Steven Crowder Debates Nick Fuentes: Trump Has Failed & You Should Vote Democrat

Summary

Podcast Summary: Louder with Crowder

Episode: Steven Crowder Debates Nick Fuentes: Trump Has Failed & You Should Vote Democrat
Date: May 12, 2026
Host: Steven Crowder (A)
Guest: Nick Fuentes (B)
Main Theme:
A high-stakes, combative debate between Steven Crowder and Nick Fuentes exploring the right’s political strategy for America’s future, focusing on whether Trump and the GOP have failed, whether voting Democrat is justified as a protest or strategic move, and the fundamental differences in how to deliver "America First" policy aims.

---

Episode Overview

Steven Crowder hosts Nick Fuentes for a lengthy, heated, and nuanced debate on the viability of the Republican Party, the merits of Donald Trump’s presidency, and Nick’s controversial strategy that conservatives should vote Democrat as a radical corrective — especially in the 2026 midterms. The conversation charts key areas of agreement and disagreement, particularly immigration, border security, executive action, government spending, cultural issues, and foreign policy (with heavy focus on Israel and Iran).

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: Why Debate Nick Fuentes?

• Crowder sees value in engaging with differing views from within right-wing politics, noting people often accuse him of “platforming” figures like Fuentes ([13:34]).
• Crowder jokes, “People want me to hate Nick Fuentes... I don’t really hate anybody...he’s funny. It’s very disarming” ([13:32]).

2. Shared Ground: Leftist Institutional Power & Political Violence

• Both agree the “left as a whole is violent,” and leftists have seized American institutions ([18:43] Crowder: “Academia, media, big tech, the entertainment industry... enemies of America have seized significant power.”).
• Fuentes: “There is a scourge of left-wing violence... organized and exacerbated by the organized institutional left” ([19:03]).

3. Nick Fuentes’ Radical Strategy: Vote Democrat in 2026

• Crowder attempts to “steel man” Fuentes’ argument: Nick isn’t a Democrat but calls for punishing Republicans by voting Democrat to “speak the only language they understand: defeat” ([20:07]).
• Fuentes agrees, further clarifying it’s a two-part plan — not just 2026, but laying the groundwork for 2028 to enable a true outsider to take over the GOP ([20:57]).
• Fuentes: “What really did it for me was the war in Iran... that was the red line. We were promised no new wars. We got a war in Iran...” ([23:00]).

4. Divided Government as a Stall Tactic

• Fuentes argues having Democrats control the House creates legitimate obstacles to establishment GOP (and Trump), allowing for real oversight and possibly forcing transparency on issues like Epstein files and Israel ([23:53]).
• Crowder counters that even if some oversight occurs, the “wins” don’t outweigh the harm from Democrats’ broader platform ([25:14]).

5. Crowder’s Challenge: Where’s the Ground Game?

• Crowder presses: “Roster, funds, ground game, maybe. Right? Because you’ve tried this before, it’s failed. The losses are real. With the Democrats we face, though, ...the potential wins...are imaginary with no concretes” ([28:14]).
• Fuentes admits: “It is an extreme, risky play. ...It’s the only way to have an open field... something radical may appear. ...You can take my word for it or not” ([29:23]; [46:08]).

Memorable Quote:

“It’s hope. We’re hoping for a space to be opened up for a candidate to go in and... I have a candidate in mind... I can’t share that information.”
(Fuentes, 45:39)

6. Bitter Disagreement: Is Trump Delivering? Are GOP-Dem Differences "Meaningful"?

• Crowder: Trump delivered “the single biggest rightward shifts domestically that we have seen in modern American history, and that includes Reagan, Nixon” ([32:40]).
  - Points to “net negative migration,” record deportations, DEI removal, Supreme Court decisions, H1B reduction (87%), and spending/tax reforms.
• Fuentes: “You’re overstating some of the wins. ...Too little, too late. ...If we degrade the two people in this administration ...then there’s an opening that something radical may appear” ([32:40]; [30:57]).
• Crowder repeatedly presses Fuentes to acknowledge that “an 87% reduction ...new overseas H1Bs ... big, not minor. ...People should know that if they’re going to say both sides are the same” ([36:21]).
• Fuentes: “It doesn’t make a difference. Like, not really. 600,000 against 20 million. ...Not really. I favor taking the risk of getting something more radical” ([38:48]).

---

Points of Historical Strategy: Will Voting Democrat Backfire?

• Crowder argues voting Democrat guarantees a moderate Republican on the rebound, citing the “moderate Republican paradox” (Goldwater-Nixon, Bush-McCain, Tea Party-Romney; [55:00]–[56:08]).
  • “Handing it over to Democrats historically guarantees a moderate Republican if you manage to come back for [the next cycle]...” ([56:08])
• Fuentes: “You’re missing Donald Trump”—pointing to Trump as an outlier outsider who emerged only because the party was in disarray ([56:08]–[59:48]). Crowder rebuts that Trump only ran right after a Republican wave.
• They debate whether weakening the current GOP can actually make room for a genuine outsider in 2028, or if the system merely defaults to moderate establishment picks.

---

What’s at Stake?

• Crowder: “The risk is you say something radical could happen. With the answer you’re giving me now, something radical will happen— it’s the radical that we experienced from 2020 through 2024. ...the risk is what we lived through. That’s GUARANTEED to happen unless we have concrete [plans for the alternative].” ([28:14]; [32:40])
• Fuentes: “I want to hurt them [Rubio, Vance, establishment GOP, Trump admin] as much as I can. Burn the boats and open up a space for someone else...You’re right, there’s no concretes. But we have to allow for the possibility that that will happen.” ([92:06])

---

Culture War, Social Issues, and the Right’s Future

• Crowder notes a “resurgence” in social conservatism among young people and big cultural wins like Dobbs (Roe v. Wade overturned) and anti-DEI Supreme Court decisions ([98:05]–[101:53]).
• Fuentes: The GOP and the right have failed culturally, are no longer as Christian, pro-family, or serious about fighting “wokeness”—and accuses Trump, even, of selling out on key issues ([99:11]).

---

Israel, Iran, and the Purity Test

• Major drama over Iran:
  • Fuentes: “Mass deportations. Build the wall. Keep us out of war with Iran. Period. That’s all you had to do to keep me happy” ([109:02]).
  • Crowder: “Could you vote for me? ...What if I support Iran strikes, but do everything else right?”
    Fuentes: “No. No, I can’t. I need America first. And America first means we’re not at war with Iran and we’re not importing a million illegals every year” ([143:32]).
  • Fuentes makes clear that supporting military action against Iran is a non-negotiable purity test for 2028 and beyond, even over shutting the border, ending H1Bs, or defunding Israel.
• Crowder presses Fuentes to explain if any candidate could pass his test and to clarify if his position is ultimately anti-Israel or anti-interventionist—Fuentes doubles down on Iran as the red line over and over ([124:52]–[144:35]).

---

Most Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Risks of "Burning Down" the GOP:
  • Crowder: “You’re asking people to take a risk. ...The destruction is concrete. The losses are real. They will take place. The wins are hopeful and imaginary. That’s my problem.” ([81:47])
  • Fuentes: “There’s no other option. ...There’s literally no other option other than to burn this down and hope that something else will be there because this ain’t gonna work.” ([111:33])
• On Political “Progress”:
  • Crowder: “You just skim past Dobbs, Roe v. Wade overturned. Like you skimmed past that. That’s monumental.” ([100:14])
  • Fuentes: “I’m just not as impressed with the progress that we’ve made over the past couple of decades.” ([101:53])
• On the “Purity Test” and Iran:
  • Crowder: “Could you vote for me? ...if everything is America First, but I supported the strikes on Iran?”
    Fuentes: “No. No, I can’t. I need America First.” ([143:32])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Nick Joins & Basic Framing: [14:37]–[18:43]
• “Steel Manning” Each Other’s Position: [20:05]–[22:40]
• Fuentes Details 2026-2028 Plan: [23:00]–[28:14]
• Crowder Demands Concretes, Calls Plan “Snake Handling”: [28:14]–[46:08]
• Immigration, H1B, and Border Policy—Debate on Achievements: [34:02]–[38:48]
• Historical Argument: Does GOP Losing Guarantee a Moderate? [55:00]–[59:48]
• Crowder Challenges the Lack of Practical Plan for Reform: [83:44]–[87:21]
• Culture War, Social Conservatism, the Right’s Identity: [98:05]–[101:53]
• Purity Tests, Iran as the Deal Breaker: [124:52]–[144:35]
• Final Offers & Stalemate: [143:03]–[145:59]

---

Conclusion

This brutal, extended debate exposes deep fractures in the American right’s strategic thinking:

• Nick Fuentes insists the only way forward is to “burn it down” and risk giving power to Democrats for a true outsider’s shot in 2028, regardless of guaranteed short-term leftist policy wins.
• Crowder counters that incremental wins—especially big ones on immigration, DEI, and the culture war—necessitate patience, engagement, and accountability inside the GOP, and that the Fuentes strategy is ahistorical and dangerous.

Neither party moves the other much; Fuentes admits his strategy requires “faith,” offers no clear candidate or structure, and remains uncompromising on his anti-interventionist and anti-Israel line. Crowder stakes out the limits of strategic risk and alliance, believing the right still has momentum given recent (if slow) victories.

Recommended for listeners seeking a raw, wide-ranging, and highly adversarial debate on the American right’s future strategy, with real insight into both the logic and emotional stakes of intra-conservative disputes.

---

Find Nick Fuentes:

• Rumble: rumble.com/NickJFuentes
• X: @NickJFuentes

---

(Note: All timecodes are in MM:SS format as per transcript headers. Ad reads, sketches, and non-content have been omitted.)

Transcript

[A]

Close your eyes. Focus. Listen to work getting done with Monday.com relax as AI does the manual work while your teams are aligned on a single source of truth. Feel the sensation of an AI work platform so flexible and intuitive it feels like it was built just for you. Notice you're limitless. Limitless. Now open your eyes. Go to Monday.com, start for free and finally breathe.

[B]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.

[A]

I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium

[B]

Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying.

[A]

It's not just for celebrities.

[B]

So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail]

[A]

Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available fees extra fee full [e-mail] it's your worst nightmare. You're playing baseball with your childhood friends only for the ball to go over the fence line and find out they're the monstrous canine living on the other side. You find out the monsters in your closet are not only real, but a portal to another dimension. Your favorite childhood toys come to life. You were left alone at home by your family for Christmas the second time. Only this time it it's in New York.

[B]

Cut.

[A]

Your b Tch ass wife surprises you with a divorce and she gets sole custody. So you find yourself in the undesirable situation of having to cross dress to pretend you are in fact a qualified babysitter just to spend time with your kids.

[B]

Running out of daylight.

[A]

Here, you travel back in time with your super old friend and your mom tries to copulate with you. You move to a new town where dancing has been outlawed. So you find yourself in the precarious situation of needing to boogaloo electrically. Dino DNA. Someone should have thought this could go wrong. You discover an old board game with your childhood friends. Then all of a sudden the whole jungle comes to life and it's in your living room.

[B]

Listen, I can't keep my team on overtime. We just don't have the budget for it.

[A]

It's your worst nightmare. A talented actor slash rapper slash beloved figure shares his creative process with the crew and nobody seems to care. Seems that you are cursed to live the rest of your life forever. Talented but misunderstood.

[B]

Cut.

[A]

It's your worst nightmare. The actor won't deliver the line about how car shield goes beyond the Manufacturer's warranty to cover potential vehicle repair costs, and beyond industry standards, to offer month to month coverage for one low fixed price.

[B]

That's a wrap.

[A]

You protect your vehicle from the unexpected. Go to carshield.com, use code CROWDER for 20% off. Winter is fast approaching, and the grasshoppers want more seeds. Mediocrity is everywhere. It's in the food you eat, in the workout routines you see on social media. It's all around you. Even now, in this very room. You can see it on that shelf over there. It's the world of predatory supplements, proprietary blends, secret formulas, always hiding you from the truth. What truth? That there's a better way. Like everyone else, you have options. Fortunately, everyone can see what's best. This is your last chance. After this, there's no turning back.

[B]

Back.

[A]

You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever some Instagram ass influencer tells you. You take foundation, you stay in reality, and I show you exactly what it is. How much? The benefits of each clinical ingredient with a certificate of analysis so you can confirm it yourself. What happens now? What do you mean, what happens now? You just took it. I thought I'd feel. Keep taking it every day. It's the world's best multivitamin. You take it every day? What, you thought you'd feel stronger superpowers? You thought you'd take one pill and all of a sudden the fabric of your reality would crumble? You'd free yourself from some sort of matri? It's a multivitamin. As good as it is, that's all it does. No, I. I just thought that. You'll be fine. Keep taking these each day, and after a week or so, you'll notice a little more pep in your step. You'll feel healthier, and at least you'll know you've covered your bases. You're welcome. I've got stuff I've gotta do.

[B]

Why doesn't he have pants on?

[A]

It's too constricting. He likes to keep it loose here. Well, can I help you? That is to say, can I? As a matter of fact, you can. That's so considerate of you to ask. You see, I was over by the bar back there, and I said, now there's a young man who could be of great assistance accompanying me back to my hotel. Well, as much as that is flattering, no, no, I'm simply not a homosexual man. I'm, in fact, a married man. And so the dance begins. The two step where each of us cloaks our true desires for fear of rejection. Like a mystery ball, the path to unmasking one's truth is rife with self deceit. There's only one problem. I haven't a mask and I'm too old to dance. Oh, come now. You and I both know this act is pointless. A young man like you could learn a thing or two from me. Having a man like me show you the ropes. Why don't we just skip this whole charade? Stop wasting everyone's time as you accompany me to my car. That seems, at very least mildly inappropriate for a lunchtime. I've always loathed the barricade of age. Unfortunately, it's one of this world's greatest ironies that those guarding the most valuable treasures don't understand their true worth. Now, now, Ben. I of course misspoke when I called you a boy. Obviously, you're a young man. I think it's one of this country's greatest injustices that a strapping young lad like you, just few mere years shy of a driver's license, can't so much as enjoy a simple beer with his friends or some of this earth's more fleshly pleasures. Wait, do you. Do you think I'm a boy? No, of course not. You're a young man. No, no. I mean, I'm 30. Click Rumble Premium and join now for 99 annually or $9.99 a month to get the entirely ad free experience and an ever expanding roster of content creators and free speec. I'm seeing something. 1900 yards out. You can't even see that far out.

[B]

Hold your fire.

[A]

You'll expose us all.

[B]

He's right.

[A]

Legend. No bueno. Correction. That's 2100 yards out.

[B]

That's almost a mile.

[A]

That's an impossible shot. Wait, you're set to kilometers or metric system. This is America. Well, it's Iraq, but shut up. Eyes on target. This is Legend Base. I got eye on target. Initiate QRF. Over. Copy that. ET on quick reaction forces, 20 minutes out. Here it is. It's broadcasting clear as day. That algorithm is coursing through that screen right now. It's big tech, there's no doubt about it.

[B]

Are you sure? Can you confirm it's Big Tech?

[A]

Oh, I'm sure. Nowhere in the natural world does a playlist include Wolf Blitzer, Jake Tapper and Trevor Noah. Wait, hold. Can't identify. They just began on the playlist. An episode of Dicker Dildo.

[B]

Which one is it? Dicker Dildo.

[A]

It's always dick. I'm looking at a magnified bed sheet with two queers playing dicker dildo. As though there's any kind of suspense. Jeez. Quick reaction force is 20 minutes out. You stand the down. I'm also identifying that this is in fact not age restricted. Can confirm 2D cks. No dildos. Kid friendly on YouTube. Why don't you quit touching yourself and take the shot? Aim small, miss small. Do it for mug club. You just this legend. Did I. Shiva deva dip dip dip. Ah. What was that? I had that song in my head. I don't know. Well, Josh. Josh is here. I can talk with Josh.

[B]

It's Nicki Minaj.

[A]

No, it's not.

[B]

She sampled it.

[A]

Oh, that doesn't count. Yeah, under pressure was Vanilla Ice. Come on. Well, he didn't officially sample it. That's true, he didn't. They went dung dung dung dung da da dung dung.

[B]

He stole it like he stole black

[A]

culture and he went dung dong dong dong dong dung dong dong.

[B]

Too many dongs for me. Come on.

[A]

I mean, I. Come on. Now we have a nice guest, Nick Fuentes. Sure, he's late and big time and me, but. No, I'm kidding. Nick did reach out ahead of time and let us know that he was running late. So that's why we ran some of the best of intros here for you. And actually there's a new one, the matrix commercial. You can go to foundationdaily.com it's a multivitamin with clinical doses of turmeric and curcumin at they're clinically effective doses, Clinical ingredients, clinically effective doses. You can go and check out the science [e-mail], save 40%. It's the world's best multivitamin and that's because a lot of crappy supplement companies have been trying to sponsor the show and we've said no. Now, Nick Fuentes is going to be on the show here in the next few minutes, as I understand it. So you guys let me know when we have him on. And yeah, the best place tulum in. So people know where Nick Fuentes his show and channel is. Might as well plug that in.

[B]

Yeah, it's America first here. I'll throw the full screen up again. There you go.

[A]

His X is at NickJ.

[B]

Fuentes and his rumble is the same.

[A]

And look, what do I expect from today? We'll be taking your chats later. I'll tell you, I expect it to be probably similar in tone to last time, but this Time. There's a. That was very broad. It was a general conversation because a lot of people haven't had him on their show. People are saying, I can't believe that you would platform someone. I mean, look, I think now we know it's not about platforming anyone. There are people with far more abhorrent views than Nick Fuentes who we've also invited on the show. You don't have that luxury. There are many people out there have platforms who have influence, and it's important to engage in a form of ideas. And right now it's very clear that Nick Fuentes and I disagree on a strategy moving forward, particularly as it relates to midterms, the future of the country, general elections. So it's more of a political discussion, but I think we'll probably get into cultural. The social ramifications, and, you know, a lot of people want me to hate Nick Fuentes. First off, I don't really hate anybody. To be clear, it's hard to hate a kid who shows up and he's funny. He's funny. There's no way to get around the fact that Nick Fuentes is funny. And for me, someone's funny. It's very disarming. I will sooner lie and say that I love somebody than falsely claim somebody is funny. Yeah.

[B]

You know, you never saw any, you know, funny Communists.

[A]

Well, they probably existed.

[B]

I would like them a little more.

[A]

Yeah, it's like, how many Bolsheviks does it take to. You don't get to finish. No, they don't get to finish with communists. So, as I understand it, we do have Nicolas Fuentes on the show as he settled in, because hopefully he's not rushing in. I don't want him to be stressed.

[B]

He looks ready.

[A]

He looks ready. Well, he was born ready. This is what he does. This is what he loves. Sometimes I'm an unwilling participant, but. All right, everybody, it's time. Red corner, blue corner. I don't know. It's not a debate. It's gonna be conversation. Let's welcome on Nick Fuentes. All right, Senior Fuentes, thank you for being. Can you see me? Can you hear me, sir?

[B]

Yes, yes. Can you hear me?

[A]

I can. I can hear you. Well, what is. First off, you, big timey. You show up late, and it's the one time you're not wearing a suit. You do the hoodie. What's. What is this?

[B]

It's early for me. Steve and I do a nightly show. So this is like. It's early in the Morning over here. 10:30 for a show. That's crazy.

[A]

No, I'm joined. I appreciate you letting me know and being accommodating last week, where we had had a doctor's. Well, I had a doctor's appointment that I couldn't avoid. Hey, first off, where's the best place for people to find you? And I apologize, I'm looking down because I kind of have to look to see you on the monitor as opposed to my. You know how that is best place for people to find you when you stream.

[B]

I [e-mail] NickJ. Fuentes Every Monday through Friday.

[A]

All right, great. And X, you're there now, right?

[B]

Yes, yes, I'm still on X. Nick J. Fuent is there as well.

[A]

Okay. Well, I figured we'd start this off, I think, last time, right. It was fair. It was a fun conversation. We had some disagreements. I'm hoping we can continue on that path, if you're good with it. Yeah, absolutely. And you fully have permission, by the way, to respectfully be disrespectful. I think there's enough rapport. You can call me names, whatever that is. Treat me like a buddy. Like a buddy who's asked kick in the locker room now. Speaking of which, I did want to show you, like, I don't know if you saw our coverage of you rightfully shoving that lady who showed up to your house, but I have that clip on a loop on my computer like a morphine drip, just because of how much I enjoy it. For people who haven't seen it, you are well with it. And were you surprised at the level of defense you got, even from detractors who didn't like you?

[B]

I was. And from Reddit. It was on the front page of Reddit, and all the Redditors were defending me, too. So, yeah, I thought it was gonna be a little bit, maybe negative or maybe even split, but it was almost like 90% of people said I was in the right, so. Surprising.

[A]

I was a little surprised, too. But I think that does indicate that people are tired of this shit, because once upon a time, people, whoa, he deserves it. You know, that kind of stuff. So there wasn't. There's been a noticeable shift, I think, post Charlie Kirk.

[B]

Yeah, well, and I think people recognize you cross a boundary like that, and everybody understands people all have a home, and they don't want to be bothered at their home. Everybody recognizes we disagree. Everything's very politically charged right now, but we want to feel safe where we live. So I think there's something to that. We're definitely making some Progress.

[A]

I think I want to show the clip for people who missed it. And then I don't know if you saw when we covered it, we did a photoshop with it. But first, for those who missed it, the clip. Awesome. The Internet agrees. He was well within his rights. And prepare to laugh. I love her reaction. Wait, what? Oh, my God.

[B]

What's he doing?

[A]

She's surprised. Hold on a second. Pause. Nick, you know what I love about that? You walk back like both a cartoon character slash Bigfoot who's annoyed. Like your arms are down here like this. Like you could just. You don't even seem that aggravated. Like this was just a day at the office. What?

[B]

Oh, my God.

[A]

Oh, my God. And then she turns to her friend who does nothing.

[B]

Her friend is a.

[A]

Her friend is Judas. Keep playing. There's so many elements here that I just love. All right. Gonna take your phone. Yeah. Then she turns to a friend.

[B]

Did you catch that? What?

[A]

She didn't even roll down her window. She half opens it. By the way, park in front of a fire hydra. And then I said, like, my favorite part is it gave us what should have been times photo of the year. This right here, like that, to me picture, it looks like a 70s horror film. And so we turned it into a poster for you where it was. There you go. Yeah. The Step Groiper. The next thing streaming could be you. So it's just. You really. It reminded me of the Step five, but that was a lot of fun. I'm glad to see that, you know, you got some support. And even though we dis. If we disagree on some things, it is dangerous out there. I think. Would we agree on this? That definitely the left as a whole is violent. And those who have achieved power in our institutions, namely academia, media, big tech, the entertainment industry, we could use. I know that you probably would point out Jewry as well. I say the Marxist left, We'll get into that. But enemies of America, that I think we both want that kind of America have seized significant power in the institutions in our country and they are a threat. Will we find common ground on that?

[B]

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. And it's no question there is a scourge of left wing violence. I talked about this on my show. Even when Luigi Mangione killed that healthcare CEO, it was Thomas Crooks. Luigi Mangione. And then that seemed to ignite this cycle of violence then against Charlie Kirk, against Donald Trump. Even now they say the wildfires in the Palisades was started by some crazed radical leftist. So there's no question that that is going on. And like you say, it's organized and exacerbated by the organized institutional left. So I think we're 100% agreement on that.

[A]

Okay, good. Now let's get to the part here where we disagree. And I think it's really, it's a political strategy prescription. So to be clear, we did play the clip where you said, I'm a moderate Democrat. Now I said, look, I think that's hyperbole. I think he's making the point here. So I don't want to do the whole he's a leftist or he's a Nazi. Let's start this way. How about I steel man your argument as I understand it and you can let me know if I have a decent grasp or correct me.

[B]

Okay, sure.

[A]

So my view is you're issuing a political strategy. Right. You are not a leftist, you are not a Democrat. But okay, Republicans have taken your vote for granted. They have not been held accountable. They haven't delivered on any of the promises that they've made. Americans are feeling this right now, particularly young Americans in this economy. They feel as though they're not represented and they're being sold out to big corporate interests, including, by the way, a foreign nation like Israel, placing that above the interests of American citizens. And so we need to speak the only language they understand, which is defeat. Make it sting in the midterms. Vote Democrat in 2026 so that it will pave the way or allow for a candidate who more effectively represents America first or true, a true version of their constituency.

[B]

Yeah, that's a pretty good summary. Yes.

[A]

Okay. Is there anything that you think I've gotten wrong or would correct?

[B]

I would add another layer to it because to me it is a two parter. It's for 2026, but it also is with a. There's a very significant part of it that's looking ahead to 2028 as well. But that's a big part of it. That's, let's say, half of it.

[A]

Okay, good. Now do mine.

[B]

Well, I think that, you know, you voted for Trump in 2024. I think you'll be voting Republican in 26 and 28. And you would probably say that the left is always going to be worse, the Democrats are always going to be worse. And so voting for something worse is always going to be bad. If we want Republicans to be better, we should maybe focus on primaries. And what's more, Republicans are holding back something far worse, which is always gonna come from the Democrats. Things like open borders you know, not only no mass deportations, but also no borders. Not only war with Iran, but maybe war with Russia. Continuing the war in Ukraine, basically it only exacerbates our problems, doesn't actually solve them. Would be something like I think your position is.

[A]

I think that's actually relatively fair. I would probably add some layers too. It's multi pronged. Like I'm certainly not. I've had plenty of instances where I've not voted Republican, but I have said I am precluded from voting Democrats. So that's a non starter for me. But I have left it blank when I've had Republicans on the ticket in elections. And I can't because as a crisis of conscience, I can't violate it and vote for this person. I've even voted third party in local elections because, you know, it's different from national. I think we also both operate. That's one thing I appreciate about you. You're not just the system man, third party, let's vote. Gary Johnson, like, you know that under universal suffrage it's a two party system and you have to work within that to affect change.

[B]

Right, right, yeah, absolutely.

[A]

Yeah. And I appreciate you being more genuine about that because a lot of people online just throw their hat and still keep you with each other, you know, So I don't want to do any of that silly crap today. Okay, so flesh out the plan. I disagree. Vote Democrat in 2026. Why? And then walk me through the plan.

[B]

So you know, in 2024 I didn't vote Republican. I recused myself. I just told people not to vote. Everybody thinks I voted for Kamala, but I didn't. I just told people to withhold their vote. But in 2026, what really did it for me was the war in Iran. I think that for me that was the red line. We were promised no new wars. We got a war in Iran. And I really believe that if you vote for Republicans after that, it's almost like you'll tolerate any. That's such an explicit betrayal and on a very serious matter. And then what's more to maybe get into the positive reason for voting Democrat as opposed to withholding your vote or not voting Republican is I think that when you look at the House of Representatives in particular, and I'd say this on my show, they exercise oversight powers under the Constitution and so they can depose, they can compel the release of documents, they can subpoena, form subcommittees. And I really believe that that they set against the Republicans will actually work to slow down the Administration. And it's not just that the administration is not doing things, they're doing things that are bad. They did try to bury the Epstein files, and if it wasn't for the Democrats and a handful of Republicans, they would have never seen the light of day. And then you have the War Powers Resolution in the Senate, which got shut down basically along party lines, with one exception, which was John Fetterman. And then you have a group of Democrats, Democrats, this is just last week, they put out a letter to the White House asking to disclose Israel's nuclear program. So I would like to see, actually Democrats.

[A]

Can you repeat that last part just for people who maybe missed it? There was a lot of rapid fire disclosing the nuclear program.

[B]

Yeah. There was a group of 20 House Democrats, they signed a letter to the White House, basically asking the White House to acknowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal because they believe, and I think it's correct, that the lack of disclosure about that creates a risk of miscalculation or escalation. We don't know where Israel's red line is when they would use a nuke. So these are just like, a few examples where I think that it's actually a good thing for Democrats to have a divided government with Republicans and slow down and challenge some of the things that are going on, because I think they're not good. And then, if you will, do you want to stop there and then get onto the other part, or do you want me to finish?

[A]

Well, no, I think so. So let's take all of that. You know, let's take it in totality. First off, I still don't think it's anywhere comparable to the actual progress, the wins that have been made under the Trump administration, like I wouldn't say. And also, I don't think that these are things that you couldn't force Republicans to do. For example, it's a pretty popular position, at least in my experience with Republicans on this show, to remove this ambiguity, this unofficial ambiguity. As far as Israeli nukes, I also agree with that. I don't think that it outweighs the mammoth wins. But. But let's assume that, okay, it's a wash for the sake of this. What I really want to know is, okay, so you vote Democrat. I think you and I would both acknowledge, because you've said that voting Democrat is a way to punish Republicans, you're not going to get the change in the system with the Democrat Party. Do I have that right? This is about fundamentally changing the Republican Party through accountability.

[B]

Absolutely. Yes, totally.

[A]

Okay, good. Just because I don't want people to misconstrue what you just said. Like, so, see, Democrats are actually good. Like they have something, some bullshit that they throw in every now and then. What do you do after that? So in other words, you're saying this will lead us to a consistent or more representative victory. 2028, what's the roster? Where are the funds? What's the ground game? Right. Cause it's a big risk handing the country over to the left. We know what they want to do.

[B]

Well, and see, this is where it gets interesting and this is where we might disagree on some things. So the way that I see it, 2028 is really what it's all about. I really believe that this administration is just, just cooked. Like, I don't think there's going to be a course correction. I have no faith in this administration. I think Trump is old. The people around him are very bad. And so I think the real question is, and this is a huge question, who will be Trump's successor? Because that person is going to define the direction of the party. And I really believe there should be a very competitive primary for the presidential race in 28. And what they're trying to do is consolidate support around either Vance or Rubio. As I'm sure you know, behind the scenes, there's a very big fight going on between donors and between party personnel. Are they going to get behind Rubio, which he seems to have the backing of the neocons and Mark Levin and APAC and Miriam Adelson? Are they going to get behind Vance, who has the support of little tech Palantir Tucker, you know, and he's going to clearly run in the more America first lane, at least nominally. He's going to claim that. And I think that we should not have consolidation where it's 80% behind one candidate. I think it should be wide open. I also don't like either Rubio or Vance because I think you get a neocon or a palantir guy. And so to me, the only way to have an open field is if everyone associated with the administration is sufficiently weakened. So I'm actually rooting for Democrats to degrade and sabotage this administration and the people in it so that they're less politically viable. And maybe that clears the way for a dark horse or an outsider, someone from outside the maga mar a lago Trump administration, to maybe clinch the nomination in 28. And to me, that's really the big picture.

[A]

Okay, so here's my primary problem. What you just Said, and it's a key word, maybe. So my first question is the roster. You say, yeah, competitive primary. I agree. I hear who you don't want. The roster, the funds, the ground game maybe. Right, because you've tried this before, it's failed. The losses are real. With the Democrats that we face, though, I would argue, I think it'd be tough to argue against. Worst three years in modern American history. The wins, the potential wins that you're describing are imaginary with no concretes. And I know that you talked about this with Dan Bilzerian, so I'm not trying to sandbag you here, but if I'm going, okay, there's a risk, it's a political play. I won't be able to take part along with many conservatives Republicans. Because I cannot vote Democrat doesn't mean I'll vote for Republicans all across the board. Can't vote Democrat. But the roster, the funds, the ground game, you know, the things that you need to win elections in 2028 through the major risk of handing the country over to Democrats when we know that that means open borders, packing the courts, turning them into citizens DEI back in the administration, H1B skyrocketing and all of that huge risk concretes. So we see the payoff.

[B]

See, and this is where you might disagree because that, I think that's maybe the best argument against it. And you're 100% right. It is an extreme, risky play. And I don't underestimate that risk at all. And I don't want to understate it, but here's my reframe. Here's kind of like my game theory reframe of it is I, I really believe that this country has serious problems with the debt, with the border. They want a $1.5 trillion budget for the military alone, the Republicans do. We got this war in the Middle East. I really believe that without a radical intervention, like a radically different approach, whether we get a Democrat or lesser of two evils Republican, like continuity with what we have under Trump, I think that's a no win proposition. Like if It's Gavin Newsom, J.D. vance or Marco Rubio, if those are our options and let's say everybody else in the Democratic field, I don't see any of those candidates solving it, fixing it. To me, it's really just a question of how fast or how slow it's all gonna come crumbling down. And so that's the only reason why, say, if we degrade the two people in this administration, it's sort of like we know what we're going to get with them and we know it's not going to be radical enough. At least if we tear them down, it's a huge maybe. But then there's an opening that something radical may appear. And I've got some people in mind. I wouldn't say them, of course, because you know that game about who's going to run and you know who's going to throw their hat in the ring and then my endorsement might hurt that person if they're characterized as the Groin Caesar or something.

[A]

I don't think so. I mean, we have examples of that right here. I mean, Ken Paxton, who you may or may not like, but like Brandon Herrera, who was on the show, you know, he won his primary. We had him on the show. I knew him through the gun tube community, and he directly went up against aipac. They put out a hit on him figuratively, to be clear to people watching. He fought them and he's going to win. He's going to win his seat. He then won the primary. So, no, you could have an effect. I actually think it's a requirement, frankly, considering the risk, if we both acknowledge it. The risk is you say something radical could happen. With the answer you're giving me now, something radical will happen. It's the radical that we experienced from 2020 through 2024. So the radical upside, you do got to give a name. You do have to give some finances and a ground game for us to take that risk. Because I don't think here's. And I'll make the case here, I don't think there's an equivalency. If you look at the actual record, Nick, when Democrats controlled the Senate, gave us open borders, record inflation, right at 9.1%, trillions in new spending. They of course, stopped deportations, they stopped building the wall, they put DEI. I mean, they had the Department of Misinformation. Trump 2.0 has put us for the first time in net negative immigration record deportations, over a trillion dollars in cuts, not to mention doing away with DEI and the administration, some huge Supreme Court wins that actually paved the way going forward. I mean, H1Bs are a really big thing. I know, because you ran billboards on them. They are not the same. These are actually, I would say, and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue against whether they're enough. They are the single biggest rightward shifts domestically that we have seen in modern American history, and that includes Reagan, Nixon, anyone else. So the risk is what we lived through. That's Guaranteed to happen unless we have concrete.

[B]

Yeah. What I would push back on is I really think that it's. You think you're overstating some of the wins. To me, I would just say it's too little, too late. I mean, as far as, like open borders, that's my favorite one. Because Trump ran in 2016 saying, we're going to build a border wall. And why a border wall? Because it cannot be torn down. You build a physical structure. Democrats can't undo that if it is. If it's an executive order like remain in Mexico or some of those other architecture, they can and they did. And so it was really Trump's failure to build a border wall and he enforced it through executive orders, which is why Democrats were able to come in and say, oh, we're just going to undo all of that. And you might say, well, okay, Trump has another crack at it and the border is secure. Now it's like record low crossings. There's no apprehensions at the border. However, it seems that once again, he's given up on the wall. You know, you've got coming up.

[A]

That's incorrect, Nick. He has built more of the wall in his first, really in his first six months than all four years of Biden. And it's on track to be done in 2027, let's call it 28. It's just not factorable.

[B]

How long wall has he built this year?

[A]

This last year? It's been, as I understand it, hundreds of feet. And they're gonna be putting up digital security. Right. Because there's certain areas and terrain that are a little bit more complicated. Complicated, but more than Biden in four years. And you're saying, vote for those people for four years. So there is a difference building anything than nothing. And I agree with you, by the way, like a good example, H1BS. Remember you ran those billboards, right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And you and I were on the same page. I don't know if you saw this. I was going hard at Elon Musk on X, on H1B and President Trump and by the way, got into an argument with Vivek in person. I suggested a three point plan. One of them was a six figure fee. So you put up. Bill, have you told your audience about the unfathomable wins on H1BS?

[B]

Well, I believe they hit the cap for H1BS last year, did they not in 2025.

[A]

So 26% reduction in issuances and new H1, new overseas H1BS, meaning people who are not in this country. Down 87%. They were up anywhere from 20 to 90% under Biden. The denial rate was like 1%, 2% on a really good day. 87% reduction on new overseas H1BS with $100,000 fee. If you put up billboards and people are upset about that. And you and I are in the same camp. Have you told your audience about that win? That's the biggest shift we've ever seen in H1BS. It's not even close.

[B]

Again. Yeah, you know, I just don't think that's really, you know, when you say, well, they're building hundreds of feet of border wall, that's more than Biden. Well, you know, there's a 26% reduction in H1BS. They hit the cap, I believe.

[A]

87%. 80. Here's why. You know why. And you're. Nick, let's both pretend that we're smart enough. Okay? The president has broad powers over people coming into this country. Right. New H1BS. And I feel, I see this a lot where he gets no credit for executive orders, but then when things get blocked and they also blame Donald Trump and go, why didn't he get these cuts? Well, that's because of 100% of Democrats and yes, some feckless Republicans. We should know them by name. The Thunes, the Murkowskis, the Collins of the world, who should be voted out. But he has broad powers on who's coming in the country. He can slap 100,000 on that. And he did. 87% reduction to deal with the bulk of H1BS people who are extending them. That would require an act of Congress. So the most potent tool that he has as president, he enacted an 87% reduction in new people coming over. People should know that if they're going to say both sides are the same.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, maybe, maybe I'm just not sure. But I believe he hit the cap for H1BS last year. AS120.

[A]

Always going to hit. You're always going to to hit the cap. When you're talking about people extending H1BS, what we're talking about is new people, new pajeets coming in.

[B]

Right.

[A]

$100,000. And this is important. It also, by the way, this is your job. My job as commentators, it shifts that Overton window where it's like, hey, we were told that they were bringing in, you know, the Haji Elon Musk or the next brown Nikola Tesla. Well, $100,000 fee would mean nothing. Instead, people now know these were people coming in to undercut Americans as cheap labor. So that number matters a lot. If Congress would act, you're not gonna have it, especially not with more Democrats.

[B]

I would go further, though, and I would say, you know, so you're still hitting the cap. And I would go further and say, what about all this talk about seasonal farm visas? What about this Mass deportations? But we're going to exempt agricultural workers. We're going to exempt farm workers, hospitality luncheonettes. We're not going to deport anybody other than the criminal legal. This is what I mean. It's like. Because, you know, I think maybe where we're getting stuck is it's not as if things are not improving. Like, you're 100% right. At Department of Labor and a DHS, they are making some policy changes. $100,000 fee. I think that's great. You know, that's a great start. And cutting down the new overseas visas, that's great, too. But once again, we were promised mass deportations. What's more, yet 10 million illegals come in under Biden. And so. So this is why I say it's just like, too little, too late.

[A]

More than 10, 12 to 20, depending on how you count it. But a lot.

[B]

Sure. Well, and too many, we agree.

[A]

Too many.

[B]

But we don't even. We don't even know how many deportations there are because ICE doesn't publish the data anymore. We don't have new official data on removals from the government since December 2024 from the Biden administration. So it's like, you know what we're being promised. And this, by the way, gets back to how radical it needs to be. It's like, because you could always say, and you wouldn't be wrong at all, that Republicans are going to be better. Are they going to build more border wall? Are we going to have less H1BS? Are we going to have more deportations? Absolutely. But when you actually look at the numbers, it's like, okay, well, they brought in 10 to 20 million in four years. Even if. Even if the numbers are true, when they say we arrested 600,000, maybe we only remove 300,000, and you're not even making a dent in that. And you could say, well, anything counts. I would say it doesn't make a difference. Like, not really. 600,000 against 20 million. Not really. And that's where I would say I favor taking the risk of getting something more radical than what we know, which is getting something that won't be anything.

[A]

Well, and I can understand that position if I believe the numbers that you throw. Here's the one thing that I do notice, and I don't think that you're a Democrat. No, I really don't. But you do consistently use Democrat talking points against the right. And you have. This is not. This is not a primary issue. Right. You've advocated that your followers either sit out or vote Democrat in 20, 20, 22, 24, and as a result, the big one, you know, and this is a big problem that I've had with your approach, not you as a human being. Georgia, right. That flipped the Senate with Kamala Harris as a tiebreaker. And precisely because if people had followed. I'm not saying that you're responsible, but if people had followed your prescription in Georgia, that would be the exact reason for 10 to 20 million illegal aliens coming over an open border wall. That would be the exact reason for stopping them. That would be the exact reason for a doubling in some instances of H1BS. And I don't think that those changes are mild. When you say 600,000, we both know that is a point that the left will use. It's not accurate. You do have to include self deportations because there's an incentive for self deportations and more people are self deporting. Next thing, I bet you'll say that Obama or Clinton deported more people. We did an entire segment on this because people on the right are saying that and it's factually not true.

[B]

Well, I never encourage people to vote Democrat in 2022, 24 only. This is the first year I've told people to vote Democrat. All those other elections, I told people to sit out selectively or altogether. But the Georgia Senate runoff, which is, I think, what you're talking about, January 5, 2021, with Leffler and Perdue, you know, this is again, it's like Trump, I think we both agree, got cheated out of that election. Like they stole the election. At the same time, Republicans controlled the state legislature in all the swing states. Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. Everywhere where that was being adjudicated, Republicans were in control. And they just refused to do anything. They refused to change the slate of electors. And at the same time that they were telling us we're not gonna remedy the election, they were also begging us to vote to hold the line in the Senate. And here I am saying, wait a second, why don't we hold the line in the White House? You're worried about the Senate. And then I would add on top of that, and maybe this is gonna be controversial. I actually don't think Republicans are Really? All that against illegal immigration. I think that Democrats and Republicans maybe wanted the illegals here because there was a significant labor shortage after the pandemic ended. People were slow to return to work. They were being paid too much. And you know, so you could say like, if only Republicans had won, then there wouldn't be 10 to 20 million illegal numbers.

[A]

Do you have to back that up? First off, Nick, come on, you did. You told people to sit out or vote in 2022. You told them to sit out or vote Democrat. And I'll give you 2020. You said you did, but in 2020.

[B]

No, in 2020 I was pro Trump.

[A]

No, in 20. Yeah, but in 2022 you told people to sit out or vote Democrat.

[B]

I remember I didn't tell him to vote Democrat in 22. I just sit out.

[A]

No, you said sit out or vote Democrat. In 2020, you did not say vote Democrat. You said, we're going to destroy the GOP and to sit out the runoff in Georgia, which is exactly what flipped the Senate, which is exactly what opened the borders and stopped the border wall and led to the woke fucking nightmare that we, we dealt with. Right. Well, if people had gone out. Okay, go ahead.

[B]

Gotta correct the record. I gotta correct record. In 2020, in the 2020 election, I told people vote Trump. It was only in the runoff in Georgia 21, 1-5-21, that I said sit this one out. And 22, you know, I don't remember was four years ago. I believe I just said don't vote Republican. Like 26. It was a big deal for me to say vote Democrat, cuz I'm not a Democrat, as you know. And I appreciate you clarifying that. But no, I've only told people to sit out. This is the first year I'm saying punish them. And I guess the larger point is maybe we just disagree on the level of complicity of the Republicans. I think they're utterly complicit. Because even going back to, and this is formative for me, Trump won in 16 saying border wall. And you remember Republicans wouldn't give them more than $1.8 billion for that little fence in the Rio Grande Valley. And they said, no, no, we're going to focus on Obamacare and the tax cut. We'll do the border wall after the midterms, which they lost. And then they shrugged and said, but

[A]

now be accurate with your audience. Why wasn't the border wall built? Was it for the same reason that it was completely paused after the 2020 midterms? In other words, you say Republicans, do you mean Democrats? And so they said the perfect is the enemy of the good. And they got done what they could get done at that time. It would be like people in the future saying he didn't do anything about H1B visa extensions. Well, sure, because he can't. It'll be blocked 100% by Democrats, maybe 10 to 15, 20% Republicans. But he used the most potent tool at his disposal. Right. So you put all this in the same basket like Republicans didn't. No, they weren't able to. And in many cases they weren't able to. Especially because you took told people to sit out when you look at what they've been able to do. I don't think these are minute differences. We've both agreed these are the most rightward shifts that we've seen in American policy in modern American history. Which brings us back to the risk. I think we both agree, the risk of the left. Right. You've not had any ill conceived delusions that this is not a risky play. And I appreciate that you're straightforward about that. Right. This is gonna be great. You know, it could backfire. So what are the concretes? It brings us back to that if I'm going to take this risk because I think that a 99% reduction in border crossings is significant, 87% H1BS. I think the Supreme Court cases are significant. I think, you know, dozens, hundreds of feet of the wall being built is significant. Whatever it is, I think it's significant. But I'm willing to take the risk this plan will be effective because I need you to walk me through the end of the plan as opposed to hopefully these magic candidates will show up and then you're gonna deal with the donor class again and the ground game again. What does it look like? Give me the plan.

[B]

Yeah, well, you know, once again I'll just say first and then I'll get just to respond to the preamble there. It's like I just grow tired of these games where it's like every cycle there's this excuse. It's like, well, you know, we did this, we couldn't do that. There's politics and, and this is just a brief example I'll give. They allocate in the big beautiful bill, what was it? $200 billion, $190 billion for DHS. Significant portion of that goes to ICE. And then they gave up on deportations in January because they said, well, this is not popular for the midterms. Then they launched the most unpopular war in modern History in Iran, it's like if you can eat a S word sandwich, I don't know if you'd swear on the show.

[A]

You can say whatever you want. Rebel, for God's sake. I mean, we're on YouTube.

[B]

Jones, he's on radio. So you know, but you know, language. Yeah. Turmeric.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, they want us to eat a shit sandwich on Iran, but then on deportations they go, well, what about the midterms? So to me these come across as like excuses. But I do want to get into what the plan is. You're right.

[A]

It's hope.

[B]

We're hoping for a space to be opened up for a candidate to go in and there, there isn't anything specific. I have a candidate in mind and there's a ground game being built and things like that. I can't share that information. There, there's one, there's maybe a couple candidates that I'm looking at. But again, you know how it goes. Unless somebody's ready to announce, you can't really say, oh, so and so is going to run for office. And then especially because it's me, I can't be the harbinger of whoever the candidate will be.

[A]

Well, why? Why? Let's explore that though. Because you, you under, we both agree two party system. You need voting blocks, you need coalition. So if there are that many people out there who share your view, shouldn't be a problem for you to endorse anyone. As a matter of fact, that's a net positive. So give us the name.

[B]

I can't, I can't do that. Once again, it's not somebody that's announced they're running. It's not somebody that maybe even is in contention. But I mean, you know how this goes. When you have people that are running for president, they don't say they're not going to make an announcement until they're ready to make an announcement.

[A]

Well, sure, but usually these people, people who are develop, who are developing Republican strategies, aren't telling people to vote Democrat in the midterm. Right. That's a long game and you need that answer for people to take it on faith. Otherwise it's just snake handling.

[B]

Well, I think that, you know, once again, either way, you can take my word for it or not, but what isn't going to work is Vance and Rubio. Like that's just, that's a zero win proposition. You could sit there and say, well, but that's better than a Democrat. At least that's concrete. I would say it's Concrete that we're going to look at lose. It's concrete that if we get a continuation of this, we're going to get more of this and this is not working. So rather than trying something that isn't working, I want to give a chance that something might work. And you know, if people want to take a leap of faith, then I think that's where they need to go. But you know, the way it is

[A]

right now, not working. I guess you would have to define working.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So again, this is right. Okay, first, net negative migration country. Right. From over 30 years.

[B]

See, I dispute that. I don't think that's true.

[A]

Okay, go ahead, dispute it.

[B]

I think to say that it's net negative migration, you have to count self deportations. I've seen a lot of different and I think those are being over counted because they took this number from the community survey from the census which was taken last year and they basically there are 65,000 households polled and they basically said, well there was a lack of response from like non residents, non citizens of the United States. And then they use that to extrapolate, well, what Was the number? 1 and a half million people left the country. And then later, by the way, that data got corrected. It was in CIS Confederation for immigration something or other center for immigration studies. They actually corrected the number with the new 2026 data and said no, actually we vastly overestimated how many illegals we thought left the country. So in other words, they're not. The government keeps track of how many people self deport. That's not the number they're using. They're using this basically a guess based on a survey with a very small sample size to say well we think all these people left and that's just not reliable. So I don't, I don't. That's not a good number. I don't believe that.

[A]

Yeah, well that's not the only number. And you would have a point if that was the only number that people were using. It's not. It is the number that. It is the number that the left wants people to use. And this is why I say I can. And I get it, you don't like this administration. Right, I understand that. So it would make sense that you would use the numbers of people who are sympathetic to attacking the administration. But we also have. Okay, so am I. And let's, let's assume that we both are. CBP1 app does have abilities to track the Brookings Institute, by the way. Left leaning has also estimated zero negative net negative Migration. There are plenty of third party announcements policies. It's not just one number, it's actually one that's not even being argued because the left is using it as an argument as part of their campaign that hey, isn't this horrible for immigrants? But okay, let's dispute that one number and just let's even say that it's just one source. I would present them. I'll make this stuff publicly available. I disagree with you. But then also looking at, for example we talked about H1BS is a big deal looking at the border being closed, 96 to 99% depending if you also want to use border crossings, asylum claims, refugees. You look at spending cuts, I hear people say nothing. Well no, it's hundreds of billions of dollars in doge cuts. And if you want to use the left's point, say actually it's only a few billion dollars. It's not possible. If you look at what's happened with NGOs, Medicaid alone, Medicaid alone just requiring, I think we could agree on this. Young, able bodied American males and females who are single with no kids, working or going to school 80 hours a month. Snap, right? Just no Coca Cola, no Fanta. You're looking at 900 billion plus another hundred something billion. These are not small things, work requirements you look at, I mean obviously energy independence. I know we're going through the war right now, but if you actually look at what we're able to produce in comparison to the green New Deal, in comparison depositing leases, this is going to have a serious effect for Americans. H1BS, 87% reduction in new ones DEI and the federal government. You know, if Democrats can it, the risk too, we won't be able to have this conversation. We both have to agree on that. If the Democrats seize power, first off, they're going to pack the courts. This is the plan. People need to know it. They will pack the courts. They want to go to 13. They want to make Puerto Rico estate. They want to grant all illegal aliens and any temporary citizens the right to vote in undo everything. Right. And that would include deplatforming. That's the risk. That's the plan. So we can't just, and I'm not saying you're lying, but we can't just take your word for it to take that risk. You can understand that.

[B]

Well, here's what I would say to that. I think that every election the Republican side basically overstates what the Republicans are doing for us. And then I think they exacerbate or Overstate the risk of Democrats. This whole, like, they're gonna pack the courts and make Puerto Rico a state. It's like, well, they didn't do that under Biden. I don't think they're going to do that this time. And if you believe that they did, why are we using the nuclear option? If you really thought Democrats were going to break precedent, pack the courts, make Puerto Rico a state, do this and that, okay, then it's life or death. We have to do everything possible. It is, then use the nuclear option, okay, and pass the SAVE act so that, you know, we could get all these Democrats off the voter rolls and so that we could break the logjam on DHS and get them their money and do the deportations. But it's like, you know, Republicans will act like it's life or death, most important election. But then when it comes to nuclear option, they go, oh, we can't do that. Oh well, we can't do the deportation. Oh well, you know, this is the best we could do. And it's like, okay, so somebody's not telling the truth here. And I don't think it's you, but I think it's.

[A]

There are, I agree with you. There are, there are Republicans who aren't telling the truth. I agree with you. And by the way, they need to be like, for example, Thune Cornyn, I mean, screw that guy with a wire brush, right? People like that, but we know them by name. To throw them all into the same basket and just it's a constant dismissal. Like, I don't really think that there are deportations that are enough. I don't really think they're a net negative migration country. I don't really think that 87% of H1B's I don't really think just executive order two genders. I don't really care. Downsizing the federal government by hundreds of thousands. I don't really care that housing prices and rent prices are at multi year lows. Those things don't matter because it's not enough when we know that the Democrats will obviously, and this is their plan. They didn't say they were going to make Puerto Rico a stay and packed the court to 13 last time. They're saying that now. What they did say is that they were going to go a different direction on immigration and we got by our agreement, 10 to 20 million in three and a half years. That is unsurvivable. And you're recommending that people take that risk based on then what else? Where do we Go. So we vote Democrat. We take the risk, but we cut it off at the pass. And.

[B]

But again, it's like, you know, you can say, well, that's not survivable. What we got, we got 10 to 20 million illegals. Why? Because Republicans didn't build a wall. And now they're not going out because Republicans won't deport them. So it's like if Democrats get in, they're going to end the world. That's why we need Republicans not do anything.

[A]

No, you're taking what Democrats did and blaming all Republicans. Most Republicans wanted the wall. We voted, but we can't because you. Also known as gridlock. And then you're saying vote for the Democrats who blocked the wall wall and open the border.

[B]

But in 17 we had the House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court. Why didn't they use a nuclear option to just build the wall? It's because the Republicans don't really want to build a wall. They want the illegals to come here. And then when the Democrats get in, they could say, oh shucks, the Democrats brought in all these illegals and they. So we're going to deport them, get us elected. Never mind. We only want to deport the violent criminals. Net negative migration is good enough, enough. And it's like that's the risk. The risk is that we play this game forever. I want to step outside of it, break the matrix. We got to run the Trump playbook from 16. Get somebody fresh in. That that's my. To me, that's the risk.

[A]

Not a problem with getting someone fresh in. I don't have a problem with getting someone fresh in. As a matter of fact, here's the problem. I actually agree with you in principle on the premise of wanting to get someone fresh in. I don't probably have the disdain for Rubio and Vance between the two. I probably would choose Rubio because of.

[B]

Really?

[A]

Well, just because I agree with you that the threat of big tech and AI and I think that some. It's a very uncosy relationship that worries me. But I don't know. They're not ideal, but I still would pick them over a Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom. I don't think Gavin Newsom is a chad. I think Gavin Newsom will be a disaster. I think Gretchen Whitmer would be the worst. But I think they've learned their lesson. They're not going to run abroad.

[B]

Fraud.

[A]

Hopefully she would be the worst thing that could happen to this country. Gretchen Whitmer. But I would like someone Else the problem is your plan guarantees the opposite. Historically, without exception. I'm sure you're aware of this. In other words, you're asking people to take a risk. Well, you're aware of the moderate Republican paradox. This goes all the way back to Goldwater, which is. So it's. Anytime Republicans lose big, right, Democrats chief power, especially when Republicans go further right and they lose big, Democrats attain power. The donor class, who you need to, you need to, you need to reckon with the donor class, right? As part of your prescription, they immediately go to the most moderate candidate who they think is winnable. So for example, just using some, like after Goldwater, they decided to go with a more moderate Nixon. What happened with Ford over Reagan. If you look at what happened after George Bush, McCain, and then you even look at examples like the Tea Party swinging further right. And then I'm going, oh my gosh, you know what? We need someone moderate to win the general Mitt Romney. So what you're doing historically, with pretty much no exception, is guaranteeing the next John McCain or Mitt Romney.

[B]

Think you're missing one. I think you're missing a notable Donald Trump.

[A]

Yeah, but Donald Trump was an outsider, was a Democrat his whole life. Right. We have to create an outlier. You're talking about operating within the binary. When Republicans lose big, Democrats are so bad they go, okay, we can't live under this rule historically they go, let's pick the most winnable candidate. So you're going to deal with those donors, hundreds of billions, potentially trillions of dollars in 2028, with who? With what kind of funding and what kind of ground game. Cuz I also don't want Mitt Romney, for crying out loud. Mitt Romney.

[B]

Rubio.

[A]

Rube.

[B]

What's it, you know, here's the thing is like if you're saying you're going

[A]

for Rubio, I didn't say I'm going for Ruby. I said if I had to pick between the two because I really don't like the Palantir connection. I agree with you is what I was saying.

[B]

But okay, and fair enough. I don't want to mischaracterize your position. However, you must acknowledge the way it's looking. They're going to consolidate behind one or the other. And right now it looks like Rubio is the donor choice. The Wall street donors, the pro Israel donors, they're taking informal survey, they want Rubio. And to me it's like, okay, 10 years after Trump defeated Rubio, New American Century, Miriam Adelson's puppet. I Think Trump literally said at AIPAC or the Republican Jewish Coalition, he said, you want Rubio cuz he's your puppet and he'll do whatever you want cuz he takes your money. He's a Florida creature.

[A]

He also said Ted Cruz's dad killed jfk. Come on, we know what goes on with primaries with Trump. And one thing I do have to address, he's not an outlier. Republicans won in 2014 before Trump paved the way for him. That's what I'm saying. If they win, you can veer them further right. They also won in 2022. If they win, you can veer them right. That's what paved the way for Trump. So it actually proves a point. If Republicans lose, you guaranteed historically paved the way for a moderate Republican. It doesn't go the other way. So I'm asking you. And that's what I don't want. That's a big fear of mine, by the way. I don't like, I'm not all in on Rubio or Vance, but I would like to not see someone worse, to not see someone more moderate, to not see A Romney or McCain. That's what we'd be looking at if there's a big Democrat win. You just made my point with Trump, right? He was able to because of 2014 Republic. He probably wouldn't have been able to. If you were looking at a Republican loss, it would have been like Goldwater, it would have been like McCain.

[B]

But you had a Democrat incumbent or a Democrat leaving office, which was Obama. Here's the dynamic. The way that I see it is that Democrats win in 2026 and they're going to sabotage this administration because they're going to impeach Trump, they're going to investigate everybody and they're going to find embezzlement, corruption, like they're going to. There's some problems in this administration, or at least there's. There's a lot of smoke, let's say, around Howard Lutnick and some of the crypto stuff. And there's a lot that I would even like to see investigated. And so everybody in the administration is going to be hurt by this, Rubio and Vance included. That weakens them ahead of the primary. If they are toxically associated to the administration, which is failing, failing more under Democrats than to me, that provides an opening for somebody fresh from the outside that says I'm sort of repudiating Trump's legacy or maybe even I have some allegiance to Trump's original message in 2016. You know, maybe I'm going to save Trumpism from itself or where it went astray. That's kind of, you know, I don't think we need to get into, like, Barry Goldwater. That's how I see it. If Republicans are, If Trump is strong going into 28, then his people are strong. They have a better chance of winning the primary and there's big consolidation. If they're weak, then people are going, oh, I don't know. Rubio and Vance are toxic. They're tied to Trump, they're unpopular. Maybe we need something else. So I think that's the dynamic. I mean, do you disagree? And why?

[A]

Well, if he's strong, wouldn't that suggest that the country's in a good place?

[B]

Yeah, I do.

[A]

In a better place with Democrats, right?

[B]

No, no. If Trump is strong, you're saying if

[A]

strong going to 28 after people vote Democrat.

[B]

No, no, no. If, if Trump is strong, if Democrats don't win big and they're not able to sabotage him, okay, he'll be stronger than he would have been otherwise.

[A]

So wait, are you still saying, Are you saying he would be strong because people vote Democrat?

[B]

No, no, I'm saying he's stronger if Democrats don't win.

[A]

Right. The midterms.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, so how does that play into your plan? And forgive me, it could have been a timeline there where I was, where I was confused. I was assuming that we were going along with your plan. And Democrats get voted in in 2026.

[B]

Yeah, Democrats get voted in in 26, and they weaken Trump. Trump is weaker and by association, everybody else is weaker. Rubio, Vance. Because again, they're gonna dredge up all this stuff and you're not gonna be able to run from that, because they are. They're gonna haul people before the House. They're going to impeach people. It's gonna get ugly. And I want them to bring. Because this administration's a failure. It's an utter betrayal. Like, and I don't think, maybe, I don't wanna say you won't acknowledge, I think you disagree. But they promise mass deportations and that's not happening. They promise no new wars and we got a war with Iran. Like, they stabbed us in the back.

[A]

So a couple of things there, and I think this is important. We did get it, if you want to predicate it on Democrat numbers, that we don't have deportations or enough, but at least we have some versus mass importations. And I certainly would say, if you look to the matter of record, that even from Left leaning think think tanks institutes that we are seeing record deportations. We have a net negative migration country I never thought would happen in our lifetime. Nobody actually disputes that except for you. Okay. I don't think that's a betrayal.

[B]

That's not.

[A]

No. I do think a betrayal is saying that you don't care about immigration, which you said. And that's where I need to know, like, do these things matter? Do these things matter to you? Does immigration matter? Yeah. Does immigration actually matter? Because people who care about immigration certainly see this administration as the biggest wins of our lifetime ever. In contrast.

[B]

You're wrong about that. You're wrong about that. And I'll tell you why. Yes. Because there are people in dhs. People in dhs. You know, I talk to people in the administration. I'm sure you do as well. The morale is low.

[A]

I actually really don't. You're probably more welcome than I am. Surprising. Surprising as it is. You're more congenial.

[B]

I'm pretty congenial guy. Thank you.

[A]

I'm more of a.

[B]

No, you're a good guy, Stephen.

[A]

We're, we get along.

[B]

But in dhs, the morale is super low. They're literally going and telling people it's

[A]

low because of sanctuary cities and people fucking kicking out their tail lights and being hamstrung. Like, you're, you're sidestepping people, creating sanctuary cities. The left will not deport violent felons in our prison system. And you're telling people to vote for them.

[B]

They can't decide. It's like, it's always these excuses like, Republicans are gonna give us deportations. Well, no, we can't, because sanctuary cities

[A]

and Congress say that they still are in spite of it. Donald Trump gave us an 87% reduction, which you haven't. You ran billboards. Give me this.

[B]

Are we talking about H1BS or illegals right now?

[A]

Both. Because you said last time you were on the show. Because last time on the show you said, well, who cares about illegal immigration? You except accepted the premise because if they're replacing you legally and you run billboards on that, and it's the single biggest strides that have ever been made in our lifetime. And you're like, I don't know. That sounds to me like an excuse, Nick.

[B]

They said, they said mass deportations, not net negative migration. They said mass deportations. Largest deportation in history. And by the way, there's people in dhs, they're reaching out to this mass deportations project, this mass deportation coalition, because Trump, Trump is holding it back. Trump has been convinced by Brooke Rollins that we can't deport people from farms. And he's being convinced by Wall street that we can't deport a lot of people in general from the labor force because it's going to put upward pressure on prices, it's going to hurt the economy. So it's like, let's be honest, Trump is the problem. Trump is slowing down deportations. He doesn't want them. Like they're betraying us. They could do more. They're choosing not to. They want, walked it back like a hundred times in the past few months. They went to the Trump Doral for their congressional retreat and the deputy Chief of staff said, don't say mass deportations, that's done. Susie Wiles and the rest of them said it's a course correction. We're shifting gears, we're changing the strategy. We're focusing on violent offenders, violent criminals. There's all this consternation in the White House saying, oh, Trump is being convinced to approve all these ceasefire original farm workers. He's being convinced not to do the deportations, only focus on criminals. Which, by the way, that's kind of like what Biden was doing, picking people up at prisons that murdered people. That's been going on. That's an Obama policy. But go ahead.

[A]

Yeah, sorry. Because we both, by the way, have a tendency to kind of. I think your brain works the same way I do.

[B]

Really?

[A]

And this and this. And I don't know about you, but it's in my personal life too. I'll come home to my lady. I'll be like this, she'll be like, okay, it's kind of like the old man, put him down. Like, go take, go grab a drink and calm down and play some games. So I wanted to deal with those kind of separately. I understand what you're saying, but you are making the same mistake that the left banks quite often. And what I mean by that is pointing to rhetoric as opposed to policy. So you say, okay, let's assume, although I just don't agree, there are no record deportations. There are in comparison to Obama, to Clinton, certainly to Biden. We certainly would have to agree on that because they counted border terms. But net negative migration, okay, that doesn't matter. You're pointing to the rhetoric. Okay, H1BS. That doesn't matter because you're pointing to the rhetoric. You also have to look at other numbers, like for example, the job growth under Biden entirely to foreign born workers. These numbers also don't lie. Net negative for native born Americans and it has flipped precisely under Donald Trump. That is important for particularly young Americans who you have as an audience. Right. We have a youth unemployment that I think we would both agree is directly affected by H1BS. Cheap labor, illegal immigration. It's bad here. It's worse anywhere the left has power. You're talking about 20% across Europe. You're talking about 15% in Canada. Those numbers also don't lie. Okay, Joe Biden, no Americans hired post Covid. Only foreign born workers. First year of Donald Trump. Switch foreign born workers, their jobs go down. Job losses, growth for native born Americans that in combination does become undeniable. In saying these aren't mild, this is a major difference and rhetoric, you know, in having to deal with the media while we're going after violent criminals. First Tom Homo is on the show. I guess that would be one of the administration. He's someone we've had on the show a couple times. He just said, he said, well of course we're going after violent criminal, but what are we gonna do if we run into someone who's not violent? We're gonna deport them. They can't be here. That's our job. We're gonna deport them too. In other words, it gives them some leeway and the numbers bear that out. It's not even close, Nick.

[B]

But here's, here's the thing. I mean you can say it's better than Obama, but have we been fighting for 10 years for all of this for like, well, we're deporting more people than Obama after they let in 20 million people. No, we voted for mass deportations. We're not even getting a million a year. ICE won't release the numbers because they're embarrassingly low. That's why we have to rely on like census data to extrapolate it and get, well, this, a million people self deported, you know, that's what they promised. And by the way, you're saying it's all rhetoric. Let's look at the policy. After they withdrew from Minneapolis, they said we're done doing raids. They were doing these big operations in Chicago, New York, Minneapolis, where they surged thousands of CBP and ICE into the city. And what they would do is patrols. They would have ICE out on the street basically looking for illegals going door to door. What they've done since then is they put body cams on them. They stopped doing these big surges, they stopped doing the patrols and the big raids. And what they've effectively shifted over to, like in York New York, for example, is they're only going to go to the prisons. If, if someone gets arrested for murder, they go to prison, they're not legal, then ICE picks them up. And that's really all that is happening right now. If you wanted mass deportations, what would that look like? Home Depots, farms, meat processing plants, the Hyundai facilities. But what happens when those places get raided? Trump gets a call, he gets a call from Wall street, he gets a call from Hyundai, gets a call, call from Brooke Rollins and they say, stop deporting our farmers, stop deporting our Hyundai employees. Stop deporting. And so Trump is effectively protecting our illegal immigrant workforce. They could deport him. They're choosing not to. The numbers could be higher, they could be doing raids. They stopped doing them and they stopped doing them. They said because of politics, we'll lose the midterms. You know, all this stuff. And I'm just saying, you know, it could be better. It really could be. They're choosing not to. It could be better.

[A]

Of course, it could always be better. Things could always be much better. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with

[B]

a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint.

[A]

You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month.

[B]

Of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments.

[A]

But that's weird.

[B]

Okay, one judgment anyway, give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for

[A]

3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail] okay, let's say it could be much better. It's funny that you use a meat processing processing plant because we saw the exact example in, I believe it was Omaha, Nebraska, where then there were Americans lined up when a bunch of people had been raided and people had been killed.

[B]

And then they shut it down, then they shut it down.

[A]

And this happens across. So are you saying, are you saying that there's an equivalency? In other words? It's not that, not that big of a difference as far as immigration.

[B]

Yeah, I think it's not meaningful at all. No, that's getting back to.

[A]

And what about, let's go through. What about H1 1? Because 87%, it's not 187% of new ones. The place is, is that significant?

[B]

No, I don't think so. It needs to go entirely. There needs to be no H1BS.

[A]

OK, so, so 87% reduction is nothing. So we'll go with the party that increases them by 200%.

[B]

They hit the cap. They hit the cap every year. And by the way, we're going to get more. I mean, Elon Musk and Little Tech are lobbying this administration, so.

[A]

So 87%, 99% border crossing reduction. Not significant.

[B]

No, there's no wall. We did that in 2020, and then we got $10 million.

[A]

We're building the wall now. Well, the wall was stopped again after the midterms. And you encourage people to sit out in the Senate. Flipped.

[B]

How much you want to bet? How much you want to bet?

[A]

What is about over 50 miles? Is that what the wall is? Over 50 miles? And there's another 17 miles of secondary wall. This is just in the first place.

[B]

The borders. 2,000 miles.

[A]

Yeah. We built how many hundreds of miles in the first term? And how many times was it being gridlocked by the Democrats, who. You said people should vote for 60

[B]

miles of new wall. There's 400 miles of replacement. 50 mile, 50. 60 miles of new wall.

[A]

Out of 2000, how many was in the first term is what we're talking. Right. Then the. Now we have another 50 plus. Is it called 75 for the first

[B]

term was 60 new. And this and this second term. I'll take your word for it. I haven't looked at it. But if it's 70, I mean, then you got a grand total of 130 miles of new wall. Okay, 5%.

[A]

And how many were built under Democrats? And how much of that was done when we had control versus Democrats?

[B]

That's crazy.

[A]

We need more. We need more. But the point is, there will be no wall. Wait, we know this.

[B]

There isn't a wall.

[A]

So let's vote for the party. Go ahead. Okay, sorry.

[B]

You know, you go ahead.

[A]

No, no, and I understand this. Right. I guess we're dealing with, like, it's very clear to me that none of these are significant to you. Right. Immigration. Because most people.

[B]

It is most people.

[A]

If you could. Hold on a second. Most people. If you could tell them, look, this is what's going to happen, okay? You're not going to get everything that you want, but you're going to get $1.3 trillion in cuts and proposed cuts, and you're going to have these for the first time, entitlement reform, and you're going to have a net negative migration country for the first time since the 1970s. And you're gonna have DEI out. You're actually gonna have Supreme Court cases. Where affirmative action. You can't admit people in college based on race anymore. And by the way, Medicaid's not gonna be paying the trans kids because we're gonna have that Chevron case overturned. Okay, if you said. But if you just told people net negative migration before the election, people would have taken that deal. And instead you're saying, hand it over to the people who opened it up. So let's go back to that. I'm fine with it. With that risk. In other words, if you're telling me we can get much better. So the Nick Fuentes plan is we can get 100% deportations, right. Not 87% H1BS. We can get 100% H1 done. Completely guarantee it. We can get Medicaid. Not just a 900 billion. All of this, you can get it done because you're gonna vote Democrat in 2026. And then I still need concrete.

[B]

Well, let's just reframe the deal a little bit, okay? Because here's the real deal is Republicans say we're gonna build a wall. And a wall, they said. Trump said 30 foot concrete structure, 2,000 miles of wall. That was the proposal in January 2018. That's what we had in mind.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

Well, what you're really gonna get is 130 miles of 18 foot steel bollard fencing with a 5 foot climbing plate after 10 years. Then they say mass deportations. We're gonna deport a million people per year. They don't even release the numbers. According to the New York times, they deported 230,000 last year. Maybe they arrested the rest of 300,000 more. Okay, that's not a mass deportation. You know, you're not even making a debt. Hang on. It's just those. In just those 10 years. Then you want to say, well, they cut $800 billion in Medicaid to pay for a permanent cut in the corporate tax rate, and they want a $1.5 trillion military for this year alone. And we have a war in Iran that's costing us 50, maybe $100 billion when all is said and done, not to mention the gas prices. So it's like, you know, we're promised all these things, we never get them. And so you're right, it's a huge risk. But I'm saying I'm not going Democrat, I'm not going center. Right. I'm voting no on both of those. And yeah, I'm hoping that we can open up a space where someone far right can fill it. And you're right, it's a huge risk. You're right. It's totally uncertain. But I think the real risk, again, is, you know, these half measures. I think unless we have radical reform, it's either we're getting our head cut off or we're getting cut in half. I'm voting for, like, maybe there'll be some option where we don't get totally destroyed. And that's all I'm interested in. That's all I care about. You know, you want to, you want to cut around the edges on immigration. Like, it's not going to meaningfully change the demographics of the country. You know, how many illegals are here? 40, 50 million? You want to say, well, we deported a million. It's like, okay, cool. Like we're still in this immigrant nation.

[A]

Yeah. No, well, first off, I'm familiar with that New York Times article. They, they cited 500,000, and that's not including self deportations, which is the vast majority of them. I get that you say, I don't count it. I don't count self deportation. I don't believe it.

[B]

And removals. So 500,000 arrests and removals.

[A]

I don't believe in self deportations. Okay. That's still very different from 10 to 20 million in the span of three years, which you guaranteed will get. Let's assume you don't believe that Democrats clearly laid out plan of packing the courts, of undoing all the decisions, of making Puerto Rico a state of redistricting. Let's assume you don't believe any of that. That will we both agree for sure if Democrats attain power another 10 to 20 million illegals in that term.

[B]

I'm not sure. I really have no idea.

[A]

I think if you're a betting man, Nick.

[B]

Honestly. No, no, because you know what?

[A]

So they did it under Biden but learned their lesson.

[B]

No, And I'll tell you why.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

If you look at Davos this year, there was agreement. Actually, I think Clinton said this in an interview sometime after this. I believe Hillary Clinton, that is, I believe Bill Gates said something to this effect. They said because of AI, we don't actually want the irregular migration anymore. Like, why did they need the illegal immigration in 21, 22, 23? Because there was a labor shortage after the pandemic ended. And so, yeah, I do think actually the tides have shifted.

[A]

Yeah, I don't agree with that.

[B]

Okay, well, I mean, that's.

[A]

Here's the thing, I think. No, I understand. I don't agree with their framing. Oh, meaning there wasn't a labor short shortage and that's what's so distressing about the left. And this is why I can't vote for them. This is how sinister they are. They specifically hired and replaced, and you've talked about this, replaced Americans with third world labor. Native born American jobs went down after the pandemic, foreign born jobs went up and it's directly flipped under Trump. So I don't. There wasn't a labor shortage. We would both have to agree the Democrats lied. They wanted cheap labor because ultimately they wanted votes. That's my only disagreement. I think they're just that sinister and the numbers bear it out. But please continue.

[B]

Well, I mean, strictly speaking there was, it's just that there would be two ways to remedy that. I mean, if you had a real labor shortage, what was happening is that all these companies were just increasing their wages. And I remember you drive down the street and you'd see a window in McDonald's and it would say $25 an hour stipend for tuition, you know, because they wanted to incentivize Americans to return to the labor force. And so, you know, how do you remedy the shortage? You could raise the wages or you could open up the border. So in a sense I suppose we agree, maybe it's just the semantics about what constitutes a shortage.

[A]

But I would say no, I don't think it's semantics. I think it's don't subsidize Americans and let wages go up as a product of the free. It's not complicated. It's a problem that they created on purpose so they could solve by replacing Americans with third world labor. I don't think it's an accident. You think it's an accident?

[B]

No, not that it's an accident. I just think it's just about how you approach the problem. It's the, you could have raised wages.

[A]

Do you believe the Democrats had a proactive approach to replacing Americans with third worlders in order to change the demographics and gain votes? Because I do.

[B]

I think yes, but and this is what I think maybe you might miss as more loyal to the Republicans, is that the business interests play, which are Republican, play a profound role in opening up the borders. I mean it's the 1990 immigration act actually, which is what created all these programs, increased the amount of immigrants coming in and that was lobbied for by the Chamber of Commerce under George Bush because the business interests wanted the labor. So, so I think there's a two part thing where Democrats, you're right, they want the demographic change. They, you know, refugees welcome, blah, blah, Blah. But it's the Republicans in agriculture and hospitality on Wall street, they want the cheap labor too, for economic reasons. So, you know, you can't, you can't say it's all Democrats and not Republicans.

[A]

Well, no, what I would say is it's no, and I wouldn't say that. And I think we agree it's all Democrats. I do believe that Democrats in a perfect world would replace you. I think that's why you're America first. Right. They want to replace white, Christian, Anglo Saxon Americans with anyone whose vote is easier to buy. Would we agree with that fundamental premise?

[B]

Totally. Totally.

[A]

And then I think some Republicans, people like Bush included, by the way, Reagan really screwed up when you're talking about immigration as far as business interests or this idea that. Right. Well, it'll sort itself out through the free market. The problem is there was so much interference that we now see there are corporate interests that superseded it. We see a very stark contrast between those Republicans and this Trump administration. That's what I'm. For the first time there's been a stark contrast. But I do think the primary problem is exactly what you've said in the past. The left absolutely wants to replace you with a demographic that is easier to manipulate, put on the public dole, grant citizenship and gain votes. And they did it to the tune of 10 to 20 million. They did not fix the labor shortage. What happened is they created the labor shortage, whether it's rent forgiveness, student loan forgiveness, the subsidies, the COVID relief that was going out knowing that Americans would go back into the workforce more slowly, wages were going up and instead they brought in massive, not only illegal immigrants, but the same reason you ran billboards h1bs that forever or forever for certainly their tenure and would be forever if not reversed. Suppress American wages. Those are issues for me. I know you said that immigration doesn't matter to you anymore and I think you were being hyperbolic, but that is to me enough of a contrast when I understand the replacement of Americans because we won't have an America anymore.

[B]

Well, you know, to address that comment, I said that in the context of I think that immigration is one of these issues that is always dangled in front of us, out of reach. And they've been Republicans and playing this game for 40 years. And it's like you pointed out, even Reagan, we're going to give 3 million amnesty and then we're going to close the border. Doesn't happen. Same thing even with Trump. You know, Trump said we're, we're going to build the Border wall. We're, you know, we're going to slow it down. And like, let, let's be honest, immigration got really bad in Trump's first term, right up through May, June 2019, until they implemented remain in Mexico. And then in 2020, they shut it down because of the pandemic. But it's like it was even bad under Trump won. And then, you know, let's talk about, like, for example, the pandemic induced labor shortage. Who shut down the economy? Trump. Who did Operation Warp Speed? Trump. Who let BLM wreck the cities? Trump. Who gave Venezuelans TPS in January 2021? Trump. And how many of those 10, 20 million were from Venezuela?

[A]

Now, what you're doing is just, and I, and I know that, you know, look, because you're very, you're very smart. This is clever. But, but it's just not accurate. And I would say it's disingenuous to say, oh, Trump, because BLM started before Donald Trump. We both know that. And we also know that domestically. Hold on a second. Domestically, the president doesn't have the same broad authority. And I know you've talked about this. So, for example, whether you agree or disagree with the war in Iran, people saying, like, it's a war crime for any president to carry out a military action, like, no, we both know that the president has much broader powers as it relates to issues of national security. That's also why he has much broader powers in dealing with, with H1BS coming in or specifically policies that relates to people entering the country. The president doesn't have these broad powers to guarantee funding for a wall. Right. Do you. We know that. But the president does have hold on the broad powers. When he says remain in Mexico. When was that reversed and who reversed it? Wherever he can. Exactly. Whenever he can. Like you said, wherever he can, through executive order, presidential powers. He's used his most potent tools and he's been gridlocking by the party you tell people to vote for, and some, not all, but too many Republicans. So my approach is back to steel Manning. Yeah, I think you're better off. And historically, it's irrefutable. You're better off working within the party that has a voting base that wants something done with immigration to hold them accountable. The primary process, we've actually affected that directly here. Brendan Herrera is going to win. That's just one example. Ken Paxton is. That's one example. Handing it over to Democrats historically guarantees a moderate Republican if you manage to come back for. So I think we've already got you don't have the concretes. You're saying you vote Democrats. So the destruction is concrete. Right. The losses are real. They will take place. The wins are hopeful and imaginary. That's my problem.

[B]

No, I see. When you say destruction and all this. Let's be very clear, in 2026, if Democrats win, you're going to have a divided government. So I think actually the damage is going to be mitigated in the sense that you'll have a republic Republican Senate. Most likely, you'll have Trump in the White House, the Democrats will have the House, and they'll just exercise their oversight power. So as far as destruction is concerned, I think it's relatively contained. And because. And maybe this is like a good clarifier. If it was 2028 and it's going to be. I don't want Democrats to run the table. I don't want a Democrat to be the president at all. I don't want Democrats to control Congress. I think that this is the punch in the face that Republicans, Americans need so that in 28 we can be more competitive. That's how I'm look. Because the damage, let's be honest, contained.

[A]

I get that the damage isn't fully contained. There's a lot of damage that they can do and we can go through that. It's not fully contained. I think you're. I think you're understanding the risk. But it still does come to the unavoidable fact if we just believe this logistically. Right. And, and of course I, I'm not going to vote Democrat. I think you also agree you're gonna have a hurdle for a lot of people to vote against their conscience and vote democracy. Democrat. Right. You know, that's gonna take a lot of convincing on your part. You still run into the brick wall that if that happens, you're gonna get a moderate candidate. Historically, you're not going to get someone more right wing, more. It's called the right. It's called the Republican moderate paradox. And it's almost as inescapable as gravity. Now, if you had a plan, like. But we're gonna punch those donors in the face and have a ground game. Awesome. I'm all ears. Please let me know and let me know how you get. Get this guy or gal. I'm assuming it's not a gal. Please tell me it's not a gal. Elected in 2028. How do you get. Let's go to that. Let's really distill it. Let's assume there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and they're so bad that it's exactly the same. You couldn't put any daylight between Biden and Donald Trump. Let's assume that. I agree with all that. I don't. But for the sake of argument, how do you get this guy, please, not gal elected in 2028?

[B]

Well, like I said, I, I, I don't believe in this moderate Republican paradox that you're talking about. I think if Republicans lose the midterms, they're going to be weakened. Like, you can't argue that they're going to be stronger, having lost the midterms, than weaker. Vance and Rubio will be.

[A]

No, I'm not arguing that. I'm not arguing that. And weaker Republicans look for a winnable candidate who they view as moderate. The donor class will do that. Guaranteed. They will.

[B]

The donor class, okay, but the donor class is lining up behind Vance and Rubio.

[A]

Okay, so they still will. How do you deal with that? How do you get your guy elected?

[B]

And they will be weaker. I think we need a grassroots campaign in those early primary states in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada. And let's also just talk about the architecture of the race. It's going to start relatively early. We need somebody to announce, get up to that 1, 2, 3% threshold to get on the debate stage. And then we're going to need someone to get on the debate stage and just kick ass. Go up there against Vance and Rubio and say, what's going on? Uh, and then hopefully we're gonna make a blitz in all 99 counties in Iowa. Go to New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and if we have something viable, then you go on into the future. It's, it's basically, it's the Trump playbook. I mean, you can say, well, you don't have a billion dollars lined up for the general, or, you know, you don't have a plan here. But Trump did it. Trump did it in 2016. He had like a few guys just started doing rallies, self funded some money in the very beginning, went on the debate stage, and then it just was off to the races. And I think that we have to be open for something like that to happen.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So did they have a ground game?

[A]

I don't believe they did a couple of things. First off, it sounds to me like you're talking about then at that point engaging in the primary process. Right? You're saying, oh, yes, yes. So why haven't you taken part in any of these primary processes Now?

[B]

I haven't really seen anybody that I Like, I like Thomas Matt Massey, but I think that I might hurt him more than help him. I like James Fish. Back in Florida, we wanted somebody to run against Vivek, but there wasn't a good candidate in Ohio.

[A]

Do you think he's going to win? Be honest.

[B]

I don't think his odds are great.

[A]

I know, I know it's. That's a tough question. Sorry, I didn't mean to say.

[B]

Well, no, it's, it's fine. And, but that's the thing. And I said this on my show the other night, or maybe I said it in private, I'm not sure actually.

[A]

But is it tough how that works with our lives? You're like, did I say that on air? Did I say that right?

[B]

I'd like to. Did I say this in a group chat? But like the problem with the primary is like groipers and far right people are not the majority. I was telling my fans this.

[A]

They need to be for your plan to work in 2020.

[B]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, they don't. Because here's the difference. If you're like, let's say you're in Ohio, okay, Perfect example. If it's Vivek and another guy, you need the groiper guy to get 50% of the votes in Ohio. And gripers are all like young white men, men, very engaged, very online, maybe punch disproportionately outside their weight class, but it's a small contingent. So we're not going to get 50% of the Republicans in Ohio in a two way race. But if it's a Democrat versus Republican, let's say it's 50, 50, neck and neck. If we could push it 1% or 3%, we can flip it now, the primary in 2028.

[A]

But how are you going to do it though? Because here's, and this is, this is my problem because you're like, well, I don't want to endorse anyone because it's going to hurt the them and the groipers aren't big enough. Okay, but. So that's why I haven't taken part in the primaries. And that's why you haven't enacted this plan. Now you've told people to sit out in some cases implied vote Democrat or run billboards. So this is not new. Right? You've done it three election cycles, something similar to this. And I understand what you're saying, by the way. I don't want my endorsement to hurt anyone. Gripers are not popular enough. But that will be different. You will endorse mount a ground game, and there will be enough of you in 2028 after Democrat season. Control how?

[B]

Well, here's the thing, okay. In Ohio, what we're doing is we're going to go for the Democrat and we are going to endorse the Democrat. We're going to go all in. In 2028, I think there is going to be an appetite for the COVID

[A]

architect Jew, just to be clear.

[B]

Yeah. Hell, yeah. I think. Do you think that she's going to be worse than Vivek?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

I don't. I think she'll be worse in terms of governance, but I think that in terms of overall impact, it's far worse for us if Vivek wins. Because what it signals to the GOP is that, you know, we'll vote for anything. We'll vote for an anchor baby who hates Americans, who's part of little tech. So, yeah, I'm willing to forfeit Ohio for four years if it means we. We send Vivek back to the kitchen.

[A]

Can I pause you for one thing? Just because, yeah, Ohio is a different breed. Ohio is a rare bird because they had Kasich, for God's sakes. Ohio will vote for anybody. It's a weird fricking place. I can't. The most unlikable human being alive in Kasich, who thought he had a chance in the national. So let's just agree that Ohio was a bizarre. Sure, their state legislature leans red, but you want to talk about feckless Rhino City, that is Ohio. It's bizarre. But, yeah, I still do think that the Vaik would be better than the COVID architect feminist who also is Jewish, for the griper people.

[B]

See, I mean, well, and I don't even mind. That's the thing. It's funny. Dan Bilzerian got on my case. He's like, she's a Jew. Blah, blah, blah. I'm like, okay. But they're like, there's more going on here than.

[A]

I know. It's a big event.

[B]

Yeah. And I know you and I maybe agree on that. But like. But the thing is, like, to me, Vivek, you know, and maybe I'll cringe at this. You're not wrong. Vivek would be, like, arguably a more effective governor than a Democrat. However, if we accept him, does that not send a message to the GOP that. That we're accepting this little tech Pat, because Vivek is involved with all these people, went to Yale Law School, Advance. They're looking at opening up this Anduril factory in Ohio, making the push for these government contracts like you're sending a message that the post Trump GOP is going to be shaped by people like Vivek, which is decidedly. I mean, he's basically against everything that Trump ran on in 16 because Trump runs in 16, saying, the reason this country, country is dying is because the globalists sold us out on trade, immigration, foreign policy. Vivek is saying, no, this country's failing because you're lazy and you did too many sleepovers and you went to prom and you watched Saved by the Bell. And it's like you're blaming Americans for policy decisions.

[A]

Nick, you're talking to the wrong guy. You're talking to the wrong guy. You're talking to the guy who got into a shouting match with Vivek here in the studio over race. To be clear, I am no fan of win. No, I, I would vote for him over the COVID architect who will destroy the state. But again, Ohio is very different than the rest of the country. But this isn't a primary strategy. Right. You're not just talking about Ohio. You're talking about Democrats across the board like you have in 20, 20, 22, 24. And I'm still not getting that. Yeah, okay, Vivek. That I would be, by the way, I would be hard pressed to not leave it blank in Ohio. I'm precluded from voting for someone who's part of the party. That will literally kill me. But I am with you. I got. Did you ever see my argument with Vivek? I see he was like, well, why can't I say, why can't we talk about Americans and what we should? I said, I can tell you why you can say it and other people can't. He goes, what? I said, because you're brown. Oh, that's such a cop out. I said, no, it's not a cop out. I'm telling you that I'll say it, but I'll say anything. But other people say it. That'll be an accusation of white privilege. It's because you're brown and you need to acknowledge it. And he got into a shouting match and got all indignant, and I was like, screw this guy guy. And I haven't had him on since. So you're talking to the wrong guy if you think that I love Vivek. I am saying, however, if in a situation with Ava Vague and an Amy, I always forget Amy Acton. I always want to say Cantor. That's probably like just the Semitic stereotype in my mind. Amy Kantor, that's a diner. At that point I look at the platform, the platform of okay, still increasing by hundreds of percent H1Bs decreasing new H1Bs by 86. There's a guardrail there. Considering the risk of voting Democrat and what they've done, that can be worked within effectively. But we're not talking about just Ohio. You are talking about across the country midterms voting Democrats. So it still does come back. And I don't think that you begrudge me for asking for concretes because I know that you asked Bill Zarian from it. Now to be fair, that wasn't fair. I don't know that Bill Zarian can give concretes on anything to anybody. But I do require them because I'm the guy who's like how do we undo the Vivek? How do we undo the Mitt Romney's? Now I thought we made some progress with people like Trump, with people like Brendan Herrera, with people like Ken Paxton, where I was like, this is some momentum. Right. It's in the right direction. Power can corrupt. But I'm all ears. I need the concretes to vote Democrat

[B]

though you don't, though you don't. Because I think the far greater risk is that we get Vance and Rubio. I think that to me that that's unacceptable. I'm not, I'm not going to go for that. J.D. vance voted for Evan McMullen. Marco Rubio is Marco Rubio. If after 10 years, 12 years of Trumpism, that's what we get, I'm going somewhere else. Like I'm not like I can't vote in election Vietnam, I Serbia, I'll go to a non extradition country where they can't get me. Well, they can always get get you, but maybe they can't ask to bring you back. Yeah, you know, but that's the thing. It's like to me those are unacceptable. So I want to hurt them as much as I can. Burn the boats and open up a space for someone else. And you're right, there's no concretes. But we have to allow for the possibility that that will happen.

[A]

Yeah, I think in the face of allowing for possibility, when guaranteed we will have open borders, the courts will be packed and we lose our country. So in other words, on one hand we guaranteed lose the country. There's no doubt about that. On the other hand we see the incremental improvements. I think we agreed here. Let me go back to this and I appreciate you taking the time by the way.

[B]

Absolutely.

[A]

Yeah, we agreed on the institutions. And I think that we probably both agree that cultural institutions are probably more important than political ones long term. That's my view. Comparable. But in other words, they shouldn't be overlooked. How long did that take place? How long did it take for the left to completely control academia, media, the entertainment industry like you're talking about? Anywhere from 90 to big tech. Outside of when they saw the writing on the wall in the last election. Right. We know these people are not conservatives. I mean, I would say, okay, started in the 1930s, accelerated through the 60s, meaning the encroachment, the seizing of institutions. The change from the left has been consistent. It's been incremental, it's been subversive. And I bet you they're saying, thank God we didn't blow it all up. Wouldn't the change, the revolution for the positive, even though it's accelerated a much more rapid rate than that, Wouldn't we need to accept that change is incremental as well? Because we bitch about their power over institutions, but don't seem to have the spine to play the long game and to fight the war of attrition?

[B]

See, I would be inclined to believe that. However, I think that. How long is it? How long has it been, honestly? You know, I mean, where do you want to start the timer? Is it when Trump won the election in 16, or is it 2000? Or is it, you know, 1990? I mean, where do you want to draw the line exactly?

[A]

Because I'm talking about. Well, okay, let me. The left being very unified, I think we agree with. The left is far more unified and the left will get in line. I mean, that's how you end up with a crazy broad like Kamala Harris without a primary, people. No, actually, we think she's great. They're unified and they make incremental progress. And by the way, that's a tentative Marxism subverting institutions. And conservatives are not. Conservatives are not. So let's go from the 60s, right goes back to the 30s, but McCarthy was right about a lot, not everything. A few people lost a couple of commercial gigs, but yeah, they took over every institution by design. Said, this is going to be systematic, it's going to take a while. And people on the right go, I don't have everything at once, so let me work with those who seized power over all these institutions.

[B]

I just feel like we've tried it that way. I mean, it's been. So Trump is gonna leave office in 2029, regardless. He came down the escalator in 15. So got elected in 16, Republicans win the Senate in 14. So it's like, let's say from Republicans winning the Senate in 14 until 2029, that's 15 years. Has anything gotten better in that time? Like we're in a war with Iran?

[A]

Well, yeah, I would say that's where we go back to. But let's just, but let's talk about institutions. Let's talk about culturally, media. The fact that you and I are having this conversation, that's huge. This wouldn't happen just four or five years ago, let's call it six years ago. Racially based admissions in college that took a Supreme Court, by the way, a slow walk, Boom, done. Also DEI in not only the federal government, but in any institutions that are subsidized federally. That's a big one. Right? This lays the groundwork. The media now, legacy media, who controlled a lot of information, is irrelevant. And I will tell you my approach outside of just discussing yours. People will often ask me, hey, should conservatives do what the left did? Should people on the right, America first, do what the left did and try and go into jobs, for example, in media or in academia? And I've said, no, no, no. The point now is to continue to accelerate their descent into irrelevancy because now there are ways to sidestep it. Just we need to accelerate the irrelevancy of a degree from an Ivy League school so those institutions are no longer relevant. We need to accelerate the irrelevancy, for example, of. And we're already seeing it, but abc, NBC, cbs, cnn, we see it with you getting bigger numbers than whoever the hell, Brian Stelter, completely straight on CNN right now. It's a slow walk. And now these are rapid accelerations in overtaking cultural ground. That's why you're as influential as you are. That's why we're able to have this conversation. It's not a small thing, but there does need to be some unity in a common enemy. And that's why I started this with is it the left, those who hate America because those are undeniable big wins?

[B]

Well, yeah, you're not wrong about the left being the enemy. To me, it's just a question of who will fight them. And I want a better right. I think that the right is not really putting up a real fight with the left. I actually don't even know that there's a huge distinction between the right and the left. And you, I know you disagree with that and you think there's like a big difference, but I think that they've kind of been holding hands, walking us down the same path for a very long time. Which is, in terms of the big picture, it's free trade, it's the foreign wars, it's a mass migration. Social conservatism is sort of dead. I mean, if we're gonna draw the line at trannies without parental consent, the lines very.

[A]

Conservatism isn't dead.

[B]

Trump wanted in the SAVE act, they said, we're not going to let kids transition unless their parents allow them to. Like, no, no, no.

[A]

But I'm talking about culturally, the views on abortion have actually become far more moderated, especially in the wake of. Of Dobbs Roe v. Wade. If you look at the public perception of transgenderism, that's changed dramatically. If you look at the public cancel culture. Remember, that's no longer a thing. Also on that one, Trump said it backtracked immediately after backlash because he's responsive to them. But, no, this is the social conservatism, actually, in a lot of ways, people. There's a resurgence in it. I know, because you've discussed it. You see what they call the manosphere. People like Andrew Wilson out there, people wanting to solve the problem of marriage because that is an issue. People wanting families. The very fact that people are saying, hey, the American dream is out of reach is because they've realized that they've been sold a false bill of goods through these institutions. Right? Be a boss, babe. Go out, be promiscuous. Have your abortions. Like, well, I don't want that. That. But houses are still too expensive. And I would agree they're coming down, but they're still too expensive. I would not agree at all that social conservatism is, is. Is dead. It's certainly much more mainstream and acceptable than it was when I was, you know, a teenager.

[B]

I disagree. I think you look at the gop, now, they're religiously pluralistic. You know, they have all these, like, Hindus involved, like Charlie Kirk wanted to call it. Ethical monotheism is like the new credo, so we can incorporate all these other traditions. You have the Trump administration's pro ivf. They're not fighting on gay marriage. They have all kinds of gay people in the administration. They're not fighting on abortion. They overturn Roe now they don't wanna do anything more about it. And then even with the transgenders, it's like, to me, that's the furthest, most extreme reach, and they're barely able to draw a line on that. They're not fighting feminism at all. You think about the party 20 years ago, and there was like a moral majority and you had these, like Buchanan. Extremely Christian. Sure. But even under the Bush administration, and now I feel like they've just kind of given that up. And now this administration is like, not everybody's Christian. Like, like I said, you've got some of these deviants involved. Like, so you have to admit that that's not really as much of a part of the platform as it was under Reagan or Bush, Bush one or two. It is a much conservative party.

[A]

You just skim past Dobbs, Roe v. Wade overturned. Like you skimmed past that. That's monumental.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, I get it from everything.

[A]

It's not everything, but it is the single biggest, most impactful policy on abortion, which, by the way, we all assumed was a foregone conclusion in a degenerate society. It came as a shock, and it was such a shock, the left rallied behind it. Right. We can. We just like. You can't skim past that. It's. It's not perfect, but that's a huge change.

[B]

I mean, to me, it's not a question of perfect, it's just when you look at the overall climate, like, is this Republican Party as Christian as it was 20 years ago? Absolutely not. Would you argue that?

[A]

I think young people are absolutely more Christian receptive. And when you look at church attendance, particularly more traditional denominations like Catholicism and Orthodox, I know people will argue that they're not growing as fast, but they are growing quite a bit, especially young among young men. Yeah, When I was a teenager, you know, I'm in my 30s. Yeah. It was rock against Bush. Write swastika on his head, by the way. Left has done that with every single person. And it was, it was a non starter. There was no, There was no Christendom. If you showed up in a film, you were the serial killer. This idea was just women's choice, my body. And you had to sidestep it and say, well, if there's. There was no thought that Roe v. Wade would actually be overturned. It was a pie in the sky dream. So, yeah, I would argue that certainly with younger people, they are significantly more Christian than even those who used to. It used to be a libertarian thing. Like it used to be a Tucker Carlson lookalike convention at CPAC stuff. This is pre fly fishing Tucker, you know, bow tie Tucker era. So, yeah, I think with young people, they're definitely more, if not Christian, but Christian receptive and traditional.

[B]

To me, I mean, I guess overall I'm just not as impressed with the progress that we've made over the past couple of decades. Maybe that's the difference. As you sort of look at his glass half full, like, well, at least we got Roe and at least we know we're trying to do these things. And hey, it's incremental and it takes, takes time. And me, I feel like we're staring down the barrel of a gun where it's like we're about to become a minority as white people. The immigration thing, it's already kind of been done to us. We need something radical and urgent because otherwise it's going to be a slow descent and it's not a victory.

[A]

But what will it fix? So let's assume, and I can't, but let's assume you have the concretes, the roster. That was my first question. It'll still be my roster funds ground game. Okay? You get that guy in, you're still going to run into 100% of the Democrat Party opposing it and you're still always going to have some Republicans who are useless. So let's assume you do that. How does that get you radical change within two years? Like you demand or you basically, you know, sabotage them?

[B]

See, but this is a straw man. It's not about two years. This is Trump's second term. This is Trump's second term. Republicans have been in control since 2022 of the House and the Senate. So it's like this has been, it's not like we said, oh, you got two years. I gave them two years in 2016 and they did nothing. And then we said, okay, 2018, nothing again.

[A]

Can you say he didn't do as much as you would like, but not nothing.

[B]

And they build a wall. They got, they didn't repeal Obamacare, then they cut the corporate tax rate by 10%. You know, so it's like, meaningfully, what did they really do? They didn't, you know, illegal immigration was really bad. So it's like, you know, again, it's not two years. It's been a long time coming.

[A]

And the vote was on the economy and it was the rip roaringest economy that we had seen in our lifetime.

[B]

These are narratives they give us.

[A]

When people vote on immigration, when people vote on the economy and they run on those platforms, they are held accountable to those platforms. You said they care about the platform of immigration, which was the big issue this time. The first election, it was entirely about the economy. So if you want to say, okay, record low inflation, where we actually saw employment come back on shoring jobs, if that's Nothing you can say, but be honest with people and say that doesn't mean anything to you. Just like immigration doesn't mean anything to you. Now, just be honest.

[B]

That's dishonest to say. Obviously, I care about immigration, but 2016 was about build the wall. They didn't. They fed us this line and said, well, we need to fix the economy first. We could win the midterms. Okay, well then you lost the midterms. And then we never got a border wall. It's like, so, you know, this is what I'm talking about. It just never gets done and never happens. Happens. If we win, well, we don't have enough power. If we lose, well, we weren't in power. It's like, okay, so when do we get the border wall? When do we get the deportations? When do we not go to war with Iran? When do we not spend $2 trillion on the military? Like, that's the thing. So I want to try somebody that's actually going to do what they promise to do.

[A]

Who?

[B]

Someone will rise up and you will see and you'll be very happy.

[A]

That's the pitch. It didn't happen in the other one, but it'll happen this time. It didn't happen in 2020, didn't happen in 22, didn't happen in 2024, but it'll happen.

[B]

22 is an off year. 20. It happened in 2016.

[A]

About the primaries, but yeah, because you've advocated this or sitting out, and that's a problem. And here's the thing I want, right. I'm sure you remember the Tea Party. I want a more conservative Republican Party. But I also look and go, okay, Rubio, for example. So you mentioned the Christian thing. Standing up, creating a video singularly about returning to Christian root for day of prayer, setting one nation under. And you say, it doesn't mean anything.

[B]

Speech.

[A]

Well, just like you just cited speech instead of policy as it relates to immigration. Like, they're saying this. Yeah, but the H1B numbers don't reflect that. So in this case, they're not doing the raids.

[B]

They're not doing the. They're not. So in one case, you go, speech.

[A]

You go, speech. I go policies. You go, yeah, but. Speech. And then I go numbers. And you go, yeah, but rhetoric. And then the other case, you go executive order. I go, yeah, but then he couldn't. You go, well, then, yeah, but Republicans aren't getting this through Congress. It seems like, like you can just

[B]

afraid because he gave a speech. It's like, who cares? That he gave a speech. Rubio's a neocon. He's backed by Miriam.

[A]

Because the discussion was about you. You were saying, culturally Christian. The party does not. You said, does not. Is not, as far as the rhetoric, as Christian as it used to be. And I'm saying this is a change. Rubio saying that. Is that. Is that significant? Because you wouldn't get a Democrat saying

[B]

that, okay, like, this is what I'm talking about. Like, we're being promised golden age vast deportations. And you're like, well, Rubio gave a speech about being Christian.

[A]

No, it's not. That's not. You're being dishonored. You just said I was being dishonest and saying. You said you don't care about immigration. I believe your exact quote is, I don't give a fuck about immigration. The only thing keeping me alive is my war against Israel at this point. Do I have that close to correct? So don't tell me I'm being dishonest.

[B]

Hyperbolic. We addressed that. We addressed that already. And I said, like, look, immigration is something that they're always baiting us with and they never do anything about. And then when they do the bare minimum, they say, well, it's better than nothing. And you go, well, I don't. I mean, theoretically, yeah, but if it doesn't meaningfully change anything, then it's not worth sacrificing other issues. Sure. So, by and large, I would just say, look, 10 years into the Trump movement, we don't have the country that we want. They've had more than enough time. I think it's time to just do something radical and send a message, which is, you know, we're not happy. I'm not happy with it. You may be happy and say, well, you know, what about this? What about that? You know, we're in a war with Iran. The deportations aren't there. What more is there to say? That's where I'm coming at it from.

[A]

We are in a conflict with Iran. And by the way, I think there are. Last time you were on the show, you said, like, we might be more aligned on the initial strikes in Iran than I would think. Deportations are there. And again, I'll make the numbers available, because even the one you said with the New York Times, they're not as much as I would like to be, but it's different from 10 to 20 million illegals. I still would ask you the same question. Right. That's the point. And I get it. You don't have an answer for me. To vote Democrat. Okay, let me try it another way, okay? Because I want to make sure that we're aligned on what we want. All right, let's say I'm a candidate and I don't want to say your district because I don't want another angry old Jew lady to show up. But you know, in general, Illinois, ish. I'm running. I go, okay, I understand. I hear it. Young Americans don't have this as well as they should. Okay, look, all right, here's what I'm going to do for you. I am going to vote for and I am going to support, of course, pausing all illegal immigration. We're going to close the border down. We're going to start building the wall. Okay, we're going to do that. Okay. We're blocked by Democrats, but here's what we're going to do. We're going to reduce H1BS by 87%. These things are suppressing your wages. All right? We're going to do everything we can to bring down the cost of rent. We're going to do everything we can to try and make housing more affordable. Here's what we're going to do as far as jobs, okay, Jobs. We're going to punish companies that are offshoring. We're going to use tariffs. We're going to incentivize companies that are onshoring. We're going to codify these taxes into law. We're going to try and do this to remove the effects that are suppressing your wages as a young American. So you don't see what the Democrats would have, which is a 20 plus percent unemployment rate. We're going to get rid of DEI. We're going to get rid of just for you guys. We're going to get rid of racially based admissions. We're going to have a Supreme Court that rules on these and overturns them. More money back in your pocket. Try and make sure that we can employ American workers, America first. But that's enough because I will do that. And how do I be the guy to get your vote, Nick?

[B]

Mass deportations. Build the wall. Keep us out of war with Iran. Period. That's all you had to do. That's all they had to do to keep me happy. And that's all the next president has to do to make me happy. It's not happening. Running.

[A]

So how do I. So. So it comes down to those we understand that requires right going through Congress. So what you really mean is use the nuclear option to get the wall passed.

[B]

You don't even Stephen. You don't even need it because they passed the big beautiful bill. They have the money. They got $190 billion. Wasn't that the pitch? We're going to cut Medicaid to pay for a corporate tax rate, but that's okay because we're going to allocate 190 billion to fund DHS in perpetuity. Not 90 billion for ICE, 20 billion for a border wall. But they, they're. It's not that they can't do it. They won't do it. ICE and CBP didn't even shut down when the Democrats shut down DHS because they were funded through the next five years from the BBB from last year in June. But they're not doing it because they don't want to get rid of the farmers. They don't want to get rid of this. That because the donors don't want them to. They don't want to build the wall for reasons like Trump can't get his favored companies to get the contract. So they're just giving up. Like that's the problem. You can't blame the Democrats on this one. Why are they not doing more? I mean, you tell me they have the money. Why are they not doing raids? Why are they not shutting everybody down? Why is the border wall not finished by now? It's not finished.

[A]

It is being built. So. But here's my point, right? Like do it. Okay, but right now you're not going to trust anyone who says they will do it because there is gridlock. You do have someone campaigns on it. And I've heard you say, well, they're not going to do it. It. So how do I get your vote? In other words, I know that Nick Fuentes and his people are gonna vote Democrat. They don't have anyone, they don't have grassroots, they don't have funding. So I wanna be that guy and step up as tribute how you're saying the person is a. They will come. And how is give me the exact rhetoric that I've rejected because I've said it's nothing but broken promises and dismissed all of it. I don't think there's any world in which any candidate would fit the bill. And I don't think there's any world, frankly, Nick, in which you or have a ground game, the finances to go up against, the donor class to go up against. Frankly, the fact that when Democrats attain power, you're gonna be looking at a moderate Republican because then people's perceptions and their priorities shift toward Winning. That's what we see historically. It just, I understand where your heart. Cuz my heart is there too in not wanting moderate Republicans. I think it's objectively the worst path forward and guarantees destruction, but I think, think we disagree on that because you think it's certain destruction anyway and there's no difference. And I can respect that.

[B]

There's no other option. There's no other option. I mean, you know, Vance and Rubio, these are horrible options. They're not going to cut it. They are a part of this administration. It's going to be an extension of this administration. And these past two administrations under Trump have been objectively a failure as far as I'm concerned. There's literally no other option other than to burn this down and hope that something else will be there because this ain't gonna work. And you know, you can say all that, but it's like if, if Donald Trump running in 24, if he can't get mass deportations, if he can't build the wall, if he can't keep us out of war with Iran, how is Rubio and Vance, how are they going to be any better? They were a part of this. They don't have the cult of personality around them. They're not ideologically aligned with Trump. Trump, they're going to be worse. So you either have something worse than this or you have a Democrat. I'm rejecting all of it and saying weaken the Republicans, get somebody better in 28. Open up that space for somebody to show up.

[A]

Well, you rapid fire that and we keep going because this is the way our brain works. So I'm not condemning you for it. But Donald Trump did not say that we would never be in a war with Iran. You can go back to 1980 where he has consistently said, I will use the military against Iran. You may not. 1980-1987-9396-2011 and that escalator speech, you may not agree with it, but it's not like he has doubled back on that. He said no new forever wars. In the history of wars, 70 Something Days is remarkably short. I hope it ends soon like I said and give it three months, then we'll check back. I'll share the same opinion that you would. We said, okay, there's no difference in deportations. I disagree because even the New York Times article that you cite, I know, I remember that it was half a million. That's not including self deportations. And you say no wall. Are you going to disagree with the this one too? Washington Post, 1300 miles of Wall right now, currently under construction. Leftist source.

[B]

Not real.

[A]

It's not real.

[B]

Fake. Fake.

[A]

So everything, every single number from think tank from these departments, whether it's dhs, also people who have a vested interest in harming Donald Trump, you've simply dismissed them as fake or not real while presenting the idea of destruction being the only solution. You get why that's disingenuous?

[B]

It's disingenuous. First of all, that half million number from the New York Times, I, I already told you, that's 230,000 removals. And the other half million are arrests. Those are not people that have been deported. So 230,000 removals for the year. And then by the way, we're in the second year and they shut down the raids, they shut down these big surges of CBP and ICE to the city. So it's not, they wanted a million per year. We're getting a quarter million and we might get fewer this year. So it's like, it's not. I don't trust any number number. The border wall number.

[A]

You trust every number that Democrats use As talking points, 100 of the ones that you use.

[B]

Well, show me that, show me the ICE numbers. If the, if ICE is so proud of the job they've done, then why has ICE not published the numbers that their mandated put out semi monthly since December 2024 if they're so proud.

[A]

Okay, we will publish the numbers after this interview from Brookie.

[B]

No, no, no. Why is ICE not published them? Why is ICE not published those numbers if they're so great? Because they have them. They won't publish them.

[A]

ICE has published numbers and I know that they've made some changes to that for the same reason that we see. By the way, you're not going to argue, you're not going to get an argument from me that we get consistent number tracking. For example, these numbers of native born versus foreign born, they get changed. And particularly with a very high turbulence issue like immigration, those numbers get misreported, they get revised. That's why we also rely on secondary sources. For example, your New York Times source, for example the Brookings Institute, for example, Washington Post. But you go, I don't like that one. And you cherry pick it.

[B]

I don't think that survey, I don't like the community survey from the census where they survey 65,000 households. It could very easily be a response bias, you know, if illegals are not responding to the survey. Okay. And by the way, and I would

[A]

say the same thing with New York

[B]

Times, they revised the data down? No, but the New York Times is actually going into internal data, not, not public data that ICE releases, but internal data. And that is their essence. So if ICE were proud of, now

[A]

the Washington Post, with 1300 miles of border wall currently under construction, that. But that they're using the data available. Do we apply the same standard?

[B]

I imagine you pulled that up. I haven't seen that during the show because you didn't mention that earlier. So I haven't seen that, but I don't believe that's true.

[A]

Yeah, we covered it on a show also before. You know what? Look, I always take it with a grain of salt. That's why I provide two or three sources. I think the totality is there's a very different picture. And I think. I think many people would say there's a very different picture on immigration, on net, positive, negative immigration, H1BS on the border wall. I think that contrast is pretty stark. And again, voting for Democrat, where we know where they line up, is a very tough sell with the person will appear. That's really the sticking point. The person will appear. This is very similar. It ends up being what you did in 2020, 2022, where you said sit it out or, you know, vote third party or in most cases, I know, sit it out. I'll give you that. That you didn't. You never said vote Democrat. You've never encouraged people to vote Democrat. If that's the case. Yeah, but it did have net effects. People sitting out flipped the Senate. Right. And there was no plan after that. And now it's take your word for it that there's a plan this time because he will appear. Would you consider putting something, something together, more concrete so that those on the right could work in tandem to accomplish something like the left has done over the course of decades.

[B]

Like I told you, that comes together during. When someone is ready to announce, they will announce. Okay, so first, it's not like we don't have an idea of who might run or what the plan might be. It's just that you know how that goes in a presidential election year. You don't announce until you announce. That's number one. But number two, you're. Everybody is so hung up on, well, who are we going to vote for? Well, who are we going to vote for? It's like, well, let's just make it clear. Vance and Rubio, which I don't even hear you disputing this. You say, I would reluctantly support Rubio if I had to. Neither, like, let me ask you this. This is a very simple.

[A]

I wouldn't know. I'll clarify. I wouldn't reluctantly support Rubio over Gavin Newsom. I would, I would, I would passionately vote Ruby over Gavin Newsom because we have a two party system and that's how it goes.

[B]

And that's crazy because I don't want Obama, McCain, I don't want Obama, Romney, I don't want Newsom, Rubio. I want something else. And the only, and here's the thing, this is the way I would say it. If Vance and Rubio are strong in 28, we don't get a primary.

[A]

Right.

[B]

You understand? Because the, the party will consolidate around one of them, like most of the party. The money, the leadership, the cadre will fall in line behind one or the other and you're going to get a very tiny field where one guy's going to be the dominant favorite and there won't be a competition. In my mind, that means, like, just in terms of logic, the only way that anyone's gonna stand a chance is if they are sufficiently weakened by being tied to this toxic administration if the administration fails and is sabotaged. And so it's just about creating a possibility for another choice. That's the most simple way that I can make it.

[A]

I understand. Yeah. It's about, like you said, sabotaging the Trump administration in order to create the possibility. And like you said, they need to go into election weaker, which means the country would be in a worse off place. So put the country in a worse off place. Sabotage the America first administration in order for the person who will appear, who

[B]

will be better, the Israel first administration. I think that's very obvious.

[A]

So is that the issue?

[B]

Well, you say you want to sabotage the America first administration. This is not an America first administration. In what way? In what way are they putting America over Israel or other countries?

[A]

In the ways that we just went through that you refute at all costs with Democrat talking points. And that's, that's where I'm confused.

[B]

They shut down deportations because they're unpopular. Then they launched a regime change war of choice in Iran. You have them going into Harvard and Yale telling them you have to teach a pro Israel curriculum. They're reviewing 50,000 visas to see if they've ever criticized Israel. Like they reviewed every country that receives foreign aid to see if they're America first except for Israel. That was the memo last year. So it's like, you know, you say, oh, you want to bring down this administration, saving America? It's not happening.

[A]

Not even saving America. I said, I am repeating back to you what you said. This administration needs to be sabotaged. You've said that you want to see President Trump impeached, you want to see him hamstrung. And the nation needs to be worse off so that someone will appear who will save it.

[B]

Oh, I don't. I don't.

[A]

So make sure your audience knows that, that young Americans are going to be facing double digit unemployment, well over 20%. You're going to be seeing a massive influx of H1Bs. You're going to see the exact opposite. You're going to see the exact opposite.

[B]

Gas prices were $6 a gallon. That would be crazy. Oh, it's a good thing we bombed Iran.

[A]

And if not this, then that. There's the moving the goalposts. Be honest with your audience. You want this country to be in a worse place in this administration, Democrats to be stronger so that, and I would get. Go along with it if I understood it. So that someone will appear is not enough. Because I think you're going to run into the same problem that you run into with Dan Belzer and you're really upset about the purity test, saying we don't all have to think the same thing. And I don't think there's any candidate who would be able to pass yours. Here's mine. No money for Israel at all. AIPAC should be treated like every single other foreign lobbying organization. Fuck them with a wire brush. Could you vote for me? Because I'm not going to go any further than that.

[B]

I'm not saying the country has to be worse off. I'm saying the administration does. And what I said at the very beginning is the administration is doing bad things. War with Iran is bad. If the Democrats could get in and shut that down, that's good. If Democrats can get in and, and subpoena and impeach these people that are doing these things, that's good. So, no, I actually don't think the country's gonna be worse off. I think the administration's gonna be worse off. The administration's unpopular.

[A]

Well, okay, so you mean you think it'll just be painful that you think that Democrats will just be painful for the Trump administration, not for the American people. Do I have that correct?

[B]

Yeah, because again, they're only gonna control the House.

[A]

Okay, all right. That's a fundamental disagreement. I think that when Democrats, I think especially when you look at their plan, I think when they attain power, I think also what we've lived through underneath them, including Sometimes just having control of the House, I think it'll be catastrophic. I think it'll be destructive. And I certainly think that's a big risk because if they have that and then they get a general election, which is not unlikely. Right. That's not a, that's not a small risk. Would we agree with that? Would we agree that midterm wins generally? Generally, especially when opposition translate to general wins the next time. Would you agree with that statement?

[B]

Not necessarily.

[A]

Not necessarily. But as a historical trend, the president would be. The likelihood of Democrats winning a general if they win those whit terms is quite. It's higher than 50%, maybe it's 52. But it's not a small risk.

[B]

There's a risk, certainly.

[A]

Yeah. And that's the.

[B]

What is the risk of running Vance and Rubio? I don't think they're winnable candidates anyway. And I think even if they were, we don't want them.

[A]

So. Yep, I understand that, and I certainly understand the criticism of them. I certainly don't want Democrats to have the House. House and White House. And I think that's a more. It's a stronger likelihood than not. And that to me, is just a bridge that I absolutely wouldn't be able to cross. But I do appreciate you laying this out. And by the way, I do again, I was there at the Tea Party. I think you were younger than the Tea Party there. I know now it's like, oh, the Tea Party. It's a corny name, but the Rick Santelli rant where everyone was saying that saying socialism about Barack Obama was a racist dog whistle and they were able to veer the party further to the right. I do think that it can be done more effectively, effectively through primaries, rather than instituting into power the party of like, just to put a finer point on it, Drag Queen Story Hour. I think the left in America is out of their mind. And giving them any power is a. Is an insane risk.

[B]

Yeah, I, I think that we just got to stop playing not to lose. We got to play to win. And sometimes that means you got to take a couple steps back to take a few steps forward. I mean that. And that's really what it comes down to. I think that because I've been on this ride, you've been on it longer than me, admittedly, but I've been on this ride and I've watched all these cycles, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24. And I've just been so disappointed at Republicans willingness to just completely sell us out on everything. I mean, you Even go back to 22. Not to open up a whole other thing, but like I remember in 2020, they gave up on Trump fighting the stolen election. 22, they said, we're going to get to the bottom of a Capitol riot footage. We're gonna look at the surveillance and we're gonna fight Biden on the debt ceiling, we're gonna force. Immigration didn't do any of it. 24 deportations, no new wars. It's like we tried it that way for a long time and increasingly. Cuz you're right. 20, 22, 24, 26. For me, it's escalating. I'm getting more and more off, more and more. Like, when do we get it? When does it happen? After they bombed Iran, I said, trump, I see what you've done for Israel. Do that for deportations. They won't. So this is where we're at. I think they forced our hand. That's how I see it.

[A]

Yeah. Would you allow for the fact, by the way, I would like to at some point here if you're okay with it, because I don't want to pull a Candace and put your interview behind paywall. This has all been mass. But take some chat because that's for those who subscribe. Would you allow for the fact that when you're talking about your purity tests, that someone may think, hey, you know what, a weekend in non nuclear Iran or Iran being a potential threat needing to be dealt with, that someone could hold that opinion and not be exclusively holding it for Israel?

[B]

I think they could, but I just think they'd be wrong. I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening there.

[A]

Okay, so again, just to clarify, can someone say, yeah, I think Iran should be weakened, I think Iran is a threat and I think there's a reason that this military conflict is going on. And I wouldn't advocate doing it on behalf of Israel, but I do think there's a reason to do it on behalf of the United States.

[B]

I just don't know. I mean, I think you can think that, I think you can think that that is what you're supporting, but I don't think there's any practical way where that happens in reality. Like I said, I think that's just like context, denial of what's really going on over there. You know, we need to weaken Iran. Like, I'll say this, Iran should not get a nuclear weapon. I'm 100% agreement with that. However, why do they want one? You know, and how are we going to prevent them from getting one. There's no way to answer those questions without involving Israel and how they've been the engine of all of these events.

[A]

Sure there is.

[B]

Okay, how

[A]

it's a radical death cult who want to eradicate anyone who doesn't follow suit at any cost that they have done historically. I mean, it follows Muhammad to a T. Who created this exact same playbook. I think that if you got rid. This is where we. I don't think we should be giving any blank check to Israel. If we want to discuss this, we can discuss this. Let's do it. I don't think we should be giving a blank check to Israel. None ad hoc basis, like every other nation. I think I hate AIPAC for the same reason I hate ActBlue, that they gave like 800k to Hakeem Jeffries. But I also think that, yeah, they probably need to look into them. And I don't think they should be able to do this under the cloak of Americans. I don't think any group should be lobbying on behalf of a foreign, foreign government above the priorities of Americans. So screw AIPAC with a wire brush. My position is no foreign lobbying, period. But that doesn't pass the purity test because I also think that the Iranian regime is a death cult who, if Israel didn't exist tomorrow, would be just like muhammad in the 6th, in the 7th century, 8th century, every single century, trying to eradicate anyone who's not under Islamic subjugation, regardless of this modern nation. That's my opinion, and I don't think it helps. I think they hate Israel. I don't think it's the only reason.

[B]

I don't consider that a purity test. I think that's just a fundamental ideological difference. If you're, if you're talking about I think we should bomb Iran, I think we should destroy Iran for pro America reasons. It's like, well, I don't think we should destroy Iran. I don't think we can. And I don't think it's even worthwhile. I mean, you look at. We just simply cannot look at what's happening right now. We hit them with everything we have, everything from air and sea, everything. And they maintain control of the strait. They maintain the ability to launch drones and missiles. The regime is intact. What more do you think we can do militarily that's gonna put a stop to this? You know, I mean, do you have an answer for that?

[A]

Hold on a second. We're getting into two separate things. The question that I was asking is, and we can go to That, I mean, I think that it's. Again, you do this where you're like 90% of their Navy is gone. Like, yeah, they're able to control the strait. But you also know that that has to do with insurance rates. Right. And businesses not being willing to take the risk. Risk that's little different from saying that militarily, they're completely intact. The point that I was making, though, and I see this strain, particularly from, you know, people like Dan Bilzerian going over and saying, I heard the call to prayer and it was the most beautiful thing in the world. I don't believe that there has been a greater evil perpetrated against Christianity or the free world than Islam.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Yeah. And I think that that's.

[B]

I'm not pro Muslim. I'm not proud Muslim in any way, shape or form.

[A]

I know that you're not. But the point is, a lot of these people who would be more in alliance with you than me are like, well, that's not. That's Jewish propaganda. It's not propaganda. It's an understanding of historical record and precedents. And I think that Iran is obviously the most radical as far as a group, the regime, by the way. We need to separate the people from the regime. There's a reason that the vast majority of people pray for these bombs and want them for the same reason the people of Venezuela and right now, the people of Cuba. It doesn't mean it's our job to be clear, but there's a reason that the people are very different from the regime. They're following lockstep with Muhammad and the initial spread of Islam. And that absolutely would happen here in the United States. If we followed the leftist voting pattern, the leftist governing pattern, we'd end up like Europe or Canada. And I was in Canada and I watched people cheer the second tower be hit. Because at a hugely Muslim school, I've lived through it anecdotally and empirically, it's a far greater threat than the Jews, who are annoying, I'll grant.

[B]

Well, I mean, but what are we talking. Are we talking about Iran? Are we talking about Jews versus Islam? Because these are two very different things, I think.

[A]

Well, I started this by saying, could someone have the view that Iran, because of their specific, by the way, practice of Islam and worldview, that they would need to be, I guess you would say, rendered more impotent, sort of denuclearized? It wasn't about nuclear weapons. It was about them being able to build nuclear weapons and no one being able to stop them. That. That would be in the interests of the West. And really any nation that is not Islamic or wants to be subjugated to Islam, could someone hold that view and them not be holding that view just because it was propagated by the Jews, A huge contingency say, no, you're just believing what the Jewish lobby has told you and we're doing it for Israel. I think there can be two separate tracks. Israel doesn't want a nuclear ramp. Israel recognizes that Iran is a threat and so do we. For the same reason, by the way, that Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Islamic world does.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, like I said, I think you can think that, but I don't think there's any way to effectuate that policy without it playing into that larger plan. Like again, you know these, you say, well, I don't think Iran should have a nuclear weapon. Okay, so then we have to bomb them because they're not going to give it up with the deal. So we have to bomb them. Okay, so we're going to bomb them. Well, now they're going to close the strait and they're going to attack Saudi Arabia and the rest of it. Now what do we do? Well, we got to attack all their drone and missile launch platforms. How do you do that? It's huge country, they're very cheap, inexpensive weapons, decentralized command system. It's like, so do we now have to invade Iran or do we just walk away and let them have this? You say, well, it's about insurance. Okay, well, Iran will maintain the ability to launch drones at the straight, which is narrow in perpetuity. So, so that's gonna be a problem in perpetuity. And either we're gonna give them the straight and they could charge a toll. You know, there's no other options here. So that's what I'm saying. Like you can say I'm in favor of attacking Iran for pro America reasons, but there's no way that goes other than you're walking down the road to regime change which Israel will exacerbate. They will accelerate that. That's the only destination it could go toward. In my opinion.

[A]

The only destination it could go toward is Israel accelerating regime change.

[B]

Change. Yeah. Well, and just the whole, the ladder of escalation for the tactical reasons I just described, like there's no, in other words, there's no way to easily hit their nukes and that. Like last year they said, oh, double tap, we're going to hit the nukes, then it's all over. Okay, but what happens they start digging the nukes out. So what do we do now? We got to bomb them again. Okay, well, you know, so what's the alternative? The alternative is, again, why is Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon? It is to hedge against Israel. I think we have to restrain Israel and give Iran assurances we won't attack them. And then they might agree that they don't need a strategic capability like that. I think that's the only way.

[A]

So tell me how that looks. You said restrain Israel and then Iran wouldn't pursue nukes. Please tell me how that looks.

[B]

We have to tell Israel that if they continue to provoke Iran or confront Iran or derail negotiations, which they did last year, then we will remember, revoke their foreign aid. We will intervene maybe in their elections, even for that matter, which we have the power to do. Well, like, look at Netanyahu. Netanyahu, at various times, it looks like he might have lost American support and that made him less popular. So you could say, look, listen, Mr. Prime Minister, America is going to lean on you in every way that we can, economically, militarily, in terms of foreign aid, in public diplomacy. Stay out of this. And then we could go to Iran and say, look, we're able to tell Israel no. Now we can have something like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I thought that was a good deal, where you'll have sanctions relief, we'll have monitoring, we'll have verification. Russia can be a signatory, and we're going to make sure that you have a peaceful nuclear program, you know, and then one day they'll be integrated into collective security in the region. We don't have to worry about them. That's what that looks like.

[A]

You really think that Iran would be integrated into the collective security of the region? Region. Do you actually believe that?

[B]

It was happening in 2023. China brokered a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. 100%.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, historically. So here's my position, to sort of take an extreme version of the position. I think if Israel didn't exist tomorrow, now, maybe it wouldn't necessarily be Iran as we know it, because these countries that basically live. If you were to give the world an anima, that's where you'd stick the hose. They war against each other. You can do the seventh century, eighth century, every single century up until and including the modern advent of Israel. I think if Israel didn't exist tomorrow, the current Iran as we know it would still not play ball and probably get a nuke to hedge against the Sunni world. You know, places Like Saudi Arabia. There are entire documentaries on how much they've hated each other. And by the way, they'll make deals and break them tomorrow. And I still think that they would view us as a giant devil. It doesn't mean that militarily the strategy has been correct. That's why I said give us three months or give me three months before I form an opinion. I think there's a world in which it makes sense if it's short, effective and decisive. If it's not, then I think it's a mistake. But it has nothing to do with Israel has told you that Iran is a threat and that's a purity test. I say this because I know you've run up against it. Then I run up against it too. Where I go, you know what? I don't want a nuclear Iran. And I think that if people believe the Islamic world would not be seeing the west as, as a threat and would not be trying to out populate us, to subjugate us if not for Israel is a pipe dream and it ignores all of human history. And that gets shut down when people go, well you, you're not America first. Because actually the Jews are a problem and not Islam. I think Islam is still one of the greatest threats to the Western world and I think that Iran's a big part of that. And as to whether this is effective remains to be seen. I'm not a supporter of it. I said I gotta wait three months to see cuz there's information I can't know. But it has nothing to do with the Japanese.

[B]

Well, it has everything to do with them because Israel got a nuclear weapon first. Israel initiated the arms race in the Middle East. They got their nuke, then Iraq got their nuclear reactor. So what did Israel do? They bombed Iraq and then Iraq put their nuclear program underground. Then we had to invade in 1990. Syria had a nuclear program. What did Israel do? They bomb the reactor in 2007 like Israel. Well, let's just be honest. They are the revisionist power in the Middle East. Their doctrine is to destabilize and destroy all their neighbors. This goes Back to the 1980s, Oded Yinon's plan for Israel. They want to say what they call it. It's a mosaic of tribes with flags. They want to basically destroy all the big strong states so they can't militarily challenge Israel. It is in the context of this environment that Iran realizes they're next. Iraq fell, Libya fell. Syria fell. Egypt had a couple. Iran says we're next on the Chopping block. It's even in the clean break memo. So they say, how do we hedge against a nuclear Israel missiles proxies a nuclear hedge centrifuges if they being one

[A]

of the biggest funder of global terrorism across the entire globe, not just Saudi Arabia closest ally.

[B]

Saudi Arabia is responsible for the Wahhabist ideology that inspired ISIS and Al Qaeda.

[A]

You know, you're not going to get me to say that I love Saudi Arabia, but that's one of those enemy of my enemies. And I think people look back at alliances and go, well, that doesn't make any sense. It's like, well, you have to understand that it made sense in the moment. So I just, I go back to the restraining of Israel would include what. Because here's the thing, that would require serious military intervention, right? So would you advocate serious intervention against Israel? My point is, how do you do that? And then why is Iran no longer a threat?

[B]

Political intervention. We have tremendous leverage over Israel that we just simply refuse to use. You know, we provide a substantial percentage of their defense budget that we provide the security umbrella for them. We provide them with all these advanced weapons and parts and, and everything like that. We have enormous leverage over them. And yet the tail wags the dog. Trump engaged, to his credit, engaged Iran in diplomacy last year and Netanyahu tried to sabotage it. We announced the diplomacy on April 2nd and the next day Netanyahu comes out and says, says the only deal we will accept is if we blow up Iran's nuclear program. Like they're derailing it on purpose. And they, they did that under Obama, they did that under Biden, they did it under Trump. 1. And so you need to use the leverage to tell them, look, stay out of this. This is, this is our planet, we're America. And then, yes, I think that if you, if you could build trust with Iran, then you could achieve something like the jcpoa and then we wouldn't have to go to war. The alternative is we have to have regime change in Iran. That's it.

[A]

So to be clear. Oh, my mic's not working. Sorry. Yeah, hold on one second. Oh, sorry. There we go. The whole time I was like, ah. So I don't know if that happened. What were you doing there, Billy? You just, did you fall asleep? Did you hit you? Did you pull a Halloween 2 and run the steering wheel? So going back to the point that you were making was, okay, we restrain Israel. So you believe that, for example, and this is, hey, something that I think a case can be made, made Geopolitically if we restrain Israel, by the way, I'm all for ending the 3 billion, 3 plus billion. I know it's 3.8 all four. Ending that period. I think. Now, I do think it should be an ad hoc basis, just like we have with other nations. If there's something that's worthwhile to us, we go, okay, we'll pay you. You know, it's a contractor versus actually having an employee, to use the analogy. But if you believe that we did that, you think the JCPOA would work? Because I definitely think that was a disaster. I think it didn't work. And I actually do think that blockading their entire oil export machine, their navy being destroyed, it's a big piece of leverage to get Iran to at least come to the table when they never were. I still don't think the JCPOA would be something that could be tenable.

[B]

Why not? I mean, what about it was a

[A]

disaster primarily that you're dealing with Iran. They lie as easily as. They lie as easily as they breathe. And it's because of an ideology, regardless of Israel. But, but to go back to the point of view, would you vote for someone who goes, could someone, for example, when we're talking about 2028, and this goes back to that, could someone line up with you on every single other thing, but have supported the military action in Iran and get your vote?

[B]

Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

[A]

Even if they support defunding Israel, doing away with AIPAC, closing up the border, complete deportation, shutting down H1BS, would you vote for like, like a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders, but he's against the war in Iran and he talks a lot about global jury? Or would you vote for the person who is America first to the right on all issues, including immigration, including labor, including tariffs, including social issues, but he supported the war in Iran and as far as he goes, there's no more funding for Israel. Who would you vote for?

[B]

That's a pretty extreme hypothetical.

[A]

It is an extreme hypothetical.

[B]

But what I.

[A]

What matters to you more?

[B]

I don't know, but what I would say, that's a fair answer that I, here's the thing. I can't support somebody that supported the war in Iran because, and here's the big picture about it, what is the actually the end game here? You can't say, well, if Israel doesn't exist. Israel does exist and they have existed and they have nukes and that is the central. They have an undeclared nuclear arsenal. And that is really at the center of this. And again, Israel has a foreign policy they've engaged in for a very long time of destabilizing and destroying all their neighbors with the help of the United States, with the influence of the Israel lobby in the United States. So you can't say like, well, if Israel didn't exist and if this and if that Israel's plan is to use the United States to topple Iran, why? So that they are uncontested in the region. They don't want any rivals. Why?

[A]

Why?

[B]

So that they can dominate the. This is like big picture geopolitics. This is the center of the world island, okay? You have Europe, Asia, Africa. This is where all the world's resources are. All the commerce is going to go through that rimland area, through the Middle east, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and then overland through the Middle East. They're going to control all of that. They're going to have hegemony over that, over the Arabian Peninsula. That will make them something like a superpower. I know that sounds crazy to say.

[A]

No, it doesn't sound crazy. It doesn't sound crazy. I don't deny that Israel has their own selfish interests. And by the way, I think you're misrepresenting my view. I was making the point where I was saying, even if Israel didn't exist, I think you still have to deal with the problem of Islam, its encroachment and its expansion. And I think that Iran is one of the most radical actors in that respect. I do want to go to Chad, but here's my question, because we started this off with, okay, the common enemy. And I appreciate, by the way you said, I don't know, because a lot of people would go, well, they would equivocate. Let's. I'm thinking of running for office, okay? I'm thinking of running for office. And I can't stand the Mitt Romney's and the John McCain's of the world. All right? Now I understand we live in a two party system and we need to have coalitions, we need to have voting blocks if we want to win the country. So you have to have all this base that have already voted Republican conservatives right across the board. And we know boomers, okay? People make fun of them, but they outvote Gen Z by a significant margin, certainly millennials. Okay? So my stance is, let's say it's me, all right? Shut down the border, mass deportations, build the wall immediately. Completely shut down H1BS. I put a half a million dollar fee on it in case someone's bringing in the next, Elon Musk or Nikola Tesla from El Salvador, for God's sakes. I don't know. Something that wouldn't affect the multimillion dollar salary. Of course we continue with the Supreme Court. I enable states to have more authorities that deals with abortion restrictions. So I don't know how much more I could do that at this point. Tariffs on certainly industries that are taking advantage of us so that they are reciprocal. I would do my best to onshore jobs by basically going the opposite of directions like nafta. I'd punish companies that offshore them, incentivize them to onshore them. I'd have tax cuts across the board, but certainly middle class families. No more foreign lobbying organizations. And no more blank check to Israel. And of course no more money to Ukraine. I would pull us from NATO until everyone meets their payments. But maybe I think that Iran is a threat. Could you vote for me?

[B]

Well, you know, again, it's like, do you think Iran is a.

[A]

That's a very realistic candidate. Could you vote for me? Okay, could you be a part of my coalition?

[B]

Here's the problem. You go to war with Iran. What does that mean? You know, you say, well, we'll give them three months. It's like, how are we gonna win this one? Gas prices are five, six dollars a gallon. Strait of Hormuz is closed. Israel is chomping at the bit for us to reignite the war and expand it. It's like, are we getting into another Iraq? Are we invading Iran? Are we nuking Iran?

[A]

No, I'm asking you all those other things. In other words, no candidate is perfect. You've bitched about the purity test a lot lately. Let's reduce it.

[B]

Is that I don't wanna war with Iran.

[A]

I supported the military intervention in Iran. Iran. So all those other things. There's a Democrat who is to the left and all those other things, but was vehemently against Iran. Could you vote for me? Could you be a part of my coalition if I want to take back the White House?

[B]

See, I don't know what the value of the thought experiment is. A war with Iran is not a purity test.

[A]

I'm trying to figure out what matters most. Because candidates who may magically appear need to know what the purity test is for 2028 because we still don't have a name or description. I'm saying someone like me, I should meet the purity test. Except for, you know what? I'll give it three months in Iran, but everything else. Okay, would you vote for me then?

[B]

That's that's assuming again that you can bomb Iran and then walk away. We're going to bomb Iran a little bit, but not like. Is that what's happening? No, we're stuck.

[A]

Could you vote for me?

[B]

No. No, I can't. I need America first.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

And America first means we're not at war with Iran and we're not importing a million in illegals every year.

[A]

Okay, I got it. That's fair. I understand it. Hey, this is where we have a difference of opinion. It's not the deal breaker for me in the same way that it is to you, but I understand where we line up. Can we take some chats and can you tell people where the best place is to reach you while we're here? Mass public. And I do. Hopefully this is still. I know it got more intense, but respect. Also, I'll issue one correction. I was corrected by a friend who raises horses. It's champing at the bit. And I was saying that for years because chances interchangeable.

[B]

It's interchangeable.

[A]

He's a horse guy. He said it's not, but you know, he was like, don't. It drives me nuts when you say

[B]

I investigated this years ago.

[A]

Did you? Yeah. So did I. But he swears by it, so. Okay. All right. I can go both ways. I don't really care, as long as. No. As long as we both agree that we publicly execute anyone who says irregardless.

[B]

Yes, yes.

[A]

Perfect. Best place for people to find you, Nick. And then we'll take some chat.

[B]

Rumble.com NickJ Fuentes and

[A]

all right. And if people want to continue and you want to send Nick your chats, you can right there click that button. Join Rumble Premium, which by the way, allows freedom of speech to exist. This is one beautiful thing as far as I would say progress that's been made where we can have these conversations. I think this may even be simul streamed on YouTube. So we stuck it. Stuck it to the old ghost of Wojcicki there. Nick, I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go tinkle, so you can do that too. And we'll come back and take chats. Is that okay? Okay.

[B]

Okay. Yeah, sounds good.

[A]

All right, I'll be right back. Thank you, Nick Fuentes, everybody. We'll talk more in Rumble Premium.