Friendly Fire: A Different Kind of Nuclear Deal & Vance's "Communion" Calculus

So good, so good, so good. New summer arrivals are at Nordstrom rack stores now. Get ready to save big with up to 60% off brands like Rag and Bone, Levi's, Adidas, and free people. Join the Nordy Club to unlock exclusive discounts, shop new arrivals first, and more. Plus, buy online and pick up at your favorite rack store for free. Great brands, great prices. That's why you rack. The FIFA World Cup is here, and you can now feel the thrill of the pitch in FIFA World Cup Launch Edition on Netflix, a fast and fluid football game where your phone is the controller and the TV is the stadium. Play for your country in 16 different stadiums with up to four friends, all included in your membership. Scroll to the Games tab on your TV and play FIFA World Cup Launch Edition now only on Netflix. I'm Archmanning. I'm Madison Skinner. I'm Eva Jovich. I'm DeCorey Moore. Want to train like a Red Bull athlete? Tell us your fitness goals this summer to enter the Red Bull Challenge. You'll get to try each of our workouts for a chance to win an ultimate Red Bull experience. I think you have what it takes. I know that your pretending skills are very good. Michael. I'm fully aware of that. Can someone turn my ears down? I don't need to. Drew is worse at pretend. Drew is better at self-delusion, but worse it pretend. I'm awful to pretend. I just like can't stop seeing what I'm. But you're really good at convincing you're right enough. But the problem is that you're able to convince yourself of things that ain't so. Not true. Not true. I have been right about this thing. Save it for the beginning. Save it for the show. You too. Save it for the show. Can someone turn my yourself please? I think the most important thing is that Syria gets to Syria. Syria should run Lebanon. That's what I learned today is that Syria should run Lebanon, that Iran actually is owed money, and that we should actually allow them to have as many missiles as they want because that's only fair. Those are some of the things that are today. You know, I've had... I'm excited to learn all these things. Hold on. I had here for the top of the show that we were going to talk about something else because I had this really interesting interview with one of the survivors of the grooming gangs in the UK's massive report out of the rape gangs. Yeah, yeah. But clearly, we're not going to start with that. We're going to start by talking about Ben's favorite deal, which is the MOU on Iran. This is Friendly Fire.

The Josh Shapiro Armistice in Tehran. Ben, what's your favorite part of the deal? Oh, man, I'm not sure what to pick. I mean, there's so many wonderful aspects to it. I'm not sure whether it's the immediate release of sanctions without any further guarantee of anything remotely like nuclear disarmament. I heard that wasn't true. Well, you can hear what you want, or you could just read the text. Then I'm not sure whether I also like the part where we essentially say that the straight-of-form moves can be told. That's really exciting news. Very into that. Very, very into the idea that Iran should have massive funds released to it. The president said that today. That was great. or the part where he said that essentially the Syrians should take over Lebanon, which is an interesting idea that worked brilliantly between 1970 and 2005 when the Syrians literally ran Lebanon, and it didn't go so hot. So just from where I sit on this, there were five main goals of this war, nuclear disarmament, permanent nuclear disarmament, reducing ballistic missile stockpile and destroying their capacity to actually build new ballistic missiles because it was the ballistic missile umbrella that was the cause of the war in the first place. the cut off in support to terror groups, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. And then the fifth point would be when all of that is done, maybe some form of economic loosening. But when all the first four were done. And so far from what I see, none of those things is happening. Now, again, that doesn't mean that in the long run, again, it's an MOU. So we should start off with this. It's an MOU. And MOU doesn't mean anything. It's basically like a non-binding term sheet. The only the really biggest problem with this thing is that it releases a bunch of money to Iran right up top. There's already oil flowing out of Iran. One of the original oil money is one thing. I mean, look, on this point, but before we get into exactly what was good, what was bad, I just got off the phone with senior U.S. officials. And they read through verbatim, the MOU, which was very similar to a lot of the copies of the text that have been going around. So directionally, it's all the same. There were some little quibbles. But also worse. Also worse, actually. What they read to you guys was actually worse with regard to the Strait of Hormuz. But put that aside. Listen, what, I mean, look, opening the Strait of Hormuz, I think is a good thing. But we can get into that in a second. The top line of it, though, that the administration seems keen to make clear, and we'll see what happens over the weekend in Geneva, is... that Iran, they'll open the Strait of Hormuz, there will be no tolls whatsoever for 60 days. Then, again, this is just what I'm hearing. Don't shoot the messenger. This is what I'm hearing from the U.S. officials. No, no, no. You say for 60 days, very, very softly at the end. No, no. But then they even address that. And afterward, you know, they said, then there will have to be cooperation among the Gulf states to figure out what the protocol looks like moving forward. And the argument, at least from the admin, is that the other Gulf states are not going to allow Iran to have a toll on the strait. Take that for what's worth. Then, in terms of the sanctions relief, no sanctions relief whatsoever, Iranian oil can flow, but no, none of the many other sanctions that Trump himself boosted up on Iran will be lifted until after the deal and crucially until after we get nuclear dust. Now, the actual way in which we would get the nuclear dust seems to be, you know, a little unclear. It could be us actually going in ourselves and taking it. But anyway, that would have to be figured out. Then this $300 billion from the Gulf states, that again would not.

include the United States giving a single penny necessarily to it. It would be the Gulf states themselves investing in Iran to help rebuild Iran, which I think actually could be a decent thing. And crucially, what it would do is stop the choking off of the Strait of Hormuz and 20% of the world's oil supply. On top of the destruction of the Iranian military, the obliteration, at least for now, of Iran's nuclear program, and inspections and all the rest. Now, with that said, Ben, you said that the point to this, the chief point of this war was to end Iran's nuclear ambitions permanently. And I think that'd be great. I'd love to do it. But I don't think there's any world this side of heaven in which you end Iran's weapons. Trump said that. I didn't say that. Trump said that. And so did JD Vance. And so did the Secretary of State. So I just want to make clear that the five goals that I laid out at the beginning were not just things that I thought were good, which is why I agreed with them. There were explicit goals of the administration. Do you think we can permanently end Iran's nuclear program? Yes, I do think we can permanently end Iran's nuclear program. Iran will never seek another nuclear weapon. How would we do that? Okay, the way that you would bomb Karg Island, you would bomb the South Pirates at Gasfield, you would permanently defenestrate their economy and make it literally impossible for them to fund the rebuilding of any of those efforts, and you would just give overwatch to our allies in the region like Israel and UAE and pull out. That's what that would look like. So at that point, let's say that you bomb Karg Island, you completely oblige, I mean, what we're talking about there truly is regime change. Trump himself is saying, we kind of got regime change, but what you're talking about is truly you obliterate the Iranian regime. And then what happens? What happens if the country descends into civil war? What happens if you... Well, you know, you know... You know what happens with civil war-ridden countries? They don't have the capacity or the willpower to develop nuclear weapons. You were asking me how you solve the nuclear weapons problem, and I just answered that question. But the reality is that when it comes to the deal, to go back to the deal for one second, I know that the administration is trying to sell the idea that the only way that we could get out of this was either that we basically bribe them, because that's what this is, or that there's endless war, and that isn't true. It's not true. By the way, one solution here would have been, I mean, the other, in terms of opening up the Strait of Hormuz, well, you just said the alternative of civil war, but that's endless war. No, no, that is not what I said. What you said is the alternative of civil war. What I said is a permanently weak regime with the oversight of our allies looking over their nuclear facilities, their missile facilities, raids every so often, mowing the grass, as they like to say in the Middle East. That is one possibility. Another possibility would have been. that we allow for and help our allies in the region, including Saudi, UAE Bahrain, and yes, Qatar, to actually run the Strait of Formos. We tried to do that with Project Freedom for five seconds before the president was convinced out of it by somebody. The notion that the only two choices here are permanent, endless, bloody war, or complete surrender, that is a Barack Obama model. That is what Barack Obama said about the 2015 Iran deal. And basically, if you're going to use that same logic here, then, I don't think it was good then. I don't think it's good now.

And I think that it also happens to be untrue. And these sort of concessions that are being made right now to Iran in, again, this is an MOU. I want to emphasize again, the MOU is preliminary. Okay. So the only thing that I'm deeply upset about right now in the MOU, there's really a couple of things. There's what's clearly not in even any future negotiations. Support for terrorism is not in any future negotiations. Ballistic missile negotiations, not in any future negotiations. None of that is part of the MOU. When it comes to the nuclear. Hold on, Ben. In a way, HESBELA is not written out in the MOU in the 14-point document. But what the administration is at least saying about the MOU is that because we are not giving Iran any money, we're not unfreezing any assets, we're not lifting all these sanctions. But that's not true. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Michael, one second. One clarification. No, one clarification on the sanctions. Then you can go back to terrorism. Okay, clarification on the sanctions. There are several different things we're talking about when we talk about sanctions. One is the full-scale sanctions on the Iranian economy. Those don't all go away. These sanctions on the export of oil and petrochemicals go away immediately. Okay, immediately. And that includes in the provisions, it includes the removal of financial sanctions and insurance sanctions on any of that stuff. So right now, before the war, for example, there were, in fact, sanctions on Iran's oil capacity in terms of export and import. In that, they had to use, for example, ghost fleets in order to move their oil around because anybody who was attempting to do business with them was sanctioned. That all goes away immediately, not in 60 days, not after negotiation. That goes away like two days ago. And that goes away two days ago because they shut off the straight, which means, realistically speaking, what are we talking about? What we're talking about is Iran maintains control of the strait. Anyone attempting to argue that Iran does not have now permanent capacity to shut down the straight anytime they want is lying to you. It's not true. Didn't Iran, I guess, but isn't the point, and we'll get to the proxies in a second, but isn't the point Iran obviously had this capacity. One thing we learned in this war is that Iran's ability to close the strait is frankly a more powerful weapon than the potential nuclear weapon that they were seeking. And so they obviously had that power. It's true. The oil sanctions would be lifted immediately, in part because we're saying, if you reopen the strait, all the oil is going to flow, and the concession is including Iranian oil. But in terms of the funding of the proxies, at least what the administration is saying about the MOU, and I think you can read that in the text, the United States only starts to unfreeze assets. The United States only starts to lift the actual sanctions on Iran's economy based on performance. So getting the nuclear dust and them cooperating with the regions in the Gulf and also with the United States. So you could say that we're offering the opportunity to give them money. But clearly, if they're going to be funding Hezbollah, Hezbollah is going to keep attacking Israel or any of our other allies, then according to the administration's framework, they're not going to give them a penny. in extra relief. Okay, but the problem... They haven't been quite clear about whether they're going to let money flow from other places, which I think is just as bad. It's absolutely no difference. You know, I got to say, you guys, my personal favorite commentator, namely me, started out saying at the very beginning of this war, that this war is on a timer, and the timer, I think, has run out. And the reason it's on a timer is because our interests and the interests of our great friend probably staunchest ally, Israel, are almost the same, but they're not the same. Iran, at this moment, at this moment, Iran is an existential threat to Israel. The existential threat to the United States of America right now is the Democratic Socialist of America who are ginned up, you know, who are ginned up, who are training their candidates, who are...

well-funded, completely motivated, and really a danger. And I think Trump is thinking about this. I don't just think that's, oh, it's politics. I think this is a serious, serious problem to our way of life and our country and our future. So I don't see this as a deal at all. I think if I have to choose between you two guys, which would just be like one of my nightmares having to choose between you guys. But I would say that Knowles is being way too rosy. I think Ben is being a little too dark, but still. It's probably worse than what Knowles is saying. But the first sentence out of Josh Shapiro's mouth is the one that I go with. This is not a deal. This is a ceasefire. It's an extended ceasefire that if they violate it, I do seriously believe that before Trump allows himself to look like a loser, he will blow that country off the face of the earth. And so I think that what he's counting on is he's counting on that he can stretch this out until... the midterms and make the midterms just a little less bad than they're otherwise going to be. And I think that's what this is about and that we should talk about it without including the danger to America that America faces from these incredibly insane leftists is just not taking the full measure of the situation. The full measure of the situation is we are under attack from within. Israel is under attack from without. All my heart is with Israel. I hope they do great. I think we should supply them with any weapons they need. But at some point... We have to stop this because people want to see Trump paying attention to the world at home. So, and they're tired of 20 years of war in the Middle East. So number one, I think I say, listen, I think it's an interesting argument. I think that there are long-term ramifications to the stuff that happens right now. And of course, if things change, then I will change my opinion, right? I was very much in favor of what the president was doing at the beginning. I'm not in favor of what the president is doing right now. If he changes any about faces, I'm sure I will be in favor of that. I should mention at this point, our sponsors over at Cal she suggests that, 42% of people believe that there will be some sort of nuclear deal before October, 48% before November, 53% before December. I'm going to go with 0% on this, by the way. I think the chances of a long-lasting nuclear deal with the Iranians, very, very low, specifically because the president does not want to do JCPOA 2.0, but worse. And so I think that the idea that he is going, and the only thing, the IRGC, here's the fundamental thing. The IRGC is not changed. They're exactly the same as they ever were. The notion. This stuff I do actually think is really bad. When the vice president of the United States was supposed to head on over to Switzerland and do a grip and grin with Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the head of the Iranian parliament, and a member of the IRGC and a person who is at least partially responsible for the murder of 42,000 people in the streets, and by the way, the targeting of American troops and the almost killing of a couple of American pilots last week, that is not a good look because they are not reasonable people. They are not reasonable actors and elevating them to the status. of they ought to shake the hands of the vice president, I think is a mistake for JD Vance on a political level. I think it's also a mistake for the administration on a moral level. As far as the electoral argument, Drew, there's a point that I was making on my show earlier. It's really interesting. I think that a lot of presidents tend to believe that as the economy goes, so go I. And there's some truth to that. If there's a big depression, the president gets walloped. If the economy is doing well, the president still tends to not do particularly well in the midterms. One thing is, however, very, very clear. The American people.

hate losing wars. They hate it. If you go back and remember the Biden administration, I know, it feels like it was a lifetime ago. If you remember, the first year of the Biden administration, inflation jumped right off the bat. You remember this? By the middle of the summer, it was already well in excess of 5%. It was headed up toward 9%. And his approval ratings were still in the mid-50s. And the reason they were still in the mid-50s is because people can actually weather a little bit of economic turmoil. They did under Barack Obama too. And he wasn't super popular, but he wasn't super unpopular. What finished Joe Biden as the president. And it was the thing that everyone tends to forget was the withdrawal from Afghanistan. You can look at it in August, September, when he withdrew from Afghanistan, his opinion poll numbers went from 52% all the way down to 39. And then they just stayed there for the rest of time. Doesn't mean all the stuff he did otherwise wasn't important. It was. But it is indicative of the fact that the American people, we don't like getting into wars. But if we're going to be in a war, we really do not like losing wars. And we don't like to be humiliated by Tin Pock dictatorships. who have their own people out there saying, by the way, everything that I'm saying about the deal and what the deal is being interpreted as, here's the thing. When I make a contract to somebody, it has to be a meeting of the minds, right? The terms have to have a definition, and those definitions have to be accepted by both sides. If you have the Trump administration saying, this amounts to the nuclear disarmament of Iran, It amounts to no more support for terrorism. It amounts to the opening of the strait. And you have the Iranians saying, this amounts to no nuclear disarmament. This amounts to the strait will not be told by us. And it amounts to Israel does not have freedom of action in Lebanon anymore. Well, that's not what you normally call a meeting of the minds. That means that no one actually agrees on anything. And so what this comes down to in the end is basically we are bribing the Iranians to open the straight. That's all. No, I don't know. The other thing. The other thing you have to take into account here, Ben, and you can't just look at it without this. You know, Donald Trump, like all of us, his best feature and his worst feature are the same features. And his worst feature is that big hole in his face right under his nose. I mean, the stuff that comes out of that mouth of his is, first of all, it's only, its shelf life is about 20 minutes. He says, you know, you just have to kind of take it, you know, with a pound of salt. So a lot of the promises he made. I agree with Knowles on this. There's no way without actually just destroying this country. You can guarantee that it'll never be a nuclear power. He's gone a long way to make it much more difficult to them to get back. But I don't think there's any chance of him allowing himself to look like a loser in this war. I just think it's something that he cannot, he can't sleep at night if that happens. I mean, I hope you're by the way. The bad news about JD fans. is he has definitely lowered his chances of becoming president. The good news is I think he's destroyed Knowles' future political career, which I think we should. JD Vance and I agree on too much. By the way, I actually agree with this, true. I think that one of the things that's happening here is I do not think that President Trump was deeply embedded or invested in these negotiations, for example. I don't think he's sitting there and he's haggling over the details. I think, frankly, his negotiators were telling him what he wanted to hear. And so that's why you hear the president saying things. that are certainly not in the document. And then you read the document. Like, this is not in the document. This is, I would bet dollars to donuts that his negotiators were telling him that basically this deal was going to give him everything he could possibly want in life. And he believed them. And then he was like, okay, sounds great. Hold on. And then it turns out that the deal doesn't actually do those things. Hold on. Yeah. I was told.

that for a while that we were, you know, when people were claiming that Benjamin Netanyahu or somebody dragged Trump into war, we were told we were denying Trump's agency and, you know, we were just blaming wicked advisors, but it's never the king's fault or anything. Do you really not think that Trump wants, I think he wants out. I think he had a discreet interest here. Oh, I agree he wants out. And so he wanted to end the Iranian nuclear program, or there's no ending it, but there's seriously setting it back. I think he did seriously set it back. And he destroyed their military, and the deal is hinging on nuclear dust, so we'll see if we even get a deal out of it. But I think he wanted that. And I think other people wanted regime change. And I think Drew's point is right that the U.S. and Israel interests overlap substantially, much, if not most of the time, but sometimes they diverge a little. If I were the PM of Israel, I would insist upon regime change. For the U.S., it's a... little less important, and they're more domestic concerns to focus on, too. And I don't think he really was gung-ho about regime change. He left open the possibility. He called on the Iranians to rise up. They didn't. This Mueller regime, this awful evil Mueller regime, has lasted twice as long as the CIA regime that we installed in 1953, so they're a little stronger than a lot of us gave it credit for. And I don't think he's walking into this blind or being misguided by advisors. I think he wants that. And from the beginning of this, to your point, Drew, you know, I was a... I don't mean to be too rosy about the deal. I'm just telling you what I've heard. But I said from the very beginning, I said the two ways this ends are with a deal that's going to be unsatisfactory to basically everybody or with a protracted war that's going to lead to a lot of civil war in the region. And it certainly is true. It certainly is true that while... JD Vance made a stupid statement about how all wars end with negotiations, which isn't true. It is true that all wars in the Middle East end in this blurry kind of who knows what happens. And it's, you know, eventually we're going to get back to shooting at each other mess that every single one ends like this. And I think that that's where we're at. And I actually don't think, I mean, the stuff that Trump has been saying about Benjamin Netanyahu. was at least yesterday, now he's kind of dialed it back, is absurd. But I do think that, you know, might just lay low for like. A week, just a week. Let Trump get to the point that he wants to get at. I do believe that Trump will not allow himself to look like a loser in this war. He won't let it happen. And the harder, you know, you notice the press is being very quiet about this. They usually lambased him for everything he does. But the left wing press is being quiet about this because they know if he starts to feel that he's being depicted as a loser, he's going to go back in there with guns. I think that's, I think that's what we get to. I think left wing press is being pretty quiet about this because they think that it's Obama's deal. I mean, Obama is saying that it's Obama's deal. So again, I, the only thing that I'm saying about, about, you know, President Trump and his advisors is that I agree that President Trump wants out. I agree with you, Michael, that President Trump wants out. I think whichever advisor told him that he can get out,

in the fashion that gives him the best possible headline is the one that he listened to, even if those advisors were not exactly being straight with him about what was in the deal. Because of that's my point. I just want to say that I think he wants out to sleep well at night if he thought he was a loser and Trump won't allow that to happen. But if you want to sleep well at night, you know what you need? You need your helix mattress, baby. I got a house full of them, okay? And I'm not involved in Iran negotiations at all. My biggest concerns are what cigar I'm going to smoke that day. So if you want to have the best sleep. your life, you need Helix. They have over 20 mattress models. So whether you run hot, you sleep on your side, you need extra support. There is one built for you. They even have some cooling upgrades. Great for summer nights. Helix is the most awarded mattress brand tested and reviewed by experts like Forbes and Wired. Free shipping right to your door in the U.S. a 120-night sleep trial and a limited lifetime warranty so you can try it totally risk-free. But that doesn't matter because you're going to love it and you're going to buy them for your kids if you're a good father like me. So right now... You need to go to helixleep.com slash daily wire for 20% off site wide, 25% off lux mattresses, 30% off elite mattresses. I know we pillory the elites sometimes. The elite mattress, we should never pillory. You should pillow your elite mattress and rest your head on it very soundly. Heluxleksleep.com slash daily wire, 20% off site wide, 25% off Lux, 30% off elite. Make sure to enter our show. Check out so they know that we sent you, helixleep.com slash daily wire. Well, Michael, I mean, I'm very impressed by the shift from pillory to pillow. That was somewhat clever wordplay. Yeah, I kind of enjoyed it. Well, speaking of clever people, Matt Nuclear is joining the Daily Wire. So for those who are unaware, Matt Nuclear is very, very able in debate. If you ever watch him on Jubilee, if you have ever seen him in the online world, he is now launching a new show with us in which he is basically going to be streaming and taking all comers. You can watch it. Monday through Thursday, 7 p.m. Eastern, live on YouTube at the nuclear reaction. Here's some of the trailer. One very young man absolutely slaughtered Amanda Seals' poisonous ideology. That's just the truth. And you're un-American, you're uneducated, and your IQ is around 50. This is a masterclass. Why are you so scared to debate the truth? You've been making this about Israel. You sir are a hypocrite. It is Matt Nuclear. Matt Nuclear. No one's afraid of you, okay? You're supposedly on the DEI Council, but I have to teach you this stuff. Why should I think that the white man is the oppressor? When black men are more likely to kill me. The world has chosen. The nuclear reaction.

Matt Nuclear, I believe he's joining us on the line. And when he does, there is. There we go. Hey, guys. Hey, Matt, congrats on the show. Really exciting stuff. So tell us a little bit about what people can expect. Yeah, so like the show is going to be pretty chaotic. It's going to be live action debate. So like just think like radio call-ins. Anyone is going to be able to call in and debate certain topics I'm going to have up there. They're going to be pretty controversial topics about domestic policy, foreign policy. People can call in. And we're going to be doing some like live action debates. We're going to add a level of comedic comedy. So like sound effects and different stuff like that. Yeah, it's going to be really fun. Maybe some reactions and going over different stuff. But it's going to be, you know, live sort of internet shock debate, you know, stuff like Jubilee, but just with Susan Collins, people calling into the show. Hey, Matt, can I ask you a question? First of all, welcome, welcome to the team. It's great to have you on board. I have the hardest time getting any left-wingers to talk to me. And I'm not even a debater. I will listen to anybody and let them have their say. How are you going to get people who disagree with you to come on? They're such scaredy cats. Right. So, I mean, I originally actually started doing this about a year and a half ago with TikTok live debates. TikTok actually has a really good guest call-in feature called multi-guest. And so people will scroll on TikTok and I'll show up on their TikTok feed with a few prompts that they probably disagree whether they may agree with, whatever it may be. And they will just basically request. When I actually first started doing TikTok live debates, I would have 30. people in the guest request just waiting to come in. And it's very chaotic. The chat goes crazy. It's really exciting and really fun stuff. And we converse about everything, like racial politics, domestic policy, foreign policy, everything in between. That's great. So, Matt, Matt is 19 years old by the way, folks. So, Matt, for those who don't know, what? Yeah, I mean, some of us started really young. I mean, Drew was never young, so he doesn't know. But for those of us who are once young, you know, Matt, so obviously you have very, very strong political opinions. How did you get where you are politically? Who are sort of your formative thinkers that you focused on? Well, one I would say is definitely you. I've always been a big fan of you. I would say even since I was like really young before I really knew anything about politics, I would see Ben Shapiro videos of him destroying the lips. I remember that one time the, it was like some radical transgender person that like threatened to like send you home in an ambulance, which didn't make a lot of like. logical sense. And Thomas Sol, obviously, I've read his book, Disparities and Discrimination. He's also amazing. You know, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, many other different influential writers when it comes to liberalism and conservatism that I've, you know, obviously read. And I've just been sort of creating, you know, my opinion from the like research I've actually been doing on different subjects and so on.

And then so you started out, obviously you're extremely young, compared to us, you're in utero, and you've been coming up on all these writers and thinkers. Now you're joining the Daily Wire. Some would say we inked a nuclear deal, so I'm glad that we got at least one of those in the world. Right, yeah. What's your vision for the show? I mean, how much of it is going to be live debate? Are you going to be out there mixing it up, traveling around? Are you going to take on only the libs? Are you going to take on part of the right? on one of my favorite horses to whip, which is the libertarians, you know, where do you see it going? Well, I'll take on anybody, whether you're far right or far left or in between or whatever it may be and you have a question, you can always come up and get a debate with me. I'm going to be trying to do different speaking events and engagements, which I've kind of already done a little bit of, and I will be traveling for other live debates and just doing all sorts of different things. But regardless of where you are on the political aisle, I will have a conversation with you. I'll have a conversation with absolutely everybody. But I will also be trying to mostly keep it to like live debates. But there will be moments where I'll be going over certain things on X or YouTube or reacting really quickly or even maybe going on some monologues, right? But I will try to keep it mostly, you know, about live debates and also, you know, answering the chat and keeping up with questions and stuff. What are the, in terms of the issues that are really animating you right now, this is one thing I've noticed. What you talk about, the old Ben's destroys videos, which just completely took over the entire world. And, you know, since. We were all doing that out there on the college campuses, and Ben is like shutting down the city of Berkeley. You know, I've noticed, as I go to the different schools, the issues have changed a lot. It used to be in 2016, free speech was the big issue. Then it became transgenderism. Then religion has really taken a big role in the last few years, which is terrific. Right. But, you know, all of these big debates. What is it that you see really animating the zoomers? What is, what really animates you? Like, what if you didn't have a helix mattress, what issues would keep you up at it. Well, I think the issues that would still keep me up would be like issues in reference to, you know, the border. Issues in reference to racial politics in America, things in reference to DEI, affirmative action, discriminations. That's actually what I first went viral for when I debated Amanda Seals and I went on Ben Show for the first time. And so those issues, I think, will always keep me up. You know, leftist social and economic policy, those things domestically speaking. But I also went pretty viral also, like just generally when it comes to what I've been doing for also discussing Israel. when I first started like doing TikTok lives at first I started talking about Trump and I also you know started talking about you know Zionism and different things in reference to that and a lot of people really got mad at me and it became chaotic and I kept doing my research and we just kept debating it over and over again and so I think one big thing that's kind of encapsulated you know conservative liberal leftist right wing media in America is the Israel question you know Zionism Israeli political influence stuff in reference to that and I've been having a lot

a series of debates about that, especially the Israel-Palestine conflict. So that's one thing in when we're talking about in regards to foreign policy that I also discuss quite frequently. Wait, people are interested in Israel? I have people talking about them? Paul, I didn't. This news today. Yeah. Yeah, very big news. When you look at the country, since you have no past, you have no reference points because you're only just born. When you look at the country, do you think like the good guys are winning, the good guys are losing? I think the good guys, I mean, I don't know whether or not the good guys are necessarily losing. I think that there is a hyper fixation on Israel, especially from the far right and the far left. It's kind of creating... this sort of horseshoe theory phenomenon where like people like Chank Uyghur, Anna Kasparian, are sort of in alignment with other people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and all sorts of other people that are on the right, like Nick Fuentes, for example. And so they're creating that sort of weird coalition to go against, I believe, Western values that, well, Islam isn't really a threat and that Israel really is evil in comparison to the entire Middle East and that, you know, you can really a lot, you know, make allies with anybody regardless of beliefs and so on. But I believe that. that has been a popular thing and that and they have been winning in terms of popularity when it when it comes to that but i but i agree with what ben said when he was uh discussing that and responding to that the pop i mean the popularity of opinions you know uh don't validate them and that facts still don't care about your feelings so regardless of how popular it is it doesn't really matter you know Also popular for a podcaster and popular for a guy running for nationwide re-election to entirely different things. Talk about diverging interests. There's no doubt about that. You mentioned the economics and the class warfare, and obviously Thomas Sol is excellent on that. What do you make? I've noticed this too, a little bit on the right, but much more on the left. Elon Musk, who is one of the most productive individuals of any of our lifetimes, if not the most productive, he becomes the world's first trillionaire as he's creating all these really great products, preserves the American Public Square on Twitter, and everyone hates him for it. Do you see a lot of that kind of class envy, resentment? Obviously, now the young left especially is willing to take on the moniker of socialism. Is that, are we just careening toward communism forever? It almost kind of seems like it. Well, the left always sort of like tries to fight some sort of social injustice, whether it comes to billionaires or wealthy people or people that don't feel oppressed, et cetera. I would say that, yeah, that is something that the left has been discussing and has been sort of like, I could say, leaning towards, right? Like Zerom, I'm Donnie Rashida Tlaib, Elon Musk Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, all of these sorts of people are... calling themselves democratic socialist and they sort of align more with those ideals. Bernie Sanders has been running on this whole thing with with taxing the billionaires and so on and so forth. But again, I still think that they believe that Elon Musk has a trillion dollars the same way that Scrooge McDuck had a trillion dollars. It's like, you know, Elon Musk just goes into his, you know, his spot and there's like a trillion coins or something like that, you know what I mean, which is not the case. I mean.

If you were to rapidly liquidate those assets, it would be horrible for everyone, including 401Ks, people's pensions, different stock options, and so on and so forth. So it's not the way people envision it, right? It's the asset value of the company increasing because people are actually interested in purchasing products from his companies. It's not the same way that it's him hoarding money, which is the misunderstanding that people have. That's obviously true. And I think, you know, socialism and communism and all its forms is just evil. satanic, but there is an interesting kind of critique that comes out of wealth inequality. One is that the palace is never safe when the cottage is unhappy. But then the other one is that we have a right to private property, but nevertheless, this comes from like Catholic social teaching, that there is a universal destination of goods. In other words, we have real rights to private property, but we also have obligations to each other in society. And so people are trying to pretend like Elon Musk is doing backflips in his pile of gold. But it would occurs to me, that critique is, Elon Musk actually is living up to those responsibilities. He puts aside his companies for a second to go help the government become more efficient. He puts $44 billion to put his money where our mouth is to go preserve the public square because conservatives were being discriminated against. So in a way, I think he's like the worst example of a guy who's not civic-minded or irresponsible or something. Okay, so this is great. And I'm going to pummel you knolls. The moment has come. I was setting you up for that. I was setting you up at the station. I know, here we go. Okay, so. The social good that Elon Musk does is not because he went into Doge, which, again, was overall not supremely successful. The overall good that he does is called Tesla and SpaceX. That is the overall good that he does. And this is one of the things that, you know, it's interesting. I've been making my way through the vice president's new books. Obviously, he's on a book tour, and so we all got free copies of the book. So thanks to the publisher. Appreciate it. And the vice president takes a position with regard to the meritocracy. The book is largely a repudiation of Hillbileology. It really is kind of fascinating. His book is essentially, Hillbileology was me being seduced into the meritocratic secularism of the Yale elite. And then I discovered God and religion again. And now I don't really believe in that stuff anymore. And I really actually much more believe in sort of Catholic social teaching, Riram Navarum and the rest of it. That really is essentially the theme of the book. And one of the things that he is constantly talking about in the book, in again, almost Tucker Carlson-esque fashion, he has a line in there where he says, We don't work for the economy. The economy works for us, which of course is kind of a bizarre, it's a bizarre category error. It's like saying we don't work for free speech. Free speech works for us. When you're talking about a reality in the world that is called a market and the idea that there ought to be somebody at the top of that market who is legitimately figuring out the best redistribution of wealth and resources is a massive centralized government error. And so, you know, I think that when we talk about Elon Musk, The resistance to Elon Musk's wealth is driven by a few things. One is just pure envy. Obviously, you see this. I'm not accusing the vice president to this. I think that you're seeing a lot of people who are doing the pure envy. Elon Musk's really rich. I'm not as rich as Elon Musk. I wish I wore as rich as Elon Musk. No one should be as rich as Elon Musk, unless it were me. But really, there shouldn't be anyone as rich as Elon Musk. And you're seeing a lot of that. But I do think that there is also a thing where it's like there ought to be some sort of bizarre guilt that attends to success. that the only way that you can sort of justify high levels of material success is by donating a library. And I just don't think that that's right. I think that the reality of the free markets is that if you actually want to ensure that the cottage is secure, Michael, as you put it, then what you actually need is a free market system. The big problem with societies that have castles and cottages is that they were expropriative, is that you're talking about feudalist societies in which there was literally a fixed pie of wealth and the and the and the and the

Lord would come in and take part of the pie. But that's not what you're talking about with a free market. No, I agree. The reason we live better than our ancestors. I agree with a lot of that point. Obviously, the main social good that Elon Musk has done is to create these great innovations and this great wealth. But he feels a responsibility toward others. And I think, Ben, your example actually kind of makes my point, especially when it comes to free speech, which is that, you know, we don't live for free speech. Free speech is in advance of our society. It's not that you want some fat cat central planners sitting on top. What you want is just ordinary guardrails and putting things in their proper place. So when you go to the guy, who really promoted free speech. John Locke, John Bolton, John Stuart Mill. For some reason, it's a lot of Johns. All of them are pointing out that free speech is for something. It's not an end unto itself, but it's for getting to the truth. This is a dangerous argument. Hold on, hold on, hold on. If you want to read the full argument, you can get speechless, controlling words, controlling minds, number one national seller available, whatever great books are sold. I think it's propping on my desk here, my short leg on my desk. But again, that's not even, I have other critiques of free speech, but what I'm saying, is the guys who actually advanced free speech, all of the classical liberals from whom we get our free speech tradition, Those are the arguments that they were making. That's not even just my argument. And so when it comes to social responsibility for the economy, I love JD's new book. I think it's terrific. Including when he's talking about the economy, there's this great chapter where he's talking, it's called The Dismal Science, which is a line that he takes from Thomas Carlyle, the conservative. But even Carlyle is kind of borrowing it from Edmund Burke. You know, the founder of modern Anglo-American conservatism, Edmund Burke decries the transformation of politics. which he says has lost the age of chivalry, and the age of economists, sophisters, and calculators has succeeded. And so when you look at an economy, you say, look, obviously we want a lot of economic growth, but it's for something else. And the classic example would be, if we were just serving GDP, well, we could increase GDP by legalizing and prostitution. And then our GDP actually would go up. There would be more measured economic activity. But that would actually be bad for society. And I guess the idea, which is a conservative critique of of liberalism going all the way back to Burke and further, is that you can't actually quantify everything. You know, cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. And so we have to remember, we want all that wealth. We don't want to become commies, but we need it to be for something good. And we can know the good. And if we can't know something about the good, then we can't have self-government. Okay. That's a very, very dangerous argument. I agree. Well, take it up with Milton. Don't take it up with me. No, I mean, look, first of all, it's a dangerous argument when to apply to free speech, because that's an entirely different matter. Those two things don't go together at all. You know, if you are not in charge of what you think and what you say, then guess who is going to be in charge of what you think and what you say? It's going to be Pontius pilot. Why? Because Rome has all the power. And as someone who was alive when Socrates was poisoned and was Christ was crucified, I can tell you that it never works to give authorities the right.

to censor your speech. But when it comes to the economy, this is something where I'm closer to Ben on this. I do believe that a society should be able to condemn business. practices that are legal but reprehensible. But I don't necessarily believe that that makes them a crime. And I think that that's a really big difference. I think, you know, when the boycott went on against Bud Light for putting that clown on their, that transgender clown on their product, I thought that was brilliant. I'm 100% in charge of that. But to have somebody say, oh, no, that's illegal because we don't like transgenderism, it's a totally different thing. The free market is a beautiful, beautiful thing. You are right. It is not... the measure of good and if if it were the measure of good then drug deals and prostitution would be okay but it's outside of of crimes i think it's up to society up to the culture to condemn uh wickedness and evil and to and to be allowed in their localities to limit it so i don't think for instance you have a right to open a casino anywhere but i do think that if a state says we're going to allow the casino to be there that's a different matter Yeah, yeah, I mean, so I agree with, I agree with what Clivenson, but I think there's a broader critique, and Matt will maybe appreciate this, this sort of take from Seoul. So this is a sole take on the, I think, extraordinarily flawed argument that I first saw actually from Janus Verifakis, who is a socialist economist, this idea that, that, you know, economic statistics can't capture the value of his sunset. Okay, yeah. This is Burke makes this point. I mean, you saw it, you saw it in conservatives first. Then, okay, it's wrong. Okay, the reason I will say that it's wrong is not because, of course, economics can capture the value of a sunset, but that is a category error. Economics is not trying to tell you how much a sunset is worth. The point is of economics, what are you willing to trade for what? That is literally what economics is about. And so when you say, I'm going to completely elide the question of cost and benefit analysis in public policy because you can't value a sunset, that ignores the fact that we routinely value sunsets. We do it by determining how much we are willing, for example, to pay for light. We determine... what we are willing to pay in order to enjoy a sunset on a vacation, as opposed to doing it from, you know, the back room of our house or apartment. The entire science of economics, it's not a science, but the entire idea of economics is that it's about tradeoffs. And so if you would seek to allied the tradeoff by pretending that we are, that we don't put a value on anything that most things. So there's an example that JD uses in his book that I find particularly absurd from this particular chapter. And the example that he uses is with regard to Japan. And basically, he starts his chapter by saying that people are talking about stagnation of the economy in Japan, which has been a massive problem for Japan for legitimately two decades. If you go back to the 1980s, Michael Crichton was writing books about how Japan was going to take over the United States. And if we got to the 1990s, the Japanese economy plummeted and then just stagnated. And it's been stagnating since then. I mean, literally for 30 years, it's been stagnating. And he says, well, I don't believe in economics, basically, because I went to Japan and I tasted their strawberries. And I wish I were kidding, but I'm not. He literally says that the strawberries is a great chapter. It's a great chapter. It's one of the worst takes I think I've ever seen. He makes the case that because strawberries taste better in Japan, therefore, economics can't measure that strawberries taste better. Well, that's not true. If you have a better tasting strawberry from Japan in the United States, some people will be willing to pay more for that. And actually, if JD had done half a second of research on, for example, Japanese strawberries, the topic that he is writing about.

He would understand the reason that strawberries taste better in Japan is because they are a delicacy in Japan. And there is a full-scale luxury industry for strawberries in Japan that is designed toward making the best kind of strawberry. So there were strawberries tastes better because in Japan, when you go over to somebody's house, you don't bring a bottle of wine, you can bring like a $100 basket of strawberries. So in the same way that economics drives toward better quality at lower prices for certain products in the United States. That is also true. in Japan. It doesn't mean that economics doesn't work in Japan. It's like making the argument that when you go to Ethiopia, the coffee there is really, really, really good. Therefore, economics can't measure that actually Ethiopia is economically rich and doing great. It is a completely discombobulated argument and beyond which the entire argument of his book is essentially that Western societies have been secularized and therefore have lost the qualities that make them good and worthwhile and that we need to get back to Christianity in order to do that. I will just point out, that Japan is 98% Shinto and murdered all of the Catholic priests who were attempting to go there, attempting to convert everything. So if he likes the strawberries that much, maybe he needs to... The strawberries are great. The thing about that chapter, though, is I think you're missing the point of it, believe it or not. You know, when he's talking about... I can't believe you, Michael. No, I loved that chapter. I love the title because, you know, he's going to be pilloried as some left-winger or something, but ironically, the argument he's making and the title he's using to do it is the original conservative... critique of liberalism, liberalism, which makes, it's, the issue is not involving economics, obviously, it's making an idle out of economics. So the line that J.D. mentions about the strawberries is he says, look, you know, if the Japanese are willing to pay $6 for a carton of strawberries and someone else pays $6 for another carton of strawberries somewhere else, and one carton of strawberries is better than the other, then the market has actually not taken into account the difference between those things. And so it's kind of a... It's not true. It's not true on its most fundamental level. If I went to Japan, I would also pay $6 for the really good strawberries. Right. I'd be in Japan. But the point, but the basic point is that the price, $6 doesn't take into account qualitative differences. This was in, I mean, that's not true. It's in different countries. If I went to Japan and I sold crappy strawberries, I would have to sell them for $3. But if you'll allow me to get to my... If you'll allow me to get to my point, when the point, I think we would all agree. that a price does not take into account all of the qualitative differences. If that were the case, then my delicious Mayflower cigar for $17 and hanging out with a hooker on some shady part of town for $17 would be the same thing, but they're qualitatively different. So it's not to action for all that economics. Wait, you know what you can get for $17? I know. Well, listen, I'll give you a phone number. I got a great guy. I mean, girl. I got, anyway. Hold, I'm so glad I came to the show. Wow. So the point is, like, when J.D. says, I realize that. economics was all fake. He's obviously exaggerating here. I mean, this is a guy who worked for a venture capital firm. He's obviously not saying that economics itself is fake, but he's making this critique that I think is so important. This is why I don't think it's just a flippant, frivolous example. It is very important in conservatives from the very beginning of conservatism like 300 years ago have recognized that, yes, we want growth. We want trade to a considerable degree, but we can't be putting the cart before the horse. I mean, these are arguments that we're being made by George Washington, by Alexander Hamilton. Michael, he's also setting up a massive stroman and then burning it. He's setting up a straw man and then burning it. He's basically like...

I think the truth is that Ben agrees with this. He's just so used to the society that has been talked out of free trade and been talked out of capitalism that he's on the defense of all the time. But you basically agree that, you know, prostitution, no matter how much it makes, is not a good thing. Nobody's even arguing that. The problem is that the JD's argument in that strategy is an argument that proves too much, as with most of his arguments. It's an argument that essentially says there should be limitless capacity. for right-thinking people to be able to restrict the markets as they see fit in order to achieve social justice. No, I don't think he's saying. He establishes zero limiting principle. There's zero limiting principle from within Catholic social teaching, which you point out is what the book is about, is subsidiarity among other things. So there are all these limiting principles there within it, which are built into our federal system. Michael, that's not a limiting principle. The limiting principle is what he agrees with. And that's not a limiting principle. Okay, like the whole point of setting a large person is built into our government. The idea that local, that decisions are made at the most competent local level possible. That's a limited principle. Wait, so JD is now in favor of San Francisco legalizing prostitution and pot? No, there are obviously limits beyond that as well. And in a deliberative self-government, you obviously try to persuade your fellow citizens. But, and there are federal laws against, against pot at least. Well, we'll see how much longer that goes on. Anyway. Yes, but regardless, first of all, I have to say goodbye to Matt. Matt Nuclear, I'm very excited for you to add even more nuclear fire to this show and to the whole network. So everybody go follow Matt Nuclear. No, I think, look, I don't think you really believe that the vice president or any other conservative who shares his view or someone who believes in Catholic social teaching actually thinks we should have a Politburo, you know, and have Stalin dictating the price of strawberries or anything else. I don't think you really believe that. Well, no, I think that what the vice president believes is that he and his friends should determine what the limiting principles are. And I do not like this. My whole point of having general principles of equal applicability is that there should be delegated powers to the government beyond which you cannot go. And when it gets to Catholic social teaching about economics, there are no places where power cannot go. There may be prudence that you apply, but that is a human quality that you apply to a place of no actual checks and balances. And this is where I start because. That is not part of Catholic social teaching. That really isn't. I mean, you know, you get to JP2 and Chintesi Musano, which is rewriting, or it's a, it's a refined Rayrun Navarum. I'm fully aware it's not part of Catholic social teaching, which is why I don't think the Catholic social teaching should be the predicate for American government. No, no, I'm saying you're misrepresenting Catholic social teaching. I mean, just if you just look at one of the great examples of Catholic social teaching, John Paul II's Chantzzi Mousanus, which is a rewriting of Ray Rum Navarum, which is where all of this comes from. He extols the virtues of the free market. He just points out that there are also social responsibilities along with it. JP2 was one of the men who took down communism. So I think in this limited example, I think you're taking down a straw man here. I guess the way we'll find out is if JD becomes president and he installs a collectivist pollate bureau and he outlaws strawberries specifically for Ben Shapiro, I will admit I was wrong, but I don't think that's really what he's arguing. Well, I mean, I don't think you're going to get out if it turns out that what he comes in and he decides to outlaw vast swaths of industry, tax vast swaths of industry, redistribute vast swaths of industry.

all to his particular liking, and that is the platform upon which he runs. Again, when you reject meritocracy on the basis that it's some sort of hoodwinkery, I start to have some very serious problems, especially when the way that you became famous is by participating in the meritocracy in the first place. But enough about JD's book, first, let's talk about, again, entrepreneurship. I'm a fan. Knowles actually is a fan, too. The truth is that when Knowles and I argue, It's typically over about three yards of territory on a 100-yard field, but we make it sound like it's about 80 yards. In any case, we both like entrepreneurship. And odds are that you've spent more time on your next marketing campaign than your insurance policy. And honestly, I get it. Nobody. Nobody starts a business because they're passionate about coverage limits and policy language. You start a business to build something. That's what it's for. Now, here's the thing. As your business grows, so does your exposure. You hire employees, you expand operations, you take on bigger clients, bigger contracts, every new opportunity, a new risk. That's just reality. which is exactly why I want to tell you about SuperShure. SuperShore is the super agency built for growing businesses licensed in every state, business insurance and employee benefits year-round support for you and your team, not once a year, year-round. And here's what I actually like. They've built tools that help you understand what you're buying. Their fine-print fax tool translates your policy into plain English, what's covered, what's not, where the gaps are. Their business value calculator tells you what your business is actually worth, because before you protect something, you'd better know what you've built. Here's the reality. Insurance should not be a once-year-afterthought. It should be... A strategy. Go to supershure.com slash Josh Shapiro. That's supershore.com slash Josh Shapiro, one super agency, one powerful platform, all your policies in one place. Again, at supershore.com slash Josh Shapiro paid for by SuperShore insurance agency LLC, a licensed insurance agency. You know one thing I love is people named Michael. And it's why I'm very pleased to bring on right now, our pal, Michael the Rosa, so we can all beat up some Democrats. Michael, thank you for being here. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for having me. So we've been mostly focusing on the right so far, because obviously we've got this Iran deal and we've got J.D.'s new book and all this game, kind of the ruling party right now. We should remember there are still Democrats. And to Drew's point, they are still trying to come back and they'll probably do very well in the midterms, just historically speak. So what's the state of play right now? Are the Dems just the party of Graham Platner now, Nazi tattoos and abusing women? Or is there any, or is Rahm Emanuel going to re-forge the Dems into a major governing party? Well, I certainly think there have been people on the left who have made it easier for Republicans to call us the party of Graham Platner or Zohran Mamdani. I'm hoping that's not the case. Look, ROM is my personal favorite. Him and Gavin Newsom, I'm big fans of. But I think you hear Rom. I think Rahm is a sleeper candidate in 2028. I think he's talking the way a nominee actually talks. A successful nominee actually talks. I think actually his biggest strength is what some people view as his weakness as an insider. But... 99.9% of the country has no idea that he's an insider and really doesn't know who he is. And I think when they see and hear that kind of fire in the belly, the sort of agility he has, sort of fighting him, to fight on policy, by the way. And the way he's talking about issues that matter to the working class, I think that's going to really resonate. He would be someone I'd be happy to see as the nominee.

I also hate to say it. I'm pretty impressed by Rahm Emanuel. Like, I mean, he'd be a terrible president, but I'm pretty impressed by him. Which part of the Nusson fire of California makes you a fan of Gavin Newsom? Well, I don't think records matter anymore in politics. If that, if records mattered, JD Vance would never have been on the ticket and Donald Trump has changed his mind on so many things. I don't think those things matter anymore. Sure, he has a lot to defend if he's held to account. And if the voters have a really nuanced and complex. depth of understanding of regulatory and tax policy. Sure, I'm sure there's a lot he'll have to defend there. But I don't know if that actually matters more than his ability to command a stage to throw punches, to debate. The PR and communications aspect of politics is a little bit more weighted these days, even for voters. Yeah, Michael, when you look at that 2028 race, you've mentioned Ron Manuel, you mentioned Gavin Newsom. major factor that people keep ignoring in the Democratic primaries is, of course, the outsized weight of the, of the black vote in places like South Carolina. It's what put Joe Biden over the top against Bernie Sanders. It is what put Hillary Clinton over the top, actually against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. And obviously, it was very, very helpful to Barack Obama. When you look at, you know, some of the candidates you're talking about, like a Rahm Emanuel or a, or a. or a Gavin Newsom. Is there anyone else that you're looking at who has the capacity to capitalize on the, I believe 56% of the voting population in the Democratic primaries in South Carolina is black? I believe it's a majority and a huge percentage of the South as well. Given the heavy sort of majority minority coalition built by Democrats in these states, what does that mean for a Democratic primary where, again, a lot of their top candidates are white, but you might get a Wes Moore or Kamala Harris is probably going to run again. What do you make of that? Yeah, I mean, you're not wrong about the voting coalition in South Carolina. I think that some of the, I think the Clintons had a history with black voters. I think Barack Obama was unique and appealing for black voters for a lot of historic reasons. And I think this could be the first. probably open test for South Carolina as a primary state, assuming that the calendar stays, keeps South Carolina front and center. You know, and that's sort of the next big test of the DNC chair, is to sort of establish the calendar. That's like one of his only jobs. So we need to see where South Carolina falls in the calendar. Although I'm just not convinced that. And, you know, also Biden had the advantage of having Jim Clyburn come out and endorse us at a very low point in our campaign. That was do or die, to be honest.

I don't know if South Carolina is enough for any one nominee. I just don't believe that because of how many states come after it and they sort of vote-rich, delegate-rich populations that come after it. So, look, it does raise the question of sort of moderate candidate versus not moderate candidate, which you're bringing up here, which is that actually the South Carolina voters. have tended toward the more moderate candidate and a wide variety of presidential primaries for the Democratic Party in the recent past. But the Democratic Party, as you've also been mentioning, is running headlong off a cliff in terms of some of these primary candidates like a Graham Platner in Maine or like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and really embracing some of the more radical aspects of their own party. How wide is that gap going to open before 2028? What happens to the party? if you have, say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to declare for the presidency, and also a Pete Buttigieg and also a Gavin Newsom. It's going to have a very crowded field. And how do you see that back breaking down? Because the nice thing for the radicals is they tend to coalesce around one person. And meanwhile, all of the pseudo-moderates tend to fragment a little bit. Yeah, and, you know, based on my last experience in the primary with the Bidens in that 2019, the doldrums of 19 and then into those first couple of months, look, I think on MS now and sort of the progressive podcast echo chamber space, I think that the left makes all of the noise. They are certainly louder at making the noise. That's not really where voters in a democratic primary nationally were in 2020. They were not, you know, the media, the mainstream media was more obsessed with Bernie and Warren and even Pete Buttigieg to an extent. I mean, Elizabeth Warren got third in her home state of Massachusetts. Bernie really ran for president twice now and couldn't make the case himself for president to Democratic voters in a national competitive primary. So it just feels to me, based on voting behavior across the country in these primaries and the way Democrats set them up. that the silent majority of actual Democratic primary voters really aren't all that interested in what the left is offering. That just hasn't been the case so far. Who knows? Maybe that changes in 2024. It just hasn't been the case yet. So I'm interested to see if that happens. I don't think it will. I also think, as you mentioned, We've got to figure out, and we'll know in a couple weeks, where we are in Michigan, where this Platinum-Zohran Mamdani experiment goes in Maine, and we'll certainly see how the Zohran Mamdani experiment goes in Maine by November. And I think at that point, we're going to have a better idea on how that wing of the party is going to fare. What do you think this is a little bit of a data question? Sorry, Michael, quick, quick, a quick data thing, actually, according to our friends over at Calshare, a sponsor to Calshry.

Vladimir Putin is still favored by 57% of the people who are in that market. Oh, sure. He's down a little bit. And by the way, I bet that doesn't change. And I think that's the uniqueness of Maine. Keep in mind, Maine is the oldest state in the country by medium age. You know, it was really funny hearing a incredible, you know, sort of legacy. mainstream reporter who was telling me he was up there talking to this Democratic voter more of a Bernie bro kind of grandma as she called herself Loves Bernie, but not an election that goes by where she will not vote for Susan Collins. She is Susan Collins all the way. That woman could do no wrong. And that sort of explains the gap, the Biden-Susan Collins voter, nine points in 2020. that was impossible to poll accurately. So I have no doubt that the polls and the prediction markets will have platinum and the energy and money will be around him for the next couple of months. But the Susan Collins people are smart. They've done this before and they've been underestimated before. And on election day, they had their race 43, 42. Susan Collins, and the rest of the country and the rest of the Democratic Party did not. So they know how to do this up there, and she can afford to be outspent three to one and still win by 10 points, apparently. Michael, before I let you go, just one last question. To what degree does woke... still matter, and is it an albatross for the libs? We're years past peak woke, and the Dems are trying to run away from it, it seems. But, you know, we are constantly hanging these clips calling God non-binary or to referring to women as our neighbors with uteruses all around James Talarico, and it's hard for him to run away from it. Ben did a great job when he went on Gavin Newsom's show of just constantly pinning Gavin Newsom back on the trans issue. There was like a Gavin Newsom-shaped hole in the wall. He wanted to get as far away from it as he could. What degree do you think that's still a live issue going into the midterms? It's very much a live issue. It's very much a live issue. I'm actually surprised that Republicans are, and maybe they will, maybe as we start moving into more TV ad season when all these primaries are set and done, that is the biggest vulnerability in my view for Democrats because they don't. There is no, you will hear lockstep talking points and unity on messaging around the economy. You will, you will.

You have no idea what you're going to get when you ask a Democrat officeholder candidate about trans issues. There is, it is the most vulnerable issue because they just don't know how to answer it. And it's shocking to me. I mean, I'm a former NCAA swimmer. There's no way in hell I can tell you that. Democrat or that biological men should be competing in women's sports I I can I can just say that and 90% of and the vast majority and I think the vast the silent majority of Democrats probably Democratic voters feel that way but these my my Democratic um You know, Democrats who I admire a lot for their abilities and their talents in Congress just tie themselves in nuts trying to find a way to answer that question. And it's so easy. And you'll hear people like a Jason Crow who probably is very ambitious and very talented and skilled at communicating. he'll say, you know, well, this, this is so infrequent. This is such a small part of, you know, society. Well, if it's such a, if it's so infrequent and it's so small, the portion of people who actually do compete, or trans who compete in sports, why can't you just say where you stand? That's right. I'm not a former NCAA anything, and I find it very easy to say that too. Michael, wonderful to see you. Thank you very much for coming on. Everybody go follow Michael LaRosa. Then before we go, fellas, can we talk about the daddies a little bit? Can we get a little daddy talking here? I know. I know. You know, we have got to stop talking about stuff like the economy and Iran and stuff like that. Cool. Thanks a lot. Really talk about something important because there are a lot of people who are going to be in trouble pretty soon. And I think we ought to give them a hand. Absolutely. It is Father's Day. Father's Day. It's coming. Father's Day. I know. You know, this is not an awkward ad read at often. Father's Day is just a few days away. I feel like many of you still have not gotten your dad a gift. And this is not self-serving at all, but we have ideas. No, but you know what I'm here to do? I'm here to read what's written in my prompter, which says that you haven't gotten your dad a gift. And so I know people are going to say, oh, finding a good gift for dad. It's so hard. I have no idea what he wants. It's not hard. Men are simple creatures, okay? We're easy. We want to be informed. We want to be right. We want to be left alone and enjoy both. And we, I know I'm using we. I should have used they. They actually wrote they in the prompter. I changed it. And that's on me. The copywriters did a better job than I did. We can help you with all those things. It's true. So here's the actual pitch. Daily Wire Plus is 45% off right now for both annual memberships and also gift memberships. And there's a full year of all of our daily shows, the hit documentaries, the exclusive entertainment you want. There's a lot to enjoy right now. And there is tons more coming. So now would be a perfect chance to buy for your dad.

Trust us. Look at this face. Can you not trust this face? This is something your dad will like and get value out of. Unlike whatever you were going to go by him, which sucked. This is a few days left. Go stop. So stop stalling. Go to Dailywireplus.com. Use code dad 45. At checkout. And you know what you got to do also? Once you do that and you sign up, Dad 45, you've got to go subscribe to Matt Nuclear. Because regardless, I know there's a variety of opinion on the MOU, whether or not we're even going to get a final deal. But Matt is a nuclear deal we can all agree on. Head on over, subscribe to Matt Nuclear right now. And if you have time, keep subscribing to our show. This is Friendly Fire. We'll see you next time. The world has chosen. The nuclear reaction.