C (3:26)

Go ahead.

B (3:28)

But then just in the middle of it, he goes, he goes, let's bring in four star general Wesley Clark. And you're like, oh, wait, what? Wesley Clark's joining the thing? That's crazy. That's awesome. And of course, like, he's a guy who I cite a lot, but he really tried to. And you know, it's just. It's a shame because I wish I had gotten some more time to just go back and forth with him because Cenk just starts yelling at him right away. And then he's like yelling back and then they're like, in a whole thing. But he says at one point Pierce asks him and he goes, well, you know, Dave Smith is mentioning you and saying, look, you're the guy who leaked us these plans that they were going to overthrow seven countries and Iran is the final one.

A (4:07)

And.

B (4:08)

And here it is like, all the others have been overthrown and now we're going after Iran. That does seem like you Got it right. And he's like, oh, well, that was a plan from 20 years ago, you know, and that was under the Bush and the neocons and blah, blah, blah. And that's, you know, there's been many different regimes in there since then, so I wouldn't put too much weight into that plan. And then at one point, I did get to say back to him, I go, wait a minute. So you're telling me you had a list of seven countries that, in your words, was devised in a study paid for by the Israelis, and that was the neoconservative plan. And since that time, Israel and or the US has attacked six out of the seven with our allies, the UAE handling the seventh in Sudan, where they've, you know, had a complete collapse and a civil war and secession and all that. I go, that seems like an awfully big coincidence. You know, that seems like a quite a coincidence that they ended up attacking for other reasons every one of those countries. And then he said something about how like, well, the, he goes, well, the neocons were in power under George W. Bush, and the neocons haven't been in power since then. And I was like, right, but like, Benjamin Netanyahu kind of has pretty much for almost all the time. And the Israel lobby has for the whole time. And all of the same people who championed every single one of those wars are the ones pushing us into this war, including Bibi himself, who comes over and, you know, like, they have a meeting, and then next thing you know, we're going fucking back to war anyway. I wish we had gotten a chance to go back and forth more, but it was an interesting, it was interesting for me. I almost, like, have to rewatch it. Not for any of my shit. I almost, like, want to rewatch to re. Listen to what he actually said there. So I thought it was kind of

C (6:00)

crazy anyway, you and, you and Jank are a lot of firepower. But the one time he was almost Scott, I was fascinated by that because he wasn't really disagreeing with Scott as much as he was saying, I can't say this out loud because that's bad for United States leverage and negotiating. And so it was a, it was a strange conversation because he wasn't really totally disagreeing with Scott as much as he was kind of winking. I'm not allowed to say this. That was my takeaway from it.

B (6:29)

Yeah, well, I thought it was. I, I, I've thought, you know, it's been, he's, he's really, it's Kind of like it's amazing how unimpressive some of his, like, arguments are. I mean, that was on Ukraine, though,

C (6:42)

just for a little while.

B (6:43)

Yes, yes, yes. Well, even I remember, I remember that one very well. That's the one where he says it was a study paid for by the Israelis that revived those plans. But it, you know, even then he was on that, he had a bunch of points that I thought were just ridiculous. Look, he's, the thing about it is, right, is that, and this is like pretty, it's pretty much an open secret in the military is that like the high ranking generals go on to get really cushy jobs, you know, like, that's kind of a part of the whole thing. Like, much like the revolving door in the political class, it's like that in the military class too. And so my read is kind of like, look, Wesley Clark was willing to say that when George W. Bush was president and the Democrats were kind of like, yeah, blame George W. Bush for all of this, but for him to now keep doubling down on it and implicating the entire war party, both the Democrats and the Republicans, is just like not in his interest to do. But I guess that's kind of speculating. But yeah, I know what you mean. There was this vibe of like, well, I can't say this stuff out loud because I can't be a four star general admitting this out loud. But you're like, wait, I thought we're doing a show here about what's true and what's right. Anyway, it does, as of right now, it's really, I guess the situation isn't much different than it was last time we spoke with Iran. I heard reports, I have not confirmed this or talked to Tucker at all, but I heard reports that Tucker was at the White House today, which is, you know, great if that's true. And hopefully he's filling the role that Charlie Kirk filled last time trying to talk the President out of this. But I will say I think there's probably nothing better that could have happened in the last few days than the Tucker Carlson interview with Mike Huckabee, which was really, you know, and, and I from, like, I don't know for a fact that this is true, but I've certainly heard from people who are pretty close that the Ted Cruz Tucker show had a real impact on Trump. And this was, I thought a substantially more, I mean, Cruz really did terrible and Tucker really destroyed him, but this was worse. I mean, just because, like Huckabee is that much crazier and Revealed that much more. So I thought. I thought it was really great, the interview. I've been still, as always, Rob, just blown away by the. The levels of delusion by these Zionists. You know, like, someone. Someone said to me today, or some. One of the. One of the girls on Piers Morgan said something like. She goes. She goes, oh, you just want to blame the Jews for everything or something like that. And she goes, and no one's buying it anymore. And I was like, you mean no one's buying it? Like, 80% of the American people are against war with Iran. The Israel. The. The needle has been moved so drastically toward the American people, like, hating Israel. What are you talking about, dude? Lots of people are buying it. Like, but, dude, they all, Like, a bunch of them all rushed out to try to pretend that Huckabee did a good job on this or that Tucker was exposed. And you're just like, dude, man, you guys, I don't know if it's just almost like a Trumpian strategy, but it seems a lot more just like they're delusional and actually somehow see that. And as somebody who's participated in a lot of these, like, Israel debates, I've seen this happen several times where, like, they almost try to get out there and go, like, oh, dude, Dave got destroyed in this one. And it's just like, yeah, I don't know, man. I don't think that's gonna work for you guys. Anyway, we're gonna go through some of the clips here, but I will say, I guess my. I. I thought it was obvious that Tucker just carved up Huckabee. I thought there were. It. Was he really madly exposed. How incoherent Huckabee's Christian Zionist worldview is on so many different levels. And I think probably, Rob, more than anything, the most important takeaway from all of this is that. And this is really the reason why this stuff's been exposed and can't be unexposed. Is that, like, it would be one thing if Mike Huckabee was, like, an Israeli who was trying to make the argument on behalf of Israel to an American. But Mike Huckabee's job is he's the US Ambassador to Israel. And one of the things that's just so obvious about the interview is that it's like, oh, dude, you represent Israel. You don't represent America in its diplomatic efforts with Israel. You are an advocate of Israel. And that is just like. That is fucking wild, dude. That's not what an ambassador is supposed to be. And this just gets demonstrated over and over again. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Sheath Underwear, the most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you will ever own and a longtime sponsor of this show. It's a great company run by great guys, and it's a really incredible product. So go check them out. Try to support our sponsors and especially the ones who have been with us for years and years. And as I said, it's also just the best pair of boxer briefs you're ever going to get. It's literally, I wear them every single day. They're the only underwear I own. Go check them out. Sheathunderwear.com and use the promo code problem for 20% off your order. That's sheath underwear.com promo code problem for 20% off YOUR order. All right, let's get back on the show. What, what were your thoughts on the interview?

C (12:44)

Yeah, so I listened to it on the car ride back from Maryland on Sunday, and. All right, here's my, my honest critique. It was a great interview. Tucker clearly exposed some major flaws in Huckabee's thinking. And if you were to view it as a debate, Tucker won the debate. There were some Tucker Carlson trying to get gotcha moments that I didn't love, but in the overall, I thought he did an excellent job. And the thing that was most striking to me was, and because I've just had a lot of conversations with Trump supporters, and sometimes they'll present, like, four different reasons to get to a conclusion, and you'll debunk each one. But, like, then they just circle back to the one that you debunked, and it's like some sort of, like, if you combine all these things that don't make sense, then the conclusion still works. And I think that was probably most clear on the what should be considered a Jewish person who would have a right to move there or why. What exactly is the Jewish right to the land, which. Well, it's biblical historical.

B (13:47)

Yeah, we're about to get into one of those right up there because this one, I actually, this, this to me, was the biggest moment of the entire interview. So let's go to that clip, which is the, the one from Tucker Carlson Network. Let's do that one first.

D (14:03)

You've appealed to Genesis. Genesis 15 says it's Abram. It's pre Abraham. It's Abram receives from God the news that his descendants will inherit the land. And you tell me as the, as the theologian, if I'm getting this wrong. But from the Euphrates to the Nile. I think. I think that's right. And that would include, like, basically the entire Middle East. That would be the Levant, so that would be Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon. It would also be big parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

A (14:34)

It would be.

D (14:35)

I mean, not sure it would go that far.

A (14:37)

I mean, it would be a big piece of land. But here's the point.

D (14:39)

It would be a lot of places that are now countries.

A (14:42)

But this particular area that we're talking about now, Israel, is a land that God gave through Abraham to a people that he chose. It was a people, a place and a purpose. We can look at it that way. Christian Zionism. I want to go back, because that's where we started.

D (15:02)

I'm not going to let you off on this because you have said it three times, that God gave this land to this people. And so it is entirely fair for me, with respect, to ask, what land are you talking about? Because I just read Genesis 15, as I have many times, and that land, I think it says from the Nile to the Euphrates, which is once again, basically the entire Middle East. So God gave that land to his people, the Jews. Or he didn't. You're saying he did. What does that mean? Does Israel have the right to that land? Because you're appealing to Genesis. You're saying that's the original deed.

A (15:42)

It would be fine if they took it all.

B (15:46)

All right, by the way, just.

C (15:48)

You gotta let. You gotta let. Listen, He. Listen. That was an epic fail by Huckabee and a brilliant question by Tucker, which he'll break down. He does walk back the. They can. It'd be fine with them taking it all. That. That's not the cleanest of edits.

B (16:01)

No, it's true. But at the same time, he did say that. Then a minute later he goes, well, maybe they shouldn't take it all. But the point, of course, that Tucker's making is that, well, I mean, if you're using the biblical justification, well, then it's a justification for Israel having a lot more than just the 1967 borders. Right? This is a justification. And he finally. He's trying to not say that, but then he finally has to go, well, yeah, I guess that would be okay. And, yeah, that is a fair point to make. That then later he does say, oh, I guess that's not okay. By the way, what happens here, you really should watch the interview. It's worth watching. It was, you know, it was. It was not the easiest watch for me because, well, look, I just find Huckabee's thing to be dumb and incoherent and ridiculous. And so in a way you're like, this just isn't, it's not interesting. I'm not learning anything from this. It's not like, oh, I want the, the whole thing is the spectacle. The whole thing is like, who's, you know, is this worldview being adequately destroyed and for a large platform for people to actually see this? Because I think, I do think there's a lot of people who aren't aware of what, like, how much religious fundamentalism animates much of Christian Zionism. And it's really bad religious fundamentalism. It's not even like a good, you know, the good stuff. But so one of the things that's really fascinating here and one of the reasons why Huckabee does walk it back a minute later, is because you can kind of see, well, what happens actually is if we want to be technical, is that Tucker reminds him like within the next minute that you just said u. S. Ambassador to Israel that it would be fine with you if they took all of this. And he goes, well, maybe not that. Because the thing is that it's been long standing U. S. Policy, right, going back to at least the 1970s. I don't know if it's all the way back to 67, but at least in the 70s, since then the official US position has been to favor 67 borders, meaning officially we don't think they have, they have a right to Gaza and the West Bank. Now, we're not going to do anything about that, but like, just like we're not going to do anything about settlement expansion in the West Bank. But the official position of the US Government is like, hey, don't do that. You know, it's not, it's not like we're going to do anything about it. But essentially every president with the, maybe the exception of Donald Trump has been at least rhetorically for a two state solution. And here you have the current US Ambassador saying he thinks it would be just fine if they went and took Iraq and Lebanon and Jordan and whatever. I think parts, well, parts of Egypt and like the entire area. That is a wild conclusion to come to.

C (18:59)

I think that this is such a clean logic trap of if you're going to say that their right is from the Bible, well then the Bible's right is all of this. Are you saying that they have a right to all of that? And then I guess he walks it back kind of. So let's go with no. Well, then if we're really having an argument here, then drop the Bible claim. Right, not standing by the Bible claim. So let's go to your next claim. But this is the problem with arguing with. I find, I know that this is not representing like a Trump tariff view, but this is, every conversation I've had on tariffs and other things is that you extinguish one argument, they jump to the other one and they go, well, it's this, then you extinguish that, and then they go back to this one and then they go, well, it's the combination of all of them. Right, but we just debunked each one.

B (19:40)

Yeah, we just put that fire out, so you can't go back to that one.

C (19:44)

So why is it that the combining of three things that didn't work independently suddenly magically get you the conclusion that was just the conclusion you wanted anyway, so.

B (19:52)

Well, dude, I mean, I find this all the time. And those types of people, the fucking Israel firsters, they do this with everything. I literally had this today on Piers Morgan where they're going through, these two dummies are going through the reasons why we should, why we should overthrow the Iranian regime. And first it's like, well, they oppress their own people. So then right away I'm like, okay, but no serious adult thinks that's how US Foreign policy is driven. Right? Like, we don't fight wars for humanitarian reasons. We just, we just. In the last decade we've backed the Saudis as they committed genocide in Yemen, we've backed the Israelis as they committed genocide in, in Gaza. We backed all types of horrible regimes of what the UAE is doing right now in Sudan. Doesn't none of this anything to do with whether we, not even whether we overthrow them. We, we'll continue supporting countries even when they do this. And then again, two minutes later, she's back to that in the argument. You know, we're like, hey, but we already just handled that one. Like, but it's the same thing. Let me throw seven pieces of nothing at you and then you have to debunk each one of them. But there is something about, like when I have seven different things, it sounds like, oh, he's got a big argument, except none of them stand up. But it's amazing to watch somebody having such, such like a deep conviction in something and then with just a couple of prodding, follow up questions, they're exposed for like the incoherence of all of it. By the way, if you haven't watched the interview, the way it goes down is like, it's really quite amusing. So at first Tucker acknowledges like that he, he was too harsh on Christian Zionists and said that he hates them and he shouldn't have said that and you know, blah, blah, he disagrees with them. And then Huckabee goes, well, hey, let's define our terms here. So here's what it is to be a Christian. They both agree on what it is to be a Christian, essentially be a follower of Jesus Christ. Now here's what it is to be a Zionist. And then it's just totally incoherent. And after a while, Huckabee goes, hey, can we move on from this? And it's like, yeah, dude, but you just wanted to define terms and then you just can't define this at all. And look, obviously I tried to make this point on Piers Morgan show today because actually he played that clip at one point. But there's, you know, it's easy for people to look at, at the mullahs, at the ayatollah or something like that and be like, yo, these guys are religious fanatics. But it is interesting to hear this. Like, Mike Huckabee is not the president of the United States, but He is the U.S. ambassador to Israel. There's all types of quotes from high level Israeli officials and very influential Americans, both Jewish and Christian Zionists, where it's like, I don't know, dude, this is just, this is not how anybody on this side of the Enlightenment argues about politics, like, ever. There's no, there's no, there's never like an argument. Like if it's like a, if some conservative is like, I believe in lower taxes. And you're like, well, why do you believe that they're going to make an argument about economics or something? They're not going to go because God wants lower taxes. That's just like not the way we argue in modern secular societies then. Yet there is this carve out for this one country that's very bizarre. And Tucker gets him on all types of traps with that too. He starts asking about do other places have the right to exist? And all that stuff. It's, it's really bizarre to watch Huckabee collapse like this. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Massa chips. You don't have to overhaul your whole life in 2026. Start with simple swaps, like upgrading the snacks in your pantry to ones with real ingredients, like Massa. It's the easiest way to Eat clean without feeling like you're on a diet or g anything up, you're gaining something. Massive chips contain just three ingredients and there's no seed oils, no mystery chemicals, just real food. And they're made with 100% grass fed beef tallow. These chips don't only avoid all the bad stuff, they taste incredible. Snacking on massive chips is nothing like eating regular chips with Massa. You feel satiated, light, energetic, and there's no crash, bloat or sluggish feeling afterward. And because these chips are made with real food, they're more satiating so you don't find yourself uncontrollably binging and then still feeling hungry afterward. And if you love Masa, you'll also love Vandy Crisps. Vandy is massive sister company and they make the most delicious three ingredient potato chip I've ever tasted. If you're Ready to give Mass a try, go to Massachips.com Dave and use the promo code Dave. That'll get you 25% off your first order. Or you can just click the link in the episode description. That's Massachips.com Dave M A S A chips.com Dave promo code Dave for 25% off. All right, let's get back into the show.

C (25:00)

I was a little surprised that amidst this conversation there was no questions about belief in the rapture and if that was in part why the evangelicals support Israel. But I was surprised because he got him so dead to rights on the Bible question. I was surprised that that one didn't come up.

B (25:17)

Yeah, let's go. Let's go to the other one here, which is. Let's go. It's the one, Natalie, that says Tucker Abraham's descendants are the ones with the right to have the land. Because that was more on. On this same topic where again, we're. He's trying to make this biblical argument and you can just see how many giant holes there are in it. So let's play. Let's play that clip

A (25:42)

decision. That's why they gave away now's my now giving away a lot of things.

D (25:50)

Abram's descendants are the ones who have the right to have this land, correct?

A (25:54)

Yes. Okay.

D (25:56)

Why don't we do genetic testing on everybody in the land and find out who Abram's descendants are. It's really simple. We've cracked the human genome. We can do that. Why don't we do that? Would you be against doing that?

A (26:07)

I have no idea what that would prove. I mean, maybe it would be.

D (26:12)

What do you Mean, it would prove who Abram's descendants are and who has a right to live here and who doesn't, according to the theology that you yourself just explained. And so I'm very confused as to why we don't do that. If you believe the theology that you've just explained to me, would we do

A (26:28)

that all over the world? And everybody.

D (26:30)

This is the only country in the world that you've said has this covenant with God, that this people have a moral and legal right to the land.

A (26:40)

What about people who convert to Judaism? Would they have a right?

D (26:43)

Well, you've just. You've just said.

A (26:46)

I mean, there are not Judaism.

D (26:48)

So you just told.

A (26:49)

They can make aliyah. They may not have.

D (26:51)

You've just told me that it doesn'.

A (26:53)

Matter.

D (26:54)

You told me moments ago, trying to keep track, okay, that it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in God or whether or not you practice Torah Judaism or Rabbinic Judaism, which is something else that I don't even know if we should. I don't even know what that means. But it doesn't matter whether you're, quote, a religious Jew or not. What matters is that you are part of the Jewish people to whom God gave this land that extends from the Nile to the Euphrates. And so if you believe that, wouldn't you want to know with a burning passion who those people are? And because of science, we can now know who those people are. So why aren't we finding out?

A (27:36)

I guess you could propose a DNA test for everybody who comes here.

B (27:43)

Look, I just thought this was interesting for a lot of different reasons. But one of the things that you realize, and I guess it's a little bit tricky because there is this thing with the way we conceive of Jews where it's like, it's. It's a little bit. Well, look, like Jewish people, Rob, right? They're a fucking. They're an ethnic in ethnicity. They're also a religion. And then there's also a country that is the Jewish state or claims to be the Jewish state. And so you do realize we're like the. The can of worms that Tucker's getting at here is that you go like, okay, well, look, even if it's true that God promised this land to the descendants of Abram, I mean, again, I think Tucker's. You know, Tucker is more of a. I mean, Tucker's a Christian and I'm not. And, like, I believe in God, but I think Tucker is a more, like, religious person than me. So my angle on this as I said to you before was just that, like, this is not how you figure out property rights in modernity. This is, like, ridiculous. Like, no one can go. If someone comes up to my house and goes, get out. This is my house. It's like, I have a deed. I bought this house. That's how we know you can't sit there and go, well, God promised it to me. Like, what if you have a book that you believe in and your book says, God promised me your house, Can I just go take your house? Or whatever It's. But anyway, the point here is that it's like, okay, so if you're saying that God made a promise and this would be what, Rob, 5,000 years ago that we're talking about, this is before Abraham. So five, I. I think I'm about. Right. 5,000 years ago. So he gave a promise to these descendants. Well, descendants would imply that it's a genetic argument that you're making here. Right? So, like, in other words, if we're going back 5,000 years now, religious views change. Not everybody who was Jewish stayed Jewish this whole time. Some of them converted to Islam, some of them converted to Christianity. Right? Like, there's all. So, like, would those people be in, too? And then. Well, what if there's just like, whatever. It's. Anyway, so it's like, if you're making the argument that it's genetic, but then he also can't make that argument, Rob, because then you've got a really big problem on your hands. Because, like, there are converts and there. It can't be about the religion. If it's about the religion, then I think the majority of Israel is. Is atheist. The Jews, by and large, like, are mostly not religious people. And so you want to say, like, oh, no, no, no. It doesn't matter if. If that guy in Brooklyn practices Judaism anymore. If his mother was ethnically Jewish, he has a right to this land. Well, okay, but then you get my point. Like, this is just. It all becomes, like, incoherent. It's like, okay, but then if there's somebody who. I don't know. Let's say if. If one of the. If some Palestinian in Gaza just decides, I've converted to Judaism, does he now have a right? Is he now the only one in Gaza who has a right of return to Israel? You know, it's.

A (30:57)

It's.

B (30:57)

It's clunky in a weird way, because we don't. Like, if somebody is a Christian and they stop believing in Christianity, we don't still consider them a Christian. We go, oh, they used to be Christian. They're not anymore. But if somebody is a Jew who stops believing in Judaism, we still call them a Jew. And so Huckabee is trying to basically say that it's like anyone who we would call a Jew gets to go there, which is just incoherent. It doesn't make any sense.

C (31:33)

Yeah, I mean, I listened to this yesterday, but it's the first time I'm kind of framing it in my mind this way. According to Jewish law, if you convert to Judaism, you're a full Jew. And there's even a law like, you're not allowed to inquire about someone's past because they're considered fully Jewish. And also, if you kind of look at, you know, from what I remember, the prophets, when people are no longer really practicing Judaism, the Jewish tribe at that time, I think, you know, kind of ostracize them. And I think you could be. You could be punished for it. So I think the problem with the current state is that it's not actually a religious state and that it's including ethnic Jews that are not practicing Jews by, like, a, you know, a religious law standard. And so then you're not really a religious Jewish state. And so then it's hard to look to the Bible for arguments, particularly if you're violating all the other laws in the Bible. So why do you get to cherry pick this one as your divine right if you're not otherwise keeping all the laws, which then allows them to kind of circle to. Well, Jews have had a particularly troubling past, and so we want to have a safe area for ethnic Jews, I guess, because ethnic Jews have been targeted for being ethnic Jews and not just religious Jews. But it does speak to. That there's an irrationality there of claiming a divine right when you're not actually a Jewish religious state.

B (32:54)

Yeah, yeah, no, that's right. And there's something. And look, the bottom line is that you had, before the creation of the state of Israel, you had Arabs living on that land that is now currently Israel proper. I mean, 67 borders, and hundreds of thousands of them were ethnically cleansed and have never been allowed to come back. And so, like, to take this line of thinking, you actually have to argue and think, just think about this for a second, Robin, how insane this is. You had Arabs who were living for hundreds, if not thousands of years on that land who got ethnically cleansed. And you're saying they have no right to come back to their home. Yet me, Well, I Mean, maybe not, given all the podcasts I've done the last couple years. But short of that, me, someone who's from Brooklyn who's. I've done the. The DNA testing before. I'm like 83, Ashkenazi Jew. And. And then aside from that, like, I'm just like a European mutt, you know, just all over Europe. Well, I got some British, I got some. Some Russian, I got, you know, like, some, like that. Some, like, Austrian, I think. But there's absolutely no evidence that I have any Middle Eastern ancestry. Now, maybe I. I don't know. You know what I mean? Like, maybe I do. I don't. I don't really an expert on. Like, I'm not a geneticist. I don't really know. Like, me. But the point is that it's like, you gotta say someone like me, like a. A Jew from Brooklyn who grew up not observing Judaism or not really seriously observing it, that I have a right to that land, but that the. The Palestinian who still has a property deed and a key to her house doesn't have a right to go back there. And that is. Is just. I mean, that's just insanity. It just makes no sense whatsoever that in any sense that we would ever go like that. Like, even if you could demonstrate that I had lived in that land thousands of years ago, it would still be ridiculous to think I can go kick someone out of their home right now. But if we know for a 100% fact that someone lived there, like, a couple generations ago, they have no rights. But someone who. We have no idea if they ever even trace their. Their roots to that. Like, this is just. I don't know. I don't. I just can't imagine this being exposed on a large platform like Tucker and anything other than the tiniest sliver of people who just want to believe this actually look at this and go, oh, yeah, that makes sense. This is a reasonable basis for how we determine who has a right to what land. It's really very bizarre. And there was one part. I don't think we have that clip, but there was one part that I thought was really fascinating. I don't know if you caught this, Rob, but it was the part where, because Huckabee defines, you know, Zionism as something like believing the Jews have a right to that land or that Israel has a right to exist, which is always. Rob, as you notice, it's always. It's always like a very clunky, like, thing to say, where they'll go, do you believe Israel has the Right to exist. I've been asked this question a lot of times and it's very strange because no one ever asks you that about any country. Do they have a right to like, what do, do nations really even have rights? Rights are an individual construct. And they go, do they have a right to defend themselves? Like, well, everyone has the right to self defense. Every person has the right to exist. But so one of the things I just, I don't know if you caught this, I thought it was so interesting is at one point Tucker goes, well, does Ireland have a right to exist? And Huckaby goes, I mean they do exist. And it's almost like, oh yeah, yeah, see, you have the exact same reaction that we. He would. He finds it to be a weird, clunky, confusing question when applied to anyone else. It's just this one carve out he has here and it's like, yeah, I mean, like, right. I like, I think Israel has the right to exist exactly equally to every government that's ever existed.

C (37:16)

My takeaway from the Zionist thing, it's something you and I have said. It's like sometimes if you're arguing with a feminist and they go, well, the definition of feminism is you believe men and women should be equal. I go, yeah, I guess I'm a feminist then. But that's not really what you mean and that's not really your agenda. So yeah, I don't really want to take on the title because I know it comes with baggage. That's not just, I think men and women should be equal. I think it's kind of an agenda for taking men down a peg. And so the Zionism thing, like, listen, I'm pragmatic, Israel's there and I don't think that they should all have to leave. And I think that they need to figure out how to get along better with their neighbors and not be killing innocent civilians in Gaza. So yeah, I think Israel should exist. But there was a time when Zionism meant, hey, we're going to a place that we're not currently in and there are people living there and we're gonna claim it because we think we got a Jewish right or we're gonna buy it. So that's different. And so I think when people are talking about Zionism or they're full fledged Zionists, they're not just talking about that the Jewish state has a right to exist. They're talking about some sort of biblical or Jewish mandate that allows them to not abide by the same morality as us. And if that's the definition, which I guess prior to the state of Israel being created, I think that would be accurate then. No, I don't agree with that. And no, and I don't want to take on the baggage of oh, I'm a Zionist, because I actually think that's more what people are defining it, defining it as or portraying it as. So it's like, it's the tricky thing of, oh well, I'm going to define it on agreeable terms. And it's like, all right, I guess if that's what you want to define it as, I'm okay with that. But I don't really think that's what people are identifying with, nor do I think that's the way we're using the term when we criticize it.

B (38:57)

No, that's very well said. And I've had a lot of people say that to me or they go, oh, well Dave, you're a Zionist too because you believe in a two state solution in 67 borders, so that still would keep a state of Israel or something like that. And it's like, no, that doesn't really make me a Zionist because I kind of, I believe that about all places. Like, I don't know if you're telling me that like the, I don't believe that we should have to give the land back to the Native Americans or something like that. It's like, yeah, if there's people there and they've been living for many generations, then those people's rights should be respected as well. And they, they, you know what I'm saying? Like that. But Zionism itself was a radical political philosophy that started in the late 1800s, picked up steam in the, in the 20th century and the, and, and yes, it was a project that when it came into reality in, in the result of it was the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and then the occupation of them for nearly 80 years after that. And like, so I don't support any of that. So why, you know what I'm saying? Like, no, I'm not going to use your word. That's ridiculous anyway. Just truly all of it is, is, it's really, it's amazing how incoherent the whole thing is. Okay, let's go, let's go to the one that's titled. Mike Huckabee once again claims the IDF is more mor the US military. This is, this one I think is wild because it really speaks to the like, wait, which country are you an ambassador for? Exactly. So let's play this one.

A (40:40)

Israel goes to Links that no other country, including ours, goes to in the middle of an urban war. And yet Israel ended up with fewer civilian deaths in an urban war than any urban war of record.

D (40:54)

You said you didn't know how many civilian deaths there were, so how can you say that?

A (40:57)

If you took Gaza's numbers, Hamas's numbers. Numbers are. We don't.

D (41:02)

Just told me that. Then I can say it's a lower number.

A (41:05)

But if you took the numbers that they reported, which is like 50,000, 24 or 25,000 of those were actual warriors. How many civilians? If you, if you take all those,

D (41:14)

range from 120 to 78. Those ones I just read, I don't know if that's real. I don't know either. I'm asking you.

A (41:21)

Yeah, those numbers I've not heard, have not read. The numbers that I think are more reportable are somewhere in the 60,000 range. Where do those come from? From the Gaza Health Ministry.

D (41:33)

Those are mosque valid numbers.

A (41:34)

I think they are. I don't think that they're accurate. But I'm saying, let's just.

D (41:38)

You're saying they're inaccurate, but they prove

A (41:39)

that Israel's done a great job. Let's assume that the most widespread numbers, the largest numbers that have been reported out of Gaza by Hamas. Yes, let's assume they're true. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying they are true, but assume they're true. Let's just take them at their word. Then you still have a lower number of civilians killed than in any urban warfare environment in modern history. Fact.

D (42:07)

Is that a fact?

A (42:07)

Yes.

D (42:08)

What are you comparing it to?

B (42:10)

Yeah, pause it here, because there's just

C (42:12)

a lot here that rings not true to me. Firstly, as of late, it seems like everyone, including Israel's, accepting the Gaza Health Ministry numbers and they're currently at 60. But I think those are gonna climb. And I haven't heard them, that half of those people were actually Hamas militants. I'm gonna venture to guess that when we look back at this, in three years from now, this ratio argument, which I never accepted, is gonna turn out to be not true because the ratio's not gonna be as good as Israel has claimed. But even if you want to, like, I just never accepted it, it's not. It's not, like, acceptable to kill innocent civilians and to go, other people have killed innocent civilians and we're nicer about the way we do it. I don't accept it. But also it's not true because, like, there were articles of Them bombing, telling people, here's the safe corridor and then killing them. And now you might go, oh, well, that was a one off error. And I'm like, I don't know, what was the whole daddy's home program of not killing a combatant until he enters his home. You didn't have to do that. That's purposely killing civilians that didn't need to be killed. And then just dropping a leaflet on someone's house and going, hey, we're now bombing your house. Even if everyone leaves the house, I don't view that as being acceptable. Somebody lives there. You can't just bomb, put a leaflet on my apartment and go, we're declaring that Hamas is underneath you, so your home no longer exists. And so firstly, I don't even think, I don't even think the ratio argument's going to hold up. I don't even think it's true anymore to say we don't accept the Gaza Health Ministry numbers. But the idea that they did this in a, in the most moral fashion because they dropped leaflets, like, I can't even believe people are still saying it.

B (43:50)

All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Express VPN. Going online without ExpressVPN is like not having a passcode on your phone. You're just making it insanely easy for anyone who steals your phone to also steal your whole digital life. Every time you connect to an unencrypted network in CAFES, hotels, airports, etc. Your online data is not secure. Any hacker on the same network can gain access to you and steal your personal data, your passwords, your bank logins, your credit card details, etc. And it doesn't take that much technical knowledge to hack somebody. All you need is some cheap hardware and a smart 12 year old could do it. Your data is valuable. Hackers can make up to $1,000 per person selling personal info on the dark web. But ExpressVPN stops hackers from steal your data by creating a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the Internet. VPN is easy to use. It works on all devices, phones, laptops, tablets and more. So you can be secure on the go. Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com problem that's E X P R E S s v p n.com problem to find out how you can get up to four extra months for free. Free again, the website is expressvpn.com problem. All right, let's get back into the show. Yeah, it's. Well, especially when they themselves are telling you they don't know the numbers and then bragging about the ratio. There's, there's a lot of important points here, but one of the ones that you made. You're absolutely right. Look, dude, this is, this argument, much like all of the other arguments will be abandoned in time. It's, it's just totally ridiculous. They, what they're trying to do is take the, is take the lowest estimate estimation of total deaths and then inflate up the number of how many combatants were killed and then try to make it out that it's somewhere on a one to one or one and a half to one ratio. And. Well, look, I mean, again, like, fundamentally, just to be clear, I completely agree with you. None of that matters anyway. It's not, doesn't matter. It's not like if you, let's just say, for example, sake of argument, that we launch a war of aggression that's based off lies and we go in and we kill a million innocent people, but we also kill a million, you know, soldiers. It's like, it doesn't matter. The question that matters is like, did you have a right to do that in the first place? Are you right? Do you have any other, other option? Do you absolutely need to do this? That's what matters. But the, the Gaza Health Ministry numbers, which are not 50 in the 50 thousands. I don't know where he's getting that from there they've been high 60s, low 70s. But regardless, this is, that this is them keeping a tally of how many bodies have been recovered from the rubble. Like, it's not accounting for how many are still underneath it, which nobody really knows. And it's certainly not accounting for like second and third order effects, like deaths. That. Which is what you always get in these wars. You know, when you, even if you look at like the war in Iraq where when people say a million people died there, it's over a million people died there. That's the total, like excess mortality. It's not that all of them died from being under rubble or being shot by snipers or something like that. It's like a whole bunch of people die because whatever, they had a very preventable illness that not all the hospitals have been bombed and so you can't be treated or they starve to death or they, you know what I'm saying? Like, there's lots of other ways that people die. And when you, after, you know, this whole conflict is over, it's going to be in the hundreds of thousands, clearly. Now, where exactly in the hundreds of thousands? I guess we don't know yet, but. So this whole argument is just nonsense. But the thing that I find to be particularly interesting about this, and I guess I. So I had heard, you know, a bunch of, like, Israel firsters like Mike Huckabee making this argument over the last couple of years. And I never even. I got to say I didn't have this reaction. Maybe this is because, like, I'm not a military guy, but there are a bunch of people in the US Military who this shit makes fucking furious, dude. Because when you think about it, what he's saying is, like, that their army is more moral than ours, that we fight these wars in a way that doesn't spare civilian lives. But the Israel, the Israelis go to great lengths to protect. To protect civilians. And that is just. Rob, first off, it's a very insulting thing to say to the country that you're supposedly representing. And Mike Huckabee is a real, like, support the troops type of guy and support the wars, for that matter. But, I mean, Rob, like, it's just not the case that we ever. George W. Bush never called the Iraqis Amalek. George W. Bush. We also, we weren't invading a country that we had been occupying for almost 80 years or 60 years. I'm sorry, I should say 60 years for the occupation. 80 years from the ethnic cleansing. There's not, you know what I'm saying? Like, it's like, we also didn't. Like, we didn't use starvation as a negotiating tool. We didn't say, oh, Hamas hasn't, you know, we never said, you know what? The insurgents haven't returned the remains of a couple of US Soldier bodies to us. So we're going to half the amount of food that comes into the country. Just punish the civilian population for that. And yeah, Rob, I mean, you go to the. Where's Daddy? And the live rounds of ammunition being shot into, used as crowd control. They killed hundreds of people who were just desperately trying to get food. Of course, there's all types of reports from doctors that they've been treating regularly, toddlers who were shot in the groin, shot in the head. You know what I mean? Like, there's just. It's like, it's just not consistent with any of the actual information. And then, of course, Rob, the other big factor here is that Israel has killed more journalists than in any of these other urban conflicts and will not allow international journalists in. And so we are. We are intentionally, by the Israeli government kept in the dark on a lot of the worst atrocities of what's gone on there. But also, Rob, like you said, the whole place has been destroyed and we still don't have a plan for the people. The people are living in, like, makeshift refugee camps right now. And so, look, I mean, when this. Again, a very good prediction, Rob. In three years from now, this argument will have completely fallen apart and it won't even be used anymore.

C (50:44)

Every time I heard this argument, it just resonated the same as, well, Churchill bombed Dresden. So this is what happens during war. And it's like, yeah, Churchill shouldn't have done that. But on top of all that, if you were to ask Huckabee now. So let's say in three years from now, we get a photo, a total body count, and it turns out that the ratio is actually not in Israel's favor. Will you condemn what the Israel did in Gaza? And of course the answer is no, of course not. This is not really a reason for why you're supporting what they did.

B (51:17)

And, yeah, you know, it's a good point.

C (51:19)

And if. And like tomorrow, if you know what I mean, if the ratio didn't exist, would Israel turn around and be on our airwaves going, hey, guys, actually, we didn't conduct this properly. No, they would go, hey, we need it to get it done. So this is not really a reason you would do this. Irregardless of the ratio. I'm sure they're not sitting in offices with, like, a scoreboard every day of the ratio and making sure their war efforts are in line with the ratio because they don't really care. That's not really a very.

B (51:46)

It's a very, very good point. Because when it. When it comes out in. In three years that 300,000 innocent people, you know, innocent civilians died in this conflict, let's just say two or three hundred thousand of them died at this point. And the final numbers we have now are like 15, 000 Hamas guys got killed. All of them are still going to support Israel. None of them are gonna like, right. So it's all. It's like a thing where you go, you know, I had this. Coleman Hughes said he. We were on Pierce Morgan together. I'm trying to get him on the podcast, but me. So we were on. We were both on a panel on Pierce Morgan, and it was right when the Venezuela shit was going down. And he goes and he makes this whole point that he was like, well, you know, everyone wants to compare Venezuela to Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan and Syria and all this. He goes, but that's really. We really shouldn't do that because this is a different region and it's a different religion and it's a different culture and all of this stuff. And. And I was like, yeah, I don't know if I really agree with that. I think there's lots of lessons we could take from these past, you know, military adventures. Talk about a euphemism, but okay, if you want to play that game. I was like, all right, well, then let's talk about the history of U.S. intervention in Central and South America. And we could look at, you know, Guatemala or Nicaragua or Cuba or Mexico or any of these places where really bad things have happened. But then, right when a few weeks later, Donald Trump starts making moves to go attack Iran, I don't hear my friend Coleman Hughes out there going, now, guys, we should really judge this against the standards of this region and this religion. You know what I'm saying? Like, so it's like. It's one of these arguments, Rob, like. Like the point you were making earlier where it's like, you're not really even resting your. Your case on this. This is bullshit. And so, like, can we move off of this and get to the heart of what you really believe, which we seemingly never can. Yeah, yeah, I got the POW checkups.

C (53:58)

It happens every once in a while. Usually it's only from a Zen. Too strong. I can't say I've ever gotten one from the Alps, but I've definitely had some. Some bad hiccup moments from. From a. From a toxic Zen.

B (54:11)

Yeah, I definitely got them more from the Zins. Okay, let's. Let's go to the next clip. Natalie. Whichever one you want.

D (54:25)

We're about to have one with Iran, it looks like. How many Americans do you think will die in that war?

A (54:30)

I hope none. None died last year when we participated in the 12 day war. Not one. You said 20,000 would die, and they didn't.

D (54:38)

I said could, and they could have, and they could die now, and that's a real risk.

A (54:42)

How many boots on the ground do you think the US has supplied for Israel over the course of its life? How many times have we put soldiers on the ground for Israel?

D (54:51)

Well, we had the Iraq War, which was for Israel.

A (54:54)

Nothing for Israel.

D (54:55)

How was it for us?

A (54:57)

Well, because it was a retribution against 9 11. Now, was it the best idea?

D (55:01)

Was Iraq involved?

A (55:03)

Our government thought so.

D (55:06)

Why are 911 documents still classified?

A (55:08)

I have no idea.

D (55:09)

Should they be unclassified?

A (55:10)

I think so.

D (55:11)

All of them. Right.

A (55:12)

I have no problem with that. Me, too. I like transparency. I like sunlight. I do.

D (55:16)

I hope you'll call for that.

A (55:16)

I like free press. I like free speech.

D (55:18)

I totally.

A (55:19)

I really. I like all of that.

D (55:20)

But if. No, if there was no connect. I've never seen. I'm open to anything, but I've never seen any connection between the government of Saddam Hussein, the secular Baathist government of Saddam Hussein and the terror attacks of 9, 11.

A (55:32)

I don't know that there were. I don't know. Right. So. So I'm not sure, but I don't know how.

D (55:36)

So why did we spend that?

A (55:37)

Israel's fault?

D (55:38)

Well, Benjamin Netanyahu, now prime Minister, of course, exerted lots of pressure openly on the US Government to take out to regime change the Saddam government. I was there. It was in Washington and. And they complied. I don't think there's any way to read it.

A (55:54)

I don't. Do you think Israel leads the US and pushes them and tells them what to do?

D (56:00)

Not on everything, of course.

A (56:01)

You think what I think.

D (56:02)

Let me be specific. I think the Israeli government strongly pushed the United States to take out Saddam Hussein. There's no question about that. I think the Israeli government right now on Bibi Netanyahu has been in the White House seven times in one year.

A (56:17)

Yeah.

D (56:18)

Pushing for regime change in Iran. I think they're on the verge of convincing this administration to affect regimes.

A (56:26)

Do you think the president is weak and is being pushed?

D (56:29)

I'm not saying that.

A (56:30)

I know. Well, I know.

D (56:31)

I know the president's being pushed. Why do you think a foreign leader was in the White House seven times in one year? Are you okay with that? That's a lie.

A (56:38)

You know, Israel is not just a friend or an ally. It is a real partner. We have an incredible relationship with Israel in intelligence and in military, in culture, in values. You know, to be shocked that the Israeli prime Minister would have that many meetings.

C (56:56)

It's a lot for one second. I know.

A (56:58)

I want to ask you the question,

C (57:00)

but I just got to criticize the partnership with Israel. So in intelligence, it's military. It's intelligence being shared by the Mossad to try and convince us to fight wars that we don't need. And when it's a military partnership. Yeah. And when it's a military partnership, it's because we're selling them a lot of military gear with money that we lend them. When it comes to culture and values, I think most of the United States of America, particularly the younger kids, would take issue with the idea that we share culture and values. I guess they're democracy once you exclude certain groups of people and you don't let them participate in your democracy. But I guess they are a democracy. But after that, I'm not like he's just playing the standard issue card of number one ally. Well, what makes them our number one ally? How do I benefit in this relationship?

B (57:49)

Well, it's just, it's the claims that Israel is a democracy have, first of all, you know, democracy is such a funny thing to, you know, even claim that you are because there's really no such thing as democracy anywhere. I mean, you know, I've been thinking about this like a lot recently because, you know, obviously, like, I'm very critical of Donald Trump now, but I voted for Donald Trump and some people, you know, fair enough, I guess, give me shit for having voted for him. But you're like, guys, we don't really live in a democracy again. You know, 80% of the people oppose war with Iran, but it looks like we're going to get it regardless. So, like that, you know, it doesn't really matter.

C (58:30)

As they get into, he doesn't agree it doesn't believe in democracy, and he pivots to being a Republican.

B (58:37)

Right? Because whenever you actually drill down, then you go, oh, okay, we're not really democracy. But particularly in the case of Israel and the hardcore Israel defenders who will defend them no matter what, as we've seen over and over again, they will argue that, no, it's like we didn't want to do the Nakba. We just, you know, it was a war. And so, you know, it is what it is. Some people got kicked out, none of them were let back in because they were all guilty somehow of something. But, but the create, however you want to look at it, the creation of Israel starts with between 7 and 800,000 Arab Palestinians being kicked out or fleeing and not being allowed to return. And what ended. So the demographics before the war were much different than the demographics after. So before the war, in what is Israel proper today? 1967 borders, they call them 67 borders, but because they were the borders up to the beginning of 1967. But these were the borders from 48 up until 1967. So in those those borders, Jews were a minority. And then by the end of the ethnic cleansing, Jews had an 8020 super majority. And they've basically maintained that for all of Israeli history it's somewhere around that like 80% Jewish, 20% non Jew, Muslim Christians, you know, a mix. And so then in 1967, they take control of the west bank and Gaza and they never let any of them vote ever. You know, to this day, they're, they've been ruled by the Israelis since 1967 and they get no voting rights. So, like, Israel has a situation where about half of their population, in terms of the area that Israel controls, about half of their population can't vote. Then within Israel proper, yes, they do allow the 20% Arabs to vote, but like, it's in a rigged system where they have their super duper 80% majority against it. So like, to call them a democracy is just like, well, what does it even mean at that point? Like, it's, it's, it'd be like, I don't know, if we said only libertarians can vote. And then we went, look, we have a democracy here, or something like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with that proposal. But just saying they can't really brag that Israel is a democracy. It's just, it's always been kind of a silly point. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Crowd Health, longtime sponsor of the show. I've always been really proud to have them on. They're a great company and they've come up with a real alternative to the broken health insurance system. And now they have their black swan membership, which is the healthcare alternative for people who want autonomy over their care, their costs, and their lifestyles. It's only 95amonth. And for that you get a team of bill negotiators, access to low cost prescriptions, lab testing, and a curated database of high quality, low cost doctors vetted by Crowd Health. So there's no insurance middleman. There's no network saying, you can see this doctor, you can't see that doctor. You're in the driver's seat. And if a major black swan event happens, you cover the first $15,000 crowd steps up to help fund the rest. So it's kind of like the freedom we used to have before Obamacare. You know, made all of these plans illegal and turned health insurance into a bureaucratic Nightmare. So start 2026 the right way, on your terms, by escaping the health insurance system. Go to joincrowdhealth.com and use the promo code POTP and you'll get your first three months for just $80. That's right. Kick off the new year with healthcare that puts you first. Crowd Health is not insurance. Opt out. Take your power back. This is how we win. All right, let's get back into the

C (62:34)

show, and you and I can say what, in this instance, being tactful, Tucker can't. But, yes, Trump is weak, and for some reason, on the topic of Israel, he seems unable to enact an America first agenda and seems beholden either to a lobbying effort, threats, or otherwise, that he's supporting Israel despite the fact that the American public does not favor this Iran war and doesn't favor a lot of this.

B (63:01)

Yeah, I mean, look, dude, like, the. Look, if people want to argue over whether what role Israel played in the war in Iraq or what role the Israel lobby played in the. In the war in Iraq, I mean, they're undeniably very huge ones. And there's no question that the government and the lobby were pushing America to fight that war. But, like, if you want to have that argument, it's an academic argument. I think I've got a pretty overwhelming case on my side. But Huckabee's retort is, no, we fought that war. And he doesn't even go for weapons of mass destruction. He goes to the crazier one. He goes, no, we fought that war as retribution for 9 11. Even though he admits they had nothing to do with 911, but our government believed they did. Dude, there was no intelligence assessment. There were no people in the government who legitimately believed that secular Ba' Athist Saddam Hussein who wears, like, if you could just picture this in your mind, the guy who wore a beret and a mustache that he was involved with. Like, listen, man, I understand. Not everybody can be a fucking expert on the Middle east and forget, you know, fine, that's. There's probably more important things for you to do with your life, but, like, broad strokes, like, maybe people should just know. There's, like, there are Shia and there are Sunnis and there are, like, the. The fundamentalists. Okay? So the head choppers, the bin Ladenites, they have. Follow with me on this. Long, big beards. They don't. You're not going to see a member of Al Qaeda or a member of ISIS with a French beret and a mustache. Okay? So anyway, just saying there are. Nobody in the government thought that. And so the idea that we fought the war for Israel, there's a lot of tangible evidence behind that. The idea that we fought the war as retribution for 911 is utterly ridiculous. And even idiots like George W. Bush knew better than that. That was just, like, a line that they used to try to get support for the mission that they wanted to do, which was weapons of mass destruction also. But again, it's a funny thing, right? Like, yeah, he's, he's very smartly. Mike Huckabee's, obviously, Tucker's trying to convince the president not to do this. Mike Huckabee is trying to get him to call him weak so that the president doesn't listen to him anymore. But yeah, of course me and you can just say it. He is weak also. He brand like he openly says it all. The crazy thing is that if, if, like Nick Fuentes said what, what Trump said about Miriam Adelson, people would go, oh, this is an anti Semitic conspiracy theory and attack him for it. If I said that, they'd say it's an anti Semitic conspiracy theory. But Donald Trump says it out of his own mouth because these guys gave me hundreds of millions of dollars and they come in every day and all they want is something for Israel. So, like, what are we even arguing about at this point? And Rob, I mean, this one, of all the wars, this one, they're really going to try to say this isn't a war for Israel. Like, what even they haven't even laid down a possible other justification for this. Netanyahu comes here and every time he comes here, they have a press conference and talk about attacking Iran. Again, the war, the 12 day war last summer was a joint war between the US And Israel against Iran. Of course this is a war for Israel. It's too ridiculous to think it's anything else. I can't even believe they, like, they think they can argue that. I think, like, you guys should skip right to why it's good. Like, obviously it's a war for Israel, but here's why it's good is a more, I think you got more to work with there than just telling everybody to. They can't pay attention to what we can all see happening. All right, let's say here. Let's, let's play the, the first one that I sent and this will be the last one. We'll wrap up on that. But this is the, the quote of how much does it matter what Americans think?

D (67:15)

Question. Like, how much does it matter what Americans think?

A (67:19)

Well, it matters every bit what Americans think. That's why Americans vote. It's why Americans have the opportunity to have free speech. We want them to have that.

D (67:27)

Okay, so what percentage of Americans support a war with Iran?

A (67:31)

I don't know. Do you know? I do.

C (67:32)

It's.

D (67:33)

I think it's around. I saw the numbers yesterday. I think it was like 21. Okay, is that enough to have a

A (67:39)

war with Ron, we don't live in a world where you have a poll taken to find out whether our policy should be a particular direction.

D (67:48)

Because I thought, I thought you just said that.

A (67:52)

No, we care deeply about it. But on the other hand, do we make the decisions of foreign policy and even domestic policy based on we carefully about it?

D (68:01)

In what sense?

A (68:02)

How in.

D (68:02)

And if we're ignoring it, then in what sense do we, quote, care deeply about it?

A (68:06)

Well, I think we care deeply when we see there's a threat.

D (68:09)

No, but about Americans opinions. So you've got 350 million Americans. They vote. They voted in this last election on the basis in part of the promise, no more wars. So now we're about to have a war. Looks like 80% of people are against it in that range. Let's say it's 70%, but nowhere near majority support for this war. And it's not direct democracy, but it is a form of democracy.

A (68:31)

It's representative democracy, the ultimate form of democracy in our system, in a republic. Because we're not a true democracy.

D (68:38)

Exactly right. It's a mediated democracy.

A (68:40)

It'll be an opportunity for Americans to vote if they think that we've made the wrong policy decisions. I personally think the President is making the right policy, but I guess.

D (68:49)

But you just said it matters deeply what Americans think. And if the overall majority are against it, in what sense does it matter? Because what I hear is it matters what they think, but it really doesn't matter what they think.

A (69:00)

Because no, you take it in, you certainly ingest that.

D (69:03)

And then what ultimately, once you ingest

A (69:05)

it, then you make sure that you have.

D (69:07)

No, it goes out the other end, obviously.

B (69:13)

Well, look, I just thought, I thought that was a great moment in a lot of ways, because what it, what it just kind of reveals is that like, democracy is bullshit and that, you know, like, that it's not that we, we're. Well, we're not a direct democracy, we're a limited democracy. It's like, no. Well, what does that even mean? I mean, when I was saying before, I was thinking about it a lot, where it's like, people, you know, will give me shit for voting for Donald Trump, but you're like, I don't know, dude. We live in a system where either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris was going to be president, and that's not really what anybody wanted, but that is the situation. And you know, it's very easy to mock, say, the democratic elections in Iran and go, oh, yeah, but you only get to vote for ayatollah chosen candidates. And it's like, well, what exactly do we have here? I think Citibank picked, like, Obama's entire cabinet pretty much. You know, we got that in WikiLeaks releases, you know, like, there. And so the reason why Huckabee's really acknowledging that democracy is it is because you just go like, oh, okay, so we have elections. We ran on no new wars. Now we're going to take you into war. And super majorities of the American people, like, oppose it, but we're going to do it. And you know what? If they don't like it, they can vote a different way. They will have one other terrible option next election. So in other words, you're absolutely helpless to do anything. You know what I'm saying? So in other words, you don't want wars. You get your chance to vote. You vote for the guy saying no new wars, he's going to take you to war. Nothing you can do to stop that. But, hey, next election, you. You have the option to vote for Gavin Newsom if you want to. So it's okay. So it's all okay. If that's the case, then how is democracy not. It's a question for the. For the crowd. All right, we got to wrap up on that. Thank you guys for tuning in. We'll be back with a brand new episode tomorrow. Catch you then. Peace.

C (71:10)

Wait and come out. We got shows this weekend out in Morristown, New Jersey, at the dojo comedy, which is a really fun room. And then check out the run your mouth podcast. Lauren's got a book out. What else we got?

B (71:21)

Oh, yeah, Healthy hibernation, My wife's amazing book. Yeah. And then come on out Jersey at the Comedy Dojo this weekend. And then we got Pittsburgh, Boston, a lot of fun stuff coming up. We'll see you guys there. All right, catch you next time. Peace.