Loading summary
Transcript138 lines
- [00:01]
A
If you've been thinking about getting serious with your money, like actually serious, now's the time. The Motley fool is offering new members 50% off their iconic stock recommendation service, Stock Advisor. This is the same service that's crushed the market with recommendations that have returned 1,057% since inception compared to the S&P 500's 180% over that same period. This isn't guesswork. The Motley fool has a track record of finding companies before they become household names. So if you want to invest smarter and you like saving money while doing it, go to fool.com listen to claim your 50% off discount off a one year term of stock advisor. Again, that's fool.com. listen. Returns of 1,057% are from the Motley Fool's product Stock Advisor and measured against S&P 500 returns of 180% as of July 10, 2025. Past performance is not an indicator of future results. All investing involves a risk of loss. Individual investment results may vary.
- [00:53]
B
Hey, everybody. Tim Miller from the Bulwark here. We're doing something a little different. I'm bringing in Dylan Houseman, who's editor and chief over at the Daily Call. Many of you might have seen. We did a video, I guess, a couple of weeks ago now that was maybe, maybe mocking a little bit, an interview that one of Dylan's reporters did with President Trump. The Daily Caller, a right wing news outlet, dropped an interview with Donald Trump. I do believe that irony is dead. Following the interview. It is a doozy. There's much to get into, much to discuss. That was titled if you want to go watch that bizarre Trump interview spirals into absurdity. We'll put a link in the notes here to Dylan. Reached out, thought maybe we were a little harsh or unfair. And I thought this would be a good opportunity to talk across areas of difference. Something I'm trying to do more over here on the page. And so we're having him on here. Dylan, for folks who don't know the Daily Caller, how would you define the Daily Caller?
- [01:47]
C
It's a conservative right wing, however you want to define that news publication founded 15 years ago or so, founded by Tucker Carlson back in the day. He's no longer involved. Once he went to Florida Fox, but that was where it was founded. We do conservative news, some opinion stuff, but you know, we try to be a news fact, fact based outlet.
- [02:07]
B
You know, I was gonna go, I was gonna go reflect on the interview first. But since you mentioned it, what do you, what do you make of Tucker these days?
- [02:12]
C
You know, I think Tucker's doing really well with TCM is, is my understanding. And I think he is certainly tapped into something that, you know, a lot of other commentators haven't. I think it started when he was on Fox News, frankly, and he was willing to talk about certain things that a lot of other mainstream commentators weren't. And so when he left Fox, I think he's continued to do that and it seems to be going really well for him.
- [02:33]
B
So I mean, some of the stuff seems pretty crazy though. I mean, like, you know, the National Enquirer also taps into things that other people don't want. There's a lot of ways to tap into things that people want that are. It's maybe not healthy and nutritious for folks. And what was with the hummus eaters, Charlie Kirk's funeral? And I can just sort of picture the scene in a lamp lit room.
- [02:51]
C
With a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus, thinking about what do we.
- [02:54]
B
Do about this guy telling the truth about us? We must make him stop talking. And there's always one guy with the bright idea. And I could just hear him say, I've got an idea. Why don't we just kill him? That'll shut him up. That'll fix the problem.
- [03:14]
C
I did not watch the full Charlie Kirk memorial, I have to say. I watched Erica's speech, I watched Trump's speech. So, you know, the homicidal comment people, he said he thought people were taking it out of context. He didn't think it came across that way. So that was his statement on it and speaks for itself, I think.
- [03:31]
B
All right, let's just talk to the interview mostly. I actually want to get your take on the Trump administration broadly, because I think it's the thing that I have kind of the least grasp on, which is how people on the right actually feel about how the administration's doing. But before that, since this was, what was the prompt for the discussion? You know, the interview that you guys did with the president for me was.
- [03:55]
C
You know, a little bit bizarre and.
- [03:56]
B
Absurd and a little bit of a suck up. A little bit of suck. I mean, we start with media bias. We talk about whether we're going to name things after him. It's going to be on Mount Rushmore. I mean, where did you feel like we were unfair in the critique?
- [04:08]
C
So, Tim, I don't know if you've ever interviewed the president or if any of your reporters have this president, Donald Trump, this president or any president. I guess, you know, we had like an hour with him to sit down and talk to him is in the Oval Office. I think with this president, if you want to make news, if you want to get interesting things out of him, you have to get him comfortable and have him in a place where he's not going to be overly defense. He does not like the media, as we know. You don't want him to be closed off and defensive and just, you know, be shut down. And so, you know, you guys pick certain moments from the interview that were lighter hearted or maybe not the hardest hitting journalism to highlight. That's, you know, you're right if that's what your audience wants to hear. But there were plenty of moments that were very newsworthy. We asked him certain questions that he was not comfortable with. We asked him about Chinese students being let into the United States, which a lot of his supporters are not happy about. I mentioned that. Pretty sure we asked him about Israel and he gave very newsworthy answer on that. So, you know, there were plenty of moments there that I think were very newsworthy and serious journalism. And so I just think picking the moments where he was maybe getting warmed up with, you know, small talk and things like that, it was a little misleading. That was all okay.
- [05:17]
B
I mean, when you're done being in office, what honors do you want the country to pay you? Would you like to be added to Mount Rushmore? I mean, that's a little bit more than lighthearted.
- [05:27]
C
You know, we ask questions that we think will produce answers that will get attention sometimes. And I think Trump saying he wants to be on Mount Rushmore would get the attention of folks like yourself and others who would find that outrageous. So, you know, that's a little part of the attention economy game.
- [05:43]
B
One of the things, and obviously all the shootings and stuff are in the news this week. And one of the things, I went back and reread it this morning. I don't remember if we talked about this during the video. One of the things that jumped out at me when we were rediscussing it, she asked him about the mass shooting in Minnesota and the connection to, I think the word she used was gender ideology. And obviously that has now resurfaced given Charlie Kirk's assassin's roommate being trans and that being a potential motive there. One of the things, though, that she said when asking that question is she goes, there's four mass shootings since 2023, and two of those perpetrators have been transgender. That's 50%. Like you said, you're a fact based out. I'M not really sure where that number comes from. There have been more than four mass shootings this summer. There's a guy in Montana, at a bar, that guy in New York City, famously at the NFL building. There's a drive by outside a rap album launch party. There's a guy in Lexington, the trooper that went to a church. That's all been this summer. It was not doing mass shooting, but there's a guy outside the CDC that was kind of a anti vax crank, killed the cop. To me like that. What do you think?
- [06:40]
C
Well, who, who gets to decide what a mass shooting is? You know, there's these various databases that track these things and you know, is a gang shooting where, you know, one gang shoots another and there's, you know, three fatalities or two people get hit. Is that a mass shooting? There's no set definition. I think when people use the term mass shooting, and especially people in the mainstream media often use the term mass shooting, they're invoking a certain imagery that we all think of as Americans of someone going to a school or going to a big event shooting, you know, trying to kill dozens of people. And so, you know, when you have these people that cite these statistics that say, oh, there's a mass shooting every single day in America, maybe by certain metrics that might be true, but by the imagery that we think of when we think mass shootings, I don't think that's accurate. And so when you look at those types of shootings, you know, I think there is a trend that there have been several recently political assassinations in the case of the Kirk shooting that can be connected to the trans ideology in some way. I don't, I wouldn't necessarily paint a massive trend out of it or say it's definitive, but it's certainly worth asking about at this point in time.
- [07:45]
B
I think, yeah, I don't. You could see how that would stokes animus towards trans people though, to kind of juice the numbers to make it seem like half the mass shooting are trans folks. Like obviously half the mass shootings in this country aren't from trans folks. And if you're going to look at a more common trend about mass shooters, like they're mostly 20 year old white dudes. Like, I mean that's most of the mass shooters. So you know, to single out the trans folks and not mention that and across ideology it's. I'm not saying they're all 20 year old conservative white dudes, but pretty, most of them are 20 year old white dudes. Much higher percentage than transgender.
- [08:21]
C
I think this gets at a difference of how maybe the left and the right view what transgenderism is. If you think that being trans is just an immutable characteristic, like being a white guy, then your framing might make sense. If you view it as this ideological, you know, social contagion of sorts, that that is taking, you know, gender confused young people or isolated young people and pushing them down a path of trying to change their gender and do all these sorts of things, then it doesn't really make sense to lump it in. There's like a demographic category, like someone's skin color, in my opinion. So, you know, I think that's just seeing that issue differently, really.
- [08:56]
B
I guess my point is I obviously reject the construct that you just laid out about social contagion. But even in that construct, it's still like, it's still concerning. And I think that you guys would be mad at me if I had an interview with a prominent Democratic official and said, you know, half the shooters have been Christian. Maybe Christian ideology is running them down to Trevor. Half the shooters have been, you know, I don't know, some other, like, some other trait that codes more right wing. You know, it's.
- [09:25]
C
I think if there had been several high profile shootings in the run up to that interview that were committed by people who were Christian and were. There was evidence that their Christian beliefs were part of their motivation for the shooting. I don't know. I don't know if I would have that much of a pushback to it because it would seem like a legitimate question to ask, frankly.
- [09:43]
B
Well, we don't, we don't know what is in your heart. The interview with the president started with a complaint about media bias in the New York Times. And so that's very, you know, and it's a very common thing that's happening over there. There's a lot of media criticism going on of the mainstream media and things like that.
- [10:00]
C
The mainstream media does a lot of things that are criticizable, I would say. Okay, you probably agree, maybe just from a different direction.
- [10:07]
B
No, I think they do plenty of things that are criticizable. And I think that it was true of this interview. We could do more and we can go back to it if there's something in particular you want to talk about. But I'm more interested in your take on the Trump administration broadly and just looking at the metrics. Economy, foreign policy, commitment to conservative principles. How do you feel Trump's doing?
- [10:29]
C
There's a lot of things to like. It's not perfect I would say we got a pretty good GDP report today, speaking of the economy. So I know people have been kind of honing in on that as a potential weak spot and inflation and the tariffs and stuff, but we got a good GDP report today. Foreign policy, I think it depends on what your worldview is. I think Trump actually has a foreign policy. The previous administration felt like we were just kind of floating along. There was no plan to solve anything in Ukraine. There was no plan to solve anything in Gaza. Obviously, there's still killing happening in both those places. Now they haven't been solved, but at least feels like there's an attempt to be solving them. I would say you feel like he.
- [11:05]
B
Has a plan, and you feel like he has a plan in Ukraine. I mean, he just totally changed his position on it yesterday from what. And he said. Yeah, I think he said he had a big summit with Putin. He talked about how he browbeats Alinsky. He talked about how Zelensky has no cards that Ukraine. JD Vance has been going around saying Ukraine has no chance to get their. Their land back. Now Trump says yesterday they could get it back. He wants to give weapons to NATO to give to Ukraine. I mean, he's. He's had a total 180 on it. I don't understand how you could feel like he has a plan.
- [11:39]
C
I think he has an end state in mind. He wants the war to end. I don't think the Biden administration had an end state. I don't think. I don't. I actually don't think the Biden administration really had that end goal in mind. They seem to be content to just being kind of a stasis where we're going to continue to give weapons and see what happens and try to bleed Russia out forever. I guess Trump, you know, he tried to solve it through negotiation at first. He tried to butter up Putin, and now he's switching because it didn't work. You know, So I don't think that's a demerit. To say that, you know, the strategy changed or the tactics.
- [12:11]
B
His entire. His entire stated policy was a complete failure is not a demerit. I mean, like, he had a plan, and he had a plan in Russia that was different from basically every other person. And him and J.D. vance had a very separate view of what, what should happen with that war. That was different from the consensus they tried to execute, which was basically coddling Putin and suckling, sucking up to him in the hopes that he quits the war. That I thought was very obviously not going to work to anybody who has paid attention to Vladimir Putin. But that was what they wanted to do. Nobody else wanted to do that. That was their stated plan. They tried that for nine months. It's been an utter failure. Putin's war on Ukraine has become more intense, more civilians have died, and now they just switched sides to go to essentially the Biden position yesterday. How is that not a demerit?
- [12:58]
C
I don't think it's a demerit to switch your tact when things aren't. I just said it didn't work. So I acknowledge that the initial, you know, plan did not work. And so now they're trying something different. I don't think that's. I don't. That's what you're supposed to do when you're in charge of something, when you're a leader of some sort. If you try plan A, it doesn't work. You go to plan B. I don't see you can I.
- [13:16]
B
But also, if your plan A was really stupid, everybody told you it was stupid, and then it didn't work. You know, we can also just acknowledge.
- [13:22]
C
Plan A was different than what the plan, you know, the previous administration's plan was, which also didn't work. So, you know, I don't see the. They tried something, I don't know.
- [13:31]
B
And I think the previous administration did pretty good of protect, of protecting Ukraine. I mean, Russia invaded them. There was, there was some category of people probably, if J.D. vance was president, they probably would have just said, we're not going to get involved at all. And Russia and Putin might be in Kiev right now. I mean, a lot of people thought that Russia was going to easily dominate Ukraine. I mean, so I'm not saying that the situation was perfect when Biden had it over to Trump. It's not. That was a pretty notable accomplishment that's worth mentioning, that Ukraine protected itself from an aggressive.
- [13:59]
C
Yeah, but when did the Biden administration ever indicate that they were trying to pursue some sort of. Some sort of. Instead, it was just, it was perpetual sending of weapons with no even openness to any kind of negotiation, no anything. And that, you know, we saw why.
- [14:13]
B
They weren't open to negotiation. Because you can't negotiate with Putin. He's not a reliable counterparty.
- [14:19]
C
Do you know, you know that for sure? Until you at least attempt it, though. I mean, at some point, I was pretty sure. And just to be, just, just to be clear, I don't think Putin is someone that you can negotiate with at the moment. And I don't think that we should stop sending arms to Ukraine. So that, that's my position. But I don't think the idea that we're just never going to even broach the idea of negotiation when that is how it will have to end at some point. I don't think that makes much sense either. Like, what is the plan in that scenario?
- [14:50]
B
What do you think the end game is for Gaza? You said you think he also has a plan for that. What' plan that they're working on there, do you think?
- [14:56]
C
I think Trump is frustrated by having to have a war on his watch and wants it to just end. I don't know that there is some grand scheme of how it's going to look afterwards. And I don't think it's really, it's not really in America's interest directly to be that concerned with what it looks like afterwards. So long as there's peace and people, people are not dying anymore. And I think that's what Trump's position seems to be. I know there are other people in the administration that you could point to that maybe want to turn Gaza into a beachfront hotel resort or there are other people that want to displace Gazans, I guess, and there are these various opinions, but I don't think the president's not ideological on foreign policy, I don't think. I think he just wants the war to end because he views it as a political liability and a headache. And that's what America's interest should be. It should be to just have peace. It's not our problem what's going on between them if there's peace.
- [15:49]
B
Sure. But we all, I mean most people want the war to end. Maybe not BB but most people want the end.
- [15:54]
C
It's like wish it wishes Yahoo Defense. You're not going to find it for me.
- [15:58]
B
Yeah, wishes, I guess, isn't good enough. I guess all I'm saying is that you said that, that you felt like they had a plan or an end game. And I don't see it in either situation. What do you think about the boat bombing in the Caribbean? Do you think that's, that's good? Do you think we should just be gadding random boats outside of Venezuela from the sky?
- [16:15]
C
We know it's a random. I mean the premise of that. That are random boats. I mean, you don't think.
- [16:20]
B
Well, I mean, it's not a war. We're not in a war. I guess that's what I meant. I mean, maybe they're criminals, maybe they're not. I don't, I don't do, I guess. Are you confident in the administration's telling the truth, that they're. That they're drug dealers coming for the country with drugs for the country?
- [16:33]
C
I think that they're telling the truth about that. I think. I'm sure they had intelligence that indicated that these people were affiliated with a drug cartel or drug trafficking.
- [16:41]
B
Did you think the people that we sent to El Salvador to that. To that death camp in El Salvador, to the Gulag, do you think that. Are you confident that they were gang members, Trend? Do you trust the administration on that?
- [16:54]
C
Maybe not 100%. Every single one, but most of them.
- [16:58]
B
Okay, so. So you do think that they lie. The administration lied, and we. We likely sent people that were not gang members to a foreign prison. You agree with that?
- [17:06]
C
I think that the people they're arresting are people that were suspected or charged with crimes, for the most part, as far as I know.
- [17:13]
B
You think the gay hairdresser. You think the gay hairdresser, Andre, you think he was a gang member? What did he think his job was in Trenda Aragua? Was he doing hair and makeup or what do you think was his role?
- [17:22]
C
I don't think the gay hairdresser was doing hair and makeup for Trenda Aragua. I think that if he was here, if people are here illegally, then we need to deport them.
- [17:31]
B
And to foreign prisons with no new process. We should send it to a prison in a third country with no due process, and the government should lie about who they were. You're okay with that?
- [17:40]
C
I'm not okay with the government lying to them about who people are, but they lie. I mean, I just simple. The idea. The idea that. It's the idea that before the Trump administration, that every single criminal case or deportation case or anything that's ever happened in the United States was all on the up and up and every. I was dotted in tv.
- [18:01]
B
Of course not. But we never sent people to a foreign prison camp before this time. Like that. That. That was.
- [18:06]
C
I have no. I have no problem with people that have links to gangs being sent to a foreign prison.
- [18:10]
B
But you just said you assume some of them didn't. You assume some of them didn't.
- [18:15]
C
I assume. And look. Well, look what happened with Kilmar. He was sent there, and then he was brought back and got his due process. So I don't. I'm sure mistakes happen, and then you can rectify mistakes if they happen.
- [18:25]
B
That's a pretty bad mistake. Sending somebody that's not a gang member to a foreign prison for four Months.
- [18:31]
C
People on death row get executed by mistake throughout American history. It's not.
- [18:35]
B
Well, just because other bad things happen. This is my issue, man. Okay. I'm here. Fine. Yeah, other bad things happen. But I don't understand why you're so hesitant to just admit that this is a bad thing. Like, you don't have to talk about other bad things that happened in history. Like, sure. Like, if you. Do you believe the administration sent people that were not gang members to a foreign prison and lied about it?
- [18:59]
C
I have not reviewed every single person that got sent to seek out.
- [19:03]
B
But do you think. What do you think?
- [19:06]
C
I. I would think that there might have been some mistakes, because in law enforcement, there are always mistakes that happen. And you hope that you can correct them. I don't. What I reject is the premise that it's somehow unique to what's happening now, that people get wrongly arrested or people get wrongly imprisoned or the people. That these things happen. Of course it happens, and you need to try to fix it. And it's bad if it happens, and it's bad to lie about it. If somebody's lying about it, they obviously lied about it.
- [19:35]
B
I mean, that's.
- [19:36]
C
I mean.
- [19:36]
B
I mean, you don't think so. You don't. I mean, you don't think so. You think that they were telling the truth when they said that these were the worst of the worst? They're all trendo Aragua, that they had. That they vetted them, that they knew that they had intelligence. You don't. You. They lied about that.
- [19:48]
C
I think that. I think that they were attempting to arrest the worst of the worst in Trend Araqa members and. Yeah, and I don't think.
- [19:55]
B
And the vice president. I don't know, man. The vice president lied about this in the Vatican. Ross Douthat interviewed him in the Vatican, and they asked. And he asked him if he thinks they wrongly sent people, and he said no. And he smeared the media and he smeared all the people that were complaining about it. That's a really bad lie. I mean, these are human beings lives. I don't. If Kamala Harris told a lie about that bad. I would have said that was bad.
- [20:21]
C
No, that is bad. It is bad to lie about. And you should. We. But the government is always. Obviously, the government's gonna defend their own actions and what they're doing.
- [20:29]
B
I agree that some of those guys were probably not gang members. Like the hair.
- [20:34]
C
I'm sure there are some people that have been deported or sent that are not. That are not gang members. I'm sure it has happened.
- [20:39]
B
Okay.
- [20:40]
C
I don't think that, I don't think that is some crazy unique indictment of this administration.
- [20:46]
B
Well, it is because we'd never sent people to a foreign prison camp before. That was, that was the new unique thing. W was not doing that.
- [20:54]
C
That is wrongly imprisoning someone in an American prison. Why is that significantly better than if it's in a foreign prison, if they're not even American?
- [21:04]
B
Due process in America, because eventually you get to see a lawyer in America because you're not sent to El Salvador and put in a hole where you're raped.
- [21:13]
C
They brought him back to the United States.
- [21:15]
B
Not the other one. Not the other 300. Okay. Where I was trying to get to with this. But you're being a little belligerent about, about just acknowledging what happened.
- [21:23]
C
I'm not trying to be belligerent. I'm not trying to be belligerent.
- [21:25]
B
Yeah. Acknowledging what happened. This happened. Now, if we grant, at least in your framing, that it's possible they wrongly sent some Venezuelans to a foreign prison, why would not we assume that maybe some of the boats that they're bombing aren't gang affiliated, aren't drug trafficking? I mean, one of the ones, the first one had, like it was a tiny boat that had. I forget if it was nine or 11 people on it. I'm going from memory that I, when I've interviewed, I interviewed people that do drugs, you know, that, that are in law enforcement and have worked, you know, in the military, that this was part of their remit. And they're like. That doesn't feel like a drug boat to me. Like usually it's three people. So I don't know, maybe it was. Maybe there was 11 people on a small drug boat out of Venezuela and it was coming to. Those drugs were coming to America. But it doesn't seem, seems. I don't really trust that, that it is. Do you?
- [22:16]
C
So my thought on this actually is that I'm not really. I, I started in politics and when I was in college as an anti war activist in person. So I'm actually not super comfortable with just bombing places that we're not at war with. I think that's, that's, that's bad. And we should have more process than that. I don't think I would assume that it was just some random fishing boat. I, I don't think that necessarily makes sense. And I would assume that, you know, it's not like the war on terror where we're just dropping bombs left and right every single day. And of course, at that volume, at that pace of action, you're going to bomb innocent people and you're going to make mistakes of that sort. I would assume in this case, where it was in the first bombing was just one strike on one boat, that they didn't just pick some random boat. That doesn't make any sense, that I would assume that there was intelligence like there are with any military operation to lead them to the conclusion that that's who was on that boat. And do I think that that's the right tack to take necessarily? Not necessarily. Again, I'm not in favor of just bombing random countries without congressional authorization, without having a process, but I think taking the extra step beyond that to assume that it was just random fishers in that boat, I don't really see the evidence.
- [23:26]
B
I'm not assuming that. I'm just saying we don't know. And I don't really have any reason to trust them. They haven't provided very much information. What about the corruption part of the administration? They're obviously covering up Trump's appearance in the Epstein files. I don't know what his appearance is, but they're in there. They've admitted that Trump is in there and that they're covering up. The Homan reporting came out this week. He took 50.
- [23:46]
C
I think. I think they should release the. I think they should release the Epstein files. I think that.
- [23:50]
B
What about. What about shutting down the investigation of Tom Homan, who took 50 grand and a kava bag? Is that where you.
- [23:55]
C
Why, why, why was the Biden administration trying to entrap Tom Homan months before?
- [24:00]
B
They thought he got a tip because they got a tip that he was doing this. So this, the reporting says we got a tip that he was taking bribes. And so when you get a tip that somebody is accepting bribes, then what you do is you go see if they accept bribes and it turned out their tip was good. Yeah, because he took 50 grand in a kava bag.
- [24:18]
C
Look, I don't think that we should shut down investigations if there's evidence. But I haven't seen all the evidence or what's in the investigation.
- [24:24]
B
One of your reporters took 50 grand in a kava bag to write a story. Would you keep them at the Daily Caller, do you think?
- [24:31]
C
If one of my reporters took 50 grand to write a story in a kava bag. No, I would not keep them at the Daily Collar.
- [24:35]
B
Okay. Yeah, no, me either. What about all the crypto.
- [24:38]
C
I will tell you, I will say about Tom Homan, I will say about Tom Homan. Tom Homan, due to threats against his family, doesn't even. He lives separately from his family because of the threats that he gets working and doing his job. So when it comes to people that I'm worried about being corrupt or that aren't trying to do what they think is in the best interest of the country, Tom Homan is not high on the list of people that I'm concerned about that with. I just have to say, I mean.
- [25:00]
B
He'S menacing a lot of other people, but out with the crypto. Do you think the president should have a stablecoin that he sells to the uae? Do you think that should be legal?
- [25:10]
C
I think having a family, I think it's fine to have a stable coin. I'm not a crypto guy.
- [25:16]
B
I don't think the president's family selling crypto to foreign interest. They have Chinese investors. What would the Daily Caller have done if the Biden family was, was selling cryptocurrency to Chinese nationals?
- [25:30]
C
You don't have to ask hypothetically, I mean, the, the Biden family was involved in foreign business dealings and we covered it and there's been plenty of coverage of what Trump's doing with crypto. I don't think it's good. I don't think it's a good look to be selling crypto to foreign investors and, and have foreign countries involved in that. No, it's not a good look.
- [25:46]
B
Yeah. And the scale of it is like, I mean, crazy. It's unpro. I mean, we don't even know who's like. Because we don't even know all the people that are investing in this crypto.
- [25:55]
C
Yeah, not great. That. Do not. Not a fan.
- [25:59]
B
Yeah, not a fan of that either. So what are, what have you been a fan of? I guess, what do you think he's really knocking out of the park.
- [26:05]
C
See, here's the tenor of this conversation. You know, we've been, we've been picking on specific instances that, where things have, have been executed poorly or, I mean.
- [26:14]
B
Unprecedented corruption and lying about deportations.
- [26:20]
C
Yeah. Again, fair failed foreign policy, we just disagree on, I guess. But the Trump administration, the reason I think Trump won is because he actually was focused on kitchen table issues. People cared about. People wanted the border to be secured, people wanted inflation to come down and the economy to improve. People wanted to get. This is not a kitchen table issue, admittedly, but people were culturally, I think, fed up with a lot of the DEI and left wing cultural ideology that was going on. And he's come into office and he's addressed many of those things. And so I think if you look at the border being secure, I mean, we had an entire discourse for weeks about how we needed to pass new laws and we need to do all these various things to secure the border and stop the flow of illegal immigration. And Trump came into office and it basically instantly stopped just based on executive actions of what he was doing in his rhetoric alone, actually. So I think if you look at the issues that animated people in the previous election, many of them have been addressed. The border's been secure. We just got a great GDP report. We've got DEI being purged out of the federal government. So some of the things that were run on are being executed on successfully.
- [27:23]
B
I don't think that's like a, I'm going to pick on two of those things. We're kind of running out of time. I, I, I like you agree to disagree with me on foreign policy. I agree to disagree with you on the border. We can maybe have a separate conversation about the border someday.
- [27:32]
C
Hold on that, what would you disagree with on the board?
- [27:34]
B
I don't think it's good. I don't think you want to live in a country that has net negative migration. I think it's against the American tradition. And I also, we just got new.
- [27:43]
C
Polling, we just got new polling today that Americans still overwhelmingly trust Republicans more the Democrats than the immigration issue. So I think that suggests that. Okay, that's fair. I just think, I don't think it's a yes.
- [27:54]
B
I don't think you want to live in a country that has net negative migration. I think Americans will probably change their mind about that if that happens for like eight years. Because like the countries that have net negative migration are like Syria, Cameroon, Venezuela. If you want to be a growing.
- [28:08]
C
Country, countries have an influx of millions and millions of people just flowing into their country. I mean, I feel like context is important.
- [28:16]
B
Yeah. On the DEI and on the economy. Really quick, before I lose you, what do you think about the vice president telling people that they should rat on their neighbors and call their employers if they did wrong talk about Charlie Kirk, what do you think about that?
- [28:32]
C
Define wrong talk, because this is an interesting.
- [28:35]
B
I guess I don't think it matters.
- [28:37]
C
I think if you publicly celebrate the execution of someone for their political statements, I'm very comfortable with you losing your job. I don't, I don't think that should be same.
- [28:45]
B
But are you comfortable with the vice president telling people that they should call and tell?
- [28:51]
C
It doesn't really bother me. It doesn't really bother me. I think it doesn't. I. I think, you know, here's what I'll say. I'm not comfortable with a lot of the rhetoric about we're at war and people turning the heat up and all these things. You know, I'm a Christian. I believe that we need to live in peace together and we need to find a way to bring people together and not just continue to stoke the flames. That being said, there does need to be consequences and some sort of action taken to rein in the people that are off the deep end. And I think people that are celebrating political executions and, you know, mocking widows and things of that sort, they should face consequences. So it just doesn't bother me, really, for the vice president to make one comment saying that he also supports that and thinks that should happen, because I think that's fair.
- [29:38]
B
I mean, there is a concerted effort to crack down on people in the country right now that say the wrong things about either Israel or Charlie Kirk. And I'm not for that either. I've done several monologues about how grossed out I am by some liberals comments about Charlie Kirk, but gathering lists of people who did bad social media posts, throwing mobs at them. I mean, wasn't this what you guys were upset about for years? And those are the only two topics that people can't give. Marco Rubio's going to check people's social media to see if they said bad things about Israel or Charlie Kirk. Really?
- [30:17]
C
There have certainly. There have certainly been excesses. I feel like you're conflating two situations. Also. The Israel stuff is, I think, different. I do not think we should be deporting people just because they write an op ed about Israel being bad. I think that's, that's silly. And that goes against supporting free speech on campuses. So I don't support that at all. The Charlie Kirk stuff, there's certainly been excesses. You know, I saw some state lawmaker, quote, tweeting some college. There's some kid that took down a poster in an apartment lobby. Like, that's, that's absurd. We don't need to be going to that level. But again, part of the problem with our discourse in this country, in my opinion, is that people think they can just go and anonymously spout whatever insane things they want on the Internet and get away with it and inflame people and incite hatred and, you know, cause problems and tear away at the discourse and the foundation of our country. And so if someone is doing that and thinks that there's no consequences for it. I think having some consequences for it in some cases is fine if it's coming from their employer, you know, we're not throwing them in jail. I would not support anybody being thrown in jail or facing legal repercussions for simply saying words that unless it's, you know, a threat to my president of that sort of.
- [31:31]
B
The president's for that, though. I mean, he's told.
- [31:34]
C
President's for what, exactly?
- [31:35]
B
The president told Pam Bondi that he wants her to. He told her to invest.
- [31:39]
C
I don't think Trump has thrown anybody in jail.
- [31:41]
B
He hasn't done it yet, but he's for it, though.
- [31:43]
C
Okay, so I don't think he hasn't done it yet. It hasn't happened. Well.
- [31:48]
B
And I guess Mahmoud Khalil was in, was in detention for a really long time. So Khalil.
- [31:53]
C
Khalil is a foreigner that came to our country and began inciting unrest and subverting America.
- [32:00]
B
What about, I mean, you said you didn't like the Ozark deportation, but she was jailed for a while.
- [32:05]
C
Yeah, no, I don't, I didn't, I don't support what happened with, in that case now.
- [32:08]
B
Yeah.
- [32:08]
C
But I don't. I think that's different than the Khalil case.
- [32:11]
B
All right.
- [32:12]
C
Well, whipping people up into a frenzy, into a protest on a campus is different than writing an op ed, especially when some of those, those protests turned into harassing people and harassing Jewish students in particular. We can't have that.
- [32:25]
B
All right. I wanted to do economy stuff, but I got to go. I guess one more thing on the. Because I think this is a natural area of disagreement where from a policy standpoint, people don't like foreign aid. Never have. I'm just wondering. You mentioned your Christianity and we're totally aligned on people's rhetoric. And I think that we've got to show more love and respect for each other. I do wonder on the policy side, though, like, eliminating usaid, while what like, which is such a small number, like cutting the budget for, like, the most vulnerable people in the world, then that gives you a little bit of pause. Like, given where given the other kind of costs that the administration is, the things that we are prioritizing are spending money on.
- [33:10]
C
I'll tell you what I think about us. The idea that there are, there are things that USAID that were good. I think we should be funding things like pepfar and programs that help vulnerable people and protect them. And some of these programs have been retained or being considered being Retained. I think there's a whole bunch of stuff that USAID did that had nothing to do with that. That had to do with spreading ideology. That had to do with. Okay, but then why shutter stabilizing foreign governments? Because if you shutter it and then keep the good things, you know the.
- [33:39]
B
Good things are coming back. You know, they're not. This, you think this administration's going to start doing plumping, Giving plumping nut to poor babies in Africa?
- [33:45]
C
I don't think. I think, I think Mark, Marco Rubio is obviously a Christian and I think he's a smart guy. And I don't think, I don't, I don't agree with you that I would assume that none of the good things are going to come back if Marco Rubio is in charge of it.
- [33:56]
B
So you would support that? You would support bringing back food aid for African children? You would support that?
- [34:03]
C
Yeah, I think having American soft power around the world is important. What I think is bad is using USAID to try to destabilize foreign governments or spread wacky left wing ideology around the world, which doesn't really serve anybody's interest. And that's something that usa.
- [34:18]
B
Maybe we can end that on a positive note and Marco will know that he'll have cover from the Daily Caller. If we decided to start doing for aid to poor people in Africa again. I don't really see that happening, but.
- [34:28]
C
You know, I'm against starving children. I don't think that's a crazy take. I don't think. I think Marco Rubio is as well. So.
- [34:34]
B
Okay, great. Dylan Houseman, man, thanks for coming on and dealing with my bullshit. I appreciate it.
- [34:39]
C
Thanks, man.
- [34:39]
B
Let's stay in touch.