2 Liberals vs. 1 Conservative: BAR FIGHT | Michael Knowles, Adam Mockler, Loren Piretra

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Michael Knowles Show

Episode: 2 Liberals vs. 1 Conservative: BAR FIGHT
Host: The Daily Wire (Michael Knowles)
Guests: Adam Mockler, Loren Perretra
Date: January 17, 2026

---

Overview

This high-energy Bar Fight edition of The Michael Knowles Show features Michael Knowles moderating a live, unscripted, and often combative debate between two liberals (Adam Mockler and Loren Perretra) and himself, the lone conservative. The format involves rapid-fire arguments over hot-button topics—abortion, immigration enforcement, and US intervention in Venezuela—followed by live audience Q&A and comedic interludes. Throughout, the conversation is lively, irreverent, and punctuated by pointed barbs, memorable soundbites, and genuine ideological clashes.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Pro-Life Politics: Saving Babies vs. Controlling Women’s Bodies

[00:31 - 19:00]

• Topic Introduction: Lauren claims, “Pro-life politics are really just pro-controlling women’s bodies. Let’s be real.” [02:33]
• Liberal Arguments:
  • Conservatives only care about restricting women; they don’t support funding for childcare or better systems for children already born.
  • Adam: “Donald Trump cut SNAP benefits, Medicaid. He’s actually taking food out of children’s mouths.” [02:55]
  • Lauren challenges: “Name one pro-life politician that is riding for childcare.” [03:04]
• Conservative Counterpoints:
  • Michael refutes federal aid claims and emphasizes the pro-life goal is to prevent killing “innocent babies in the womb or out of the womb.” [07:15]
  • He draws analogies to seatbelt and vaccine laws in terms of bodily autonomy vs. societal protection.
• Debate on When Life Begins:
  • Michael: “By definition, at conception.” [06:00]
  • Adam argues protection should be based on consciousness, citing studies about fetal awareness around 20–24 weeks. [09:25]
  • Michael challenges this with an analogy to people in comas.
• Memorable Exchange:
  • Lauren: “If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. I’m not in your bathroom following your… I don’t even think about any of you guys having sex.” [18:39]

Audience Q&A Highlights

• Abortion vs. Holocaust Analogy: Audience member presses Michael: “If you think abortion is morally equivalent to the Holocaust… is violence against abortion doctors justified?” [11:19]
  • Michael says vigilantism is not justified, despite moral comparison, due to necessity of civil order: “Different rules apply during times of war than times of peace.” [12:32]
• Question on ‘Controlling Women’s Bodies’:
  • Gregory: “Isn’t it about providing a safe way for life to be brought into the world?” Lauren pivots: “What is safety for a baby... if the mother is not in a position economically to provide that?” [14:26]
  • Michael asks Lauren if she would support abortion bans if infinite welfare were provided. She says “No,” proving to Michael it isn’t just about social support. [15:46]
• On Minimizing Abortions:
  • Adam: “Everybody should be in favor of minimizing abortions… but conservatives cut sex education, which increases teen pregnancies.” [17:38]
  • Lauren: “I do not give a single what other people do with their bodies.” [17:10]

---

2. Minneapolis ICE Agent Shooting: “Did Nothing Wrong?”

[21:26 - 44:34]

• Michael’s Position: The ICE agent was following the law and acted in justified self-defense after being hit by a car. “If you hit a cop with a car? Yes, that’s a death sentence.” [27:29]
• Adam & Lauren’s Response:
  • Adam questions if the shooting was proportionate: “Self-defense requires the officer to act reasonably and use a proportionate amount of force… it was not proportionate.” [27:58]
  • Lauren: “Small-town high school dropouts wanting to terrorize immigrant communities… If you want a job where you can go terrorize, ICE is for you.” [34:49]
• Argument Over Video Evidence:
  • Disagreement about whether the agent was knocked down (“He was not flat on the ground,” Michael concedes [40:04]) or whether being brushed/struck justified four gunshots.
  • Repeated debate over reverse gear—“Why did she reverse her car before…?” [28:43]
• Wider Critique of ICE:
  • Adam and Lauren denounce “optically brutal” ICE raids, citing cracked ribs of citizens, deportation without due process, and undertrained agents.
  • Michael: “The problem was created by those who allowed the millions of illegals to come in. Now Trump’s cleaning up the problem.” [34:16]
  • Michael admits ICE hiring a “liberal pot smoking lady” was a mistake, but cannot name incidents of wrongful violence. [36:25]

Audience & Panel Banter

• Gregory raises due process: “Are illegal immigrants entitled to legal representation?” Debate follows over constitutional guarantees and practical legal protections. [37:04]
• Banter escalates: Whitfield, audience VIP, shares a personal near-hit-by-car story and offers comic relief: “I had to contemplate am I gonna shoot this black chick or not? As a 6 foot 4 white guy...” [41:13]
• Lauren quips: “If women pulled a gun every time they felt unsafe, none of you would be here except for Adam.” [42:30]

---

3. US Strike on Venezuela: “As American as Taco Bell”

[46:00 - 73:08]

• Michael’s Assertion: America intervening in Venezuela is “as American as apple pie.” Historical context: “We have intervened 88 times in Latin America since 1846… It was awesome, it did the Founding Fathers proud.” [47:25]
• Adam’s Critique:
  • Asserts most regime change efforts fail, causing more harm than good: “You regret eating Taco Bell the next day. Most regime changes are regretful at some point.” [48:20]
  • Accuses Trump of focusing too much on foreign intervention, not domestic priorities: “I want America to put Americans first, and Trump is prioritizing foreign policy.” [49:59]
  • Argues that pillaging Venezuelan oil serves corporate interests, not citizens: “It’s helping oil execs. None of them know your name.” [52:36]
• Debate Over Morality and Pragmatism:
  • Michael: The intervention removed US enemies and protected American interests.
  • Adam: “You guys have no morals. You voted for no new wars, and now you’re open to prolonging wars with Venezuela.” [54:13]
• International Law Question:
  • Adam supports Congressional authorization for military force, regardless of president. “We don’t want presidents to unilaterally strike… would you be okay if Trump authorized a strike on Greenland?” [65:16]
  • Michael: “I will become the most Dick Cheney neocon. I want F35s flying over, nuke baby!” (joking about Greenland) [65:16]
  • Both agree US military might, not “international law,” is the real enforcer.
• Florence, audience member: Raises the strategic necessity of oil and fighting China/Russia in the hemisphere. “America creates light oil… when you have China, Russia… taking over Guyana, do you think as leaders of the free world, we should not intervene and take over Venezuela?” [70:13]
  • Adam: “We survived for 70 years without doing that, and regime change usually backfires.” [70:25]
  • Michael: “Well, over last 70 years, we’ve overthrown a lot of regimes… we’ll keep doing great.” [72:26]

---

4. Quickfire: Trans Issues & The Supreme Court

[74:22 - 81:54]

• Transgender Rights Focus: Prompted by Gregory, discussion shifts to whether states can ban “boys who identify as girls” from women’s sports.
• Adam and Whitfield debate gender vs. sex:
  • Adam: “Gender is defined as social characteristics. Sex is your genitals… 99% of the time sex and gender overlap, but in this 0.5% exception, people can transition.” [77:07]
  • Michael: “If you’re a man who wants to put on a dress, you shouldn’t. You should bring your gender expression into line with your biology.” [79:47]
  • Whitfield: “You’re decoupling gender expression from sex.” [78:11]
• **Lauren: Critiques focus on children’s sports and keeps pushing for autonomy and factual rigor.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Michael Knowles [09:02]: “You don’t want to murder your wife, don’t murder your wife. But surely you would outlaw murder…”
• Lauren Perretra [15:00]: “If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. I’m not in your bathroom following your…”
• Adam Mockler [02:55]: “Donald Trump cut SNAP benefits, Medicaid. He’s actually taking food out of children’s mouths.”
• Michael Knowles [27:29]: “If you hit a cop with a car? Yes, that’s a death sentence. You’re shot and you deserve it.”
• Lauren [34:49]: “If you want a job where you can go terrorize elementary school students and pepper spray them, ICE is for you.”
• Michael Knowles [47:25]: “[The Venezuela strike] did the Founding Fathers proud, and it’s very, very American.”
• Adam Mockler [49:59]: “Most regime changes are regretful at some point… Trump is prioritizing foreign countries over inflation or healthcare.”
• Laurie audience member [56:06]: “If you use less ad hominem attacks and go after people’s character, we’ll all take you a lot more seriously.”
• Michael Knowles [65:16] (joking): “I want F35s flying over [Greenland], nuke baby! I want them to greet us as liberators from their Danish overlords.”
• Lauren [42:30]: “If women pulled a gun every time they felt unsafe, none of you would be here except for Adam.”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:31–19:00 — Abortion, bodily autonomy, when life begins, audience Q&A
• 21:26–44:34 — Minneapolis ICE shooting, debate over facts, ICE accountability
• 46:00–73:08 — US strike on Venezuela, foreign intervention, oil and geopolitics, international law
• 74:22–81:54 — Trans issues, sex vs. gender, women’s sports and policy

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is dynamic, sharp-tongued, often sarcastic, and combative but interspersed with humor and real attempts to dig into underlying ideological differences. Michael Knowles maintains his dry wit; Adam Mockler plays the data-driven moderate liberal; Loren Perretra is acerbic and quick to challenge conservative assumptions.

---

Conclusion

The Bar Fight format thrives on the clash of deeply entrenched viewpoints, live interruptions, and audience engagement. The debate exposes core fissures between left and right over abortion, law enforcement, immigration, and US foreign policy—and the panelists are not afraid to call each other out (“You guys have no morals!”/“You don’t care about babies!”). Through all the arguments, the show exhibits exactly the kind of messy, unfiltered, and provocative political theater its title promises.

Endnote: “In my opinion, no one wins a bar fight. There are only losers. So, the real question is, who lost tonight?” — Michael Knowles [81:42]

Transcript

[Michael]

Did she hit him with her car? And the same yes.

[Adam]

People driving out of the Walmart parking lot.

[Lauren]

I don't support violence, but some of you guys have never had your ass kicked, and it really shows.

[Whitfield]

Listen, I've almost gotten hit by a deranged retail.

[Lauren]

You guys are, like, yee haw for, like, not feeding babies.

[Michael]

All right, welcome, everybody, to Bar Fight. I'm delighted to be joined by our two esteemed guests, including our first ever returning fighter. He's dusted himself off. Adam Mochler.

[Adam]

You guys are quite literally taking an 8020 position on this because they've been.

[Michael]

Lied to about what happened.

[Lauren]

If you want a job where you can go terrorize ice is for you.

[Michael]

Our second guest, marketing an influencer sensation. Least necessary she her pronouns in her bio. It's Lauren Perretra. Here's how it works. We'll be debating two of the three most controversial topics of our day. The bell rings, we duke it out for that round, and then our friends in the crowd can come up to the microphones and pick a fight with any of us. But do not wait, because there is a time limit for each round, and anyone who comes up to the mic can win special prizes and a seat at our VIP table sponsored by Redneck Riviera Whiskey. Lady and gentlemen, are you ready? I'm ready. It's time for round one. Yeah. Okay, now, I have all the topics here that everyone picked, and I'm gonna try to make it so you don't know. Picked white. I might rephrase it a little bit. First one. The ice agent in Minneapolis did nothing wrong. That one's gonna win, I bet. Okay, hold on. We got some more you can pick from. Trump is not corrupt at all.

[Lauren]

Sounds like that.

[Michael]

The next one. We have a major Somali problem, and we need white men to save us. Whoa. All right, then maybe we'll pick that one. Pro life politics is about saving babies, not controlling women's bodies. Whoa. Okay. Trump is putting Americans first.

[Adam]

They don't sound too sure about that one. I don't know.

[Michael]

The Venezuela strike was as American as Taco Bell. Wow. All right, so we got some close ones. I think the pro life one. Yeah. Okay. All right, now, whose was that, Lauren?

[Lauren]

It was mine.

[Michael]

Okay, how did you phrase it?

[Lauren]

Okay, so hear me out. Pro life politics are really just pro controlling women's bodies. Let's be real. You guys don't really care about babies that much. If you did, if you did, we would want to fund childcare, we would want to give them food. We Took that away. You guys remember that we funded a.

[Michael]

Lot of Somali childcare?

[Adam]

Somali food, I don't know.

[Michael]

It didn't work.

[Adam]

Donald Trump cut SNAP benefits. Medicaid. He's cut ACA subsidies that just expired. I don't know how that's helping children. He's actually taking food out of children's mouths.

[Lauren]

I'm going to ask the audience a question. Name one pro life politician that is riding for child care.

[Michael]

It is. That is what? For child.

[Lauren]

Riding for childcare. Ooh, I hear a lot of things.

[Adam]

Or how about this one pro life politician who fought against the cutting of SNAP benefits for nonprofit only children, but families across the country.

[Michael]

Yeah, we definitely. I think a lot of us oppose SNAP benefits for. Well, for the aforementioned Somalis and people who are. Who are on fraud. Like, for instance, we're talking about children. One in 10 people in the state of Tennessee was apparently availing themselves of snap. We learned that during the shutdown.

[Lauren]

We're talking about babies.

[Adam]

Well, we're just saying when we're talking.

[Michael]

About snap, we're talking about how many.

[Lauren]

Babies were fraudulenting their SNAP benefits.

[Michael]

Well, the babies don't apply. It's usually their parents and some of them can defy.

[Lauren]

So then how do the babies eat if they can't apply? How are they doing their fraudulent thing? 1 in 10 babies are doing this.

[Adam]

Right.

[Michael]

I guess my point is that SNAP is not really primarily about babies. And I think we're getting off the topic that you chose, which was pro.

[Lauren]

Life doesn't really care about babies. They care about controlling women's bodies. And you're telling me that babies shouldn't get snap benefits because 1 in 10 people have maybe fraudulented their things.

[Michael]

Yeah, I mean, just as a rule, like babies cannot apply for SNAP benefits. They are not eligible for SNAP benefits. We don't care about babies. We all agree with that.

[Lauren]

We don't care about babies in here.

[Michael]

I mean, I just want to narrow in on your point because I want you to make the argument for it. The point as I see it here is pro life politics functions as control over women's bodies, not about babies.

[Adam]

Correct.

[Michael]

And I don't think I. The first part I don't totally disagree with in the sense that.

[Lauren]

So I win.

[Michael]

In the sense. Well, I mean, you make something of a point in the sense that vaccine policy or seatbelt laws also function as control over people's bodies.

[Adam]

I disagree. I think vaccine laws function as a public safety requirement.

[Audience Member Michael]

Yeah.

[Lauren]

Public health.

[Michael]

This is my point.

[Adam]

Well, for the greater good of public Health. But I think when it comes to abortion, it is just restricting women and who's making the laws. It's disproportionately going to be men making the laws that women can't get access to.

[Michael]

Let me just make my analogy and you tell me one more.

[Adam]

Yeah, yeah.

[Michael]

The vaccine policy certainly functions to control people's policies, bodies, especially if there's a.

[Adam]

That's not the primary function.

[Michael]

Wait for it.

[Adam]

We'll get to.

[Lauren]

I'll give you guys a couple minutes and then I'm going to.

[Michael]

Seat belt. Laws function to control people's bodies. No, they do. You have to lock it in or you could get a ticket.

[Lauren]

Okay, I rent.

[Michael]

I agree with you, Adam. That's not what they're for. That's not their chief objective. And it is the case that abortion laws, like not letting people have abortions, does control women's bodies to some degree. I want it, but what it's for is saving babies. It's not about the control.

[Lauren]

Okay, but what's the difference between a baby and a fetus? Have you ever spit in your hand? That's what a fetus looks like at like six weeks old.

[Michael]

Yeah, exactly. That's not what a fetus looks like.

[Lauren]

Google. Okay, you guys need to go back to science class. Okay? Maybe we should fund that. In Tennessee.

[Michael]

I have three kids. I've gotten ultrasounds at 8 weeks old. Do them so much at 6, they don't look like you. Spit in the hand, you can make out all their little parts. You can even figure out if they're boys or girls at eight weeks.

[Lauren]

No, you can't.

[Michael]

And you can't do that with your spit.

[Adam]

Can I ask you, when do you think life begins?

[Michael]

Well, by definition, at conception.

[Adam]

You think so? So how do you define life?

[Michael]

A human life or just life General?

[Adam]

No, life from a human. What qualities does it define?

[Michael]

Life? Life is described by various attributes, so growth, metabolism, organic matter, movement. And so we see these qualities and the potential for these qualities at the beginning. So for instance, when they're a fetus, they can.

[Lauren]

Yeah, so, okay, I'm.

[Michael]

Fetus just means offspring.

[Lauren]

Why are we riding so hard for like a fictional fetus versus I don't.

[Michael]

Care about fictional fetuses.

[Lauren]

I let you finish. I'm going to finish now. A fictional fetus versus real life human babies and SNAP benefits and childcare and healthcare and taking care of the babies we actually have.

[Michael]

Yeah. So I guess my point, my very narrow point on abortion is, I grant, I think you're partially right. Abortion Laws do involve controlling women's bodies. Cause we say you can't kill the kid.

[Adam]

Yes.

[Michael]

Well, what does fetus mean?

[Lauren]

Offspring.

[Michael]

It means it's a baby. Once it's alive, it's a lot.

[Lauren]

Well, by science, which you love.

[Michael]

So the word fetus just means offspring continued. So there's no distinction. Right. There's no distinction between that and a baby inasmuch as it's a human.

[Adam]

And you had a point a second ago.

[Gregory]

Yes.

[Michael]

So the very narrow point on abortion that I'm making, and I'm open to all sorts of talk on welfare programs and all, that's fine. I'm not some libertarian extremist. However, my only point is it would seem to me that we should not kill innocent babies in the womb or out of the womb. That's my whole point.

[Lauren]

Okay, yes, yes. I'm not for killing babies outside of the womb. I'm for feeding them and providing the kids with access to.

[Michael]

So then you agree we shouldn't kill them, we should not have abortion and we should have welfare later.

[Lauren]

Here's what I'll agree.

[Michael]

Ok, ok, that's fine.

[Lauren]

Here's. Here's what I'll agree on. You don't want an abortion, which you don't seem to be able to have the ability to have a baby yourself. You don't have to get one. Your partner, your wife doesn't want an abortion, she doesn't have to get one. So therefore choice. Can we agree on that?

[Michael]

Yeah. Okay, so I think, for instance. No, look, I'm not, I'm not going to engage in an honor killing of my wife if she apostatizes from Islam, for instance. Now I'm not gonna do that. And look, if a Muslim immigrant to America, as many have done, actually wants to kill his wife in an honor killing because she has apostatized from Islam, that's his business. Right. And it's not your business. And stop sticking your nose in it. Right or no?

[Lauren]

Okay.

[Adam]

I think that a lot of liberals.

[Lauren]

Here, I don't know how he got from abortion care to.

[Michael]

Because you're saying that association with Muslims.

[Lauren]

But we got there pretty quickly.

[Michael]

No, you're saying I'm gonna bring it.

[Lauren]

Back to children and babies. And what I'm saying I can explain.

[Michael]

To you the analogy if you like.

[Lauren]

It's not relevant to this conversation. And I don't even need an explanation.

[Michael]

I think it is.

[Lauren]

No, it's not. Because you guys are like yee haw for like not feeding babies, but you wanna control women's Bodies. Why is that? Why is that? Anyone wanna come to the little.

[Michael]

I have personally fed three babies in my life. All right, that's pretty. That's not bad. And I only have five kids, so that's.

[Adam]

No, I'm kidding.

[Michael]

I only have two kids.

[Lauren]

So listen, you don't want an abortion, don't get one.

[Michael]

But, okay, you don't wanna murder your wife, don't murder your wife. But surely you would outlaw murder as.

[Lauren]

A matter of which I don't have in my fetus.

[Michael]

Your wife I don't think is in your fetus.

[Lauren]

Correct. So therefore I'm right again.

[Adam]

No, I think the argument a lot of liberals would make is that killing a person is not the same as aborting a baby because the baby is not conscious life yet. So the.

[Michael]

Okay, well, that's a good point.

[Adam]

No, no, the main argument that usually happens here is trying to define when life begins. And a lot of conservatives say at conception. But there are studies showing that consciousness starts at about 20 to 24 weeks.

[Michael]

So Adam makes a great point. I just want to push it one more so you can finish your argument. If your. Your argument then would seem to be that being killed or not being killed having those legal protections is predicated on consciousness. So my question is, do you have the right to go into a hospital ward and kill somebody who's in a coma?

[Adam]

It's based on. No, I don't think so.

[Michael]

There you go. All right, we agree. Now we have questions from the audience.

[Audience Member Michael]

How's it going, Michael? Big fan.

[Lauren]

I've seen that guy before.

[Audience Member Michael]

Yeah, big fan.

[Michael]

Big fan. Michael, don't be fooled. He looks like a Republican, but don't be fooled.

[Audience Member Michael]

Stop code switching. If you want to donate me money, I promise I'll put it towards all your terrible policies. Anyway, I have a question for you, Michael, and it's specifically regarding the topic of abortion. And if you have a lot. If you let me expand upon this line of questioning.

[Michael]

A couple questions.

[Audience Member Michael]

First one, do you think that abortion is morally comparable to something like the Holocaust, something that, you know, conservatives talk about a lot? Would you agree with that premise that abortion, in the case of Charlie Kirk, he said it was eight times worse than the Holocaust because of the death or the amount of abortion that have occurred since Roe was legalized?

[Michael]

Yeah, I would say.

[Audience Member Michael]

You say so.

[Michael]

Abortion is the killing of innocent human life intentionally. And the Holocaust, as all genocides, entails the killing of innocent human life. And so in that way, yes, they're comparable.

[Audience Member Michael]

So you think they're comparable so do you think that, for example, political violence would be justified to stop the Holocaust? Let me give you an example right here. Let's say that I exist in Nazi Germany at the time, and I see that a Nazi is going to the concentration camp and he is going to kill or put in this icon B to gas a group of Jews. I think that he would be justified, or I would be justified rather, in killing that Nazi officer on his way. So if you think that abortion is morally equivalent to the Holocaust, how do you feel about violence against abortion doctors? Is there anything actually wrong with that because these people are morally equivalent, in your eyes, to Nazis?

[Michael]

It's a very good question. I think that a political revolution under certain circumstances could be justified. St. Thomas Aquinas explains this very well in the Summa Theologia in de Reno. However, I don't think that vigilante violence is justifiable in almost any case. Not because of the justification of the actions that are at discussion, be it the Holocaust or mass abortion, 60 million babies being killed, but because of the downstream political effects that come from that and because there is such a thing as a civil authority. So in the extreme case where revolution would be justified, there would still have to be order to be undertaken so that greater evils would not abound from an act that could be justified.

[Audience Member Michael]

I understand that, but do you think that during. When the Holocaust happened, do you think that it would have been wrong for someone to kill a Nazi officer on his way to the concentration camp to gas a bunch of Jews? Would it have been wrong or not?

[Michael]

Well, in the case of the Holocaust, we're speaking specifically of war conditions. So there. Yeah, there you're in the midst of a massive war, both within Germany, and it wasn't a war.

[Audience Member Michael]

Michael, engage with the question.

[Adam]

If it.

[Michael]

I am engaging with the question.

[Audience Member Michael]

If it, in fact was. Yes, it would be justified. My point here is rather that I don't really think that you think abortion is morally equivalent to the Holocaust or you're not believing that it would be justified for people to kill abortion doctors.

[Michael]

I'm saying that different rules apply during times of war than during times of peace.

[Audience Member Michael]

So if you. So if the president suddenly declared it was a time of war against women who get abortions, then suddenly it's justified for people to go out there.

[Michael]

War against women.

[Audience Member Michael]

Okay, fine, Michael, very good. Against abortion, however you want to call it, you could outlaw, then it would be justified.

[Adam]

That wouldn't be a war.

[Michael]

A war is when belligerent parties fight each other for territory and for political control.

[Audience Member Michael]

Michael's evading the question because his line is. His line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that it is actually permissible to commit political violence. No, he seems like he's against that even during circumstances. I don't think it is most circumstances. So this is not comparable to the Holocaust.

[Michael]

It is comparable to the Holocaust. It is comparable, as I mentioned to you, in the respect of both of these things entailing the killing of innocent human life. It is comparable in respect to the fact that one is in a polity during a time of peace and one is during a time of war. They're not comparable.

[Audience Member Michael]

It's just not very comparable.

[Michael]

So they're in different respects. You would address them differently.

[Adam]

Okay. All right, Great questions.

[Gregory]

Hey, nice to be here.

[Michael]

Good to see you.

[Gregory]

I guess this question is for Loren. Is that. Yeah. So I just wanted to bring it back a little bit to the topic, which was that abortion is really just a way to control women's bodies, not really a protection of life. Do you know of any other ways to bring life into this world besides using women's bodies?

[Adam]

No.

[Gregory]

Okay, well, I mean, it's not really about controlling women's bodies then. It's about providing a safe way for life to be brought into this world.

[Lauren]

Okay, so how would you define safety? Yeah, how would you define safety for this fictional fetus? Tell me. Yeah, I'm waiting.

[Gregory]

Or even want a definition of safety. I mean, I think a fetus is pretty safe for a baby because that's.

[Lauren]

Okay, let's talk about a baby. What is safe for a baby?

[Gregory]

What is safer?

[Lauren]

A baby?

[Michael]

Some wombs, the actual place where it.

[Lauren]

Develops and grows and actually produces life for a baby. What is safe for a baby?

[Gregory]

The place where it can actually grow and to complete its babies are not.

[Lauren]

Growing inside the body. Baby's out now, so you force the woman to give birth. Now, what's safety for that baby?

[Gregory]

Okay, this is a separate conversation because now we're no longer talking about bringing life into the world. We're talking about life after it exists in the world already.

[Lauren]

Exactly. That's the exact topic that we're talking about. And I'll wait. What's your name?

[Michael]

Gregory.

[Lauren]

Gregory. Gregory, I'm going to ask you again. What is the. What's safety for a baby? It's just not that hard of a question. Do you need a couple minutes?

[Gregory]

I mean, have you ever taken care of a baby? Have you ever babysit?

[Adam]

What is done?

[Michael]

Anything.

[Lauren]

Taking care of a baby, Gregory.

[Gregory]

Making sure it's Fed.

[Lauren]

Yeah, great. Okay, fed. What else does a baby need? Shelter. Okay, great answers, Gregory. And now how does a baby get shelter if that mother is not in a position economically to provide that?

[Gregory]

Well, that's a different conversation we're talking about.

[Lauren]

I'm not asking these deadbeats over there. I'm asking Gregory.

[Gregory]

We're talking about a different conversation, which is after life has been brought into this world.

[Lauren]

So that's what I'm saying.

[Gregory]

Versus the birth of the baby after.

[Lauren]

It'S been caught into this world. Or we only care about the baby.

[Gregory]

Absolutely. That's a different conversation that we can have.

[Lauren]

No, I think a bunch of men have a lot of opinions on uterus as they don't.

[Michael]

Okay, Lauren, I'll tell you what. Let's say we all guaranteed that there's infinite taxpayer welfare dollars for any woman who wants it, who has a baby. In that circumstance, would you oppose. Would you support outlawing abortion?

[Lauren]

No.

[Michael]

If we guarantee. Okay, then it's not really about what you're saying.

[Lauren]

It's about. So you guys know how often a miscarriage happens? You should know. You have a bunch of kids.

[Gregory]

That's not an abortion.

[Michael]

That's an abortion.

[Lauren]

It actually is. So the medical term for abortion. Yeah. Okay, you guys, that's not an abortion. You can live in your little Delulu, but abortion is an umbrella term for medical care.

[Mr. Davies]

Nope.

[Michael]

Okay. Nope.

[Lauren]

I can't compete with people who are making up their little reality.

[Michael]

Okay, okay. Let's say one has human interventions. When we talk about abortion, let's agree on our terms. When we talk about abortion, we're talking about the intentional ending of a pregnancy, which some call.

[Lauren]

It's not the legal definition of abortion. Abortion is care for.

[Michael]

That's the issue we're talking about.

[Gregory]

An abortion requires human intervention. A miscarriage does not.

[Lauren]

When you ask four people experience a miscarriage when they have a baby. To complete that miscarriage, you need abortion care. So there are plenty of women dying in hospital waiting for. Call the hospital. Call the hospital. Gregory, tell me what happens.

[Gregory]

False. My sister had a miscarriage. She wore the baby.

[Lauren]

But a lot of women do.

[Gregory]

It was not.

[Michael]

I think, Adam, you have a point.

[Gregory]

Intervention that caused the baby to die.

[Adam]

There's a lot of argumentation going on. I think one of the most contradictory things that bothers me with the conservative position on abortion is that everybody should be in favor of minimizing the amount of abortions that happen. It was a Clinton that said they should be safe, legal, but rare.

[Michael]

Now let's check in do you agree we should minimize the number of abortions safe, legal and rare?

[Lauren]

I do not give a single what other people do with their bodies. It's not my.

[Michael]

See, she doesn't agree with that. She doesn't agree with that.

[Lauren]

No, I don't.

[Adam]

My position is among along with many Democrats in the party that they should be safe, legal, but rare. That's what the former Democratic president said.

[Michael]

But the current Democrats shout their abortion right. They say there's no reason to minimize abortion. Wait, Planned Parenthood posted in Democrats in power. Say it again.

[Adam]

What? Democrats in power have said this. Democrats in power.

[Michael]

Bill Clinton was President in the 90s, man, that was a long time ago. I agree.

[Adam]

Can I say really quickly. But the problem is, in order to minimize the amount of abortions that happen, you should have proper sex education at young ages. Now, in the state that I grew up in Indiana, there was actually a slashing of sex education at really normal ages. Like when you're in seventh grade or eighth grade, you can be learning about this stuff. And when there's a lack of sex education, you have more teen pregnancies, you have more women that get pregnant. So I think these are kind of contradictory positions beyond, like when life starts.

[Michael]

Okay, so we have the moderate Democrat position. We want fewer abortions and we want all this other stuff.

[Adam]

But I wasn't going to be saying.

[Lauren]

We have the woman's perspective on the women's bodies. What a context.

[Michael]

One last point before we move on. Just this question, Lauren. You say that the people who want to end abortion, they only want to control women's bodies. They don't care about babies at all. If I look you in the face right now, I tell you I'm someone who wants to end abortion. And I am telling you, I promise you my hand to God, I care about abortion because I don't want babies to be killed. And I don't really care about controlling women's bodies. That is not in any way the primary objective. I just want fewer babies to be killed. Do you believe me? No.

[Adam]

You don't?

[Michael]

Okay.

[Gregory]

All right.

[Adam]

She rejects the framing that it's killing babies because if you don't.

[Lauren]

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. I'm not in your bathroom following your I don't even think about any of you guys having sex.

[Audience Member Michael]

Look, I tried.

[Michael]

I tried. Okay, so who won that round? Was it Team Libs, whether moderate lib Adam or less moderate Lib Lauren? Was it the libs?

[Audience Member Michael]

Woo.

[Michael]

No, Was it the me?

[Lauren]

Look, At Gregory's.

[Michael]

All right, There we go.

[Adam]

Okay. All right. I don't see it.

[Michael]

I don't see it.

[Adam]

It's ambiguous.

[Michael]

I can't tell. I wish I would have more important question. Who won? The round of questions we say, are we hearing Gregory? Who was it? Who was it?

[Lauren]

Gregory's going home alone with lotion in his bot.

[Adam]

Who won?

[Michael]

All right. Was it the guy dressed like a Republican, or was it Gregory? Gregory, you're going to the VIP table, man. Here we go.

[Lauren]

Enjoy.

[Michael]

Okay, now you're gonna get that delicious Redneck Riviera whiskey. And you know what? That goes really well with delicious Zbiotics, folks. You need to go to zbiotics.com bar fight. Let's face it, after a night with drinks, I don't bounce back the next day like I used to to. I'm an old man now, 35 years old, got grays on my head. I have to make a choice. I can either have a great night or a great next day. That is, until I found Zbiotics Pre alcohol. Zbiotics Pre alcohol drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking, and the science behind it is fascinating. So here's how it works. When you drink it, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. Now, it's the buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that is to blame for rough days after drinking, which I had no idea about until I read this ad. Free alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. So you are actually addressing the root cause. Just remember to make free alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly. You will feel your best tomorrow. Trust me. When you've got nights like this, you have to be up early in the morning podcasting, carrying the daily wire on your shoulders. You want that free alcohol? Okay, head on over there right now. Zbiotics.com barfight. You get 15% off your first order when you use Code Bar fight. It's backed by 100% money back. Guarantees there's no risk. It's the longest ad ever. Subscriptions are also available for maximum consistency. Remember to head to zbiotics.com Bar Fight. Use code Bar Fight at checkout for 15% off. Can I offer any of you a pre alcohol from Zbiotics? I'm having one.

[Adam]

I'm already a little bit too deep into this drink.

[Michael]

You want one? You going to have one? No. All right, I'll have one. That's fine. Okay, it's round two.

[Adam]

There are three more commercial breaks coming, by the way.

[Michael]

All right, now we pick the next topic.

[Lauren]

Topic.

[Michael]

You've heard them all. I'll just do a quick one. Again, Trump is not at all corrupt. The ICE agent in Minneapolis did nothing wrong. It's gonna be that one. Okay, that's my topic. I say the ICE agent in Minneapolis did nothing wrong. And here's. Thank you. Here's my argument for this. It's a pretty simple argument. The ICE agent was there to carry out federal law in total accord with. With the law, and he was following all of his instructions and all of his training, and he saw that there was an SUV parked in the middle of the street, obstructing law enforcement. At that time, he might not have known, but it was being driven by someone who had trained to obstruct law enforcement in this operation. And so they went up there to try to get her to move, and she didn't want to move. She was there for quite a while, and then the lady hit him with her car. And so when you. And she literally did that.

[Lauren]

So she was sad.

[Michael]

We now know, though, there was a lot of confusion at the time that the agent was in front of the car. We can slow down the footage and look at the tires. We can see that the woman accelerated while her tires were aimed at the agent. We know that when the agent fired his weapon, he fired it through the front windshield, which means he couldn't have been on the side. And we know that she hit him with the car because of footage from him. Body cams, best thing for law enforcement ever. And we also know that he suffered internal bleeding as a result of that. So in that case, Adam might not.

[Adam]

Believe it, but it had probably.

[Lauren]

You at least believe that she hit him?

[Adam]

No, I don't think she's on video.

[Michael]

What are you talking about?

[Adam]

You understand what I saw in this video.

[Michael]

Yes. Which video?

[Adam]

I mean, there's multiple angles, but very quickly you realize internal bleeding could just be bruising. But if we're going to follow this administration, what they're saying it can be. If we're going to follow this administration's like, what they're saying. Do you agree when Donald Trump said that he was viciously hit and he's surprised that the guy's alive. Did you see that in the video? Surprised he's live.

[Michael]

I. Yeah, I'm surprised that.

[Adam]

Wait, wait. Do you agree with Trump? Do you agree with Trump when he says this guy was viciously Hit. And he was. He said basically, like, I'm surprised this guy's alive. In the hospital. You're surprised he's alive? Yeah.

[Michael]

Yeah. Because had the. Had the tires not spun out because of the icy roads in Minneapolis, she would have hit him.

[Adam]

Are you guys surprised she would hit him? Are you guys surprised he's alive? Come on. You guys are all coping. Yeah.

[Michael]

Okay.

[Adam]

Thank you. You're not surprised he's alive.

[Lauren]

AI Slapper. You lost.

[Adam]

Here's my problem. You guys are quite literally taking an 80, 20 position on this. And you guys are. The 20Americans were polled on the justification of this killing, and 28% of Americans, only 28% thought it was justified. Almost 60% thought it was unjustified because.

[Michael]

They'Ve been lied to about what happened. Do you agree that they've seen, including by you. Do you agree that she hit him?

[Adam]

I mean, she touched.

[Michael]

Did she hit him with her car?

[Adam]

And the same people driving out of the Walmart parking lot, he's standing right there.

[Michael]

You hit pedestrians with your Walmart. You should go to jail. He walked off.

[Lauren]

We're not talking about going to jail. We're talking about shooting her in the head four times and then calling her a. There's a difference.

[Michael]

She got her the first time.

[Adam]

Let me back up. The general population does not agree with you. And let me finish here.

[Michael]

Because they've been lied to.

[Adam]

No, the general population does not agree with you because they saw the videos that happened. This administration, before the investigation started said that she was a domestic terrorist and said that the guy was lucky to be alive.

[Michael]

She was domestic terrorist.

[Adam]

Okay, we'll talk about that. One second. Do you think it's responsible for them to say that before the investigation started? Trump said it, I think, like 90 minutes after Kristi Noem, 45 minutes after, said she was a domestic terrorist. Do you disagree with Kristi Noem?

[Michael]

I think that when you hit law enforcement.

[Adam]

Do you agree or disagree with Kristi Noem? Is she a domestic terrorist?

[Michael]

I agree that she was aiding and abetting domestic terrorism.

[Adam]

So she's not domestic terrorists.

[Michael]

I wouldn't use that.

[Adam]

Okay, so thank you. You just said that I'm lying to the American people, but you seem to be conceding that Kristi Noem and Donald Trump both lied to the American people.

[Michael]

No, I say I don't agree with their wording of that. And yet what I'm saying is the facts as they describe them happened. You're denying the facts that are on.

[Adam]

Kitty. Can I tell you what I saw I saw a woman in a car who was waving people past. And listen, I'm a moderate Democrat.

[Michael]

She was waving him past.

[Adam]

No, no, not him, but cars. She was waving multiple cars past. If you guys haven't seen the videos, that's your fault. Did you not see her waving?

[Michael]

You're not allowed to block traffic. Did you not see her waving?

[Adam]

Wait, is that a death sentence if.

[Michael]

You hit a cop with a car? Yes, that's a death sentence. You're shot and you're going to deserve it.

[Adam]

I have a question. If she was going to hit someone with her car, why did she first reverse, then stop, then spin her wheel?

[Michael]

She didn't spin the wheel first. She did spin the wheel. She accelerated before she spun the wheel. If you want to move your car.

[Adam]

Why would you reverse? Why would you reverse?

[Michael]

She clearly was very conversed woman. I don't know why did she hit him?

[Lauren]

So I want to ask you.

[Adam]

No, no, you don't. You don't know why she reversed? Because she spun the wheel and then tried to drive off.

[Michael]

She accelerated before she turned the wheel. It's on video.

[Adam]

Here's what self defense counts as.

[Michael]

That's why he shot through the windshield, because he was obviously in front of the car.

[Adam]

Reach over the windshield.

[Michael]

What about the second distance he reached over the windshield? He had spaghetti arms and reached over the moment.

[Adam]

Did he even get knocked over?

[Mr. Davies]

Yes, he did.

[Michael]

That's on video too.

[Adam]

Was he on the ground after?

[Michael]

Yes.

[Adam]

No, he was. He was standing the up.

[Michael]

He was standing. There was literally video. Dude, he was going down.

[Adam]

Okay, he then walked us after.

[Michael]

Yes, Then he.

[Adam]

When Renee, Nicole. Good. Hit him. He got knocked on the ground?

[Michael]

Yes.

[Lauren]

So you haven't seen video.

[Michael]

Wait, wait.

[Adam]

Did he get knocked on the ground? No, no, he did not. He's still standing. You guys are all lying because you've been gaslit by this administration to think that ice can do nothing wrong. Over the past year.

[Michael]

Hold on, Listen.

[Adam]

Over the past year. Over the past year, we have seen clips of ice cracking the ribs of 79 year olds, grabbing US citizens and bringing them to the ground. Deporting people with no due process and having to bring them back because they admitted there was no due process that happened. Right. They had to bring.

[Michael]

Are we talking about. We're talking about the 1-6-ers. Are we talking about those Midwest marshals? No, no. If you want to talk about domestic.

[Adam]

Terrorists, they're using political force to stop the certification of election. They're actual domestic terrorists. You want to call a 37 year old mother who was shot in the side window. A domestic terror.

[Michael]

He wasn't shot in the side window, Adam. The bullet is through the window. You're just making that up.

[Adam]

You were making up that he was knocked over and you can't respond to why she reversed.

[Michael]

Why did she reverse, Adam? It's a simple question. Did she hit him with her car or not?

[Adam]

She didn't.

[Michael]

Did she hit him with her car or not? No. Yes or no? You're wrong. You answer yes or no. Okay, Adam, yes or no. It's a simple question.

[Adam]

Can I give a legit answer?

[Michael]

You can give me one word answer.

[Adam]

Yes. Yes.

[Michael]

Where do you know the entire conversation's going?

[Adam]

Can I answer though?

[Lauren]

I want to bring it back.

[Michael]

Tell me why he should not have defended himself when she hit him with her car.

[Adam]

As you admit, self defense means there need to be two requirements by the law. You need to be able to reasonably perceive yourself as an imminent risk. Danger. And then you need to be able to use a disproportionate amount of force to take care of that danger. It's the continuum. Use of force. Use of force. Continuum.

[Michael]

Okay, okay, okay.

[Lauren]

I want to bring it back.

[Adam]

You have to use a proportionate amount of force.

[Michael]

Right?

[Adam]

You have to use a. It was not proportionate.

[Michael]

A 3,000 pound SUV is the damage.

[Lauren]

I want to bring it back to your agenda.

[Adam]

Keep on standing up. You guys are lying.

[Lauren]

You said in your original opening, you said that he was doing his job as instructed. Okay, Right, Okay. So with his instructions, surely there's some other type of escalation steps in that process before shooting her in the face four times and calling her a bitch.

[Michael]

No, no, Lauren. It's a split second before she's running him over. It's not like she didn't down the road.

[Lauren]

So he had a Honda.

[Adam]

No, no.

[Lauren]

She was armed.

[Michael]

Because she shot her in the face.

[Adam]

She didn't. Because she turned her wheel in reverse. Why would she. Okay, I have one final question. I really want you to answer this. That you continue to kind of weave around it. Why did she reverse her car before.

[Michael]

Driving him straight into him?

[Adam]

She didn't drive straight into him.

[Michael]

She was a real confused lady and I'm really sorry she got killed and she shouldn't have done it twice.

[Lauren]

How did you work out at Nuremberg? How did it work out in Nuremberg when they were following instructions?

[Adam]

Nuremberg?

[Lauren]

Yes. You can't just execute moms. You guys are a little nerd if you think you can just execute people, huh?

[Michael]

Okay, okay, okay. We have questions. Yeah.

[Florence]

Michael.

[Mr. Davies]

Michael, I consider myself a conservative. I'm in favor of rigorous enforcement of our immigration laws. But I want to ask you a question about tactics. Okay, so even setting aside, I think there are legitimate legal issues here that we could ask about, Fourth Amendment issues, et cetera. But I just want to ask you. Let's assume that sort of the public backlash to what's going on right now with ice, you know, stopping people in the street, pulling them out of the cars, going to door to door is sufficient to cause some sort of landslide in the midterms against the Republicans. Let's assume that that leads to Donald Trump getting impeached. Let's assume that that leads to maybe by the end of the Trump term, deporting fewer people than we saw under Obama. Would you not admit that maybe tactically mistakes have been made, that this is bad optically, at the very least, even if you dismiss the legal issues?

[Michael]

Yeah, I don't think so, because I don't know what the alternative is. You know, what the people voted for is mass deportations. What we've gotten so far, the Obama numbers are in.

[Lauren]

Did they vote for that?

[Michael]

The Obama. Well, when people are trying to run over cops, I voted for that.

[Lauren]

Okay, so I thought you have due process. No, but. So was she guilty of.

[Michael]

You don't get due process when you're running someone over.

[Lauren]

You just get to. There's no.

[Adam]

There's no trial.

[Lauren]

They let the DOJ do an investigation, then if they're so right and correct.

[Michael]

There will be an investigation.

[Lauren]

No, they're not. They shut it down.

[Michael]

There will be an investigation.

[Lauren]

No, there's not. So answer the question. Why won't they.

[Michael]

Hold on. I'm answering his question first.

[Lauren]

Okay, so that's a deflection. Let's go back to it.

[Michael]

No, it's not your turn to speak.

[Gregory]

It's his turn.

[Lauren]

It's my turn to speak because we're not really following those rules. So what is the.

[Michael]

I'm following those rules.

[Lauren]

Okay, because that's because you don't want to answer the question. Okay, go ahead.

[Michael]

We'll get to whatever you want to talk about later. But first, it's his topic.

[Lauren]

This is your topic.

[Michael]

It's my what?

[Lauren]

It's your topic, but it's his question.

[Michael]

This is why she doesn't. Okay. It's like the order of events. That's why we don't understand what happened with the lady running him over. So to your question, tactically, is this a bad idea? I don't think so. Some people say that Barack Obama deported three or four hundred thousand people. It's kind of fake because they're counting turnbacks among that. He did deport some people, but it's kind of fake because they're counting turnbacks. Right now the border is totally shut down. President Trump, I think, probably is deported in his first year. A little over 500,000 people. Like 525 or 530,000 people. I do believe, and I buy the labor studies that have come out, that there have been a lot of self deportations because of the optically brutal ICE raids. I think that's part of it too. So President Trump says He's deported over 2 million people. It's possible it's somewhere between half a million and 2 million. Compared to the Biden administration where they were letting in 3 million people a year. Obviously that's a huge turn in direction. My question is, how are you gonna get mass deportations, which most of the conservatives, I think, would agree we're not even getting enough mass deportations. How are you gonna get that if you don't go from job site to job site, from town to town and try to round people up? Is that gonna involve bad optics for the leftists? It is. I just don't know what the alternative is.

[Mr. Davies]

Well, I think first it might require more funding for things like immigration judges.

[Adam]

Who could process these.

[Mr. Davies]

But I think also we're talking about, like, the fundamental question is basically, if it turns out. Let's just assume a hypothetical world where there is a Democratic landslide and Trump gets impeached over this. And we find as a result of surveying people who voted against Republicans in that election, that a big part of this backlash was due to this type of ICE enforcement. Are you not gonna think that, oh, maybe we could have done this a little bit differently?

[Michael]

So you mentioned we need. Yeah, sure, Adam can answer.

[Adam]

The alternative is a moderate immigration policy like we saw under Obama. Do you know what they called him? The deporter in chief.

[Michael]

Yeah, but they were wrong. Okay?

[Adam]

They called Obama the deporter in chief. The problem here isn't the mass deportations. The problem, as he points out, are the brutal videos coming out of those. That ICE is losing popularity with the public. Pop. Obama deported a massive, massive amount of people, but we didn't see the same.

[Michael]

Do you dispute the turnbacks?

[Adam]

Let me see. Okay. The Turnbull.

[Michael]

Most of them were turnbacks.

[Adam]

There were turnbacks, but not most of them. They called him the deporter in chief, and he did that without cracking the ribs of 79 year olds. Without shooting US citizens, without deporting people with zero due process and then bringing them back to the effing country.

[Michael]

Do you agree that Trump has deported more people than Obama?

[Adam]

Yes, but he's deporting people that he shouldn't be deporting.

[Lauren]

75% of them have no background, no violent criminal record.

[Michael]

But are they illegal aliens?

[Adam]

They should. He's deporting.

[Michael]

Are they illegal aliens? Are they illegal aliens?

[Adam]

Kill more Amando. Yes, but Kilmore.

[Michael]

But then they should be deported.

[Adam]

Do you think people should. Do you think illegal aliens deserve due process?

[Michael]

Illegal.

[Adam]

Are we joking? Wait, do you guys think that? Do you guys think that illegal aliens. Then you're wrong. The Constitution specifically says in the fifth Amendment that persons. We can.

[Michael]

We can expedite their due process.

[Adam]

Can you just say if I'm right or wrong? Does the fifth Amendment specifically say persons? And that was upheld in a Supreme Court case. Said it's persons, not citizens.

[Michael]

In the enforcement of American immigration law, we sometimes do things a little more efficiently. We, for instance, deported a million people in the 1950s under President Eisenhower. If we were to give a lengthy trial to the 16 to 30 million illegal aliens who are in the country, we would never deport virtually any of them.

[Adam]

I'm not asking for a lengthy trial for someone like Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. Right. The thing is, when he got deported over to El Salvador. No, I'm not. I have a pretty moderate immigration policy. I think people should be here legally. Illegal immigration should be minimized. We should know everybody that's here. But like most Americans, guys, this isn't even me living out. Most Americans do not like to see these videos that are going everywhere. Most Americans don't like to see grandmas and abuelas being pulled off the street. And I keep going back.

[Michael]

There aren't that many abuelas.

[Adam]

Come on.

[Michael]

There aren't that many.

[Adam]

Wait, are you okay with the US Citizens that have gotten caught up? So I keep going back to this case, but a 79 year old US citizen got his rib cracked by an ICE agent and is now suing the DHS.

[Michael]

So I think it's very unfortunate. When innocent. It's a very small number. But when innocent people or American citizens or legal residents are caught up in these raids, the problem is illegal aliens don't walk around the country with a big sign saying I'm an illegal alien. So the problem was created by those who allowed the millions of illegals to come in. And now Trump's cleaning up the problem.

[Adam]

Is you guys can never admit when ICE does anything wrong whatsoever. So there was an article from Slate that came out just two days ago.

[Michael]

Where I'll never admit anything in Slate? No.

[Adam]

This woman provided all the receipts. This liberal woman applied for ice. In her whole Internet history she was shitting on ice. She smokes a bunch of weed and posts about it.

[Lauren]

And she wasn't me.

[Adam]

She didn't, she didn't even submit the domestic battery, her history on it. Like she didn't submit anything and ICE still let her in. So the problem is under trained ICE agents are giving, are being given the funding of national militaries. Like they're funded more than national militaries. They're masking up in such a way that emboldens them and then they're going around and why are they mass communities? Because they're a bunch of pussies.

[Lauren]

Because they're being small town high school.

[Michael]

And they're being threatened as they should.

[Lauren]

Because they're a bunch of pussy losers. And like okay, listen, if you want a job, okay, if you want a job where you can go terrorize elementary school students and pepper spray them element for you. What did they do?

[Adam]

Roosevelt High School did.

[Lauren]

What did they do after Roosevelt? Yeah, they went to Roosevelt High School. First they went to an elementary school.

[Michael]

Teddy or Franklin? Teddy or Franklin.

[Adam]

Can you, can you admit that ICE does anything wrong? Can you ever admit that ICE does anything wrong or do you think they should have. Absolutely wrong.

[Michael]

I think I have admitted they like they hired that liberal pot smoking lady. I think that was wrong.

[Adam]

Okay, but do you think they have absolute immunity like J.D. vance does?

[Michael]

I think they should be given extraordinarily broad immunity.

[Adam]

Extraordinarily broad immunity for things they do on the job?

[Michael]

Yeah. For official accidents.

[Lauren]

So they can just go shoot people.

[Gregory]

Yeah.

[Michael]

I think Vance is totally right about this.

[Adam]

But how did like you think he's right? Since the inception of ICE is not.

[Lauren]

An excuse for morality. Like again I want to bring it back to Nuremberg. Like what happened to the people like carrying out these atrocities in 1930 ceremony.

[Michael]

I don't think removing trends about.

[Adam]

Can you what can you admit that ICE has done wrong thus far? Because most Americans just gave you an example. No, obviously like a real example of ICE doing something wrong. You mean not vetting people?

[Michael]

Yeah, I can't think of a particular example.

[Adam]

So are you serious about the pot smoker? Do you think I should be vetting people more for ideological reasons?

[Michael]

The problem is the, the problem is so massive because there are 16 to 30 million people. And. And ICE was so understaffed.

[Adam]

Massive range, bro.

[Michael]

16 to 30. They're illegal. We don't know where they are. You call them undocumented. That's the problem. We don't have any documents.

[Adam]

I don't care what you call them, dude. I think that the administration.

[Michael]

That's why we have a broad range. We don't know how many of them there are.

[Gregory]

Hey, Adam, I got a question for you. Sorry, sorry. That was a little aggressive.

[Adam]

No, you're good.

[Michael]

Oh, sorry.

[Adam]

What's up?

[Gregory]

I just had a question about the due process for illegal immigrants versus, like, an American citizen. Does an illegal immigrant have an entitlement to legal representation?

[Adam]

An entitlement.

[Gregory]

Are they entitled to legal representation?

[Adam]

They have all of the. They have all of the rights defined under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.

[Gregory]

They're not guaranteed legal representation in their immigration case.

[Adam]

Well, are US Citizens, so we can agree that.

[Gregory]

No, they're not US Citizens. Immigrants. They're not US Citizens.

[Michael]

They are not illegal aliens.

[Gregory]

They're not guaranteed.

[Adam]

Can I ask you.

[Gregory]

They're not guaranteed legal representation.

[Adam]

Can I ask you, do you think immigration citizens or persons, any person in the United States deserves due process?

[Gregory]

That's not the question.

[Adam]

No, no. I'm asking.

[Gregory]

An illegal immigrant in an immigration case. In an immigration case, someone is being deported for being here illegally. Are they guaranteed legal representation?

[Adam]

No. But that is not all that there is to due process. Due process.

[Gregory]

Due process looks different for immigrants. Vers. American citizens, right?

[Adam]

Wait, wait. No.

[Gregory]

They're saying that immigrants choices. American citizens.

[Adam]

They're saying that immigrants get no due process. No. You guys think immigrants should get any due process?

[Michael]

He's just arguing. He's just arguing that due process for the illegal alien deportation cases is markedly different from an ordinary.

[Gregory]

In a lot of different ways.

[Adam]

That's totally fine, but what I'm arguing is.

[Michael]

That's a good point. That's a good point.

[Adam]

That's totally fine. What you're saying is true, but what I'm saying is there was no due process for the cases like Kilmorama, Armando Abrego Garcia. There was no.

[Michael]

Yeah, but then Chris Van Hollen went. Cried, having a romantic lunch.

[Whitfield]

Got a question.

[Michael]

You can make jokes when you're jokes about Kilmar Brego Garcia. Yes. What's your.

[Adam]

He's back in the U.S. buddy.

[Whitfield]

Yeah. What the. This guy on the right. You're a big boomer guy.

[Michael]

He's a boomer. A boomer.

[Whitfield]

He's a trans boomer.

[Lauren]

Don't talk about him like that.

[Whitfield]

What's your name again? The blonde girl. What's your name?

[Lauren]

My name?

[Whitfield]

Yeah.

[Lauren]

Lauren. Yours?

[Whitfield]

All right, Michael. My name is Whitfield. Michael, my question is for you. Do you think that Lauren prefers anthropomorphic minotaur smut novels or AI generated ice romance. Romance novels. Thank you for the question.

[Adam]

Good.

[Lauren]

I don't know what the first one was.

[Michael]

Well, okay, then it's the second. I say it's the second, then.

[Adam]

Is that fair?

[Lauren]

Ice porn.

[Michael]

There was a lady. There was a millennial lady who went on TV or she went on TikTok or whatever, and maybe I'm the boomer. I say she went on TV and she goes there. She says, you know, hating men for so many years has trained me to stop ice. And she was admitting it was this amazing psychological admission that a lot of these protests are about, like, women who hate their dads, basically. And it's unfortunate. It's like that's what all of liberalism comes down to, is three words, Screw you, dad. But I don't even think it's primarily about the guys.

[Adam]

Can I bring it back around to one final thing?

[Whitfield]

Screw you, Minotaur.

[Adam]

Can you say Michael? Michael, you asked me a yes or no question. Can I ask you one? Did the ICE agent who shot Renee. Nicole. Good. Get knocked on the ground on his ass?

[Whitfield]

Oh, my God.

[Adam]

He got.

[Michael]

He got knocked over.

[Adam]

Wait, wait.

[Michael]

Yes or no is your question? Was he flat on the ground?

[Adam]

Ground that everybody said he was not.

[Michael]

Wait, was he flat? Are you saying.

[Adam]

Guys.

[Michael]

Head and toes. Flat on the ground.

[Adam]

Was he knocked on his ass?

[Michael]

Okay, he was not.

[Adam]

He was.

[Michael]

He was knocked over. He was not. He was not flat on the ground. He was not flat.

[Adam]

Can I please have the opportunity?

[Michael]

I'm granting your point. I'm granting your point. He was. I'm granting your point that he was not flat on the ground. He was.

[Adam]

Okay, but that's a.

[Michael]

He was knocked over.

[Adam]

You guys are being really dishonest about.

[Whitfield]

He knocks the ice.

[Adam]

Deal.

[Whitfield]

He knocks his ice, the ice agent flat on his sultry ass.

[Adam]

Do you actually think that.

[Whitfield]

No, I think you want to read AI generated ice.

[Michael]

Wait, wait, no.

[Adam]

Do you actually think what you just said. Do you think he got knocked down his ass?

[Gregory]

All right.

[Adam]

I'm so sorry, but do.

[Whitfield]

I think he got knocked on his ass? No, I don't think he got knocked on his ass.

[Lauren]

Okay, then why were you guys.

[Whitfield]

What's your name? What's your name?

[Adam]

Adam.

[Whitfield]

Adam, listen, listen. I've almost gotten hit by a Deranged retard in her car. Okay. I had a gun in my pocket, which I was not able to bring up here because of safety and everything. And I had to contemplate am I gonna shoot this black chick or not? As a 6 foot 4 white guy. When a woman who was let out on the street by Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan to take some lithium instead of going to a state run mental institution, decided to drive up to Nashville at 8am in the morning and try to run me over. So I know about cars menacing me and I'm not afraid.

[Adam]

I don't care about your personal experience.

[Michael]

No, but he has injuries.

[Lauren]

Is this a therapy session? Did I just crash a therapy.

[Michael]

He's explaining what it's like. He is personally.

[Gregory]

Dude.

[Michael]

Dude, have you ever driven in la?

[Whitfield]

I know you have to be Michael's foil, but I knew y' all have to be Michael's foil here. It's like bar fight or whatever. But dude, if a federal agent is having a car coming towards them, you're going to.

[Michael]

He was standing on his feet and.

[Adam]

The car missed him.

[Whitfield]

The car agent. They're going to smoke you. And I will say this. In no other. No other country in the world will they have as much pause and discretion.

[Adam]

No other country in the world is as good as.

[Whitfield]

They're like, like, are you in? Like, dude, okay, Go to Venezuela.

[Adam]

No other country in the world is as good as America. And in America we have human dignity for our citizens. So for.

[Whitfield]

I agree.

[Adam]

Why would Renee Nicole Good back up in her car and why would she wait?

[Whitfield]

Potential energy.

[Adam]

Potential energy.

[Lauren]

Some of you guys, and I don't support violence, but some of you guys have never had your ass kicked. And it really shows.

[Michael]

He had a. A lady almost rolled into it.

[Whitfield]

I've had my ass kicked.

[Lauren]

What?

[Whitfield]

You don't know? I've had my ass kicked.

[Lauren]

Okay.

[Michael]

It doesn't.

[Lauren]

You know, you're not acting like it.

[Whitfield]

Oh, okay. Have you gotten your ass kicked or have men protected you?

[Lauren]

Have you ever driven in la? I'm not. If. If women.

[Michael]

If women.

[Lauren]

Let me stop. If women pulled a gun every time they felt unsafe, none of you would be here. None of you would be here except for Adam. That's not true in Aries.

[Whitfield]

Now, I will say this because you remind me a lot of my wife and Michael and you argue. Really reminds me.

[Lauren]

No, Your poor wife.

[Whitfield]

Hey, you said it. Okay?

[Adam]

Am I your husband?

[Whitfield]

If my. If my wife was being menaced by a car and it hit her thigh and she had a gun and she was a man, could draw quickly.

[Adam]

Yeah.

[Whitfield]

Because she's not a federal agent. And if she was in a gay.

[Adam]

State like California, she would get charged with manslaughter anywhere.

[Lauren]

What was your name again?

[Michael]

Dude?

[Whitfield]

You wouldn't get charged with manslaughter in.

[Adam]

The state of Tennessee if it touched her thigh. Yes.

[Whitfield]

If it.

[Lauren]

Well, you could also get married as a child in Tennessee. So anything. Girls here, you know, Joking.

[Whitfield]

You in California?

[Lauren]

No, you can't. Not California. Only in the Bible Belt. Google, but.

[Whitfield]

Okay, Yeah, I don't care.

[Molly]

So we.

[Lauren]

Let's.

[Adam]

Let's do it.

[Michael]

Go forth.

[Whitfield]

I'm ready to hear.

[Michael]

All right, all right, break it up, you two. The tension. You can cut the tension with a knife. Now we have to pick.

[Whitfield]

We should write a novel about that.

[Michael]

We should write a novel about that. We should. Now we got to pick who won the round. Before we get to the more important question of who won the question round, I think I know the winner. So who here thinks that the libs won the debate? On that topic, you gotta put your cards up. Blue cards.

[Adam]

I'm sensing some audience bias here.

[Michael]

Not a lot. We got one.

[Adam]

Blue.

[Michael]

We got one.

[Lauren]

I love a democracy, to be honest.

[Michael]

Now, how many think that I won that debate? Okay, all right, we got. All right, all right, listen. This happened the first time. The first time he was here. It was all very reasonable people. So I kept winning everything. And then on the next few debates, there were a bunch of libs that came in.

[Adam]

Oh, really?

[Michael]

And so it was more like 50. 50. But today, I don't know. Now we have to figure out who won the question round. I think.

[Whitfield]

I'm not going to say.

[Michael]

We know. I think we know. Okay. Mr. Whitfield, would you please go over to the John Rich Rednick Riviera VIP table?

[Whitfield]

Oh, shit. Is that my prize for the model?

[Michael]

You can write the novel while you're over there. Okay, now it's round three.

[Gregory]

Yeah, there we go.

[Michael]

All right. I hope you had zbiotic before you started tonight. Okay, so the remaining topics. Trump is a great president and not at all corrupt. Did we do that one already?

[Adam]

No.

[Michael]

No, we didn't. Okay. We have a major Somali problem and we need white men to save us.

[Whitfield]

We already did.

[Michael]

Abortion. Trump is putting Americans first. The Venezuela strike was American as Taco Bell.

[Mr. Davies]

It's kind of cool.

[Adam]

I like Venezuela, though. I like that one.

[Michael]

I know I like that one. They don't like it as much.

[Adam]

Okay, yeah, yeah. That's topic five.

[Michael]

So. All right. I actually think I think it's between. Gosh, I don't know. It might be between three. Who says? The Somalis. Who says Trump putting America first? Not as much. Who says Venezuela? I agree.

[Adam]

Venezuela.

[Michael]

You think it's Venezuela? What do you think, Mr. Davies? Venezuela or Somalia?

[Adam]

Venezuela.

[Michael]

Over here. Let's take it. All right. That's actually mine.

[Adam]

Okay.

[Michael]

I believe, and I am correct to believe that the Venezuela strike was as American as apple pie. Now, I want to be clear. I support the strike, but I'm not arguing that it was a great strike. It was.

[Adam]

It certainly was.

[Michael]

It was an excellent strike. But I'm not even making that point. I'm not saying it was geostrategically necessary, though probably it was. I'm simply saying it was very, very American. Some people came out afterwards, said it was unprecedented and unlawful. It was funny because Kamala Harris said it was unlawful, and it was awkward because her own administration had called for precisely the arrest of Maduro and actually offered 25 million bucks to get it. So Trump did exactly what she wanted, but saved $25 million, which is great. But it was very, very American. And this is because we have been intervening in Latin America since 1846, really going back to 1823 with the Monroe Doctrine, but actively since the Mexican American War, 1846, we have intervened 88 times in that period now, 89 times, I guess, because of Venezuela. We did it something like seven times in the 19th century. We did it a little more than that 77 times in the 20th century. We've done it three now, four times in the 21st century. It was awesome. It did the Founding Fathers proud, and it's very, very American.

[Adam]

Wait, can I ask you a question? Yes. Following up on that, you just named a lot of the regime changes or at least removals of leaders in Latin America and the Middle East. Can you name a single time in the past, like, 50 years? It's gone well for us, for the United States?

[Michael]

Yeah, yeah. Quite recently in Panama. It was great. We got Noriega out just 30 years ago. Worked out great.

[Adam]

So I think part of the problem is that the prompt that you sent me, I was curious. Can you admit that the vast majority of times, they've not only gone wrong, but it's led to the deaths of, like, hundreds of thousands of people? When have we done regime change? This is just history, right?

[Michael]

No, sometimes Middle East a lot in Latin America, too, but Middle east has gone worse than Latin America. Latin America, we're better at it. Sometimes it can go wrong in Guatemala it went a little rough, but a lot of times it's pretty easy. I mean, we've gone in, in places like the doctor, we go in, we take someone out and then we kind of reform him, we put him back in sometimes we've done that. We basically created the nation of Panama out of Colombia. We've done it in Nicaragua a bunch of times. So it's been, we've been pretty, actually pretty effective there.

[Adam]

I don't think in Latin America it's turned out well 90% of the time. So the prompt that you submitted to me was that, that the strikes on Venezuela were as American as Taco Bell. And I was thinking, I agree in the sense that you regret eating Taco Bell the next day. In the same way, in the same way that most regime strikes are regretful or no, sorry, most regime changes are regretful at some point. Now, this isn't even me again, living out. If you look at the history of. I'm not. If you genuinely. I want to put America first and I want to prioritize Americans on the ground. Not only economically, when unemployment is up, not only small businesses, but I think Americans should be prioritized. And right now I see Donald Trump being caught up with things abroad. So not only Greenland, not only Canada. He talks about, he talks a lot about Europe, but he talks a lot about Venezuela. I've seen him talk more about Venezuela in Greenland than inflation or healthcare at this point. And the problem is with Venezuela or with Latin America, almost all regime changes we've done have gone poorly over the course of a few years. So even with Gaddafi, this is what Gaddafi was awful.

[Michael]

That was a disaster under Obama.

[Adam]

This proves my point too. I'm not going to defend Obama on this point. In the two to three weeks following the removal of Gaddafi, I was doing this research, looking up the articles. People were celebrating and people were saying this is finally bringing an era of peace. People were saying now that Gaddafi is gone, the Middle east is going to be reformed. Well, guess what, like two or three months later they devolved into a civil war with open air slave markets and they are still in a very bad spot. So I'm not even going to argue against the removal of Maduro. I thought the military did a great effing job. The military kill.

[Michael]

Amazing.

[Adam]

It was so impressive.

[Michael]

Of course, of course.

[Adam]

I also think Maduro is the enemy of the Western civilization. I think Maduro is the enemy of America. So don't mistake me as defending Maduro. But I genuinely think there are problems with regime changes being Carried out. And there are also problems with the President unilaterally striking other countries without the authorization of Congress.

[Michael]

So you're making one big error because you've conflated two things. I said there have been 88 interventions in Latin America and you've equated them with regime Change. Change. Only 15 of those were regime change. Sometimes they were interventions to just make the regime act a little better.

[Adam]

But interventions blew back too. I mean, we can call it whatever you want. When you military.

[Michael]

Those are leaders. The key here is, do you think the Venezuela strike was a regime change?

[Adam]

I think it's regime coercion at this point because the regime is still.

[Michael]

But it's not regime change. Is the regime still there?

[Adam]

It's military intervention. Wait, that's not a good argument. The Maduro regime is still there and you think that looks like good for us?

[Michael]

Yes, because I agree with you that sometimes massive upheavals of regime are a bad idea.

[Adam]

The biggest problem, most times.

[Michael]

Most times, maybe, maybe, maybe not. The biggest problem in Iraq, of course, was not when we entered, we actually were greeted as liberators. The problem was when we disbanded the Ba'ath party, when we de baathized Iraq and created the insurgency. So in the case of Venezuela, what we're doing here is not Bush era spreading of democracy, Madisonian liberalism around the world.

[Adam]

Wait, what are we doing then?

[Michael]

What we're doing there is kicking China out, kicking Iran out, out, kicking Russia out. We're taking oil that is owed to us. We're taking out Maduro, who's been a target of the United States for 25 years now. Well, since the Chavez regime. And now we're leaving his deputy in charge and we're saying play ball or else. What's gonna happen otherwise is we're treat you worse than Maduro.

[Adam]

Okay, but this is a problem which is very restraining.

[Whitfield]

Do a little Donroe doctrine.

[Michael]

The Donroe doctrine, baby. Now we're.

[Adam]

This is a massive, massive problem. This is a massive problem. A lot of times when interventions fail, it's because there's not a solid backup plan. I think this would have gone way better.

[Michael]

But there's the back plan. Leave the vice president in place. Okay.

[Adam]

That is an awful backup plan. I think he should have at least endorsed Machado, who is the opposition leader.

[Michael]

That would have been a full regime change.

[Adam]

There's. There's so many.

[Michael]

That would have been Libya, that would have been Iraq.

[Adam]

We are going in to pillage their resources like oil.

[Michael]

Then we are holding, first of all, some of those are our resources that they stole.

[Adam]

You can, we can debate that, but we can. Then oil executives. I mean, just to back up everyone in this room, most people in this room who voted for Trump probably wanted Trump to put America first. Right now what I see is Donald Trump focusing so much so on foreign countries that he is now pillaging Venezuela for reasons. Resources for their resources without helping the Venezuelan people. How does this help the Venezuelan?

[Michael]

So then who's it helping? It's helping Americans first. No, you're wrong.

[Adam]

You're wrong. It's not. It's helping oil executives. It's helping Chevron. It's helping oil execs that were sitting around.

[Michael]

Do you think that when the United.

[Lauren]

States do not care if you guys die uninsured, by the way, none of them, none of them know your name.

[Adam]

But wait a minute.

[Lauren]

So it's like you're riding for Chevron.

[Adam]

Think about this.

[Lauren]

None of them know you.

[Michael]

Donald Trump.

[Adam]

Donald Trump put US Troops lives at risk during this operation just to make oil executives rich. No, you guys, that is absolutely true.

[Michael]

Adam, you know, there was a legal order going back five years for the arrest of Nicolas Maduro.

[Adam]

That's not an illegal. I'm not making any legal argument. Legality argument.

[Michael]

The previous administration called for this very action.

[Adam]

I'm not making a legality argument.

[Michael]

No, you're. You're saying that. Do you think that the Biden Harris administration only called for that policy? Do you think the judge who issued the arrest warrant only did so. So to make oil executives rich?

[Adam]

No, I think that.

[Michael]

Exactly. There you go. And Trump didn't do it either.

[Adam]

No, I have a better answer. I think that Biden would have at least encouraged Machado to step into power and then help the Venezuelan people.

[Michael]

Your problem is.

[Adam]

So can you make a Machado, bro? What? We are subjecting the Venezuelan people to take their oil to just benefit us. This is not a good precedent to set. You're not making a good argument here.

[Michael]

No, no, no.

[Adam]

The how does benefit the Venezuelan people?

[Michael]

The dictator of Venezuela was inviting our enemies into the hemisphere. China, Russia and Iran. They were sending illegal aliens by the busload, much more than the busload into the United States, especially under Joe Biden. They were sending drugs into the United States. They were funding terrorism. And so that was a national security problem for the United States. This has been the case as a cornerstone of American foreign policy since 1823. We removed him in accordance with 25 years of US policy.

[Adam]

Okay, let me. I have one more question. Yeah, I guess the question is if Delsey Rodriguez begin begins to not play ball and tries to lengthen the go.

[Michael]

Threaten to kill her.

[Adam]

Okay, so we are going to continue U.S. military force.

[Michael]

Yeah. So just like we have since 1846.

[Adam]

You guys have no morals. You guys voted for no new wars. And Michael knows is up here saying that we might be in a prolonged war with Venezuela.

[Michael]

We always do that.

[Adam]

You guys, are you okay with Trump starting a prolonged war war with Venezuela without the authorization of Congress? Where's the war?

[Michael]

Where's the war?

[Lauren]

You guys are really going to go to war?

[Adam]

Wait, wait.

[Whitfield]

It's an 88 minute war.

[Adam]

We are talking hypothetically if Del Rodriguez doesn't help Trump. This was literally. Were you not listening over there?

[Michael]

Yeah.

[Lauren]

I think he's going to go to war.

[Adam]

I didn't say there is a war. I said if Del Rodriguez doesn't get.

[Michael]

I'll tell you what probably will happen is probably what happened the last time time we replace the leader of Venezuela is that it'll take about an hour and a half and we'll just go to the next guy.

[Adam]

Wait, wait, so you're just going to perpetually remove leaders that are handpicked by. If we had wait then hand picked by Rodriguez.

[Michael]

That's what we've done for centuries.

[Adam]

Ineffective. Least American first policy ever.

[Michael]

We've done it since the Mexican American War.

[Lauren]

Anything for Chevron.

[Adam]

Donald Trump in 20.

[Michael]

The Mexican American war existed before Chevron.

[Adam]

Existed under the Trump administration. Back in 2019 they did a war games.

[Michael]

All right, finish this in.

[Adam]

They did a war game simulation of what would happen if we removed Maduro. It said within one to two months. There are three scenarios. Either it devolves into a civil war that cuts us off from oil. Either warring militias begin to coup whoever is in charge. Del C. Rodriguez. And the third one was like even worse. So all of this, that's why they didn't do it. All of the scenarios in this war games showed that removing Maduro long term doesn't help. So you just made the argument that we could be perpetuated.

[Michael]

So why should we?

[Adam]

No, you just made the argument that we could be perpetually removing leaders for the next few years while they draw out the negotiations, which is the United States being in a war with Venezuela. That's not what I want to hear.

[Michael]

What you have to say. All right, we gotta go. Let's go. Yeah.

[Molly]

Hi, my name's Lauren.

[Lauren]

So name twins. I actually have a comment for you. First off, totally respect you for coming up here and debating, but I just think that Lauren delorene.

[Molly]

I think if you use a little.

[Lauren]

Less ad hominen attacks and going after people's characters will all take you a lot more seriously. Most of the comments you said have been reflecting on our appearances or our stereotypes. And I think we'll all listen to you a lot more if you back off on that and start using more facts. Okay. So thank you, Lauren. What I will say is like, I don't get to. Everyone feels very entitled to kindness, but in the same breath, they're talking about killing mothers four times in the face. And we're like, woo. And then you're like, hey, Lauren, be a little nicer. So it goes without saying, be nicer. I'm saying use facts instead of attacks.

[Molly]

On character because you should be able.

[Lauren]

To defend your point with facts and not with going after how they look. And I have, but I haven't gotten be able to. No, you haven't.

[Adam]

Actually, to be fair, it's a combative environment. And when people are booing you, sometimes it's easy to get defensive when you're on stage.

[Michael]

Yeah, but I. Here's a good example. Since we're having a nice little therapy session, like when we were arguing about abortion, you didn't really focus so much on the policy or the fact it's not. You were trying to impugn the motives and psychoanalyze the people who say openly that, like myself, that we just don't want babies to be killed.

[Lauren]

Okay, but the topic which I think is unfair, wanting to control women's bodies. And what did we get to wanting to control women's bodies?

[Michael]

Yeah, I guess.

[Lauren]

And also a fundamental misunderstanding of abortion. And it's very difficult to have a debate with convers around facts when people are not connected to reality, which objectively the definition of abortion, which the room tended to just not agree with, which. Which science is one of those things you either understand, you can't not believe in it. You just either. It's like two plus two four.

[Michael]

You make a great point, Lauren. You either understand it or you don't.

[Gregory]

That's true.

[Michael]

Okay, next question.

[Molly]

Okay, I actually.

[Lauren]

Goodbye.

[Molly]

I actually have a question. I have a question for Lauren on the abortion topic. Actually, my first question leading into this is, do you believe that black lives matter? Yes. Okay, great. Second to that is abortion has killed nearly half the population of black people. If it's not for abortion, there would be almost double the amount of black people that there are today. Are you glad that those women were not encouraged to control their bodies and give birth to their children.

[Lauren]

Bring it back to facts because you guys love facts. That's a fact. Fetuses are not people. Fetuses are not people.

[Molly]

So, okay, so, okay, okay, so. So the fetuses, the black fetuses that were removed from their mother's wombs would have, had they been born, grown up to be black children, black adults, and they would have almost nearly double the population that they have today. That is half of the black population that has been wiped out because these women were encouraged to kill.

[Michael]

That's just a fact.

[Florence]

Florence.

[Adam]

Michael's like, maybe I am pro abortion.

[Lauren]

What is.

[Molly]

Molly, nice to meet you. Yes, ma'. Am.

[Lauren]

Nice to meet you too. So babies are not the same as fetus.

[Michael]

They literally are. To grant your premise, let's say that fetus isn't really a baby. What she's saying is if the abortions did not take place, left unimpeded, those fetuses or whatever you want to call them would have become fully grown black people and the black population of the US would be double.

[Lauren]

Why are we talking about the black population when we're talking about control over women's body? If black women want to have the.

[Michael]

Baby, they can have the baby. We don't only talk about what you want to talk about, Lauren.

[Adam]

I think that we, I think that what we'd say is we'd prioritize the autonomy of these women to make their own decision over them being forced to have a baby.

[Lauren]

And where does the state appointment come from, Ollie?

[Adam]

Suboptimal environments or be? I mean, if these people got abortions, it's probably because they couldn't support a baby coming into the world. You guys always talk about, or they didn't want to. You guys always talk about single parent households and you guys talk about these. If a baby is going to be born to a mother whose father left and he decides to, or she decides to abort, I think that she's making a decision to prioritize herself over a baby that will be born to a shitty situation. That's the environment. That's the argument that we made.

[Michael]

Do you think that a baby who has been born to a single mother should be open to a post birth abortion? In other words, he's going to grow up in a bad environment. All these problems that you're ascribing to these young black women, and we all know that, but he's been born, but he's going to have a really tough life. You think should. Wouldn't it be better for that child to be killed?

[Adam]

No, of course not.

[Mr. Davies]

No, no.

[Michael]

Then why would it be better for baby five minutes earlier in the womb to be.

[Lauren]

I'm not saying it was. And that's a murder. When a person is born, yes, that's murder. That's homicide. You guys, come on.

[Michael]

I guess the point that Adam's making is interesting to me because it's kind of like the freakonomics argument. Like, they said crime rates went down because abortion rates went up. Which is a pretty ghoulish argument, if it is even true. But I guess my point. If the premise of your argument is that a kid growing up in tough circumstances justifies just killing in the first.

[Adam]

Place, I'm not saying I justify that. I said the bodily autonomy of women. That's probably the argument that we make that women. No, no. Mainly the bodily autonomy of women to make the decision for their own situation.

[Michael]

So it's really the cause. Those are totally different. Really. I think you're saying the bodily autonomy is what it's all about, but also they grow up in bad situations. But if we only isolate the latter one, you would throw that argument out.

[Adam]

I'm saying the argument that she's trying to make basically is that women are prioritizing bodily autonomy over some nebulous idea of the black population growing. I think that, yeah.

[Michael]

They're prioritizing it over their own babies. I think that's wrong.

[Adam]

Okay, then, yeah, we don't. We think that bodily autonomy is.

[Lauren]

You kind of think that if you don't want an abortion, don't get one.

[Michael]

Whatever happened to accountability? Whatever happened to accountability?

[Lauren]

How many people does it take to.

[Molly]

Make long term consequences to choosing to control your own body? Whatever it is, you're saying there are long term consequences. And half of the black population not being here today is a consequence of all of those women choosing.

[Lauren]

Not to give birth to their babies.

[Molly]

There is a consequence to that. It's not just like.

[Lauren]

So what's the fixation with black women's abortions?

[Molly]

Because it's proven it's a statistic.

[Lauren]

Why do you care about why? Why did you come up here and choose to talk about black women's abortions? Why?

[Michael]

Because it'll tug on your liberal heart.

[Lauren]

I'm asking Molly. Molly, why?

[Molly]

Because it is a statistical example of.

[Lauren]

A statistical example.

[Molly]

It is a statistical example of the long term effects of abortion.

[Michael]

Abortion.

[Lauren]

Why did you choose that out of all the statistics?

[Michael]

Because you don't want to talk about.

[Molly]

One of their pinnacle fights over the last 10 years has been Black Lives Matter. And I'm standing up as a pro life conservative saying Black lives matter.

[Lauren]

Okay, so Black lives Matter. So black women who are alive and here and functioning on this earth, that you don't believe that they have the right to choose whether to kill their kids is the right decision. Okay, let's talk about that is the question that is literally exactly you. So I might have made that choice.

[Molly]

And half of Venezuela is not here.

[Lauren]

I can't hear Molly because everyone's hooting and hollering. What was your question? Whatever you just said, I can't. Couldn't hear that. Can you say it again?

[Mr. Davies]

I have a question about the current time.

[Lauren]

I'm talking to Molly.

[Molly]

I don't know what you asked and what.

[Lauren]

Why. Like, again, succinctly, explain to me why you chose Black Lives Matter and forcing black women to give birth is your platform of choice tonight. It's not.

[Molly]

There's no. No one's forcing. We are encouraging and showing.

[Lauren]

Encouraging is a different thing from forcing.

[Molly]

That a fetus is a baby and that every life deserves to have a chance to live. No one's forcing.

[Lauren]

Holding the woman down.

[Molly]

We are encouraging and hoping that they will give their babies the right to life and the opportunity to live a life.

[Lauren]

Okay.

[Molly]

And if they're born into shitty circumstances, maybe they'll turn it around and become an incredible leader.

[Lauren]

You don't know, Molly. We agree on a couple things. We agree that. Like hope. Sure. You can hope one thing. I can hope one thing. Gregory can hope one thing.

[Michael]

But what about wit?

[Lauren]

What about witness? Give it up for Gregory. But there's a difference between hope and forcing. And I believe in the autonomy of women. Well, that's the thing. The question is, is, like, when it.

[Adam]

Comes to work, the only thing we.

[Mr. Davies]

Agree on is that hope is not a strategy.

[Michael]

Yeah, that's okay. It's a theological virtue, though. All right, all right, hold on. We got to move on. Let's.

[Mr. Davies]

Okay, bringing it back to the current topic. I would like you all to answer or explain. Define what about international law is legitimate or has any sort of grounding or force? Because based on US Law, every action taken in Venezuela was completely legitimate, but based on, you know, all of the complaints about it are violations of international law.

[Adam]

So please explain that. That wasn't my complaint about it. I didn't bring in a legal argument or an international law argument. I think there's a decent argument that Trump made legal strikes. Now, the distinction I'd make. Obama made a lot of. Did a lot of Strikes under the authorized use of military force. In a post 911 era, Trump, when you're striking a country should probably go through Congress before doing an act of war. But I'm not going to say it's illegal or it's going to be upheld as illegal. The reason I say that every president should have to go through Congress, not only Trump, but Obama and Biden before doing this is because we don't want presidents as Americans to be able to unilaterally strike or do acts of war. For example, Trump is talking a lot about Greenland lately. Would you be okay if Trump authorized a strike on Greenland?

[Michael]

I will become the most Dick Cheney neocon. I want F35s flying over nuke Baby. I want to greet them. I want them to greet us as liberators from their Danish overlords.

[Adam]

Words you realize. Wait, wait, wait, wait.

[Gregory]

It's fine.

[Adam]

Yeah. Okay. You guys have no moral foundation. You guys voted for something mean, too.

[Lauren]

Adam's being mean, too.

[Adam]

Hold up, hold up. No, no, this is so true. Donald Trump said over and over, no new wars. No new wars. And you guys just cheered for somebody who wants F35s to fly over a NATO. Listen, no, Donald Trump has not ruled out military force against a NATO ally. Now, I want to talk a bit, little bit about, like, international law and why it's important just for one second. In a Post World War II era, after the bloodiest conflict in human history, all the world leader leaders came together and said, we have to make sure the world doesn't devolve into chaos again. So they created NATO, which says that you can't just invade countries for no reason. I'm not wrong. But to continue. Good one, you guys.

[Michael]

Well, no, it wasn't all the world leaders. Right. There was. Half the world was, of course, aligned with NATO, half with the.

[Adam]

That's a great point. So developed countries decided to join NATO. Then they got to enjoy.

[Michael]

The Soviet Union was a developed country, okay?

[Adam]

The countries that joined NATO got to enjoy decades and decades of not only economic growth, but more technology, more medicine. The countries that haven't joined NATO are honestly like third world shitholes at this moment. So NATO exists to keep us safe, to make sure that we have a world order that is in, in focus, and the United States benefits from that world order. So I just don't like Donald Trump trying to step all over NATO, trying to threaten our NATO ally of Greenland. You realize we have US Troops on the ground in Greenland. Not to invade them, but because they're a ally, we could Call them up and just say he. Hey, can we put more troops on the ground?

[Michael]

Is Greenland an independent nation?

[Adam]

Greenland is not independent, no. Oh, you're right.

[Michael]

So we're talking about Denmark.

[Adam]

Okay. No, no. We have troops in Greenland.

[Michael]

Yeah, yeah.

[Adam]

So we can call up Denmark and literally just say, can we increase troops to Greenland? Or I'm sure we can communicate with Greenland directly.

[Michael]

Why does Denmark have Greenland? Isn't that weird? We're closer to Greenland than Denmark is.

[Adam]

That's not how you. That's not how property or international law works.

[Michael]

Isn't that what you mentioned? International is very interesting here because you mentioned NATO, and it's very telling that you misspoke and you think said that the whole world was united by NATO. No, no. That was a product of the Cold War where half the world was divided into NATO and the other half was in the Warsaw Pact. And so when the Cold war ended, Now, 35 years ago, the role of NATO dramatically changed and the role of the United States as the sole global hegemon changed. And so there is such a thing as international law. I'm not one of these people who says international law is fake. There is such a thing. I'm not Matt Walsh. I do think it's really, though, the point he's making is a good one, which is that the modern instantiation of international law, like the UN and associated bodies, is ridiculous. It's a liberal international law.

[Adam]

It's not ridiculous. Article 5 of NATO has prevented nuclear war from breaking out.

[Michael]

The military might of the United States has prevented nuclear war from breaking out. That's what it is. And that's all NATO is, too.

[Adam]

Wait, wait. No, no, no.

[Lauren]

You're.

[Adam]

Wait.

[Michael]

Hey, guys.

[Adam]

Clap for everything. You're making my points.

[Florence]

One more question.

[Adam]

You're making my points. The military might of the United States has deterred countries from invading our NATO allies, which would also have military troops if they got invaded. So the might of the United States as the leader of NATO has benefited us. Right.

[Michael]

We provide their military protection. China and Russia are aggressing on Greenland. It's strategically necessary. It's been the policy of the U.S. state Department since the mid 19th century to acquire Greenland. We have to take it.

[Adam]

If China and Russia did anything to Greenland under NATO, Article 5 would mean that we retaliate. Like Russia and China are right, and.

[Michael]

We'Re getting a heads guard. That's what's going on.

[Adam]

You guys have no more foundation. If you're okay.

[Florence]

I appreciate people who've never seen conflict. Really, like, get emboldened and really, like, lash out about how they know everything about world conflict. As for a lot of people in this country, you know, we've never had conflict.

[Adam]

Are you okay with new wars being started?

[Michael]

Because that's what he's saying.

[Florence]

My, my question is.

[Adam]

But you just said you want F35s over Greenland. Now you're saying you're not.

[Michael]

It won't last very long.

[Adam]

No moral foundation.

[Florence]

I appreciate the sentiment of no new wars, but my question to you is, do you think that America will survive if we do not take a country like Venezuela with the largest oil deposits? Because, listen, hear me out. America creates light oil. We have a lot of fracking in this country. Most of our refineries and things that convert heavy oil is what we have here in America, which is on the Gulf of America. Yay, Gulf of America. But ultimately, when you have China, Russia, everyone teaming up with Cuba, Venezuela, who are taking over Guyana for all the resources, consider the one belt one road initiative that China is putting in place. They're giving a lot of money to these regimes to make them look good so they can create infrastructure so they can win the voting power. And then they're indebted forever to China when they take over that region and they have all these resources that we do not. And then they start launching missiles into our backyard right across the country. Gulf, do you think as the leaders of the free world, that we should not intervene and take over Venezuela?

[Adam]

Should we intervene and take over Venezuela? No. And we haven't done that. Currently, Deli Rodriguez is in power, so your frame is entirely wrong.

[Michael]

I mean, we're, we're running the show. She is sort of in power, but we are not Rubio and Trump.

[Adam]

Fundamental question, how is America supposed to survive if we're not taking over countries like Venezuela? The same way that we both survived, survived and excelled over the past 70 years. Years. Over the past 70 years, we have seen a massive increase in quality of life, technology, medicine, and it's awesome, right? Oil.

[Florence]

You need oil.

[Adam]

It's because the oil wars haven't the same way they did before, the luxuries.

[Florence]

Of what you love here in America no longer exist are.

[Adam]

Okay. Are you saying that pillaging Venezuela for their oil reserves and I'm not saying.

[Florence]

Pillaging away from a leader in a regimental. Who is working with China and our enemies out of the equation and letting them become an ally. We want Venezuela to be an ally so we can have access to.

[Adam]

We want them to be an ally by taking over their country. Number two, if you're scared.

[Florence]

Maduro is not on our team.

[Adam]

Rodriguez won't be either. But let me ask you, are you okay?

[Michael]

Are you doing all right now?

[Florence]

Should we or should we not have taken Maduro as we did?

[Adam]

It's fine if we took Maduro. That's not even my big problem.

[Florence]

So we're all on the same page. It's good that the regime has changed over, right?

[Adam]

Listen. No, the regime hasn't changed over. You're just wrong.

[Michael]

You think the leadership has changed over?

[Florence]

Leadership has changed.

[Adam]

Can I ask.

[Florence]

Give it time.

[Adam]

If you're so scared about Chinese aggression, would you be okay with protecting Taiwan if they were invaded by China?

[Florence]

Yes, because they are the closest democratic ally that we have.

[Gregory]

Okay.

[Adam]

I'm scared of Russian aggression. Are you okay with stopping Ukraine from being invaded by sending military. Not military troops, but military weapons, like we are.

[Florence]

So this is. I love how you bring this into the chessboard.

[Michael]

Wait, no, no.

[Florence]

Economics. I'm asking because you're getting into all of our allies and stuff, but at the end of when you're talking about the Russia, Ukraine war. Yes, we should support. What support should we do? In what capacity? Right. And that's where we're never all going to agree. However, one fundamental thing is America does not create enough heavy oil to maintain the lifestyle and the strength of America without this type of oil. So where do we get it?

[Adam]

Venezuela. That's the argument you're making.

[Florence]

And actually, to your point, Adam, just geopolitical truth. We are running out of heavy oil in America.

[Michael]

And to your point, Adam, I think we agree. We've reached a synthesis which is know you. You say. Well, you know, the way we should do it is we should get along as we have for the past 70 years. Well, over the last 70 years, we've intervened in Latin America like 50 times. We've overthrown a lot of regimes. So we're gonna keep on keeping on doing great.

[Adam]

It doesn't work. It doesn't work.

[Florence]

And they're creating alliances to create a socialistic party with Cuba and other enemies of America.

[Michael]

Bingo. Cascading effects. It's beautifully stated. Okay, we have to figure out who won that round. Was it. And you raised your paddles. Was it the liberal team? You guys, we got one. We got tried and true blue. Was it me? All right, there we go.

[Adam]

It's good.

[Michael]

All right, now I kind of saw that one coming.

[Adam]

Now.

[Michael]

Now, who won the question round? I think it's obviously the last guy. Right. That was very thoughtful and serious, I think.

[Adam]

Right.

[Florence]

Thank you?

[Michael]

I'm 2A daddy.

[Florence]

I do gun stuff. Second amendment.

[Michael]

I'll be here all year.

[Florence]

I live here. Come hang out. Let's shoot some guns.

[Michael]

Yeah. My bad guys are awesome. Great. I just got a new gun. My buddy Nick Freitas gave me a Desert Eagle and it's Catholic and it's called the Excommunicator.

[Gregory]

It's sick.

[Michael]

Anyway, maybe I'll have to bring that guy.

[Adam]

I'll go shooting with you for content. That'd be fun. We can record it.

[Michael]

Do you shoot? Have you ever.

[Adam]

Yeah. Yeah, we can do it.

[Michael]

Wow. All right, let's go.

[Adam]

Liberals are normal people, bro. I mean, we're just normal people.

[Michael]

Oh, some of the, like a very few numbers sometimes. Okay.

[Adam]

But you can also point to Republicans who raided the Capitol. I mean, people are always going to be crazy.

[Michael]

Yeah, Those guys, they're going to come shooting with us too. Ok, now. Okay. Now we turn to the VIP table. I don't know. Did we solve all of the world's problems or not? Is there one more topic we have to get to. To hash out?

[Whitfield]

Oh, man, I don't know.

[Adam]

Ask us anything.

[Michael]

You don't think we solved them?

[Whitfield]

I don't think you solved them, but I don't know. I don't. I actually don't know. I don't have a topic.

[Michael]

You don't have a. You know, is there anyone. Is there any suggestion?

[Lauren]

Gregory, let's go.

[Gregory]

I say we take on the transgender with the Supreme Court case is that they're hearing today. We take on that transgender issue just a little bit further.

[Michael]

Okay. So the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in two cases. The libs won't let this issue die, which is great for Republicans, cuz if we were gonna get blown out in the midterms, this is like our absolute best hope of turning it around. And basically the libs are arguing that states cannot pass laws banning banning boys who identify as girls from girl sports. And the court heard it. And Ketanji Jackson spoke something vaguely resembling English and Clarence Thomas smacked them down and the ACLU fumbled. So is there any particular angle with that?

[Lauren]

Let's talk about our fifth place superstar, Riley Gates.

[Gregory]

Let's talk about trans women. I think that's.

[Michael]

You want to talk about trans women? Did you have anything to do Trans.

[Gregory]

Women and women's sports.

[Lauren]

Okay, cool. I love talking about women's sports.

[Whitfield]

So, Adam, is it right? Adam?

[Adam]

Yeah.

[Whitfield]

Since you're effectively Bill Clinton. Clinton.

[Adam]

I don't know what you mean.

[Michael]

Yeah.

[Whitfield]

What I mean by that is like, you're the only moderate dinner Democrat left.

[Adam]

There's a lot of moderates.

[Whitfield]

Can. How old are you?

[Adam]

23.

[Whitfield]

Oh, okay.

[Adam]

No, no, you're good.

[Michael]

What's up?

[Whitfield]

All right. Do you think men can become women?

[Adam]

Can men become women?

[Whitfield]

Yeah.

[Adam]

You can change genders from male. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But there's a difference between. Do you think there's a difference between sex and gender?

[Whitfield]

Do I think there's a difference between sex and gender? Yeah, yeah. I think that they're two different terms.

[Adam]

So when you go up to someone in a grocery store and you're walking up to them, what do you think scientifically, they're different?

[Whitfield]

Well, gender is a sociological term.

[Adam]

Yeah. Based on, like, physical appearances, like hair length or other things like that. And then sex is based. It's not a joke. Sex is based on your genitals, right? Yeah. So can I ask you a question? If.

[Whitfield]

Yes, please do.

[Adam]

Genuinely. No, no, for real.

[Whitfield]

I'm not joking with you.

[Adam]

Okay. So if you're walking up to somebody in a grocery store, say it's a worker and you can only see them from behind. All you see is somebody with long, luscious hair.

[Whitfield]

Yeah.

[Adam]

Is it devour.

[Michael]

No, no.

[Adam]

Say you're walking up to somebody in a grocery store and you can only see them from behind, and you say they have long, luscious hair. They have jewelry around their wrist. Do you go based on. Do you go based on a vague assessment of social characteristics or do you check their genitals before you check to see if they're male or female?

[Whitfield]

Before I got sober or after.

[Adam]

No, but you said. Genuinely, which one? Which one?

[Whitfield]

I would assume that they were a man or a woman.

[Adam]

Well, based on their.

[Whitfield]

Oh, they.

[Adam]

With those characteristics, I'm saying, is it based on their genitals or do you base it on their broad characteristics out in public?

[Whitfield]

Broad characteristics.

[Adam]

So when somebody out in public has long hair or jewelry from behind in 2026, that could be a male or a female. Totally. Yeah. So, absolutely. So the difference between sex and gender, as we laid out, is that sex.

[Whitfield]

Hold on, say that again.

[Adam]

Sorry, I'm just. I'm saying that when you're walking up to someone in a grocery store and they have long hair and they have a. They have a bracelet or whatever, jewelry, they could be a man or a woman.

[Whitfield]

Yes, exactly.

[Adam]

Exactly.

[Whitfield]

Stop there.

[Adam]

Exactly.

[Lauren]

Okay, I agree. I have a question.

[Adam]

No, no, no, wait. Hold up. I'm making my point. I'm making my point.

[Whitfield]

Okay, keep going.

[Adam]

The point that I'm Making here is. And you're. I don't know if you're too smart, too dumb to realize it. I don't know. The point that I'm trying to make here.

[Michael]

Maybe.

[Adam]

Yeah. So when you walk up to someone in a grocery store and you don't know what they are, it's because you go based on. On social characteristics, that is gender. Gender is defined as social characteristics. Sex are your genitals. So can somebody be transgender? Can somebody who has long hair and is a male then transition to look like a female? Yes.

[Florence]

Yes.

[Whitfield]

But. But come on, listen.

[Adam]

Yes.

[Whitfield]

Don't grant that.

[Adam]

Wait, so which part do you not grant?

[Michael]

Pretend.

[Whitfield]

Hold on a minute. I do not grant your premise.

[Michael]

Which premise? Well, the.

[Adam]

You granted all my premises, and now you have a problem.

[Michael]

Okay, let's hear.

[Whitfield]

Because right there, you're conflating what gender expression with. And you're.

[Michael]

You're declining.

[Adam]

I'm not.

[Whitfield]

Hold on.

[Adam]

Explain the difference.

[Whitfield]

You're decoupling. You're decoupling gender expression from sex.

[Adam]

No.

[Whitfield]

And then going, are.

[Adam]

You know, they change, Bro, you're making my point. 99% of the time, sex and gender overlaps. But in this 0.5% exception. Yeah. People can transition, like you admitted.

[Michael]

Yeah, but. Okay, where's my.

[Adam]

Where's my. Where's my. Where's my fundamental axiom? Wrong. Which axiom do I have wrong? You said that you reject my framing.

[Whitfield]

Again, you're.

[Michael]

You're confused.

[Whitfield]

You're decoupling.

[Michael]

How so?

[Whitfield]

By saying.

[Michael]

Because you're saying that a guy you're not even representing.

[Whitfield]

Again, you're Bill Clinton. You're not representing your own side. Your firmware's not updated.

[Adam]

This guy's shaking over there. He's shaking in the vip.

[Michael]

Hold on, Lauren, let's just finish this topic. The point where I think you're diverging is you're saying, and therefore this person can transition to have a transgender.

[Adam]

Wait. Can I ask you a question?

[Michael]

Yes.

[Adam]

Do you think somebody who has male characteristics can change themselves in such a way where they appear to be female when you walk up to them at a grocery store?

[Michael]

What do you mean? You mean.

[Adam]

I mean. I mean.

[Michael]

I mean jewelry, superficial, or, you know, sexual down.

[Adam]

Either way, it can be like tits.

[Michael]

I can't figure out which part you're asking about. Are you saying someone who, by all biological signs, is a man but wears a dress or, like, what do you mean by the characteristics? I mean, some of those are characteristics.

[Adam]

Yes. Somebody who has a penis, but they have pants on, obviously. So you can't tell. But then they're wearing jewelry. They have long hair. I mean, here's the thing.

[Whitfield]

I wish tried that hard.

[Michael]

So you can usually tell children not.

[Whitfield]

Even good at it.

[Michael]

Do you get what you're saying about thesis over there? I think you're making a great point, Adam. Which is. And you're granting it wit. Which is. Yes, there is a distinction between sex and gender. Of course, sex pertains to human nature biologically, and it's expressed biologically primarily. And gender expression. Is this social performance in some way? Exactly. But the problem. The problem is you're making an undue leap, which is you're saying, therefore one can transition from one to the other. Just because these things are distinct does not therefore imply that they should be in conflict with one another. So the pro transgender side says, well, you know, you can have. You know. Hold on, hold on. You can have gullions and you can dress like a woman, and therefore you're really a woman and entitled to all the rights of women. But I guess I would say the opposite. If you're a man who wants to put on a dress, you shouldn't. You should bring your gender expression into line with your biology, and you should act like a man. If you're a man, you have an obligation to do that.

[Adam]

I think. I think that 99 of people's gender aligns with their sex. I guess the question is, if we just refer.

[Lauren]

True. It's 1%.

[Adam]

If we just refer to women as trans women, would you guys be happier? Is that literally the.

[Michael]

No. I want them to act like who they really are.

[Adam]

Wait, so if. Do you think gender dysphoria is real according to DSM 5?

[Michael]

I think people get confused, but we should treat it rather than gender delude. Bro.

[Lauren]

I want to hear from.

[Whitfield]

I want to go back to DSM.

[Michael]

3 before, it was cool.

[Lauren]

Sports and girls T ball. Because that's what I thought this was Supreme Court hearing was. It was about elementary school children's sports. We're talking about girls and boys, which is under the age of 18. They're.

[Michael]

Yeah, but boys still have an advantage. It's less than after puberty, but they still.

[Whitfield]

What's your question?

[Lauren]

So my question is, what's the fixation around kids teeth ball?

[Whitfield]

Like, I. I've not mentioned kids T ball.

[Michael]

Yeah, we're not the ones who change.

[Adam]

I have a good question about transgender sports.

[Michael]

Hold on.

[Whitfield]

They play. What are your cues?

[Michael]

All right, fine. All right, we gotta go. In my opinion, no one wins a bar fight. They're only losers. So the real question is, who lost tonight? The question is, who's gonna buy the round?

[Lauren]

You are.

[Michael]

The question is. I know. I think I technically did. The question is, who is going to star in Witt's romance novel? And so who lost? Was it Adam you guys hate? Was it Lauren? Was it Lauren?

[Lauren]

Haters.

[Michael]

Was it me? Where are you? Come on. Shirley's got a yell. Yeah, okay, we got one. Who's me? She lost.

[Adam]

She lost in the same way. She lost in the same way Trump lost in 2020. We still have to do some court cases. We still have to, you know, contradict it a bit. Check some.

[Lauren]

Tomorrow.

[Michael]

And in the same way because Venezuela maybe stole it. I don't know. They won't steal it again. See you all at the next bar fight. Thank you.

[Lauren]

Yay.

[Whitfield]

It's okay not to be perfect with finances. Experian is your big financial friend and here to help. Did you know you can get matched with credit cards on the app? Some cards are labeled no Ding decline, which means if you're not approved, they won't hurt your credit scores. Download the Experian app for free today. Applying for no Ding decline cards won't hurt your credit scores. If you aren't initially approved, initial approval will result in a hard inquiry which may impact your credit scores.

[Michael]

Experian the new year brings new health goals and, well, health goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second.

[Adam]

If your identity is stolen, our restoration.

[Michael]

Specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth.

[Adam]

Part of your New year's goals.

[Michael]

With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast terms apply.