Even Tim and Sarah Disagree on Hasan Piker

Summary

---

Bulwark Takes – “Even Tim and Sarah Disagree on Hasan Piker”

Podcast: Bulwark Takes
Date: April 3, 2026
Host(s): Tim Miller, Sarah Longwell
Main Theme:
An intense, nuanced debate between Tim Miller and Sarah Longwell over the divisiveness, influence, and strategic handling of left-wing streamer Hasan Piker within the Democratic coalition, the boundaries of political discourse, and the risks of anti-Semitism in the evolving terrain of the Israel/Iran conflict.

---

Episode Overview

Tim Miller and Sarah Longwell, both prominent Bulwark voices, examine whether—and how—Democrats should engage with far-left online streamer Hasan Piker. Prompted by Lauren Egan's recent article, the conversation explores Piker's controversial comments, his audience, and the strategic imperatives facing Democrats as war in Iran emerges as a defining new crisis. The episode tackles deep questions about coalition management, media engagement, the limits of “the big tent,” anti-Semitism, and the moral duties of Democratic leaders in a polarized environment.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Hasan Piker Dilemma: Who Belongs in the Democratic Tent?

• Lauren Egan’s article: “How Big is the Democrats Big Tent?” raises the question of whether figures like Hasan Piker should be embraced or ostracized.

• The podcast opens with host Tim Miller framing the issue:

  “Is he even a Democrat?” (00:43, B)

• Hasan Piker’s alignment with the Democratic Socialists of America, sharp critiques of the Democratic Party—especially on Israel/Gaza—and whether strategists should associate with him.

---

2. Cataloguing Controversies: Piker’s Most Alarming Remarks

Sarah Longwell outlines the reasons for strong opposition toward incorporating Piker into the Democratic mainstream, reading out a series of Piker quotes:

• “America deserved 9/11 dude.”
• “Hamas is 1000 times better than Israel.”
• “Annexation of Crimea was absolutely a justifiable annexation.”
• Remarks denigrating Dan Crenshaw, Black political engagement, and making a gross joke about date rape.

“He is a China, Russia sympathizer who hates women, hates Israel. Like, he's all the toxic things... Hassan Piker doesn't actually belong in the pro democracy coalition. He's an illiberal guy.”
— Sarah Longwell (06:46–07:14, D)

Sarah expresses discomfort with allowing “an illiberal” into pro-democracy spaces and warns against soft-selling the scope of his views.

---

3. The Dilemma of Platforming: Go on His Show or Draw a Line?

Sub-questions Tim identifies:

• Should people go on Hasan Piker’s show?
• Should Democrats campaign with him?
• Should there be a litmus test for inclusion in the party?

Sarah:

“I do not think any Democrat should look to include [Hasan] in their coalition... I felt like you were soft selling who this guy is.” (06:50–07:25, D)

Tim’s counter:

• While accepting that some Piker statements are indefensible, Tim distinguishes between running for office and having a large, passionate online following.
• He argues Democratic leaders should engage with audiences on Piker’s platform—even if they do not “embrace” him:

  “I never said I think Democrats should campaign with him... I think they should go on his show.” (18:22–18:33, C)

Sarah is incredulous at this suggestion, equating it with engaging with far-right extremists:

“Let’s say Nick Fuentes is out there saying we should vote for Democrats because Trump is doing this for Israel. Think Democrats should go on Nick Fuentes show? I don’t.” (19:01–19:12, D)

Tim distinguishes:

“Nick Fuentes is full of shit... Hasan really believes that. You can go on his show and fight him about it.” (19:12–19:31, B & C)

---

4. Strategic Imperatives Amid War:

• The anti-war moment: Tim asserts that now—amid a disastrous U.S.-Iran-Israel war—Democrats are alienating disaffected, anti-war voters by picking a fight with the left, rather than speaking clearly and forcefully against “stupid wars.”

“I could think of a thousand other things I would rather Democrats pick fights about now. Why him right now?” (14:53–15:02, C)

• Danger of vacuum: Both agree that lack of Democratic leadership on the war creates a space for fringe voices like Piker to shape discourse and gain influence.

Sarah, challenging Tim’s logic:

“What it does is exactly what Trump does and Nick Fuentes does. It takes maybe legitimate rage about something, and gives them an enemy to put it on, gives them an outgroup to blame for it... you have to be careful with that.” (15:08–16:05, D)

---

5. Messaging Versus Morality; Embracing or Condemning Hasan

• Tim: It’s possible to distinguish between talking to an audience and endorsing its tastemakers’ worst views.

  “I said talk to his audience. Talk to the people that listen to him... Have a message for them. Talk to them...” (29:21–29:46, C)

• Sarah: Drawing a bright line is essential to avoid mainstreaming antisemitism and the populist toxins the GOP fell prey to under Trump:

  “When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back at you. And Democrats should avoid the mistakes that I think the Republicans made that made us leave, which was embracing intolerable people.” (36:42–37:08, D)

• Analogies to Trump prompt sharp debate—Tim refuses the premise that Piker or anyone like him dominates the Democratic Party as Trump did Republicans; Sarah warns of slipstreams.

---

6. On the Shifting Debate over Israel, Anti-Semitism, and Political Rhetoric

• Recognition that many critiques of Israel or AIPAC once derided as “antisemitic” have become mainstream as U.S. policy and the war have become increasingly controversial.

  “Israel has just done everything that they said. Like, AIPAC now is the key player in Democratic primaries... That’s not a Jewish conspiracy theory, that’s just what’s happening.” (25:24–25:55, C)

• Both agree that, in periods of crisis, vague invocations of antisemitism risk being weaponized to chill legitimate criticism and that approach is not sustainable:

  “There's a lot of folks out there that are trying to police the rhetoric around this because they don't want Israel to be criticized in the full view of their actions. And there's a lot of criticism of Israel that is merited right now.” (32:08–32:21, C)

---

7. Meta-Commentary: Discourse, Outrage, and The Streisand Effect

• Both recognize that battles over figures like Piker elevate and empower them (“people are... creating a Streisand effect”), fragmenting the conversation and often distorting their own intentions:

  “There are like anti Hasan clip accounts... trying to like, make him a bad guy... then there are the anti Bulwark accounts, the pro-Israel... right-wing accounts... It’s just the nature of the discourse.” (41:45–42:29, C)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

Sarah Longwell on Piker:

“He’s all the toxic things...I do not think any Democrat should look to include him in their coalition.” (07:12, D)

Tim Miller on strategy:

“All you're doing is making it more powerful...All you're doing is making people think you're a bigger idiot to pick right now to have this fight.” (01:44, B)

Disagreement on platforming:

• “I think they should go on his show.” (18:29, C)
• “Hassan’s? No.” (18:31, D)
• “Oh my god, we could not disagree more!” (18:33, C)

On anti-Semitism and criticism:

“If I was a Democratic Party leader, I think that both the right thing to do and the strategic thing to do would be to be 100x louder in criticism of Bibi than I am in criticism of Hasan Piker.” (38:20–39:08, C)

On coalition-building:

“My closing point...I do not like his politics...The question then is, okay, how do you engage with that in a way that's healthy?...without looking into the abyss and having the abyss look back into you, right?” (42:31–43:18, C)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• 00:43 – 01:52: Framing the question—Is Hasan Piker in the Democratic “big tent”?
• 06:46 – 07:28: Sarah lists Hasan’s most controversial statements and makes the case for exclusion.
• 14:53 – 15:02: Tim pushes back: “I could think of a thousand other things I would rather Democrats pick fights about now. Why him right now?”
• 18:29 – 18:33: Open disagreement over whether Democrats should appear on Piker’s show.
• 25:24 – 25:55: Tim on how “mainstream” critiques of Israel and AIPAC have shifted.
• 32:08 – 32:21: Concern about rhetoric policing and criticism of Israel.
• 36:42 – 37:08: Sarah draws lessons from the Trump era on not empowering bad actors.
• 41:45 – 42:29: Tim reflects on the nature of internet echo chambers and how the discourse can warp intentions.
• 43:18 – End: Meta-commentary; final thoughts on handling hard conversations and differences within The Bulwark.

---

Conclusion

The Bulwark’s sharpest minds hash out the hard problem of how mainstream politics should handle online provocateurs like Hasan Piker. The result is a robust, revealing debate over the boundaries of the “pro-democracy coalition,” the moral and strategic costs of engagement, and the need for Democrats to lead with clarity, not just react to outrage. Both agree Democrats must be louder and clearer in anti-war messaging and avoid unintentionally empowering the fringes—but they disagree fundamentally about whether talking to Hasan's audience requires platforming its most controversial avatars.

“How do you talk to—if you’re the Democrats—the people that listen to and trust him? And how do you build trust...without looking into the abyss and having the abyss look back into you?” (43:18, C)

The episode closes by reminding listeners that The Bulwark’s diversity of views is its strength—difficult, honest arguments are the only path to clarity in a time of global upheaval and domestic polarization.

---

Transcript

[A]

At vrbo, we understand that even the best of plans sometimes need a little support. So we plan for the plot twists. Every booking is automatically backed by our VRBO Care guarantee, giving you confidence from the very start. Whenever you need help, it's ready before your stay, through the moments in between and after your trip. Because a great trip starts with peace of mind and maybe a good playlist, but we've got the peace of mind part covered.

[B]

Hey, everybody, it's Tim Miller from the Bulwark here with our publisher Sarah Longwell. She has a book coming out.

[C]

I don't know if you heard about that.

[B]

I wanted to talk about an article

[C]

that our colleague Lauren Egan wrote with, you know, behind her back a little

[B]

bit so you guys can alert her

[C]

to it if you want.

[B]

It was, it's called How Big is

[C]

the Democrats Big Tent? And it centered around this question of the streamer. Hasan Piker, who is on the far left. Is he even a Democrat?

[B]

I think is the question.

[C]

He's one of dsa. He has a lot of critiques of the Democratic Party that come from the left part of the coalition. His, his critiques of the party are particularly acute when it comes to Israel and their actions in Gaza and our broad, our broader military involvement around the world. And, and the question is, there were some Democrats who are saying that Democratic strategists and commentators were saying that the party shouldn't associate with Piker because he has some extreme views. We can, you know, we debate the extent of this, but he said some things that are either anti Semitic or anti Semitic, curious or adjacent, and the questions are whether people should deal with him.

[B]

So I think that I went long

[C]

on this topic on the stream last night.

[B]

For you to be like, now we

[C]

as the centrist, establishment, serious types want to exile a far leftist from here

[B]

because he has some impure thoughts about Israel. It's like all, all you're doing is making it more powerful. All you're doing is piss. Is making people think you're a bigger idiot to pick right now to have this fight. And it is truly, it's like madness. The entire country is moving the other direction. We can just be honest. It's moving Hasan's direction on the question of Israel. And you're like, we're going to pick a fight with him on that right now. I don't get it. We did this already five years ago where a bunch of liberals were like, you can't go on Joe Rogan. He had some bad opinions. It's just like, we can't do this

[C]

shit again so people can go if they want to hear my full sermon. I did, I think 20 minutes on this topic last night because it's complicated

[B]

and I just want to kind of break this down. Sarah saw all of that. Some of that.

[C]

Some of it.

[D]

I saw the whole thing.

[B]

I watched the whole thing.

[C]

Okay. Sarah watched the whole thing. Wow. JBL is going to be jealous.

[B]

Sarah watched the whole thing, my whole long sermon. And so I just want to set this up.

[C]

I just kind of want to break it down. There are a bunch of sub elements to this, right? Like, which is, do I agree with Hasan Piker's politics? Like, I do not. And I went through some of those disagreements.

[B]

Should people go on Hassan Piker show?

[C]

I think yes, we can talk about that.

[B]

Should Democrats campaign with them?

[C]

Like there are differing views on that. Should there be a litmus test somewhere in the party?

[B]

Like, where should the Democrats draw the

[C]

line in their big tent? Like should the tent encompass the entire country?

[B]

Or you know, should there be polls

[C]

that people, if people fall outside those, they shouldn't fit inside the tent.

[B]

So like those are kind of, you

[C]

know, I think sometimes the conversation, like all that stuff gets jumbled up into one thing. And you know, my views are different on different sort of sub bullets.

[B]

So it's kind of wanted to start there.

[C]

You watched my whole thing. On which one of those elements do you feel like your disagreement is with me?

[D]

So I think I want to start with kind of Hasan Piker. The guy, the stuff he says. And like, who is he? Because to, to, to evaluate him is then to evaluate the rest of your questions, right? Is should he be in the tent or out of the tent is a question of like, okay, who is this guy? What does he believe? What does he talk about on what is a relatively popular streaming site? And I'll just give you a flavor of some of the things that pop up from Hassan's critics that I have seen and that I think are quite, quite terrible. So America deserved 911 dude. On China he says we hyper focus on the social repression or the civil liberties or not even civil liberties necessarily, but free speech and things like that. But in terms of good governance, there's a lot we can learn from the way they perform out there. At least they get results. And he has a lot of very pro China takes. There's one that he says was a little bit taken out of context, but he says it doesn't matter if the Rakes rapes happened on October 7th. That doesn't change the dynamic for me, even this much. So that's the other part of this problem that many people can't contend with. Like the Palestin Palestinian resistance is not perfect. They're not like so good. They have magical bullets. I don't know what that means. He says Hamas is 1000 times better than Israel. On Hezbollah, he said, overall, what's my favorite flag? Hezbollah. Look it up. I'm not even kidding. It's actually a dope flag. It's got an AK on it and a hand holding it up. On Dan Crenshaw losing an eye in Afghanistan. What the is wrong with this dude? I also dislike Dan Crenshaw, but I would not say this. Didn't he go to war and like literally lose his eye because of some Mujahideen? A brave fucking soldier fucked his eye hole with their dick. On Israel being full of inbreds, you are left with a country that is packed to the fucking gills with the most inbred, uneducated, ultranationalist, rabid hereti population. On Russia's annexation of Crimea. Annexation of Crimea was absolutely a justifiable annexation. What do you call Crimea? I call it part of Russian territory, bitch. I call it Cry me a river, A Russian river. The annexation of Crimea was absolutely a justifiable annexation on black people. Black people care about the border. I don't give a fuck what black people care about. Black people care about this. Black people care about that. Like, shut the fuck up. That's not how politics work. And then I don't know if this is my. I don't know how to. I'm not going to rank these, but this one's a real doozy. Date rape is better if it happens to rich women. If you have these fucking millionaire billionaire WASP fail sons, at least taking them out of other colleges so they can only do date rape to other billionaire millionaire failed daughters is in some respects, you know, from a utilitarian perspective, of course, a little bit better. Okay. Piker told off a listener who condemned the massacre on October 7th. A blood, bloodthirsty, violent pig dog. Suck my dick. Okay, so that's the guy. That's the guy. I do not think any Democrat should look to include him in their coalition. And here's the thing. You mentioned my book at the top. I just wrote a whole book that is going to come out in September. It is 300 pages. It's called how to eat an Elephant One voter at a time. It is 300 pages about how you build a winning coalition. There's not a single paragraph that recommends cozying up to people like Hassan Piker. I talk a lot about big tents. I talk a lot about a pro democracy coalition. Here's the thing. Hassan Piker doesn't actually belong in the pro democracy coalition. He's an illiberal guy. He's a China, Russia sympathizer who hates women, hates Israel. Like, he's all the toxic things. And I think, and I was listening to you last night and I was like, my biggest problem with it, because I agree with you in some places, my biggest problem is I felt like you were soft selling who this guy is. Like, at one point I think you called it like impure thoughts or something.

[C]

Well, this is one of my defenses of Piker, which is also defense of myself, is that if you're streaming eight

[B]

hours, hours a day, like, I feel like the critics that sometimes like, look

[C]

at the, at I guess like an eight word snippet of something somebody says. I'm like, you talk for eight hours a day.

[B]

I just talked for one hour a

[C]

day last night and I rewatched that video and saw impure thoughts. And that's not what I was trying to say. You know, I was trying to, you know, I was trying to say that, you know, you just talk for a long time and.

[D]

Yeah. You don't accidentally say America deserved.

[B]

No, no, no, no.

[C]

He had some very bad takes in there too. Very. Like, he has some really bad. For sure.

[D]

Can I push back on this idea, though? They're not takes like, this guy has a worldview that I think is anathema to liberal democracy. It's not that we just disagree with his politics. I think his worldview is gross and the way he talks about people is disgusting. And so, like, I think he is all of the things that I think you're. You were being too hard on sort of the third way types who are condemning him because he, he is condemnable. And I think it is important. You and I spent a long time when I was on your podcast trying to take our longtime reflexive pro Israel stances and kind of wrestle with that now in this new world. And I'm up for wrestling with that. And I do. One of the things that is scary about wrestling with that is that there's a bunch of people on the. I'm against this war, I'm against Israel's involvement in this war who do it for anti Semitic reasons. And I think disaggregating from those people as you criticize this war is absolutely essential from a moral standpoint.

[C]

This is, I Think, yeah, this, I think, is the crux of the deal.

[B]

Because as I said last night, I

[C]

argued Hasan about China on and off stage. I argued with China, with Hasan about his focus on Israel on stage. And I think that he is a liberal. And I think that if Hassan was running for Congress or president, I think he is illiberal. Illiberal. I do. And I think that if he was running for one of those things, I would oppose him, you know, And I think that probably, I think it's very unlikely that me and Hasan will have

[B]

the same preferred candidates in the Democratic 2028 campaign. If so, if we do, that candidate

[C]

will end up have been being very adept at navigating our variant fracture. So who the hell knows with the future holds? But, like, I don't like it. I don't like his worldview. And I think that it is worth objecting to and I think it's worth people like us objecting to and hashing it out and fighting with him about it and arguing about a lot of the things that he thinks that are bad. I also just think that, you know, two things.

[B]

One, people that consume him, hear that

[C]

list and are like, that doesn't mesh with the guy. I know, right. And I think that if you came

[B]

up with my 10 worst takes, they

[C]

would not sound as bad as his list or anywhere near as bad, I don't think. But especially if you go back. But if you go back to 20,

[B]

I have some pretty bad takes going

[C]

all the way back.

[B]

Okay. So I just mean if you put my list together, I think a lot of bulwark people would be like, guy, like, you're being unfair.

[C]

Right.

[B]

And because I think that there are a lot of areas where he is

[C]

genuine that he cares about stuff, human rights. And again, I don't watch this day to day, but I just like hearing this from other people.

[B]

I think they would say, wait a minute, you're trying to turn him into

[C]

like Tucker or somebody whose whole show is about anti Semitism right now. But, like, he talks a lot about

[B]

making sure people can get a living wage and human rights around the world

[C]

and how we should care for people.

[D]

So does Tucker.

[B]

Okay, okay, fine. So anyway, I'm just telling you what

[C]

people would say about him.

[B]

I think that. I do think that it is a category difference.

[C]

A lot of people who are criticizing me about the stream, I started trying to lump it in with like, I thought you left Trump.

[B]

And I was like, no, Trump had a lot of noxious views and then he ran for president.

[C]

Tripling down on them and being like,

[B]

hey, here are all my worst views.

[C]

And, like, I think that we should institute them as policy.

[B]

Some of the things you laid out,

[C]

I think Hassan would agree with some of those things. If you read the profiles of him, he's backed off on particularly.

[D]

No, he says he does not apologize for any of them. He was just taken out of context. He's like, he's like, I don't take any of them back. I don't walk any of them back. But maybe take it out of context.

[C]

Okay, well, maybe I'd have to listen to that. I guess I just would say that holistically, it is a category difference for me from what you hear from maga.

[B]

All of that aside, though, because we can take the measure of the man

[C]

and you can decide that he's a wholly unacceptable man. And I'm going to say that he's a man that has some bad views, and we can hash that out. The strategic question, the analytical question, right, is how Democrats should handle somebody like that. And this is where I'm the harshest on the View, that he should be kicked out. And I'm particularly harsh. And I said this last night, and this relates to your point about Israel,

[B]

about, like, picking this fight with him

[C]

right now, like, in, at this moment, today, April 3rd of 2026. Because right now we are embroiled in a catastrophic war that is that the Secretary of State said we did because Israel got us into it. So, like, you can call that a

[B]

conspiracy theory or whatever, but, like, the Secretary of state said it and Trump

[C]

has, the president has basically said it, even though he does word salad a bunch of times. And I just think that any fair analyst could look at it and say, well, obviously, like, this war is more in Israel's acute interest than ours. Like, that's just a statement of fact, right?

[B]

So we are in this war with

[C]

our partner Israel right now on the heels of their behavior in Gaza. However you want to describe that, whether it's genocide or ethnic cleansing or war crimes or just more killing than was necessary anywhere on that continuum, like this comes after that. Now we've partnered with them for a war in Iran that is going to create massive damage globally to people's lives. Like, people are gonna be materially harmed by this war. They already are.

[B]

And there are a lot of people

[C]

out there in this country right now who are really mad about that. And they're about to get really madder in the coming months. And I think a lot of them look at the. They blame Trump.

[B]

But they also look at the Democratic

[C]

Party and be like, you guys have

[B]

been on this, too. Joe Biden was in there when Israel was doing the Gaza thing. The Democrats have been part of this bipartisan establishment that got us into these stupid wars forever. And they look around for people, and

[C]

who do they see out there saying, no, we should not do these wars? They're stupid. They're wrong.

[B]

They see people like Hasan. And so in this moment, where people are very bad, a lot of voters that when you say how to eat an elephant. One at a time, a lot of voters, Democrats are gonna need, whether they

[C]

be young voters or men who don't wanna go to war, or people whose

[B]

costs are gonna go up. Like, right now at this moment, a lot of them are assessing the landscape

[C]

and they're saying, like, fuck, Trump betrayed me.

[B]

Like, I thought I was on board

[C]

with the no wars candidate, okay?

[B]

And they're gettable right now, as ripe as they have ever been to be

[C]

gotten by the Democratic Party.

[B]

And in this moment, the Democratic Party and their leaders should be focused, in

[C]

my view, on being as clear and loud and passionate as possible.

[B]

No stupid wars. I will not get you involved in this.

[C]

This is an. This is a mistake. To the extent that Israel is involved, the fact that our relationship is closely tied to them is a mistake. And if we ever get back in power, we will not betray you. We hear you. We see this.

[B]

And instead you hear a lot of

[C]

Democratic leaders being like, well, this is. We should kick this guy out.

[B]

That's known. That's what he's known for. Like, if he's known for anything, it's

[C]

being anti this stuff.

[B]

And it's like, we're picking this fight with him now. I'm just like, I could think of

[C]

a thousand other things I would rather Democrats pick fights about now.

[B]

Like, why him right now?

[D]

Because he's making their life harder. It is people like Hasan.

[C]

They're making their life harder.

[D]

Well, hold on. People like Hassan are making Democrats who want to take a stand against this war, Right? And who want to probably take a stand against the way that Trump is just sort of like, you know, doing whatever Bibi tells him. They're trying to figure out how to do it in a way where they don't imperil the safety of Jewish people in this country. They're trying to do it in a way that is. They don't want to be anti Semitic. And I'll tell you why Hassan is so dangerous is that what it does is it's exactly what Trump does. It's exactly what Nick Fuentes does and Tucker does. It takes maybe legitimate rage about something, and then it gives them an enemy to put it on. It gives them an out group to blame for it. And I think you have to be so careful with that so that you're not doing that. Which starts with condemning the people who hold the same position as you for reasons that are bad, for reasons.

[C]

Here's where I disagree. Totally disagree, Totally disagree.

[B]

It starts with condemning the fucking war and condemning Israel and condemning Bibi and, and condemning Trump and being passionate and clear about it. Because then what happens? Then if you have the credibility, then

[C]

with the voters who were anti war voters who were unhappy about the way that they see the bipartisan establishment and

[B]

they thought Trump was gonna be their,

[C]

their savior from this, that there was this, some blob in D.C. and no

[B]

matter which party is in charge, we

[C]

always get into stupid wars.

[B]

They thought Trump was their way out of this. And now they're like, trump's doing the same shit that all the other ones did that we said we didn't want it. He's doing it worse. And so now if the Democrats go to those people and go on those shows, they should be on those shows. Democrats should be begging Joe Rogan or Theo, whoever to have them on right now. They should be on manosphere shows being like, I told you this was stupid. I didn't want to do this. This war is dumb. Our relationship with Israel is too tight. We should be reevaluating it. We should not be getting dog walked into this war. By the way, MBS also sucks, right? Like, you can do that in a way that's not anti semitic, because it's what it's happened. Like, it's happened. And so if they did that and then in five months, they're like, you know what?

[C]

Okay, there, look at this, though.

[B]

Like, we, you, you guys, we cannot,

[C]

you know, be shoulder to shoulder with somebody as this viewer, that viewer. We have to.

[B]

Like, then you have the credibility.

[D]

Why does it, why is there a five month gap? Why can't it be in the same breath? I think it should, because I. Here's the. I do agree with you that nature abhors a vacuum, right? Like, part of what is happening is that there is a desperate anger over this war from a lot of people that feel betrayed by Donald Trump, that don't want any more foreign wars in the Middle East. And like, we're almost. It's not, it's not about Israel. Like, for some, there's A, there's a. For some people it is about Israel. For some people it is about anti Semitism. Those are different. And then there's just a lot. I think the vast majority of people are just mad we're doing this again. And so like Democrats should be condemning it. They should be outspoken. They should be the one to try to gain a following by talking about this. But I think in doing so, they should separate themselves from people like Hassan. I don't think you have to wrap your arms around him. I don't think, you know, credibility.

[C]

And they don't on this though.

[D]

So they should go get credibility themselves. They don't need to borrow it from him.

[B]

I'm not telling you.

[C]

I'm not saying they should borrow for it.

[B]

I never said this.

[C]

Again, here's the disagreement. I never said I think Democrats should campaign with him. I disagree with that.

[D]

I think they should go on a show.

[C]

I think.

[B]

You don't think they should go on his show?

[D]

Hassan's. No.

[C]

Oh, my God. That we could not agree. Disagree more.

[B]

Oh, my God. The people that watch Hashan show are not terrible. The regular people. A lot of people watch this video.

[C]

Watch Hashan son show. I hear.

[B]

Let me ask you this. I saw them on the street. The idea, I know this is. This is like the same shit we just did with Joe Rogan. It's like Democrats should go on Joe. Joe Rogan has terrible fucking views. They have to speak to those people. Those are the people that they have to speak to. Why wouldn't they do that right now? Especially right now when they're the most

[D]

gettable, let's say so. So Nick Fuentes is out there saying we should vote for Democrats because Trump is doing this for Israel. Think Democrats should go on Nick Fuentes show? I don't.

[B]

Well, Nick Fuentes is full of shit is the thing. I mean, A, I don't think they should go on a show, but not really so much because he's an anti Semite. I don't think they should go on a show because he's like, he's a troll. He's just a troll. Hasan really believes that. He believes you can say his beliefs are bad or wrong or shameful or should be condemned and you could go

[C]

on a show and fight him about it.

[B]

But like, Hasan is not out there

[C]

doing like, oh, you know, jokes about ovens and, you know, the Jew. There might not have been that many people killed in the Holocaust doing trolling.

[B]

Like, what does Dick fantasy even believe? Does anybody even know? Does he even Know, I don't think

[C]

he even knows what he believes anymore. Like, he's just full of shit. It's like a variety show.

[B]

Hassan like, has passionate left wing views

[C]

and, and they should be grappled with, I think.

[D]

Who says that 911 was America's fault and that like, I don't think this is a serious person. This is my part of my problem now. And I'm going to both state a problem. And then I think one of the ways in which strategically this is bad. Nick Fuentes and Hassan Piker are both being elevated in the discourse because people are. There's a Streisand effect happening. This I do write about in the book, the Streisand effect that makes these people more powerful, that gives these people a bigger platform where whether it is the earnestness of Hassan or the, the nihilism of, of Fuentes. Right. People are like kind of there for that experience and they, they, it raises their curiosity. This happened with Andrew Tate. Like there is just a series of people who, where the outrage against them is making them more powerful. That being said, understanding that dynamic doesn't mean that like there's just sort of a right is still right and wrong is still wrong. Like, I do think Hassan, but like, I felt this way about Mumdani.

[C]

No, it's on my show.

[B]

Does that just make you uncomfortable? Like the phrase globalized intifada, from the river to the sea.

[E]

To me, ultimately what I hear in so many is a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in, in standing up for Palestinian human rights. And I think what's difficult also is that the very word is has been used by the Holocaust Museum when translating the Warsaw Ghetto uprising into Arabic. Because it's a word that means struggle.

[C]

Sure. And

[E]

as a Muslim man who grew up post 9 11, I'm, I'm all too familiar in the way in which Arabic words can be twisted, can be distorted, can be used to justify any kind of meaning. And I think that's, that's where it leaves me with a sense that what we need to do is, is focus on keeping Jewish New Yorkers safe. And the question of the permissibility of language is something that I, that I haven't, I haven't ventured into.

[C]

It's like, I feel like the phrase globalized intifada is not something people should

[B]

use because even if you don't intend

[C]

it to be that way, it is heard by Jewish people as like, kill us everywhere. And so that should be condemned. And then I asked him if he would condemn anyone on the show.

[D]

But, like, I just, I think keeping, I think, trying not to elevate these people in the discourse or us being clear that they are malign actors. Like, we can have to. We can wrestle with what they say. And actually, I want to say something because I'm not sure if we've talked about this before. I was also on a panel with him, and I didn't know who he was going into it. This is like, actually, the, the embarrassing part of this is that I didn't. I don't, like, really know. I don't, like, follow who the twitch streamers are. And I hadn't really heard of him or if I had, I hadn't bothered to figure out who he was. And when he started talking, like, he kind of. The first things out of his mouth were, like, ridiculous, and they were attacks on Bill. And it was this, like, kind of. It was just like, garbage, lefty nonsense. And I also had a fight with him on the stage and condemned what he was saying. Also was like, this guy's worthless as a. Like, I don't, I don't find him to be remotely interesting as a thinker or. And I get, I get that he's got a big audience, but just because these guys have big audiences doesn't mean they're all created equal.

[B]

Again, I think this is why I know you, the five months thing.

[C]

And right is always right. And again, I think that people in

[B]

the commentary space want to criticize him should.

[C]

And I understand that right is always right. In my argument for engaging with him last night I said it was like, even this week, he attacked Scott Wiener, state senator out of California for visiting Israel after October 7th.

[B]

And I was like, that's a crazy

[C]

thing to attack somebody over. That's an insane thing to attack somebody over. And that's wrong. And I find it repugnant, actually. But we could disagree about that. Here's my problem, though, is why it matters all in. In the context of Israel, you're saying that these guys are being elevated by the Streisand effect. And I think that that is part of it. It is true. And I think that again, and I think that's why this is counterproductive to have this fight right now for pro Israel Democrats or centrist Democrats or whatever those groups, because I think right now he's being elevated quite a bit. But I don't think that's what's elevating him. I mean, I think that what is happening in the world is elevating him in the moment. And I Just, I'm sorry, this is

[B]

like, very uncomfortable for like defenders of

[C]

Israel to deal with. But, like, what happened was we were

[B]

in a world after October 7th where

[C]

there are a lot of people that were too soon for my taste out there attacking Israel for what they're doing in Gaza and how they're prosecuting the war. And they were doing so in ways that talked explicitly but clearly anti Semitic. Okay, well, there are times that they're

[B]

clearly anti Semitic, but there are also times where they were talking about things that other people weren't talking about in

[C]

the news, like the amount of death and destruction that was happening to the Palestinians in Gaza. And they were talking about that passionately. And maybe they're passionately and earnestly anti Semitic. Okay, but they were talking about this topic passionately. Talking about how Israel is a malign influence on the world and that they

[B]

have too much influence in American politics.

[C]

We're giving them too much aid, that AIPAC is too involved in these campaigns.

[B]

And if you came and listened to

[C]

my show a year ago, like any

[B]

time this topic come up, I was on the side of. I was on the opposite side. I was saying you're overstate. It's kind of anti Semitic how you're blaming APAC for everything. You're overstating APAC's influence and all of their critiques of Israel. Israel has just done everything that they said. Like, AIPAC now is the key player

[C]

in Democratic primaries and intern primaries. They are the group that is putting the most money in. That's not a Jewish conspiracy theory.

[B]

That's just what's happening.

[C]

I talked to Democratic strategists. They're like, the race is going to be determined based on AIPAC's involvement.

[B]

Like, that's just is what it is right now.

[C]

And Israel did then continue to go way overboard in their prosecution of the war in Gaza. And then not to mention what's happening in the west bank with the settlements, not to mention the fact that they're invading Lebanon right now.

[B]

And then we did get into a war with Israel. The Secretary of State said we got into.

[C]

Because Israel was going to attack first if we didn't do it.

[B]

So like all of. So sure, there might have been some anti Semitic stuff mixed in there. And that's not good. I'm not okaying that.

[C]

I'm not. It's bad.

[B]

They should not do anti Semitic stuff. But like their general critique of the lefty, anti and right, like anti Israel commentators, like, has borne out in the real world. And so I don't understand. I don't know what pro Israel people expect. Like, there's been a huge sea change. If you just look at the polls, voters, they're looking around, they're like, I am unhappy with our, with the extent of our relationship militarily with this country.

[C]

I'm unhappy with this war.

[B]

All of the establishment figures want to

[C]

kind of tamp that down.

[B]

And there are these other voices out

[C]

there that have been speaking about it. Well, obviously, they're going to gain influence.

[B]

And shouldn't the, shouldn't Democratic politicians talk to the viewers of those shows? They're not all anti Semites. They're just unhappy with how things are

[C]

going in the world.

[D]

I think you can do it. So this what I don't like, and I don't want to say that I think you're falling into a trap, but I do think that there are ways. One of my biggest critique of Democrats in the book and the thing I am urging them to do is to get out there on offense, to say what they believe, believe they should passionately argue against this war if that is what they believe. If it's not, that's different. But like, they should passionately argue about it so that people listen to them and so they have credibility on this. That is, that doesn't require Hassan Piker. But who's doing this idea that this.

[B]

Well, this is part of the problem.

[C]

Is Hakeem Jeffries doing that?

[B]

Is Chuck Schumer doing that, or the 20 28ers? Gavin Newsome came out there and was

[C]

like, oh, Israel's an apartheid state. Then he apologized.

[D]

But this is why.

[B]

Who is the avatar?

[D]

Hasan Piker. They should ignore Hasan Piker at all. Ignore him and, and condemn him. I think if. I do not think it's hard. If you listen, when we were anti Trump, right? The reason that we were anti Trump is partly because he, like, loved to be in lockstep with all the grossest people who had gross opinions. It's like the very fine people on both sides. It's the way he checks in with Tucker. And the right would argue this. Why is JD Vance cozying up to them? Why do we condemn them? We condemn JD Vance for cozying up to bad people for electoral reasons. And that, I think, is the problem

[B]

that felt to me like you're cozy up. This is where the folks that are attacking me, I just, I think are wrong. I'm not, I'm not arguing that they cozy up. It's fine to go on a show and argue to disagree with them. What Prompted all this was the idea that Jon Ossoff has to condemn Hasan Piker. You know what's insane? Because Hasan Piker complimented him. That's fucking insane. Fuck you is what Jon Ossoff should say. Jon Ossoff should say, you know what? I don't know a person.

[C]

Pikers, whole.

[D]

I don't know who that is.

[B]

I don't know who that is. Here's what my opinion is. I'm against this war in Iran. I'm against this war and I'm against this Trump administration that's killing people in the streets. And that's what I care about. And you want me to talk about some streamer.

[C]

Eat shit.

[B]

That's what I think, John. Oslo.

[D]

I was on your side. I was on your side on that point. It was the rest of it. It was last night. It was last night. Listening to it being that the. I do not think though, for electoral reasons they need to embrace Hasan. That is different.

[B]

Did I say embrace?

[C]

I never said embrace.

[B]

I said talk to his audience. Talk to the people that listen to him and Joe Rogan and Theo Sneako, all these anti war people that, yeah, there are some anti Semites there. I hear that without. Guess what? Anti Semites voted for Barack Obama. Anti Semites voted for George Bush. Anti gay haters. But you don't have to. Homophobes, you don't have to court them. Well, no, but you have to have a message. Yeah, the voters. You have to have a message for the people that listen to the show

[D]

because of the anti Semitism.

[B]

Like, you have to have a message. It's like, oh, let's make sure that the, that the people in McLean, Virginia with the, the go to the parties in D.C. are mad. It's like, who cares what those people think? Talk to the real Americans that are flocking to these shows that are upset about what is happening in the world. Have a message for them. Talk to them. Go on. Go on those platforms to talk to them. And if then the host says anti Semitic stuff, say, no, I don't fucking believe that. I don't believe the Jews are behind Charlie Kirk's mortar. I don't believe the Jews control the weather. I don't believe that the Jews, like, there's a lot of okay, whatever.

[C]

I don't believe that we deserve 9 11.

[B]

You can say all that on those platforms, but also say to people that, you know what I'm mad about? I'm not mad about some streamer and

[C]

something he said three years ago.

[B]

Like, what I'm mad about is this

[C]

war that we're in right now. And I think that there are a lot of people out there that feel like the Democratic leaders are totally out of touch with their anger right now. And, and I think that this is just exact like this kind of fight just exacerbates that.

[D]

I agree with that, that particular point about it exacerbating it. And so again, I think that we should separate the idea of like Democrats should be going hard against this war. They do need to be more aggressive. They do need to speak to a wider audience. I do not think they need to do that with Hasan Piker with and I do not think and I think they should be very clear to separate from the antisemites as they do it because otherwise what you are doing is ginning up antisemitism. And I understand and last night I

[B]

wasn't here's the part of the problem.

[C]

Can I we're going to do this. I'm just going to say it.

[B]

I don't support antisemitism.

[C]

I think there's a lot of anti Semitism out there.

[B]

I think that a lot of the

[C]

people who are pro Israel and pro this war weaponize this though.

[B]

And it's like, well, it's too anti Semitic. If I would have said a month

[C]

ago, but I think Hasan is that Israel is weaponizing social media to try to brainwash people, you would have said that was anti Semitic. A lot of big Israel defenders would have said that was anti Semitic.

[B]

Well then Bibi went out and said

[C]

that he wants to do that with TikTok. He sees TikTok as a weapon.

[B]

Okay, if you would have said that

[C]

Israel, that Israel is going to drag America into a war that has, we have nothing to do with based on their influence over our political leaders.

[B]

Two months ago people would have said

[C]

that's an anti Semitic thing to say and now we're doing that.

[B]

And so I'm with you. I'm with you. I'm not for anti Semitism that what happened in Michigan is a tragedy.

[C]

People should be clear eyed. But also this notion that like that

[B]

there's a lot of folks out there

[C]

that are trying to police the rhetoric around this because they don't want Israel to be criticized in the full full view of their actions. And there's a lot of criticism of Israel that is merited right now.

[B]

And I just think that this again,

[C]

it goes back to who are you empowering?

[B]

I think that if you try to like do like if on one side Israel is starting a war in Iran

[C]

and getting us into this quagmire and hurting people's lives. And then on the other side, you

[B]

have people that are saying things about Israel and like, you're out there and

[C]

you're like, I don't like the way that you're talking. And that's the thing that you're very passionate about. And then you're not that passionate.

[B]

You're like, well, I don't, I don't know. You know, we have to, Bibi's a

[C]

partner, we've got to work with him. We'll see how.

[B]

You know what I mean? Like, there's a disconnect with people. And I think again, you're empowering the actual anti Semites, I think you're empowering

[C]

the actual anti Semites by not being just clear eyed about the real threat here.

[D]

How is this different? This is one of the, sort of, the main thing and this is, this is tough, but I'm going to put it out there. How is it different? Our objection to Trump.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

When he showed up, like, and this is where I don't. When people were like, it's locker room talk. I was like, you, locker room talk? No, it's not like the way they tried to downplay things like we stood against Trump. And look, everybody else on the right, I don't take a lot of their criticisms, like, they're not in a position to levy this because what they did is say, you know what, we need Nick Fuentes, his audience, we need Tucker's audience. We need to all get on board with Trump, despite the horrific things he's saying. Because he's right about xyz. Yeah, right. Or, and, and the populist rage that people had. Well, Trump is going to embody that. And we said, no, we stand against him. Random rage from people or rage from people even about things that maybe they're right to be mad about. Income inequality, foreign stupid, foreign wars. Right. Like Trump had messages that resonated with people and we were like, no, we stand against that because this guy is a foul person who is going to do tremendous damage to America. We were right about that. Why isn't. Why I want to maintain that against people like Hasan.

[C]

Hasan's not running for president. If he ends, I've changed my views. That would be one. Number two, Trump was running for president.

[B]

Number two is like, again, that's not really the apt comparison. Like the apt comparison is, should Republican

[C]

politicians have gone to mega churches to talk to people that have, you know, influential pastors that have terrible views about gays. Maybe they shouldn't have. I don't know.

[B]

You know what I mean?

[C]

But, like, don't you have to communicate?

[D]

They definitely did do that.

[C]

Yeah, they definitely did do that. But, like, don't you have to communicate

[B]

to the religious voters on there? I mean, some of this is not,

[C]

like, apt, because I think that, like, the Volk that listen to Hasan that, like, are mad about Israel, like, have a point, and, like, the Volk on the right that are, like, mad about mass immigration coming into the country, like,

[B]

I don't think really have a point,

[C]

but, like, that is, like, kind of the comparison. Like, just as a strategic matter in retrospect. Like, obviously the establishment Republicans should have listened more to their base to avoid having them being overthrown by Trump. That's maybe more of the apt comparison with Hassan. But I just. Again, this is like, I think this is funny. This is, like, why I think this is funny.

[B]

Like, my issue with the Democrats running

[C]

for office that are. That are in office, that are in power is that they're not criticizing our foreign policy enough. Like, that's my criticism. They're not passionate enough. I don't think there's any risk right now that there's, like, some emerging Zoran,

[B]

I guess the example, he's kind of moderated as New York, and that's kind

[C]

of avoided foreign policy issues. Like, maybe if Zoran was running for Senate, it would have been different.

[B]

But, like, who is the.

[C]

Who do you want me to condemn?

[B]

Like, who is the person in the

[C]

Democratic Party that, like, is advancing these real anti Semitic views?

[B]

Like, Talib sometimes in the House, I'm

[C]

happy to condemn her when she talks Taliban. Sure.

[B]

Okay. But like, all right, these are a

[C]

couple, like, two random members of the House. So, like, sure, I'll condemn them.

[B]

But, like, the.

[C]

The power structures in the Democratic Party, it's nothing. This is nothing like Trump.

[B]

This is not apt at all. This is not like, oh, you left the party over Trump. It was like, well, Trump took over the whole party.

[C]

I fought him from within the party, and then he took it over, and then I fought him from within the party. And then eventually everybody. I lost the fight and I left the party. Like, that's what happened.

[B]

Like this.

[C]

This fight isn't even happening in the Democratic Party yet. Like, the Democratic Party leadership is, in my view, like, not radical enough.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

So I don't think that this.

[C]

I don't. This comparison does nothing for me.

[D]

Okay, well, let me just try one more time. My objection in large part with Trump was That in. He tried to work on people's worst impulses. Right. He appealed to the racism, the xenophobia, the hatred, the bad stuff. And I don't want Democrats to go down that road. I think it is very important when you fight Trump, when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back at you. And Democrats should avoid the mistakes that I think the Republicans made that made us leave, which was embracing intolerable people. And you're. That point that you're making about Trump is a fair one. It is fair to say that Hasan is just like a streamer. He's not the guy running for president. But I do think the elements of your argument, which is that Hasan is representing an angry base and the base needs to be listened to. That's what happened with Republicans. They're like, Trump represents an angry base and the base needs to be listened to.

[C]

Yeah, but I think the base needs. Base is bright in this case. Again, I just, I think that what is elided in this conversation is again, the actions of Israel. And I just, when I look at

[B]

this, again, I do not condone Hasan's anti Semitic comments.

[C]

I specifically criticized his tweet this week about Scott Wiener. So, like, I think that it's bad, but if I, if I am worried about anti Semitism in this country and like, that is my top worry. And if you're. And that is what a lot of these groups that are trying to make Hasan an issue about, if that is my top worry and my main focus is on condemning Hasan Piker, I think that you've lost your mind. I think that that is just a totally counterproductive thing to do. I think that a. By doing that, you're empowering him and empowering the views you don't like. And I think that the biggest problem with anti Semitism in this country right now is that the United States is engaged in a war. And everyone who just has eyes is looking at this war and being like, I don't understand why we're in it. And the most reasonable explanation I can think of is that Israel wants us to be in it, because this is an acute issue for Israel. And I think that that's going to create a lot of people that are very upset at Israel and, and by nature, unfortunately, sadly, what is going to result from that is, is, is increased anti Semitism. And if I was somebody who's worried about anti Semitism in this country, and if I was a Democratic Party leader, I think that both the right thing to do and the strategic thing to do would be to be 100x louder in criticism of Bibi than I am in criticism of Hasan. Piker.

[D]

I so, and, and on this point, I'll just say I think I am in agreement that strategically what one does, this is something people fall into. And I think Democrats do as well, where they focus too much on sort of trying to critique the thing they think is bad instead of saying the thing they think is right. And so what I would like for Democrats to do is like, go, go swing hard on how you feel about this. The way that Trump got us into this war, the fact that he has not. He didn't even ask Congress that he has done nothing for the. To ask the American people or make a case to the American people. Like, everything about this from top to bottom has been an insane adventure. It's the exact opposite of what he ran on. Oil prices are now high. There's a million things to criticize. Go hard. Go focus on that. I don't think, though, I think it is a mistake. I think that it is a mistake to make it about Hassan. Piker. I do think you have to drown out the anti Semites and make a good, clear case that is steeped in the things that are right. And I do not think you need to. My last word is I do not think you need to embrace people like Hassan. And I think it's fine to condemn him and, and condemn him and then go make your own case. But I don't, I don't want us to. One of the things this is a quick note to Bulwark listeners, which is something that is happening that bugs me is when people are like, the bulwark is embracing Hassan. And I'm like, guys, I get it that Tim's got the big, big microphone. But like, one man's opinion, okay? There's many of us, we have a big array of opinions. We argue about them with each other. That's what the bulwark is about. And so if you want honest conversations about tough topics, like, that's what we're going to do here. And that the Twitter discourse does a real disservice to this conversation.

[C]

The world is complicated, and it's not clear what the right thing to do is going forward. And I do think that there's a lot of projection onto everybody. It's like people, you know, want to project their own hatreds or fears, and everybody experiences this. But look, I mean, I hear you on that and I, and this is why it was funny, actually. This is just a comment. We can go meta since we've, I think expressed.

[D]

We've done the substance.

[C]

The meta comment I think is funny

[B]

about this is last night after I

[C]

did the stream, I was, I was like, I did a, you should not do this.

[B]

You should not do this is a

[C]

bad thing to do as an influencer commentator or whatever. And I don't, I don't. I try not to do this that

[B]

often, but I was just.

[D]

You went and read the comments, yo.

[C]

No, I, No, I try to read

[B]

the comments of the Bulwark plus members. Join Bulwark plus now because you're part of our community.

[C]

I do want to hear their comments. No, I searched Twitter and Reddit like, for like whether anybody was talking about it or linking about it. I just searched for like myself and Hasan or whatever our names. And it was like, pretty funny actually, was that there are like anti Hassan

[B]

clip accounts that like clipped two of the things that I said criticizing him.

[C]

And like, it was like, Tim Miller goes after Hasan.

[B]

And then there were like, anti, you

[C]

know, because they're trying to like, make him a bad guy.

[B]

There are lefty anti Hassan, you know, accounts. And then they're like, yeah, then they're like the pro.

[C]

The anti Bulwark accounts, the pro Israel, you know, whatever right wing accounts. Like, they had clipped the ones where, you know, I was, I was explaining why I don't think the Democrats should distance from him.

[B]

Being like, the bulwark has gone full Hasan. It's like this is just like the

[C]

nature of the discourse. And like, and I do.

[B]

And we started this year when I

[C]

was like saying that there are like five sub topics here. Like, and, and so anyway, my closing point is for anyone that wants to clip this, like, I do not like his politics and I disagree with him and I think that we'll continue to fight over it. I think the question then is, okay, how do you engage with that in a way that's healthy and is it a. Is it in a way that's like burn the witch? Is it a way that's ignore. Is it a way that's engage? Is it somewhere in between all those things? And I think that is where the question is. And my view is, I think the most important part about this to is, is like, how do you talk to, if you're the Democrats, to the people that listen to and trust him? And how do you build trust and gain trust with them without looking into the abyss and having the abyss look back into you, right, without becoming him, without doing without you yourself advancing views that. That are wrong or hateful or whatever. But, like, how can you engage them without doing that? That's what I think that should be done. And I think that was kind of the crux of the. The different differing views. So do you have a final comment or should we let it go?

[D]

I think we can let it. I think we can leave it there. I just.

[C]

This is like your sub secret pod.

[B]

For people who don't get the secret pod. Sarah and JBL argue.

[C]

It's like the Bulwark has one voice. JVL literally have an argument pod every week. And it's like the only thing we

[B]

put behind the paywall, basically. As far as audio, only half of it.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

So people can go check that out.

[C]

Become a blog post member on subsec or YouTube to get the secret pod. If you enjoyed arguing podcast. Because Sarah and JBL do this every week. I was happy that I got to have a bonus argument. So I appreciate you, I love you, and we'll see you soon.

[D]

All right, back at you. Bye, guys.

[C]

Bye, everybody.