Raw Transcript: Left vs Right: ICE raids, Elon Musk, and Cancel Culture

I don't think we're going to have the same type of agreement with them. He's going to advocate to get rid of Medicare. He's going to advocate to get rid of Medicaid. Take them in the street. It's like if they can't afford their health insurance, JUST LET THEM DIE. JUST LET him die. Oh my god. I don't care. Make them a job. >> Hi, I'm Naima and I'm a progressive. >> Hi, I'm Parker and I'm a liberal. >> Hi, my name is Riley and I'm a conservative. >> CJ, I'm a MAGA Republican. >> And you're watching Round Table. Now, let's get into it. >> And there's chaos and there's protests at an ICE raid on a California cannabis farm. That's when things went wrong for US citizen and army veteran George Rees Jr. George works as a security guard at the Glass House Farms in Camaro. And you can see his white car right here being blocked by a wall of agents. He exited his car and tried to tell the officers he was going to work legally as a citizen. Agents then surrounded his car, banging on his windows. George, he tried to back away from the agents but was pepper-sprayed. His car engulfed. He says when he Ben was pinned down by two officers and then arrested. George was held for 3 days at the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles. No charges were filed. He had no access to an attorney. And he missed his three-year-old daughter's birthday. >> ISIS crossed the line from enforcement to abuse, violating constitutional rights and human dignity. >> I knew it was too good to be true when you turned it green. >> I thought I thought so, too. So, all right. I mean, just based off of this particular example, I would love to hear how you all could possibly reconcile this. >> Yeah. I think that when law enforcement tells you to get out of your vehicle and you get back in your vehicle and you start using that vehicle, you're then endangering the lives of those law enforcement officers and they will take you to jail. So, I'm not surprised to see him being detained for doing such a thing. It would happen to an American citizen in any jurisdiction anywhere in the country. >> Wait, him backing up is a threat to the officers. How? because he could then turn it forward. >> Oh, okay. So then your idea is that he could use his vehicle specifically to harm them. So how is he supposed to get his vehicle out of there? >> Well, I'm sure they would have given him guidance and if he would have told them what they were doing, then they could >> What was the guidance they gave him? >> Well, again, we were not privy to that conversation, but what we did see is him get into a vehicle, a motor vehicle that he was using to reverse, which he very could have easily turned into drive and mowed down those officers, which wouldn't be unprecedented for those on the left to try to attack ICE officers. We saw recently uh you know an individual from the left tried to snipe one uh from a building. So it's not unprecedented for them to be suspicious about some of these. >> So why was he for three days with >> Yeah. Let me just see if I understand this. So he deserved to be pepper-sprayed. What was a melee of pepper spray then held for three days without access to an attorney miss his three-year-old daughter's birthday because he backed up his car. that he disobeyed law enforcement instructions. You know, you you [ __ ] around and you find out, unfortunately. But here's >> backed up his car. It's not illegal to back up your car. That's not a crime. He never committed a crime. I >> I think a major thing here is like we're looking at from hindsight and saying, "Okay, this guy actually didn't have any weapons or any bombs on him or anything like these." If you're driving your car, you don't drive up 15 feet away from like 35 uh policemen in riot gear. Like how was I supposed to get to work supposed to go, >> dude? You don't just drive up. He's supposed to drive. Don't go to work. You know what? Get a job. Get a job so that you don't have to get food. But then when you get a job to go work at that job, then don't go to that job because ICE is going to prevent you from doing it. >> That's ridiculous. There's 35 police. >> It is ridiculous. You're right. >> Here's the thing. Those police are fighting off a riot, right? So, they have no idea what's in that car. These cops are not perfect. They don't have infinite knowledge. We have a helicopter view of this car. Cops do not know. >> Yeah. Then why? Exactly. Why was 3 days? >> The cops do not know if he has a bomb in there or if he has a gun. He was arrested. >> They couldn't figure that out in 3 days >> without access to an attorney. >> But now, let me get to that. I don't know the specific details on that. This is We do. >> Well, I don't know the specific details as to the uh the paperwork that they had to do inside of the prison. I don't know where this took place, if it was a uh >> Well, maybe if they let him have an attorney, the paperwork might have gone a little bit faster. >> Yeah, actually. >> Well, I'm not exactly sure how their processes work >> legally. You have the right to an attorney. It is in the Miranda rights. Like, they have to say that to him and then give >> and you go on trial. Yes. But I'm not exactly sure why this is an obvious case where you disagree with. Like, come on. This is an obvious disagree. Because because again I think we're we're we're Monday night quarterbacking this right now and that is just irresponsible. And let's also not pretend as if this is the exception and not the rule. >> It's irresponsible constitutional rights of an individual. I agree. >> ICE is doing what they've been given a mandate to do by the American people when they overwhelmingly elected President Trump to be our president which is to keep America safe from illegal aliens who have invaded our country who have shown no regard for the safety of the American people. And this is going to happen. >> But this man is not an illegal alien. He is a United States >> individual who disobeyed law enforcement instructions, got into a motor vehicle, very well could have threatened their lives and they made an enforcement action as they would. >> An enforcement action of pepper spraying him and then holding him without access to legal counsel for 3 days. That is against Wouldn't they be able to identify that like within that time period like that he doesn't have a gun, he doesn't have any weapons, that he's literally just going to work that they can confirm that he works there? They could have done that all within that day >> and they could have done that very days. Again, I'm not talking about the three days. I'm talking about why he was arrested to begin with. He was arrested because again, he got back into a vehicle. He turned that vehicle on first >> and then he could have went forward and he would have killed 30 ICE officers. But friends, no. If if did you not see the video? There are 30 people. >> You can't run over 30 people. They weren't like behind. I'm sorry. He would have killed 10 ICE officers. My bad. Is that Is that Is that your red line? 10? >> No, I don't think you >> Four is your red line. I don't think I don't think your red line. I don't think he was. >> It's for your preference. Four officers dead. I I don't think that either case would lead to anyone dying. Why are you trying to act like I would want >> No, I'm asking you what your number is cuz you disagreed with 30, then you moved to 10, and now we're at four. >> I was saying it didn't make sense that you would kill 30 people with a car. Like, that's all I was saying. >> But four is okay with you. So, >> no, I'm just saying that you're you're being misleading. You're trying I'm not being misleading. You're actively trying to make it seem like it would be more people so that you could exacerbate it and make it look like it's worse than it actually. So, I'm glad that Will Please address this. >> I'll meet you where you are. Four four. So, four officers. I don't think any I don't think any ICE officers were going to die on the day because that person was just going to work. >> Well, here's the thing. You don't think so because you knew he was going to work. You knew exactly what was happening. You're looking back in hindsight. You're not an ICE officer who has a family and kids. You're not all these ICE officers who have their personal life. They don't have a helicopter view of the situation. They don't know what's going on. We just saw a helicopter view. They didn't have a helicopter view of the situation. >> Are you saying that they didn't have police that were in those helicopters? >> Bro, the people down on the ground do not know what's happening. >> Helicopters. >> The people down on the ground. >> Do they have any communication with news helicopters now? Well, we don't police do have communication. >> Technically, it's instant, right? >> So, by the way, the news can get helicopters there, but apparently the the ICE IC ice can't do that and officers can't do that themselves. >> Well, it's like, well, it needs to be helicopters aren't really important here. Again, those those on the left have have threatened ICE officers all around the country since they've taken on these enforcement actions, carrying out the mandate that that was given to them by the American people. So obviously they have to take precautions and when an individual is getting into a vehicle, US citizen or not, legal alien or not, and they are appearing as if they could cause bodily harm to a large group of officers, maybe their death. Um, that is a problem. So they take enforcement action. I have two issues with some of the things that were meant. Actually, I have many, but I'll address two first. First of all, you said, "What about the ICE agent's kids? What about the ICE agents family? What about this guy's family? He missed his child's birthday all because he was trying to go to work. >> He missed his child's birthday." I'm talking about these ICE agents having the possibility of being killed on the job. >> He could have been killed on the job. And if you want to talk about ICE agents being killed, I mean, if you want to talk about people being killed in ICE custody, so far in 2025 under the Trump administration, 23 individuals have been killed in ICE custody during the entire Biden administration, all four years. Do you know how many people >> they were killed or they died? >> Either one. >> You're using both. That's a big difference between killed or died. >> I mean, it's negligence. If someone is like >> No, no. Killed or died or >> would they have been alive if they were not in ICE custody? Would they have died if they were ICE custody if they came to our country legally. >> He's giving you a mechanism for comparison. So how many happened under Biden? >> Okay. So under Trump in the first year, 23 people have died in ICE custody. Under Biden for the entire four years of his administration, 24 died. So >> that's because almost no people were in ICE custody during Biden's administration. >> That is factually not true. And that's something that you guys always like to yell at us about. >> Well, Biden did it, too. But now he didn't. >> So you're telling me that I thought he was also deporting? You're telling you're telling me that the Trump administration has less people in ICE custody right now? >> I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the Trump administration has already allowed for the almost the exact same number of people to die in ICE custody than the Biden administration did. >> I think the mistake you're making that a lot of liberals do is that they're not looking at per capita. You're looking at the raw number. You need to look at how many people are in ICE custody under Trump right now compared to the amount of people that have died and then look at the amount of people in Biden's custody during uh in ICE custody during Biden's terms. I don't know. I don't know the exact number, >> but like your argument has to be that it's a four times difference other than it's not not a point. >> How did these people die? >> Well, I they were haven't told people like they aren't telling people how they >> So, we don't know. They could have pre-existing conditions. They could have had an asthma attack. They could have had cancer. >> If they were detained and had an asthma attack and cancer, they should still be treated while in custody. No. >> Exactly. But no, this is an important question. It's an important question. She accused the Trump administration of overseeing the killing the extrajudicial killing of 24 individuals. So I really want to get to know about this because if that is true because if that she later said that but so my question is how did they die? >> Was it because of the negligence >> you still don't want to actually acknowledge the comparison in four years versus year same amount of people have died in ICE custody regardless of whether or not they died. That is a ridiculous jump. You don't see how that's an issue? >> Again, when you four times, there are more people in ice. >> So, wait, so you're saying people are four times more likely to die under the Trump administration due to natural causes. >> That that IS A RIDICULOUS >> THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT WHAT any That's not what anyone is saying. >> But that's the argument you're making. Your your argument was that they could have >> I'm saying that you are trying to make it seem as if the Trump administration is killing all these illegal aliens in their custody when you don't even know how they just more are dying in his >> because more are being put in ICE custody because we're actually enforcing our immigration laws. We are actually enforcing immigration laws under this president because it's exactly what he ran on doing. You want to know how you want to know what would have prevented them from dying in ICE custody? Them not invading our country illegally. They would have never been in ICE custody. They could have died in Slovenia, uh, Czechless, wherever they may be from. Okay. So, your problem, this is an ISIS problem. ICS didn't cause for them to be, >> but this is ISIS problem. If four times the amount of people are dying under ICE custody in the Trump administration versus the Biden administration, then this is more dangerous. Like, that's a very No, that's literally that's literally not true because you don't know how they died. You're trying to create this imaginary correlation between their deaths and the actions of the Trump administration. So, should we So, should we not detain people with chronic illness even if we don't know you have chronic illness? >> You were trying to argue that natural circumstances, natural causes led to four times more people dying. No, that's not the case. Not only is that not No, you were trying to make the argument that, oh, they could have died due to other circumstances. It could have just been due to a certain natural cause. >> Well, I think this is a very interesting point. It's a very interesting charge that you made against the Trump administration that 24 people died in their custody as if it was some indication. Three have died under Trump administration. 24 died under Biden. But Trump has only been the president for one year while Biden was the president for >> But you have no idea why they died. So I just want to establish that you have no idea why they died. >> Maybe we should increase government transparency so that the reasons why everyone >> you want access to these their private medical records now. HIPPA. You want to viate >> for the cause of death is not access to all of their medical records their entire life. >> Yeah. I don't know how you're getting that. That's access to like literally the autopsy report. The point that I would like to make is that Trump has expanded expedited removal to a point that didn't exist under Obama. Right? Under Obama, it was uh within two weeks that you've been in the country and within 100 miles of the border. Since Trump's got in office, it's now within two years and anyone within the jurisdiction of the country that's violating people's due process rights to a greater extent, I think that's bad. I think that's protected by the Constitution. If Trump's going to undermine constitutionally protected rights to a greater extent, how can you say one of his main tenants in Agenda 47 is actually upholding the Constitution? Well, I would say there's an argument to be made that illegal alien should not even have due process rights in this country. Not in the constitution. Honestly, I said there's an argument to be made. I didn't say not in the constitution. >> I said there's an argument to be made. So, you're arguing you're arguing you're arguing you're arguing with a claim that I didn't even make. >> See, until you're Supreme Court justice, it really doesn't matter. Supreme Court justices don't actually make the Constitution. That would go through Congress. But again, >> well, Supreme Court justices do decide what is constitutional. Yes or no. >> Yeah. But in terms of whether or not something should be made constitutional or unconstitutional, that would be a choice made by Congress if you're talking about amendment. But civics, it's hard. But I think what's important here and is not hard is the reason that the Trump administration had to undertake such aggressive enforcement actions is because Biden was asleep at the wheel. He allowed these people, he was literally asleep at the wheel. Asleep. >> Trump is literally tweeting while he drives. If Biden was asleep at the wheel, >> the president doesn't drive. But what I will say though, as these people were invading our country, this is fun. Uh when as these people were invading our country at such a record rate, of course we have to accelerate enforcement actions. Of course, we have to accelerate their removal because there are so many people here that should not be here. And so, ISIS is doing exactly what they are constitutionally empowered to do, which is deport illegal aliens >> without due process. They are not constitutionally allowed to deport people without due process. >> They are being given due process. >> Wait, no, they're not. I just gave you an argument that shows they aren't given due process because of expedited removal being expanded. You didn't engage with that argument at all. And you just said that they're being being given due process. Federal courts have determined that they're not being given due process. They aren't being given due process by example. Why is why is Kilar Garcia still in this country? >> Wait, that doesn't change whether or not that he he originally uh Trump violated. >> So you said you just said blankly they're not being given due process. >> He wasn't given due process originally. >> But has he since been given due process on it? Yes. Because so he's been given due process now. So we agree he's been given due process. That's one person being given due process does not mean everyone from the country's been given due process. I gave you an argument that demonstrated that they violated due process to a greater extent. I gave you explicit basis for that. They showed you a video of someone's constitutional rights being violated. Explained literally how their constitutional rights were violated. >> Constitutional right was violated. >> They didn't get access to an attorney for three days. No charges. Is that Do you think that's legal? Yeah. So, the point was is that his constitutional rights were being violated in that very video. The information that you were shown clearly indicated that say maybe you think that there's some other information that was there, right? You could say that, but you are you saying no circumstance is it that they violated due process rights in the context of the United States since Trump got in office? >> I'm saying I can't deduce that from that one video. We seem to disagree on the constitutional rights that are awarded to undocumented immigrants and also apparently legal residents trying to go to work. But when all is said and done, no one is supporting an open border policy. We all want to see a country in which ICE is able to act ethically, I think. Right. Is that what we all want? >> I would agree. >> Sure. Okay. And just a few minutes ago, Adam said to our daughters, "Your mom's going to be the governor of Virginia." I've spoken with thousands of you over this last year. I know your struggles. I know your hopes. I know your dreams. So, serving you is worth any tough fight I have to take on. and I am incredibly honored to be your next governor >> tonight. Against all odds, we have grasped it. >> The future is in our hands. >> The blue wave in recent elections proves Americans are rejecting Trump era policies and embracing progressive change. >> Yeah. Um, so I do think that this indicates that Democrats are doing better in these particular races. I don't necessarily think that it indicates that they're supporting a certain type of progressive policy, but I do think it demonstrates that, you know, it's shifting more against Trump. And I think that that's a good thing. >> Well, I can really disagree. I think to call this a blue wave is completely divorced from reality. Uh, if you look at these uh past elections, right, you have Virginia, that's a blue state. New Jersey, that's a blue state. New York City, that's a blue city. In the state of Virginia, you haven't have a Republican that's running for president win that state since 2004. New Jersey reliably blue. Uh New York City, well, it's New York City. And so, I'm not surprised to see that those people um are not necessarily the biggest fans of President Trump, but that doesn't necessarily speak to any national trends that are going on. If you actually look at the president's approval rating even during the shutdown according to CNN, Harry had said his approval rating actually went up during this period because people were pointing blame to the Democrats for holding America's government hostage. And so no, I don't think that this is an indication of anything to be worried about. This is not a midterm election. This was just some random election in an off year. >> Has the Has the mayor of New York ever been a progressive Muslim who's anti-inist? >> It's been a progressive in Bill Delasio. So, >> but a progressive Muslim who's also anti-ionist. I think that one being anti-ionist is something that's also new that specifically uh in the Democratic party is being significantly more adopted by the voter base and then that's being shown specifically by the voting when we see the New York mayor specifically being in the most Jewish city on in America pretty sure uh literally an anti-ionist candidate. So I think that's obviously showing a change and it is showing that people are rejecting Trump era policies and then embracing progressive change. That's quite literally exactly what it is. This is also I think a step up from in terms of progressive values as he calls himself a democratic socialist. Did the prior candidate call themselves a socialist? >> I think that Bill Delasio certainly ran on democrat socialist policies. And I think if you want to talk about Zionisms, we can talk about how Apac was also historically a supporter of Abigail Spanberger. Apac historically supported Mikey Cheryl. So, and also too, Zionism isn't a political ideology that's confined to either the left or the right. There are people who identify as Zionist on both the left and the right. So, I'm not sure how Trumpism is has anything to do with Zionism at all. >> No, no, I'm just saying it's a it's a unique different change in the party that they're adopting progressive because the anti-inist approach is a progressive idea within the Democratic party. That's all I was trying to demonstrate to you that it wasn't just necessary. >> There are plenty of anti-inist, right? So, >> no, no one's disputing that. Yeah. But oftent times they're anti-semitic though, like Nick Fuentes, >> which we'll get into. But I do want to go back to Trump's approval rating because I've actually seen quite the opposite statistic, especially in red states. his approval rating has steadily gone down, especially during the government shutdown. And I think that what these winds represent, I wouldn't even say it's necessarily an ideological shift. But I think that what these wins represent is really just a frustration that Trump has not come through with any of his legitimate campaign promises and the cost of living for a lot of Americans has increased. I know you guys don't actually care about whether or not people are hungry and have clothing or health care since you didn't in the last prompt, but the majority of us do. I mean, the cost of food has increased. The cost of most homegoods has increased. And people are really feeling that. It almost feels like the price of everything is going up except for our paychecks. And I think people are starting to just have enough of it. I mean, Wall Street has their whole Trump always chickens out thing about the tariffs. He's been back and forth. He won't shut up on truth. social. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people across the country are starving. And I think people are starting to realize that Trump's policies, especially on economics, are not working in favor of who he promised they would work for. Farmers and small businesses have been reaching out to Trump constantly. He is not listening to them. And not only is he not listening to them, but then he goes on in his speeches and he goes, "The economy is doing so great. Everyone's so happy right now." And it's just not true. It's so frustrating. Not only is he making it so much harder for us, but then he sits around and lies to us and won't even admit how much more difficult it is for the average American consumer right now. Like that is everyone I think is just getting kind of fed up with that. The proof is in the pudding. Numbers don't lie. Bills don't lie. A bill will break your heart. >> Yeah, you're right. Numbers don't lie. And what we do actually see in those numbers is that the cost of things like eggs, everyday goods are going down steadily month over month. And so I would push back on that claim. I would also push back on the claim that we don't care about the cost of living in this country. I cared about the cost of living in this country when I voted for President Trump in November of 2024 when we saw record high inflation under President Joe Biden. Policies that you probably voted to continue under Kla Harris. And so I I will say I do care about bringing these costs down. I think there is an affordability problem in America and we need to be serious about doing things that will bring those costs down. Socialism is not the solution to that. So Zoron Mani you want to say you know is is a solution to those problems. Look at every place in the world where socialism has been attempted. It has failed. Those people go hungry. Those people are starving. And if you really want to stop if you really want to stop starvation if you really want to stop starvation then you need to stop socialism. Because I got to tell you there's a lot more hungry people in Venezuela than there are in the United States. type of democratic socialism that Zoran Mdani is supporting is that of the Scandinavian countries that call themselves democratic. Now we're >> differentiating socialism. Yes, there is different ideologies within socialism. Let me clarify. There's different ideologies within socialism. Absolutely. So obviously you can't prescribe socialism is just one ideology. That would be ridiculous. I'm not a socialist. But you have to acknowledge that's absurd. >> But dude, the Scandinavian countries are basically a bunch of little kids on a playground because the United States protects them through NATO. Yes. And the ones who aren't even in NATO, we still do protect them because they know that we'll protect them. I mean, I'm pretty sure 75% of active military in Europe right now are American soldiers. It's absolutely at ridiculous level that the United States is involved in Europe. I don't think the uh United States should be involved in any foreign conflict at all. But the biggest thing is NATO. We are spending the most of our uh tax dollars in NATO. Most countries don't meet the 2% threshold. I think Germany, I'm sorry, economically, we are just not holding their hand. Like we're not funding the democratic socialist programs that allow for those countries. >> No, but what we're doing though is we're not doing that. The only country that we fund in that way would be Israel. We're essentially funding their I mean I kind of agree with you. I'll go back to that when we talked about the Nick Fentes thing and Tucker Carlson. But um with the Scandinavian countries though, the only reason they're able to put a lot of their tax dollars into all these great programs like the free healthcare and the free uh education is because they live in La La Land because we protect them and they don't need to have a military that can actually protect them. >> Not only do they have a military, but they spend a proportional amount to how much we spend in terms of a percentage they do not. Actually, they've changed. The the point you're making there isn't true anymore. There's been a vast change. Most NATO countries meet that 2% threshold >> because of President Trump demanding that they do. >> No, no. And Biden, you can't just say that. Wait, it was actually mostly increased under Biden. I know you don't want to accept that reality because of Russ Ukraine. But it has nothing to do then has nothing to do with Trump then. It has everything to do with Russia Ukraine. So that's the reason why they're increasing the NATO funding. So you have to realize under attack. They increased their spending. >> But they've done so and yet they've kept these programs and they're still feeding kids. How are they feeding children then if they're still able to put that money into NATO? if they're still able to meet those GDP thresholds. >> Well, I mean, yeah, some of the countries now through pressure from the United States threatening to pull out of NATO, they are going to put put up that 2% minimum. But the thing is is we go way above that 2% minimum. I don't ex I don't personally know exactly what the number is, but it is multitudes higher than the 2% minimum. We protect all these European countries so they could go play around in La La Land and have their free healthcare and have their free education. But the thing is is if we were to pull out of NATO, these countries would go crap and they're going to triple their military spending and they would have to take back funding from their free healthcare and the free education. I'm sorry. Who is at war with Norwegia though? They're not even like in active combat. >> The reason why they're not is because we protect them. Russia has not invaded Poland or Lithuania or a lot of the Baltic states because they know the United States jump in >> Europe would step up together. And also uh US being involved doesn't necessarily mean that that's the only reason why they're able to do these programs. We have the ability to fund these programs in the United States. We just choose not to because we give massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. We spend $900 billion a year on the military budget. If we took just onetenth of our military budget, we could do free universal schools, right, for people to get access to in terms of free public universities. That would be something that we can do. We can also feed everyone. And we can also get extra money from the tax cuts we're giving to millionaires and billionaires. And we can give that to literally people's healthcare. >> 20% of the US military budget, just the military budget alone could end world hunger in 5 years. >> Parker, you said that the reason we don't fund those programs is because, you know, we are wanting to give all these tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. I think the reason we don't fund those programs is because we see that they don't work. You look at Canada where we have singlepayer healthcare where people are waiting uh like months and months and months compared to, you know, health care system here in the United States because for elective procedures because of how failed and and congested their healthare system is. That's a problem. I think that's one we should subject our citizens to. And so that's a real problem. >> So let me let me address this. There are wait times in the United States. If you go to an emergency room, it's weight times based upon severity. That's exactly what they're doing there. The people still need the healthcare in the United States. They just aren't able to afford it. 45 to 68,000 Americans die every single year due to lack of health insurance. I care about those Americans. You guys actually die from the condition that they have. >> No. No. It's because of lack of health insurance. They're isolating specifically for that in the context of study that I'm referencing. Can I please finish? >> Oh, I get the dumb point he's trying to make. He's trying to make that they die from the condition that they have, not from lack of healthare. But in reality, what does healthcare do? Do you know what healthcare does? >> Healthare healthcare can change that. But healthare does not cause that. >> Conditions. That's what going to the doctor is. it treats conditions. So if you die from a condition because you didn't have access. So a big thing is like I think I'll let you finish. So uh the reason why it is that number is the case is because they can't get access to preventive healthcare and because they can't get access to preventive healthare they're more likely to develop chronic disease in the long run. So that's why insurance is super super important for people to have so they can get preventive healthare and then there's lower cost in the long run. So actually we have an incentive to provide health care for everyone in the context of the United States. Not only because it would be more cost effective because these countries around the world they spend almost half as much per capita as we do here in the United States and yet they have better average health outcomes. But it is also the case that they do not have to literally go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt if they get cancer. That's insane. The fact that that could bankrupt any single one of us at this table right now just because you got cancer, something that you could even choose yourself is absolutely insane. Well, also another thing, right, is like I think hypothetically, right, you said like one10enth on one10enth of the United States military budget can fund um what was it? College and >> free public universities. >> Free public university. Awesome. So, a thing with that is like you're going to have way more people go to public university. Like maybe double or triple the amount if it was completely for free, right? >> Where do we get these professors from? Think about how many people work in education. It's a large portion of the American population. You're now going to have to double or triple that. Where are you going to find these people to employ? >> Right? Much larger number of people going to college. there will be much more like the worker pool will be larger >> that too. Do >> you understand that? >> I also just want to address we we're putting money into it to be able to fund that. Of course, we're going to be able to fulfill that need. It would increase wages of specifically professors if it would be necessary in that context. But it wouldn't, right? We could provide these free public universities like other countries have around the world and we can take care of everybody's access to college, right? If they need >> they not devalue a degree if everyone has a degree. >> Uh not necessarily. So if you look at countries around the world that have these different types of access to education, they still have large benefits from going and getting access to education because not everyone chooses to do that. Some people decide to go into trade, some people decide to go into other fields and yet still specifically people are not restricted in their access to education on the basis of not being able to afford it. That's a creating an an economy where there's more social mobility. So if you look at those countries, those Scandinavian countries, they have more social mobility, they have more uh uh human freedom and they have more market freedom. Actually, if you look at the economic in the United States as well, >> okay, but you could compare, you could compare them to the states in the United States. So, if you think that this needs to be applied on a statewide basis, well, then take their policy, apply it in Iowa and then you could do that for each state. You can do it by each county or whatever you want to do. But actually, if you have a larger population from an insurance pool, it actually becomes more cost-effective because of economies of scale. >> Then, if that does work as you say that it does, why has that not been attempted in California, which is one of the largest economies in the world? Why is Gavin Newsome not taxing people in Oblivion? always had companies that are based here in Palo Alto in the bay. Why is taking that approach? >> So, actually they do fund education here in the here in California a lot. >> It's not universal quite yet, but uh like they specifically do like 80% of Cal States are funded specifically by the uh the state government. Plus, there are um alternatives that you can go to. Like the community college that I went to, I could have gone for two years for free specifically because I live in California. I live in the area that I do because it's so much lower in California. >> Yeah. For community colleges. So that's the type of investment that I want to see is investing in our education, investing in specializations so that Americans can get higher paying jobs so that Americans have more social mobility so that we actually have a meritocratic system. Right now we don't have that meritocratic system because people if they can't afford it, they don't get access to it. >> But also a big thing is not everybody can work in education or not everybody can have a white collar job. Somebody's got to make the food. Somebody's got to be the farmer. Someone's got to be the minor. Somebody's got to be the textile worker, right? I mean you could out you could outsource this to a bunch of people in third world countries like Bangladesh and have them do that work. But like if you really care about people, you're not going to say, "Well, I just want to see my country do very well and everyone has white collar jobs and we're just going to outsource the crappy jobs to Bangladesh or India." Your point is that we should wait. Hold on. But your point is that we should make college less affordable and make sure people have less access to higher education to ensure that we have enough American workers to work in what you just called crappy jobs. >> No, not everybody can work a white collar job. A society doesn't function if everybody's on a computer. >> I agree. But you just called these other jobs crappy jobs. So why would you make it so it's harder for Americans to get good jobs and easier for them to get what you just called crappy jobs? >> Well, I'd say something like factory uh factory work, textile work. >> You just called those crappy. >> I think I think all work is noble work. But here's what I'll say. If you look at New York City, what was the demographic of people that Mum Donnie actually do the best with? higher educated people with college degrees who are upset at the world because they got a crappy college degree, probably studying women's studies or some other type of [ __ ] and now they can't afford to make a living. So, I think we talked about today the difference between kind of what a blue wave is or or what that actually foreshadows or if it foreshadows anything. I guess that remains to be seen. We also talked a little bit about what contributed to that blue wave or the results of this past election. Whether it was the cost of, you know, everyday goods uh in certain cities across the country or whether or not it's about just the affordability crisis that we're having here in America. Lots of disagreements about that, but uh we all agree that's a very important issue. >> Late tonight, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to immediately pause a federal judge's ruling that required the administration to fully fund SNAP for the month of November. And we just got word from the Supreme Court that they have granted the Trump administration's request. There are nearly 42 million Americans that rely on the SNAP program. Most of them, as I started the show talking about, children, seniors, or people with disabilities, families across the country. >> The Trump administration blocking SNAP benefits is a reasonable way to prevent unnecessary spending during the shutdown. >> Okay. Yeah. No, I would disagree. I don't think that it's reasonable to block people's access to food. It's a basic necessity for life. There are other things that Trump could have cut. He could have increased taxes on corporations. He could have cut from the military spending budget and he decided not to. He decided to cut food. >> How can he do that? >> How can he do that? Well, actually, one thing I would look at is that it's really that he's asking the Supreme Court to block this from actually being allowed to be used because it's really emergency funding that they can use in this circumstance and the sup like the Supreme Court really could have just allowed for them to do so, but he asked the Supreme Court to allow or to not allow this funding to go out. So really it looks like what he's trying to do is he's trying to utilize the starvation of tens of millions of Americans to try to get Democrats to force them to not accept the ACA subsidies extended which is specifically I think you know very very harmful. >> Well I I would disagree with the entire premise of that argument right if Democrats progressives want EBT benefits to flow then reopen the government. Stop holding America's hostage uh during this shutdown to extract political winds uh from this Congress. The Republican majority in the House did their job. They passed CR to keep the government open, to keep our troops paid, to keep EBT benefits continuing to flow in these communities that you all claim to care so much about. So if you really do care about the EBT program, you really do care about our troops being paid, then reopen the government. Stop putting politics before people and stop putting political partisanship before the interest of our country. As simple as that. You made an argument earlier where you said that the president could unilaterally raise taxes. He can't do that. That's basic civics. Congress can't just the presidency cannot just raise taxes. uh on Americans. >> Do you want to respond? May I respond? Yeah, of course. Okay. Well, there's two things that we want. We want people to have access to food and we also want people to have access to health care. 24 million Americans are at risk of having three times higher premiums on their healthare. This could make it so that they literally just cannot afford to have healthare. I believe both health care and food are a human right. So, that's the issue. Trump is forcing us to decide whether or not we should feed our country or whether or not we should provide our country with basic access to health care. >> So, and the idea is that he has influence over Republicans. So, it is the case that he could tell Republicans to rather instead of utilizing this mechanism, he could increase taxes specifically to pay for these different types of things and especially even so in terms of like the amount that we'd be giving to people in need who are relying on SNAP or not SNAP on the ACA extended uh subsidies, it's not that much. we could take the money that we're putting into Argentina specifically, and we could put that into two-year extensions, which is actually was voted on today. And it was the case that Republicans did not want that. So, they care more about giving $40 billion to Argentina than they care about actually giving uh, you know, funding for subsidies in terms of reducing people's healthcare premiums for American citizens. >> 40 billion to Argentina and 18 million to Israel. >> Well, I think I'll let you go. >> Yeah. So, I was just going to go back. You said that uh food is a human right, but I would ask is it really the job of the federal government to feed the country? >> Yes. If people cannot afford food, they will die. >> Well, where does the federal government get that food from? >> American citizens paying taxes. Exactly. So, you are forcing people through taxes because that's what taxation is. You are forcing people via gunpoint or the threat of going into prison. Yes. That what that's what taxes are. Don't pay your taxes. See what happens when the IRS knocks on your door. They'll either throw you in jail, you know, hold you at gunpoint if you try to resist, right? That's what happens. Taxes are forced. So you are forcing people to pay for other people's food. So you would rather people come to that decision. >> You would rather 42 million people die than have access to the >> I don't think 42 million people are going to die. But these 42 million people maybe if they're hungry they're going to want to work for once because they'll have hunger pains and they go wait maybe I should actually start working and get a job. >> You know some of these people are children, right? They physically can't they legally cannot have children. >> This is exactly why the Democrats need to reopen the government, stop playing these politically, you know, partisan games and allow these children to be fed. allow our veterans to get the benefits that they need. That is what's happening right here. The premise of the prompt is even incorrect. The Trump administration is not blocking SNAP because they view it as a reasonable way to prevent unnecessary spending. They're forced to do so because of the games the Democrats are playing. They're keeping our government shut down. >> They're not forced to do so. They could have just allowed for the tax credit to be extended so that 24 million people have access to healthcare. That's also an option. >> Yeah. It's an option that they've rejected. It's an option that they've rejected. We control. We have a majority in the Senate. If Chuck Schumer wants these Democrats to do so, as they have now done, right? >> How do you morally justify allowing 24 million Americans to go without healthcare? How do you morally justify risking that? >> What we are saying here is that if the Democrats want EBT benefits to flow, then reopen the government. >> But I'm asking you, how do you morally justify allowing 24 million Americans to go without health care, to lose to risk losing their healthare? I think there are many solutions to this issue that we need to be talking about that are bigger than just ACA subsidies, bigger than the Affordable Care Act. >> Can you answer the question? How do we >> answer the question? >> You don't like the way that I answer question. >> You haven't answered it. >> So, I would like to chime in on that. How can you morally justify forcing every American taxpayer to pay for 24 million other people's food? >> Malnutrition. You'll die. Also, it's not 24 million people's food, it's 24 million people's healthcare. It's 42 million people's food. >> I think both sides are advocating for taxation. It's really about where that taxation is placed. And Donald Trump advocates for tariffs which have a >> I think our side would argue for a lot less taxation. Maybe not the Republican party because I identifi I I identify as a conservative Christian, not as a Republican because I believe the Republican party does not stand for the values in which I have in which we should have an incredibly low taxation and very low benefits given out by the federal government. I think that if we were to have such a very low tax rate, people would have extra money to spend. More jobs would open up. these 42 million Americans that are lazy that don't want to work whose whose kids are being fed by my tax dollars like they would actually >> you know some of them are elderly you're calling 42 million there's 60 million children this elderly children they're disabled you're calling these people lazy >> it's unfortunate but these old people should have planned in advance for their future I actually don't believe I don't I >> you call yourself a Christian and you have no empathy for 42 million >> years Jesus gave out food for free >> well yes but he wasn't forcing people to give out food say Peter come here. You're going to I'm going to take I'm going to forcefully take some of your food and give it to this poor bum over here. >> Again, don't use that word. So, like again, the reality listen, the reality of the matter is is that we are using taxation either way. It's about where the taxation is placed. If you go for Republicans, they are going to disproportionately be taxing lower and middle- inome individuals through the usage of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes. But if you're talking specifically about Democrats, Democrats, they want to ease the burden specifically on the working class and ease the burden on people who are in the lower middle class. And they're specifically trying to raise taxes on those on income over $400,000 a year. So I would prefer those getting tax income over the framing question. I would push back on the framing of tariffs. You said it was a tax on lower income individuals. It is not a tax on them. Is a tax on imports into our countries. A tax on foreign nations, not people from >> who pays for the increased spending on those imports. >> But again, as I said, the framing is incorrect. It's not the Americans. It's tax is shoved on to consumer. >> We agree that it's a tax on against foreign countries buying foreign goods. >> No, no, no. Let let me explain to you what a tariff is. The tariff is a tax on imported goods. You're right with that. But the issue is that's paid by the American importing business and it's passed down to the consumer mostly because it's an aspect of cost of production distribution and it's not placed on the profits. So you're misunderstanding tariffs and you think that the money is coming from foreign countries. >> The money is coming from foreign countries. Absolutely. >> No economist would agree with you. I have a degree in economics. Tell me how you think the c the revenue is coming from foreign countries. >> Those t those tariffs are levied against these countries. It number one is incentivizing those companies to invest here in America to buy goods made here in America. >> How so? >> How so? Because it's it's disincentivizing going and buying things from foreign nations. >> Okay. So from a consumer perspective, which again, if you want to look at this a consumer perspective and it's making the the products from other countries around the world more expensive. So it's not the foreign country that's paying for it. It's the American business importing the product and then that's passed down to the American consumer. So disproportionately you're talking about taxing consumers which are if you're lower income you spend a greater proportion of your income. >> But I think something major in my ideology is that if we were to have super high tariffs which I believe that we should people would not have to pay income tax anymore. I believe in having tariffs so high that people would not have to pay income tax. People would have extra money that's a tax. So what he really wants to do is he wants to shift the burden of taxation. Progressive tax system through the context of income tax disproportionately taxes people who are richer. So what you want to do is you want to take a progressive tax and you want to replace it with a regressive tax. Therefore, taking money from the rich, I mean from the poor and then giving it to the rich. Talking about reverse Robin. >> What it would be what it would be doing though with tariffs is not taxing person like uh off of how much they make. It's how much they consume, right? Whenever when there's tariffs, the only tax that you're paying essentially is how much you consume. The more you consume, the more you pay in taxes. If somebody's going to get a foreign luxury car like a BMW or Mercedes, they're going to pay a lot in tariffs. Well, if some poor person is trying to buy uh let's just say like bread and a steak and poultry that's Americanmade, American uh grown, I guess. I guess I could say American produced. They're not careful on that. >> What about shoes? >> I guess what about electronics? >> Well, I mean, let's like where most of our most of our clothing is from Bangladesh as of right now. Okay. And I mean, >> you don't think you don't think poor people need clothes? If >> we were to raise imports on Bangladesh and other countries like them who have a large textile industry, then a lot of those people would lose their jobs or go into a different industry. Right. >> Yeah. I feel very bad about the people. But aren't you supposed to be America first? Like right now I'm trying to protect Americans. >> Yes. I'm working from living in a country that is too expensive for them to survive while having their baby. Then >> stop giving out SNAP benefits and then people want to have >> You're not just trying to pretend that culture of dependency. >> Yeah. The idea is we're trying to make it more affordable. And reducing SNAP benefits makes it less affordable for people. If you want to make things more affordable, tax rich billionaires, tax millionaires. Do not tax the American people. If you guys ran on lower taxes for working- class people, you'd probably win. But because you guys want to run on lower taxes for rich people and higher taxes for working class people, you guys will lose every single time. >> Well, we're in the White House right now, so we won't lose every single time. But what I want to tell you from this here is again the the prompt is about EBT benefits. If you want people to get their EBT benefits, then stop holding our Senate hostage. Reopen the government. That will happen. You say that you care about the American people. What you seem to really care about is creating a culture of dependency. Because I go on TikTok and I see all these people saying, "Where's my EBT? Where's my EBT?" You know what I'm wondering? Where is their jo o? Because that has to be a question that's on the minds of many people. I see people saying, "Oh, how can you expect me to go out and have to pay for my own groceries, have to go buy my own things?" Like every other American country. >> Like the average amount that an American gets for SNAP benefits a month is $187. That's not how much food costs, right? A monthly, how much would you say it costs you a month? Groceries. >> You know, a couple hundred. >> Yeah, a couple hundred. I mean, it cost me a lot more than a couple hundred. I'd say around 400. So, it's helping people. You still need to have a job. SNAP is not just here's all the free food you would ever need. It's for people who fully cannot afford the entire cost of food to have enough food for that month. You're not just giving people free food. It's not every time you go out to eat. It's not every time you order on freaking Door Dash or Uber Eats. It's making sure that the basic caloric amount that one needs to survive is met and you still need to have a job to mean to maintain that >> hunger. There's a work requirement already on top of it. >> Like you still have to work. It's not just all the food you get is free. I feel like you guys don't understand how SNAP benefits work and who they're benefiting >> so they don't go hungry. Basically, not luxury foods. It's just so they don't go hungry. Yes. >> But hunger would incentivize people to work. >> It also makes it impossible for people to work. You can't work if you are not consuming food. Do you understand that food is necessary for human life? >> See, here's the thing. A lot of people that are malnourished, >> you think that starving children would get them to learn more? >> Well, no. Here's the thing. A lot of people that are malnourished just not due to an economic depravity. Like, food is so cheap. The only countries where people are really starving, like South Sudan, for example, is because they're in a civil war with Sudan. You know, how much humanitarian It's because the UAE is funding a genocide in Sudan. That's really that's really the reason because it's not a civil war proxy war caused by the UAE. >> Yes. It's not it's not a uh it's not an economic issue. I got to say this whole argument also just sounds so out of touch. It's like, have you ever tried to do a task well while being hungry? If you have not eaten, >> I actually work a lot harder when I'm hungry. I mean, working out at the gym, no. But when I'm sorry, that was a ridiculous. Let me let me just acknowledge this >> cuz when you're hungry, Hold on. >> You know, people hallucinate like when you get to a point of hunger like you physically for like three or four days. I mean, I'm pretty sure most people on EBT are like obese. >> Let's look at the average. >> You're pretty sure or you're short. Do you know that >> the average weight of them? Even if that was true, that doesn't change anything. That doesn't mean that they don't need food to >> Well, they obviously have enough food. >> Fat people never need to consume food ever. That's your argument >> for a good few weeks. Yeah. >> This is embarrassing. >> Again, what I hope that we can get agree on is that people would be much better off if they had a job. We need to stop creating a culture of dependency in this country that the left oftentimes uses as a tool and a mechanism to control poor people, to control minorities in this country and actually allow them to stand on their own two feet so that we don't even have to have conversations like this about whether or not it's unnecessarily cruel to stop EBT benefits that are only stopped right now because Democrats refuse to reopen the government. So if you want these people to eat, let them eat. But you know what you got to do first? Reopen the government. >> How can they stand on their own two feet if they don't have food and they can't go to the doctor? So, it seems like you guys think that the best way for people to specifically get access to food is for them to determine it based upon their own uh actions themselves. And we think that it's a fundamental uh aspect of the government, a fundamental role of the government to provide food for the constituents that need it. And regardless of whether or not people specifically have the ability to provide it themselves, I think they should be provided it. Uh and I think that you guys would probably say for people who are disabled or for people who can't work themselves, they should also be able to get it themselves. And the same thing with children. >> Yeah, I'd agree. Yes, >> it is not cancellation to refuse to signal boost Hitler's supporters like Nick Fuentes. It is not cancellation to criticize Tucker Carlson for rhetorically fluffing Nick Fuentes and other anti-American crackpots. It's not cancellation if you urge others to stop promoting those who rhetorically fluff Nazi apologists. Those are all elements of free speech. And anyone who says differently is lying to you and lying for the most cynical reasons to misdirect from their own defense of those Nazi apologists and their promoters. The issue here isn't that Tucker Carlson had Nick Fentes on his show last week. He has every right to do that, of course. The issue here is that Tucker Carlson decided to normalize and fluff Nick Fuentes and that the Heritage Foundation then decided to robustly defend that performance. >> The backlash to Carlson's Fuentes interview shows how cancel culture tries to police discourse and shut down dialogue. I mean, Ben Shapiro was mentioning like, hey, is my it's my right of free speech to be able to voice opposition to Tucker Carlson. But I think it goes a lot deeper of that with like you could say conservative inc Mark Dice likes to say a lot. It's like Ben Shapiro is trying to like systematically um undermine Tucker Carlson, right? I'm assuming he's one of the many Jewish Americans who do not want Tucker Carlson to speak at Afest. Just an assumption, but I think it's a pretty safe assump assumption, right? We don't have all the details here. Um but yeah, I just think it's an example of cancel culture. They are trying to cancel Tucker Crossen over this and interviewing Nick Fuentes. I don't think Tucker Carlson should be cancelceled and I especially don't think Nick Fuentes should be cancelled. >> Yeah, I actually think Ben is totally right here. I think that this isn't an example of cancel culture. I think it's him expressing that he thinks that Tucker Carlson should have been stronger against Nick Fuentes. Uh he's not even saying that Tucker shouldn't have engaged with Nick Fuentes. He's literally just saying he should have engaged stronger. and he actually said it was justified for PBD to engage in a uh in a dialogue with uh Fuentes, which I mean I actually kind of disagree with me. I don't think PBD put enough of a push back on Nick Fuentes as I think he should have. But the I think the point still stands is that they could they're saying that you could have engaged in this conversation. Just do so stronger. Be be like he always was against Ted Cruz, you know, you know, but be against him just like acting like he's kind of more on your side or fluffing him up kind of. >> Yeah, but I mean maybe Nick Fuentes is on Tucker Carlson's side. Like I think it's just like a bit of a weird thing to say that oh geez I blanked out a little bit. Um it's a weird thing to say that like hey you know uh Tucker Carlson should have been harder on Nick Fuentes. So you're saying Nick uh Tucker Carlson should agree with my opinion and target Nick Fuentes and say the things that I want him to say. Like it just seems a little bit odd to say like oh this person they are morally wrong for just not disagreeing with this person that I disagree with. Right? Maybe they have a lot in common. One thing I just want to bring up here, I mean, when we're talking about this cancel culture, I think a lot of the times we blame Democrats and the left for policing, you know, speech through cancel culture, but if you watch the interview with Nick Fuentes, he starts by saying he was cancelled by the right. So when you are talking about, oh, we shouldn't have cancel culture. We should have cancel culture, you shouldn't be looking at us. You should be looking internally at your party and talking to each other about what kind of speech you think is morally acceptable to promote as a conservative or a MAGA Republican. >> So what I'll say is I'll open up by saying I have many disagreements with Nick Fentes on a wide range of issues. Um, what I take issue with is that I I watched the interview and I think Tucker Carlson at many times did push back on some of the things that Nick Fentes was saying, but I am a free speech absolutist. I believe that um, good ideas will win the day. Um, and the only way to beat bad ideas is with good ideas. And so I don't think that ignoring Nick Fuentes is the way to defeat his ideology. I think the only way to do that is by engaging with him and showing why your ideas are better than his ideas. um which I think at certain junctures and certain points in that interview Tucker did do. Maybe not up to the, you know, expectation of Ben Shapiro, but they're different people and they have different styles and different ways of going about it. So, my entire thing is that like, you know, I don't really care. You know, say what you want about Nick Fuentes. Like, I'm not going to defend him or anything that he's ever said, but I think that the backlash I've seen shown towards the Heritage Foundation and shown towards Tucker Carlson for simply having a conversation um doesn't really make much sense to me. Um, and it's not um, reflective of, as you just said, and I think that's a fair criticism, is like if the right is anti-cancel culture, um, then why are we getting mad at Tucker for being a journalist and asking someone questions? Um, and at many points in that interview, holding him to account. >> I feel like this is willfully misunderstanding Ben's point, though. His point isn't that they shouldn't have engaged in this dialogue. It's that he should have been harsher. And of course, there is an expectation when you when you engage in a debate with people that you disagree with. You have an expectation from your own side to be strong against them. This is a podcast, not a debate though. I mean, sorry, this is a a debate podcast, right? But, um, >> Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes weren't having a debate. They were having a a discussion on a podcast. Uh, it is very odd for Ben Shapiro to say, "Oh, he should have disagreed with them more." What if they just disagree? Like, what if they disagree a lot more than we think that they do? What if Tucker Carlson is trying to slowly bring in new ideas? >> I mean, but the issue is that Nick Fuentes has in I mean, he's supported violence on multiple occasions. He's used slurs against black people, against Jewish people. I mean, the level of speech that Nick Fuentes openly states is to an extreme that I think could lead to dangerous and violent actions from certain individuals who follow him. >> But is he calling for violence? Exactly. >> Yes, he has called for violence on multiple. >> He has called for Can you give me an instance in which he called for violence and I know it's difficult. >> January 6th with the inter insurrection, he told January 6th protesters, if you want to call them that, to continue. Don't stop. Keep going. That was an act of violence. >> But did he tell them hurt police on purpose? >> He said keep going. Go past police. Go like he's active. It is. He is inciting and encouraging people to break the law by violently breaking into the United States capital. That is directly inciting violence. And violence did occur. Police officers were hurt. I mean, I think that there's a clear correlation between someone supporting an act of violence and then an act of violence happening. Like, >> you know, I want to be clear. I'm not going to defend, you know, much of what Nick Fentes has said. Um, but what I will say though is the reason that I I won't join the piling on of Tucker is because I don't think that's a productive use of our time as a conservative movement. Um, when you have an the other half of the country, you know, a radical subset among them. They're trying to kill conservatives, you know, virtually every week, it seems. I think that we would be a lot more productively focused on that threat rather than, you know, whatever Nick Fuentes is saying on Rumble to be quite frank. And so I think the infighting is just not good for us as a movement. I'm sure it brings y'all glee and makes y'all happy. >> It doesn't really glee though. I think that right now you all are in an ideological like um real cons like conundrum almost because you have been pushing an alt-right pipeline. you know, elevating people, conspiracy theorists, elevating misogynists like what's his name? The bald one. >> Andrew Tate. >> Yes. Elevating misogynists like Andrew Tate. You have kind of pushed and pandered to an alt-right pipeline. And Nick Fuentes is the end of that alt-right pipeline. So now you have to decide, is there room ideologically in your party for white supremacy? Or is there not? Because you can't welcome and accept him while also condemning his incitement of violence. >> Again, I I'm not saying that he should any of that. I'm saying should Tucker be cancelled for having an interview um with a controversial subject? The answer to me is no. >> Well, I guess you guys as a party have to decide should we continue to pander to white supremacists because having an interview >> when interviewing someone on a program is not Nick as a white supremacist. like he openly states. >> Well, yeah, I would like for you to define like white supremacist a belief in a white supremacist is someone who believes that the white race is the superior race and would like to see a country or entity, whatever it is, governed by the white race. He is a racial like he is a Nazi. He openly idolizes Hitler. What I think I I I do agree with is that when it comes to Nick Fuentes, censoring him and pretending like he doesn't exist is actually only led to his popularity, right? Because and I think at the end of the day, it's like it reminds me of like Alex Jones, right? people banned Alex Jones from the internet. It's like obviously a lot of people didn't necessarily agree with him. But when you were saying don't listen to him, don't listen, don't find him or whatever and you ban him from the internet, it creates this like weird intrigue and mystery around that which is I think we run the risk of with Nick Fuentes if we don't actually engage him, debate him, and actually discredit the ideas that we find to be incorrect. >> I hear that. But it's not about censor or not censor for you and your party. It's about condemn or don't condemn. There are ways to condemn someone's speech without censoring them. Like a debate. Yeah, >> that wasn't a debate. He platformed him. >> Well, that wasn't was it I don't think it was offered to him as a debate, right? Like >> it should have been. That's what we're saying. >> Yeah, maybe possibly. But what but what I'm saying though is that I think what Ben Shapiro is is advocating for in that let's not acknowledge that Nick Fuentes exists. Let's not acknowledge the platform that he has. And that's not a productive way to actually defeat Nick Fuentes if that is your prerogative. Right. >> I know. >> So that's where I stand on that. right doing either. They're both acknowledging him, but acknowledging him in a positive way. Like he was positively received by Tucker Carlson. You don't think there's an issue with that? >> I don't think he was positively received. I think that it wasn't as combative as people would have wished for it to be. >> He should have been combative. You should be combative with a Nazi. Yes. >> But I don't think I don't think being indifferent is necessarily an endorsement or any of that. >> You should be dude, you should be a man killed 11 million people >> in that interview. at no point did at least from what I saw. I've only seen clips. So my entire point of that is that again acting as if Nick Fuentes does not exist will not actually defeat what he represents. >> And we're agreeing with you on that. But I'm saying that you have to hold someone accountable to openly supporting a man who orchestrated the mass killing of millions of people across Europe. >> 11 million. >> And we and we can I condemn that. You know, at the end of the day, we all have our own opinions on that, but let's not pretend that this is just some like exclusively right-leaning issue. You have many Democrats who defended, you know, attorney general candidate Jay Jones who openly fantasized about the death of his political opponents and their children. And so, I think that there is this is a time for moral courage on both sides um of the aisle. >> Yes, but this is a your side issue like >> Nick Fentes is, but I'm saying that of course we would we would call for that same moral clarity and courage on the other side of that. You're trying to We agree. We're not the ones who are platforming Nick Fentes. >> Yeah. Yeah. But but you did just platform Jay Jones, who is now the attorney general of Virginia, who again is the chief law enforcement officer who openly fantasized about the political death of his opponents and their children. >> I don't I don't support that. >> Have either of us said that we support that? >> Would you have voted for him? >> I don't even know the election specifically who he was running against. Like I genuinely don't. >> He was running against the Republican nominee. It was a general election. >> I'm not even familiar with either of them to be >> to be honest with you. Yeah. Well, knowing what you know about him that he in private text messages said that he wished that the Republican speaker of Virginia would be dead along with his children, would you have voted for him? >> Probably not. No. >> You would vote Republican in the general? >> No, I wouldn't vote. >> Yeah, I would abstain. >> So, yeah. So, what what I'm saying about that is that I think it's incumbent on both sides now, I think, to to call out these things. And I >> But we hadn't even heard of Jay Jones. All of >> I don't know how you didn't hear of it. It was it was wall to wall. >> Nick Fund has a much more power in your party. He doesn't have any power. He's a podcast. >> He does have a lot of power, man. >> Influence. I mean, he has like 5 million. >> Influence is a form of power. >> Exactly. There is there is no one in elected office, the Republican party that >> has the ideals of the state senators that were literally using like slurs and were literally like talking about the gas chambers in the context. They were state senators >> and they are not. But they had not anymore because Republicans condemned because Republicans condemned those beliefs when they were manifested in that way. >> The point that we're bringing up here is that Tucker didn't do so in the correct way on the context of this podcast. It's not just being called out by us in your opinion called out by Ben Shapiro. >> Yes. And there are many other people who are saying the opposite of what Ben Shapiro is saying. And so the point is is that I'm not going to say like Megan Kelly for example. At the end of the day when you look at this issue we can disagree with tactics the way there I'm sure there are many interviews where you've seen from folks in the life you're like you should have been harder on that person you should have you know asked them this ask them that >> hindsight is 2020 and so I think that for me >> but foresight is also 2020 >> for me like maybe I don't know but I think but I did think about that one but if you look at it for me genuinely this issue is like really interesting to me because I think like obviously like I am not in any way going to sit here and co on anything that has ever said. >> I'm glad you're not. That would have >> But with Tucker, but with Tucker, genuinely, I really do feel like more speech is more speech is always good. That's the only way you defeat bad ideas by having discussions, having discourse. And so, if you believe that, >> you know, Nick Fuentes's ideas are bad for the country. The only way that the American people are going to know that there are better ideas out there is if you can compare them in real time. And I think >> I think there's like there's a difference between, you know, supportive discourse and intellectual discourse in the form of debate. Like he could have had a conversation that is like this one. You know, we're not at each other's necks, but we are still disagreeing ideologically. >> Yeah. What if Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro would disagree a lot more than the public thinks? >> Wait, I'm sorry. Would you debate Hitler? >> Would you debate Hitler? >> Yeah. >> Well, Hitler's dad, so that's >> like if you were existing at the time, would you debate Hitler? >> I I I believe there would be a plethora of things we could debate about, >> like Nazis. Like, would you debate Nazis like right now? >> Would you platform Nazis and debate them? >> Well, Hitler had a platform. >> I'm asking right now, neo-Nazis that exist today, would you debate them? Would I debate a neo-Nazi? Yes. To expose just how depraved their ideas are? Sure. >> No, but like would you commonly do so? Or would you platform specifically? >> Would I debate someone with a depraved idea >> if I believe that my ideas are better than theirs? Yes. Because that would be an easy one. >> It's not that it would expose them. >> It would expose them for the intellectual cowards they are. >> I don't I disagree with debating Nazis, but I will say if you were to debate a Nazi in that way, I would root for you. >> Yeah. Actually, like I'm not going to dispute that you could disprove their ideas, but I'm saying it could normalize them to a greater extent because these ideas aren't widely accepted yet. >> But do you realize that like these people still have like tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of followers. Just because you don't interview them or you don't debate them doesn't mean they still don't have a platform. Only way to undermine that platform is to expose how bad his argument is or is not >> once you get to a certain amount of >> followers. Yes, exactly. Once he's has a big enough platform that now you're not necessarily platforming. But what we're saying is that in this conversation with Tucker Carlson, the issue is not just that he acknowledged his existence. The issue is that he acknowledged his existence in a fairly friendly and positive way. It's weird to be friendly with a Nazi. >> I agree. >> Perfect. Elon Musk could become the world's first trillionaire after Tesla shareholders approve a pay package for Musk worth roughly $1 trillion. >> Say it like this. $1 trillion. The package gives Musk 12 tranches of stock in a 10-year period tied to performance targets that could eventually hand Musk around 25% stock ownership in Tesla. >> Elon Musk becoming the first trillionaire proves that capitalism rewards innovation is an inspiration for anyone chasing the American dream. I just want to acknowledge the reality is that like for the average American, what does Elon Musk get having a trillion dollars do for them? Is that really an inspiration to them? Because that's never going to happen to them. You are never going to be a trillionaire. You are never going to be a trillionaire. I'm never going to be a trillionaire. No one here is going to be a trillionaire. >> Yeah. I was like, maybe maybe you're not dreaming big enough, Parker. Maybe you're not dreaming. >> Genuinely, let's think about this. What does someone becoming so wealthy like that do for the average American in terms of that? Well, I think that providing a greater level of Well, I don't think it necessarily takes away from me specifically. >> Why are you mad? >> I'm not necessarily >> Well, actually, no. I do think I think it concentrates wealth and power to a select few and not the majority of Americans. I mean, we've already saw that the amount of wealth that the middle class has is shrinking and the amount of wealth that the 0.1 and 1% has is growing. So I think if anything this just shows the raising level of economic inequality in this country like race, gender for just a second. Just talk about class. This is showing a severe level of inequality where the rich are able to get richer and richer and richer to the point where they have so much money they don't even need it. And meanwhile, we're still discussing whether or not people deserve $187 worth of food stamps. >> Okay. Also, first I want to chime in on you, right? You were saying what does the average American get from this, right? From Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire and we don't necessarily get anything from him from him being a trillionaire, but it's what he did before that because of Elon Musk, we had the organization of the invention of the modern electric car and we also have rockets that are now almost capable of going what? We had electric cars outside of Elon did not invent electric cars. >> First of all, he didn't invent Tesla and second of all, Tesla's not the first. I said he organized the invention of the modern electric car. >> What? There was a modern electric car outside of him. I don't know why it's only defined by him. >> Really? What company was it? Because I I've never >> There are a bunch of different Chinese companies. They're limited from selling their products in America by tariffs. And you could say Democrats support those tariffs, too. That's a fair argument. >> What were the companies in like the early 2000s that were making electric cars mainstream? >> Okay. You're just saying in the United States he has popularized electric cars to a greater extent. Is that all you're saying? >> Yes. >> Okay. What's your point with that? Sure. >> That's why Elon Musk deserves to be a millionaire. Yes. >> He's a trillionaire. This is This would be a trillionaire. We're past billion. We're a trillionaire. >> We're not even making an argument on whether or not he deserves to be a trillionaire. That's not even the argument right now. The argument is whether or not that's inspiration for the average American that they can do well. And I don't think that is. I think that's showing of let me let me explain. I think that's showing of income inequality. I think that showing of a system that specifically is not necessarily representing the average American that we're specifically again talking about literally people not getting access to food, people getting access to basic necessities like healthcare and health insurance and their health premiums going up while we have someone who's a trillionaire, right? That's the >> rich can get richer. I'm so inspired. Like come on, man. >> It doesn't inspire anyone. How does it does it inspire you any differently? >> It does it does inspire me because it shows just what is possible here in the United States of America and almost singularly possible here in the United States of America. Well, did your dad own an emerald mine or have stake in his Namibian emerald mine? >> But but again, but again, he didn't come to this country a trillionaire. He didn't come to this country a billionaire. He didn't come to this country even a tens of millionaire. But to take that country into wealthy, >> what does wealthy mean to you? >> Wealthy. >> What was his net worth when he came to this country? >> I mean, his dad's net worth is $5 million. >> Okay. So, he turned 5 million into 1 trillion. I got to tell you, that takes some talent. >> But he still had to start with 5 million. That's more than most people will ever see in a lifetime. people and most people lose that amount of money in one generation. >> How is the inspiration for the average American? >> That is actually true. That is completely true. People lose wealth across generations all the time. It's one of the biggest challenges of actual wealth transfer in this country. People >> a good investor, but he didn't do anything so unique and special that I as a poor American like wow I can do that too. That's the issue. >> I just thought that the left and you know you guys were saying, "Oh, ice bad. Ice bad. Bring more immigrants. bring them all in. But yet this immigrant >> never said bring more immigrants, bring them all in. We just said don't violate their constitutional rights. >> So you don't want to bring more immigrants. >> I I think we should have more immigrants. So So now this >> No, I agree with you. >> So there you go. So So this immigrant comes and by the way, if this immigrant was, you know, probably from like Sudan or Africa or was black, you would probably be saying, "Oh, that's black excellence." But um >> No, I would not say it's black excellence to fire 760,000 federal employees. I would not. >> No, no, no. Well, no. I'm saying that if the black immigrant came to America, became a trillionaire, you would not be saying >> if the black immigrant came to America and did exactly what Elon Musk did. Snorted cocaine all over the White House while he fired hundreds of thousands of Americans. >> What do you mean snort? That was Hunter Biden. >> Ketamine. That was Hunter Biden. >> Oh, sorry. No, I thought he was that was your man. So if an black immigrant came into this country, walked into the White House, snorted ketamine all over everything, and then fired hundreds of thousands of American workers, despite the fact that he was never elected by the American people, I would not consider that black excellence. No, that's not excellence under any standard. And just because he's black doesn't make that somehow better than >> So let's take politics out of this, right? Let's say he came to America, a black man, was an immigrant, became a trillionaire. You wouldn't find that inspirational. Sure. I would find that if he came >> So you find it inspirational there. >> It's not about his race. It's about the amount of money he came with to $1 trillion is impressive. >> If he came to this country, but it's it's not relatable because no one is else starting with $5 million. Sure, it's great, but it's not relatable to the average person because we don't have $5 million. If he came to this country with $2,5 in his pocket and was able to grow through his ingenuity, then absolutely that's much more relatable. But really, what this is just proving to me is that the system is built for the wealthy, regardless of if you're an immigrant, so long as you start with wealth, you can do well here. >> Yeah, that's actually like the most important point is that it's not specifically that he made so much money that would specifically be inspirational. It's the fact that you you would go from not having any money to having money that would be inspirational to the average person. So, I don't see how Elon Musk specifically would be like an example of, you know, this is so inspirational to the average person. Like Donald Trump having a lot of money, is that inspirational to the average American? No, because he didn't come from a scenario that is similar or relatable to you. >> I think it's not inspirational if you're a hater, but I don't see someone uh, you know, being a trillionaire or being a billionaire and saying, "Wow, my life is so much worse because of the fact that they've been able to achieve such incredible financial success." And I think that's the difference in mindsets between those on the left and those on the right. The people on the right see folks that are successful and say, "How can I get like them?" The people on the left say, "How can I take that away from them?" >> No, but the issue is that capital is a finite resource. Like we can't just keep printing money so that everyone gets to be a trillionaire. There is a finite. >> Everyone does not need to be a trillionaire. That's why it's exceptional because he found a way to create so much value that he is now a trillionaire. >> But the issue is that there are too many people in this country who are starving right now, who don't have health care right now, who don't have housing right now. that I don't give a [ __ ] how special he thinks he is. >> Well, it's not how special he thinks he is. It's how special his shareholders thinks that he is because they just approved that compensation package. So, it's not just some delusion that Elon Musk has if he didn't, you know, wasn't so in, you know, imperative to the success of Tesla. He would not be given, you know, that trillion dollar compensation package. So, I think the lesson in all of this is create value and the economy will value you. The free market system will value >> with money though. grew up I grew up I grew up in a middle class family was raised you know was raised by high school graduates they didn't go to college I was the first generation to go to college >> and and I'm doing pretty well I didn't start with aational that's totally what we're saying is inspirational but the point of all of this though is that like again it is not taking any way from any of us that's what we're saying it's not about where he finished it's where he started he started with a ton of money and help and resources WITH $5 MILLION IS WORTH $1 TRILLION. >> I think it really does depend on $5 million, man. That's a ton of money. >> I'm not seizing on a trust. But what I am saying though, it is still incredibly impressive. If we were to have a timeline of $5 million to $1 trillion, how big would that flat screen have to be? >> Hold up. No one's disputing. You can claim it's impressive. We're just asking whether or not it's inspirational to the average American. And what we're saying is not reflective of their experiences. So why would they see that as inspirational? I bet the average American would find your story a lot more inspirational than Elon Musk. >> I do personally. I'm the average American and I like your story a lot more. >> I appreciate it. But I think also too, I hope to one day get $5 million and be able to flip it to one trillion. So I think that is where I I source that inspiration from. I I really don't feel as if we were to randomly take that money away from Elon Musk and give it and redistribute the wealth that without proper financial literacy in this country, which we do not have, that those folks would not squander it. >> Okay? So those rich Americans should be paying the same income tax rates that I pay when I make the money that I make when they're paying 20% long-term capital gains and it caps out like at like 500,000 to a million. It should be keep going. The bracket shouldn't stop there. They should be paying similar rates to what we do in >> terms are these people taking in more than $1 million worth of government services. >> What we're talking No more than $1 million. So why should these people be expected to pay billions of dollars in taxes? because they make so much money they can afford it and it doesn't take away from their disposable I mean not disposable income their cost of uh living what they need for their lives. The issue is why we have standard deduction why we have these progressive tax structure is because if you have a flat tax system that means people specifically who are lower and middle income it will be proportionally more for them them in terms of income because they have to spend a greater proportion of their income on cost of living on things that they need. >> I actually like a flat tax which is why I support tariffs. >> That's regressive. >> Well, I would support a fair tax where we're actually only taxing consumption and not production. So that's regressive. Yeah. So as you consume more goods, uh then you know that's how we tax you, not based on the amount of productivity and value that you create. Because if we're really telling people the American dream is if you work hard, play by the rules that you can be limitlessly successful in this country, then why should we punish them when they achieve certain benchmarks? We say that black people are systemically oppressed in this country, but yet the black people that are able to create wealth, create value, why should we punish them? I mean, I just have to say as a black person whose family was able to create wealth and value, my parents have paid so much money in taxes to the United States government. And it's because of what Parker is saying because when you are a highincome earnner, but you don't own a business, the amount of money that you make is going to be capped and then you still have the cost of your living. But because you're a high income earnner, you're being taxed and there's no loopholes for your business expenses XYZ. So that's why it just needs to be a flat tax for your income. If you make this much money, you pay this percent in taxes for everybody. It's unfair. >> I actually am going to disagree with this because I believe in I believe in a progressive tax structure. If you make $100 million in a year, you should pay a higher effective tax rate than someone who makes $10,000 in a year. >> So it should not be the same. It should not be the same because think about it. If you have to do 10% of 10,000, that's $1,000. You have $9,000 left. you have $9,000 to be able to afford everything you need in your life. Compared it to someone who's specifically like making $10 million a year. If they pay $5 million, they still have $5 million. >> Okay, Parker. I'll give you that. First of all, I want to look into this, right? So, with the way taxes are, right? You put taxes and you get services out, right? Fire, police, roads, everything like that, right? Security, >> um, national security, I should say, right? >> How does a billionaire take in more than a million dollars worth of government services? They might not. >> It's not it's not like equivalent to how much you take in in government services. >> Do you I'm saying like a poor person then that would mean that all then that would mean that the most vulnerable people have to pay the most in taxes because they need the most government assistance because they consume. >> What sense does that make though? I mean like are you really going to make a disabled person who needs more government assistance because they cannot physically work a job? You're gonna make them pay the most taxes? >> I'm not necessarily talking about someone born with a disability. >> But I think the lack proportionality is what he's trying to point out. Not necessarily that people that accept more services should have to pay an egregious amount of taxes. Obviously, they can't even afford to do that. But I think it's the proportionality, right? It's like these people are the job creators in this country. These people are the ones that are giving these folks jobs to be able to survive. So if we are criminalizing success, penalizing success to the point of financial oblivion, then why are they going to continue financial obliga? He would be fine. These people are set for life and their children, their children's children's children are fine. They're not going to miss this money. >> Wait, so let let me make a point here. So do you think that the innovation that we exists in our economy is specifically because of the pricing mechanisms and because of our uh like our economy in our like market system? >> You think the pro do you think the profit how about this? Do you think the profit motive is what leads to trillionaires like Elon Musk? >> Like the profit motive? Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So that's predicated off the demand then if there was no profit for them to make well then they specifically wouldn't have engaged in that particular business. So it's not them that are creating the jobs. It's the demand in the market. It's the consumer base. It's us as a society. And if you give us as a society a better overall uh standpoint for everyone. Everyone has a baseline that's good. That means they'll be able to put more into the systems that inevitably fund those billionaires. What you're advocating for is trickle down. And that system doesn't work because inevitably speaking they're going to do what'sever profit maximizing for themselves which is going to make them richer and it's not going to make everyone else richer. There's a natural trickle up aspect of the economy. When people are lower and middle income, they spend that money into the economy that naturally goes to the people who are rich like Elon Musk. So it actually creates a greater incentive to innovate if you build up your consumer base rather than relying on supporting and giving massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires even trillionaires like Elon Mus if you want to build up your consumer base and let's create more jobs. The way to create more jobs is to ensure that they have an incentive to create more jobs. By by removing that incentive we're basically saying hey you can be successful you can build that company but they're going to ask themselves eventually why should I work this hard if the government's going to take away what I worked for. I think that the point that we're trying to make is that we want to see the American economy do the best as possible. I think our point of contention really is whether or not Elon Musk is inspirational to the average American. We don't think he is because he started off with a ton of money to begin with. And you know, you guys think he is because even though he started off with a ton of money, he made a lot more. Is that fair to say? >> Not even a full week removed from the best election night results they've had in years. Seven Democratic senators and in voted with their Republican counterparts to end the shutdown and reopen the government. And did they get their extended healthc care subsidies? >> Democrats wanted the deal to include extending subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. Instead, they got a promise to vote on it at a later date. >> I cannoting believe it. While siding with the GOP to end the shutdown, Senate Democrats leave millions facing higher health cost. >> Okay. Um I just want to kick this off by the one thing I disagree with in the wording of this statement is Senate Democrats. It's not total. It's just those freaking eight guys. Plus, I'm going to include Chuck Schumer because it's his job to make sure that we're united as a party. It's them. Them. Everyone else is fine. The end. That's all I have to say. I definitely agree with [ __ ] them. >> Yeah, >> I definitely agree. >> But didn't you want to open up the government? So why do you don't like them? >> No, I just don't like them. >> I just don't like those folks. But what you should be liking the Democrats that specifically voted for it and not the Democrats that didn't vote for, right? >> Traitor Democrats. >> Yeah. What I what I'll say is I'm glad those traitor Democrats, as you describe them, patriots, I'll call them. Uh because they open up this government that is going to allow our brave men and women in uniform to get paid. That's going to allow those folks on those EBT benefits. I know that you care so much about to get food today. And um and I'm happy about that. I'm happy about that. I think that hopefully, you know, what this will prompt now is a serious discussion about healthcare policy in this country. I think that there are certain adequacies that um remain uh with the Affordable Care Act. But I think also too, Republicans have to do a better job at actually presenting a solution to this issue. Um I think that we've punted the football on this issue for a long time. We've been against the Affordable Care Act, but I don't really know if we've been really um all that forthcoming about what we're for on this issue. And so that's that. That's where I feel. >> I think that's fair. >> Yeah. I think >> so. Would you you admit that you just have concepts of a plan on your side? >> I I I think I don't think that we have concepts of a plan. I think that we are >> don't even have the concept. >> I think that we're I think that I think that we're on the forefront of a breakthrough >> that is going having a concept that that is going to deliver for the American people and consumers all throughout this great country. So, like what policy what plan would you like? >> I'm not a healthcare policy expert. I'm going to leave it to them. But what I will say is that I think it's important for us to find a solution to this. People are hurting. People do have these problems and they're not going away. Um I I think that there are inadequacies with the Affordable Care Act. But again, if we're going to talk about what we don't like, we need to also be able to talk about what we are for. And um again, I will leave that to the healthcare policy experts to come up with what that looks like in a free marketbased framework that aligns with my conservative values. But in terms of what that looks like yet, um there are people above me who are working on that. >> You should stop calling yourself MAGA. That was like really reasonable like smart. I don't think it is though because Trump is the one who's got concepts of a plan. He's not the president. >> But but I think I think the president wants to address this issue and I think that you >> not though like he had an opportunity to and it literally would have avoided a government shutdown and he still didn't. Like that was his moment, right? And he didn't take it. I think that that personally is a fumble. a fumble that might leave potentially 24 million Americans with three time higher health care premiums, some of whom just may not have access to health care because of it. >> And I and I think again that's a that's a real problem that we need to confront. And I think that you know >> I mean you guys also had four years in between his first two terms to like figure literally anything out. >> Nine years for Trump to get a plan and yet he still just had concepts. So I mean I get your point. I I'm not even gonna blame you for this at this point because you've actually been very genuine in acknowledging that there isn't a plan on behalf of the Republicans. But what I really put put push back on is can you name a single only free market system that specifically provides adequate and good health care for every average person in their in the particular country you're referencing? >> Well, I think one solution that that was often times talked about, you know, in the like in the early days of the fight to repeal Obamacare was actually opening up the ability to buy healthcare across state lines to drive down cost in in that case. Also things like price transparency when it comes to procedures. It's actually so crazy you can go to the grocery store and compare the price of eggs, but you can't go to a hospital and compare the price of, you know, uh uh knee replacement or, you know, other types of life sa life saving or elective procedures. And so I think there are things like that that would be helpful in driving down the cost of everyday healthcare procedures and things like that. What does that look like as a system? That's a different conversation. Uh I think those are pieces of the puzzle. What does that look like completed? remains to be seen and we'll see what that looks like. >> Sure. I mean I think those are actually totally valid. I just don't think that you can do those alone. Uh and >> that's what I'm saying. It's a it's a piece of the puzzle like what that looks like at scale. I think that's what still needs to be figured out. The president's talked about you know HSAs and you know giving these uh funds directly to the American people. Um >> that drive up costs >> again. It's just early days and formative uh >> but that's the thing. It shouldn't be early days after eight years. So I I don't disagree with anything that you're saying honestly. I think you've been very reasonable on this topic. My issue is that we should be further than where we are right now in terms of a comprehensive plan to healthcare if you choose to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And I mean, you know, the Trump administration has had a lot of time to think about a lot of issues between project 25 2025. I think it's 900 pages. like people have been at work for the Republican party really, you know, um >> the Heritage Foundation >> really locking these issues down and coming up with the Republican stance and plan for them except for something as important as healthcare. You know, that's weird, right? >> That's a huge issue for Americans. I mean, there's over 130 million Americans struggling with medical debt. And like I said earlier, 45 to 68,000 American lives lost every single year due to lack of health insurance because they don't get access to preventive healthcare. So, there needs to be a solution. It can't be something that we're thinking about for almost a decade without an actual legitimate plan. Democrats, we actually have a plan for affordability though. >> Dude, I had a koid removed on my ear two years ago. It was $6,000 to get rid of a kloid. That's insane. For me to go, this is might be TMI, but for me to go get reproductive healthcare, I have a threemon wait with my doctor. That's crazy. Like, what if I was pregnant and it took me three months to get an appointment? I would literally be like in my second and third trimester before I get to actually see my doctor. There's an issue in this country. >> Yeah. Fundamentally, I think that there is and I think there are a lot of people on the right who were getting to call that out. Marjgerie Taylor Green has obviously been kind of at the forefront of this issue in in recent weeks. And so I think hopefully that the urgency of this issue will lead to bipartisan consensus. I think that we may disagree about the framework and you know the intricacies of it just like we do on any other issue. But I think that we all agree that whatever the health care system in this country right now as it currently stands does not work for everyday Americans, does not work for working-class Americans, and we've got to figure it out. >> Well, I really appreciate your cander. It's actually refreshing. Yeah, it's nice. >> I don't think we're have the same type of agreement with him. He's going to advocate to get rid of Medicare. He's going to advocate to get rid of Medicaid. >> Take them in the street. >> It's like if they can't afford their health insurance, JUST LET THEM DIE. JUST LET THEM DIE. Oh my god. I don't care. Making them get a job.