The Left is Violent | Change My Mind

Summary

Podcast Summary: "The Left is Violent | Change My Mind"

Louder with Crowder – October 1, 2025

---

Episode Overview

Theme:
Steven Crowder returns to the "Change My Mind" series, this time arguing the premise that "the left is violent"—specifically, that political violence in the U.S. is predominantly perpetrated by the left in 2025. The discussion is set at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, and covers definitions of political violence, recent events (notably the assassination of Charlie Kirk), media bias, polling data, and whether the left/right divide accurately describes the problem.

Throughout several in-depth and candid conversations with people of varied viewpoints, Crowder explores definitions, motives, and systemic causes, while defending his assertion through anecdotes, statistics, and first-hand experience.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Defining Political Violence (04:00–05:00)

• Crowder and participants agree on a definition: political violence is “violence as a tool being used toward a political end,” not just crime broadly.
  • Notable quote:
    “If you go out and run someone over because of their politics, that would be political.” — Steven Crowder [04:31]
• Agreement is sought to ensure conversation is about targeted, purposeful acts motivated by ideology.

2. Statistics & Disproportion – Is the Left More Violent? (10:00–15:00)

• Crowder asserts that, especially in 2025, left-wing political violence far exceeds right-wing, referencing polls and incidents (e.g., the assassination of Charlie Kirk).
  • Notable data:
    "The YouGov poll said, ‘Is political violence acceptable?’ 77% of conservatives said not at all. Only 38% of those on the left said not at all. 62% said somewhat to completely acceptable.” — Crowder [12:06]
• He challenges his guests to provide equivalent examples of right-wing violence, arguing such symmetry does not exist.

3. Media Reporting & Biases (06:45, 29:00, 30:00)

• Participants and Crowder agree media often inaccurately or incompletely characterizes violence, and postulate about events before facts are established, which can exacerbate division.
  • “Our media is... when they make these statements... it will become political before we’ve even fully fleshed everything out.” — Guest [06:49]
• Crowder raises concerns about selective reporting and omission of left-wing violence in many academic and media sources.

4. Examples and Case Studies (07:15–08:30, 27:10–28:00)

• The murder of Charlie Kirk is identified as a clear case of leftist political violence (perpetrator’s motives explicitly political and anti-conservative).
  • “The express motive of the terrorist who assassinated Charlie Kirk was politics...to take out someone of his political persuasion and make others...afraid to express their opinions.” — Crowder [08:30]
• Portland’s Aaron Danielson shooting (2020), Waukesha parade attack (2021), and George Floyd riots are cited as left-driven but “not included” in widely cited databases.
• Discussion on whether violence by individuals who claim affiliation with a side, but act for personal or unclear reasons (e.g., the Hortmans case), fits the “political violence” definition.

5. Rhetoric, Demonization, and The Role of Leadership (15:00–20:00)

• Crowder argues left-wing leadership and media have painted the right as fascists, Nazis, and genocidal, radicalizing their own base.
  • “We kept saying that people like Charlie Kirk...were fascists...it's incumbent upon us to tone this down” — Crowder [16:00]
  • Guest: “It feels so polarized right now. It's even hard to find common ground on anything.” — Christina [17:32]
• He emphasizes the necessity for accountability and moderation in rhetoric to de-escalate tensions.

6. Personal Risk and Security (19:07–20:49)

• Crowder shares practical impacts—having to spend heavily on security to host such discussions, while leftist speakers allegedly face no comparable threats.
  • “This is why... the reason I stopped doing this for years is because every single time out was a violent attack.” — Crowder [11:00]
  • Guest (female pastor): “I'm a female pastor in deep East Texas...I too live with a fear, but it's just, it's different for me.” — Guest [20:53]

7. Accountability vs. Both Sides Argument (22:14–25:25)

• Crowder questions the efficacy of saying "violence comes from both sides" when, by his account, the evidence is overwhelmingly one-sided.
  • “Both sides-ing it...lets the side that's responsible for it off the hook...how is that pointing the finger? It's identifying the problem and not repeating history." — Crowder [24:07]
• Guest is hesitant to endorse more aggressive calling out of “the left,” reflecting on the dangers of blanket blame.

8. Problems with Data and Institutional Failure (27:10–30:00)

• Crowder details the flaws in commonly cited violence data—claims left-wing violence (e.g., George Floyd riots, Aaron Danielson killing) are omitted from datasets, while right-wing incidents are over-represented due to source bias (by project authors themselves engaged in leftist activism).
  • “All the studies from left-wing sources don't include that. Is that bothersome?” — Crowder [29:35]

9. Proposed Solutions: Policy & Rhetorical (31:50–36:11)

• Crowder offers prescriptions:
  1. Leftist leadership must take responsibility and moderate rhetoric.
  2. Change "soft on crime" policies (e.g., no cash bail, three strikes on violent felonies).
  3. "Ruthless, lawful self-defense" for conservatives.
• Discussion with guests about practicalities, with some support for criminal justice reform proposals.

10. Global vs. U.S. Framing and Ideological Definitions (38:20–44:50)

• Some guests challenge Crowder’s U.S.-centric framing, raising global contexts (e.g., leftist violence in communist China)—prompting debate over what “left” or “right” means cross-culturally.
  • “You can't say KKK equals conservative because it doesn’t. Most slaveholders were Democrats.” — Crowder [45:02]

11. Religion, Root Causes, and the Loss of Faith (57:28–69:21)

• Crowder and Andrew (guest) discuss the deeper, spiritual underpinnings of societal violence and hatred—the decline of organized religion and the “replacement of God with the state.”
  • “Who seeks to replace faith in the father with the state?...That is the goal of leftist policies.” — Crowder [58:59]
  • “I don't see political violence as the problem, I see it as the symptom. And I think the problem is our lack of religion.” — Andrew [57:47]
• Debate over whether Christians/conservatives should accept martyrdom or defend themselves, referencing scriptural precedent.

12. On Civil Discourse and the Limits of Dialogue (85:04)

• Multiple guests and Crowder agree on the importance of civil discussion but lament that for him, and allegedly other conservatives, safety is a constant concern.
  • “We can't [have these conversations] because we get killed. That's the point.” — Crowder [84:35]

---

Notable Quotes & Highlights

• On the left-right violence disparity:
  “If you look at the polls...Those who identify as liberal support political violence at a ratio of 6 to 1 to conservatives.” — Crowder [12:06]

• On media and data manipulation:
  “All the studies from left-wing sources don't include that [leftist political violence]. Is that bothersome?” — Crowder [29:35]
  “Data is being presented to the public deliberately, dishonestly, to victim blame.” — Crowder [27:10]

• Personal risk for right-leaning public figures:
  “When you perform on stage, do you need metal detectors? ... I have since I was 19 years old.” — Crowder [19:07]
  "We literally can't have these discussions on our side unless we have it [security]." — Crowder [21:23]

• On the need for accountability:
  “Do you think the both sides-ing it...lets the side that's responsible for it off the hook, the clear aggressor?” — Crowder [22:14]

• On solutions:
  “The left needs to...take accountability, say, look, we have gone too far here. This needs to be toned down.” — Crowder [34:45]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Topic Summary | |-----------|--------------| | 00:00–04:00 | Show intro, why “Change My Mind” is returning, premise set | | 04:00–05:00 | Defining “political violence” and setting parameters | | 07:15–08:30 | The Charlie Kirk assassination as leftist political violence | | 10:00–13:00 | Polling/data on approval for political violence by ideology | | 15:00–20:00 | Left/right rhetoric, demonization and escalation | | 19:07–20:49 | Security requirements for right-wing figures | | 22:14–24:25 | "Both sides" argument vs. calling out clear patterns | | 27:10–30:00 | Omission of leftist violence from commonly cited violence statistics | | 31:50–36:11 | Proposed policy/rhetorical solutions to violence | | 38:20–44:50 | Ideological definitions and global context debates | | 57:28–69:21 | Faith, godlessness, and the root causes of political hatred | | 74:27–85:55 | Later conversations reaffirming and challenging central premise |

---

Participant Perspectives

• Christina (Guest, ~03:35): Open to discussion, moderate, works as a pastor and comic; agrees civil discourse is key.
• Madison (Guest, ~38:22): Skeptical of left/right binary, pushes for deeper philosophical definitions and global context.
• Andrew (Guest, ~54:26): Discusses religious roots of hatred/political violence, argues for Christian love & civil discourse but also supports self-defense.
• Chris (Guest, ~72:58): Acknowledges violence may skew left currently, but objects to divisive or blanket statements, urges relationship-building and broader context.

---

Memorable Moments

• [19:22]: A rare moment of common ground—both Crowder and Christina reveal themselves as comedians, bonding briefly over Dallas open mic culture.
• [63:41]: Crowder: “I’m willing to be a martyr. I don’t want to be.”
• [71:27]: Andrew asks if he can pray with Crowder on camera—Crowder agrees and vigilantly keeps an eye out for threats during the prayer.
• [80:08]: Crowder: "Do you realize that more people, more people at ICE facilities in the state of Texas have been killed by left wing violence in the last week than all of January 6th combined?"
• [84:35]: Crowder to his guest: “We can't [have these conversations] because we get killed. That's the point.”

---

Conclusion

In a tense, expansive episode, Crowder forcefully argues that the American left is presently far more supportive—and responsible—for political violence than the right. He supports his claims with polling, data, and contemporary examples while repeatedly contending that civil conversation is only possible for conservatives under substantial security threats, a practical sign of the climate's lopsided hostility.

Most guests offer nuanced or critical perspectives, objecting to blanket blame, calling for de-escalation and dialogue, or reframing the debate around root causes like social media radicalization or a loss of spirituality.

Despite a few points of consensus (definition of violence, necessity for civil discourse), the core disagreement over responsibility and the solution persists. The episode closes with Crowder pledging more "Change My Mind" events and seeking formal debates with university professors—hoping to prompt the level of institutional accountability he finds lacking.

---

For listeners/readers who want the substance without the polemic: this episode is a deep dive into how definitions, data, and rhetoric shape our views of “political violence” today, and vividly illustrates the difficulties in bridging America’s current ideological divides.

Transcript

[A]

The reason we're here, and I don't think you would argue that this is unnecessary. The assassination in cold blood is an act of terrorism of Charlie Kirk. Is that political violence? You seem so confident on the Hortmans, but not Charlie Kirk.

[B]

I would. Well, no, I would say I was just thinking about your question.

[A]

If that doesn't constitute political violence, that could be answered in the affirmative immediately, of course. What would? Hey, YouTube. What you're about to watch is a new segment we call Change My Mind. Welcome back to Change My Mind. It's been a while. This is the place where we rationalize, we reason our positions on controversial topics. When I created Change my mind in 2017, I had one goal in mind, and that was to shine a light on the institutions that had failed Americans, often students propagandized by the educational system as well as as legacy media. Mr. Trump's once again defending comments he made about the white supremacists and neo Nazis. There were very fine people on both sides.

[B]

The president's statement that both sides are.

[A]

Responsible for the violence in Charlotte, it was designed to bring genuine dialogue to what had become an impenetrable echo chamber dominated by progressive professors, administrators, student leadership, along with the complicit media and big tech establishment. To put it simply, the kind of dialogue that evaded all of cable news. I know, I know.

[C]

You said that. Please don't mean to be hurt.

[A]

You said I was being hyperbolic. Let me respond.

[C]

I'm not being a white man as an insult.

[A]

That just shows you the ridiculousness of all of this. And so, nearly a decade later, with billions of plays, countless discussions inspired student iterations. One meme of the year, and yes, even a few changed minds later, I somewhat changed your mind. Changed. My mind had grown far bigger than I ever initially anticipated. And with that came pushback, controversy, increasing hostility, and, yes, straight up violence. Nope. You piece of living garbage ass dumpster fire. It got to the point where security became a serious issue. Shut the up. And so I pulled back. Now, given recent events, however, I felt led, compelled even to bring it back. Voices like ours, and I mean ours, can't be silenced. And I say this to you. Watching on the left made me do this. I didn't necessarily want to. And everyone told me that this, in today's climate, could not be done unless I took unbelievable precautions, unless it was absolutely kept a secret until mere hours before the event as a pop up, unless I literally brought an army with me and bulletproofed the entire radius, which is exactly what we did. And so today, for the first time in many years, change of mind returns. And back to one of the places where it all began. Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Today's subject is plain and simple. The left is violent. Will anybody be able to change my mind something more than it was?

[C]

Amen.

[A]

Thank you, Christina, for sitting down one more time. Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. Okay, so I'll take that. I mean, you're not maybe super familiar with what we do with these, this series. Let me just kind of clarify what it is first. I'll tell you what it's not. It's not gotcha, it's not clickbait, this is not meant to be, or it won't be used to clip into some kind of a dunk or something just foment people espousing the same rhetoric on one side. It will be uploaded contextually in its entirety where hopefully we have a productive discussion. We rationalize our positions, reason them on controversial topics. Before I get to the premise of today, could you do me a favor just so we can find some common ground? This is what's being cited right now quite a bit, just the definition of political violence. I want to make sure we both agree on it.

[B]

Political violence are criminal complaints, indictments and court records looking for crimes that seek a socio political change or to communicate to outside audience.

[A]

And I'll summarize it. That's the technical description from the source cited. It's violence as a tool being used toward a political end. In other words, just because you vote Democrat or because you vote Republican, if you accidentally hit someone with your car, commit manslaughter, that's not political violence. If you vote Democrat. But let's say you go out and run someone over because of their politics, that would be political. Do we agree on that?

[B]

I think I can agree with you on that.

[A]

Okay, yes. Good. So the premise today is that particularly today in 2025, by and large, the political violence is coming from the left. It's not proportionate with that on the right. That's the reason for the security that you see today. That's very necessary. And it's a problem that's reaching a boiling point that may not be sustainable. If you disagree with me, you're welcome to change my mind.

[B]

I don't know if I can change your mind because here's, here's the thing. When I see the sign that says the left is violent, you talked about how it's not proportional and I would love to see your, your statistics about that because we could make the same statement about the right. Very easily. Right. Like we could say that was it just a month or two ago that the Democratic lawmakers were shot. And that was like, all right, I think a bigger problem is that talking.

[A]

About the Hortman's in Minnesota.

[B]

Right, right. Yeah. Because she was a senator in his. And her husband was also killed. I'm like, you know, that was. That was done by the right, whatever.

[A]

But it wasn't. But continue.

[B]

Oh, that wasn't a. No, it wasn't a conservative burden.

[A]

No, no. That's why I use the example that I did. The person, Bolter, Vance Bolter, who committed it specifically said it had nothing to do with politics. And he left a letter reasoning it, saying that Tim Walls had ordered him to carry a hit out on people. So he was very clear that it wasn't in the name of politics. That's someone who happened to be on some issues, Republican, on some issues Democrat. He was appointed by a Tim Walls administration. So that was not done in the name of political violence. He said Tim Walls ordered him to assassinate somebody. He was out of his mind. But I'd like you to continue with the exam. Sure.

[B]

And. Well, and let's say. Okay, so he wasn't. Right, that's fine.

[A]

No, it wasn't political violence.

[B]

Oh, it didn't count as political violence.

[A]

Based on the definition you agreed to. Right.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think a lot of it too is there's so many things happening. It's actually really hard to get all the fact about everything.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

And our media is. Is when they, when they make these statements where they start to postulate about an event and it will become political before we've even fully fleshed everything out, you know, like.

[A]

Could you give me an example?

[B]

Well, like the. So the shooting that happened at the church yesterday, I haven't seen enough. I don't know. Have you seen any media on it yet? I'm curious to know what the media is.

[A]

Yeah, quite a bit about it.

[B]

And I want to know if they're. How are they characterizing it?

[A]

Yeah, the media isn't characterizing even, I will say this, even on the left and the right, they're not really characterizing that as political violence because it was a guy who really seemed to harbor ill will toward the Mormon Church. So it's pretty hard to categorize it as political violence when the targets were largely conservative. And the man who carried out the action seems like he might be Republican. But I think we could pick a more clear example, a multitude of them. The Reason we're here, and I don't think you would argue that this is unnecessary. The assassination in cold blood is an act of terrorism of Charlie Kirk. Is that political violence? You seem so confident on the Hortman's, but not Charlie Kirk.

[B]

I would. Well, no, I would say I was just thinking about your question. Yeah, I mean, probably because he was like, Turning Point USA is a conservative organization, Right. That's meant to try and rally young conservatives and be involved. And so, yeah, I would probably agree that his death was political. His murder, assassination was politically violent. But I guess I just have a hard time reconciling that with, you know, we can say that the senator and her husband being killed wasn't political.

[A]

But I'll tell you exactly why. I'll tell you exactly why. Because the express motive of the terrorist who assassinated Charlie Kirk was politics. He killed him because he said he's one of those hateful conservative right wingers. The rhetoric that he espoused, the reason that he killed Charlie Kirk was to take out someone of his political persuasion and make others of his political persuasion afraid to express their opinions. The man who assassinated, which I roundly condemn, Vance Bolter. The Hortmans did not do it as a means to a political end. Charlie Kirk was assassinated. He is not an elected official solely because of his political perspective as a method to instill terror in the populace. How do I know? Because a person said it was political violence.

[B]

Okay, what if we just don't even have enough information, though? Like, what if it is politically motivated and we just don't have enough to know about it yet?

[A]

In that case, we do, you know.

[B]

Well, not in this particular sense, but I just mean that with the horde, as you mentioned.

[A]

Okay, well, let's separate the gray area.

[B]

Okay?

[A]

Right. That's why I kind of start with the example. Just because you, I would assume, let's say, vote Democrat or Republican, just because you commit a crime doesn't make it political violence. I mean, if we did that, we'd have 90% of the crime being committed on behalf of the Democrat Party, because most people in inner cities vote Democrat. I don't consider that to be political violence. People have political beliefs. People commit violence. Sometimes they rob a store because they want money. People who commit political violence do so specifically to instill fear in political opposition. They specifically commit violence as a means to a political end.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

And when we categorize it that way, it's overwhelmingly coming from the left. We do have the sources here that we make this available so you can Take the QR code. So what would make you. Because you seem very confident the Hortons was political violence, and then it's nuance with Charlie Kirk. Why?

[B]

Oh, I didn't say it was nuanced at all with Charlie Kirk. I agreed with you after considering your question that it was a political.

[A]

If that doesn't constitute political violence, that could be answered in the affirmative immediately. Of course. What would? Like, what would be required to say, oh, this is clearly an act of political violence or political terrorism, if not Charlie Kirk.

[B]

I agreed that it was political violence, so I'm not sure where this question is coming from.

[A]

Well, I'm saying, because you came in and pointed to an example that would be in the gray area, the Hortman's, and took a long time to agree with that premise of Charlie Kirk and said, what if we don't know enough information? So Charlie Kirk would be very clear. Left wing political violence.

[B]

Yeah. Okay.

[A]

Okay, sure. Great.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

So there are more examples of that coming from the left than the right. That's the premise, yes.

[B]

Okay, so you're saying clear examples of political violence.

[A]

Violence carried out as a means to a political end.

[B]

So. So there's clear information, data that shows us that the left is violent or is more violent than the right.

[A]

Yes. Not only in crime statistics, but also in the polling after Charlie Kirk's death. Now, I believe that you're discussing this in good faith, and I would assume that you roundly condemn political violence of all strikes. Of course, so do I. Just to be clear. I think we both are. That's why we're sitting at a table having a conversation.

[B]

Right, Right.

[A]

Do you identify as more liberal or conservative?

[B]

I am. I mean, I like to think I'm moderate because I have. I hold some conservative views and some liberal views, and I wish we could have a little bit more moderation in our country.

[A]

Like sitting down and having discussions.

[B]

Exactly. Things like this.

[A]

Because we get killed for it anyway, Right? Only the right. Only the right gets killed for this. Anyway, you're seeing the one that got through. The reason I stopped doing this for years is because every single time out was a violent attack. Sometimes it was a rock, sometimes it was a milkshake. Could be concrete, acid, chocolate, vanilla, I don't know. Doxing, firebombings, Molotov cocktails. Maya Angelou spoke at SMU only a few years before. My first time here. Didn't need this kind of security. And you can see it if you observe your speakers here. And I'll tell you why that is. If you look at the polls post Assassination of Charlie Kirk in and you label yourself as a moderate. Those who identify as liberal support political violence at a ratio of 6 to 1 to conservatives. The YouGov poll said, Is political violence acceptable? 77% of conservatives said not at all. Only 38% of those on the left said not at all. 62% of those on the left said somewhat to completely acceptable. We see the same stats after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. We see the same stats after the firebombings, the Tesla dealership. And we see the same stats on the opposite side. Those on the right roundly condemning political violence. The lowest you'll find is 72. You usually find in the high 80s. You will not find a number that breaks half on the left.

[B]

Okay, you mentioned Donald Trump. Can we jump back? Can we jump to that for just a minute?

[A]

Donald Trump, Sure. I assumed we would.

[B]

Well, because I thought that guy was a registered Republican and then he donated. The guy who attempted to assassinate Donald Trump. I'm sorry, I'm really terrible at names.

[A]

Oh, crooks.

[B]

Yeah. That he was a registered Republican. So would you consider him a act.

[C]

Of violence on the.

[A]

I would. I would consider the attempted assassination of a presidential nominee political violence. Yes.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

I don't know if you know this. There are a lot of people on the right who don't like Donald Trump.

[B]

Yes, I do know a few of them.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Political violence isn't just Republican, Democrat. That's why I say left versus right.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Those on the right are more routinely targets and it's very blatant. People can say was a registered Republican. That doesn't change the fact that it was a, an act of political violence carried out against Donald Trump, who's a conservative. Yes, Republican, whatever term you want to use.

[B]

Well, I guess. But if the argument is the left is violent, and I was thinking about this guy's, you know, political background from the first I hear what you're saying, that, that the right is targeted more often.

[A]

Yeah, we're the victims of political violence.

[B]

More often and much more. So would you classify that specific incident as the violence of the right or the left?

[A]

Well, the target is the right. The target was Donald Trump. So the net result is the same. We are often the targets of violence.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But the left, including someone who may be a moderate Republican. Yeah, the left is still overwhelmingly violent. And I point to those polls that you can peruse from YouGov, from Reuters, not bastions of conservatism. Along with the rhetoric since then. Here's the one thing that you can't point me to, and we can go through the stats, and I know you probably heard from those on the left that actually there's more right wing political violence. They're often circulating. That right now I can disabuse you of that notion relatively quickly. I think we'd find common ground there. You still can't point me to an example that is comparable on the right of Charlie Kirk, someone who was not an elected official, a public figure who was really notable for nothing more than expressing his opinion and having conversations, who was assassinated in cold blood and then gleefully celebrated thereafter from the left. And I hope that as someone who's moderate, you understand why that's so concerning to us on the right when we host vigils and memorials and the left is so completely fearless of their own consequences that they kill one of ours and show up to the memorials and vigils and desecrate and vandalize. That is the information that creates a powder keg.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

The only off ramp would have been, hey, we kept saying that people like Charlie Kirk, by the way, he was much more moderate than I am. I am Genghis Khan or Attila Hun compared to Charlie Kirk. But I will have conversations with anyone. I just want to be very clear. So I know that plenty of people would gleefully celebrate my death, my murder, for doing this exact same thing. The only offering would have been the left saying, look, we've called Donald Trump and his voters and Charlie Kirk and Steven Crowder and whoever, whoever on the right, Tucker Carlson, take your pick, Sargon of a Cat, everyone, Ben Shapiro. We've called them fascists. We've called them Nazis. We've said that they want to commit a genocide because they don't want to transition children. We've called them racist because they support the police. In an era of defund the police, and my God, people out there actually believe it, it's incumbent upon us to tone this down and say, you know what? They're not fascist. We made these people believe that this guy would never relinquish the reins of power. How do you deal with fascists? You can't do it at a ballot box. If I believe that there was an actual government right now that was executing blacks, as the left has said about the. If I believed that there was a leftist government that was actually fascist, that would jail any and all political dissidents, if I believe that the left was committing a genocide against white, conservative Christian men, and if I believed that that administration would Never host a Democratic election again. I'd be out in the streets with a gun. You have a huge portion of Democrats who believe that about Donald Trump and his voters.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I believe you saying that people believe that. Absolutely.

[A]

That's very different between the right and the left, isn't it?

[B]

I mean, I don't know, Stephen. It feels like it's so polarized right now. It's even hard to find common ground on anything. You know, like I was just thinking about the sign and it's that the left is violent.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Then when I sit down, it's actually the left is politically violent. And so it's kind of, that's a, it's a modifier. Right. We're modifying our conversation a little bit. And so.

[A]

No, what I'm doing is matching, matching the intensity and the rhetoric of the left. Kamala Harris, Joe Biden have said the right is violent, the political right is violent. And I'm doing what they are unwilling to do, which is sit down and have a conversation. I don't believe it's nuanced. I believe there's black and white, pretty clear cut good and evil in this one. I believe there's pretty black and white, clear cut who's responsible for the political violence. But I will discuss it with anybody. So did Charlie Kirk and they kill us anyway. So I'm matching their rhetoric that I can fit on a sign, but I'm doing the work that the left is not willing to do and having a conversation. But I don't know where we go from if we have these conversations and short of a brigade coming in, we get assassinated. The left doesn't fear that.

[B]

I would disagree, though. I think the left does have their own fears about it. Maybe it's not exactly the same, but I think there's a lot of fear out there. It's just not. It's just different.

[A]

The leftist speakers on this campus don't need the same kind of security. They don't take note of that.

[B]

I mean, I've been a student here for two years and I hadn't really. I haven't even paid that much attention. I don't go to a whole lot of events, but I'll take note of that and see what I notice. So.

[A]

Well, let me ask you this. Assuming that I'm not lying to you, right, about these polls and you can, and this is one thing we always, every show that I do. I'm largely a comedian, by the way. I'm an unwilling participant in this. I want to be telling Dick jokes in a comedy club.

[B]

I do stand up comedy too, actually.

[A]

Oh, good. Okay. Do you do some around here?

[B]

I do.

[A]

You might know my half Asian lawyer, Bill Richmond. He does a lot of stand up in Dallas right now. He has a show coming up. Well, let me know. Maybe I'll be able to look it up. And I can't come out and see a show unless I come out with security, but I'd like to see your material. That's actually even another example. A man who works on my show, a man named Josh Firestein. He was a booker for a comedy, actually a franchise of comedy clubs. When I performed at the Spokane Comedy Club, it was the first time they ever needed metal detectors and security. He'd been a booker there for many, many years. You had actual registered communists do comedy there? He was shocked and he was ready to hate me. He works for him. He works for me now because he saw why it was necessary. When you perform on stage, do you need metal detectors? Do you need armed security? I have since I was 19 years old doing comedy in clubs, and I don't think I've said anything that necessitates that.

[B]

George was letting that. I have class at 2.

[A]

Oh, okay. I'm sorry. So how do we fix this then?

[B]

I mean, I think we need to have more civil discourse. I think.

[A]

Can't do that. We get shot.

[B]

Well, we can. We're doing it right now.

[A]

Let's. Let's. With a brigade.

[B]

So pessimistic. But Steven, come on. We have to change our. We have to change our attitudes about. About it. We can't constantly fixate on the negative stuff. I know it's important. It matters, but we can do it.

[A]

And just as I can do it with a quarter million dollars of security. Most people don't have that.

[B]

Most people don't have that. And you know, you talk about like fearing for your life.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I am a female pastor in deep East Texas. So on Sunday morning, I wait for that time when someone doesn't like what I said from the pulpit and comes up to me. So I, I too live with a fear, but it's just, it's different for me.

[A]

And do you have metal detectors and armed security?

[B]

We can't afford that. At my church. We have an old person that sits at the front and says hi and tries to intervene in, in a way that would be appropriate of a Christian. We thought about having bringing security to the church. We talked about it.

[A]

We literally can't have these discussions on our side unless we have it.

[B]

We have security.

[A]

It's a necessity.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. And I think that's really unfortunate that. That it's gotten so bad. The state of our country is so bad that we can't even talk to each other without one side or the other having to provide ridiculous amounts of safety and security that maybe aren't even guaranteed.

[A]

No. Yeah. It's true. And I agree with you. It is terrible that we've gotten point.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

It is terrible that it's exclusively incumbent upon one side to have these types of measures in place. Let me ask you this, because, again, I think that we both abhor political violence. Do you think that maybe when one side is being hunted, let's make a mistake. Charlie Kirk was hunted. When people showed up to my house to try and kill me, I was being hunted. Right. Any conservative here is one viral tweet, one effective video away from being hunted. Yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Do we think that when that happens and we peacefully mourn the loss of one of our peaceful leaders and we are still approached with violence at memorials and at vigils, with desecration, do you think that maybe the both sides in it saying it comes from both sides is actually more harmful than productive because it lets the side that's responsible for it off the hook, the clear aggressor?

[B]

Do I think it's more harmful to say that it's both sides?

[A]

Do you think it would be more helpful to call the left out and say, hey, you guys have been saying fascist, you guys have been saying Nazi, you guys have been saying genocide, sexist home, and people believe it, and we're seeing political violence now that we both hate. Do you think that calling them out aggressively, rhetorically, might be more productive than saying, well, I guess it happens on both sides right now?

[B]

No, I think I don't. Because it kind of reminds me of therapy, you know, where it's not necessarily helpful to point the finger in ways that are counterproductive. Not that I'm not opposed to holding people accountable, because that's a different thing.

[A]

No, I understand. So let me ask you then this way, where you say pointing fingers. What is the reason that we record crime statistics?

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

Would you agree with the fundamental premise that its primary purpose is risk assessment in determining who's most likely to be victimized? For example, I hear this from the left. Transgender or gay sex workers are more likely to be targets of violence than heterosexual sex workers. Right. Those studies have come out, and by the way, those seem to be true. So we go, okay, these people are more at Risk. The reason for crime statistics is to assess where the risk exists. Otherwise it serves no purpose.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Do we agree with that? Fair.

[B]

Sure, I'll trust your information on this.

[A]

Well, it's not information. It's just the reason. This is the why. Why? Why else would we have crime statistics? Why would we record them? There's no reason. Just, okay, crime is committed. There's nothing we can do about it now.

[B]

Well, just have a history. I mean, it's another potential reason.

[A]

But sure, what's the value in a history?

[B]

But history is so important.

[A]

Important.

[B]

Stephen, come on in. What three matters? Oh, my gosh.

[A]

But history is important in what?

[B]

In everything. Right. History repeats itself. But I think it holds to your point that history matters because you're saying, we've seen these.

[A]

You don't want to repeat violence events.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And we don't want to repeat negative history. So we agree that's the reason for crime statistics. So if we look at those statistics and we look at the polls and we see a vast and overwhelming number of those on the left at a ratio of 6 to 1, support violence compared to those on the right, and we see people being murdered in cold blood. If you are conservative, right leaning in this country and a public speaker, you are more at risk. How is that pointing the finger? It's identifying the problem and not repeating history. No.

[B]

Yes. Well, with data. Sure. And data speaks differently than I think sometimes people do, you know, and so I, I think how data is presented matters a lot.

[A]

I agree.

[B]

So, yeah, I mean, that's kind of all I really have on that particular thought. Were you wanting.

[A]

Well, I think actually going to that point, the data that's presented, for example, right now in the wake of the assassination, and by the way, not just that we haven't gone more than three days, but a serious liberal attack, very serious leftist attack, meaning in the ideology of the left. You have it right here. Ice that happened. ICE facility. Yet another one in, I believe. Is it Alvarado or. Alvarado. I don't know the right way to pronounce it. People were shot there as a bomb threat. The ABC affiliate, okay, it's like Houston. And then in New York they go, Houston. I'm like, I don't know the rules, so forgive me. And then I have French Canadian mom, so I mispronounce things because she taught me English. And then we look at the ABC affiliate, Jimmy Kimmel. We haven't gone more than three days. That's an acceleration right now. And the problem is, amidst that, the left is saying actually there's more political violence coming from the right. And that's right, we've been hearing. And it's dishonest. In other words, data is being presented to the public deliberately, dishonestly, to victim to victim blame. And that's something we face too, where if you back people into a corner who are avoiding conflict, we're not violent, there could end up being right wing violence. And when that happens, it's very ugly, it's very effective, it's very swift. And the only way we avoid that is for the left to take accountability of it and for them to tone down the temperature. And by that I mean right now. And this is where I show you. I think we both agree on this. So the two sources in the data, I don't care if you see my password, are the prosecution project. That's what's cited in the Economist and NPR and Cato. These are the ones where they say, hey, right wing violence is more prevalent. I'm sure you've heard that. Let me show you what they don't include in the data, because like you said, people speak differently than data. In Portland, the summer of love, George Floyd riots, Aaron Danielson shot point blank dead because he was a Trump voter. And the man, Reinhold Michael Rinal, who shot him told the cops, I got the Trump supporter dead. We agree that's political violence? Yes, of course. Not a single one of these places cites it. It doesn't exist in their database.

[B]

The ones here in your black folder, but not here in this.

[A]

No, in there you have all the sources.

[B]

So these ones doesn't exist.

[A]

It's the same thing. The black folder is just those. The point is they come from two places. Tpp, the prosecution project for a Cato study, which is reflected by the CSIS as well, where Cato tried to say there's six times the amount of domestic terrorism deaths. TPP said right wing general violence. By the way, all of them agree that in the last year since Donald Trump has been elected, even now they agree two to three times more leftist violence than right wing violence. But that was never included. In other words, when they say there's more right wing political violence, that's not included as left wing political violence. You know what else isn't? All the riots, the billions in damages, the 37 dead during the George Floyd riots, the thousands of officers assaulted, the thousands of casualties, that's not included. You know what else is included? Darrell Brooks in Waukesha, Wisconsin, who ran people over in the parade out of an exclusive defund the police, Black Lives Matter, anti white black supremacist ideology. That's why he killed them. That's not included. I could go through example after example that where you would just as clearly agree that is political violence. I'm not, I'm not trying to pick a gray one. It exists nowhere. So why do you think that wouldn't be included in the data as left wing political violence? Because that's the number cited by the left right now to justify it.

[B]

I think we have so much data that it's hard to even, especially in the today's. Well, I don't know. That's weird because you're saying in the police recorded call they said he spoke.

[A]

To the police before they shot him.

[B]

So it's on a 911 call.

[A]

So this is on the Trumper. Yeah, he was talking to the police. So there's police cam video, this is security camera video. And then I believe there's also police camera video and sworn testimony from the police. But he identified as 100% Antifa. Yeah, you can look at his social media. He went out there. There are even I believe interviews with this man before this was committed where he was talking about enacting political violence.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Did it clear as day. Are you a Trump supporter? Yes, we've got a Trump supporter. Bang, bang, dead. All the studies from left wing sources don't include that. Is that bothersome?

[B]

Yeah, I do think it is bothersome because we need to have the facts of the situations, any situation, regardless of where it comes from. And you know, you talked about the, something you said earlier just reminded me of like the media is not portraying things accurately. That's adding fuel to the fire. Yeah, it's adding so much fuel to the fire.

[A]

On that we agree. And can I ask you, and this is by the way, there's no wrong answer. This is just an opinion. Why do you think that wasn't included? Why do you think the examples that I gave you, none of that, none of them were included. But any example of white on black violence, even if it was a Democrat voter, was listed as right wing. Any attack on a government building, even if it was antifa, was listed as right wing. Why do you think something that clear. Would it surprise you if the authoritative source that's being cited, the prosecution project, the author of it was actually arrested himself on January 20th protesting Donald Trump committing crimes. And that entire day was also omitted. Probably not member of Antifa who said we are an organized group and we confront fascists. That's the source that Gets disseminated across. Seems like there might be a bias there. And these sources are being used to victim blame. Those on the right right now, where do you think those on the right go? Where we go. Hold on a second. We're actually sitting down and having conversations and we've been attacked and in some cases killed. And then you came to the memorials and the vigils and you celebrated it. A majority of people on the left, not all, not yourself, but too many celebrated it. I don't celebrate, but many did. And we both know that. We saw it.

[B]

I know you're right. And I.

[A]

And then you came and blamed us and said we need to tone it down and told us that we're more violent with clearly dishonest stats. That's why I say that both sides in it doesn't help because you're backing people into a corner. Not you. The left with lies. At a certain point, they're going to push back and I'm trying to avoid that.

[B]

Yeah. So what do you think the answer is?

[A]

I'll tell you what I think the answer is twofold. One, the leadership of the left and the majority of the left. I think that the majority of people who identify as liberal, the reason you get those numbers, 62 to 65, depending on the day, whether it's Rutgers or whether it's YouGov, I think they support political violence to varying degrees because they actually believe that those on the right are fascist, are Nazis, are genocidists, are racist, are homophobic, are sexist, because every single member of the Democratic leadership has said so. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Walls, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren. Every single one has made that comparison. I think it's incumbent upon the left to take accountability, say, look, we have gone too far here. This needs to be toned down. Of course, of course. Donald Trump and his voters are not fascists who won't relinquish power because he can't deal with fascists at a ballot box. And then I think we also need to. States need to take this upon them, need to change their soft on crime policy, the no cash bail, the IOU policy, where you can simply say, I'll be back in court before Charlie Kirk. Right. The story in the news was Zyrutska, the Ukrainian refugee who was stabbed on that subway in North Carolina by a black man. To Carlos Brown Jr. He was let out 14 times. And the last time he was let out by a left judge in the name of social justice, he was deemed unfit to stand trial, but they let him Go back out into society because he said he'd be back, said he killed an innocent woman. You know why? Because hey, justice is racist, I guess I don't know when it becomes racist if it's at arrest number 11 or 14 or 6. But that needs to change those two things. Accountability, change in rhetoric, ownership from the left, which will change the makeup of today's left, make us safer and needs to change soft on crime policy. And I also advocate that conservatives take an approach of ruthless, lawful self defense because we've afforded grace where it is not warranted. What I mean by that is people who attack me and my family and many of my production members who've been attacked, violently assaulted, taken the high road for a very long time. And that's why these people feel so bold to come to our memorials and still commit attacks. They didn't know. They can't do that. I want the left to be able to get up and have these conversations with no security, as they often do. And I don't want anyone on the right to go and violently disrupt it. The left needs to be afraid to come into our groups and commit acts of violence because we watched entire cities burn down, we watched our own die, and then we watched it celebrated. And unless the left does this and takes this approach, it's going to get worse. There's no off ramp. That's a genuine concern of mine. People are concerned about radicalizing, right? They talk about radicalization with echo chambers online. There's nothing more radicalizing than an assassination and a party afterwards. Yes.

[B]

No, I agree with you.

[A]

That's why I'm sitting down doing this and to let people know that we're not afraid to have these conversations now, if they course, you know, we have bulletproof glass and a flak jacket. And it's sad that it's here.

[B]

Right, right.

[A]

But it's necessary. That's what I think. Would you disagree with any of those approaches? Changing the rhetoric, taking accountability and stopping the soft on crime, revolving door criminality policy.

[B]

This is, this is hard, Stephen, because I just feel like we don't have enough time to even really dive deep into each.

[A]

Well, those are two proposals.

[B]

I know, I know, I know. But I just need more time to process and really consider and, and to understand what you mean exactly with each thing. Because I just, I don't want to.

[A]

No cashless bail.

[B]

No cashless bail.

[A]

Yeah. So you have to post bail. Okay. You have to post bail. You commit a violent crime, you have to post bail. You're in jail, you're not allowed out.

[B]

Okay, so no cashless, Gail. Meaning you're not allowed to.

[A]

You're not allowed to get out. Without paying any bail.

[B]

Without paying any bail.

[A]

And like three strike policy as well.

[B]

Three strike policy.

[A]

Three serious felonies, violent crimes.

[B]

So you're saying if you can't make bail, you can't get out.

[A]

You have to wait for your trial.

[B]

No matter what the level of the crime is?

[A]

No, if it's a serious felony.

[B]

Only if it's a serious felony.

[A]

Let's even start with violent crimes. Felonies, violent crimes, something like that. Assault, armed robbery.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Burglary, battery.

[B]

I think I could probably get behind that. I could probably get behind that.

[A]

Not a single leader in the Democratic Party is. Yeah, so we can get behind that. No IOU policy for these criminals. You're deemed meant. Let's use Decarlos Brown Jr. As a very clear example. We could use George Floyd as an example, too. He was arrested six or nine times, actually. I'm sorry. Okay, that's fine. Okay, well, please peruse those sources. Your name is Christina. Let me get your last name. So if I want to go see your material.

[B]

Yeah, well, I perform under a staging and I wouldn't say it anyway.

[A]

Could you write it down for me? If I don't show it to anybody.

[B]

I will write it down for you, but you won't be able to find me. And I'm not like a big. Like, I just started a year or so ago.

[A]

Well, I was going to follow up maybe if I see it, send you some notes of encouragement because I could have used that when I was starting.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

If you write it down, I promise you no one will see it.

[B]

Okay. But I don't know how you're going to send me anything.

[A]

Well, just know vibes, I think is the term that's used now. I'll be watching. Know that I'll be out there going like, hey, go get him.

[B]

But this is my stage name.

[A]

Okay. So thank you. Thank you, Christina.

[B]

Yes, thank you.

[A]

I appreciate it.

[B]

Good luck with this.

[A]

You too. God bless.

[B]

And I am. You know, I just want to say it. It's really inappropriate. If anyone from the left of the moderate is right, we shouldn't be celebrating death. We need to be working together and being united in these things. Together we stand, divided we fall.

[A]

I agree with most of that. Okay, thank you very much, Christina. Be well. God bless. Well, that was surprisingly productive. And I say surprisingly not in the context of change my mind, but in the context of what we see in today's. Social media highlight reels. I hope that we can keep this up. Let's move on to our next conversation with Madison. Like the town. Allow me to assert the premise today, which is that Today, especially in 2025, I am presupposing that predominantly the political violence right now is coming from the left, setting a tenor and tone where everything you see here today is necessary. And if you disagree with that, you're more than welcome to change my mind.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

All right, so what. Which part of that the left is predominantly responsible for the tone of political violence today do you disagree with?

[C]

Well, I have to think that we first have to consider how many people are on the left and what is the true ideology and mythos behind this new occurrence of violence that we see with the left.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

Of course, I mean, there's potential skews of media. I don't doubt that crime is not happening. But how many people are truly committing crime out of the sake of leftism or out of the sake of radicalism or could it be plastered on there just to get this ball rolling about narrative? The only other question that I had, a personal question about you is, and it's a tough one.

[A]

Well, is it related to the topic?

[C]

It is, would Jesus be on the left or the right?

[A]

Well, that's a conversation for another day. We talk about that in church quite a bit. I don't necessarily know that he would fit within the current American left right paradigm. But I will tell you one thing, Jesus would certainly be against political violence as a form of intimidation or coercion. It seems to me like, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're not disagreeing with the idea, the uptick, that there is an increase in political violence from the quote unquote left. You're just not sure if you define them as left.

[C]

Partially, yeah. I just don't necessarily want to just assign political violence or terrorism directly to the left because we see political violence across the world in terms of autocratic or conservative ideologies. So maybe China is a really good example, arguably, of leftist violence. Of leftist violence especially, or. Well, no autocratic and conservative violence.

[A]

China would be conservative.

[C]

I would believe so, because they're autocracy. So they have to practice conservative ideologies to obtain. They can't liberate their people. That's what the left is. That's what liberation is.

[A]

Well, I don't know how familiar you are with the ccp, but they're communist and they did so under the guise of liberating people. And then of Course, you don't actually have any democratically held elections again, so they are communist. They've done so to liberate people, namely from the decadence, the quote unquote shackles of the western world. I'm just a little bit, I guess flummox as to how you would define communist China, the Communist Chinese party as right wing.

[C]

Well, because when Marx wrote his communist ideologies, it was conservative based. He didn't enjoy other people races, he wanted to eliminate races.

[A]

What does it have to do with conservatism?

[C]

It has to do with human rights. Because conservatives isn't looking to liberate people from or define human rights. It's looking to remove human rights, the beliefs of the state and conserving the beliefs of elitism.

[A]

Okay, so what if your premise is flawed? So what if conservatism, and I understand, by the way, I agree with you, it means different things across, for example, Conservative in the U.K. in Canada you're basically a liberal or a liberal separatist. There's no real conservative party. But in the United States, it's not about conserving the state. As a matter of fact, our Constitution is very unique in that it said the state doesn't grant any rights. So it's preserving the Constitution where you are granted inalienable rights, meaning birthrights by God. And the state only serves to recognize those rights and protect them. And so if the state ever infringes upon the rights that are naturally yours by birthright, but who assigned natural rights? Well that's again the founding fathers who would be concerned. But natural rights being Republican, well this is before the Republican Party, am I correct? This is the Republican Party, but I'm just confused. So you would say that communist China conservative.

[C]

I would say it's autocracy that uses conservative.

[A]

Okay, but how is that conservative? For example, you say doing away with races, how is that conservative?

[C]

It conserves their power over the state, are over the nation.

[A]

So you believe that conservatives want the state to have more power?

[C]

I think that we define conservative and conservative beliefs by our Republican values. But conservatism across the globe looks very different.

[A]

Okay, well I agree that different parties because there's also the conservative Party, for example, whereas here at the Republican Party we're talking about conservatism in the United States. It seems to me that your presupposition is that conservatives, Republicans want more state control, want more government power as opposed to the Democrat Party Liberals, okay, that would apply over health care, what you can eat, what you can drive, taxes they're more left, they're more liberal, more open minded on the left with those policies. Okay. I would just disagree with that considering if you just look at marginal tax rates and you, you look at gun policy, you look at speech policy, you look at energy policy, what you can drive. But going back to political violence, you said you wouldn't want to ascribe the uptick that we both recognize political violence to the left. What would be required for it to be ascribed to the left? What if they said it was like.

[C]

What if someone would say like I'm looking at this globally.

[A]

Well, let's talk about here in the United States because that's what we're about talking, discussing. Yeah, like what would, what I'm asking you is what would be required if someone were to commit an act of political violence and you consider it on the left? What if they said it's because they're on the left? Would that count?

[C]

I wouldn't say so, no.

[A]

No.

[C]

I think if somebody is doing an act in towards the left, what side of the left and why? Because what we refer to as the left is now a religion and ideology. I would agree with that as a secular movement.

[A]

Secular humanism. Yeah.

[C]

Well you can really say demonic too. Like a lot of those people are nuts to try to return back to their liberal state because in some ways liberalists believe that they've been robbed of human rights. It's a radicalism of people.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Honestly, if you could, if the conservatives like maybe 20 years ago started assigning themselves the idea of human rights or like, you know, public policy and things like that, there probably been a switch around for the conservative movement to be more actually the radical people.

[A]

Do you mean like the Civil Rights act or like civil rights, Emancipation Proclamation, freedom of speech policy, Section 232nd Amendment. Do you mean those kinds of rights?

[C]

Those kinds of rights.

[A]

If the right had been spearheading those.

[C]

And probably a little bit more socialist ideals. But of course.

[A]

Well, it's not just change the definitions. Right. What you can't do or I would disagree with doing is saying racist means conservative because it doesn't.

[D]

Right.

[A]

Most slaveholders would be Democrat. And I know we would talk about how the parties have switched. You can't say KKK equal. Those would be largely Democrats. There's nothing conservative about racism. There's nothing.

[C]

I think that we're.

[A]

So that's are saying that parties and.

[C]

Democratic parties when conservative.

[A]

That's what we're doing.

[C]

We're discussing it here in the states of Republicans. Because if you Want to argue that Republicans were liberating people. Wouldn't that constitute as a left in our base?

[A]

Why would that be left?

[C]

Because they're liberating people from slavery and it's a Republican mindset. We don't.

[A]

No, I don't see how that would be left at all. As a matter of fact, I think your fundamental flaw that I would argue is this idea that the left is more concerned with individual liberty. That makes sense why you would, you would ascribe conservatism to communism. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with you. But right now on the political violence, let me ask you this. He was a conservative, wanted to do away with a nuclear family, wanted to seize the means of production and distribution. I just won't agree with you that anything about that is conservative. The political violence, the assassination of Charlie.

[C]

Kirk, using conservative with Republican ideals. Republican ideal is to protect the family. Some ways you could say it's conservative.

[A]

Yeah, conservative. Karl Marx wanted the state to be in charge of the family.

[C]

That is the American perspective on conservatism.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

But the arrival, like what is liberalism? What is conservatism? We can't assign it to American Republic Party or Democratic Party because people hold left leaning views in the Republican Party.

[A]

Sure.

[C]

We can say that Republicans want to liberate the world from war nowadays, at least with Donald Trump's administration, and that the Democratic Party wanted to do more work in, what is it, Bush's era. Right. So what is the confusion?

[A]

Did you say Bush was a Republican? But I would, I would agree with you, maybe.

[C]

Is it Clinton? Clinton was, yeah.

[A]

I mean, I will say this. All presidents have been more pro war than how they campaigned with the exception of Donald Trump. I think we would agree on that. Political violence, the assassination of Charlie Kirk in cold blood, would that be leftist political violence?

[C]

I think that was a Satanist.

[A]

Okay. Darrell Brooks, Waukesha, running people over. He's a black supremacist who wanted to kill cops and white people. Would that be leftist political violence?

[C]

He is a part of the BLM or black supremacy movement.

[A]

And would you not consider that among the left, Antifa. Would that be considered among the left?

[C]

I think that they're assigning themselves a party to assimilate with. But that doesn't necessarily, it doesn't account for leftist values because the leftist.

[A]

So let me ask you, here's because I don't want to waste too much time on this. How would you curb political violence? Right. The whole reason for crime statistics is a Risk assessment to see who's most likely to be victimized and prevent it in the future. I get that you're in college and I understand that things can be kind of nebulous or abstract, but there are real people dying. Yeah, right. And some of them are people I've known sitting in this exhibit. Okay, so how would. So where is the violence coming from in the country right now? When you take into account Charlie Kirk, I mean, what just happened here down the road at ice Or Alvarado? Or Alvarado, I'm not sure it's pronounced as well. We haven't gone more than three days in the last three weeks without significant acts of self identified leftist terrorism. How would you curb it? If you're going to curb political violence and it seems like you're not willing to say that anything is political within the paradigm as it's universally recognized, what would you do?

[C]

I think people need to go off social media, they becoming radicalized through that. Okay, how much time can you spend on TikTok, like cycling through the same, like violent ideologies? Because conservatives are.

[A]

Can have. I'm banned from TikTok because I said Xi Jinping has a small penis. So that's the Communist Party.

[C]

I can say Instagram as well.

[A]

No, I'm just saying. Yeah, yeah. I agree that social media can be very toxic, but we're seeing real acts of violence. So assuming that you can't wave your magic wand and ban all social media.

[C]

Are you meaning in terms of like policies, like if I had a seat?

[A]

Well, we need to identify the problem. Where do you think the political violence is coming from?

[C]

More right now, I think on a global side.

[A]

Scale. In the United States. In the United States.

[C]

In the United States. I can't speak on the United States because I don't think it's just the United States.

[A]

No, but that's what the conversation is today. So if you don't want to, that's okay. But I appreciate you taking the time. I appreciate the disagreeing, the disagreement. Respectfully. You're never going to get me to say that the Communist Chinese Party is right wing.

[C]

Well, of course you wouldn't because like you represent the Conservative Party and the Republican Party.

[A]

Well, there's no Conservative Party here. I'm just conservative.

[C]

There are examples, people who are carrying out things violently. But it is not just the leftist ideology. It is a religion.

[A]

Sure thing.

[C]

Greater. And that's what I just want to assign it. Is that because. Yeah, of course. And like I kind of already iterated.

[A]

My points, but no, And I think. Yeah. And we would agree, you know, Karl Marx loathed religion and wanted to replace it with the religion of the state.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And that's what we see from these leftists. But I appreciate you sitting down, Madison. Thank you very much. Are those. Are those furry pants?

[C]

Furry pants?

[A]

What? Well, they're fur pants. Oh, they're bear pants. Sorry, I didn't mean to.

[C]

Shoes that are very, very exclusive and rare. But.

[A]

So what took you back when I said furry pants? If they're bear pants? I didn't mean to offend you. They look like fur.

[C]

Well, they are bear.

[A]

Okay. They're bear pants.

[C]

Are you a fan of Boston?

[A]

No, not very much. I only spent a little bit of time there with the hockey exchange, Montreal. We do an exchange with the Boston. And it's. It's an intensely uneducated and often quite racist people. But thank you very much, Madison. I appreciate you taking the time. God bless.

[C]

God bless.

[A]

In a moment, if I may, for a brief intermission and the only time I'd be addressing the crowd this day to issue a new challenge and lay out next steps. Guys, I'll just. This will be probably one of the only times that I address you kind of as a mass of people, because these usually end up being individual conversations. But I wanted to take a moment just to kind of communicate something here. When we started change my mind. The idea was back in 2016. I think the first ones were in 2017, so nearly a decade now. SMU was one of the very first places. And actually, I believe one of the very first places was me with a sandwich board in Burlington, Vermont, in a Morph suit, because it wasn't on campus initially. But the more I went on campus, the more I saw the failures of the institutions. And I want to be really clear about something. This was never designed to mock, denigrate, or dunk on students who don't know any better. It was always designed to highlight the features, failures of the institutions, because I was dumbfounded as to the fact when leftists would sit down that this was the first time they were hearing mainstream conservative views. So it was always about highlighting the failures of institutions. And that includes media, but certainly academia. And that's why the next step and something we've been trying to put together for a long time, but no one has agreed to do so. And why I'll be announcing this publicly and reading it out. We are actually going to be starting or calling for formal debates with professors at schools. And the only way we can think to get These people to show up is to offer up $10,000 to the school for whatever cause of their choice to their institution. And reach out and. Oh, Lane, sorry, your phone locked. Where's Lane? Your phone. See, I have to read this off his phone because I just had to get the list. Can you hold it open? All right. And so we have reached out and any Tom, Dick, Harry or Karen who will respond and take the $10,000 offered up as a charitable contribution in any of the departments of political science or liberal arts at the University of Texas, at Kansas University, ucla, Cal Berkeley, Stanford, usc, Penn, Penn State, Columbia, nyu, Harvard, Boston University, any of their esteemed professors in these schools who are willing to have a debate with a college dropout comedian. They can name the time, the place, pick the moderator and the rules. It should be an easy day out. And I encourage anyone who has any friends at these institutions, or if you have an association, to encourage their professors to do so. Or we can have a civil dialogue and maybe get to the root cause as to why you've been failed as students. You've been failed. It's time to go straight to the top to the people who failed you. We'll announce this publicly and post this list publicly. And I'll update you guys if anyone reaches back out. No luck yet. I very much appreciate you doing the work that your professors, in many cases refuse to do. Thank you. All right, now back to the regular programming. The changing of minds. Meet Andrew. So I'm asserting that today, by and large, the tone, the temperature in this country and the majority of political violence is coming from the left.

[D]

Okay.

[A]

And it's reaching a really serious boiling point. I've been observing it for a long time.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Doesn't mean that violence doesn't occur across the board, but predominantly from the left. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to change my mind.

[D]

Yeah. So one thing I'm curious, where you think that political violence comes from just kind of as a general.

[A]

Where the violence on the left comes from.

[D]

Just where political violence. Yeah. Comes from or on the left specific level. Either way. Yeah.

[A]

Well, I can tell you. I can tell you where it comes from on the left. Exactly.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

I can tell you because I've been on the receiving end many times. So the reason I stopped doing change my mind for years is because every single time out there was some kind of attack.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

For exactly the kind of conversation we're having right now.

[D]

Right.

[A]

And the ones that you've seen, I don't come out and instigate, but Some people yell at me. Rocks, concrete milkshakes, Molotov cocktails, slashing tires, doxing with Charlie Kirk. You're just seeing one that got through. He had all the security before he was assassinated in an act of leftist terrorism because there were many close calls.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

So that then empirically, that. The Recent polls from YouGov, from Reuters show that a majority of those on the left believe that political violence is somewhat to completely acceptable.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

In contrast to the right. So I'll address left as political violence. If you refer to your political opposition, Donald Trump and his voters as fascists, compare them to Nazis, say they're racist. They support oppression of blacks through the police force, say that they want to commit genocide and erase trans people because they don't believe that children should transition. They're biological men and women's sports. They're sexist, homophobic, and say, for example, specifically on Donald Trump, and this is the entire DNC as far as national figureheads saying, and you won't have another election again because he won't give up the reins of power. If I believe that, if I believe that, I'd be in the street with a gun.

[D]

Right. So I guess from my view.

[A]

Do you understand that? Would you agree with that kind of premise?

[D]

No, no, I understand where that's coming from. And I think really, like, what has changed recently is there's been more hatred in politics, I guess. Can we kind of agree with that?

[A]

I think that there's been increasing violence. I think that progressivism necessarily is predicated on divisiveness and hatred. I don't think that's the case with conservatism.

[D]

Interesting. I guess. What part of progressivism do you think comes with that?

[A]

I mean, like racial division, racial division, gender division, classist division.

[D]

Right.

[A]

I mean, you don't see the right saying, hey, these people are fascist and they want to genocide you.

[D]

No.

[A]

So. And I think it's. It's a necessary. Necessary because, for example, leftism, socialism. Right. You seize the means of production and distribution.

[D]

Right? Yeah.

[A]

That requires violence. Lowering marginal tax rates does not.

[D]

Right, Right. I think there are. There are forms of leftist ideology that have violence inherent in them, but I think there are also a lot on the political level. For example, my siblings, we get along, like, fantastic, especially in an age where people lose relationships over politics. I'm really thankful to not have that be the case. Have two siblings on the left. Both my parents are moderate political. Right.

[A]

And can I ask you, are your siblings, like, would you say significantly left?

[D]

I'd say as Policy wise, Fairly.

[A]

So how did they respond to the Charlie Kirk assassination?

[D]

Oh, they were. They were like fully in. Supportive of my devastation at the fact.

[A]

How did they respond to so many people on their side celebrating the Charlie Kirk assassination?

[D]

They were fully against that and.

[A]

Well, that's why you can be friends with them.

[D]

Right. And I think, I think at the end of the day, I guess I'll just explain, explain my view a little bit as someone who's a man of faith and trying to kind of get less into the political sphere and more towards, like, how can I be bold in my faith? I don't see political violence as the problem. I see it as the symptom. And I think the problem is our lack of religion. And I think in order to then solve that problem, we need to kind of tackle it from the roots. And I know one thing you talk about, for example, is.

[A]

I don't disagree with that.

[D]

Yeah. I think, like, we see a lot of crime in inner cities. Right. Especially with young kids. That's not the problem. The problem is fatherlessness. Right. And the crime is kind of the symptom of that. I think I kind of see this in the same vein, right, where we see this increasing political violence and we have the question of, like, how do we solve it? Right. And I know I heard you kind of talking before and you said, like, well, it's on the left to solve it, but I think.

[A]

On the left, what was that?

[D]

That it's on the people on the left to solve the violence problem.

[A]

No, I. I said it's. Well, I said it's. It's incumbent upon them to take accountability for it. And just. Even if. Because I want you to continue. But if I may address your point. Yes. I do believe that godlessness is the root cause. Is that what you're saying? The root cause of it. Okay. Who seeks to replace faith in the father with the state? Who seeks to replace God with the state?

[D]

I mean, I think it's the ideology of atheism more so than it is.

[A]

It's a political ideology of the left. Look into Marx and Angles.

[D]

I mean, that's a symptom, though.

[A]

But that is the goal of leftist policies, right. Is replace God with the state. State is your God.

[D]

Yeah, I mean, it's.

[A]

It's the root of the left in some vein.

[D]

I, I think that's true. But again, I think religion is. Comes first and then politics outgrow from that. And it's interesting. So one thing, when. I mean, when Charlie was shot, I was devastated, especially As a young conservative man, it. It kind of really hit close down because, like, I was like. She was like an older brother there to me. Right. Like, it was like, just like a shocking moment. And, like, seeing people celebrate it. I was like, they'd celebrate my death, too, if they. If they cared enough. Right. I'm not relevant, but if I was relevant, they'd celebrate my death, too. Yeah. And I caught myself in the day after I go, I don't know how we can live with these people. And I'm kind of mad at myself for saying that. And the reason is Jesus never lived like that. Right. His followers never lived like that. Right. They endured persecution for the. As the cost to spread his message. And I think that as either conservatives or people who are followers of Christ, we're called to do the same thing. And I think that it's not necessarily, like, awful to say something like this, but I think it can also be kind of pragmatically unproductive because I don't think it actually goes at what the root cause is. And I think if we want to tackle. Sorry.

[A]

No, I'm fine. Don't worry. You can mess us all up.

[D]

If we want to tackle this, the root cause, our efforts should be on. Should be on that. Right. Should be on spreading Jesus and, like, his message and what he taught.

[A]

Sure. Well, I agree with that. And we do discuss faith quite a bit. And then the show we have, Friday apologetics episode.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

But I would say that it's. I would posit that it's misguided. Sell your cloak and buy a sword. Right. Jesus did not ask for his followers to die for their faith as a primary mechanism of spreading the faith. And he did talk about protecting themselves. Jesus conquered death. You can't.

[D]

Right.

[A]

Now, I know we all conquer death through salvation. Right. But as far as here, that's a very different. And I think that asking people on the right, especially people who are fathers, mothers, to willingly put ourselves out there and endure not only violent assault, but assassination, I just don't know how that's going to solve any. Anything. Maybe you would have a point. And I don't know that I would agree theologically if after the death of Charlie Kirk, if the left, and I've been saying this, the off ramp for the left was saying, okay, look, we said that these people are fascists. We said that they're Nazis. We said, and people out there, my God, believe them. We're really sorry, we need to tone this down. Instead, you saw a gleeful celebration thereafter, polls that Show a majority of those on the left believe it. Someone to completely accept the. And then blaming the right for violence and saying, you guys need to tone down the temperature. There is no living with those people in their current state until they change. They need to be redeemed. And I understand they need it. They need Christ to redeem them. But we can't be sitting ducks.

[D]

No, no. I mean, I don't think it's wrong to defend ourselves, but, like, if we look at how the apostles taught, right. All of. I think all but one were crucified or exiled for their views. Right. Jesus said, not, not you might undergo persecution. He said, you will go under persecution, if you follow me. Right. I mean, baptism is referred to as joining Jesus and death. Right. We have these kind of. Yeah, we have these very strong. Either depending on the situation, metaphors or direct instructions that we will undergo persecution. And the reason that we're able to do that is we know that we're saved through Christ. Right. It's the most beautiful.

[A]

And I understand. But this is one thing where I do get off with a lot of modern Christian theology, and I think that you'll probably find more consistent teachings, like in Orthodoxy, for example, and I'm not orthodox, or even, you know what, traditionally, the Catholic Church, I know there's been splinters. Is. No one is called to die. No one is called to die. I shouldn't say no one. We are not called to die as a primary means of spreading the gospel. And right now, Charlie Kirk, let me put it this way. He was hunted.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

By definition, he was hunted, just as I have been hunted. And you're one viral tweet, you're one viral video, one post away from being hunted yourself. And for us to say, well, let's just deal with them in love. When you look at systemically. Right. We'll use the term the left does systemically. People who commit violent crimes against us, they're released on the IOU policy.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Right. Cashless bail. Hey, you're not fit to stand trial. Think of Irina Zarutska before Charlie Kirk. That guy was out 14 times. George Floyd, I believe, was six or nine times.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

It is an evil, evil ideology that has permeated the halls of our institutions that does need to be dealt with. And I don't think we can deal with that by just turning ourselves into martyrs. I'm willing to be a martyr.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

I don't want to be.

[D]

No, no, I don't think you should necessarily want to be. But I think if we're Both looking historically as to how the gospel was spread. It was spread through people who were willing to die for their faith.

[A]

Sure. Willing to die.

[D]

In fact, I see it in the same vein as man.

[A]

Stephen. Right. I was named after the first martyr. I'm like, thanks, Mom.

[D]

I'm Andrew. So also. Also understand. Yeah, no, I think that. Sorry, just kind of losing my train.

[A]

Of thought, but that's okay, brother. I get it.

[D]

Yeah. So both how the Gospel was spread historically through people who were martyred and then also in kind of modern examples. Right. A necessary sacrifice of being a man is being willing to die for others. It's not that we want to die for others. It's not that we shouldn't defend ourselves. Right. I think one key thing is, like, Jesus loved everyone, but the way he loved them was not through being passive. Right?

[A]

Right.

[D]

I mean, very clearly the way he loved people was by unequivocally telling them the truth. Right. And he didn't back down. Right. And it got him killed for telling the truth. Right. But he also loved everyone, even those who hated him. Right. I mean, he. He spoke out against the Pharisees. He spoke out against other religious hypocrites. He spoke out against those committing sins.

[A]

Right.

[D]

And I think the same form of love that he practiced is what we should try to practice within that. Because at the end of the day, this violence is going to keep continuing.

[A]

Do you mean like sitting down at a table and allowing anyone who will discuss it to listen? Having a dialogue like this?

[D]

I think you're doing exactly what.

[A]

Because we get killed anyway.

[D]

Right.

[A]

You know what else you need to be willing to do? Not just willing to die.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Willing to fight.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Willing to kill if it comes to us. I'm not talking about going out and killing people in the streets. I'm talking about. You are called, as a Christian man, I'm assuming you're not married, otherwise you just moisturize.

[D]

Not yet.

[A]

You are called to protect your family with your sword. You are called for righteous violence when needed. And people have misconstrued what I've said, where I've said it is time for ruthless, lawful defense. And what I mean by that is I've been attacked so many times at these things where I said, not anymore. We're not going to allow it. I don't know if that milkshake is strawberry, chocolate, vanilla, concrete, or acid. I agree with you. But just like a father who loves his child, spoil the rod, you spare the child. Right?

[D]

Right.

[A]

We love this country and we see an Evil permeating it.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

And speaking truth sometimes is uncomfortable and we got to keep our chin down and hands up. And so I don't think we have any disagreement. And I don't think that this statement is unproductive. It's the truth. And the truth is merely the truth.

[D]

Yeah, I mean, I think that, I'm not saying that telling the truth is not productive, but I think at the end of the day, you do have to go to the roots. And even if, let's just say we are. We all carry guns around. As Christian men, we defend our families. Right. If we still allow atheism as an ideology to become widespread because we don't have these conversations, which I think what you're doing right now is exactly what we need to be doing.

[A]

All right, good.

[D]

Oh, and it's, it's totally what Jesus did. Right. He talked to everyone. Right. He said, he said, I'm here, come talk to me.

[A]

I don't know if Jesus ever sat down with a self identified bionic, furry, but times change.

[D]

But I mean, I mean, he talked to the Samaritan woman, right?

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

I mean, she was like, why are you even talking to me? Right. I'm a Samaritan, you're a Jew. And so I think like he was willing to have the tough conversations. He was willing to spread love to everyone. And I think in our current context, if we simply go around, we fight using the sword. Right? It's not necessarily.

[A]

Well, I'm not advocating that.

[D]

No, no. And we should defend those who matter to us and we should defend ourselves. But at the end of the day, if we don't tackle the root problem, it's just going to get worse. And I think, at least from my perspective, what we're seeing is kind of my parents generation that kind of like, what was it? Gen X was the first generation that rejected Christ en masse as a generation. But they still accepted the moral precepts.

[A]

I'd say the baby boom because a lot of them turned it into weird Christian hippie shit.

[D]

Yeah, right.

[A]

You know what I mean?

[D]

No matter who we said it was, but they were the first ones to reject it. But they still accepted the moral precepts that Christianity taught. Right. They still accepted we're all human beings. Murder's wrong, theft's wrong. You know, sexual immorality is. Men are wrong. Men are men. Right. Still accepted by that generation. This new generation is saying if we don't believe in God, we don't have to believe in any of that stuff. And I think that's the ideology that's resulting in this political violence. Right. Because it's, it's.

[A]

Well, I would say, I would take it one step further. It's the marriage of that ideology.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

With government as a means of enforcing it. And that's Marxism. That's socialism. And that's why if you look at the left, the modern political left, it is deeply anti God in every facet. It says there is no such thing as a life until literally it's outside of the vaginal lips. Not even by the way, I don't say that to me. And I think we should be shocking as Christians truth. Because we're not even just talking about in the uterus literally until it leaves the vaginal lips. It's not a life. And sometimes we saw governor north of even afterwards we might allow that child to die. We should allow children to mutilate their genitals beyond puberty blockers. Not only that, we should take children away from their parents if they want to protect them and hide them in Minnesota where the parents can't find out about them. This is deeply evil. And the means of enforcing said evil is the state. And the only side interested in doing that en masse is the Democrat party and the modern political left. And so I don't think you can separate the two. And my only disagreement wouldn't be disagreement on any. I don't think anything as far as our precepts is on the methodology. There's a big reason that Gen Z has become more conservative.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

And a big reason for that is that people like myself and even and people like Charlie Kirk and a lot of people who sort of, you know, spearheaded this. We were no longer concerned with offense. The church was very feminized.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

And very concerned with keeping the ties in because women brought their kids to Sunday school. And you know what? We don't want to offend anyone. And I think being curt but honest and blunt and having a backbone has resulted in a lot more headway than this sort of agape love Christianity. And it doesn't mean that you don't love people.

[D]

Right.

[A]

But this conversation for I've had. I used to get more letters from Christians when I would start this exact kind of thing saying, you know, you don't, you know, that's going to offend people. I don't give a no.

[D]

And I, I don't think it's wrong necessarily. I think that it would just be more helpful to I guess kind of tackle what I see as the root cause of all of this. In the rise of atheism. Because at the end of the day, if we just treat the symptom. Right, it's what the welfare state did. Right. It treated the symptom. But if we don't tackle the problem and if we do both at once, I think that's great. Right.

[A]

If we say, I think that's what I think we need to do both at once.

[D]

I mean, so I suppose the. The inherent statement, because I do see a lot of political violence on the left, that statement is not necessarily wrong. I just don't think it's the whole picture. And I think the accompanying statement must always be made that this political violence and hatred comes at the root source from the idea that we don't have a God. There's no God. There's no objective morality. And that's what's resulting in that ideology and that hate.

[A]

Because I agree with the root cause of it. The problem is. The problem is you can't argue that with someone who simply rejects the. The rejects the precept of God. In other words, you have to meet them on their territory and gradually pull them over to this concept where you can get them to agree. And I'm kind of good at this. You can get them to agree on some terms, for example, political violence. You can get them to agree on certain policies and then ask the why.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

For example, I sat down, my favorite change my mind that I ever did. I had a girl sit down because I'm pro life, changed my mind. And she said, well, I don't know why you would judge me. And I had to have an abortion. I didn't have a choice. I said, you did have a choice. I said, you know what? You're going to meet that child in heaven one day.

[D]

Right.

[A]

She came back on the show two weeks later via Zoom, and she become a pro life activist.

[D]

Praise God.

[A]

But I didn't start with something that she wouldn't hear.

[D]

Right.

[A]

So this is to start the conversation, and then the conversations result in this. But I will say, I assume you're raised in the church, raised with Christian family.

[D]

Yes.

[A]

Yeah. And SMU is relatively moderate as far as schools.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

There is a whole dark world that awaits you, and I want you to put the armor of the Lord on. No, I'm from Connecticut.

[D]

I. Oh, okay.

[A]

All right. There you go. Plus, you got the McMahons there. They do some weird stuff. All right, well. Was it Andrew?

[D]

Yes. I know this is unconventional. Is it cool if I pray with you real quick?

[A]

Yeah, absolutely. We've done that several times.

[D]

Dear Heavenly Father, I just thank you for Stephen and what he's doing out here and I just ask that you can use his voice as to be an ambassador for your will. I thank you for the ability to have this beautiful day, this beautiful breeze and have conversations out here. And I just ask that you are present with and bless everyone that is in attendance today, as well as everyone in our country, those who are struggling and sometimes most importantly, to pray for God is our enemies and those who fervently disagree with us, even if they want us dead. We have to pray for their salvation and for them to come around. And we just appreciate having this gift of life that we're able to do this and able to hopefully do your will and do this in your name. We pray this in Jesus name. Amen.

[A]

Jesus name, Amen. I apologize. I looked around a couple times to make sure no one was coming in hot.

[D]

Oh no. Thank you so much.

[A]

Thank you, brother. God bless you. I appreciate that. Thank you. That means a lot.

[D]

Thank you.

[A]

Okay, so you see the conversations thus far. A little of column A, a little of column B. Which ones do you enjoy watching most comment below? And by the way, none of this happens to without your support. Consider joining Rumble Premium. By clicking the link in the description, you get 100% more of the Daily show that we do weekdays, 11am Eastern, as well as a whole bunch of other programs and everything ad free. Let's go on to this next subject. Chris Tuffer. Chris, I don't know how familiar you are with what this series is, but.

[E]

First time here, I know the memes.

[A]

So at yeah, I didn't see that one coming. As far as when it happened, I was like, oh, I was just me at a table. Yeah, I'll tell you what it's not. It's not clips and reels and shorts and dunks and gotcha and clickbait. If this conversation is productive and we're both having it in good faith, it'll be uploaded in its entirety. Contextually, it's an opportunity for us to rationalize, to reason our positions on what are viewed as controversial topics. Yeah. So before I get to the premise, and by the way, you can take this if you want the all we always make the sources publicly available. So if you just take that, that's yours, the QR code, you can go check the references and fact check me in case I'm lying to you. Because people, I don't know if you know this. People in media do that shit. Could you do me a Favor. And just so we agree, kind of read this. Political violence, terrorism. This is defined by the current sources being cited out there. And I'll summarize it for people watching. Hopefully we find common ground on the idea. Political violence is when violence is used as a means to a political end. So let's say you vote Democrat and you accidentally hit someone with your car today. Yeah. Who happens to be Republican. That's not political.

[D]

Yeah.

[E]

So there was.

[A]

But if you go, I'm going to get me a Republican. That would be political violence. We agree on that.

[D]

Yes.

[A]

Okay. So what I'm asserting today is. Sorry, I know we just touched tangents. I'm fine if you're. Is that by and large the tone, tenor, temperature right now, certainly in 2025 of political violence is coming overwhelmingly from the left. And I think this leads nowhere good unless the course corrects. If you disagree, you're welcome to change my mind.

[E]

So I would disagree. One in the statement that these blanket statements of the left is violent hurts. The idea, creates a divisiveness and loss versus that. I agree with what you're saying. I've been hearing your stats as well, that yes, it's. It's disproportionately on the left as of late. The stats I've seen as you defined, I think.

[A]

So you agree with that?

[E]

I agree with that.

[A]

Would it surprise you that a lot of people don't agree with that? They say, they say, well, there's more violence on the right. That's the talking point.

[E]

However, even if there is more violence on the right or even if there is more violence on left, I think violence as a whole is a problem. But I think you're also going to have violence as you radicalize groups.

[A]

Sure. May I address that? Just because we are a little bit.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

For time right now. I apologize. And I hear about radicalizing a lot. And by the way, the reason for that is, you know, I can fit it on a sign. Yeah. And then I provide the context. We sit down. So I'm matching the rhetoric of the left, right. They say the right commits more crime. I go, well, no, actually the left is violent. But then I think I explained it contextually. We hear about radicalizing a lot. So. And I think that does happen. I don't think it's possible to be in a right wing echo chamber because all of media, all of Hollywood, all of mainstream press, these institutions and academia lean heavily left. I think some people can silo themselves off. But still your people on the right are more aware of Those the positions on the left than. Than vice versa. But we hear about radicalizing. Let me ask you this, okay, you disagree with that. But let's assume somebody is watching all the right wing channels. Is there anything that you can think of more radicalizing than a moderate conservative who sat down and spoke peacefully being politically assassinated as an act of terrorism in cold blood and then gleefully celebrated thereafter. And we tried to host peaceful memorials to mourn the death of our own showing up, attacking, desecrating, spitting at every single vigil and memorial and then blaming the right and saying we need to tone down the temperature. In other words, if you're a young conservative who watched Charlie Kirk or could have been me by the way, sitting in that chair because there's been many attempts. I don't think there's anything on earth that could be more radicalizing than that because the left still kept blaming the right. They didn't take the off ramp.

[E]

Okay, but I would also. Also, are you. We don't know all the motivations behind why the shooter's doing.

[A]

Sure we do.

[E]

Also, we can't.

[A]

We do.

[E]

Okay, but it was come out and stated that. That he was like doing this for left leaning political reasons. He said before, but far before you could have even known what it was. A lot of the statements.

[A]

Are you aware that by the way, and this is just because it's relevant, we had a leak under the DoD so we were the. My team right here. They were the. They were the people who broke the news that there were engravings on the bullet casings. There were anti fascists that were weird trans sort of 4chan type stuff. That's the owl notices bulge. And the reason it was leaked to us from someone at DoD DoJ is because they were concerned that it would be buried. So when we released that, which of course now we know is true, it's been confirmed. We were tarred and feathered as liars and fake purveyors of fake news. So we knew it before anyone else. And I've been following it since. He said it was an act of political violence. He said that he killed Charlie Kirk because he was hateful and fascist. That's enough for me that.

[E]

Okay, that is wrong. Absolutely.

[A]

So I can agree we're not wrong. Do we agree that it's pretty clear what the motives are if the person who does it says it?

[E]

Yes, if he's said it.

[A]

I mean you could still and engraved it.

[E]

The engraving though doesn't necessarily. Isn't necessarily leftist. Like I think you could definitely make an Argument that it is leftist. But you could also make an argument. One, you could easily make an argument that you wanted to add division shooting.

[A]

Charlie Kirk with a bullet engraving that says fuck fascism. When Charlie Kirk and by the way, yours truly have been accused of being fascist for a decade and then you read the writings of him saying he's hateful. That seems pretty clear to me. In other words, you sent a bullet with the engraving fuck fascism at the person. People said Charlie Kirk was a fascist. This person believed it shot him because he believed he was a fascist. Is that not clear? That is clear.

[E]

What I would say though is that doesn't still necessarily. Okay, that doesn't necessarily mean it's far leftist. But even if in this case it is far leftist, I still don't think.

[A]

Would we agree that the reasoning for the murder was the rhetoric of the left. They are the ones who accuse people like myself and Charlie Kirk of being fascist in comparisons to Hitler. If they weren't doing it, no one would think we're fascist.

[E]

Would agree that the rhetoric on both sides though.

[A]

No, not on both sides. We don't accuse the left of being fascist in Hitler.

[E]

I agree that's not necessarily happening. But I think that rhetoric in general this far push we are pushing so heavily towards us versus them statement on both sides, on both the left and the right that the other guy is evil and the other guy is wrong. And that is true of a lot of both people that I know personally and in general. And we gain nothing from an us versus them mentality ever. The only time you can get benefit and value, that's the whole point of your show, is to build a relationship with somebody and talk through your problems. And it's when you recognize that the other.

[A]

Build a relationship based on truth though.

[E]

Absolutely.

[A]

Yeah. And I don't believe, I don't believe in linking hands with people who celebrate the assassination. And the problem is that 62% of those on the left, 62% YouGov poll after Charlie Kirk was killed, 62% on the left believe that it was somewhat too completely acceptable political violence. 77% of self identified conservatives said no SNAP poll before Charlie Kirk was killed. Six to one. Left supports violence over the right. Another poll from Rutgers after Donald Trump, the attempted assassination, over 60% on the left supported it. You don't find that from conservatives against Kamala Harris, over 60%. Firebombing Tesla is over 60% assessed. So in other words, you do have to look at the rhetoric. You do have to look at the acts of violence and you do have to look at the preponderance of evidence, the totality of the polls that shows one side of the political aisle justifies supports political violence as a means to an end. And that is the left.

[E]

January 6th.

[A]

Let me give you some context for January 6th. Do you realize that more people, more people at ICE facilities in the state of Texas have been killed by left wing violence in the last week than all of January 6th combined? Yes.

[E]

There weren't deaths or killings during January 6th. Major ones, because it was the. It's the cap.

[A]

But my point is, why do you reach back to January 6th for whataboutism? Right up the street you have more violence than January 6th also. And we haven't gone three days in the last two weeks without leftist violence. In other words, there's no equivalency. What about January 6th?

[E]

I agree, but however, also you have to recognize that for one, the aspects of ice, I think that is a major issue and a major problem. And if we could have time to.

[A]

Go into that, I know we don't have.

[E]

I'm so sorry.

[A]

Because they're moving us because of security.

[E]

Easy to go into. But like that, right. There is a major problem as well. And I think there's something to be said.

[A]

How so?

[E]

With ICE and all that. The lack of due process given to immigrants being deported.

[A]

Okay, so what you just said, I just want you to bear with me here, that kind of rhetoric, that there's a problem with ice. No due process. People who are here illegally are not entitled to the same due process as American citizens. And that kind of rhetoric is why people shoot up ICE facilities. They're doing their job. A slight change in deportation policies. And by the way, I mean very slight because Barack Obama did it too. He had to give speeches on it because he was like, guys, we have to deport some people. A slight change in border policy is not something that warrants any kind of justification for the fermenting violence that we see from the left. ICE is doing their job. And illegal aliens are not entitled to due process. They never have been.

[E]

Constitution peoples in the US are entitled.

[A]

No to American citizens, to natural American citizens, naturalized American citizens. Okay? Someone happens to set foot in our country, if they're a terrorist, they're entitled to do due process. As opposed. And we're not, by the way, executing them. We're deporting them. We're sending them back to their country of origin.

[E]

Yes, because that is what makes America amazing, is that you are innocent until proven guilty.

[A]

Where are you getting this idea that anyone who enters the country is entitled to our constitutional rights in due process. Where are you getting that?

[E]

People in the US but where are.

[A]

You getting this idea? In other words, that's not anywhere in our laws and our founding and our Constitution that anyone who comes into this country illegally is entitled to due process on our constitutional rights. They're not. Where are you getting that?

[E]

In the we the people under the.

[A]

US they are not we the people. They're not Americans. They're not allowed to be here legally. But should criminals, should violent criminals be allowed to vote on law that relates.

[E]

To crime be allowed to have due process?

[A]

Why? Where are you getting it? Because of the fact, aside from you feel that they should. What's the basis for it?

[E]

Because that's how the Constitution is stated.

[A]

It's not. Is that. It is not. Okay, that's what I'm saying. So where are you basing it if not that? But the problem is you have people saying, hey, ICE are breaking up families. Hey, they're violating human rights, civil rights. Hey, you know what? Let me put it this way. And we do have to get. If I believed. If I believe that Joe Biden. If I believe what the left believes about Donald Trump and me as a voter, if I believe that Joe Biden was rounding up and killing white Christian men, if I believed that Joe Biden was a fascist, if I believe that Joe Biden was committing genocide, if I believe that Joe Biden was doing all this would strip us of all of our foundational fundamental rights and would never relinquish the reins of power or have a Democratic election again. I'd be in the street with a gun. Those on the left believe every single one of those premises about Donald Trump and his voters. So do you understand why there's the violence also?

[E]

Again, I would say that just like.

[A]

The belief about ice, but that is.

[E]

A generalization again, because you're saying every single one of the voters on the left, everybody on the left believes.

[A]

I believe a majority of people on the left believe that they believe what you believe about ice. These are men doing their job. A slight change in border policy, that little rationalization leads to violence. Just like Charlie Kirk was a fascist and it was engraved in a bullet. I.

[E]

So here's the other side. I absolutely agree with you that, like, we should not be labeling people as necessarily things. They have beliefs.

[A]

Okay.

[E]

They like, there are beliefs that I like. I do not think Charlie Kirk should think shot.

[A]

Absolutely. I know. And I, I know that. But. But too many on the Left do.

[E]

No, absolutely. I.

[A]

And I.

[E]

But I still believe that like some of his belief or swore homophobic. But he.

[A]

I don't.

[E]

I'm not saying that he was a homophobe. And I think that's such a major thing that, like that people have beliefs and we can talk through them about.

[A]

We can't though. That's. And that's. That we do have to live in on this. We can't because we get killed. That's the point. When the left. So here when you say. Don't label. When people. And the left says tone it down. Tone it down from sitting at a table and having a conversation with anyone who will listen because they took his life anyway and they tried to take mine. Only the left does that. No one on the left is afraid or has to have a quarter million dollars worth of security to have conversations. We need to address the problem. It's the reason for crime, state stats. I agree with you. We should sit down and have conversations. That's why I'm having it. Most people can't because we get killed. And that's a fundamental difference.

[E]

I still.

[A]

I'll let you. Because a Russian is out.

[E]

I still disagree.

[A]

Okay.

[E]

I mean, I still disagree that it is an inherently. Only that.

[A]

I didn't say only. I said by and large, it's not proportionate or far more violence from the left than the right. And the means of enforcement. Enforcement is violent. The means of enforcement from the left is violence.

[E]

I think there's also something to be said on the point that we want that there's further oppression being pushed from the. From the right on basic liberties. But that is more violence.

[A]

If we had time to get to it, I would. But taking away our guns, taking away our speech, taking away our kids if we don't transition them. That's the left's platform. And you find it from every single major leftist. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, all the way down. It'd be tough. It would be a conversation love to have. But they're booting us because they don't want me to get shot. Which kind of makes the point.

[E]

Chris, I would argue the universe not on the shot, but great to meet you.

[A]

Thanks for being a good sport. Sorry we had to rush. Maybe next time we can do it for longer and please take that and Perus those. Absolutely. God bless. Well, that was a long time coming and I want to thank everyone who made this even possible and everyone who came out, everyone who had civil conversations. But I'm not stopping here. There are more conversations to be had more places to visit and more minds to change. Today was a good start, but it's just that, a start. And we'll continue right here tomorrow. So be sure to tune in at the same time, same place for more change my mind.