A (3:28)

Brian, what have you learned about what works and doesn't work on social media, what it is about?

B (3:35)

Well, I think that, you know, it's, it's different platforms, different things work. X has become extremely to, I think over the course of the last few years, especially last two years, I think, whereas what might have worked back, you know, in 2016 or 17 doesn't work now. Whereas platforms like TikTok or Facebook, I think that what works over there is dialogue and you get better dialogue over there because you have video and video is central over there. Even the lives on TikTok, you have a communication. Like Ed and I, we've been doing TikTok lives, just talking to Trump voters and just, you know, having debates, but friendly debates with them. And like that is so much, you know, more unifying obviously than posting a two sentence tweet and then getting hammered by part, part American, part Russian, part, you know, AI bots and you know, the hate just stems from that. And it's hard to push back on things when you don't even know who you're dealing with. There's so much anonymity on Twitter, I think. So what's changed I think is probably, I guess like people are using social media more today for their, for news, right? Like in 2016, 17, 18, like they, they didn't use it so much for news as they did to just tweet out things about their life or, you know, tweet out their opinions. Now it's being more for new use, more for news and it's being taken.

C (5:08)

Advantage of by bad players who put.

B (5:11)

Out, you know, false stor skew the truth, you know, clip things that are out of context and like there's a whole cottage industry built around it where you can make a lot of money doing that and people are doing it.

A (5:24)

Ed, what's the difference between you and Brian?

C (5:29)

There really aren't differences. Like people ask us this all the time and I mean we, our ideologies are the same. That's a really tough question. You know, we always lived together up until I got married. We're still neighbors. You, we live a street apart. We dorm together in college, live together after college. We're, you know, it's not just DNA. I, I, I think we think a lot alike. So I mean, we don't really argue too much. You know, like he might make a post and I'm like, I think that's, you shouldn't have said it a different way. Or I might make a post and he's like, you should, should have said that a different way. But it's not really too much in at least when it comes to ideologies that we differ on.

A (6:14)

Who's older?

C (6:16)

I am, but by about 20 seconds.

A (6:18)

Does it matter?

C (6:21)

I let him know about it.

A (6:22)

Who's stronger?

B (6:24)

Me. Definitely me.

A (6:27)

You both said me. By the way, you think you're stronger than Ed, Brian?

B (6:32)

Yeah, for sure. Yeah.

A (6:33)

Can he take you?

B (6:34)

No, no.

C (6:36)

I mean, so if we arm wrestle, I'm left handed, I beat him. If we do it right handed, he beats me. So it's pretty equal. We did get in a few fist fights when we younger. I usually came out on top, but I'm not going to rub it in.

B (6:50)

I mean we would get in fist fights probably weekly up until we were probably 25, when we lived together. We separated I guess when we were like 26, 27, but we would have fistfights and it usually end just knowing that neither of us could beat the other one and we didn't want to kill each other.

A (7:07)

I guess the idea of separate versus together, how do you guys balance that in social media work?

C (7:18)

Yeah, so, so I, because we think so much alike and because we have a lot of the same ideas when we've created these new accounts outside of X, outside of Twitter, we've done it together because we feel like, you know, why should we both be, you know, making the same types of posts when we can just kind of work together and do it? I think it's more effective that way.

B (7:40)

I, I would say that, you know, you know, like, like there's a lot of times where people like, they say, hey, why did you say this? And I'm like, wait, I didn't say that that was Ed. But I think like with these newer accounts on other platforms, it's easier to have one account because like, if one of us is, you know, slacking, the other one can take over. We all of our businesses stemming back to, you know, selling baseball cards at 15 or together. So I think that works for us.

A (8:09)

You mentioned fake and that you're talking more on TikTok and doing live debates. Two things. And Brian, you can deal with one. Ed, you can deal with one if you want. One is how fake do you think it is? Quantifiable. How. How do you know? I'll give that to you, Brian, because you said it. And then, Ed, I want to talk to you about the value of debate because I feel like it's become more sport than anything about getting to a solution. But Brian, are you. Do you believe it's fake because it makes us feel better that people want to kill us on a regular basis or say nasty sh about you and your family or you think it is fake?

B (8:44)

No, I think a lot of it is, you know, a lot of anger out there. But there's for instance, like the fakeness of it all. Like yesterday, OpenAI rolled out Atlas, which is a AI browser. And I'm like, I'm just going to play around with this. So I, I log into Twitter or X and I go to one of my, one of my posts I make and I tell it, find 5 replies to this post from people who voted, who seem to support Donald Trump and give them a snarky fact check. And it did it, and it did it within minutes and it wasn't me. So, like, how many other people are doing this? And how many other people are going to do this? So you're going to have AIs talking to AIs and it's not even the people and that's going to influence people.

C (9:34)

So.

B (9:34)

So like, I think that part is fake. There's a lot of accounts overseas, whether it's China, Russia, you name it. And they're trying to influence American politics. They've been doing that for years, of course, but I think it's. We're seeing more and more of that, especially on Twitter, obviously on like TikTok, where you're a face and you're on video. It's not happening as, I mean, I'm guessing there's some AI content out there, but, you know, it's easy, easy to.

A (10:02)

Tell Ed, debate, I believe it's become sport. I'm watching Mehdi Hassan or Dave Smith or any of these guys, and it seems to me that they're a out clever little quips and gotchas and, you know, smart guys. Medi, I think, is far more educated than someone like a Dave Smith, but the opportunity is in gotchas and cheapness and it Seems like it's only fomented things. I, I don't see any debate as it is conceptually conceived, which is a battle of ideas, do you?

C (10:36)

No, I, I, I think you're right and I think everybody wants to be right. And even when they're not right, they want to pretend that they're right and prove themselves to be right. And I think that's a problem. People not admitting when they're wrong or people not saying, oh, you know what, I got that wrong. And I mean, that's something I try and do, you know, like if you're going to call me out on something and say that's factually incorrect, I'm going to admit it. You know, my goal isn't to spread misinformation, but I think, you know, both sides, people jump on top of whatever is going to sell the narrative that they want to sell. And I'm sure I've done it too in the past, but it's something I definitely try to avoid the best I can. I think there's different levels of connectivity, like, kind of like Brian touched on. When you're on X or Twitter, you just have that text based connection and people are more prone to misread you or think the worst possible out of what you're saying that draw the worst conclusions. And then you have, you know, when you're, you're talking to people like me and you are doing right now, I think you're much closer. And then of course in person, when you actually get to meet somebody in person, I think you understand them the best. And I think we've, as society, I think we've moved so far away from that and the extremes get to thrive because of social media and the, you know, the rage bait and the algorithms that boost that rage and push that rage bait and show you what you, they know is going to generate the most anger and generate the most conversation based on that anger.

A (12:23)

Support comes from calm. Okay? There's a lot out there telling you how to be better. All right? Better parent, better partner, better this, better that. In fact, there's so much better that it's kind of making it worse, isn't it? So for me, here's the one thing that we know. We actually don't need more in life, we need less. And one of the ways to get less, to pause, have less of a frenetic mode, less of an overwhelmed mode, is to teach yourself to reset. How? Glad you asked. Calm. The Calm app is the tool that I have been using for a while, much longer than they've been advertising. Calm is the number one app for sleep and meditation and it is here to help you feel better. And I know it works. Why? Because my wife is a certified meditation instructor and this is her world wellness. And the Calm app is one of the only things that I hear her people discuss as a tool often. How does it help? Because it gives you options. It teaches you things simply. It makes meditation a practice and a discipline more than than like some woo woo, otherworld kind of semi religious thing. It's kind of like working out. Except for your brain and for your nerves. Calm your mind, change your life. Calm has an exclusive offer just for listeners of the Chris Cuomo project. 40% off a Calm premium subscription. Okay. Com.comc a l m.com Cuomo 40% off unlimited access to Calm's entire library. Com.com Cuomo and please, please, please tell com you heard about them from me. Brian, how do you think it's going to be for the movement, let's just say, against Trump, nominally? I mean, that's really where the left is right now, where all that matters is opposition. He's an easy target. The shutdown, the state of play of who the nominal leaders are and what seems to resonate. Do you think things are going the way you want them to, Brian?

B (14:59)

You know, I think things are going better than they were, say like five months ago. But no, I mean, I don't think Democrats have their act together. I think that Democrats as a whole are like all over the place. They don't know there's too much going on and it's by design. Donald Trump, you know, every, every day there's another, you know, outrage to present us with, and the left jumps on it, but then it just fades everything else before it fades away and we forget about it. And that's been Donald Trump's M.O. since, you know, 2016. So, no, I don't think the left is handling it well. I think that what we saw with the no Kings protest, I think that that was positive in that, you know, obviously nothing came from it directly, but I think when you have a bunch of people normalizing that, hey, this is abnormal, I think it makes us realize, okay, I'm not crazy. I'm not going to let myself get gaslit into believing what's happening is, is normal and that's one positive that comes out of it. Plus, I think it brings people closer together in the community fighting against what they believe in. So I hope, as we head towards the midterms, I hope that we can get more of a voice instead of just Trump is bad. Obviously we all think that Trump is a bad president. But if we don't have actual policy initiatives and ways that we can say, hey, this is what we're going to do when we win the House, when we win the Senate, I think it's not going to be good. And I think Trump will win by distraction.

A (16:49)

Well, why? I think the mistake is, as you may or may not know, I am antagonistic of the system. The two party system, I believe is the root of the evil. The blood of the evil is Citizens United and the money. The only color that matters is not red or blue. They are the same. They run on green. And if you get rid of the green, you will bring it back to people and majorities and numbers. I actually think in a very rare occasion, Ed, your brother has actually understated the proposition. No Kings is a huge development and cause for hope because it is not socialists, it is not blue haired kids. I don't have any problem with people fighting for socialism or being blue haired kids because believe in the marketplace of ideas. Those aren't my favorite factions, but that doesn't matter. No Kings is the majority. No Kings were white, prime of life, people the same who were in maga. It is reaction to MAGA but magnified. Which is how I'm going to be describing what this is. I don't know. I don't like no Kings. That's not enough for me in terms of what the majority is about. But. But it scared the shit out of Trump. It scared the shit out of his guys because of what it wasn't. It is outrage without animus. There was no notable violence. I would have gone to the bank on Kelsey about that with everything I had in my pockets. But why? I think we got lucky. But I don't talk Democrats and I don't think you should either. Yes, you have to. That's the player in the game. But it is the game that people reject. And no Kings is proof of that. The single biggest day of protest in American history and we don't even talk about it. Why? Because there was no violence. And that's what the media was looking for. Because they get clicks off. Outrage also. Not just you guys. And that's the hope for me. There is a movement bubbling up of rejection of the few dominating the many. Now that's what gets it done for the pod bros. That's what gets it done on social media. But that's not the majority. And I think you just saw your salvation There is a movement that you guys should get to Robert Weissman and Public Citizen or you know, what Ralph Nader started in the 70s. That, that is your answer. I don't think enough can be made of it and certainly it's being underestimated. Your take, Ed?

C (19:42)

Yeah, I, I mean I have to agree and I'm with you as well on the two party system not being as successful as I think a lot of people had hoped it would be. I, you know, I wish we had ranked choice voting when it comes to the general election. The no Kings protest, you know, it is a Democrat run protest but like, like you said, I don't think it should be framed that way. It should be just be Americans against Trump, you know, against what Trump is standing for. And I expect to see more and more of these protests and probably get larger and larger as we see more because people are jumping on the bandwagon. I, I think it's huge. And like you said, Trump and his people, Vance, Republicans like Mike Johnson, they were terrified of these protests because of the fact that they had the potential to be nonviolent, which they mostly were. I think there were like maybe a dozen arrests throughout the whole country.

A (20:41)

Right. And again, I mean a lot of that, I'm telling you, I've stood in these. Okay. And as soon as you see those Guy Fawkes masks, you know, as soon as the, you know, whoever calls themselves in that moment, antifa, you know, I've always seen them as kind of like Al Qaeda, you know, I guess some of them are well intentioned, but in the main they're looking for chaos, they're looking for destruction. They're anarchic in their aims and ambitions and they're always the few and they wind up spoiling it for the many. And they almost derailed an effort to actually address what communities were desperate for in terms of reassessing policing in those areas. They want policing. Right. Everything in our politics has to be pendular. So the reaction to bad policing is defund the police. So you get equal kind of portions of stupid because that's how we keep allowing it to be. And that's how I most recently was dealing with your brother. And I don't like to do it on these social media platforms because it's all rage bait and it's not real in a way. And you gotta talk to somebody. And I get attacked by guys all the time on social media. I'm telling you, they never do it to my face and not just because I'm six'2,230 pounds of self defense injur instructor. But it's because they're. Then they're faking it on social media for effect. But your brother Ed said that he can't. I'll put it in a better way than he did. He's not going to run away from the suggestion that people who are being put upon by ICE shouldn't defend themselves against it. The suggestion was what we haven't heard since the Black Panthers, which is the man is coming. Get a weapon and get ready now. What's interesting to me is not how many people on the left are calling for this because there are not many. And it's just being done because it's provocative. But Brian, you won, by the way. You won. People were saying in the comments. My comments are flooded with. Shut up, man. ICE is all fucked up what they're doing, man. And what are we supposed to do? And this is why there is a second amendment is against a tyrannical government. I mean, look, is the irony lost that you guys now sound exactly like MAGA in the extreme? And I get the outrage, but where were you going with that?

B (23:05)

Yeah, you know, I read some of those comments to you and I'm like, ah, like, like this is so like lacking context, both from both our parts, right? Like the people replying to you and the people replying to me. So like Don, Don Lemon of course put that video out and, and he was saying that, that he presented it as American citizens because he said Mexican Americans, Guatemalan Americans should arm themselves. So I absolutely agree. I'm for protecting your home. I'm for protecting yourself. I think that.

A (23:39)

From what, Brian? What do you arm yourself from? No, not any threat. Not any threat. I have a shotgun in my house and other weapons ready to put a hole in someone who wants to hurt my family. Not police. Okay? Not a tax assessor that I think has gotten it wrong. Not a cop who has mistakenly identified my son or not an ICE agent who believes that I'm not a citizen because I don't want to give him my id. That is not why I arm myself. And that's what you endorsed.

B (24:14)

No, so, so what I was endorsing is, you know, having, having your rights. Right? Like, like the reason for the Second Amendment. At least one of the reasons for the second Amendment was to protect yourself from possible government overreach. Now if you're an American citizen, put yourself in the shoes of an American citizen or maybe somebody that. Somebody that can legally own a gun in America and you have People breaking down your door without a warrant, masked up, and you have kids in the house, will it make you feel better to have, you know, protection in your home? A gun in your home? Like, obviously, if they're ICE breaking your home, I don't think you should shoot them. But I do think that to a lot of people who are living in fear because of ice, I think having a weapon, legally having a weapon, I think, is something I would recommend, right? Like have a weapon in your house if you're afraid and afraid of what?

C (25:16)

I do want to.

A (25:17)

Brian, you know that this is. Man, listen.

B (25:20)

No, it isn't.

A (25:21)

I'm a gun owner, okay? I get that's not what he was talking about. And I know. Look, I know Don very well, okay? I don't like what he said when I got fired. I don't like that he tried to save himself by hurting me. And I'm not quiet about it to him or about him, but I wish him well. And I don't want anything bad, and I want him to be successful. But, Ed, instead, telling people ICE is doing the job the wrong way. And by the way, I would love to see proof that on any regular basis they're bashing in without warrants that they're doing the job the wrong way. The big problem is Brian doesn't know that because we're both working off anecdotes that we only get to vet a part of the time, and the big bad guy in that is government. They won't show us the data, so we can't know if we're right or not because they're not putting the data out. And we agree on that. But. But the idea that ICE may be doing it the wrong way so you should be armed, how does that lead to any good outcome? Ed?

C (26:22)

Yeah, I mean, I don't know if I agree that, you know, you should arm yourself because ICE might come into your house. I do think. I do agree with Brian in that I think people feel better, feel safer if they do, you know, have a weapon in case somebody breaks in and they don't like. What. What if somebody breaks into your home and says they're ice, but they're not, because we've seen. I just posted a video today of ICE agents in Oregon busting into this apartment building with their rifles drawn, not showing a judicial warrant, not showing any warrant, and pulling the guy out by his hair. I mean, how do you know they're ice? They say they're police, but couldn't anybody say that? So.

A (27:05)

Okay, well, hold On Let's. Ed, let's look at that for a second. Okay.

B (27:08)

Yes.

A (27:10)

We. How do you know that on a regular basis ICE is operating in ways where they are unidentified? We don't have a single case where someone posed as ICE and someone was hurt. We don't have a single case. Could it happen? Of course. We have fake cops all the time. We don't cover it because it's not sexy enough for us. But people fake being law enforcement, pull women over and rape them. It happens. Not that often, but. But we don't know that that's what ICE is doing. Could it happen? Yes. Are there good and bad reasons for that? Yes. But to use it as the premise of what ICE is, Ed, is that. Is that fair?

C (27:53)

No. I mean, I don't think that's what ICE is, but I have seen instances, like, we've seen instances of them breaking car windows, of, you know, a mother with her child in the car. And, I mean, I don't think that woman would shoot ice.

B (28:06)

Right.

C (28:07)

But at the same time, I do think it makes people feel safer or has the ability to make people feel safer if they feel more protected.

A (28:16)

You sound like MAGA now. And I came at those guys the same way. How does it make you feel safer to have a weapon in anticipation of law enforcement coming to your house?

C (28:30)

Well, I'm not saying in anticipation of law enforcement. I mean, anticipation of anybody coming into your home, sleeping with a gun in your nightstand in case somebody breaks into your home is what I'm talking about. If somebody busts into your home and, like I said, says we're the police and doesn't show a badge, doesn't show a warrant, how do you know? And I'm not saying that this is something that's prevalent going on, but it's definitely a possibility that I think we could see more of if these ICE raids keep continuing and people start getting an idea of that.

A (29:07)

Look, again, I don't think you're bad. I think you guys are part of the solution. You don't just debate for sport. And I think you rarely give as much as you get from people. And I think you're smart, and I think you care. And I actually think that's what we need a lot more of on social media. I don't really give a shit about your politics. If you guys were both Trumpers because you're businessmen and you like the deregulation and you like the tax policy and you think stuff had gotten too janky and the left is too permissive, I don't have any problem with them either. And they're in a tough spot, too, those guys, because they have to swallow all this shit to get these few things that they like. Nobody's happy, nobody's satisfied. And if they are, they're probably part of the problem. Anybody who likes anything that's happening right now on either side are probably inimical actors to what we should want in the majority. But, you know, I just, I see that everything's gonna get worse, Brian. I see more violence coming. I just did a piece where I said, you don't even know the name Chris Moynihan because the right won't talk about him. Mike Johnson puts out a perfunctory statement. The guy got pardoned for January 6th. He just threatened to kill Hakeem Jeffries and got arrested. And there are more people discussing why he shouldn't have been arrested for speech than are talking about how the violence is getting worse. We're not even worried about jihadis anymore. We're doing it to ourselves, Brian.

B (30:36)

Yeah, and like, like, this is. This is something on both sides, right? So, like, like, I saw what happened to Benny Johnson. I don't know if you follow that. Benny Johnson got a threat. Pam Bondi invited him to the White House, prosecuted, immediately prosecuted the individual that issued this death threat letter to Benny Johnson. And Benny Johnson, of course, he's right wing. Media ed gets a threat on X, a phone call, and the person says they're going to kill him and Barack Obama. And this person has not been arrested. He has, you know, he's been posting on. On social media still. So I think it's kind of like they're going after people that, you know, are threatening the right, but not the left. And of course, what happened with Chris Moynihan, I, I think that was actually a state charge that was brought against him. I don't think that was a DOJ that brought charges against him. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I think it's, it's. It's definitely something we had to worry about. And I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned for myself and my family. Just like, I think people on the right should be concerned as well. Right? Like, this is. We don't need violence. And by that post, it wasn't, you know, the post I made wasn't a call for arms against ice. A lot of what I do on X is to, you know, know, point out the hypocrisy. And a lot of times I might sound like maga. Because I want to show them, okay, like if this was, you know, if this was a white person or, you know, a non immigrant or a non, you know, an American born citizen that we were talking about, you all would likely be agreeing with me. You would be agreeing that you need to. The whole point of the second amendment is to, you know, have protection from the government. And, and if, you know, say Biden was breaking into American citizens homes with a police agency that he federalized and threatening them, you'd be saying the same thing.

A (32:38)

Well, it is a federal agency. It's not a police agency he federalized. You're talking about. You're confusing the National Guard with ice. ICE is a federal agency. And again, I think you're exaggerating. And again, I don't like how ICE is doing its job. This is the problem with our dynamic is that if I'm not ISIS the Gestapo, all of a sudden I'm pro authoritarianism. This is the problem. And the reason that it's a problem is because it's a convenience. And the reason it's a convenience is it's how you get traction on social media. Because it's what the algorithms amplify and reward. And nuance is dying and context is dying. And that's why reasonableness is dying. Except everywhere else in society, because our politics is allowed to exist within a thunderdome hellscape that no other dynamic. When you're dealing with your wives, with your kids, with your business relations with your friends. The rules that we apply here apply to none of those places. Otherwise you'd be alone in a closet and you'd still be a gun owner, but it would be in your mouth because you'd be about to kill yourself because nothing in your life was working. So. So I get why. But ICE is not a federalized anything. They are federal. And in terms of jurisdiction. Who arrested them? New York State, bci. Who are they working with? The federal jttf. The Joint Terrorism Task Force. Why? Because when you go after the minority leader of Congress, you got a federal problem on your hands. He was arrested by New York because that's where they got him. So it was worked in concert. Because making a terroristic threat is a state and federal crime. Who will take the lead? Probably the Fed, because it was Hakeem. And what's the difference between this asshole that you guys are dealing with on social media and this asshole that they just arrested? The difference is investigators having it on their radar. True, but the reasonableness in their mind mind that this guy or this person. One means it to threaten an outcome and two, reasonably the threat should be taken seriously because of the specificity. So I think someone should whack Ed. No. I'll tell you what, man, if I were going to go to that rally next week and I saw Brian, I'd punch him in the face. No, Ed is at a rally next week. I'm taking him out. I have to, for the future, maybe. Take a look at me. Who am I? What's the context? What else can they find? Yes, the frustration is, Brian, you gotta look first. And they're not looking at the guy you're talking about. I get that. Why? A hundred reasons. Some of them good, some of them bad. But the idea that you can't punish speech, you can. We just have a very high bar because jurisprudentially we have decided to protect more and more speech over time. Which I'm okay with until we get to social media, because I see. I think Section 230 has been abused and is part of our problem. But the solution I don't believe is debate on Twitter or even on TikTok. I think it is enforcing social media to have to account for their algorithms because they are publishers. They don't write what Ed writes, they don't write what Brian writes. That's true, but News Nation doesn't write my copy. They have no idea what's going to come out of my big nose until I say it on the show at night. But they don't amplify it the way social media does. They don't decide who gets to see it the way social media does. They don't selectively take pieces of it and use it because it works better with ads the way social media does. So I would argue that social media is a publisher under the law even more than a publisher is at a newspaper. But nobody wants to change it. Why? They have the money. And let's be honest, it's working for us. There are people who have figured out how to use it and make money and be part of that hellscape successfully. And it's the same problem we have with money and politics and with the parties. It works for the people in power. Everybody in power is in a party. So they don't want to change the parties. They just want to complain about the other one. How do we fix brother others?

C (37:09)

How do we fix maybe custom algorithms where people have more customizations over what they see. Rather than the social media companies telling you what you want to see. Let users choose and have filters and filter out what they want to see. But then do we just put ourselves in more of an echo chamber? I don't know. And is that bad? I would argue that putting yourself in an echo chamber isn't healthy for society. So, I mean, I don't really know what the answers are. I, I think more in person conversations, but I don't. With AI and automation, I don't necessarily think that that's the direction that society is going in.

B (37:53)

Well, I, I think also, like, you look at what's stemming it all and money, obviously, right? So like social media is monetized. Everybody that's putting out, you know, whatever they're putting out, they, they're being monetized, they're making money and they're making money on, on outrage mostly. So like, not only the algorithm should the algorithms change to push forward, you know, more positive stories. Obviously that's not going to work for somebody like X or Facebook or Meta, you know, because you're going to, they're not going to make as much money. But what if you went to the creators and the creators can't monetize content that is, you know, outrageous or too divisive? Something like that would work if you started monetizing more of the content that, you know, brings people together than the content that tears them apart. But no business is going to want to do that because it's money out of their pocket as well. Because if they get less, if you're getting less views on a whole, then you're going to sell less advertising. So I don't know. I think it all comes down to money. And right now, now there isn't a real solution that I think would work. I, I think there's a lot of project that, like what you're doing. Like, like, I think what you do is so refreshing because you do kind. I'm not saying you take the middle road, but you hear both sides.

A (39:17)

It's getting me killed, Brian. It's getting me killed. Well, no, I mean literally my numbers are dropping now. Look, I can do it. Why? Because I'm not you guys and I'm, I'm not Don. And not just because I'm physically superior and I would take all three of you and make you into a. But because I have a TV show every night and I have an audience that over samples, independent. And that shit is true, by the way. And I'm old, okay? So I have an advantage. I am 55. I've been doing this 25 years, okay? And I know, I know I don't think, I don't suspect. I don't believe. I know. Oh, the parties are the problem and the money in that game. Okay. If I had a magic wand, I would wave it. Erase Citizens United and have the money taken out of politics. Have tax dollars and tax dollars only allowed in campaigns. And we would figure out something to deal with the incumbency effect because obviously there's an advantage in that. I would have. And then it would lead to systemic changes. Gerrymander. That shouldn't be done state by state. It should be done by an independent panel that is nonpartisan and constantly vetted and changed. And all of the recommendations must be made public and debated. And Congress shouldn't even have the fucking sign off. That's the only thing that makes sense. But that only makes sense if you don't want to reward the parties. I know that independence ts are the hope for the future. I know doing what George Carlin tried so long and so hard and so brilliantly that they're beating you bullshit and division because it's easy for them to get what they want. And you have to be a free agent and a critical thinker. You gotta do it the hard way. You have to. Just like you do in your business, just like you do in your marriage, just like you do in your parenting and in your friendships. You don't say to one of your boys when they call you up with a stupid man, you sound like a fucking asshole. This is stupid. You deserve all this bad shit that's happening to you. Fuck yourself. You don't say that because you care about them and you're gonna try and help them through it. You're gonna wrestle and it's gonna bring you back. We have. I know what is going to be better for us. And it's not virtue signaling. And I am on TV every night so I don't have to just build my independent platform. If I had to, I know exactly what I would do. Here's what I would do. You ready? I have plan A and plan B for two brothers. You guys can pick which one I take. Here's plan B. No. Kings is everything. The time has come. The many must rise up and attack the few. This is who we are about. This is how America was born. Trump has become everything England was back then and worse. And we must oppose on every level. This is a bloody place that only understands violence. And we, we understand violence too. And you will not come at us and think that you are going to find a passive victim. I'm coming for you. And I'm coming for Trump and his guys every night. And I'm going to speak the language of violence. You think you're tougher than me? You want a piece of this? Come and find me. This will be easy. Let's have Dana White set it up. I will put the crown of my head through your face and then I'll beat you at the polls as well. And I'm going to attack everybody, everybody, all the time, full on, with righteous indignation, because I am the lion of the left. That is plan A. Plan B is, I gotta tell you, you don't want there to be a difference between male and female. You lost me. You're crazy. You people and you are the problem with freedom. And we need norms and we need God and we need him back and we need him in big ways. This country was started by Christians, it was built by Christians, it was meant for Christians. We'll tolerate the rest of, because that's better for everybody. But let's not forget who we are and let's not forget what we're about and let's see things for what they are. Because all you minorities, you're killing us. Israel, you fucking bought us off. You own everything that matters. You're worse than the Chinese. And you know we get what you're doing and we're going to stop it. And by the way, I mentioned the Chinese, all these outside agents, all these agencies, all these countries, you either do what we want or we'll fucking blow you up, man. That's, that's who we are. That's what we're about. I'm putting money into the military. I'm gonna start putting military all over this fucking country, all over the world. Cuz that's the only real part of me you need to see, is when I call you and I want to do something, you're gonna do it or I'm never gonna help you. And I'm probably gonna hurt you at some point. And here at home, the parties have become a burden. The President was always meant to have all the power. Everybody knows it. They wanted to make Washington a king. You guys are saying no kings. They asked him to be king, he said no. Mostly because he was fuck and didn't want to leave Mount Vernon and do all that shit. He wanted to get back to it. So Trump is right. Trump is right about everything. He always has been. Because it's simple. It's simple. You got to give power to the people who know how to use it. And I've been in this game A long time. I've seen it done right, and I've seen it done wrong. And we've never seen anybody do more than what he's doing right now. And everything that you guys complain about, you're wrong. These people are here illegally. They're killing us, they're changing us, they're poisoning our blood, and they have to go. And if you don't like it, you're part of the problem, because you want to use them to drown me out. And it's not going to happen, my Jewish friends, because I know how you guys manipulate everything. That's plan B, and that's what Tucker's doing, and he's blowing up. And plan A is what, you know, Don and some of the other people are kind of playing with. I don't believe Don has it in him to be malignant. I don't. Tucker. I don't know these other guys. I don't know him. I know better. Much better. That's plan A and plan B, both ways. Cuomo blows up, and you know it. You're talking about me all the time, and my numbers are huge and my revenue is huge and my power is huge. Which should I do?

C (45:36)

I would say stay with plan C.

A (45:39)

What you're doing right now, which is. Which is the only thing I can live with. It's the only thing I can live with, which is, I know we're better than this. And I know it's not being rewarded, and I know it's frustrated and frustrating, and I know it's making you want to quit on all of this and just give up. But that's why I do what I do. And it's not because I'm better than anything else. It's just that I know what's worse, that's all. And it's really frustrating for me to not have the platform I had when I was at cnn. Although I often think if I were still at cnn, I don't know that I'd be in better shape right now. I mean, I'd have a bigger audience, nominally, but I think I'd be constantly targeted. No matter what I was saying. I think one side would be kicking me in the nuts every night. And I think that that's my. Why I'm drawn to you guys is that I. And I know even this will get me beaten up. I don't give a. I see a wholesomeness in you cats. Maybe it's because you're brothers. Maybe it's because I know where you come from and I know what you're about as, as a family, like in terms of your fabric. And I identify with it, you know, as kind of like one off ethnics, you know, as Jews and Italians kind of thing, even though we're all white guys. But I believe you're coming from a right place. Doesn't mean you're going to get it right all the time. How can you. There's too much of a demand on you for prot. Productivity to get it right all the time, you know, in the way that you want to. I just wonder if we, if we can end on an idea. Brian.

B (47:02)

Ed.

A (47:02)

Brian first. Do you think we see worse before we any. See anything approximating better?

B (47:09)

I. I think we probably will. I think the next couple of years are going to be tough, but I don't think you can discount what you're doing as a, as a failure of any sort because I do think, think that the majority of people want or they. They reside where you are right now. Like there's probably 80% of Americans who think like you do. Who, you know, you. You can see why the right might think these things, you can see why the left might think these things. But you understand that, you know, like, we just disagree with the way you get to the end goals. And I think if you keep doing what you're doing, I honestly feel that you're going to appeal to people. People are going to get tired of what's going on. People are going to get tired of, you know, the, the outreach. I think that the. Just the hate and they're going to come home to where they, where they feel comfortable. And I feel that's somewhere in the middle. I really do.

A (48:09)

Middle is a shitty word. Middle sucks. And you never want to be in the middle of a fight, right? Because only one thing's going to happen if you're in the middle of the fight. You're going to get hit twice. I don't know the right language. I really don't. And I'll tell you what, I have a decent facility with it. But Ed, I. It's not middle, it's not center. I play, you know, on the show, I say right and left come to be reasonable and I say it that way because I want to take a shot at right and left. I hate the so sides because it's artificial and people fall back on tradition. You know what another tradition is? We have being fat. You know what I mean? Not being educated enough, not being advocates for our own cause, enough inequities that could be much better than they are. But we. We just would rather deal with problems than solutions because it's easier only in politics. Again, God forbid there's a little drip, drip, drip from the roof, okay? And it scares your little cat. I saw that cat, Ed. And yes, it's a violation of man law, but the. And there's a little drip, drip, drip. You're going to call a roof guy, right? Because you know who's getting up there. You're only going to hurt yourself. The roof guy says, yeah, here's what it is. I'm going to do this, this, and this, and it's going to cost this. And you're like, well, that's a lot of money. And what you're saying doesn't even really make sense. And I feel like you're blaming me for the roof leaking. And he's like, yeah, but let me tell you something. The other. The guy on the other side of town, he's even worse. The idea that that's what's going to pass for you saying, oh, well, shit, okay, good, fine. Go ahead and fix it. Zero chance. Chance, zero chance your kid comes home and says, hey, dad, here you go. I got a 71. You're like 71. Oh, but my. My friend got a 68. Oh, I had no idea. We're good here.

B (49:51)

Go.

A (49:52)

Go play. Go play with your phone. Never happens. Never happens. Only in our politics do we allow it. And I think with the help of your brother Brian, now telling everybody, you know, to be the New Black Panthers and arm themselves to the teeth and take on the man. I mean, you know, I just feel like we're going to see more violence because it doesn't seem like really rejecting it. Every time they reject it, Brian. Ed, they do it in perfunctory fashion, right? If Brian punches me in the face and I say, ed, what do you think about what your brother did? Your response is, we completely denounce in all forms any violence in our politics. There is no place for that. You know, we say the minimum so that it's not on us. And I think that's why there's gonna be more.

B (50:37)

Yeah.

C (50:38)

And I. I think that. I think it's important to denounce violence, but at the same time, denounc. It only goes so far. I think Brian's warning, or whatever you want to call his post.

B (50:52)

I think.

C (50:53)

It can act as a warning. If you went back two years and you said, hey, in two years from now, we're going to see innocent people who are living legally in America sent to a prison in El Salvador and stuck there for four months without any contact outside the prison, you probably would say, no, that wouldn't happen in America. If you say, said, oh, there's probably going to be boats blown up off the coast of Colombia, off the coast of Venezuela, and we're not going to see any evidence as Americans what crimes these people are actually committing, I think you'd say that wouldn't happen in America. So I, I think there is an importance in a way to warning people, like, we can't let things get this far. I think, Brian, maybe he could have went about doing that in a different way, but I still think it's important to say this could happen in America, even though you don't think it could happen now. Stuff like this can happen. It's happened in other places. It doesn't happen overnight. But over time, the democracy in these countries, the justice system in the country can start eroding away.

A (52:07)

You think you guys win the midterms, Brian?

B (52:10)

You know, will they win the House and the Senate? Probably not. I think they can win, you know, the House at least. I hope. I think that if things keep going the way they are, and it's going to have a lot to do with the economy. How, how is the economy doing in, you know, late next year? But I think there's, like we saw in 2020, I think Democrats will turn out this time, regardless of, of, you know, who's running. I think that they're gonna vote, and I don't think that. I don't think that the, the Trump supporters I've been speaking to, like, in these conversations I've been having, they, you know, like, when I first started, like, six months ago, it was everything they agree with everything Trump. Trump said, everything Trump did. And now it's like, well, I voted for him, but, and, and I support him, but I don't like this, this and this. And like, I did vote for Trump, but I, I think that some of the things he's doing is, you know, it is bordering on something that, you know, a fascist would do. So I, I do think that there's going to be more turnout for, for Democrats, less turnout for Republicans, unless something changes or unless the economy does.

A (53:22)

Well, it depends what you offer him, Brian. Because, Ed, look again, I mean, the research is, Is easy to find. I was one of the first to bring Bernie into the presidential conversation. Conversation, not because I thought he should be president, but because I believe in the marketplace of ideas. And I think populism has to be encouraged. Okay, what kind of populism all right, that's a different discussion. Not Christian nationalism is populism. But, you know, I, I, I think that we got to do better than we're doing right now with how things with the ratio of have too much to don't have enough. And I, I think that that's okay, that you have to do better. But if what they're offering as an alternative to Trump is aoc, Bernie, free everything, socialism, blow up the system, I don't know that that captures the majority. And I think I'm being charitable when I say it that way. Might it beat my brother in New York City? Yeah. Why? Because the grievance is real, just like it was with maga. Affordability is a fucking problem, and it's getting worse with no help from the tariff. So they are right about what's wrong. The trick is, can you also be wrong about how to make it right? That, I believe, is a criticism of the movement here in New York City, but also on the national level. I don't think Bernie and AOC have the best solutions, but they are milking the right grievance. What do you think of that analysis, Ed?

C (54:53)

No, I agree 100%. I think the Democratic socialists can work in certain segments of America, like New York City, for example, but I don't think it works overall. I don't think The Bernie's and AOCs are the ones who will lead the party in 2026 or 2028. I think what leads the party is showing a willingness to fight back against Trump when it comes to 2026. I think the reason why Democrats approval ratings are so terrible right now is because they really have no ability to fight back, at least when it comes to Congress. But you do see people like Newsom. His approval ratings are going up since he started fighting back against Trump. Since he started.

B (55:40)

You know, I don't, you could say.

C (55:42)

He'S like, mimicking Trump in a lot of ways. I think the fact that he's fighting back has been beneficial to him.

A (55:49)

How is it fighting back to write stupid tweets? It's such a false muscularity to me. You're right, Ed, by the way. You're right, you're right. But I don't like it.

C (55:59)

Well, I'm not referring to that as fighting back. I'm referring more to, you know, fighting back against Trump's National Guard, fighting back against some of the other things he's tried to do in California.

A (56:09)

I get it. I think, I think you're right. I don't like how he's doing it. I'll tell you, you know, who's getting the most track. This is so fucked up. And it's just the last thought for you guys to, to kind of figure out in your own way as, as we go forward. And thank you for doing this and I hope it's the first of many conversations here and at News Nation. But Josh Shapiro, now he does have this Netflix series or Hulu series that's out right now about Ellen Greenberg. And that case doesn't make any sense. I don't know how anybody commits suicide by stabbing themselves in the back that many times. And Shapiro's gonna have to deal with that, probably because of how the media will use it. But Shapiro has the best numbers because he is doing the least. It's so interesting, Brian. I'm not saying doing any, the least as governor of Pennsylvania, but his numbers in Pennsylv Penia are way better than Newsom's in California. And I don't think it's because California sucks. I mean, they're one of the biggest net contributors to the American economy if they are the biggest of any state. But it's because he stays out of the good versus evil Trump versus anti Trump stuff right now. And what is the lesson in that, Brian?

B (57:27)

Well, I mean, if you go back to Hillary Clinton in 2016, what did the Republicans have to their advantage? They knew she was going to run for three years, right. She put herself out there. There was a lot of material they could use against her. I think the same thing that, but opposite with Shapiro, right. If he remains quiet, he kind of sneaks in there. They have, they don't really have any material to attack him with. They don't even have him as much on their radar as they have someone like Newsom. Right. And I think that can sneak, he can sneak his way in. And I actually think that's probably part of his strategy is you just, you know, keep his head down, keep doing what's what he wants to do in Pennsylvania and not, not worry about the national stuff until, you know, a year, year and a half out.

A (58:17)

So anything you guys would like to let me know about why I bother you before I let you go? Or do you just want to save it for Twitter? Like the little pussies? You are keyboard warriors.

B (58:30)

You know, like, like I think that when we look to 2028, it's, it's going to be, you know, it's going to be all about, you know, economics. It's going to be about the income inequality. It's Going to be about the billionaires, you know, continuing raking all this money probably by 2028, with a lot of help by automation and AI and robotics and what's that? AI and robotics and do. It's going to mean that people like, you know, everyday Americans in the lower and middle classes, they're going to lose jobs. So I think that the politician who can really jump on that and dive into, like, how, how these people are feeling in the bottom 30, 40% and then present that versus how Elon Musk is worth $500 billion, Larry Ellison's worth $400 billion. Controlling AI and only going to get wealthier. I think that's a winning strategy.

A (59:28)

Yes. Not. Not rich is bad because that's the American dream, right? Not that the wealthy, you know, not the kill the wealthy, which is where AOC is when she's not going to the Met Gala or, you know, when she's not out with her fancy friends that she doesn't want you guys to know she has. Same thing with Bernie with his multiple houses and the wife making the money instead of him, you know, Pelosi. It's all this same shit. And that's why people rejected the whole culture. And that wound up getting us to an even worse place. Because once you rejected what it was supposed to be, you opened the door wide open to basically poisoning it to try to. It's like chemotherapy, you know, it's like we're like trying to kill a big part of the body and hoping that what regenerates is a better part. I don't like that strategy with cancer any more than I do with our politics. But I. But I do know this. I'm not into debate so much. I think it's too easy. I think it's a substitute for conversation. But I do believe that conversation is the cure. Not just because it's alliterative, but people agree on a lot more than they disagree. They're just directed towards the disagreement because it's how people get paid and how they get power. So I appreciate you guys one for saying yes to coming on. And I hope that we can, individually and together, keep having conversations on any of my platforms. And I'm always an invitation, invitation away for you guys to talk about whatever it is. I wish you both well. I hope your families stay safe and I hope you stay effective.

C (60:56)

You too. And conversation's key, for sure.

A (60:59)

Absolutely.

C (60:59)

Yeah.

B (60:59)

Thanks, Chris.

A (61:00)

Do you think that I could take you both at once, by the way?

C (61:04)

Probably not.

A (61:05)

Do you know how to probably weigh?

B (61:06)

You probably Way more than both of us combined.

A (61:09)

But did you just make a fat joke? I'll cancel you. I'll get you canceled.

B (61:12)

Brian, you have some muscles.

C (61:15)

You said 2:30, so you're not quite. Yeah, not quite two of us.

A (61:18)

I said 230 because I haven't eaten yet today and I just got off the red eye. Once I rehydrate, forget it. I'm like, I'm like, I've turned into. I was a defensive back, I turned into a tackle. That's what happens. I'm the ghost of Christmas future, fellas. Keep the calories low and the step count high. Listen to me, because that makes sense. So you don't. So you don't become me, fellas. Continued success. I'm happy to see it. I'm here for it and I hope we continue it. Take care, brothers.

C (61:45)

Yeah, thanks.

B (61:45)

Appreciate it.

A (61:50)

So the difficult part, part of our analysis is that while the brothers and I agree and disagree to a matter of degree, it's how do you know what's working and what isn't? And that's why I like the partnership with Kalshee. Kalshee is at the top of the game of betting, period. But betting on our politics. And I think it creates a really nice look at how people are really willing to bet on their feelings about politics. So here's how it stands right now on a couple of relevant questions. Given that the, hey, you should arm yourself against that tyrannical state. Kalshee has a market on that. Will Trump establish nationwide concealed carry? Don't love the question because I think it's baiting people to have feelings about Trump, but it's going to be Congress if they do it. But would the left saying arm yourself against ice, might that provoke something like what we saw in the 60s with the black Panthers as we discussed, and reaction formation to that which is really resisting it? Interesting question. No, 97%. Why? I think it's because Congress will never pass it. I mean that, that's why, because you get a straight line party vote in the composition of the Congress as it stands right now in the House, but in the Senate, you'd Never get the 60 day encloure and get yourself a vote. So the no is the smart money on this. Now here's why I'll make the case to bet yes. 9 cents is cheap and it's trending down in terms of people thinking there's even less chance that he does this. I think if we have a single incident where someone on the left has armed themselves and takes a shot at or even has a weapon when ICE comes to do their job, rightly or wrongly, this is going to pop up. So actually, there's some money to be found in this bet. That's what I say. Now, here's another one that I think is a trickier call. In fact, I would have made an argument that we've already learned the outcome of this bet, which is, will Trump invoke the Insurrection act during his presidency? When else is going to do it? Not during his presidency. But, okay, form of question aside, I'm nitpicky, I think, like he already has, you know, I mean, that's what he's trying to do to justify the National Guard. That's part of their lawsuit. Lawsuit, and obviously they are. So let's see how they define it. If the president has invoked the Insurrection act to deploy by January 20, 2029, I mean, again, I think he already has, but obviously they're saying that he hasn't. And they're saying a 68% chance that he will. I think that's cheap. I think he will. Absolutely. If he hasn't already invoke it. I'd go higher on it, but Here it says 68% chance. 68% chance that he invokes it. Now, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Depends. If he does it to justify sending the National Guard around to let ICE do things in a way they shouldn't, or in some kind of, you know, masquerade, some kind of ruse that they help with crime reduction in any real way, well, then you have a problem with them using it. If he uses it to break down on domestic terrorists, who really just political opponents and are not terrorists, that's bad. But if he uses it to break down on political violence, if forwarded by organizations who are determined to take down the United States democracy as we understand it, well, then that's a different thing. Do I see that one happening? Well, not if the group's on the right. Unless the right suddenly decides to not like him or that particular group, then he might. But I think the smart money here is, as Kalshee suggest, that 7030 he will invoke it to substantiate the moves that he's made already with the National Guard. So that's where the smart money is of people who want to put their money where their mouths are, which I think Kelshi should use as a branding idea, by the way. You can have it for free as long as you keep working with me. I think that these questions are interesting because they are bellwether events in our society. Concealed carry. Look, I think it should be open carry, if anything. Now, why? The theory is concealed carry means I don't know if you have one or not. So I'm going to be a little bit more careful with you. I think open carry sends the message and takes the risk out of it in terms of that level of threat assessment. The real risk is just because you have a weapon does not mean you're going to be able to effectively use it. And more often than not, that is not the case. We have a culture of ownership, but not necessarily of practice in our society. But I think it's interesting because as the talk of violence and manifestation of violence in our politics increases, you're gonna be hearing lots more about the instruments of violence. And this president is proving to be very capable and willing and insistent upon using anything that anyone can suggest to him to do what he wants. So that will create some interesting betting activity as well. But more importantly, it is just all poison to our politics. If you are about getting to a better place, which I am, you can recognize what's wrong, you can fight against it. How you fight against it matters, and why you're fighting against it matters. If you're just doing it for advantage, to show your side is better, then you're no better than what's making us worse. I believe we got to get to a better place, and I believe we can. So thank you for subscribing and following and checking me out on News Nation at 8pm 11pm Eastern every weekday night. Let's get after it.