Loading summary
Transcript155 lines
- [00:00]
Host
I'm here with me.
- [00:01]
Sponsor Announcer
This episode is brought to you by Prime. What if you had one more chance with the one that got away?
- [00:07]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Sam, you Came Home.
- [00:08]
Sponsor Announcer
Based on the best selling novel from Carly Fortune. Every year after follows childhood friends Sam and Percy as they reunite in the dreamy, nostalgic lakeside town of Barry's Bay.
- [00:20]
Debater Opposing Trump
Love can be hard to find.
- [00:22]
Sponsor Announcer
So if you're lucky enough to find that person, never let go. A second chance at first love every year after streaming June 10th only on Prime. This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home with agents who close twice as many deals. When you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get started@redfin.com own the dream nuclear who
- [01:00]
Host
has the coolest name and welcome to the Surrounded follow up.
- [01:04]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Thank you. Thank you for having me.
- [01:06]
Host
Well, it's nice to meet you virtually and one on one as opposed to in the arena of Surrounded.
- [01:14]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
I haven't done a follow up, I don't think yet, so I think this will be pretty interesting.
- [01:18]
Host
How many Surrounded have you done?
- [01:20]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Two.
- [01:21]
Host
Oh, nice. I saw you come. Cause you appeared, I think. Who was it with when you went viral and then Ben Shapiro?
- [01:30]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Amanda Seals.
- [01:31]
Host
Amanda Seals, yeah. Yeah. What was it like kind of getting thrust into the zeitgeist after that one?
- [01:38]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Man, it was a surreal feeling. I knew that there was going to be like some clips that were going to be posted. I didn't know I was going to go viral. I didn't know I was going to be the main person to go viral. But the craziest part was the fact that Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk invited me to go on their shows. And I've always been a big fan of Ben Shapiro. So the fact that I got an invitation to go on the show was a crazy feeling and I was so excited. That's why I'm very thankful for Jubilee, because they gave me the opportunity to actually go on Ben Shapiro show and talk to him and. And so on. Yeah, so it was great. It was great. And you know, I got a lot of attention, obviously.
- [02:07]
Host
Well, I mean, that's always been the goal of the show. We want to find young people like yourself who are entering the political arena and are very good at articulating their positions on crucial issues and then, you know, give you a platform to kind of guide the conversation, because I think it's super valuable. And you're incredibly talented when it comes to sitting down with somebody who, you know, has a big platform, is very experienced, much older than you, and going toe to toe.
- [02:36]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Yeah. Glenda Greenwald. He's definitely a lot older than me. I think he's like nearly 50. I'm 19 currently. I've been doing debates for about, like, four years, technically since I was like, 15. But I've only, like, been publicly doing debates online and stuff for about a year or so. A little over a year. But no, it's been a surreal experience. I've debated many different topics when it comes to, for example, race politics and stuff, black conservatism or black liberalism. I've also debated things about foreign policy, like Israel and Palestine, domestic policy about Trump, ice the border, and all sorts of different domestic policies about economics. And, you know, debating Glenn Greenwald on foreign policy was pretty good because he's a respected journalist, he's very renowned, and he's very well read. So it was a good experience as well.
- [03:15]
Host
And he's uniquely independent, I think. Did he break the Snowden story a long time ago? That was sort of his, maybe his claim to fame or. It was one of his biggest, you know, gets. Do you consider yourself like a pretty loyal conservative or maga, or do you see yourself more as maybe an independent? How do you identify your kind of.
- [03:36]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
I don't consider myself with like, like political labels like MAGA or anything. I'm a conservative, period. I just don't. I'm not like a Trump loyalist or a Trump. I'm not like a cultist. I don't necessarily think everything Trump does is right. I think a lot of stuff that he says is stupid, and a lot of stuff he does is also stupid. I would obviously operate prefer him over Harris just based off of, like, ideological values and policies. But, yeah, I'm a conservative. I mean, I don't know whether or not Trump is actually necessarily conservative. I mean, maybe in American terms he would be considered such, but I just consider myself a classical conservative.
- [04:07]
Host
Well, cool, cool, cool. Okay, we're going to dive into the first clip. I'm going to show you clips from multiple sections. So not just between you and Glenn, but some of the other debaters. But we'll jump into the war in Iran first. So this is going to be a clip where you went toe to toe. It got pretty. I gotta say, you and Glenn kept it very. It was Civil. Like, I didn't get a sense that you guys were personally angry at each other, but it was like, as. As far as rhetorical positioning goes, you guys were fighting for the upper hand.
- [04:40]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Oh, yeah.
- [04:41]
Host
In a way that I found. Really? Yeah, it was contentious. That's the right word. So here's the first clip in the context of I think Glenn's first claim, which was Trump is more of a war making president than a peacemaking president.
- [04:53]
Debater Opposing Trump
There are a lot of countries that are in conflict with one another. They're not all at war. Most of them are not at war. The United States became in a war with Iran when Israel and the United States announced that they were attacking Iran and started a war with Iran. Of course, there's conflicts. There's conflicts between Brazil and Argentina. There's conflicts between Peru and Uruguay. There's conflicts.
- [05:12]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
You're being vague.
- [05:13]
Debater Opposing Trump
You know, I'm being very specific. I'm talking about a war.
- [05:16]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
There was a difference between smaller conflicts or like a general conflict that's going on for a long time. And like a large scale war. And even like, for example, small military engagements, like, for example Midnight Hammer, we bombed Natanz, Fordo and Isfahan were more smaller engagements. Right. If we pulled out pretty quickly and
- [05:32]
Debater Opposing Trump
everything was fine afterwards, if Russia came to the United states and bombed three different nuclear facilities in the United States with B52 bombers of the Russian Soviet, would you say, Would you consider that to be an act of war? Yeah.
- [05:44]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
You're saying it would be cashless Bel Air?
- [05:45]
Debater Opposing Trump
No, no, I'm not cashing him.
- [05:46]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Means act of war.
- [05:47]
Debater Opposing Trump
Yeah. Would you.
- [05:48]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
So, yeah, it would be Cassius Belli. That's the answer.
- [05:50]
Debater Opposing Trump
Okay. Congratulations on using the latter. I'm just wanting to. I don't want to necessarily catch your language. That would be an act of war, right?
- [05:56]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Yeah. The same way that. Hold on. The same way that, for example, the irgc, the Pakistani guy that was recently convicted, he admitted that the IRGC paid him and tried to give him intelligence to assassinate Donald Trump around the time where Butler happened. That's also Cassius Belli.
- [06:09]
Debater Opposing Trump
Were we at war with Iran, try
- [06:11]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
and kill our president?
- [06:11]
Debater Opposing Trump
Were we at war with Iran?
- [06:13]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Were we at war with Iraq, Been in conflic and an act of war with Iran for a very long time.
- [06:19]
Debater Discussing War Goals
But you just.
- [06:19]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
It's funny that you're not mentioning, you said mentioning the fact that 242Americans were killed in Beirut in 1982. Do you know?
- [06:26]
Host
Right, yeah. Contentious is. Is the right word. What's it like Seeing that back, yeah,
- [06:31]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
just like a few of my thoughts are, are this, like, yeah, there are smaller military engagements. There are conflicts that have been long standing that have been going on for a long time where there's not always, for example, a lot of warfare actually happening. Right. Where it's like, hey, India and Pakistan, we've been like, you know, engaging in conflict for decades upon decades, but we're not always like actively in war. Right. So that's what I tried to explain to him obviously. And he mentioned like, well, if Russia, you know, came here and they bombed three nuclear facilities in America, yeah, that'd be Cassius ballet. That'd be an act of war. I mean, I thought he would know what that means because this is like supposed to be his topic. So I kind of crazy didn't know what Cassius Ballet meant. But again, that would be different, you know, than Russia, for example, launching a large scale invasion of the United States or stuff like that. And it's also a false equivalency. You know, we're not trying to, or we don't have nuclear weapons that we're actively threatening countries with. Right after World War II, we rebuilt Europe, you know, using the Marshall Plan and we denazified Germany and we obviously transitioned Japan's government from an imperialistic, you know, regime that was conquering Eastern China, conquering the Philippines, conquering Korea, and having dominion over all of those different areas. And we transition them to a more subservient or obsequious government that is more defensive with the help of Douglas McCarthy, obviously. And now we have Japan, that's an ally. So yeah, it's a, it's a false equivalency. But yeah, we've been at conflict with Iran ever since they kidnapped United States citizens and have essentially been a self proclaimed enemy of the US like, of course we've been at conflict with them. Whether or not he wants to consider like the active engagements, like war, you can call it war, you can call it a conflict, but nevertheless it doesn't change anything.
- [08:12]
Host
That's actually something your positioning earlier in the, when you sat down, it seemed like initially you were, maybe it was semantics. You were saying this is a conflict, but as the conversation went on, it didn't seem like you were actually that uncomfortable with just calling it a war. Do you feel like there's an important distinction between those two terms?
- [08:34]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
I think there can be an important distinction to an extent. I think that when we are engaging in active, you know, military, let's say, scenarios and situations where we have fighter jets bombing strategic areas or taking out military officials and and so on, you can call that specifically a war. But what I don't want him to forget, and this is kind of like the issue is that we've technically been in conflict with them or in that sort of hostile state since the IRGC's inception. But yes, there have been moments where we are actively engaged in what you could call war, but it's all semantics like whether or not you call it war or that's really besides the point. Is it justified and should we engage in it?
- [09:08]
Host
But if I were to steel man Glenn, I think I would say based on even kind of the structure and wording of his prompt, he's trying to point out, I think, the contradiction between how Trump's campaign kind of labeled him a less interventionist choice, someone who's not going to go and get involved in other countries affairs and is going to focus, you know, the America first focus on, on local issues and, and keep our military and resources out of other countries. And I think what Glenn's trying to point out is that just seems like that was kind of the sales pitch. But then there was a big abrupt flip and now we have a Donald Trump who's much more aggressive militarily than he was in his first term. Although I think you pointed out he did take military action against Iran in his first term. So it's not like there's, it's not like this is entirely new, but it is significantly more aggressive.
- [10:05]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Sure, I can understand that position. I think I've heard, I've heard a lot of like this position a lot from people that are a maga. Like, well, Trump promised no new, worse. Well, he didn't really ever say that. So one, I don't think he runs.
- [10:15]
Host
Is he not, though? I feel like there's, there's SOUNDBITE.
- [10:17]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Well, I think, well, it lacks context, right? Like, for example, I don't think Iran is new. This is why, like I, I keep reiterating and emphasizing the point that it's been like a long standing conflict because Iran isn't really new at all. Right. That's one, it just hasn't been handled by prior presidents the way that Maduro in Venezuela was not handled by prior presidents, but doesn't mean it's a new issue. Right. And two, like since 1980 and 1987, Trump has been saying that hey, we should conquer and take over Carg Island. We should not be allowing them to hold our troops. Our military should go in and, you know, get our troop or get our citizens back or civilians, because they weren't really troops, and that we should have troops on Carg island and conquer it and force them to release our. Our hostages and so on and so forth. He's always had a maximum or a maximum pressure strategy on Iran. That's always been the case with Trump. In 2011, he said they can't have a nuclear weapon. In 2015, continuously, he said he can't have a nuclear weapon. And then we obviously killed General Soleimani, for example, I believe it was in 2020, if I'm not mistaken. And so Trump has. If someone is not just a random person that just kind of listens to some of the things he says, but someone that has been paying attention to Trump and his foreign policy, they would understand that this is inevitable. Like Iran is. Has been a country that we have been in conflict for. For a long time. It's nothing new whatsoever, and it has yet to be handled. And I think Trump is a president that actually has the willpower to finish the job, you know, and so that's what it is. I don't think any of this is new. I just think we're handling things that should have been handled a long time ago.
- [11:49]
Host
Yeah, and I think that that's a pretty sound argument. It's nothing new. There's plenty of smart people all around the world who are, you know, experts in, who are saying this is a conflict that was inevitable. This is something we've had to deal with. And, I mean, even the Obama administration had their own way of approaching it, but they were obviously still trying. You know, it was still a high priority. I mean, the. The nuclear deal that him and John Kerry came up with, very. People were very critical of it, but that was one of the biggest, you know, outcomes of his administration. Time moves fast, but your credit score doesn't have to stay stuck. I remember how overwhelmed I felt trying to fix my credit. It felt like a catch 22 where you need credit to build credit. Then I found kickoff. Signing up took minutes on my phone with no credit check and no hidden fees for users with credit under 600, they see an average growth of 86 points. Kickoff helps you score big when it comes to credit. Plans start at just $5 a month with zero interest. Start building credit with Kickoff today and get your first month for as little as $1. That's 80% off the normal price. When you go to getkickoff.com surrounded today, that's kickoff without the C. Get K I k o f.com surrounded.
- [13:02]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Must sign up offer applies to new kickoff customers first month only. Subject to approval.
- [13:06]
Sponsor Announcer
Offer subject to change average first year
- [13:07]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
credit score impact of plus 86 points between August 24 and August 25for kickoff credit Count. Users who started with score below 600, who paid on time, and who had no delinquencies or collections added to the credit profile during the period. Late payments can negatively impact your credit score. Individual results may vary.
- [13:15]
Host
Thank you to Kickoff for sponsoring this episode. Now, let's get back to the show. I want to play you this next clip. This is. I can't remember. You'll know. This is one of your peers who he was debating, but they were debating the four goals of the war. And I want to just kind of talk about, like, the administration's messaging and what you think the four goals are and how this, this exchange goes. This is in the context of the second claim that Glenn had, which was President Trump is subservient to is the Israeli lobby.
- [13:43]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
I think Nick destroyed him here. Let's watch it, though.
- [13:45]
Host
Okay. This isn't the whole exchange, but this is regarding the goals. So here we go.
- [13:49]
Debater Discussing War Goals
Okay. First off, do you know what the four goals of the war are in ir?
- [13:53]
Debater Opposing Trump
I'm asking you, do you ever know
- [13:54]
Debater Discussing War Goals
what the four goals of the war are? What are they? Is it regime change?
- [13:57]
Debater Opposing Trump
They change so many times. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Aren't four goals that.
- [14:03]
Debater Discussing War Goals
There has been four stated goals. And go on the Internet right now to the official government website and you
- [14:08]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
will read the four goals.
- [14:09]
Debater Opposing Trump
Trump, in an interview with the Washington Post said, my main goal and why I'm attacking Iran is to free the Iranian people. Is that one of the four goals that, that, that, that President Trump said was his most important objective when going to war with Iran?
- [14:21]
Debater Discussing War Goals
I'm going to concede something. I agree with you that President Trump speaks in very grandiose measures. He does. I'm not going to. Everything's the biggest thing ever. The most beautiful thing ever. It's the worst thing ever. I'm not.
- [14:32]
Debater Opposing Trump
That was a stated goal of the war.
- [14:33]
Debater Discussing War Goals
No, it was not. If you listen to our Department of War objective. If you listen to our Department of War. And by the way, you can go
- [14:39]
Debater Opposing Trump
on the president that determines the war objectives. It's not the Department of War.
- [14:43]
Debater Discussing War Goals
It's actually. That's not. I was in the military for 12 years. That's not actually particularly.
- [14:47]
Debater Opposing Trump
Who is your commander in chief? The Secretary of Defense.
- [14:49]
Debater Discussing War Goals
No, it's not.
- [14:51]
Debater Opposing Trump
Right?
- [14:51]
Debater Discussing War Goals
No, no. First off, that's not how Objectives are detained. You're right. He agrees with them or disagrees with. Again, I agree. Trump will go on interviews and he
- [14:59]
Debater Opposing Trump
will say no sets war goals for the United States.
- [15:02]
Debater Discussing War Goals
Well, first off, it's actually a complex measure of how it goes out. Are you asking who agrees with the finalized goals when a war started?
- [15:07]
Debater Opposing Trump
Who determines what the goals of the war?
- [15:09]
Debater Discussing War Goals
Again, it's a very complex measure.
- [15:11]
Host
Correct.
- [15:12]
Debater Discussing War Goals
Again, if you're saying agree with, he gets briefs. He gets people from the Pentagon, the
- [15:16]
Debater Opposing Trump
final decision maker about the goal.
- [15:17]
Debater Discussing War Goals
That's the right question. And that would be the commander in chief, the president.
- [15:20]
Debater Opposing Trump
Right.
- [15:20]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
So you want to know what wars are.
- [15:23]
Debater Opposing Trump
If you look at what the president says.
- [15:25]
Debater Discussing War Goals
I got it. If you look at the official memo that was signed by him that was pushed out and still on the government website to this very day, you can read the main objectives of the war.
- [15:34]
Debater Opposing Trump
Has he said that regime change is one of the goals of the war?
- [15:36]
Debater Discussing War Goals
I agree that in. He's implied it in interviews. He said it explicitly in the official memos.
- [15:42]
Debater Opposing Trump
Where our goal is to bring.
- [15:45]
Host
This is something, though, that I think when this war or conflict escalated or started, however you want to phrase it a few months ago, this is something that I think a lot of people have been critical of. The messaging. Why are we doing this? Are we doing this because Netanyahu was going to do it and we had to react to what their actions were going to be? I have to say that I think from Glenn's position on this prompt, the messaging from the administration on why we're doing this and why the American people should get behind it, it does seem like it was inconsistent. Even if there is a page that existed on the government website, like Nick was saying that maybe more clearly outlined it, when it comes to Trump himself and even Rubio and Hegseth, it has sort of the target is moved. Does that feel true to you or do you see it a different way?
- [16:32]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
I kind of see it a different way, but I feel like it's multifaceted. I think the average person that is checking updates in the media, for example, is not going to be aware of, like, the four main goals. Right. Because a lot of different things have been said by different people and so on and so forth. When it came to Rubio specifically talking about, well, Israel was going to attack, and so we preemptively attack because we believe that our bases would be attacked after Israel attacked Iran, that was a kind of a misunderstanding because he went on to be asked by a reporter like, hey, do you mean that we only attacked because of Israel. And he said no. He specifically said that Israel had intelligence about the meeting with Khamenei and his other top military officials. And so they decided to strike now than later on because it would make more sense. But they were already planning to strike later on regardless. Now the goals, it's multifaceted. Marco Rubio came out and he outlined the fact that apart from the nuclear weapons, which has been the main focal point, Iran had at least. I don't know if they still have it or now, but they had at least the largest missile stockpile in the Middle East. And originally we believe that they had a missile range of like 2000km, but it actually being double that because they attacked Diego Garcia base, which is 4,000 kilometers away, which is a US and UK joint military base. And so their missile stockpile was the most dangerous thing also apart from the nuclear weapons. And they have the capability to reach Europe. And Marco Rubio emphasized that, hey, if we don't take care of their missile production and their stockpile later on, if we want to enforce anything about their nuclear weapons, we won't be able to do so because the missiles that they have would be such a deterrent. And I mean, quite frankly, we've seen the capability of their missiles, and they are pretty decent. They're not the best, but they are pretty decent. They're able to hit Israel, they're able to hit the uae, they're able to hit American military bases, and so on and so forth. Iran is not a weak country. They are a country of military status and stature, and that's undeniable. And we can't take that away from them. But that's one of the reasons. Right? It's also the fact that we don't want the number one state sponsor of terrorism to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Iran, according to the FDD, spends about $16 billion annually on terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Hamas and Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen. Houthis in Yemen obviously started the 2011 Yemeni Civil War. And that got Saudi Arabia, one of our best economic allies involved in that conflict, which obviously they didn't like. The fact that, that the Houthis were being supported by the IRGC. The Houthis in 2024 essentially were attacking. I believe Glenn lied. He said they were only going after Israeli ships. No, they went after 12 different nationalities. I hope the fact checkers got him on that as well. And they were disrupting global maritime trade in the Red Sea, which is where 1/10 of global maritime trade actually goes through a lot of different reasons. Right. These terrorist groups are responsible for the bombings of American Americans, for example, in Beirut. They were there as a peacekeeping force in the barracks. They're responsible for. For example, I know this is getting pretty long winded, but in 2024, for example, the Argentinian government essentially found that Iran, as the government, were responsible for the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community in Buenos Aires that killed well over 100 people, I believe. And so they do all sorts of different things. The Hezbollah also has a South American terrorist organization. You know, the, the, for example, Hezbollah, they operate in South America and they work with cartels and money smuggling and all those different things. And so there's so many things, they start wars, for example, with Israel and Gaza. Hamas had a decent amount of its money from Iran, intelligence from Iran and all of these different countries and conflicts. So it's multifaceted. But those are all reasons as to why we're involved in fighting the irgc. Right. And their nuclear weapon obviously is something they can't have. When you're enriching uranium to 60% that is far beyond civilian use. Regular nuclear reactors would be up to like 1 to 5% enrichment, 20% if you're using some like very advanced reactor. But 60% is way far beyond civilian use. And the chief, or like I believe the speaker of their parliament said that, hey, we were going for nuclear weapons. So it's like all of those reasons are the reasons why we're engaging with the irgc. Now, I know that Secretary Barbara Rubio.
- [20:36]
Host
Let's grant that. Let's, let's grant that and just say that's all true. We're not going to debate that Iran is, sponsors terrorism and is a destabilizing force in the region. Right. What do we do or what should this administration do, or how do you unwind the sentiment that is, I think, growing significantly. We kind of have a horseshoe phenomenon where there's a large portion and a growing portion of the left as well as the right. If you think of Tim Dillon sort of representing this, you know, I think he went on a talk show not too long ago, said, this is the biggest political betrayal of my lifetime is, is, you know, Trump getting involved in Iran. You've got the Nick Fuentes's of the world. So there's, there's kind of an unusual coalition forming that's very much against this war. What does the administration do to unwind that? Because I do think this idea that, you know, Netanyahu bullied us into this war. Trump takes his orders from Netanyahu. Whether or not that's true is obviously very debatable. But the number of people who believe that that is true, I do think is growing significantly, especially probably as gas prices go up and sentiment.
- [21:42]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
So I'll try to focus more on that. Specifically, the. Did Netanyahu get us. Get. Get us involved into this war? Is this more of Israel's war than ours? I would say that one obvious. I support it. No one denies that. That's already something that's pretty axiomatic. But I wanted to preface that because I think this is more of Trump's war than it is necessarily Netanyahu or Israel's. I think that the fact that Israel already acknowledges that Iran poses an existential threat to them is something that gives us mutual interest in terms of, hey, let's do joint operations, because we both don't like them. But I think Trump has been wanting this for 47 years at least. You know, he made this very clear in his interviews in the 80s that he wanted this like he wanted America to engage. I have seen those in what has been proposed. Now, you know, people are saying, well, it's the coercive cabal of the Israel Lobby and the Miriam Adelson and the Sheldon Adelson's. And my response to that is like, well, if Trump's sentiment has not changed for 47 years, are you telling me the Israel Lobby was paying him in 1980 and 1987, for example, example, when he ran for president? Like, that's the only issue. Like, there's a difference between coercion in a sense of like, hey, I'm coming to you with money and I want you to have this opinion. And hey, I don't know. I already agree with you.
- [22:51]
Host
I don't know if that consistency is, is as, as linear, though, as, as you might be claiming, because, I mean, there are also tweets from Trump, you know, 10 years ago where he said a war in Iran would be complete disaster and, and we shouldn't do it. I agree with you. It's maybe very conspiratorial thinking that, like, there's this cabal pressuring him in Israel. Like, I think I agree with you that that's kind of like a conspiracy bait. But I guess my question to you, though, is, is this a real problem? Do you think this is going. This is a real problem for the administration and how they get the people to back the war?
- [23:27]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
It depends if you're asking whether or not the administration is going to be. Is going to do a good job at convincing Democrats to support the war. No, but the overwhelming majority of Republicans, if we're talking about Trump's constitue, which he cares about obviously the most, yeah, they generally do support him in the war. And so I think we could, we could reiterate the positions and the arguments. I mean, I don't work for the administration. I wish I did. Maybe I'd be able to articulate that better for everyone else.
- [23:51]
Host
You, maybe you might be on the radar, who knows?
- [23:54]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Yeah, maybe, hopefully. But apart from that. Yeah. I don't think a lot of people are actually even willing to understand the complexities of the conflict because it is pretty complex and nuanced. We could simplify it for people as much as, as much as we, we possibly can. It' not a very easy thing for a lot of people to grasp, but I think the Republican constituency does understand it, generally speaking. At the far right, obviously.
- [24:16]
Host
Yeah, I mean, I'm unclear as to how much support there is in the Republican Party. I've seen those polls that you're talking about and like, you know, if my parents, I'm here with my parents, if they're representative of kind of the mean of the party, then I think you're probably right. People are giving Trump and the administration some, some leeway on handling this and I think they understand the incentive. Something though that I am wondering is with the current situation so straight ahead, Hormuz is debatably open. I. It's actually, I really don't understand it.
- [24:49]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
It seems like semi permeable.
- [24:51]
Host
Yeah, it's become a bit of a situationship to me.
- [24:55]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
The situationship with the strider from.
- [24:57]
Host
Yeah, it's like is this. What is. What exactly is it? It's not clear to me. I've heard smart people give contrary opinions. Do you think this outcome though so far, I mean with. We've inflicted massive damage on a lot of their military and navy and just like material assets they had. I know they still have a bunch of these drones apparently underground that they have access to. Do you think the situation now where they have. They're using this leverage with the straight of Hormuz, but all this damage has been inflicted on them. Do you think that's better than say where we were prior to the Iran nuclear deal being torn up and kind of a much more contentious relationship between the two countries sort of evolving from there?
- [25:36]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
I think we're in a better position now because their missile stockpile has been significantly weakened and their drone capacity has been significantly weakened and their nuclear facilities have been severely damaged. And their regime, the government, militaristically speaking, in terms of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who's no longer with us, and many other senior officials and nuclear scientists have also been eliminated. And the economic pressure, I mean, John Bolton, who is a former national security advisor, and many others have always believed in the maximum pressure strategy. So given the fact that, that Iran has lost over probably $10 billion worth of oil revenue because we blockaded their blockade, which is pretty interesting, that means a lot more economic turmoil currently exists domestically in Iran, which undermines the government because they need that oil revenue to pay for basically almost everything that the government spends money on. And so I think that we're in a stronger position now in terms of weakening the irgc, undermining their military capacity and their ability to really obtain and continue to have respect from their own people.
- [26:32]
Host
Well, yeah, I mean, if we were actually. Let me pull up a clip. Then we get kind of into the realm of timetables. How long is this going to take? Like, how long are we going to wear them down?
- [26:42]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
I think the goal now is to obviously reach some sort of a deal. But, but if not, what has been said is that if we don't reach a deal, what will happen is, is that we'll re engage in military action against Iran. And so that's, that's currently the projections.
- [26:54]
Host
This is a clip between Josh and Glenn. I think Josh came in and he was, he was chosen at the end of the episode and he said, Trump is one of the best, best presidents of my lifetime. But we'll hear this and then we'll kind of close the loop on Iran. Yeah. So the claim is this is Josh and he came back in at the end. He said, donald Trump is the best president of my lifetime. And this is sort of how he's thinking of the decision to, for Trump to attack Iran.
- [27:19]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
The hallmark of his foreign policy is that he makes conflicts quick. And so I don't know if I can say this about the other people in the room, but for me, if the conflict in Iran doesn't end in the next six months, then I would consider that to be a failure. I don't think any of us should look at Donald Trump and just think, he is my undying loyalty. I have full trust in him. But the things that you all listed, there are quick things that have happened. And I think that has always been a consistency for Donald Trump, for me personally.
- [27:43]
Debater Opposing Trump
Did the Yemen bomb accomplish anything?
- [27:45]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
I think anytime that we're taking out terrorists and anti America people? I think that is a pro thing to do.
- [27:51]
Debater Opposing Trump
How do you know we killed terrorists? Do you know the people who died in Yemen from that bomb? Do you know their names?
- [27:57]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
No, no. Personally, I don't know.
- [27:58]
Debater Opposing Trump
So how do you know they're terrorists?
- [27:59]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
I think that Donald Trump has credible intelligence from our intelligence apparatus that tells him these things. That's what is going to keep.
- [28:06]
Debater Opposing Trump
You just blindly assume that if we kill people, they're probably terrorists?
- [28:09]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
I assume that. I do not know as much as the intelligence apparatus.
- [28:12]
Debater Opposing Trump
Is that the same assumption when Biden's president, when Obama's president, go, go kill people and we'll just assume they're terrorists?
- [28:18]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
I think prolonged conflicts are an indication that that intelligence is not being acted upon as well.
- [28:23]
Debater Opposing Trump
Like President, President Obama fought a war in Libya for it lasted about four months, five months, took out the government. The head of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi, who used to be a US ally, was sodomized and raped to death in the streets.
- [28:36]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
That was a quick war.
- [28:38]
Debater Opposing Trump
Did you support that war?
- [28:39]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
No, because that was anti American. When we're trying to depose regimes or peoples or terrorists that are anti America and we do it quickly. Fantastic, every single time.
- [28:47]
Debater Opposing Trump
But Qaddafi was a designated terrorist. He was accused of having taken down a plane, a Pan Am jet that killed 260 people, which was one of the reasons why, why the United States take out the war. I just, I totally understand.
- [28:58]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
I think my problem is. So you're pointing to all of these things. I think at the same time I can point to all these things, Venezuela, Maduro being taken out that were absolutely fantastic. The consistent through all of Trump's presidencies is that it's quick.
- [29:08]
Host
Glenn makes his stance pretty clear. You know, he's anti interventionist. Glenn I think even identifies as America first. So he's kind of uniquely heterodox. He's. He's not super left, he's not super right. But I think maybe he's consistently skeptical and critical of America getting involved abroad. Josh comes in and he says, you know, I support this if it's quick. And initially that was some of the messaging that the administration was saying was this was going to be a fast scenario. But then as you kind of pointed out earlier, it's a ceasefire. But, you know, there, it could escalate at any moment and there is the very likely possibility that we need to invade, especially if we want to totally eliminate the threat of nuclear material being in their Possession. So do you see this as a quick conflict, or do you think this is something that's going to drag on for quite some time?
- [29:55]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Well, I want this to be quick. I don't want this to drag on. I don't think anyone wants us to drag on. That that can only be negative. And we all know that as any conflict drags on or war drags on, the public support for it always decreases. And that's the same thing with Vietnam. That's the same thing with every other conflict that we've ever been engaged in. So I don't want this to drag on. I want this to be quick, which is why I want. I want either Iran to sign a deal or for us to devastate their military capacity to the point where we're like, okay, we're good, the Iranian people, it's in your hands. If you want to try to overthrow the government, we may try to help make those means possible for you. But apart from that, we will no longer engage in any other strikes and hopefully this rid moose can be opened. That's what I want. But I think generally, listening to that gentleman, I don't know his name, I think he made a great point, which is that, you know, under Trump, he's done a lot of these military engagements quick. Midnight Hammer was quite quick, and we were largely successful in destroying, I believe, over 20,000 centrifuges, which are obviously used to enratrain a Maduro. We kidnapped him, and now we have a subservient Venezuelan government under Desi Rodriguez. So a lot of these different military engagements have been pretty quick, and again, they have only benefited us. And so as long as this doesn't drag on for too long, obviously, I think that this will generally be very successful and a good thing that occurred.
- [31:03]
Host
I Do you think gas prices are going to get under control? I mean, that's just something I'm also, I hear different opinions on all the time. I mean, for the stock market reacted initially, and then it just seems to be like shooting to the moon all over again. But then gas still is significantly up, inflation is up. Do you think the economic headwinds change the calculus?
- [31:25]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Not too much, I don't think, for the Trump administration, but I think that that is something that we should take into account to an extent at least, and something that we should surely try to mitigate as much as possible, which is why we want the Strait of Hormuz to be fully open eventually. And so when that does occur, gas prices will obviously drop. And I can't wait for that to occur. But I also want people to recognize that I rather have the axis of evil be like, severely, like, mitigated, including all of the other complexities, including Russia and China, and how this engages and involves them and us having higher gas prices for maybe a few months or even another month or two, than to not handle such a threat to the world that is only becoming more and more of a threat. But of course, I can't take away the fact that this has harmed and hurt a bunch of people because gas prices have increased and the cost of living has increased, and that's something that we should always be worried about.
- [32:15]
Host
You said axis of evil. I mean, that's not unusual opinion, but I was just curious. Is there, are you a person of faith? Like, is there any other aspects of your identity other than just being a conservative, that, that at align with why you think, you know, these threats and Iran specifically is a force for, for evil?
- [32:34]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
I don't necessarily hold it from a religious or pious perspective. I'm not very pious myself. But I do believe that most of us understand the difference between engaging in evil and detestable acts and not doing so. And most of us understand that slaughtering thousands of unarmed protesters in the streets with live ammunition and shooting in the head is, is evil. And I believe being responsible for terrorist attacks against innocent civilians and different communities and blocking trade and, you know, all of these different other things threatening countries with total annihilation is wrong and is evil. And that obviously is against Western civilization. And so we should view it as a threat. And that's my perspective.
- [33:12]
Host
Yeah. And I think what happened to those protesters, I mean, not a ton of information came out or coherent information because it was so access to the Internet so patchy over there and sometimes blocked. But the reports of how many protesters were killed was incredibly shocking. And I agree with you. Obviously horrifying. Okay, I want to. This is the. We're going to totally pivot, so we'll close the loop in Iran. I appreciate all your, your takes on it. That's it. It's nice to hear you kind of flesh out your opinions. Another thing that came up, you didn't go to the center for this prompt, but the topic of corruption came up obviously in the news this past week. There's been more discussion about it with Trump's stock portfolio and, and this deal with the irs. So, like, corruption is something that's on people's minds. There's a reaction shot from you, though, at the end of this clip that made me very curious as to what was going through your mind as you heard some of these debates. So let's, let's pull this up. This is Glenn's prompt or claim. The Trump administration has been considerably more corrupt than the Biden administration. And then this is a string of people who came and debated him on this.
- [34:15]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
You thought this was your Run Club era. Turns out it was more of a thinking about Run Club era. The good news? Someone's marathon training is about to start. Sell your workout gear on Depop. Just snap a few photos and we'll take care of the rest. They get their race day fit and you get a payout for trying. Someone on Depop wants what you've got. Start selling now. Depop where taste recognizes taste.
- [34:46]
Sponsor Announcer
This episode is brought to you by Netflix. The Four Seasons is back for Season two. Starring Tina Fey, Will Forte, Colman Domingo, Marco Calvani, Carrie, Kenny Silver and Erika Henningsen. After a difficult year, your favorite group of friends continues their tradition of vacationing together, now with a baby in tow. From the Jersey Shore to upstate New York and Italy, their getaways are sure to take unexpected turns where comedy ensues. Watch the Four Seasons, now streaming only on Netflix. Introducing Taco Bell's new sweet and spicy Jalapeno Citrus salsa made with bright citrus and real red jalapenos. You can get it with anything on the Can Cantina Chicken menu for a delicious tangy twist to make all your faves instantly better. And while Jalapeno Citrus Salsa is only available for a limited time, know this Jalapeno Citrus Salsa demands the spotlight. It's the sauce with main character energy. Get Jalapeno Citrus Salsa with anything on the Cantina Chicken menu for a limited time only at Taco Bell at participating locations. While supplies last I worked a lot
- [35:46]
Debater Opposing Trump
on the Hunter Biden corruption case, principally that he got $50,000 a month month from a company in Ukraine called Burisma. When President Vice President Biden had immense influence in Ukraine, it was way more than that. As Andy McCarthy said, who's a longtime Republican conservative prosecutor. In order to talk about or compare that corruption, similar corruption by the Trump sons and by Jared Kushner. You have to add two zeros to the amounts and I think that's what the the concern is. But I'll tell you the most corrupt thing that Trump has done. I'll tell you what the there's a lot of things, but the main one is is they created a company shortly before Trump's inauguration that's a crypto company called World Financial liberty. Are you aware that, are you aware
- [36:26]
Host
that Trump doesn't take. It never has took his presidential checks?
- [36:29]
Debater Opposing Trump
Are you aware that he's given up all. Yes, that's. Congratulations. That's just Four hundred and five thousand dollars.
- [36:35]
Host
That's it.
- [36:35]
Debater Opposing Trump
Just imagine a president, a Democratic president, that's not Donald Trump. Four days before they're inaugurated as president, they create a new company and into that company flows hundreds of billions of dollars, or billions of dollars, billions of dollars from the very countries that will be most affected by that president's foreign policy. That wouldn't concern you at all. You don't think there's anything, well, I
- [36:56]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
could have concerning him about that suspicion, But I'm not going to make a claim that he's corrupt. And that's the claim that you're making right now.
- [37:01]
Debater Opposing Trump
Donald Trump Jr. And Eric Trump just created a new drone company that they're now selling to the Pentagon and getting contracts from the Pentagon that will further personally enrich the Trump family. We're talking about a level billions and billions of dollars in personal wealth that did not exist before Donald Trump entered the president, that now exists in his family by virtue of these deals with the exact countries on which he wields the most influence. Even.
- [37:25]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
Let's say I grant all of that. Let's say.
- [37:27]
Debater Opposing Trump
Because it's true. No, no, let's say I grant all of that. That still doesn't prove your claim.
- [37:31]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
I brought up a whole list of things that Biden.
- [37:34]
Host
So at the very end there, we cut to you dropping your head. Are you dropping your head because you're just exhausted by this topic? Are you dropping your head because you question how defensible, like how defensible it is that he's not corrupt?
- [37:48]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
I was not really that interested in that topic to begin with. And so I was kind of like dropping my head because of that. But to be fair, the guy with the MAGA hat, that was like, well, he didn't. I think I repeated this like maybe two years ago or something. I don't know where people were like, well, he doesn't take his 400 something thousand dollars, you know, check or compensation for being the president. Let's be honest.
- [38:09]
Debater Supporting Quick Military Action
That's.
- [38:09]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
That means nothing to him. This is the thing, right? Like, if Trump had a network net worth of like $3 million and he didn't take his $400,000 presidential check, okay, then maybe we'd have a conversation. But if you're worth billions of dollars, probably over $10 billion now, and you're not Taking your presidential check, it's like, okay, but that's nothing to you. That's like me saying, well, I'm not taking. I don't know. I'm not going to say how much I have or whatever, but it's like, if me and you are millionaires, it's like, I don't take this $5,000 check for whatever job I have. It's like, that means nothing. It doesn't show that you're of great moral character. So I think that argument comes to corruption. Like, is there some corruption going on? I mean, probably. I think what's the most important is whether or not there's something that's actively negative, negatively impacting the American people. It's like, yes, they created companies that a lot of money is being poured into by countries in the UAE and the Middle east, but if we're strengthening our relationship with those countries, I don't think there's a big issue. If those countries are getting certain preferential treatment from Trump that is somehow detrimental to America, I would want to know what that would be. But apart from that, I'm not all that worried. But the whole argument of, like, well, he doesn't take his. His minuscule check when, you know, when he's a billionaire, that's not. That doesn't really move me much.
- [39:21]
Host
Yeah, yeah, but that's actually something I want to kind of like, peel apart a little bit, because Trump, to a certain extent, is just an incredibly charismatic media figure. And so there is a little bit. You know, I think there's more than a little. I think there's a lot of credibility to the idea that he's built a cult of personality that. That is maybe overpowered the party. Now, you. You called yourself, you know, I'm a conservative. I don't see myself as, like, super maga. I'm. I'm a conservative. And so that's actually the distinction I'm interested in is, do you think this corruption, which, I mean, it's. It's kind of hard to argue that it's not there. I mean, even just like, the stock trading that happened, that was disclosed.
- [40:02]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Yeah, there's no doubt that there's a level of. Yeah, for sure.
- [40:04]
Host
It's. It's not illegal. But, like, nobody since lbj, I think, has had, like, a private stock portfolio traded on their behalf while they're president. Do you worry, though, that. That. That conduct financially is a risk to your values and goals as a conservative? Because, I mean, it's not really related to the war in Iran, but It does shape people's perception of the credibility of the administration and I think the intention and character of the administration.
- [40:33]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
I don't think anyone in Congress should be stock trading at all. Probably no one in the presidency should be stock trading. So I'd obviously be against that. You're trading stocks and you're also like, the amount of influence and power that you have over these corporations and companies. And like, there's a lot there, obviously. Right. And you're talking about a business family. So of course there's a lot of corruption that goes on when you're talking about the. That. And so, no, I'm not in favor of it. If I could wave a magic wand, I would like not allow anyone that's serving in Congress or in the executive branch to be able. Or judicial branch, all three branches, actually. I wouldn't want anyone in the legislative, executive or judicial branch to be able to trade stocks. Their position in that role should be a public servant. You are a public servant. You're there to serve to people, not serve yourself or enrich yourself, period. Even if it doesn't necessarily negatively affect a bunch of people, which I think is probably the most most important part. So I'm against it, but there's little I can do about it, obviously. I mean, I, I want Congress to hopefully propose a bill to end all stock trading for anybody in the three branches of U.S. government. But whether or not that happens is, is questionable. But if, but if anyone were to object to that, my question would be, if you're a public servant, who's there to serve the people and take your compensation, which is weird because they have like $200,000 salaries, maybe $400,000 salaries, and they're, they have like crazy net worths, which is kind of like, you know, an interesting phenomenon. What's the argument for why you should be able to manage a lot of these major deals with, with corporations and also trade stocks and get all these sorts of different things. So, yeah, I would be totally against that. I think it's wrong.
- [42:15]
Host
I appreciate the nuance there. Last question for you. If you could throw all your weight behind a candidate for 2028, who, who would you be most excited about? As a young conservative?
- [42:26]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Probably Secretary Marco Rubio. I really like him. I think he's been the best secretary I've ever seen, especially in the 21st century, I think has a lot of great accomplishments. I think he's pretty charismatic and he's pretty articulate and concise about his positions and what his goals are. And so I look forward to him. And if not, maybe J.D. vance. I think both would be great options for 20, 20, 28.
- [42:50]
Host
Yeah, I think I agree with you. If I had to probably guess, I think Rubio's got the sauce a little bit more. But we'll see, right? Yeah. Well, I appreciate your time, man. It was great, great talking to you. I love hearing your, your opinions. And I'm sure this won't be the last time Jubilee reaches out to you to, to jump into the arena. You're, you're a very, very gifted intellect. So many thanks.
- [43:14]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Thank you so much. I appreciate it. It's been, it's been an honor being, being here.
- [43:16]
Host
All right, take care, Matt. We'll see you soon. If you want to see more follow up episodes of Surrounded, be sure to like, leave us a positive review. Comment if you're watching the video on YouTube, you can subscribe to Tubely, Jubilee's second channel. You can also subscribe to Jubilee to see full Surrounded episodes. But however you want to support us, just thank you so much for listening. Remember, you could be wrong, so could I. Keep your mind open until next time.
- [43:43]
Sponsor Announcer
Your next chapter in healthcare starts at Carrington College's School of Nursing in Portland. Join us for our open house on Tuesday, January 13th from 4 to 7pm you'll tour our campus, see live demos, meet instructors and learn about our Associate Degree in Nursing program that prepares you to become a registered nurse. Take the first step toward your nursing career. Save your spot now at Carrington Edu Events. For information on program outcomes, visit Carrington. Edu Science
- [44:15]
Guest (Young Conservative Debater)
Athletic Brewing Company crafts award winning non alcoholic beers for those who want to be part of every round. With over 185 flavor awards, they're exceptional NA beers that fit your lifestyle and any social occasion. Summer's full of good times and Athletic fits right in. Go to athleticbrewing.com to have brews delivered to your door or find them at a bar, restaurant or store near you. Near Beer Athletic Brewing Co. Fit for all Times.