Tucker's 10 Point Plan: What the Hell is He Talking About?

Summary

Podcast Summary: Louder with Crowder

Episode: Tucker's 10 Point Plan: What the Hell is He Talking About?
Date: August 7, 2026
Host: Steven Crowder (plus the regular crew: Gerald, Lane, etc.)

---

Main Theme / Purpose

This episode centers on breaking down Tucker Carlson’s recently publicized "10 Point Plan" for America. Crowder and his team examine the main tenets of Tucker’s plan, scrutinize its premises, evaluate the validity of his criticisms, and challenge whether Tucker provides real solutions or simply populist rhetoric. Crowder contrasts Tucker’s assertions—especially regarding Trump, the state of conservatism, and major threats facing America—with actual data and alternative perspectives, particularly focusing on the Trump administration’s policy record.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction: The Changing Landscape of Political Discourse

• Crowder opens with personal banter and some lighthearted talk about sickness, dog accidents, and the funkiness of YouTube and Rumble (01:00–04:00).
• He stresses the decline of real debate in the conservative movement, longing for more open, in-person dialogue to hash out differences and present strong cases (05:00–06:00).

2. Setting Up Tucker’s Plan

• Crowder gives context: Tucker Carlson released a 10-point vision for America after suggesting MAGA was “betrayed.” Some speculated this was a presidential bid tease, but it turned out to be a policy pitch (07:30–08:00).
• Tucker’s listed American virtues: “Fair, sovereign, productive, beautiful, healthy, honest, optimistic, wise, decent, united.”
  Crowder’s team: “It does make me optimistic.” (08:58, Lane)

3. Identifying the Biggest Threats Facing America

• Crowder summarizes Tucker’s “three existential threats”:
  1. Nuclear war
  2. Artificial Intelligence (AI)
  3. Elite looting and lack of government responsiveness
     (10:54, [Tucker] “On this trajectory…we are moving toward a nuclear exchange…”)
• Crowder highlights that Tucker, unlike many commentators, frames these as bipartisan failures—posing both as systemic rather than strictly partisan (11:30–13:00).

4. Assessing the Threats & Providing Context

• Crowder agrees that AI and nuclear threats are real, referencing tech industry warnings about AI and the persistent reality of nuclear weapons.
• He argues, however, that Marxism is the most dangerous threat, as it underpins leftist ideologies (10:02, Crowder: “Marxism is the ideological backbone for everything downstream”).
• On US government spending, he clarifies entitlements like the “war on poverty” (3.2 trillion) consume more spending than the military, and only one (“entitlements”) is fundamentally “immoral”—arguing against government redistribution (13:00–14:00).

5. Testing Tucker’s Premises

a) The “Uniparty” Premise (Republicans & Democrats are Identical)

• Tucker’s claim: Both parties are identical on fundamental issues like war, budget, and taxation. (15:08, [Tucker] “The parties on the big issues are identical…”)
• Crowder rebuts:
  • Cites $1.7 trillion in mandatory spending cuts under Trump vs. trillion-dollar Democratic spending bills.
  • On immigration and border security, differences are “stark,” with Trump slashing illegal crossings and deportations much more than Biden (18:23–20:55).
  • Crowder: “That doesn’t seem like it’s the same to me. Flawless? No. The exact same? Absolutely not.” (19:41)

b) Immigration & Crime as Existential Issues

• Tucker often pivots to immigration as “the most important issue”—but, Crowder notes, does not include it as a top-three threat in his new plan (18:23, [Tucker] “These two issues, immigration and crime, don’t simply annoy voters…these…threaten the existence of society.”).
• Crowder: “No one has made any bigger strides than President Trump.” (20:55)

c) Sovereignty and Foreign Influence

• Tucker defines sovereignty as “freedom from outside influence,” claims the US is losing it primarily via “bribery or threat or both by Israel” over Iran (22:06, [Tucker] “…Iran war, which you do under bribery or threat or both by Israel…”).
• Crowder: “This is a claim from Tucker without evidence to support his claim. So we’re going to have to make an inference…”
  He lists several Trump actions against internationalism: withdrawing from the WHO, defunding the UN, pressuring NATO, closing USAID, and more. (22:48–24:48)

d) Use of Unsubstantiated Claims & Lack of Debate

• Crowder criticizes Tucker’s reliance on “everyone knows that” as argumentation without sources:
  (24:48, Gerald: “…Anytime Tucker says ‘everybody knows it, it’s just obviously true,’ he says these things so you go, okay, I don’t have to research that…”)
• Crowder describes a culture shift in conservatism: a decline in good faith debate and hashing out disagreements—instead, personalities talk “to a screen,” creating echo chambers (25:13–26:09).

6. “Trump Is Leading Us to Extinction” - Hyperbole or Fact?

• Tucker charges both parties, especially Trump, with being “incapable of responding to reality” (26:09, [Tucker] “…the system that we now have … is basically paralyzed…”)
• Crowder rebuts that claims of impending nuclear war are speculative, whereas Marxism’s negative impact is observable and well-documented.
  (27:11, Crowder: “That’s another claim. Without evidence, we’re going toward nuclear war. We’ve been hearing that since nukes have existed.”)

7. Tucker’s Prescriptions: Are They New, Realistic, or Already Tried?

a) Cut Off Benefits to Illegal Immigrants

• Tucker: “There is no justification for spending $1 on anyone who comes to this country illegally…makes you wonder why no one’s thought of it.” (29:27, [Tucker])
• Crowder retorts: “Only President Trump has done anything about it…if they don’t have a Social Security number … has required … to verify identification … made it impossible for illegals to get access to things like healthcare, education, jobs, taxpayer-funded lawyers…” (29:49–31:16)

b) End Foreign Lobbying

• Tucker: “No more foreign lobbyists.” (32:56)
• Crowder agrees, but notes most of the foreign lobbying/education money comes from nations like China and Qatar, not just Israel, and accuses Tucker of ignoring these in favor of fixating on Israel (33:47–34:00).

c) Stop Importing People

• Tucker: “You can’t have any more immigration of any kind because of AI…would be crazy to bring in new people…” (34:20)
• Crowder: “Under President Trump … 87% reduction in new H1Bs … 94% reduction in border crossings …that doesn’t seem the same to me.” (34:54–36:00)
• Crowder asks for detail: If Tucker’s plan is to create a third party, what are the actual mechanisms to reach 100% instead of 87%? “How do you circumvent the same feckless Republicans and the Democrats?” (36:28)

8. Populism vs. Policy: Rhetoric without Results?

• Crowder accuses Tucker of giving “a way to promote” but not outlining real mechanisms for change, or grappling with the limits of executive power vs. courts/Congress. Politicians and pundits have “no skin in the game” compared to Trump actually fighting these battles. (36:28–40:00)
• Lane: “Being the winning party is more difficult because then you have to start offering something as opposed to just bitching.” (41:04)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On decline of debate culture
  “There's often a disconnect between what you see on the screen and what happens in real life. We've kind of lost that.” (05:15, Crowder)
• On the “Uniparty” claim
  “Okay, here’s the truth. That’s a false equivalency, and I’ll prove it to you. Also, the issues that really matter, he shifts the goalpost.” (16:02, Crowder)
• Gerald roasting Tucker’s vagaries
  “Anytime Tucker says ‘everybody knows it, it’s just obviously true’ … you go, okay, I don’t have to research that.” (24:48, Gerald)
• On actual policy differences
  “No one has made any bigger strides than President Trump.” (20:55, Crowder)
• On AI and threat assessment
  “That’s another claim. Without evidence, we’re going toward nuclear war. We’ve been hearing that since nukes have existed.” (27:11, Crowder)
• On Trump’s record
  “Only President Trump has done anything about it … if these things get struck down… it’s not honest to say that no one has thought of this. Everyone has.” (29:49, Crowder)
• On third party or outsider rhetoric
  “So, I guess the specific that we need is, okay, how would Tucker’s plan get that number…87% to 100%? … What do you do with the John Thunes of the world? How is the third party going to fix that?” (36:28, Crowder)
• On the current state of conservative media
  “That's why you've seen a diversification of content over the past two years. Things are better. We're not Trump sycophants … we’ve been critical of the same things, and we've been supportive of the same things.” (41:15, Lane/Crowder)
• Critique of black-pilling & defeatism
  “What we're saying is don't get so black pilled that you think we need to start over, we need a new path. Because the new path he's talking about will literally lead to only one outcome.” (40:53, Gerald)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• 05:15 – Crowder on the lost art of debate and “Change My Mind”
• 07:30 – Tucker’s “10 Point Plan” context
• 10:02 – Marxism as the biggest American threat (Crowder position)
• 10:54 / 11:39 – Tucker’s diagnosis: nuclear risk, AI, elite misgovernance
• 15:08 – Tucker: “Uniparty” criticism
• 16:02 – Crowder’s rebuttal: false equivalency & goalpost moving
• 18:23 / 19:41 – Immigration as existential threat; real Trump vs Biden comparison
• 22:06 – Sovereignty, Israel, and international influence (Tucker/Crowder)
• 24:48 – How to spot unsubstantiated claims (“everybody knows”)
• 26:09 – “Trump is leading us to extinction”
• 29:27 – Immigration benefits, Trump’s actual action (policy)
• 32:56 – Lobbyists and foreign influence
• 34:20 – Immigration and AI: is total restriction possible/wise?
• 36:28 – What’s the real alternative? Mechanisms vs. rhetoric
• 40:53 – The danger of total defeatism, “black-pilling” on the right
• 41:04 – Realities of winning, conservative media incentives

---

Overall Tone & Style

• Frank, energetic, and combative. Crowder and crew maintain a bantering, sometimes sarcastic tone, especially when critiquing what they call populist or vague rhetoric.
• The show pushes for evidence-based argumentation, referencing data and calling out talking points presented without sources.
• They encourage critical engagement from their audience—not just accepting “black-pilled” pessimism or third party wishcasting.

---

Takeaways for New Listeners

• This episode offers a comprehensive, often skeptical review of Tucker Carlson’s 10 Point Plan.
• The hosts advocate for substance over soundbites, calling on conservatives to resist “black-pilled” nihilism and to stay realistic about what has been accomplished policy-wise.
• Ultimately, they contend, it’s vital to maintain open dialogue and distinguish between hype and workable solutions—especially as 2026 shapes up to be a divisive year for the American right.

Transcript

[A]

You woke up this morning and got yourself a mark? Mama always said that you'd be the chosen one? She said you learned a million? But down to all I strive. Cause YouTube's a comedy trash hole? And you can't change my mind. Woke up this morning and all the views are gone? Media never tells you the left is always wrong? I wonder you we got that good and shine. YouTube is a comedy trash hole? And you can't change my mind?

[B]

You walk up this small hand. You got yourself a mug.

[C]

You got yourself a mug.

[B]

You got yourself a mug. Click Rumble Premium and join now for 99 annually or $9.99 a month to get the entirely ad free experience and an ever expanding roster of content creators and free speech. Glad to be with you. And I apologize to Josh Firestein because he caught the bubonic plague from me.

[C]

He did.

[B]

Problem is, I don't get that sick. I get a little sick.

[C]

And then you're a super spreader.

[B]

And then if someone else gets it. So, like, that's the thing. I can't take a sick ticket. It must be nice. So I come in and then I go home, hot toddy and take a nap. But it's been a little rough around Josh, so my apologies. We have a. We have a glass panel that you can't see here. Like the Change my mind. Bulletproof panel. Way to give it away. We need to. You know what? We really need to. We need to force him. Like Clockwork Orange. Him with Band of Brothers.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

So he needs to understand what it means.

[C]

But then the people wouldn't get their admonished, Steven.

[B]

That's true.

[C]

They don't know what to do without their admonish.

[B]

They do love it. Captain Morgan, CEO.

[C]

How are you? I'm well, how are you? You feeling a little better?

[B]

Yeah, no, it's not that bad. I just. You know, it was allergy.

[C]

It was.

[B]

Everyone had allergies, and it's kind of wasn't.

[C]

Alex.

[B]

I don't get super sick.

[C]

Josh sick, and he's home dying.

[B]

I know, but I don't get super sick. I get little colds. Cause I have twins or petri dishes. And then it just kind of migrates through and it's about a day and a half, so I'm okay. And then because Josh is not here, the man who does a lot of work here behind the scenes, you know him, he used to be Ginger Snap, but he didn't like it. So Lane the Brain, my senior researcher, producer. I don't know the term. He's my right hand man as far as making sure that we get stuff right. Lane the brain. How are you?

[D]

I'm good. If I would have known I was filling in for Josh, the wolf T shirt might not have been my first choice.

[B]

Yeah, I too, buy my clothes at Buc EE's.

[D]

Well, nice. Buc EE's has some decent stuff.

[B]

I outfitted an entire townhouse from Buc ee. Yeah, I got all the cow rugs. I think I gave you one.

[D]

Yeah, you did.

[B]

Yeah. Because I was like, ah, it doesn't fit with the new decor, but they're good.

[D]

Also didn't fit with my decor.

[C]

So some hobo under the.

[B]

Well, the problem with that, it was like that. And I had. You guys had this with your dog. Joe Lewis. There was like an artificial grass for like, you know, those little truck, like, fake roads that my son would play with. He would only ever like, maybe pee on that or the cow skin rug. And one time with a Christmas tree. He's never had an accident in the house, but he thought that's what it was supposed to be.

[C]

It's like marking his spot. Like, there's cow skin in here. I have to dominate it.

[B]

He thinks it's nature. It's all nature.

[C]

Our dogs just ate ours. Hold on. They don't pee on cows.

[B]

They ate your other dogs. No, the rug.

[C]

The cow skin rug.

[B]

So, Lane, how's the dog piss? Cow skin rug. No, it happened once. They always look cool, but I still have one.

[D]

Well, you put them down, you're like, this doesn't go with anything that I have.

[B]

I mean, I'll take a few naked pictures, put it up on your dating profile. I saw that. But you pull it well. You wear that rug well. It's like the COVID of Cosmo with what's his name? Burt Reynolds.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

Bring that up later as an overlay. We need to bring that up for the ladies. We'll be talking about lady today. Candace Owens. Andrew Wilson. Looks like a debate won't happen. And just get right into it. Tucker Carlson's ten point plan. I told you yesterday that we would go through it. I wanted to spend some time with it. And look, let me tell you something. When I started doing this. So first time on YouTube 2006 was like a comedy video. Any type of political sort of videos that were adapted from Stan was 2008, 2009 found my way. But early on, we would have all these conversations. You would collaborate. But back then on other channels, that meant either doing a sketch together or an interview or you'd have debates, and you have conversations. You disagree. That's a big reason of why I got into it. Then they started happening less and less. That's why we did change my mind, too, so that people could see those conversations. There's often a disconnect between what you see on the screen and what happens in real life. We've kind of. We've kind of lost that. I would love to sit down, not just with Tucker or have, you know, opened the debate to Candace when she called me out. I don't hate anybody. I'd like to see the best ideas went out and people present their strongest case. We don't really see that particularly. And it's disturbing to me on the right, if we're seeing these factions on the right, we're seeing these fractures take place. Wouldn't it be productive if we want to correct course, to sit down and have a conversation and see who presents the best case? Instead, people just talk to a screen, and then they trash talk on social media. So that's why we try and avoid that and we talk with you here, so you let me know. It feels like there's been a real shift. We want to get into Tucker Carlson.

[C]

I think so.

[A]

I think it's time.

[B]

By the way, I'm not just winded because I'm a fat guy right now. It's because I can't. So I'm not that. But I can't breathe and talk at the same time. It's at that phase. Yeah. Gross.

[C]

You just need minutes.

[B]

Yeah. Every once in a while.

[C]

Gerald, take over. Got it. Nothing. Silent.

[B]

On the phone with my dad the other day, going up the stairs.

[C]

Oh, no.

[B]

He was like, are you dying? He's like, I'm not dying. I just can't think of anything fun to do. Also, someone sent me a tip. My father. Just before we get to this, my father. I got an SOS emergency from my dad from his iPhone, I guess. It was in his cart. He was, like, shopping at the grocery store, and it went off, and it did a SOS like, emergency dial. And I'm his emergency contact. So I call him. I go, is everything okay? He's like, oh, yeah. You know, I have you and your brother as emergency contact. Yeah, that's really touching. I really. But you both called me, but, no, it's fine. It was just in my cart. But then I got notified, like, 19 more times. So the second I was like, dad, shut it off and take me. I don't want to be your emergency contact.

[E]

Just die.

[B]

He keeps throwing the phone in the cart. In the cart. Funniest thing ever. Just Covid, Covid. My dad was a Tom Thumb. There was a guy who was in the self checkout. My dad described it. He described him on the show. He was about 6 foot 7, about 300 pounds. And he had a huge cigar in Tom Thumb lit and was just beep, beep, beep. Like no one's gonna say a thing.

[E]

He said.

[B]

And nobody did. I was in the frozen. I'm like, do I smell cigar? And I saw this guy with a mosquito swatter. Just some chicken.

[C]

I rem he was the funniest thing he's ever seen.

[B]

So my dad has fun at the grocery store. All right.

[C]

He's an old man.

[B]

Tucker Carlson, let's go to this. Have you watched his 10 point plan? Did you watch his episode? By the way, I highly recommend that you do so you take it in context. We did. And if I don't do a good job of providing it in context, please let me know. We always want to be fair. We want to provide the references to you every show link in the description and we'll have links to his installment YouTube X all of that. So let me set it up for you. He responded to a Marjorie Taylor Greene post on X where she said that MAGA was betrayed. And you know, she's very anti Trump now, not just anti Republican Party, but specifically anti Trump. He responded with MAGA was betrayed. We all were. It's time for a new path forward. More tomorrow night at 6pm so teasing there. Some people were speculating he's gonna run for president. What's he going to do? No, it was a list and his plan forward for America. So we want to go through that here today. I want to do three things. First, identify what Tucker Carlson claims are the biggest threats facing America because it's a very, very long installment. So three primary threats. Then we want to test some of the premises to see if they're substantiated and then go through the specifics in his plan when they're provided. Okay, so first his 10 point program. He says that America must be fair, sovereign, productive, beautiful, healthy, honest, optimistic, wise, decent, united. Guys, it's not a concern in being fair.

[D]

It does make me optimistic.

[C]

It is.

[B]

Oh, by the way, Gerald, we need to get some neospormin for my demon scratches on my back.

[C]

Okay, got it. Yeah.

[B]

So that's his plan. It's really just a list of objectives. And by the way, next week, some people suspect this is all a big Tease. But for the book he's releasing of his favorite adverbs. We don't do math. I don't know. It's tough to know motives here. He said debt is slavery and then talked about American financing. But of course, your sponsor here, too, debt is slavery. If you have too much debt, but people take out mortgages, there's responsible debt too, and there's the right way to do it.

[C]

That's weird.

[B]

That's the problem with only talking in extremes. Let's go first to the biggest threats facing America. Now, you know my position is Marxism, and that's really the only thing I need to list because it encompasses all of it. Marxism. The primary difference, Marxism, communism. Marxism includes communism, but also the social aspects. Marxism is the ideological backbone for everything downstream. And that would include feminism.

[C]

Right.

[B]

Which is the destruction of the nuclear family and changing fundamentally of the American workplace. The lgbtq, mafia, dei, population replacement, Great replacement theory, internationalism, globalism, Islamism, Black Lives Matter, antifa, a giant welfare state, elitism, oligarchs. Because once we've created a giant welfare state and they've seized the means of production distribution, well, then you only have a few people in charge. So Marxism, to me, and especially if you see the left at play, is the biggest threat that the United States and Western civilization faces. That's where you follow the left. It's easy to see how they all line up lockstep. You just have to see it through the Marxist lens. Okay, let's go to Tucker Carlson. In his outline the biggest threats facing the United States, he lists three. Nuclear war, AI and the elite looting.

[E]

So we are moving toward. On this trajectory, if it holds, we are moving toward a nuclear exchange. Because you have two conflicts, one in the Middle east and one in the Near East, Eastern Europe, Ukraine and Iran that are suddenly somehow merging. And what does that mean? It means a world war. Or maybe the predictions of the people who are developing the technology turn out to be true, which is that it's like the end. At best, we give up our ability to make important life decisions to machines. We put machines in charge of our lives. That's at best. And at worst, the machines decide to kill us all and do, and there's nothing we can do about it. That's what they're saying.

[B]

That's true.

[E]

Not the doomsday Twitter, but the people who are developing this technology are saying, oh, by the way, this thing that we're making could kill everybody. And at very least will make certain that your kids and grandkids and probably you don't have jobs. And we're gonna, I guess do something about that, but it's not clear what. And that's coming in like a year. The big things that the US government endorsed by both parties are doing, which is spying on you more, moving an ever growing share of gross domestic product to a smaller percentage of the population, invading countries, spending $1.5 trillion a year on a military, they can't win a war, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All things that they're doing, the big things, population doesn't want those things. And they're really concerned, despite a lot of hectoring from their leaders about the price of burritos. And you could say, well that's awfully small minded of you and you shouldn't be eating $20 burritos. But you know, maybe people, maybe people want to choose what they eat and they don't want to pay 30% more for it over a year or whatever the number is. But it's a big hike. And so if you really cared what people wanted, you would take that seriously.

[B]

Okay, so by the way, there's a lot of validity to what he just said. Certainly when he's talking about AI, you know, the developers, you have Elon Musk talking about universal basic income. You have a lot of these people saying, hey, it could be Skynet falling or. And then they curry favor with the government. I agree with that. Where he mentioned the 1.5 trillion dol. Trillion spending, our biggest item where we can't win a war, I was confused at first. I thought he misspoke. He meant 3.2 trillion, the war on poverty, you know, that's our biggest line item, is entitlements. So here's the thing. And by the way, 1.5 trillion military, 3.2 trillion. When you look at entitlements, both are incredibly inefficient. Both are absolutely beyond the scope of legitimate role of government in many ways. Not that the military is itself, but the way that we conduct our military and the contracts. But only one of them is fundamentally immoral. One of them is true robbery. Taking from robbing from Peter to paintball, that's $3.2 trillion. That's the danger of saying what people want. Well, a lot of people want entitlements. A lot of people want what you have earned. That's what you see taken out of your paycheck. So we can't only use it as a gauge. Yes, we're a representative republic, but it's not simply meant to represent the Wants of the masses. So that's the one area where I would say disagree. AI Nuclear risks are real. The nuclear thing, we've talked about this. I've never heard anyone provide a solution to it. Who's anti nuclear weapon? No one likes the fact that nukes exist, but they exist. It's sort of like, let's say at one point in time, you're trying to get into China, okay, there's a great wall. You have to operate under this fundamental premise that, okay, the wall is there, we have to get around the wall. All right? Countries have nukes, so we have to operate with that reality. How do we deal with it? How do we best mitigate the threat and damage? This idea that we just get rid of ours, they'll get rid of theirs, is silly. So he does lament the lack of specifics you saw in that video. Doesn't really provide them. Does anyone have any specific solution? This is a genuine question to nuclear weapons, considering that we have them, Russia has them, China has them, Pakistan, I don't know. I think deterrent is really the only option that we have. Let's pressure test. Now look at some of the premises that he presents, because he uses that to springboard to his plan. The first claim, the first premise, he makes it clear that both parties, Republican, Democrat, are exactly the same. It's a uniparty.

[E]

Will it be a third party? Probably the most radicalizing fact of American politics in the last, I don't know, century is the confirmation that we got on or about February 28 that the parties on the big issues are identical. Trump initiates the one thing he said he'd never do, a regime change. War in the Middle east against Iran, a country much bigger and more powerful than the last regime change we attempted, which didn't work. And there were no protests against it because of course, the leaders of the other party, his supposed enemies, agreed with him completely. There are plenty of protests, as they did with his budget, fundamentally, certainly with the tax code that he endorsed. And that tells us what one thing at least, that on the issues that really matter, the most obvious and historically significant expressions of exertion of power, which would be foreign policy and the budget tax code. The parties are aligned.

[B]

Okay, here's the truth. That's a false equivalency, and I'll prove it to you. Also, the issues that really matter, he shifts the goalpost. So two things happen. False equivalency, goalpost shifting. So the big Beautiful bill includes $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings or cuts. Then we have other cuts, $215 billion from Doge, not as much as I would like. Cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, student loans, the size of the federal workforce, by the way. All of which saw protests across the country from both elected officials and those on the left and some on the right. You had people on the right saying, hey, everyone deserves a treat. They should get Coca Cola on snap. Right. Well, okay, so we need to identify the war that we're fighting. I would say the left and then some on the right. Donald Trump is not one of them. This is more than we've seen in our lifetime. The equivalency here is, it's simply not accurate. If you compare that to Biden and Democrats, they passed a trillion dollar spending bill with zero Republican support.

[C]

Yeah. Also by the way, has anybody ever thought that Democrats and Republicans are aligned on taxes?

[B]

Right.

[C]

Does that make any sense to anybody else in this room? What is one of the biggest things they always attack him on? Giving tax cuts to who, who, who? The wealthy.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And the business owners. And the Democrats are gonna do something different than that?

[B]

Well, it points to where they might be aligned. And by the way, they're not even aligned on Iran.

[C]

No. If you look at that.

[D]

Not in the slightest.

[B]

No, not in the slightest. But which is sort of surprising because historically that's where you would see the most alignment of both parties that relates to national security.

[D]

In the 90s, you certain would have seen the most.

[B]

You saw it, certainly. And by the way, if you go back to World War II, you would see much more unity. If you go to 9, 11, that's where you saw us, the most unified ever. Now you could say that's because of a cabal of people. Or you could look at the polling of the American public and there was unity among American citizen, Republicans and Democrats. We didn't even see that this time with Iran. But on taxes, on these big issues, again, $1.7 trillion in mandatory cuts, DOGE, SNAP, Medicaid, including by the way, having to verify your identification, you know, with Social Security, all Of these things, 80 hour requirements for work per month, Very, very different. Here's another truth. He says these are the biggest issues. They're fundamentally the same. Okay, false equivalency. Next. Truth is that's not the biggest issue. It's not the only issue. And it certainly wasn't the biggest issue or differentiating issue as it relates to the last elections. But don't take my word for it.

[E]

We have millions of people coming in illegally and we have a lot more murders than we had two years ago. These two issues, immigration and crime, don't simply annoy voters, though they very much do. These two issues threaten the existence of our society. So maybe you should run on them. It's supposed to be our country, supposed to be its owners. We're paying for this. And I wonder, at an earlier age, you would of course see American men with their own rifles standing on the border stopping it. Does there come a point where people just say, we're, you know, this is a criminal government and we're going to stop the invasion of our country and

[B]

you can go check the references? Time and time. We had to cut it down for time. Time and time again he said that immigration was the most important issue, that if you don't have a border, if you don't have immigration enforcement, you cease to have a country. Here's the thing. I agreed and I still agree. I don't know why that isn't under the biggest issues. Are the parties the same or is Donald Trump the same as other Democrats? Okay, let's compare the border. 10 million at least. When you look at Biden, 10 million people who came over, illegal immigrants or new undocumented immigrants to use their term, anywhere from 10 to 20 million. Best estimate we have is 18 million under Biden. Under President Trump, it's down 94%. Specifically at the border, there have been zero illegal aliens released at the border for 14 straight months.

[C]

Turns out it was easy.

[B]

Let's look at. So that's a 94% reduction versus an increase of 10 to 20 million. And depending on those numbers, that's double digit increases in the span of three years. That doesn't seem like it's the same to me. Flawless. No. The exact same. Absolutely not. Deportations. Under Biden, you saw about 500,000, 540,000. Under Trump, it's over 3 million and counting. You'll have people who try to dismiss it say a lot of those are self deportations. It's at the very least triple Biden by the lowest counts imaginable. Is it enough as far as deportations? No. Is it a significant difference? Yes. H1BS. If you look at Biden record approvals, there was only a 2% denial rate. We saw massive numbers of new H1Bs. This is a big issue. Not just illegal immigration, but legal immigration. If you look at President Trump adding the $100,000 fee, the new stipulations, new U.S. sorry, new outside of the U.S. h1B, meaning overseas is the term used. But it could also be from South America down 87%. So up hundreds of percentage points under Biden, down 87%. That means that up to 50,000 fewer H1Bs coming into the United States this year. If that's the biggest issue. No one has made any bigger strides than President Trump.

[C]

But I thought he's done nothing.

[D]

And again, there's limits on what he can do. You need Congress to change the cap on what these are. He can't do this all unilaterally.

[B]

Well, look at his recent executive order. We were going to cover it today. We just don't have enough time on birthright citizenship.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Talking about it right now.

[B]

He does what he can. He gets blocked by the courts. And yes, there are feckless Republicans. Absolutely. You see what President Trump does through executive order, and then he needs other people to come along. The Democrats are the ones who are anti any enforcement of immigration. They believe in open borders. And then you have useless Republicans who effectively blockade him. I remember when we were dealing with the party of mitt Romney, John McCain, Paul Ryan, John Boehner.

[E]

Right.

[B]

Only Lindsey, people like that. The only person to have done anything about it is President Trump. To this degree. Perfect. No, the parties are the exact same. Don't use that as your prep.

[D]

Well, and he's pushed the Republicans to the right on that. Marco Rubio was a pro amnesty guy at one point, remember?

[B]

Right.

[D]

I don't think he would be anymore.

[B]

Right. No, you're absolutely right. Let's go to the next claim that he makes. This is. Yeah, this is one where he says that we are not a sovereign nation. Okay, let's pressure test it.

[E]

What does sovereign mean? Sovereign means free from outside influence. The right to make decisions on your nation's behalf or your own behalf without being told what to do. Sovereignty is a synonym for freedom. The opposite of sovereignty is slavery, where you have no choice.

[B]

Like in Qatar.

[E]

Your nation is not sovereign. Of course it leads to things like the Iran war, which you do under bribery or threat or both by Israel, which is exactly what happened.

[B]

Okay.

[E]

And everybody knows that you're not sovereign there. But more than that, people lose confidence in their own country. What is my country worth if we can't even make our own decisions?

[B]

Okay, so buzzwords there, but here's the truth. This is a claim from Tucker without evidence to support his claim. So we're going to have to make an inference, again, operating off of the premise that both parties are effectively the same and we are not sovereign. Okay. We're going to make an inference based on what President Trump has specifically done against internationalism. Globalism. Withdrew from the WHO, cut a billion dollars in UN funding, withdrew from 31 UN groups, forced NATO, forced other NATO nations to increase their spending and meet their contractual obligations. The first president to do that, threatened to withdraw from NATO, closed USAID, withdrew from over 66 other international organizations. And here's the thing, you mentioned Israel. Okay. And that maybe we can't really prove it or disprove it. He just says everybody knows it. Yeah. What we do know is that on Iran, President Trump was the most vocal and consistent critic of Iran going back to the 80s, saying that we just need to bomb them. Iran is absolutely a problem. So I highly doubt that. In 1980, in 87, in 91, in 96. We've shown you the clips that Israel had his ear and was telling him to say that. So if the only evidence is that he's doing this because of Israel. Well, we're making an inference. But let's make the inference the other way. Look at all of the other international policies and where Donald Trump has broken with the organizations and previous policies therein. No one has done more to improve the United States, our positioning in the world and our sovereignty than President Trump. Is it perfect? No. Are both parties the same? Absolutely not. Democrats were happy to BE in the U.N. democrats were happy to do the bidding of the WHO. Democrats were happy to be in NATO and the rest of the world to basically provide their citizens with socialized health care while we subsidize their. Their defense costs. Can't really do much more than that. Have to make an inference because it's a claim without any evidence.

[C]

And he does that a lot. So don't even just focus on the specific issue. But anytime, and I just want to highlight this difference. Anytime Tucker says everybody knows it, it's just obviously true. He says these things. So you go, okay, I don't have to research that.

[B]

Right.

[C]

We never say that to you without giving you the source so that you can go and check us and see if we are right. Why does he not provide that kind of evidence? That should be the key for most people listening to Tucker. I need to dig here. When he says everybody knows this, this is obviously true.

[B]

Well, that's also why he doesn't have the conversations with people who disagree with him. Because if we were sitting here having a conversation live, you say, well, everyone knows that. What do you mean? How does everyone know that? Yeah, you could ask one follow up question. It's also why my approach is very different. For example, we've both interviewed Nick Fuentes. When Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes, it was very, very friendly. They tiptoed around the issues. And then afterwards, he insinuated that he was a fed. I told Nick Fuentes, you're going to be on the show. I'm going to disagree with you. Let's air out our disagreements, and you can provide any references that you want, as will I. In my opinion, that's the productive way to approach it. That's how we always used to do it. That was one of the central tenets of the big, big tent conservative movement, that we could hash out these ideas. It's a very new approach where there are a lot of people who simply refuse to do that. Let's go to the next claim. Third one. And here he gets more specific, because this was all predicated on MAGA was betrayed. He says that President Trump is leading us to extinction.

[E]

Something different has happened to our system, and it's obvious recently. So it's one thing to have a system run by people who are looking out for their own best interest and not yours. Again, we've had that. It's another to have a system that's totally incapable of responding to reality, that is basically paralyzed. And unfortunately, ominously, that's the system that we now have. And we know that because the two greatest threats, arguably in all recorded history, and those would be nuclear war and AI, are looming right in front of us. And no one in our society in a position of authority seems capable of responding at all or even really acknowledging that this is happening. It's like they're frozen, staring at the trees that approaches the windshield at 70 miles an hour. It really does feel that way. And if you listen carefully, that is where we are. So we are moving toward, on this trajectory, if it holds, we are moving toward a nuclear exchange.

[B]

I may agree with some of the sentiments, but here's the truth. That's another claim. Without evidence, we're going toward nuclear war. We've been hearing that since nukes have existed. Do we know that for a fact? Now, this is why I say you need to identify the greatest threats facing the United States. Mine, my opinion is Marxism. Was the opinion of Andrew Breitbart as well, by the way. And Tucker Carlson didn't have a whole lot of respect for him. Why? Okay, can we observe it? Dei, Marxism, Black Lives Matter, and the federal funding. They're in. Marxism, Summer of Love Marxism, LGBTQAI Marxism, Title 9 Marxism. If you look at higher education, affirmative action Marxism, reparations, Marxism, Socialized healthcare, Marxism, Class warfare, Marxism. We can see it. We've lived it. The only reason that you had a tranny Bud Light can and Fortune 500 companies putting unqualified black female lesbians with rickets to their board was because of government policy predicated on Marxism and social equity. That is an observable threat that everyone was concerned with and has now been quelled quite a bit to the point that we're able to talk with you about this online when this would not have been allowed a mere six years ago. Do we have that same level of evidence and track record that we are absolutely headed to a nuclear war? It's kind of. There's no evidence until we get there. If we get there. And we've been told that we're going to get there very quickly. AI, hey, I think we need to do something about it. This brings us to claim without evidence. What's the prescription? I didn't hear that in this 10 point plan for America. Now, I'll be candid with you. I don't have that yet. That is a complicated issue and I think there's quite a bit of information to be determined. And I do think that there's a threat from it. But I'm not the one saying that I have a specific plan in how to deal with it. Let's look at the proposals where there are specifics. So we've gone through the biggest threats facing the United States, the premises, what level of evidence? Okay, proposals. Here's one that he makes that's very specific. Cut off benefits to illegal aliens. And by the way, of course I

[E]

agree there is no justification for spending $1 on anyone who comes to this country illegally.

[B]

Absolutely agree.

[E]

And so if you just cut off benefits to people and check Social Security numbers, you probably wouldn't need to round anybody up or shoot anybody. Just we're not paying you to be here illegally. That's not hard. In fact, it's the easiest possible solution. Which makes you wonder why no one's thought of it.

[B]

Everyone has thought of it. Only President Trump has done anything about it with both, by the way, trying to get his colleagues, some of whom need to be ousted and recognized. Which is why I think this is a waste of time through the legislative process and where he can't through executive order. We shouldn't give them benefits. We shouldn't give them benefits. We shouldn't give them a dollar. And we should. If they don't have a Social Security number and no one thought of it. Donald Trump literally has required Social Security and welfare programs to Verify identification with greater regularity than before. And the Democrats opposed it. You can look at the executive orders that have basically slashed or in roundabout ways made it impossible for illegals to get access to things like health care on the taxpayer dime, education, jobs, taxpayer funded lawyers close a lot of the snap loopholes for mixed status families. You look at birthright citizenship, that executive order, you look at birth tourism. Now, I know you'll say a court will strike it down, but that's not to say that no one has thought of it. Only one person has done something about it. And if these things get struck down and if, for example, we don't get voter id, I think it's important to not say President Trump pushing for voter ID is the betrayer. But the Republicans who absolutely are blocking it thune and the like. But this equivalency, no one's done more than that. And then go, that's just executive order. You said no one thought of it.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

The very real obstacles, the battles that we face. Democrats have thought of it, of course they've thought, how do we give all of these illegal aliens, how do we grant them access to all of our social safety nets and turn them into an entire new class of voters? They want to change the census rule, remember that? I know Tucker does, because he said once that changes, you don't have a country anymore. So Democrats and feckless Republicans think about that. The other obstacles, you have states who have states rights. For example, in California, they can, by the way, they can hand out benefits to illegals. They find roundabout ways to do it. And we also have some really crappy antiquated policies that the president can't overcome. For example, anchor babies as a pathway for illegals. Who wants that? Who has allowed that? Who has fought that? No one's thought of it. Well, you're pointing to the only guy who's thought of it as a betrayer because of Iran. Where you can disagree. It's not honest to say that no one has thought of this. Everyone has.

[C]

And he's trying to put it into practice and make it policy. And then executive order. I just wanna highlight something. Something just happened this morning. I believe that it's the judge's issue again. He's not even allowed to build the ballroom. They've declared that to be unlawful. Do you understand what I'm saying? The President of the United States can't tear down an old ballroom and build a new one. Do you understand? The problem that we're facing with judges here is that at the feet of Don

[B]

and what kind of courts would be looking at if we simply don't show up and vote. We know that because we've had to live with it. Here's another specific that he offers. He says we need to stop foreign influence. By the way, I agree.

[E]

The goal is sovereignty. No more foreign lobbyists.

[B]

None very much agree. And I've said that AIPAC should register under fair. I know that that's the undertone here. Agree. They can go screw themselves with a wire brush. Also, by the way, all lobbying for the nation of Israel as it relates to our military subsidization of the country they're in. But I also would apply this to the single largest foreign lobbies that exist. The number since 2016, biggest China, Japan, funny enough, Liberia. And by the way, that's our own money being given back to us. If you understand the history of Liberia, which most people don't, because who cares about Liberia, Saudi Arabia, Marshall Islands. Again, our own money being given back to us. South Korea, Bahamas, UAE, Qatar, Israel's number 10. Then you look at Qatar. They are the single largest influencer of universities by far.

[E]

Far.

[B]

Tucker has not only not had a problem with them, he said that he may, and I think this was facetious, purchase a home in Doha. I'm not saying he's a Qatari agent. People go out there. I wouldn't make that claim without evidence. But he has been very, very pro Qatar. Here's how you know when people say Qatar, that just happened. It was a meeting that we never had. So you got to say Qatar now. All right. Okay. So, yes, how about all of it? I agree. Let's go to the next prescription that's issued. We need to stop importing people. Specifically as it relates to AI displacing jobs.

[E]

I also agree you can't have any more. Immigration of any kind is because of AI. So you can't simultaneously say we're going to eliminate a third of all American jobs the next five years. But we need a lot more people coming into this country for work. It doesn't even make any sense at all. And so it's not an attack on any other country or group when you say, I'm sorry, we don't know what's going to happen in this country. We're going to have 100 million people without work. Probably not a great time to bring in new people. In fact, it would be crazy to bring in new people and it wouldn't be good for those people either.

[B]

I completely agree with you. Now, remember, under President Trump, when you're talking about importing people. Let's do importing legally. H1BS, huge issue. 81%. 80. Sorry. 87% reduction in new H1BS. They use the term overseas. That means people from outside America coming in, taking American jobs. An 87% reduction in H1BS. Again, executive order. 94% reduction in border crossings. That's not 100%. But it's 87% more than anyone on the left and 94% more than anyone on the left would do. They would go the opposite direction. How do we know? We've lived it. So I guess the specific that we need is, okay, how would Tucker's plan get that number, 87% in new H1BS? How would he get that to 100%? How would he get 94%? The reduction in border crossings, how would you get it to 100? If it's a third party, what are the mechanisms of action that this third party would utilize to bring that 87 to 100%? To bring that 94 to 100%. I am all ears because I would like to see them both at 100%. And then how are you going to circumvent the same feckless Republicans who are there now and the Democrats who, by the way, are growing? We're seeing their power swell precisely because of this kind of rhetoric. So let's say a third party. Let's say it's a third party that's bigger than Ralph Nader or Ross Perot. Let's say it's the most successful third party.

[E]

Great.

[B]

How do you get that number from 87 to 100? How do you get that number from 94 to 100? And what do you do with the DSA? What do you do with the John Thunes of the world? How do you deal with them? How is the third party going to fix that and be better than an 87 or 94% reduction? I thought both parties were the same on immigration. And here's what you see with Tucker. It's not a plan for America. It really was. That was a way to promote it. And I get it. You have to razzle dazzle people for social media. He addresses real issues that Americans are facing. You know who else did that? President Trump. Politicians always do that. They always claim that they're for you. And then very often you actually arbitrate President Trump. This administration has done more than any other. There are absolutely issues, but it's not even close. It's not even close. And I don't hear him naming very explicit threats that we have had to deal with, like, feminism, Marxism, Islamism, which, by the way, all falls under the umbrella of Marxism. We know that because we've lived it. We've faced it, We've seen the ramifications. And that's one of the very few times in my lifetime where I have seen a reversal. Of course, people thought it was inevitable. Well, free speech is just not going to be a thing anymore with Big Tech. That's why. So that's why you are the single biggest subscriber base out there. Because I sounded the alarm on that very, very early on, you know. Well, hey, now. Now you can say it. Not only because Big Tech has softened their stance, but we have alternative platforms. We have more competition. DEI was just hate. We're just gonna go left. It's just gonna be trans, lgbtq. We're gonna go the direction of Europe and hate speech. Well, not now. And now you're even seeing people in Europe who used to say that, you know, men could become women, that they were wrong about that. It's not a small thing. We just sort of thought, well, I guess the United States is going to be a multilingual society and get you. Well, not now. For the first time, a net negative migration country. DEI and all the biggest corporations will. Not now. That's done. They've been dropped. We gave you the numbers. It was artificially manipulated. Well, I guess we're just always going to see housing prices go up because of the bubble, and the government steps in and makes it worse. Well, not now. For the first time, it's come down a little bit. That's pretty recent, but that's significant. So we've lived these reversals, so everyone is able to pick out the issues facing Americans. That's what politicians do. That's what Tucker does. Very few people are able to do anything about it. Very few people even try. As someone here and this entire team who has tried, we did this at great risk to ourself with Rumble. We bet on Rumble. We said, okay, we need to have alternatives to YouTube. And we always said it's important that YouTube, in a perfect world, there would be rumble, and YouTube would also become more open to freedom of speech. Same thing with X. So we didn't want to see them go extinct. We wanted to see them fulfill their original purpose. And they're closer to that now as it relates to free speech. There's some good, there's some bad. We've done it at great risk to ourselves. Is Tucker. I never see it, and I never hear the specifics and I don't want to give you all the specifics right now, but next week, you know, we've done this, we've done very specific policy prescriptions. We've done it on voting, we've done it on divorce law, we've done it on H1BS. And we'll do this as a path forward for America here next week. And you guys can comment below and let us know what you'd like to see most. I don't think this is very complicated. The execution, of course, that's where you have to get to the nitty gritty. And anyone who acts like they have all the answers, of course, would be lying to you. I certainly don't.

[C]

Yeah. And I understand that there are issues that people need to address and I think you said this just a second ago pretty well. But what I don't hear is people picking out the wins from this administration anymore at all. Like it used to be somewhat back and forth on the right. Some people be mad about certain things. They're like, yeah, he did really well on this, but I'd like to see him do a little bit better here. And that's what we need. You can be critical of the president. We have plenty of times. You can be pissed off about situations. You can ask questions about things that don't make sense to you that might make you think something else is going on. All of that is fine. Nobody's saying stop doing that. What we're saying is don't get so black pilled that you think we need to start over. We need a new path. Because the new path he's talking about will literally lead to only one outcome.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And you can be like, oh man, you've just been saying that for years. No, I'm saying 15 to 20 million people coming back into this country again because we won't have a country. And that's Tucker Carlson.

[B]

It's done. Yeah, that's it.

[D]

I do think there's a vested interest in a lot of these parties that being in the driver's position, being the winning party is more difficult because then you have to start offering something as opposed to just bitching.

[B]

Right.

[D]

And it's a lot harder to get clicks and maintain audience share. That's why you've seen a diversification of content over the past two years. Things are better. We're not Trump sycophants. How many times have we been invited to a Trump? Oh, never. Okay.

[B]

Even more, we've been so critical of Palantir and even, even J.D. vance and his relationships therein. We weren't at the UFC with a bunch of tech bros, including Vance.

[D]

Yeah, right. You mean the one guy in the sphere that knows the most about ufc. Why would you. Why?

[B]

Yeah, no, we've. We weren't at the inaugural ball. I was invited. Said, no, I was.

[C]

So I haven't told you this before. I'm sorry, I totally forgot it. I literally was reached out to by somebody who was in Trump's previous administration who said, hey, if you guys are going to do. Lane, you remember, you were right there on this call with me. He goes, hey, if you're going to do. If you guys are going to talk about it, like, talk to me first a little bit, because you guys rake us over the coals. He's like, get full information. Literally somebody tied to Trump's administration. I'm not going to name who it was.

[B]

And the reason you probably didn't bring it to me is because I would do it harder.

[C]

I forgot it. Honestly, I forgot because I was like, gah. Well, we're going to. I think Lane said something. Well, just let us know next time you're bringing in more Chinese students. Yeah, it's like, no, we're not going to do that.

[B]

Who had Dan Crenshaw on the show and called him to the mat on the Taps act on red flag laws. It was long before the feud Tucker Carlson had with him. Yeah, I said, how's that not a red flag law? Can you please explain it to me? So we haven't done a 180 back and forth. We've been critical of the same things, and we've been supportive of the same things. I always. Of course, it begs the question, why? And it's easy to answer if you provide specifics or substantiate your claims. We're not seeing that right now. And I would be more than willing to have this conversation because I do want to see a stable, sovereign future for the United States of America. That's what I've always wanted.