Steven Crowder (59:43)
Oh, you're just saying your movie lines now. Oh, this is fun. Andrew Wilson, Owen Schroyer had it debate. Now I've had both of them on the show, to be clear. And both of them were friendly. I've enjoyed my time with both of them. I don't think objectively this went particularly well for Owen Schroyer at the University of South Carolina. So we're gonna go through a few highlights, but I think this is important because it highlights the differences that you're seeing amongst the right. Right now. I didn't realize we're going over time. So if you are not yet a member, you wanna continue with chat Thursday, click click below. Rumble Premium is Mug Club. Mug Club is Rumble Premium. $99 a year to get this wonderful hand etched mug. I think once they're gone, they're gone. This is our last run. Or you can try for 99amonth. You don't get the mug, but it does keep the lights on and you get 100% more. Show everything ad free. There you go. I said it. Otherwise you'll keep watching. Hayley Corona. All right, so this was, yeah, Andrew Wilson, Owen Schroyer, University of South Carolina. The topic was, has Trump's presidency been successful? Now, wherever you line up, and we'll go through a couple of the highlights, and I think there are reasonable people who might agree with one side more than the other on both sides. There is a real problem that we face in the media landscape today, and really it affects you. So you don't have to be working in the media landscape. But the clipping culture, and what I mean by that is that you have people who will perform in a way, in long form, content, completely anticipating and acting on the premise that no one's gonna see it, they're just gonna see a clip. So you could have a debate, you could have a show, you could have a segment that's an hour and a half, two hours long where you get shellacked. But as long as you get that soundbite. Well, you can claim victory and people can be misinformed, and you're hoping they're misinformed. I'm not saying that's what Owen Schroyer did here. What I am saying is that this is how people reacted who were often siding with him. So if you go online, you see a lot of people saying, Andrew Wilson lost this because he's a shill for Israel and he's pro Iran war. So of course he would say all those things. I mean, here you go, here's a collage. Check the references. That was a common criticism, which, by the way, I can understand. It would be somewhat valid to say he's biased. So he has to maintain this position because that's his worldview. The problem is it's not true at all. When you take it in context, you realize it's actually the opposite of that. Well, that matters because he's actually making a case for a position that he may not hold in the way you think he holds. That means he's being objective. It's so not true, in fact, that Andrew went out of his way at the beginning of the debate to specifically address idiots doing exactly what they did. Anyway, this is the problem I'm talking about. First and foremost, let me clear up any misrepresentation when it comes to my views. I am anti Zionist and anti Christian Zionist especially. I have done many debates on the topic, and I've won them all. I'm also Very anti Islam and consider the ideology just as poisonous as the ideology of Zionism, especially Christian Zionism. I am not a war supporter in Iran and I never have been. I say this at the beginning of the debate. So when bad faith trolls who are on foreign accounts try to influence American politics in the comments claiming that I am in some way a Zionist, pro Israel, pro Islam shill, you can shatter the lies by simply showing them the beginning of this debate, which they won't even watch, and you and I can laugh at their stupidity together. That's part of his opening statement. Bring the collage back up. Bring the Collage back up. Collage C1. He's a shill for Israel and pro Iran war. This is why I've told you, when people say, and this is correct, the best antidote to bad speech is more speech. Yeah. If there's an actual conversation taking place in even remotely good faith. Yeah, More speech doesn't work if people have decided you're pro Zionism. I've watched his debates. I don't even necessarily agree with all of the positions that Andrew holds on Zionism, but he is very clearly anti Christian Zionist and he has not been out campaigning or supporting the Iran war. That matters, because if the criticism used against him is one that he's already refuted, those people don't care about truth, they care about clips and they care about scoring points. So my issue here is not with Owen Schroyer. We'll go through a couple of back and forths. It's with the audience who have decided that this is how we should engage in conversation. It's good for nobody, it's bad for everybody. Here is now that you know he is not pro Iran war, he is not a Zionist, he argues against Christian Zionism. Now that you understand that, here was his actual argument on Iran pedophiles, and it was really more so an argument of consistency. I'll tell you something really interesting. I do know of a Satanic type religion of pedophiles. And right this second, Trump's blowing.
