:10] We have failed these people. [53:11] We have benefited [53:12] tremendously off [53:13] exploiting these people. [53:14] You and I, [53:15] we have benefited [53:16] from these people [53:16] working hard. [53:17] They just want to be here [53:18] and be a part of our country. [53:19] I can't think of anything [53:20] more American than that. [53:22] I'm not doubting [53:22] the willingness of people [53:23] to come to the country. [53:24] I am doubting [53:24] the incentive structure [53:25] that draws people [53:26] to the country [53:27] with rich array [53:28] of social benefits [53:28] that didn't exist. [53:29] What is that incentive structure? [53:31] That incentive structure [53:32] is things like Medicaid, [53:33] things like free schooling. [53:34] You think someone's [53:35] going to leave their home [53:35] in Venezuela [53:36] to come here [53:37] and leech off our Medicaid? [53:38] These people want to work. [53:40] These people want to live, man. [53:41] Okay, then if they sign [53:42] a contract saying [53:42] they don't receive [53:43] social benefits, [53:44] they're more than welcome to stay. [53:45] Well, sadly, [53:47] they would take benefits [53:48] if they were available to them, [53:49] if they could come out [53:49] of the shadows [53:50] and they would actually [53:51] pay more taxes [53:51] and contribute more to society. [53:53] Let me ask you, [53:53] if there's a... [53:54] Oh, passionate hands. [53:56] No worries. [53:56] If there's an accident [53:57] and let's say your wife's [53:59] in an accident, [53:59] a car accident, [54:00] the only person that witnessed it [54:01] is an undocumented immigrant. [54:02] They're not coming forward [54:03] to be a witness, Ben. [54:04] Doesn't that trouble you? [54:05] This is the reason [54:05] that I should allow [54:06] millions and millions [54:07] of illegal immigrants [54:07] into the country? [54:08] It's on the off chance [54:09] that they might be a witness? [54:10] It's one reason [54:11] that these people [54:11] are being treated [54:12] as second-class citizens [54:13] even though they benefit you and I. [54:14] Can I ask a question? [54:15] What is your standard [54:16] for whether someone [54:17] should be allowed [54:17] into the country? [54:18] My standard? [54:19] Yes. [54:19] What do you mean my standard? [54:20] Like as far as their education [54:21] or their ability? [54:22] Yes. [54:23] You're creating immigration policy. [54:24] Who should be allowed [54:25] into the country? [54:25] I think we should allow [54:26] a wide variety of people. [54:27] This country, [54:28] not everybody starts out [54:28] as a doctor, Ben. [54:29] Some people start out [54:30] doing menial tests. [54:31] So everyone, [54:32] so you have no limits. [54:33] How about numbers? [54:34] Do you have any number limit? [54:35] No, no numerical limit. [54:36] 20,000 people die [54:37] or retire in this country a day. [54:38] There's only 10,000 births. [54:39] We need more people. [54:41] I agree. [54:41] That's why we should [54:41] all have more babies. [54:42] So, okay. [54:43] Well, guess what? [54:44] People aren't going to have them [54:45] because you're not incentivizing it. [54:47] Kamala Harris is [54:47] with her things [54:48] like $6,000 child tax credit. [54:50] Meanwhile, [54:51] you guys are just trying [54:52] to cause more problems [54:53] and make it harder [54:53] for people to raise families. [54:55] Okay. [54:55] As a person with four children, [54:56] I can promise you [54:57] I have a very, very strong [54:58] incentive structure [54:59] in allowing people [55:00] to have more kids [55:00] and incentivizing people [55:01] to have more kids. [55:02] I wish that government benefits [55:03] were more effective [55:04] in doing this. [55:05] They simply have not been [55:05] in particular areas of Europe. [55:07] There's a different argument [55:07] than the illegal immigration argument. [55:08] When we're talking [55:09] about illegal immigration, [55:10] you seem to be making an argument. [55:12] There ought to be [55:12] no baseline standard [55:13] for who gets in [55:14] and no baseline cap [55:15] for how many people get in. [55:16] I'm not saying that. [55:16] We can come up with a figure. [55:18] We can come up with numbers. [55:19] I'm not a lawmaker. [55:20] That's what we elect people [55:21] to go do and work out those figures. [55:22] But Republicans [55:23] are just fighting everything. [55:24] I need some standard. [55:26] You need me to come up [55:26] with a number. [55:27] No. [55:28] Okay. [55:28] A number or a characteristic [55:29] or some sort of standard [55:31] for who you would let [55:32] into the country. [55:32] Because right now, [55:33] all I'm hearing is [55:33] you just want lots of people [55:35] to come into the country [55:36] without any standard [55:36] and any cap on the number. [55:37] No, not at all. [55:38] I want people to come here [55:39] who want to work, [55:40] who want to be a part [55:41] of this country, [55:41] and we all benefit from that. [55:43] Do you think you're not [55:43] benefiting from these [55:44] undocumented people? [55:46] Who do you think [55:46] is going to build the houses [55:47] that we need with our shortage? [55:48] So do you think [55:49] the people who come into the country [55:50] should be eligible [55:50] for all social benefits? [55:52] If they're contributing [55:53] and they're allowed [55:53] to contribute fully, [55:54] right now they're not. [55:55] They're using other people's [55:56] social security numbers [55:57] to pay social security tax [55:58] and Medicare, [55:59] and they're not able [55:59] to get those benefits [56:01] in the long run. [56:01] So again, [56:02] I'm wondering how you're balancing [56:04] the cost benefit [56:04] to the American body politic [56:06] if what you're suggesting [56:07] is that day one [56:08] you arrive in the country [56:09] and now you're eligible [56:10] for all social benefits. [56:11] I'm not saying day one [56:12] you're eligible [56:13] to all social benefits. [56:15] We can work all these details out. [56:17] You're fighting over the grant. [56:17] That's the core of the argument. [56:19] Really? [56:19] You're upset that somebody [56:20] who comes to this country [56:21] and works hard [56:21] and makes your life better [56:22] and cheaper [56:23] is going to get social security [56:24] 40 years from now? [56:25] No, not social security [56:26] 40 years from now. [56:26] Medicaid today. [56:28] So wouldn't you rather [56:29] than get Medicaid [56:30] and get preventative care [56:31] than go to the hospital [56:31] where it costs you, [56:32] you, the taxpayer, [56:33] 10 times more money? [56:34] My point, [56:35] as it has been from the beginning, [56:36] is that you need [56:36] screening procedures [56:37] for immigration. [56:38] So you're saying [56:39] Border Patrol is failing [56:40] then to screen [56:40] these people properly? [56:41] Is that the accusation [56:42] you're making? [56:43] I'm making the case [56:43] that Border Patrol [56:44] certainly is failing. [56:45] How do you know that? [56:45] Because you talked [56:46] to a couple Border Patrol agents? [56:47] You know, [56:48] that is so insulting [56:50] to our Border Patrol [56:51] is fighting every day [56:52] on the front lines. [56:53] You think they're not [56:53] screening these people [56:54] and they're being bamboozled [56:55] by some people's [56:56] claiming asylum [56:57] and tricking them? [56:57] No, because literally today [56:58] the FBI announced [56:59] that an Afghan national [57:00] was let in without vetting [57:01] and tried to plant [57:02] a terrorist attack [57:03] on election night. [57:03] Oh, it's just one. [57:04] One guy. [57:05] You know how many terrorists [57:06] were caught by the border [57:07] under Trump? [57:08] Zero. [57:08] There are over three. [57:09] At least we're catching them. [57:10] There are over three. [57:14] First of all, [57:15] first of all, [57:16] it's not true [57:16] because a huge number [57:17] of people, [57:18] we don't know who they are, [57:19] are coming across the border [57:19] between ports of entry. [57:21] Second of all, [57:22] you're talking in this country [57:23] right now at at least [57:24] 300,000 minors. [57:26] We have no idea [57:26] where they are. [57:27] Oh, that is nonsense. [57:28] That is not nonsense. [57:28] No, it is. [57:29] It is ICE has lost track [57:30] of them because it's voluntary [57:32] for them to keep in touch [57:33] with the system. [57:34] They are not lost. [57:34] They're released [57:35] to their sponsors [57:36] who have to go [57:36] through background checks. [57:37] You have no idea [57:38] what you're talking about. [57:38] They don't all have to. [57:39] You think 300,000 minors [57:40] are lost in America? [57:41] Are you crazy? [57:42] I'm saying, [57:43] I'm not saying that. [57:47] The Department of Justice [57:48] is saying that. [57:48] Next thing you're going to tell me, [57:49] there's 19,000 murderers, right? [57:51] Is that the next talking point? [57:51] No, that is not [57:52] the next talking point. [57:53] But you're going to have [57:54] to explain to me [57:55] why it is okay [57:56] for literally tens of thousands [57:57] of minors [57:58] to be checked out to majors, [57:59] to people who are [58:00] above majority age, [58:01] and then for the government [58:02] to not, [58:02] when I say lose track, [58:03] I don't mean minors [58:04] who walk in the streets [58:05] by themselves. [58:05] Checked out to their sponsor [58:05] who goes through a background check. [58:07] Is that what you mean? [58:07] They do not go through it. [58:08] How do you know that? [58:09] Because they're not checking in. [58:10] A huge number of people. [58:11] Oh, it's voluntary. [58:12] Why is our law [58:13] allowed for it to be voluntary [58:14] then if it's not working? [58:15] The law should not allow [58:16] for it to be voluntary. [58:17] And in fact, [58:18] in some cases, [58:18] it is not voluntary. [58:20] And in fact, [58:20] human trafficking [58:20] is going on at scale. [58:22] It sounds like [58:22] you're upset [58:23] when the problem doesn't exist. [58:24] What is this problem? [58:25] I have a question. [58:25] Why are you okay [58:27] with minors [58:28] who are being checked out [58:29] to people of majority age [58:30] who then don't check in [58:31] with the government? [58:31] Is that okay with you? [58:32] I'm okay with minors [58:33] being checked out [58:34] to their sponsors [58:35] who go through background checks [58:36] who are usually family members, [58:37] people that know them. [58:38] You think it's just some random, [58:39] you think I can go pick up [58:40] an undocumented [58:41] immigrant child right now? [58:42] No, but I do know [58:43] that that has happened [58:44] to tens of thousands of kids [58:45] in this country. [58:45] Oh, really? [58:45] So you think [58:46] they're just being released [58:47] to random people? [58:48] They're being released [58:48] to people who claim [58:49] that they are relatives [58:49] and in many cases [58:50] they are not necessarily relatives. [58:51] How do you know that? [58:52] Because they are not checking in [58:53] for their follow-up appointments. [58:54] Oh, because they're not checking in [58:55] for the voluntary follow-up appointments? [58:57] So you're assuming the worst. [58:58] You're assuming [58:58] they're probably being kidnapped [58:59] in traffic at this point. [59:00] I'm happy for you [59:01] that you're assuming the best [59:02] as to what happens [59:02] with minor children [59:03] who are released adults. [59:03] I'm always going to assume [59:04] the best about my fellow Americans [59:05] and of course, [59:06] if these people are their sponsors [59:07] and their background checks [59:08] by these agencies, [59:09] I'm going to assume the best. [59:10] Unlike you, [59:11] that's a weird thing [59:12] to assume all this weird stuff. [59:13] Actually, what's kind of weird to me [59:14] is that you assume [59:15] that anybody who picks up a kid [59:16] without proper verification [59:17] and background check [59:18] doesn't check in [59:18] for months at a time. [59:19] Proper verification [59:20] and background check? [59:21] What do you know about the parents? [59:22] What do you know about [59:23] people who are picking them up? [59:24] What do you know about the cousins? [59:25] I've read that these people [59:26] go through background checks [59:27] and they are sponsors, [59:28] usually family members. [59:30] You don't sound like [59:30] you've read anything about this. [59:31] You just have some fantasy [59:32] you made up about me [59:33] being able to go pick up [59:34] an undocumented child. [59:36] Why don't you and I [59:36] go try to get one later? [59:37] We'll see what happens. [59:38] I have a question. [59:39] I have a question. [59:40] Where are you possibly [59:41] coming up with that [59:41] since I've actually said the opposite? [59:43] You want me to name the article? [59:45] You can go Google it yourself. [59:46] Maybe you'll learn something. [59:48] Which article specifically [59:50] are you talking about? [59:51] Man, when you get home, [59:52] go on Google [59:53] and type in [59:54] how are undocumented migrants [59:56] children released [59:57] and what is the process? [59:58] You'll read all about it. [1:00:00] I can read all about it. [1:00:00] And one of the things [1:00:01] that I've read [1:00:01] is that the immigration services [1:00:04] in this country [1:00:04] have not done proper follow-up. [1:00:06] Well, you read it on [1:00:06] Gateway Pundit? [1:00:08] No, on Wall Street Journal, [1:00:09] at the Department of Justice, [1:00:11] in all of the legal claims [1:00:12] by the federal government. [1:00:13] Yes, this is in [1:00:15] the New York Times. [1:00:16] Again, I just want to make sure [1:00:17] we're on the same page. [1:00:18] 300,000 children [1:00:19] are re-exploited in America [1:00:21] right now. [1:00:21] That is not the claim. [1:00:22] The claim is that [1:00:23] the federal government [1:00:24] does not know where they are. [1:00:26] Oh. [1:00:26] That is the claim. [1:00:27] And that is absolutely very... [1:00:29] Do you know where they are? [1:00:29] Do you think the federal government [1:00:30] knows where all of them are? [1:00:30] Do you think the federal government [1:00:31] should be tracking everybody? [1:00:31] I have a question. [1:00:32] I think that the federal government [1:00:34] has a responsibility [1:00:35] to release children [1:00:36] who come across the border [1:00:37] only to people [1:00:38] for whom there is [1:00:39] follow-up available. [1:00:40] Yes, and I find it very bizarre [1:00:42] that you're totally fine [1:00:43] with people signing off [1:00:44] on handing over children [1:00:45] to people who merely claim [1:00:46] to be relatives [1:00:47] without any follow-up whatsoever. [1:00:48] Why do you say merely claim? [1:00:49] You don't know [1:00:50] what that background check is like. [1:00:51] Because usually you should have evidence [1:00:52] that that is in fact the case. [1:00:54] How do you know it's not? [1:00:55] Why is the assumption that it is? [1:00:56] Your claim is that [1:00:57] people are taking out [1:00:58] kids like library books [1:00:59] and not providing [1:01:00] the proper identification [1:01:01] and background information. [1:01:02] Your lack of concern [1:01:03] about what happens [1:01:04] to those kids [1:01:05] when proper verification [1:01:06] and follow-up [1:01:06] is not done [1:01:07] seems disquieting to me. [1:01:07] Why do you guys create [1:01:08] fantasy scenarios [1:01:09] where things that aren't happening? [1:01:11] Are there cases [1:01:12] where some children [1:01:12] are going to be exploited? [1:01:13] Of course! [1:01:14] There's tons of people [1:01:15] in this country. [1:01:15] We're the third largest [1:01:16] country in the world. [1:01:17] So what should we do [1:01:18] to stop that? [1:01:18] Well, you sound [1:01:18] very passionate about this. [1:01:20] Maybe you should write [1:01:20] your congressmember [1:01:21] and say we should tighten up [1:01:22] these laws [1:01:22] and make it mandatory [1:01:23] instead of voluntary. [1:01:24] You know, in order to do that [1:01:25] one of the things [1:01:25] you might want to do [1:01:25] close the border. [1:01:27] The border is closed, Ben. [1:01:28] No, it is certainly not. [1:01:29] Yes, it is. [1:01:30] Yes, it is. [1:01:31] It is certainly not closed. [1:01:32] Do you think the border [1:01:32] was closed under Trump? [1:01:33] No, I don't think [1:01:37] Yes, Donald Trump [1:01:39] should have done more [1:01:39] to close the border. [1:01:40] So why would you want him [1:01:40] back in there [1:01:40] if he's going to fail again? [1:01:41] Because he did a better job [1:01:42] than Joe Biden [1:01:43] who let in 6.5 million [1:01:44] illegal immigrants. [1:01:45] Joe Biden has the exact [1:01:46] same border encounters [1:01:47] right now as Trump [1:01:48] at the end of his administration. [1:01:50] I have a question. [1:01:50] If Trump was on pace [1:01:51] to let in 900,000 [1:01:52] if that was the case, [1:01:53] a year. [1:01:54] I have a question for you. [1:01:55] Sure. [1:01:56] Why is it that after [1:01:57] a president allows in [1:01:58] through pure executive [1:02:00] order negligence, [1:02:01] having walked back [1:02:02] the executive orders [1:02:02] that created the policies [1:02:03] that you are now [1:02:04] I mean, if you want [1:02:06] to call it purposeful, [1:02:06] call it purposeful. [1:02:07] They were on day one. [1:02:09] They reneged [1:02:09] on Remain in Mexico. [1:02:10] They changed the standards [1:02:11] by which asylum was claimed. [1:02:13] Mexico's got to play. [1:02:14] It takes two to tango. [1:02:15] Mexico didn't want anything [1:02:15] to do with Remain in Mexico. [1:02:16] Remain in Mexico [1:02:17] was the American policy. [1:02:19] It was Joe Biden [1:02:19] who walked out [1:02:20] on Remain in Mexico. [1:02:20] There's also a small [1:02:21] number of people. [1:02:22] It's like a couple [1:02:23] tens of thousands of people. [1:02:25] The unprecedented level [1:02:26] of illegal immigration [1:02:27] is apparently totally fine [1:02:28] with you under Joe Biden. [1:02:29] No, listen, [1:02:30] we need more people [1:02:32] in this country, Ben. [1:02:32] There's no legal means [1:02:34] for them to come in [1:02:34] that are reasonable. [1:02:36] That is not true. [1:02:36] So these people are forced [1:02:37] to come in through [1:02:37] the southern border [1:02:38] because there's no other way. [1:02:39] There are hundreds of thousands [1:02:40] of people who come [1:02:40] into this country [1:02:41] every year legally on visas. [1:02:43] Yes, and that process [1:02:44] is difficult. [1:02:45] We need a lot more people [1:02:46] than hundreds of thousands, Ben. [1:02:47] So you're making a case [1:02:48] for broadening [1:02:48] legal immigration, [1:02:50] but you are not setting [1:02:51] any standard or numbers [1:02:51] by which we are supposed [1:02:52] to adjudicate [1:02:53] whether this is good or bad. [1:02:54] That's not my job. [1:02:55] All I know is [1:02:55] it's too difficult right now. [1:02:56] So you're not making [1:02:57] an argument at all. [1:02:57] You're making an argument [1:02:58] that basically [1:02:58] we should just legalize [1:03:00] everybody who wants [1:03:00] to come into the country. [1:03:01] Not at all. [1:03:02] I'm fine with a number. [1:03:02] Hold on. [1:03:03] You have not set a number. [1:03:04] You have not set a standard. [1:03:05] You have suggested [1:03:05] you're utterly fine [1:03:06] with what happens to minors [1:03:08] if they are released [1:03:08] to adults without proper evidence. [1:03:09] I have not. [1:03:10] You have not suggested [1:03:10] that there is no major problem [1:03:13] with exploitation of children [1:03:14] being trafficked [1:03:15] over the border. [1:03:16] I'll go with Trump's number, [1:03:17] a million a year [1:03:18] because that's what [1:03:18] he was on pace to let in [1:03:19] by the end of his administration. [1:03:21] 75,000 a month [1:03:22] equals 900,000. [1:03:26] Good for you, dude. [1:03:36] So I'm just really unclear [1:03:42] about what of her policies [1:03:43] do you think are bad? [1:03:44] Because I'm not sure [1:03:45] I heard that yet. [1:03:46] Okay, the revocation. [1:03:47] So I think first we have to define [1:03:49] what we think her policies are. [1:03:50] Yeah, please do. [1:03:51] Okay, so there is the policy [1:03:52] that was implemented [1:03:53] under Joe Biden [1:03:54] and then there's the policy [1:03:54] that she seems to have adopted [1:03:55] over the course of the last [1:03:56] 45 to 60 days [1:03:57] when she was actually [1:03:58] running for president [1:03:59] where she seems to have adopted [1:04:00] many of the prior immigration [1:04:02] policies of the Trump administration. [1:04:04] So which one do you think [1:04:05] is actually her position [1:04:06] is sort of the open question [1:04:07] about Kamala Harris. [1:04:07] I'm assuming that the record [1:04:09] of the Biden administration [1:04:09] provides a pretty good track record [1:04:11] as to what she would do [1:04:12] with the border [1:04:13] where she made president. [1:04:14] I mean, I think what's really clear [1:04:15] that I feel like you've overlooked a lot [1:04:16] is that a lot of the things [1:04:17] that Joe Biden has done [1:04:18] that you don't love [1:04:19] are because he first tried [1:04:20] to do things the right way [1:04:21] through legislation. [1:04:22] But Congress won't do it. [1:04:24] So I guess my question for you [1:04:26] is what would your plan be [1:04:27] for Kamala [1:04:28] if not to try to get a law [1:04:30] through Congress [1:04:31] when Congress won't pass them? [1:04:32] I'm perfectly happy [1:04:33] for trying to get a law [1:04:33] through Congress [1:04:34] provided I, you know, [1:04:35] actually like the law. [1:04:36] Yeah, yeah, sure. [1:04:37] But if you're talking about [1:04:38] what she could do day one, [1:04:39] I mean, she could actually [1:04:40] continue to enforce [1:04:41] the newfound enthusiasm [1:04:42] for border security [1:04:43] in the run-up to the election [1:04:45] that Joe Biden has now implemented. [1:04:46] Well, setting aside [1:04:47] your characterization [1:04:48] and all the rest of that. [1:04:49] Setting aside your characterization. [1:04:50] I mean, that's actually what he did. [1:04:51] How? [1:04:52] Sure. [1:04:52] Okay, sure. [1:04:53] Whatever you're saying. [1:04:53] How? [1:04:54] Remain in Mexico. [1:04:55] Which is fraught with rape. [1:04:57] Remain? [1:04:57] Yeah, no. [1:04:58] Actually, Remain in Mexico [1:04:59] has been found [1:05:00] to be really dangerous [1:05:01] for the people [1:05:01] who are stuck there. [1:05:02] Okay, and it is also [1:05:04] a fact of the matter [1:05:04] that if you're talking [1:05:05] about controlling the border, [1:05:06] Remain in Mexico [1:05:06] is a better way [1:05:07] to control the border [1:05:07] than simply releasing people [1:05:08] into the interior [1:05:09] with a come-back-to-court date. [1:05:10] So you feel that [1:05:11] that would be better [1:05:12] than, say, funding border security [1:05:14] and related agencies [1:05:15] to house those people safely? [1:05:16] It is generally not a matter [1:05:17] of funding at the border. [1:05:19] It really is not. [1:05:20] Then what is it? [1:05:20] It is a matter [1:05:21] of how asylum [1:05:23] is actually interpreted. [1:05:24] So the way that asylum [1:05:25] was interpreted [1:05:25] for a long time [1:05:26] was that you had to show [1:05:27] by preponderance [1:05:28] of the evidence [1:05:28] that you actually had [1:05:29] a legitimate asylum claim. [1:05:30] That's not that different now. [1:05:32] It's not that different now. [1:05:34] This claim is over. [1:05:36] Thank you. [1:05:36] Oh, I'm sorry about that. [1:05:37] It was getting good, though. [1:05:38] My next claim is [1:05:41] the Israel-Hamas war [1:05:42] would not have started [1:05:43] under Donald Trump. [1:05:50] It's good that this process [1:05:50] has gotten more conciliatory [1:05:51] over the course of time. [1:05:52] Okay, so what evidence [1:05:54] do you have to support that claim? [1:05:55] Okay, so the latest reports [1:05:58] from the New York Times [1:05:58] of internal papers [1:05:59] from Yeh K. Sinwar [1:06:00] suggested that he was [1:06:01] essentially counting [1:06:02] on Iranian interference [1:06:04] and help [1:06:04] with the October 7th attacks. [1:06:06] And that was incentivized [1:06:07] by the fact [1:06:08] that Iran was attempting [1:06:09] to forestall any sort of deal [1:06:11] between Israel [1:06:11] and the Saudi government [1:06:12] for Saudi to join [1:06:14] the Abraham Accords. [1:06:15] It was very well known [1:06:16] at the time [1:06:17] and I happen to know [1:06:18] that the Saudi government [1:06:19] was very much ready [1:06:20] to join the Abraham Accords [1:06:21] if Donald Trump [1:06:21] had been re-elected. [1:06:22] If that had happened, [1:06:23] that would have forestalled [1:06:24] Hamas action [1:06:25] because the incentive [1:06:26] to have done [1:06:27] what happened on October 7th [1:06:29] would largely have been gone [1:06:30] at that point. [1:06:30] The entire purpose [1:06:31] of that attack [1:06:32] was to prevent [1:06:33] the formation [1:06:35] of a broader [1:06:35] Sunni-Israeli alliance [1:06:36] in the Middle East. [1:06:37] Do you think [1:06:37] the incentive [1:06:38] of October 7th [1:06:39] was simply Iranian plot? [1:06:41] I think that [1:06:42] the Iranians [1:06:43] were certainly [1:06:44] interested in facilitating [1:06:45] the Hamas attacks [1:06:47] and without Iranian support [1:06:48] it would have been [1:06:48] very difficult. [1:06:49] I want to ask you, [1:06:50] do you think [1:06:51] that the conditions [1:06:52] in Gaza [1:06:52] in any way [1:06:53] factor into October 7th? [1:06:55] I mean, [1:06:55] I think that [1:06:55] the conditions in Gaza [1:06:57] certainly factor [1:06:57] into support for Hamas. [1:06:59] As far as [1:07:00] the specific attack [1:07:00] of October 7th [1:07:01] as opposed to [1:07:02] rocket attacks, [1:07:03] the distinction between [1:07:04] for example [1:07:04] continuous rocket attacks [1:07:05] that have been happening [1:07:06] since 2006 [1:07:07] when Hamas took over [1:07:07] the Gaza Strip [1:07:08] and the wide-scale [1:07:09] terror assault [1:07:10] of October 7th [1:07:10] is sort of a difference [1:07:11] in kind. [1:07:12] Now, [1:07:12] since 2005, [1:07:14] what has Israel done [1:07:15] to the Gaza Strip [1:07:16] to formulate [1:07:17] or allow [1:07:18] kind of the otherization [1:07:19] of the Palestinian people [1:07:20] who live in the Gaza Strip? [1:07:21] Well, I mean, [1:07:21] in 2006, [1:07:22] Hamas took over, [1:07:23] promptly killed everybody [1:07:23] who's associated [1:07:24] with the Palestinian Authority, [1:07:25] has never held an election since, [1:07:26] and has been running [1:07:27] the place with an iron fist. [1:07:28] Now, I want to understand. [1:07:29] Now, with an iron fist, [1:07:30] is Hamas the one [1:07:31] who is putting forth [1:07:32] the land, sea, and air blockade [1:07:34] in the Gaza Strip? [1:07:35] The land, sea, and air blockade [1:07:36] is specifically [1:07:37] because Hamas [1:07:38] is in control of the Gaza Strip. [1:07:39] Now, I'm confused [1:07:39] because if we expect [1:07:41] that the October 7th attacks [1:07:42] only happen [1:07:43] because Iranian influence [1:07:44] in the area, [1:07:45] I don't see how 17 years [1:07:46] of a land, air, sea blockade [1:07:48] will happen [1:07:49] if that's not a symptom [1:07:51] to allowing people [1:07:53] basically to pressure cook [1:07:55] its way into [1:07:56] something like that happen. [1:07:57] Okay, the idea [1:07:58] that October 7th [1:07:59] was specifically [1:08:00] as an incident [1:08:01] caused by movement [1:08:03] between Hamas [1:08:04] and Iran [1:08:05] and Hezbollah [1:08:05] and coordination [1:08:06] between those groups [1:08:07] for geopolitical reasons [1:08:08] is the claim. [1:08:09] If the claim that you're making [1:08:10] is that October 7th [1:08:11] was sort of an inevitability [1:08:12] based on the conditions [1:08:13] on the ground [1:08:14] in the Gaza Strip, [1:08:15] that's not exactly [1:08:15] how I think foreign policy works. [1:08:16] No, I'm saying [1:08:17] foreign policy works [1:08:17] in the sense [1:08:18] that you can't ignore [1:08:19] the overlying cause [1:08:20] of an issue. [1:08:21] So now when we talk [1:08:22] about the Abraham Accords, [1:08:24] do you not think [1:08:24] that the Palestinian people [1:08:25] not involved [1:08:26] in the Abraham Accords [1:08:26] plays any part [1:08:27] into the region [1:08:29] remaining unstable [1:08:30] specifically with [1:08:31] these two groups of people? [1:08:32] The region got specifically [1:08:33] much more stable [1:08:34] while Donald Trump [1:08:34] was president [1:08:35] because of the Abraham Accords. [1:08:36] Again, I don't know [1:08:37] how you can go [1:08:38] and quantify that [1:08:39] when the Palestinian people [1:08:40] are not involved. [1:08:42] 2023 was the deadliest year [1:08:43] for Palestinian children [1:08:44] on October 6th, [1:08:45] according to a UN report [1:08:46] published on October 6th. [1:08:47] Now, if we go [1:08:48] and keep ignoring [1:08:49] the Palestinian problem, [1:08:50] then I don't understand [1:08:51] how we can continue [1:08:52] to act like forging [1:08:54] partnerships [1:08:54] between Gulf Arab countries [1:08:55] is going to promote [1:08:56] stability to the region [1:08:57] when we're leaving out [1:08:58] 2 million people in Gaza [1:09:00] and then 2 million people [1:09:01] in the West Bank. [1:09:01] I mean, it was promoting [1:09:02] a lot more stability [1:09:03] in the region. [1:09:04] I mean, for the Saudis, [1:09:05] for the Bahrainis, [1:09:05] for the UAE. [1:09:06] And then, yeah, [1:09:07] October 7th, [1:09:08] you're telling me [1:09:09] October 7th still happened [1:09:10] because of geopolitical [1:09:11] reasons in that area. [1:09:12] If the Palestinians [1:09:13] are not addressed [1:09:14] in the Abraham Accords, [1:09:15] why do you think [1:09:16] that there was a need [1:09:16] for October 7th to happen? [1:09:17] I mean, the reason [1:09:18] October 7th happened [1:09:18] was specifically [1:09:19] because of the confluence [1:09:20] of Palestinian desire [1:09:21] to put the issue [1:09:22] of Palestinians [1:09:23] back on the front pages [1:09:24] and an Iranian desire [1:09:25] to use that as a wedge issue [1:09:26] to destroy the Abraham Accords. [1:09:27] Now, front pages [1:09:27] as opposed to what? [1:09:29] As opposed to it being [1:09:30] silenced through [1:09:31] political plays [1:09:32] under Donald Trump [1:09:32] to promote [1:09:33] these Abraham Accords [1:09:34] that, again, [1:09:35] don't achieve [1:09:35] the root issue [1:09:36] of the problem. [1:09:37] The Palestinian people [1:09:37] cannot be left out [1:09:38] of the table [1:09:39] when it comes to [1:09:40] a resolution [1:09:41] or an accord [1:09:42] dealing with the conflict. [1:09:44] I mean, okay, [1:09:44] so the root issue [1:09:45] of which problem? [1:09:46] Of the problem. [1:09:47] Do you agree [1:09:48] with the legal settlements [1:09:49] in the West Bank? [1:09:49] With the illegal settlements? [1:09:52] I mean, so it is... [1:09:53] First, do you consider [1:09:54] the settlements illegal? [1:09:56] No. [1:09:56] Under international law, [1:09:57] it's considered illegal. [1:09:58] That is not true. [1:09:59] I mean, the UN [1:10:00] and most international [1:10:01] foreign bodies [1:10:02] have decided [1:10:02] that those settlements [1:10:03] are illegal. [1:10:04] Now, do you think [1:10:04] that that is just the case of... [1:10:05] I think the UN is trash. [1:10:06] So that's what I was going [1:10:07] to say, [1:10:07] is that if the UN is trash, [1:10:09] if nobody around this area [1:10:11] can be brokered into [1:10:12] as a third party, [1:10:13] if Israel is not allowing [1:10:14] third party investigators [1:10:15] to come to the Gaza Strip [1:10:15] and determine [1:10:16] what's happening there, [1:10:17] who can justify, [1:10:18] who can have [1:10:19] the moral authority [1:10:20] in the region [1:10:20] and say that this is [1:10:21] what's happening, [1:10:21] that this is a reason of this [1:10:23] or that putting them [1:10:24] towards the backside [1:10:25] of the conflict [1:10:25] is this reason. [1:10:26] I need to understand [1:10:26] from you, [1:10:27] what's your prescription [1:10:28] for the area [1:10:28] for the Palestinian people? [1:10:30] Are you like Ben Gavir [1:10:30] who says that? [1:10:32] There's three options. [1:10:33] Willful emigration [1:10:34] to the Palestinian people, [1:10:35] like leave, [1:10:36] live under subjugation [1:10:37] as a second-class citizen [1:10:38] of Israeli rule, [1:10:39] or third, die. [1:10:40] What's the option? [1:10:41] No, I mean, [1:10:42] moderating and then [1:10:43] electing a government [1:10:43] that is worthy [1:10:44] of actually governing [1:10:45] its people [1:10:45] and not stealing billions [1:10:46] of dollars from its people, [1:10:47] either the Palestinian authority, [1:10:48] Islamic Jihad or Hamas [1:10:49] would be an excellent start. [1:10:50] So when, [1:10:51] so again, [1:10:51] so I need to understand, [1:10:52] are they, [1:10:53] do you feel like [1:10:53] they have the opportunity [1:10:54] to do so [1:10:55] when they're under [1:10:55] the subjugation [1:10:56] of 17 years of a blockade [1:10:57] by an occupying power? [1:10:59] If for 17 years [1:11:00] since the disengagement [1:11:01] of Israeli settlements [1:11:02] in the Gaza Strip, [1:11:03] Israel was able [1:11:04] by the flick of a switch [1:11:04] to turn off [1:11:05] the electricity, [1:11:06] water supply, [1:11:07] and fuel reserves, [1:11:08] right now we know [1:11:09] that in the north of Gaza [1:11:10] up until today, [1:11:11] two weeks went by [1:11:12] where no humanitarian aid [1:11:14] was going in. [1:11:14] There is no Rafa border anymore. [1:11:16] There is no humanitarian [1:11:16] going through there. [1:11:17] It's been demolished. [1:11:18] And then in the, [1:11:19] in the other, [1:11:20] I mean, [1:11:20] it's not true [1:11:20] that humanitarian aid [1:11:21] is not going in [1:11:21] actually just a couple [1:11:22] of days ago. [1:11:23] Just a couple of days ago [1:11:23] because since October 1st, [1:11:25] since October 1st, [1:11:26] there was no aid [1:11:27] going to the northern part [1:11:28] of Gaza. [1:11:28] Because there are ongoing [1:11:29] anti-terror operations [1:11:30] in the north of Gaza. [1:11:30] So does that mean [1:11:31] that the civilians [1:11:31] who are in the northern Gaza [1:11:32] are not subject [1:11:33] to humanitarian aid [1:11:34] because there's a military [1:11:35] action by an occupying force? [1:11:36] It means that there's [1:11:37] no actual excellent way [1:11:38] of distributing that aid. [1:11:39] This has been a major problem [1:11:40] with the humanitarian aid [1:11:40] throughout. [1:11:41] The last time [1:11:41] they sent 100 trucks [1:11:42] is what I was going to mention. [1:11:43] They sent 100 trucks [1:11:44] of humanitarian aid [1:11:45] in just a couple of days ago. [1:11:46] Before October 7th, [1:11:47] 500 trucks were needed [1:11:48] to sustain life in Gaza. [1:11:49] 100 trucks were supposed [1:11:50] to say thank you. [1:11:51] At least half of the aid [1:11:51] is being stolen by Hamas [1:11:53] and then being sold [1:11:54] at higher prices. [1:11:55] I need you to understand [1:11:55] that almost every [1:11:57] international humanitarian [1:11:58] rights group says that [1:11:59] this humanitarian crisis [1:12:00] is man-made. [1:12:02] It is man-made. [1:12:02] I agree that it's man-made. [1:12:03] And I know who you think [1:12:04] the man is. [1:12:05] Yes. [1:12:05] And I'm telling you, [1:12:06] there's only... [1:12:07] It's not Hamas. [1:12:07] Wait, does Hamas [1:12:08] have any agency here at all? [1:12:09] I'm telling you that right now, [1:12:10] if you want fair... [1:12:11] Do the Palestinians [1:12:11] have any agency here at all? [1:12:12] The Palestinians absolutely [1:12:14] occupying force, [1:12:15] what is the agency limit to? [1:12:16] If a Gaza fisherman [1:12:17] can't go six miles [1:12:18] past the nautical line [1:12:19] that Israel has [1:12:20] arbitrarily placed, [1:12:21] what agency is there [1:12:22] limit to? [1:12:22] Why do you think [1:12:22] that Israel placed that line? [1:12:23] Again, that's what [1:12:24] I'm telling you is that [1:12:24] how do you expect... [1:12:25] Just for fun or what? [1:12:26] Do you think Israel [1:12:27] wants soldiers [1:12:27] in the Gaza Strip? [1:12:28] Again, here's the thing. [1:12:29] I know that high-level [1:12:31] cabinet members [1:12:32] in the Israeli government [1:12:34] right now is saying [1:12:35] that we're going to [1:12:36] resettle in Gaza. [1:12:37] This is the plan. [1:12:38] That we're not going to release... [1:12:39] That is a fringe position [1:12:39] in the Israeli government. [1:12:40] Now, do you agree [1:12:40] with that position? [1:12:41] No, with the resettlement [1:12:43] in the Gaza Strip now. [1:12:43] Okay, so you want [1:12:44] the Gaza Strip [1:12:44] to main Palestinian land? [1:12:46] I mean, I'm perfectly happy [1:12:47] for it not to remain [1:12:48] in Israeli land, [1:12:49] but that doesn't mean [1:12:49] that it can be governed [1:12:50] by the current entities [1:12:51] that the Palestinians [1:12:52] are choosing to govern themselves. [1:12:53] The last entity they did, [1:12:54] Israel pulled out in 2005, [1:12:56] a terrorist group [1:12:56] now ruled the region [1:12:57] and then promptly used it [1:12:58] to build kilometers [1:12:59] of terror tunnels [1:13:00] that outsize [1:13:01] the London subway now. [1:13:02] I want you to understand, [1:13:03] Ben, that there is no way [1:13:04] for any type of [1:13:05] democratic institution [1:13:06] or process to happen [1:13:07] in the Gaza Strip [1:13:08] when there's an occupying force [1:13:09] who will go and subvert it. [1:13:10] If you have Israeli [1:13:11] parliament members... [1:13:12] So they don't have agency. [1:13:13] If you have... [1:13:13] I mean, it's hard to [1:13:14] when there's an occupying force [1:13:15] under your throat. [1:13:16] Believe it or not, [1:13:16] it actually is not that hard [1:13:17] not to vote for terrorists. [1:13:18] It is not. [1:13:19] It's not. [1:13:20] It's 100%, 100% impossible [1:13:22] for you to go [1:13:23] and make that distinction [1:13:23] when there is no alternative. [1:13:25] Right now... [1:13:26] That is not true [1:13:26] there's not an alternative. [1:13:27] No, no, there is no alternative [1:13:28] to life under no occupation [1:13:29] for the Gaza Strip. [1:13:30] Again, I'm asking you. [1:13:31] I'm asking you. [1:13:32] I'm asking you simply [1:13:32] is that right now [1:13:34] if you have Israeli [1:13:35] parliament members, [1:13:35] Knesset members [1:13:36] who are saying that [1:13:37] we plan on resettling Gaza, [1:13:38] that this is not... [1:13:39] That is not a government position. [1:13:40] No, again, [1:13:43] you know what is a government position? [1:13:44] The government of Hamas [1:13:44] that is currently holding [1:13:45] 100 hostages, [1:13:46] including babies. [1:13:47] This war would be over today [1:13:49] if Hamas gave up the hostages. [1:13:49] And the hostages should be released [1:13:50] and no civilians [1:13:51] should be involved in the conflict. [1:13:52] Should Hamas surrender? [1:13:52] So I want to ask you. [1:13:54] Should Hamas surrender? [1:13:54] I think that there should be [1:13:55] no civilians involved in this. [1:13:56] Should Hamas surrender? [1:13:57] Surrender to who? [1:13:58] To the Israeli government. [1:13:59] Will the Israeli government [1:14:00] stop bombarding civilians [1:14:01] if that is? [1:14:02] If Hamas surrenders, yes. [1:14:02] Because right now [1:14:03] we saw them march [1:14:04] from the north to the south of Gaza [1:14:05] and they said that [1:14:06] the whole goal of this war [1:14:07] was to what? [1:14:08] Was to return the hostages, correct? [1:14:10] I mean, no. [1:14:11] There was a dual goal. [1:14:12] One was to destroy Hamas [1:14:13] and the other was to return the hostages. [1:14:14] See, that's the thing. [1:14:15] When I come to the table [1:14:16] to argue with someone, [1:14:17] I want to assume [1:14:18] that there's good faith. [1:14:18] Not that there's a dual goal [1:14:19] or dual ambitions in the process. [1:14:21] Of course there's a dual goal. [1:14:22] If there were no hostages, [1:14:23] the singular goal [1:14:23] would be the destruction of Hamas. [1:14:24] Okay, now understand this. [1:14:25] Netanyahu will continue [1:14:26] to project this war [1:14:27] because he's facing [1:14:28] crime and robbery charges. [1:14:30] So there's no... [1:14:30] Again, I need to understand, Ben. [1:14:32] There was a full-on unity government [1:14:33] in Israel, [1:14:34] including his opposition [1:14:35] until a couple of months ago. [1:14:36] And so his unity government [1:14:36] will not let him end this war [1:14:39] to the government. [1:14:40] Yes or no? [1:14:40] No. [1:14:40] Can Ben Gavir, [1:14:41] if he decides to call [1:14:42] for snap elections, [1:14:43] can him and Smoltzr [1:14:44] not decide that [1:14:45] this is what we want to do [1:14:45] and Benjamin Netanyahu [1:14:46] is immediately supposed [1:14:47] to run for prime minister? [1:14:48] If there were snap elections today, [1:14:51] Netanyahu, first of all, [1:14:51] is leading in the polls. [1:14:52] But even if he were not [1:14:53] leading in the polls, [1:14:54] Benny Gantz, [1:14:55] Gadi Eisenkot, [1:14:56] Naftali Bennett, [1:14:56] people who are actually [1:14:58] running in the election [1:14:58] against Bibi Netanyahu [1:14:59] would be pursuing [1:15:00] extremely similar policies [1:15:02] in the Gaza Strip [1:15:02] simply because Israel [1:15:03] cannot allow Hamas [1:15:04] to continue to govern [1:15:05] the Gaza Strip. [1:15:05] Awesome. [1:15:06] So then the hostages [1:15:06] are placed second to this. [1:15:08] So this isn't about, [1:15:09] there can't be two dual goals. [1:15:10] Of course there can. [1:15:11] Why could there not be [1:15:12] two dual goals? [1:15:12] Because one of these goals [1:15:13] is completely antithetical [1:15:14] to returning to the last one. [1:15:15] How? [1:15:16] Because when you... [1:15:17] In fact, [1:15:17] they are deeply connected. [1:15:18] If Hamas does not surrender, [1:15:19] how are the hostages [1:15:19] getting back? [1:15:20] Again, again, [1:15:21] I'm saying because [1:15:21] every operation that dealt [1:15:23] with returning the hostages [1:15:24] involved the death [1:15:25] of arguably more siblings [1:15:26] and more hostages [1:15:27] in the area. [1:15:29] Yep. [1:15:30] Good to meet you. [1:15:36] Hey, Ben. [1:15:38] Nice to meet you. [1:15:39] How's it going? [1:15:41] So just returning to the prompt [1:15:42] that the war in Gaza [1:15:44] wouldn't have started [1:15:44] if Trump were president. [1:15:45] Yes. [1:15:46] The reason that I disagree [1:15:47] with that so vehemently [1:15:48] is just looking at history. [1:15:50] I don't think that [1:15:51] the bombing of the Beirut embassy [1:15:52] would have happened [1:15:53] if Jimmy Carter had won in 1980. [1:15:55] I don't think that [1:15:56] Nixon is responsible [1:15:57] for the Six Day War. [1:15:59] I don't think... [1:15:59] Or sorry, [1:16:00] for the Yom Kippur War. [1:16:01] I don't think that [1:16:02] if Dewey had defeated Truman [1:16:03] that Israel wouldn't be independent. [1:16:05] Israel is a sovereign state. [1:16:06] They make their own decisions [1:16:07] based on their own security issues. [1:16:10] We're both Jewish men. [1:16:12] I think we can both say [1:16:12] that Jews are very independent [1:16:14] and that we don't need [1:16:14] to be told [1:16:15] what the U.S. government wants [1:16:16] to be able to make [1:16:17] our own decisions. [1:16:18] So for all those reasons, [1:16:19] again, [1:16:19] just looking at the history [1:16:21] of the region [1:16:21] and how all these other wars [1:16:22] developed [1:16:23] because of situations [1:16:24] on the ground, [1:16:25] I just think that [1:16:26] it's unfair to say [1:16:27] that either political party [1:16:29] in the United States [1:16:30] is responsible [1:16:31] for the war-making policy [1:16:32] of the Israeli government, [1:16:34] whoever is in charge. [1:16:34] Okay, [1:16:35] but we're not discussing [1:16:36] the war-making policy, [1:16:37] which was a response [1:16:38] to October 7th. [1:16:39] The claim was really [1:16:39] whether October 7th [1:16:40] would have been launched [1:16:41] by Hamas knowing [1:16:42] that Israel has [1:16:43] complete military superiority [1:16:44] over Hamas, [1:16:46] which Hamas must have known, [1:16:47] why that gets launched [1:16:49] on October 7th, [1:16:49] why that didn't happen, [1:16:50] for example, [1:16:51] under Donald Trump [1:16:51] or any time in the intervening [1:16:52] 17 years [1:16:53] from when Hamas took over [1:16:54] the Gaza Strip. [1:16:55] And the rationale [1:16:55] that I'm suggesting [1:16:56] is that basically [1:16:58] the Biden administration [1:16:59] came in, [1:16:59] they decided to take [1:17:00] an antithetical view [1:17:02] to the Saudi government, [1:17:03] not just the Israeli government. [1:17:04] They came in, [1:17:04] they were very unfriendly [1:17:05] to Saudi Arabia, [1:17:05] for example, [1:17:06] delisting the Houthis [1:17:07] as a terrorist group. [1:17:07] They started to draw closer [1:17:08] to the Iranians [1:17:09] in an attempt to pursue [1:17:10] a revision of the JCPOA. [1:17:12] They attempted to draw [1:17:12] distance between themselves [1:17:13] and the Israeli government. [1:17:14] Hamas saw this, [1:17:15] Hamas and Iran saw this, [1:17:16] and they decided [1:17:17] that the best way [1:17:18] to put pressure [1:17:18] on the Abraham Accords [1:17:19] more generally [1:17:20] and to forestall [1:17:20] any prospective peace deal [1:17:22] between the Saudis [1:17:23] and the Israelis [1:17:23] would be to launch [1:17:24] the attack right now. [1:17:25] See, and what I would argue [1:17:26] is what was much more relevant [1:17:28] to the launching [1:17:28] of the attack [1:17:29] on October 7th [1:17:30] was Yaya Sinwar [1:17:30] being released [1:17:31] by the Israeli government [1:17:32] in exchange for [1:17:34] the name of the soldiers [1:17:36] escaping America. [1:17:37] Gilad Shalij. [1:17:37] Thank you. [1:17:38] That happened 10 years ago. [1:17:40] I mean, that was two days ago. [1:17:40] I know, and I think [1:17:41] you would acknowledge [1:17:42] that the sophistication [1:17:43] of this plan [1:17:43] would have taken years. [1:17:44] I don't think it was planned [1:17:45] in relation to anything [1:17:47] the U.S. government [1:17:47] was doing. [1:17:48] Again, I point to all [1:17:49] of these other attacks [1:17:49] and wars that happened [1:17:50] over the year [1:17:51] that had nothing to do [1:17:52] with who was in power [1:17:53] in the White House. [1:17:54] It had to do [1:17:54] with specific situations [1:17:55] between the Palestinians [1:17:56] and the Israelis. [1:17:57] And I just don't think [1:17:58] it's helpful for us [1:18:00] to pretend that the U.S. [1:18:01] is the determining factor [1:18:02] in this war. [1:18:02] I think you would agree. [1:18:03] Well, the reason it's helpful, [1:18:04] I think, is because [1:18:05] when it comes to foreign policy, [1:18:06] this goes to sort of [1:18:07] a root issue [1:18:08] about foreign policy [1:18:08] that's rather interesting [1:18:09] to discuss, [1:18:10] and that is the belief [1:18:11] that when the United States [1:18:13] draws away [1:18:14] from American allies, [1:18:15] when the United States [1:18:15] draws significant distance [1:18:17] with American allies, [1:18:17] particularly in regions [1:18:18] of... [1:18:19] Whoa, whoa, whoa. [1:18:19] Drawing away [1:18:19] from American allies. [1:18:20] That's Trump that did that. [1:18:21] He's the one that says [1:18:22] NATO's a bad idea [1:18:23] and us being allies [1:18:24] and having an internationalist [1:18:25] foreign policy [1:18:26] is a bad thing. [1:18:26] To be fair, [1:18:26] the actual policy [1:18:27] of President Trump, [1:18:28] which was to actually [1:18:28] increase the amount [1:18:29] of funding [1:18:30] from each NATO nation [1:18:31] into NATO... [1:18:32] No, no, no. [1:18:32] That was Obama. [1:18:33] That was Obama in 2014. [1:18:34] That was... [1:18:35] It was. [1:18:35] They increased the amount [1:18:36] of defense spending [1:18:37] under NATO. [1:18:38] Yes, and that was what... [1:18:39] But Obama's the one [1:18:40] where the policy [1:18:41] was actually implemented. [1:18:41] Well, no, [1:18:42] the policy was also implemented. [1:18:43] About the 2% goal. [1:18:43] The increase happened [1:18:44] under President Trump. [1:18:44] And on top of that, [1:18:45] NATO expanded under Biden. [1:18:47] So... [1:18:47] NATO expanded under Biden [1:18:48] as a result [1:18:49] of the Russian invasion [1:18:49] of Ukraine. [1:18:50] It didn't expand under Biden [1:18:51] preemptive [1:18:51] to the Russian invasion [1:18:52] of Ukraine. [1:18:53] No, I'm not arguing that. [1:18:54] But I'm saying [1:18:54] if the question is [1:18:55] who has been more dedicated [1:18:57] to our system [1:18:57] of alliances overseas, [1:18:58] it's clearly [1:18:59] the Democratic Party. [1:19:00] I mean, [1:19:00] that is clearly not true. [1:19:02] If you're talking about [1:19:03] what has effectually [1:19:04] made American allies stronger, [1:19:06] the answer would not be [1:19:07] the policies [1:19:07] of the Biden administration. [1:19:08] I mean, [1:19:08] if we want to talk Ukraine, [1:19:09] we can. [1:19:09] We can talk about [1:19:10] the slow walking of aid [1:19:11] to Ukraine [1:19:11] throughout the Ukraine war. [1:19:12] I'm a big advocate [1:19:13] of the idea [1:19:13] that the United States [1:19:14] actually should have [1:19:15] pursued a policy [1:19:15] of rushing more aid [1:19:16] into Ukraine [1:19:17] and then pursuing [1:19:18] an off-ramp [1:19:18] as soon as possible, [1:19:19] as Henry Kissinger [1:19:20] suggested policy [1:19:21] early on in the war. [1:19:22] But if you're talking about... [1:19:22] So then we would agree [1:19:23] that it's a mistake [1:19:24] for Republican congressional officials [1:19:25] in Congress [1:19:27] to cut aid to Ukraine. [1:19:29] Yes. [1:19:29] When it comes to [1:19:31] the Israel-Gaza war [1:19:32] or the Israel-Hamas war, [1:19:33] which is what this [1:19:34] led off with, [1:19:34] again, [1:19:35] my contention [1:19:35] is that the timing [1:19:36] was driven [1:19:37] specifically by [1:19:38] a desperate hope [1:19:39] by Hamas and Iran [1:19:40] to break the burgeoning [1:19:41] Saudi-Israeli [1:19:42] and Sunni-Israeli alliance [1:19:44] that was happening [1:19:44] in the Middle East. [1:19:45] And the best way [1:19:46] they could see to do that [1:19:47] was to launch an attack [1:19:48] to bring up [1:19:49] the issue [1:19:49] that had largely been [1:19:50] sidelined [1:19:51] by the Abraham Accords [1:19:52] because it turns out [1:19:53] that a great way [1:19:54] to make a deal [1:19:55] between countries [1:19:55] that disagree on issue A [1:19:57] is to make a deal [1:19:57] on issues B, C, and D. [1:19:58] It presumes [1:19:59] that the Sunni-American [1:20:00] alliance against [1:20:02] the Shia-Iranian [1:20:03] backed alliance [1:20:04] only started under Trump [1:20:05] and that's just [1:20:05] clearly not true. [1:20:06] We've been aligned [1:20:07] with Sunni-led governments [1:20:09] for at least [1:20:10] the last 50 years. [1:20:10] The realignment [1:20:11] of the Middle East [1:20:12] under President Obama. [1:20:12] The alliance with Saudi Arabia [1:20:13] goes back to World War II. [1:20:14] Of course that's true. [1:20:15] It's also true [1:20:16] that Barack Obama [1:20:16] is distancing [1:20:17] from Saudi Arabia [1:20:18] in favor of, [1:20:19] for example, [1:20:19] the JCPOA, [1:20:20] which Saudi opposed, [1:20:21] so did the Israelis, [1:20:22] so did the Israelis, [1:20:23] so did the Israelis, [1:20:23] so did all the countries [1:20:23] of the Abraham Accords. [1:20:24] And then the return [1:20:25] to that ideology [1:20:26] under Joe Biden [1:20:27] exacerbated potential conflict [1:20:29] in the Middle East. [1:20:31] I don't agree with that, [1:20:32] but if anybody else [1:20:33] wants to go, [1:20:33] we don't have a lot of time. [1:20:34] Thank you. [1:20:43] Hey, how you doing? [1:20:45] Doing okay, how are you? [1:20:46] I'm all right, thank you. [1:20:47] So I guess my first [1:20:49] lead-in to this question is, [1:20:50] can you tell me [1:20:51] what did Trump do [1:20:53] to potentially prevent [1:20:55] this war from happening? [1:20:57] And what did Biden not do [1:20:58] or what did he fail at [1:20:59] that ultimately caused it to happen? [1:21:00] Okay, sure. [1:21:01] So the Trump administration, [1:21:03] by drawing closer to Saudi Arabia, [1:21:04] by attempting to broker [1:21:05] the Abraham Accords [1:21:06] and successfully doing so [1:21:07] with a multiplicity of countries [1:21:08] in the region, [1:21:10] weakened Iran. [1:21:11] He also weakened Iran [1:21:11] by keeping massive sanctions [1:21:13] in place, [1:21:14] which really prevented them [1:21:15] from spreading terror [1:21:16] in the same sorts of ways [1:21:17] that they did [1:21:17] under the Obama administration [1:21:20] or the Biden administration [1:21:20] as well. [1:21:22] The Trump administration [1:21:23] was very clearly [1:21:24] and obviously pro-Israel [1:21:25] in a way that [1:21:25] the Biden administration [1:21:26] has not been. [1:21:27] They've been a little bit [1:21:27] more shaded on the issue. [1:21:28] In what ways? [1:21:29] So the United States, [1:21:30] for example, [1:21:31] acknowledging under Donald Trump [1:21:32] that Jerusalem was [1:21:32] the capital of Israel, [1:21:33] continuation of military aid [1:21:36] to Israel [1:21:36] without any attempt [1:21:37] to condition or slow walk. [1:21:39] Joe Biden, [1:21:39] from the very beginning [1:21:40] of the war, [1:21:40] was basically attempting [1:21:41] to slow walk [1:21:42] or condition aid [1:21:43] based on certain things [1:21:45] that were happening [1:21:46] in the war. [1:21:46] This sort of stuff [1:21:47] and the preview [1:21:48] of that sort of stuff [1:21:49] before October 7th, [1:21:50] distance that was drawn [1:21:50] between the Israeli government [1:21:52] and the American government [1:21:54] leads opponents of Israel [1:21:55] to believe that [1:21:56] the United States [1:21:57] is not going to be [1:21:58] in their corner [1:21:58] and that leads to greater conflict. [1:21:59] Do you think that the United States [1:22:00] has in any way, [1:22:02] shape, or form [1:22:02] not shown [1:22:03] that they are not [1:22:04] in support of Israel? [1:22:05] I mean, [1:22:06] one of Kamala Harris' [1:22:07] talking points [1:22:07] that every time [1:22:08] she starts at that, [1:22:09] she believes that Israel [1:22:10] has the right [1:22:10] to defend itself. [1:22:11] I mean, [1:22:11] so just this week, [1:22:13] the Biden administration [1:22:14] put forward [1:22:15] an open threat [1:22:15] to embargo arms [1:22:16] to Israel. [1:22:16] Earlier this year, [1:22:17] there was an actual embargo [1:22:18] against Israel. [1:22:20] Because of why? [1:22:20] Well, I mean, [1:22:21] they're claiming [1:22:21] that it's because [1:22:22] of lack of humanitarian aid [1:22:23] in the northern Gaza Strip. [1:22:24] That can be their claim. [1:22:25] I don't actually... [1:22:26] Okay, [1:22:26] anybody who claims [1:22:27] that there's a genocide [1:22:28] going on in the Gaza Strip [1:22:28] does not understand [1:22:29] the definition [1:22:30] of the word genocide. [1:22:30] Don't tell me, [1:22:31] what's the definition [1:22:31] of genocide? [1:22:32] A systematic destruction [1:22:33] of every member [1:22:34] of a population. [1:22:35] Is Israel a system? [1:22:37] No, no. [1:22:37] Are they on their way [1:22:38] to completing [1:22:39] and fulfilling a genocide? [1:22:40] No, there are two... [1:22:41] Potentially, [1:22:41] if they kept on going [1:22:42] the same way [1:22:43] that they're doing, [1:22:43] could they completely [1:22:44] eradicate the Gaza Strip? [1:22:46] Israel has the military [1:22:48] capacity to do that, [1:22:49] and they have certainly [1:22:49] not done that. [1:22:50] And the reason I can say [1:22:50] they have not done that [1:22:51] is that they... [1:22:52] You know how long [1:22:53] it would take them [1:22:54] at the current rate [1:22:54] to do that, [1:22:55] especially given the fact [1:22:56] that they are [1:22:57] completely targeting terrorists? [1:22:59] Are they completely [1:22:59] targeting terrorists? [1:23:00] Are children terrorists? [1:23:01] Are the children [1:23:02] the dead babies, [1:23:03] the kids? [1:23:04] Civilian collateral damage [1:23:06] is not the same thing [1:23:06] as targeting civilians. [1:23:07] But is that not [1:23:08] a byproduct of genocide? [1:23:09] No, that is not. [1:23:11] Genocide is where [1:23:11] you systematically [1:23:12] destroy a population [1:23:13] specifically because [1:23:13] you wish to kill [1:23:14] the civilian population. [1:23:17] He's right. [1:23:17] That's not very pro-life. [1:23:19] Well, no, [1:23:20] it turns out that Hamas [1:23:21] is not pro-life [1:23:21] when they hide behind [1:23:22] children and women. [1:23:22] And neither is Israel [1:23:23] when they drop bombs [1:23:25] and nukes [1:23:25] on Palestinian villages [1:23:26] and families. [1:23:26] Are you suggesting [1:23:27] that Israel is using [1:23:28] nuclear weapons? [1:23:29] Is a bomb [1:23:30] automatically nuclear? [1:23:31] No, not even wrong. [1:23:32] So that's what I said, [1:23:33] a bomb. [1:23:34] And a nukes. [1:23:35] Okay, Israel uses [1:23:36] as small munitions [1:23:38] as possible [1:23:39] to target specific terrorists. [1:23:41] Okay, they do this [1:23:42] using drone technology. [1:23:44] They have to go [1:23:44] through four layers [1:23:45] of legal [1:23:46] before any strike [1:23:46] is actually approved [1:23:47] by the upper layers [1:23:48] of the Israeli government. [1:23:49] I've seen this actual [1:23:50] process in action. [1:23:51] I've seen the actual footage [1:23:52] at Palmachim Air Force Base [1:23:53] in which Israel [1:23:54] goes through the process [1:23:54] and shows exactly how [1:23:56] they have to go through [1:23:56] multiple legal steps [1:23:57] in order to green light [1:23:58] a hit on a terrorist. [1:23:59] And they have called, [1:24:00] I mean, [1:24:00] they've released footage [1:24:01] of this, [1:24:01] them calling off [1:24:02] particular strikes [1:24:02] if they believe [1:24:03] that the minimal amount [1:24:04] of civilian casualty damage [1:24:06] cannot be maintained. [1:24:09] So the basic idea, [1:24:10] again, [1:24:11] what you're talking about here [1:24:12] is a population [1:24:12] of two million Palestinians [1:24:13] who are living [1:24:14] in the Gaza Strip. [1:24:15] The total number [1:24:16] of war dead [1:24:17] at this point, [1:24:17] according to best available [1:24:18] statistics, [1:24:19] is somewhere between [1:24:20] 30,000 and 40,000 dead. [1:24:22] That is not a genocide. [1:24:23] It is a horrible, [1:24:24] horrible war [1:24:25] with horrible human casualties. [1:24:27] That is not a genocide. [1:24:28] Definitionally, [1:24:28] it is not. [1:24:29] To your definition, [1:24:29] which I will have [1:24:29] to disagree with, [1:24:30] but that brings me [1:24:31] to my next question. [1:24:32] Name a war that isn't [1:24:32] a genocide by your definition. [1:24:34] One that isn't a genocide? [1:24:34] Yes. [1:24:36] There's plenty of genocides. [1:24:38] They've happened. [1:24:39] I don't know what your point is. [1:24:40] My point is [1:24:41] that you don't seem [1:24:42] to be distinguishing [1:24:42] between the definition [1:24:43] of a war [1:24:44] and the definition [1:24:44] of a genocide. [1:24:45] You're saying [1:24:46] that if mass casualties [1:24:47] happen, [1:24:47] it is necessarily a genocide. [1:24:48] I'm saying that is not true. [1:24:50] Got you. [1:24:51] My next question. [1:24:52] Do you believe [1:24:53] Israel has the right [1:24:54] to the... [1:25:05] Well, [1:25:05] we're going to solve [1:25:06] the Middle East [1:25:06] in 56 seconds. [1:25:07] Go for it. [1:25:07] Definitely not. [1:25:08] My next question is [1:25:09] if this were in the context [1:25:10] of the United States, [1:25:12] if everything were the same, [1:25:13] the same conditions [1:25:13] of what you see to be terrorism, [1:25:15] what you see to be [1:25:16] from the Israel side, [1:25:17] but it happened [1:25:17] in the United States [1:25:18] and the innocent civilians [1:25:19] that died were [1:25:19] United States citizens, [1:25:20] would you see the same thing [1:25:21] to be justified? [1:25:23] So let's say [1:25:24] that the United States [1:25:25] had launched an attack [1:25:26] across the Mexican border, [1:25:27] specifically targeting civilians, [1:25:28] slaughtering 1,200 of them, [1:25:29] taking 250, [1:25:30] 150 hostage, [1:25:31] and then the Mexican government [1:25:32] had retaliated [1:25:33] by attempting [1:25:34] to solely target [1:25:35] military targets [1:25:36] and our military men [1:25:36] and women [1:25:37] were hiding behind civilians? [1:25:38] That would be [1:25:38] the comparable condition. [1:25:39] Yeah, so U.S. citizens [1:25:40] would be killed [1:25:41] in hospitals [1:25:42] and other things like that. [1:25:42] I would not blame [1:25:43] the Mexican government [1:25:44] for targeting [1:25:45] the personnel [1:25:46] who were responsible [1:25:47] for the kidnappings [1:25:48] and murder. [1:25:48] Do you see it to be [1:25:49] ethically justified [1:25:50] for them to kill [1:25:51] innocent Americans [1:25:52] at the same degree [1:25:53] that they killed [1:25:53] innocent Palestinians? [1:25:54] Again, the question [1:25:55] of killing civilians [1:25:56] is a question about [1:25:57] who's hiding behind [1:25:58] the civilians. [1:25:58] Israel's not going out [1:25:59] of its way [1:25:59] to kill civilians. [1:26:00] That's not an answer [1:26:01] to the question. [1:26:01] Yes, it is, [1:26:02] because you're [1:26:02] mischaracterizing [1:26:03] the actual situation [1:26:04] on the ground. [1:26:04] Oh. [1:26:04] because of what [1:26:06] I just described. [1:26:07] I said the same conditions. [1:26:10] We didn't solve it. [1:26:11] That was all the time. [1:26:12] Oh. [1:26:17] Yeah, so many friends. [1:26:19] So many friends. [1:26:20] Let's see. [1:26:24] Um, let's see. [1:26:26] I'm trying to see. [1:26:27] I want somebody [1:26:28] who didn't get, like, [1:26:29] a full-time. [1:26:29] Who had to, like... [1:26:30] Oh, my gosh. [1:26:35] I choose Tyler [1:26:36] because he's been [1:26:37] sitting behind me [1:26:37] the whole time [1:26:38] and I feel bad [1:26:38] for the dude. [1:26:39] He's really wanted to talk, [1:26:40] so let's have a conversation. [1:26:42] Mike Clement said [1:26:48] Donald Trump [1:26:48] did not commit [1:26:49] to a peaceful transfer of power. [1:26:53] Okay, so, yeah, [1:26:53] I think it's simple. [1:26:54] I think Trump, uh, [1:26:56] helped facilitate [1:26:57] a fake electric scheme [1:26:59] to override [1:27:00] the, um, election [1:27:01] in 2020 [1:27:02] to have Mike Pence [1:27:03] not certify the election [1:27:05] and then allowed violence [1:27:07] to happen at the Capitol. [1:27:08] So, Donald Trump [1:27:09] gave a speech [1:27:10] for an hour and a half [1:27:11] where he would say things [1:27:12] like, [1:27:12] fight like hell, [1:27:13] they're stealing [1:27:14] the country away from us. [1:27:15] And then when people [1:27:16] got to the Capitol, [1:27:18] Donald Trump sat there [1:27:19] for three hours [1:27:20] and watched them [1:27:21] when his aides, [1:27:22] his, um, family [1:27:24] and everyone [1:27:24] was telling him [1:27:25] put a stop to the violence. [1:27:26] Call them, [1:27:26] tell them to go home. [1:27:27] He did not. [1:27:28] And I think that is [1:27:29] an example of Trump [1:27:30] not committing [1:27:30] to the peaceful transfer of power. [1:27:31] He was allowing [1:27:32] the violence to happen [1:27:33] when he could have stopped it. [1:27:35] Okay, so, [1:27:35] as far as allowing [1:27:37] the violence to happen [1:27:38] when he could have stopped it, [1:27:39] I'm wondering exactly [1:27:40] what he could have done [1:27:41] given the fact [1:27:41] that the Capitol Police [1:27:42] were activated, [1:27:43] in fact, [1:27:44] pretty quickly [1:27:44] in the middle [1:27:45] of that debacle. [1:27:46] As far as not committing [1:27:47] to the peaceful transfer of power, [1:27:48] do we mean verbally [1:27:49] or inaction? [1:27:50] So I agree with you, [1:27:51] verbally, [1:27:51] he never suggested [1:27:52] that I am going to leave [1:27:54] and then he did. [1:27:55] So, you know, [1:27:55] so I'm not sure actually [1:27:57] how much we disagree [1:27:58] on this matter. [1:27:59] I thought that January 6th [1:27:59] was terrible. [1:28:00] I thought that his behavior [1:28:01] between the election [1:28:02] of November 2020 [1:28:03] and January 6th [1:28:04] was bad. [1:28:05] There may be disagreement [1:28:05] on the extent [1:28:06] to which we believe [1:28:06] incitement took place [1:28:07] as opposed to [1:28:08] bad behavior [1:28:09] that raised the temperature [1:28:10] that I think [1:28:10] was really, really negative. [1:28:11] As far as not committing [1:28:13] to the peaceful transfer of power, [1:28:14] he clearly committed [1:28:16] to the extent [1:28:17] that he left, right? [1:28:18] I mean, [1:28:18] Joe Biden has been president [1:28:19] for the last three [1:28:19] and a half years [1:28:20] for how much of that [1:28:21] he's been mentally aware. [1:28:22] But, you know, [1:28:22] I'm just wondering [1:28:24] what sort of the, [1:28:25] where do we disagree? [1:28:26] Yeah, well, [1:28:27] I'll quote you, right? [1:28:28] January 6th [1:28:28] was the worst thing [1:28:29] to happen since 9-11, right? [1:28:30] And I just want to be clear [1:28:31] that you agree [1:28:32] he verbally did not want [1:28:34] to commit [1:28:34] to the peaceful transfer of power. [1:28:36] He tried to stop it, [1:28:37] yet you are still saying [1:28:38] that he should be [1:28:39] the president of the United States. [1:28:40] Well, I mean, [1:28:40] he did not. [1:28:40] That is your claim, though. [1:28:41] He should be the president [1:28:42] of the United States [1:28:43] and you agree [1:28:44] he verbally did not commit [1:28:45] to the peaceful transfer of power. [1:28:46] Well, I mean, [1:28:46] he did not verbally suggest [1:28:48] that there ought to be [1:28:48] a violent uprising, [1:28:50] revolution, or military coup. [1:28:50] But he also didn't stop it, right? [1:28:52] So there were people [1:28:53] inside the Capitol [1:28:54] and he sat for three hours. [1:28:55] His closest aides [1:28:56] were saying... [1:28:57] He should have spoken earlier. [1:28:58] I agree with you. [1:28:58] Yes, and they were telling him, [1:28:59] like, Trump, [1:28:59] you have to do this. [1:29:00] You have to stop. [1:29:01] He was informed [1:29:02] at 2.14 p.m. [1:29:03] that they were outside [1:29:04] the Capitol saying, [1:29:05] hang Mike Pence. [1:29:06] Hang Mike Pence. [1:29:07] His aides went up to him [1:29:08] and said, [1:29:08] they are saying this. [1:29:09] You need to stop something. [1:29:10] What does he do? [1:29:11] At like 2.24 p.m., [1:29:12] he says Mike Pence [1:29:14] is a traitor, right? [1:29:15] That was his tweet. [1:29:16] Why do you think [1:29:17] he would tweet that [1:29:17] when he knew [1:29:18] the violence was going on? [1:29:20] They were saying, [1:29:20] hang Mike Pence. [1:29:21] Mike Pence had to go into hiding. [1:29:23] Why do you think [1:29:24] he would tweet that [1:29:24] at that moment? [1:29:25] I mean, I disagree [1:29:26] with him tweeting with that. [1:29:27] I'm not saying you agree with him. [1:29:28] So the question [1:29:29] as to why Donald Trump [1:29:30] does anything [1:29:31] is a matter of [1:29:32] public speculation. [1:29:33] You're a smart guy. [1:29:33] I'm asking for your speculation. [1:29:35] I mean, I don't... [1:29:36] If your question to me [1:29:37] is whether I think [1:29:37] that Donald Trump [1:29:38] wanted Mike Pence murdered, [1:29:39] I think the answer is no. [1:29:40] No, no, I'm not asking [1:29:40] if he wanted a murder. [1:29:41] I'm saying do you think [1:29:42] he wanted the violence to stop? [1:29:43] Do I think he wanted... [1:29:44] Yes. [1:29:44] Really? [1:29:44] So his idea to stop the violence [1:29:46] is saying Mike Pence is a traitor. [1:29:48] I think that he was in control [1:29:50] of the forces [1:29:51] that he was in control of [1:29:52] and the Capitol Police [1:29:52] weren't in control of Nancy Pelosi. [1:29:53] What was he? [1:29:54] He was the President [1:29:55] of the United States. [1:29:56] Right, and the military was... [1:29:56] And instead of saying, [1:29:57] hey, get out, [1:29:58] he said, no, [1:29:59] Mike Pence, you're a traitor. [1:30:00] Why do you think [1:30:01] he would say that [1:30:01] at that moment? [1:30:02] Okay, I just expressed to you [1:30:04] that I can't see [1:30:05] into his head [1:30:06] because I have a hard time... [1:30:07] Yeah, but you can make a guess though, right? [1:30:08] Well, can I ask you [1:30:10] why you think he did that? [1:30:11] Why do I think that... [1:30:11] I mean, you said [1:30:12] that he didn't want to be hung. [1:30:13] He didn't want to be hanged, right? [1:30:14] You said that. [1:30:15] Yeah, I don't think [1:30:16] he wanted to hang. [1:30:16] I think that Donald Trump [1:30:17] was indifferent to what happened [1:30:18] in so far the violence of Mike Pence. [1:30:20] I think he wanted a lot of chaos. [1:30:21] He wanted violence [1:30:22] to delay the stratification of the vote, [1:30:24] which he was successful with [1:30:26] in hopes that there would be confusion [1:30:27] and someone else might step up [1:30:29] like another senator [1:30:30] so they could allow [1:30:31] to put forward the fake electorates [1:30:32] because that was the plan. [1:30:34] That was in Greensboro's plan [1:30:36] to do that, [1:30:36] and that was the whole idea. [1:30:37] So yes, Donald Trump was okay [1:30:39] with the violence [1:30:39] because he did not want [1:30:40] the stratification to happen. [1:30:41] And in fact, [1:30:42] for the first time in American history, [1:30:44] he delayed it. [1:30:45] And to me, it's like, [1:30:46] Ben, I really like you, [1:30:47] but I think there's a lot of attitudes [1:30:49] that I like about you, [1:30:50] especially your American values. [1:30:51] That is the antithesis of American values, [1:30:53] allowing that to happen, [1:30:55] wanting that to happen, [1:30:56] and then, yeah. [1:30:56] Okay, so I think that Donald Trump [1:30:57] obviously should have done more. [1:30:58] I agree with you. [1:30:59] He should have done more on January 6th. [1:31:00] I think that he shouldn't have tweeted [1:31:02] that about Mike Pence. [1:31:03] I disagreed with what he was saying [1:31:04] about Mike Pence's [1:31:04] and the entire electoral scheme [1:31:05] between November and January. [1:31:07] As far as not committing [1:31:08] to the peaceful transfer of power, [1:31:09] again, what I will say [1:31:10] is that the legal transfer of power [1:31:12] did in fact take place. [1:31:13] He did not in fact initiate [1:31:15] a militia to storm [1:31:16] the capital of the United States. [1:31:17] Against Trump's will. [1:31:18] Okay, but... [1:31:19] Like, that's the issue. [1:31:20] Like, I agree. [1:31:21] It happened because of [1:31:22] the guardrails of democracy, [1:31:23] but Donald Trump [1:31:23] did not want it to stand. [1:31:25] Okay. [1:31:25] Do you agree that Donald Trump [1:31:26] did not want that election [1:31:27] to be certified? [1:31:27] I mean, sure. [1:31:28] So he did not want [1:31:29] the peaceful transfer of power then? [1:31:30] I mean, if the election [1:31:31] had not been certified, [1:31:32] then there still would have been [1:31:33] a legal process that took place, right? [1:31:35] I mean, the question as to... [1:31:37] Hold on. [1:31:38] Can I ask the opposite [1:31:39] for just a second? [1:31:40] Of course. [1:31:40] So is your contention [1:31:41] that Donald Trump actually [1:31:42] would have been in favor of, [1:31:43] for example, [1:31:43] like a military coup [1:31:44] to keep himself in power? [1:31:46] I think Donald Trump [1:31:46] absolutely would have. [1:31:47] And all evidence... [1:31:48] I think that's a strategy. [1:31:49] No. [1:31:49] All evidence points that [1:31:50] he was trying to find [1:31:50] any way he could stay in power. [1:31:52] He was. [1:31:53] And this is... [1:31:54] I think he was trying to find... [1:31:56] I think he was trying [1:31:57] any way to say [1:31:58] that he didn't lose. [1:31:58] I don't think that he was [1:31:59] trying to try to activate [1:32:01] any way that he could stay in power. [1:32:02] That's not quite the same thing. [1:32:03] No, him saying [1:32:03] that he wasn't trying to lose [1:32:04] is different from him [1:32:05] at sending down fake electorates [1:32:06] with fake signatures [1:32:08] to fraudulently steal the election. [1:32:10] Okay. [1:32:10] In order for there to be [1:32:11] an insurrection, for example, [1:32:12] you'd have to activate the military. [1:32:13] You'd have to activate the military. [1:32:14] I didn't say an insurrection. [1:32:15] Okay. [1:32:16] So again, that's fine. [1:32:18] All I'm saying is [1:32:19] all of Donald Trump's behavior [1:32:20] has suggested [1:32:22] he did not commit to the peaceful... [1:32:23] He did not want the peaceful... [1:32:24] If you're asking me [1:32:25] to defend his behavior on January 6th, [1:32:26] you'll notice that I really haven't. [1:32:27] So I'm wondering exactly what this is. [1:32:28] I feel like they're underplaying [1:32:29] of how horrible this was. [1:32:31] I mean... [1:32:31] And that's the issue. [1:32:32] Which part? [1:32:33] Are you talking about the riots? [1:32:34] Are you talking about his behavior? [1:32:35] I'm talking about the fake electorate scheme [1:32:37] and the idea that [1:32:38] allowing the violence for three hours [1:32:41] to happen in the Capitol [1:32:42] when they were under attack. [1:32:43] The senators, [1:32:44] the people that were supposed to protect [1:32:45] to uphold our democracy, [1:32:47] he was attacking [1:32:47] and he watched it happen on TV [1:32:49] when everyone around him was stopping. [1:32:52] And I agree that you think that's bad, [1:32:53] but you're still saying, [1:32:54] you know what? [1:32:55] That guy did that. [1:32:55] He let our democracy attack [1:32:56] make him be president. [1:32:58] That's your position. [1:32:59] Yes, because... [1:33:00] Right? [1:33:00] That is your position. [1:33:01] Okay. [1:33:01] And just so we're clear [1:33:03] what the stakes are. [1:33:04] Yes. [1:33:04] This man would want to do it again. [1:33:06] Okay, so let me ask you about that. [1:33:07] Can I ask you about that? [1:33:08] Can I quickly say one more thing? [1:33:09] Sure, please. [1:33:09] Go ahead. [1:33:09] J.D. Vance has said [1:33:11] he would not have certified the election. [1:33:13] Okay, so let me ask you this. [1:33:14] You said that he'd want to do it again. [1:33:15] Can I ask you how? [1:33:16] I mean, he could do like [1:33:17] the exact same scheme [1:33:18] with fake electorates, [1:33:19] except that this time, [1:33:19] you know what? [1:33:20] J.D. Vance would be like, [1:33:20] yeah, I'm not certified in the election. [1:33:22] What do you mean? [1:33:23] All Mike Pence had to do [1:33:24] was not... [1:33:24] No, no, no. [1:33:25] But practically speaking, [1:33:26] he is currently not in office, correct? [1:33:28] He's not the president [1:33:29] of the United States. [1:33:29] But you want him to become president. [1:33:30] And so I agree, [1:33:31] if he's not president, [1:33:32] he can't do it, [1:33:33] which is why I don't think [1:33:33] anyone chose for Donald Trump. [1:33:34] So wait, so I have a question. [1:33:36] Do you believe? [1:33:37] This is really the question, [1:33:38] because if you're talking about [1:33:39] he's going to do it again, [1:33:40] the only opportunity [1:33:40] that he'd have to do it again, [1:33:42] presumably, [1:33:42] would be if he won [1:33:43] and then he were running for, [1:33:45] say, a third term. [1:33:45] No, I disagree. [1:33:46] I think he can do it [1:33:47] for someone else. [1:33:47] He might do it [1:33:47] for another candidate [1:33:48] that he likes. [1:33:49] They'll uphold the MAGA values. [1:33:51] MAGA has taken over [1:33:52] the Republican Party, [1:33:53] much to your chagrin. [1:33:55] I agree, it's bad. [1:33:56] But he absolutely would do that again [1:33:58] to someone who's loyal. [1:33:58] And J.D. Vance has said [1:34:00] he would not certify the election. [1:34:02] I think that's a real threat. [1:34:03] And you've already acknowledged [1:34:04] that you can't predict Trump. [1:34:06] You can't even know [1:34:06] why he would think anything. [1:34:07] So how could you say [1:34:08] that won't be a threat [1:34:09] that happened? [1:34:09] Because I find it highly implausible [1:34:14] that Donald Trump [1:34:15] is so caring about [1:34:16] somebody who's not Donald Trump [1:34:18] in terms of electoral prospects. [1:34:18] What about Donald Trump Jr.? [1:34:20] You think he's going to do that [1:34:21] for Donald Trump Jr.? [1:34:21] I think he would do it [1:34:21] for Donald Trump Jr. [1:34:22] I think he would do it [1:34:24] for anyone who's loyal [1:34:25] to show that they're still [1:34:26] upholding the MAGA name [1:34:27] and he will want [1:34:27] the Democrats to lose. [1:34:28] You're entitled to your opinion on it? [1:34:29] I think that's radical catastrophism. [1:34:33] It already happened once. [1:34:35] You're saying it's radical catastrophism [1:34:36] that almost happened once. [1:34:38] Because the conditions [1:34:40] are not the same [1:34:41] and it's not possible [1:34:42] for them to be the same. [1:34:44] When it comes to [1:34:44] the actual election itself [1:34:46] and you say [1:34:46] and you want him to be president. [1:34:48] Okay, let me be clear [1:34:48] about my position [1:34:49] throughout this election cycle. [1:34:50] When there were primaries, [1:34:51] I was not supportive [1:34:52] of President Trump [1:34:53] in the primaries. [1:34:54] When it comes down [1:34:54] to a binary election, [1:34:55] everybody now has a choice. [1:34:56] There are only two candidates left. [1:34:58] I've made pretty clear, [1:34:59] I think, over the course [1:34:59] of this debate [1:35:00] that myriad reasons [1:35:01] why I don't support [1:35:01] Kamala Harris. [1:35:03] Okay, now Donald Trump [1:35:03] is on the other side. [1:35:04] So the question is, [1:35:05] what am I supposed to do? [1:35:06] Am I supposed to sit it down? [1:35:07] Am I supposed to... [1:35:08] I think you're not supposed [1:35:09] to vote for the person [1:35:10] who you said helped do the act [1:35:12] that was the worst act [1:35:13] in America since 9-11. [1:35:15] Yeah, I don't think [1:35:15] you should vote for him. [1:35:16] Call me crazy [1:35:17] that I think that [1:35:18] when someone is trying [1:35:19] to overthrow the election, [1:35:21] you shouldn't vote [1:35:21] for him to be president. [1:35:22] Is that like such a crazy idea? [1:35:24] I think that the bottom line [1:35:26] is that when you're in an election, [1:35:27] you vote for the person [1:35:29] you think will be [1:35:30] the better president [1:35:31] for the country. [1:35:32] And what I liked [1:35:32] about President Trump [1:35:33] was his first term, [1:35:33] not his activity [1:35:34] between November and January. [1:35:36] That's the simple answer. [1:35:37] You're not going to get me [1:35:38] justifying January 6th. [1:35:39] You're not going to catch me [1:35:40] pretending that I think [1:35:41] his activity on January 6th [1:35:42] was good. [1:35:43] I also think that [1:35:44] it is an act of [1:35:44] catastrophism [1:35:45] to suggest that [1:35:46] Donald Trump [1:35:46] is going to facilitate [1:35:47] the same exact thing [1:35:48] he did on January 6th [1:35:49] because the conditions [1:35:50] are not the same. [1:35:51] In fact, [1:35:51] if you want to prevent him [1:35:52] from doing the same thing, [1:35:53] probably you should vote for him [1:35:54] because then [1:35:54] when he's president again, [1:35:56] he's not going to be able [1:35:56] to run for a third time. [1:35:57] I think gambling [1:35:57] with democracy is dangerous [1:35:59] and that's what you're [1:35:59] suggesting we're doing. [1:36:00] In what way? [1:36:01] We already have a man [1:36:02] who's shown that [1:36:03] he would overthrow the election. [1:36:04] You're like, [1:36:05] you know what? [1:36:05] Let's roll the dice again. [1:36:06] Let's see if he does it. [1:36:07] You agree it's possible [1:36:08] he might do it, right? [1:36:09] No, I don't think that's possible. [1:36:10] You think it's impossible? [1:36:11] For him to overthrow the election? [1:36:13] For him to do [1:36:14] the same electric part [1:36:15] and not certify the election, [1:36:16] do you think that's impossible [1:36:17] for him to do it again? [1:36:18] Yes, I do not think [1:36:18] that will happen again. [1:36:19] There's no possible world [1:36:20] where that happens. [1:36:20] I do not think [1:36:21] that he is going to [1:36:21] have the capacity. [1:36:22] Yeah, I mean, [1:36:23] we already seen him do it once [1:36:24] and now it's impossible [1:36:25] to do it again. [1:36:26] Yeah, I just find that [1:36:27] I have a question. [1:36:27] How's Chuck Schumer [1:36:28] going to facilitate [1:36:29] Donald Trump's [1:36:30] fake elector scheme? [1:36:31] Sorry? [1:36:31] How would Chuck Schumer, [1:36:32] the current Senate [1:36:33] majority leader, [1:36:34] facilitate a fake elector scheme? [1:36:35] I'm acting on a practical level. [1:36:39] That is not going to happen. [1:36:40] So again, [1:36:40] you can think [1:36:41] whatever you think [1:36:41] about Donald Trump's intent. [1:36:42] I can think [1:36:43] whatever I think [1:36:43] about Donald Trump's intent. [1:36:44] In order to actually, [1:36:45] you know, commit a crime, [1:36:46] let's say this is a crime, [1:36:47] you'd have to have [1:36:48] motive, means, and opportunity. [1:36:49] He doesn't have means [1:36:50] or opportunity. [1:36:51] So it makes it difficult [1:36:52] for me to believe [1:36:52] that he would do this. [1:36:53] Yeah, I think he will. [1:36:54] I mean, all of it. [1:36:56] Sorry. [1:36:57] All right, thank you so much. [1:36:57] Thanks so much. [1:36:58] You bet. [1:36:59] This is the second time [1:37:00] we've met too, by the way. [1:37:01] Oh, really? [1:37:01] Okay. [1:37:05] Oh, man, [1:37:05] it's been a long day. [1:37:06] I thought it was a lot of fun. [1:37:08] Other than a couple [1:37:09] of minor hiccups, [1:37:10] I think everybody [1:37:10] was coming at this [1:37:11] in good spirit [1:37:12] and wanting to have [1:37:13] a fun conversation. [1:37:13] There were a lot [1:37:14] of intelligent people [1:37:14] in the circle [1:37:15] and it was fun [1:37:16] to hear what they had to say. [1:37:16] I think Ben [1:37:17] was significantly more respectful [1:37:18] than Charlie Kirk was [1:37:20] and a lot more [1:37:20] well-informed [1:37:21] than Charlie was. [1:37:22] I'll give him credit [1:37:23] for being a nice guy [1:37:25] and he seemed to be having fun [1:37:26] and he seemed to be [1:37:27] in good spirits. [1:37:28] With that said, [1:37:29] I think there were [1:37:30] a couple topics [1:37:30] where he was being [1:37:31] kind of dishonest. [1:37:32] If you speak quick enough [1:37:33] and you don't really have [1:37:34] someone who's familiar [1:37:34] on the topics [1:37:35] you're talking about, [1:37:35] we can kind of gloss [1:37:36] over things that are [1:37:37] kind of shaky [1:37:37] in terms of argument. [1:37:39] I think that Ben [1:37:39] overwhelmingly is [1:37:41] probably the best debater [1:37:43] that the other side [1:37:44] of the aisle has. [1:37:45] However, I still think [1:37:46] that what he stands for, [1:37:48] what he stands behind [1:37:49] is really detrimental [1:37:51] to the state of America [1:37:52] and the people in it. [1:37:53] I thought that there were [1:37:54] a couple of interesting [1:37:54] arguments about abortion. [1:37:55] I didn't get a chance [1:37:56] to speak because [1:37:57] it was pretty competitive [1:37:58] but Ben's third claim [1:38:00] about abortion [1:38:01] being morally indefensible [1:38:03] was so frustrating [1:38:05] for me to hear. [1:38:06] We are in a unique chapter [1:38:07] of this issue [1:38:08] in that we now have [1:38:09] legislation that has been [1:38:11] passed on the subject [1:38:12] that we can look at [1:38:13] the effects of what [1:38:14] it's doing to our country. [1:38:15] These are real instances [1:38:17] of mothers who are dying [1:38:19] because of this legislation. [1:38:21] And then what about [1:38:22] this gentleman? [1:38:22] I mean, that wasn't [1:38:23] an argument. [1:38:24] It was emotional appeal. [1:38:25] Everybody's entitled [1:38:26] to their emotions. [1:38:27] To be fair, you know, [1:38:28] I didn't really expect [1:38:29] to get too many points across [1:38:30] because I've seen [1:38:31] how Ben has worked. [1:38:32] So I really wanted [1:38:33] to kind of give him [1:38:35] a taste of his own medicine [1:38:36] so he can see [1:38:36] what it's like. [1:38:37] Somewhat irritating [1:38:38] when people decide [1:38:40] to take advantage [1:38:40] of a time to have [1:38:41] a discussion or argument [1:38:42] to simply rant [1:38:43] for minutes on end. [1:38:44] But again, [1:38:45] a person's entitled [1:38:45] to their feelings. [1:38:46] If I can name [1:38:47] one person from the circle [1:38:48] that I thought [1:38:48] did phenomenal, [1:38:49] it would be Guy. [1:38:51] I would say Guy [1:38:51] was probably the MVP today. [1:38:54] Guy did a really good job [1:38:55] on the border [1:38:56] exposing how there's [1:38:58] a lot of lies [1:38:58] from the Republican side [1:38:59] about the bipartisan [1:39:00] border bill. [1:39:01] I have never seen [1:39:02] a performance like that. [1:39:03] I personally learned a lot [1:39:04] and I bet a lot of people [1:39:05] at home did too. [1:39:06] There was a fellow [1:39:06] who gave some, you know, [1:39:08] interesting arguments [1:39:08] about immigration, [1:39:10] although I think [1:39:10] he lacked standards [1:39:11] with regards to [1:39:12] what he would allow it [1:39:12] and who he would allow it. [1:39:13] I actually was [1:39:15] a bit surprised [1:39:16] to hear him say [1:39:18] one of those talking points [1:39:19] that I mentioned, [1:39:19] the 300,000 kids [1:39:20] have disappeared. [1:39:22] I thought he was [1:39:23] a little above that [1:39:23] to be honest. [1:39:24] Yeah, I think Tyler [1:39:25] did a really good job [1:39:25] as well, [1:39:26] especially when he sort of [1:39:27] held Ben's feet to the fire [1:39:28] on the issue of January 6th. [1:39:29] It is indefensible. [1:39:30] And it's anti-democratic [1:39:32] and anti-American values. [1:39:33] And it's the one weakness [1:39:34] that Ben Shapiro knows he has. [1:39:36] Most of the reason [1:39:37] that people are supporting [1:39:37] Kamala Harris [1:39:38] has almost nothing [1:39:39] to do with Kamala Harris [1:39:40] and simply to do with animus [1:39:42] for Donald Trump [1:39:43] on a personal level. [1:39:44] I am proudly voting [1:39:45] for Kamala Harris. [1:39:46] I think it's a no-brainer [1:39:47] to make sure [1:39:48] that the guy [1:39:48] who has no interest [1:39:49] in maintaining our democracy [1:39:50] gets back in the White House. [1:39:51] Kamala Harris [1:39:52] has a better economic plan, [1:39:53] better border plan, [1:39:53] pretty much across the board. [1:39:55] I think she's a better candidate. [1:39:56] If Donald Trump is elected, [1:39:57] the average American [1:39:58] will be worse off. [1:39:59] And if she's elected, [1:39:59] they will be better off. [1:40:00] I care about closing [1:40:01] those income and equities. [1:40:02] Nothing is more American [1:40:03] than that. [1:40:04] The question that I would ask [1:40:05] for folks is, [1:40:06] in the end, [1:40:07] one of these people [1:40:07] is going to be shaping policy. [1:40:08] Do you like the policies [1:40:09] that you've had [1:40:10] for the last four years [1:40:10] or not?