Say No To Neocons + AMA 285

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. 00:00:26 Speaker 2: You got to stop sending your kids to college. 00:00:27 Speaker 3: You should get married as. 00:00:28 Speaker 1: Young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Turning Point USA college chapter. 00:00:33 Speaker 4: Go start a Turning Point USA high school chapter. 00:00:35 Speaker 1: Go find out how your church can get involved. 00:00:37 Speaker 2: Sign up and become an activist. 00:00:39 Speaker 1: I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am. 00:00:46 Speaker 3: Lord, use me. 00:00:48 Speaker 2: Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. 00:00:56 Speaker 1: Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show. a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. 00:01:17 Speaker 3: All right. Welcome, everybody. It is November 6th. 2026. We're live at the Y refi studios here in Phoenix, Arizona, honored to be with you all across the country. So the finger pointing Blake continue. 00:01:29 Speaker 5: That was inevitable. 00:01:30 Speaker 3: And now there's this whole debate about something that really candidly should be put to rest. And that is what caused the debacle on Tuesday, the historic midterm loss. And we need to, again, be honest about that. Now, I think there is a tendency and a temptation to To overcomplicate things. Yes, there was issues of corruption. Yes, there was issues of whether or not the economy was rip-roaring. By the way, we got a great economic number today on employment. 00:01:57 Speaker 5: Don't take it. 00:01:58 Speaker 3: Yeah, we'll take it. A little late, but we'll take it. 00:02:00 Speaker 5: We want good things for this country. 00:02:01 Speaker 3: And they're trying to point at it. Tariffs, they're trying to point the finger at anything, anything other than the war in Iran, and that is foolishness. And that's why we call today's stream, say no to neocons. Say no to neocons. 00:02:15 Speaker 5: They're trying to trick you. It's like rats scurrying off a ship or something. It just stands out to me. They got the one thing that they've always wanted. Because so many people, they dreamed about getting their war with Iran some way for 20 years. And they don't even have the common decency to be grateful to Trump, unfortunately, for going for it. 00:02:38 Speaker 3: Or. 00:02:38 Speaker 5: To own up to, oh, yes, this was politically catastrophic that it happened. 00:02:44 Speaker 3: And it's interesting because the same usual suspects are out there saying, guys, it's actually all J.D. Vance's fault. If we just would have warred harder, if we just would have turned Iran into a parking lot and never pursued peace, got in and got out, we would have been done six months ago. I think that is the height of idiocy. Do you realize that Iran is bigger than like Syria and Iraq combined? Iran is a huge place. The regime was deeply entrenched. This was never going to be Venezuela. Never. Now, again, you can say, and I appreciate this perspective because it's honest, that we had a moral obligation to go into Iran first. to make sure they didn't have nukes, to save the Western world, because you genuinely believe they were going to use those against Israel and against Europe and ultimately against America. You can say that, and if you believe it, I will accept it. I may disagree, but at least I will accept it. But now, to come in after the fact and point the finger at J.D. Vance, as Mark Thiessen is doing, calling it a stunning act of disloyalty, that I cannot abide. Throw up 148. This is it. J.D. Vance, stunning act of disloyalty. Republicans lost in part because the Iran war dragged on. The vice president owns that. 00:04:11 Speaker 5: Now it's the vice president's fault that we didn't send in more weapons, send in more troops, go all out in a war. 00:04:18 Speaker 3: There wasn't 50,000 troops on Karg Island. 00:04:22 Speaker 5: If we just landed in Karg Island, then this war would all be over. 00:04:25 Speaker 3: If we would have done the full ground invasion, then everything would have been just fine. That's the height, I'll say it again, of idiocy. 00:04:33 Speaker 5: And you absolutely know, you absolutely know in the alternate world where we do that. Let's say we sent in 50,000 troops. Thousands of them are dead. We have some civil war in Iran. Tons of people are dying. And we lose even worse. We lose Louisiana. Lose more Senate seats. Lose Nebraska. And he would be writing the new headline where it's like, President Trump, he had to be a big tough guy, had to go way harder. 00:04:56 Speaker 3: Than anyone needed. Some losses are worth it. 00:04:57 Speaker 5: Yeah, he would have said either some losses are worth it or he would have just said the president's inept bungling of this war. He used too much force because he had to show he was a big tough guy. We could have fought this war from the air and easily won it with a limited thing. That's what they would be saying. 00:05:11 Speaker 3: So now there's a big debate about some of the exit polls. They're trying to say, look at the exit polls, say that Iran was not a big deal. But they are misreading the exit polls. I don't know if they're being intentionally dense or if they're just that incompetent. Throw up 143. So here's Mark Thiessen again. And by the way, it's not just Mark Thiessen. He just happens to be the easiest example to highlight that. He says, Iran, not at the top of the list of voters' priorities in changing our relationship with Israel. Nowhere to be found. Okay, but if you dig deeper into this, it's funny, it's already getting community noted. You can throw out 144. While the shared NBC exit poll data shows the Iran war ranked fourth among the issues called crucial 34 and foreign policy low as a top issue, the same poll found that 74% of voters said it was crucial or a major factor in their vote. Guess what? Of those 74%, how many ended up voting Democrat? 00:06:05 Speaker 6: 63%. 00:06:06 Speaker 3: That's a blowout. So 74% of Americans said it was crucial or a major factor, and we lost 63% of them. So it's true that a minority of voters who voted Republican do not share these views, by and large. But the numbers of voters who share these views was nowhere near enough to keep Republicans from being wiped out across the country. What you have to understand is that we are playing such a slim margin game, and every year when we import millions of more people that don't like our values and don't vote like native-born Americans, They vote in block, by the way. Indians vote in block, like second to black women. So all those H-1Bs in Texas, they're all just voting Democrat, like 70% clip. How's that working out? So when you have very, very tight margins and you have an issue that is like this, you are going to get wiped out. It is very, very simple. And for all of these people who say, oh, we just need to war harder. We needed to flatten Iran. It was the tear of stupid. They don't know what the heck they're talking about. And if we take the wrong lessons from Tuesday, we're screwed. Not just for the next six years, not just for the next 10 years, but it will be generational. 00:07:25 Speaker 5: They want to take it back to 2014 when there was like no solid future for this party. And it had no message that resonated with young people, no message that resonated with middle America at They just want to rewind the clock to a time where we were like a doomed minority party. And it doesn't have to be that way. And now they're just trying to spin out of something that is entirely for one day. Basically, we pivoted back to 20 Bush era GOP and we got punished like the Bush era GOP. And they want to spin this. David Shorey, left wing data analyst. He's had a lot of good posts on X about what drove this, even though he's liberal. He pointed out. The day before the Iran war started, Donald Trump's approval on gas prices was 49%, which was higher than his approval on the economy cost of anything else. It was actually quite high. And it just drops to basically way below everything. Overnight, never recovers. And right now, when you hit the midterm, his approval on gas prices was 28%. Yes. Overnight, it just drops. 00:08:27 Speaker 3: You can literally chart this on a graph. And the White House charted this on a graph. It was literally like before and after Iran. OK, we were on pace for a normal four point loss. And that's and mind you probably hold the Senate. Then at four points, we hold the Senate and we might just hold the House. So we might have lost the congressional popular vote, but we might have just squeaked out a tie in the House and held the Senate. That's the difference. And so all of these people who cheerlead. for a disastrously, catastrophically unpopular war, a war that I could tell you day in and day out, and many of you complained to me over email saying I was not having the president's back. These are the same people now pointing the finger at the one man who pursued peace in this conflict, which, by the way, was massively popular. Do you realize that the MOU was favorable by 40 points? That means it was a 70-30 issue. Do you realize that 67% of Americans thought it would lower gas prices? But it's all JD's fault for cautioning a full ground invasion of Iran. You gotta be kidding me, folks. You know, part of this is, I think, that people struggle with, like, graphs. A lot of people that get into the commentariat class, they're not math wizards, okay? But you have to look at this, okay? NBC poll, this is an exit poll, 141. Did the U.S. make the right decision or wrong decision in taking Miller? action against Iran? Can you throw up this this graphic? 00:10:04 Speaker 4: 141. 00:10:04 Speaker 3: There you go. The right decision. So let me walk you through what this graph says. I think some people see just like a big red bar and they think, oh, it's fine. 00:10:15 Speaker 7: No. No. 00:10:16 Speaker 3: The right decision only counted for 37% of the electorate. 37%. And yes, if you felt like going in on Iran, striking Iran, was the right decision, 91% of those people voted Republican. But guess what? Two-thirds of the electorate thought it was the wrong decision, and 83% of those people voted Democrat. Now, I'm not asking you to To do calculus here. I'm just saying 83% of two-thirds of the electorate is a much bigger chunk than 91% of 37%. Mm-hmm. Okay? 00:10:56 Speaker 5: That's 52% of the electorate, by the way. I did the math. 00:10:58 Speaker 3: Yes. 00:10:59 Speaker 5: Is basically Democrat just off of people who said Iran was the wrong decision. 00:11:03 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:11:04 Speaker 5: And then they get a few percent more from the right decision chunk. It's all those Al-Sayed voters in Michigan who are Jewish. 00:11:10 Speaker 3: And I think it's important to read what Shor said in full, 147. It's a little bit of a blurb of a paragraph here, but bear with me because it's important to understand. You know, I go back to this quote when President Trump said he could stand on Fifth or Sixth Avenue. I never remember which. And he could shoot somebody and they'd still vote for him. That was true. As long as he didn't do no wars. 00:11:33 Speaker 5: He just couldn't shoot the Ayatollah. 00:11:34 Speaker 8: Yes. 00:11:35 Speaker 3: I think they could probably do that. But as long as it was in Manhattan and not Iran. But this is what's so interesting because he was right. His bond with the electorate was so strong. If you look at Trump approval, this is from short written in Vox, both from 2016 to 2020, and then from 2024 until the end of 2025, it was really quite stable. Obviously, it was the highest at the beginning of his terms and went down after a month or two. But then for most of Trump's first term, he was hovering around the mid 40s in our data, and it rarely barely moved in response to events. And it was much the same for the first year of Trump's second term, which was worrisome because he's a Democrat. Trump had all these scandals, but at the end of the day, the line didn't move. A good day would be like, oh, Trump's approval is down three tenths of a percentage point. 00:12:25 Speaker 5: Amazing. 00:12:25 Speaker 3: Again, for his perspective, a good day for him. So a lot of people became very nihilistic. They were like, oh, we really live in this world where nothing matters. But then the Iran war happened and there was a giant war. Let me repeat, a giant structural shift in the public opinion. His approval rating on the cost of living plummeted. To put some numbers on this, the day before the Iran war, Donald Trump had a 49% approval rating on gas prices. Within a week, it was 33%. Massive, massive drop. And yeah, you could blame it on the cost of living. Remember, all of these issues were already riding very tense. And there was a lot of hope placed in President Trump that he was the chosen one, that this was our last chance at getting this right. This was our last chance at saving the republic, our last chance at mass deportations and the cost of living coming down and the economy booming and the golden age for America. We were going to breathe 20, 50, 75, 100 years of new life into this republic just on the back of one man and a massive political mandate that came after 2024. But these issues were bubbling under the surface. It was still too expensive after four years of Biden. The tariffs, yes, I actually am a big supporter of the president's tariff regime. Big supporter. I think we've been getting played for suckers for generations when it came to international trade. We were basically the only country in the world that felt we were morally incapable of fighting back and doing reciprocal tariffs. It's also a great tool of coercion and driving peace and getting concessions on the global stage. And it can be a great tool for onshoring. All of these things make tariffs great, but they do cause some chaos and some disruption. And when you're coming out of four years of Joe Biden's disastrous economic policy and inflation, tensions are riding very high. And the electorate is willing to put up with so much of that for a time. But then when you go into Iran and the gas prices immediately shoot up, it's everything else that's been holding back, everything else that you've been waiting for, everything else that you've been willing to be patient about snaps for a lot of people. 00:14:40 Speaker 5: I've just got to push back because we got an email here from Colleen who says, it was not the Iran war that caused this failure. Most logical people saw that the high price of gas food did not outweigh the threat of Iran getting nuclear capabilities. I'm sorry. I've got to push against that, Colleen. I think you're mistaken. I think if Iran's nuclear capabilities were really that strong, I think the administration needed to make that case stronger. But Notably, when the war broke out, that wasn't even the argument they made. They didn't come out and say, here's this intelligence. They actually are insanely close. They came out and said, it's time for regime change. The Iranian people need to rise up and claim their freedom. That's what was happening day one of the Iran strikes, day two of the Iran strikes. And it was only after that that we heard that the imminent nuclear breakout was the justification for it. And even if you think that's true, even if you really strongly believe it, and the president seems to believe it, and he probably knows more than us, That is not what the American public believes. The American public believes this is another war that is not in their interest in a foreign country, while America itself is in increasingly dire straits. 00:15:45 Speaker 2: Yep. 00:15:46 Speaker 3: And now Texas is blue. By the way, I do have calls into Laura Logan. I'm sure many of you are looking at some of the data coming out of Texas. I think it's a tough case to make. I mean, when people are claiming that there were no defectors from Republican tickets, that's not the data I'm seeing at all. That's not at all what I'm seeing. Every year there are defections. I'm seeing that there are more defections than there have been in previous years. 00:16:12 Speaker 5: Andrew and I and everyone on this team, we did get out the vote efforts, which means we did door knocking, which means we did calls and texts. We interact with our student chapters through Turning Point all of the time. There are a lot of angry people out there who voted Trump in 24. There are some of them who just say, I'm disappointed, but I understand I'm still going to vote. There are some who say, I'm not voting this time. There are some people who are so angry and say, I am never voting for a Republican again. 00:16:38 Speaker 3: And the independents. 00:16:41 Speaker 5: Those people are real. 00:16:42 Speaker 3: The independents swung hard. I mean, in some states, it was probably 70-30 against. So, listen, I have always been consistent that the geopolitical benefits of this conflict could be very real. And hopefully it ends in a way that is beneficial for all. And that will be a generational win. But we have to be honest about the fact that it also delivered us a historic electoral defeat at the ballot box, the likes of which we have not seen in Republican politics since 1973. Maybe even before that, according to some. So honesty is the best policy. And here's what I will say. For those who are saying that. 00:17:29 Speaker 9: J.D. 00:17:29 Speaker 3: Vance is not being loyal. If being honest about the main cause of Tuesday's historic loss is disloyalty, then just imagine what they're actually asking him to do. To be full of lies or to be silent. Refusing to reckon with the truth or to tell American people that we hear you will only deepen the credibility chasm. Got to be loyal to the country and loyal to the truth if we're going to get out of this mess. I've been telling you about Patriot Mobile for a long time now, and many of you have made the switch. This is for the rest of you. What are you waiting for? Every month, you stay with one of the big carriers. Your money goes to a company that doesn't share your values. Patriot Mobile is the real deal. For 12 years now, they've put their money where their mouth is, contributing millions of dollars to organizations defending the First and Second Amendments, the sanctity of life, and supporting our military veterans and first responders. They're not just a wireless company. They're activists fighting on the front lines with us. And the service is rock solid, higher priority, premium 5G coverage on any of the three major U.S. carriers, unlimited data, free international calling to over 200 countries, and 100% U.S.-based customer support. Right now, for Black Friday, they've got the best deal that they've ever, ever offered. A free 5G smartphone plus two months of free service No more excuses. Go to PatriotMobile.com slash Charlie Friday. That's PatriotMobile.com slash Charlie Friday or call 972-PATRIOT and use the promo code Charlie Friday. Free phone, two months free. Switch today. Terms and conditions apply. Joining us now is the one, the only Christopher Rufo, great investigative journalist. He also has the It's the Rufo and Lómez show. I want to make sure I get your name in front so Lómez doesn't get a big head about him. Chris, great to have you back on the show. I mean, you have some really interesting thoughts on the failure of the new right, as Ross Douthat has penned it. I want to get there, but first, your broad impression of Tuesday and how you're processing what just happened. 00:19:43 Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, obviously it's a wipeout. You just have to look at the numbers. It's very obvious. And so the question is really why? What happened? What's the analysis that can yield new insights? And look, I actually think that this has a lot to do with the ongoing debate over the past two years on the right. And in particular, if we take what Charlie was talking about in the months before his death. He was trying to persuade the president of three things, focus on kitchen table economics, make the cost of living easier for young people to start getting ahead, and avoid a regime change war in Iran. And if you look at the exit polling, it's very clear, the AP, NBC, any exit pollster, there's a consensus that the three issues where Trump was really just hammered on were the same three issues that Charlie was bringing to the table in this debate in the months before his death, and which, in all three cases, Trump and the administration basically disregarded. They, you know, Trump said, you know, the economy is doing great. You know, the ballroom is getting built. You know, if you don't like what's happening, you know, you know, kind of who cares? young people, there was really no effort to get young people back into the fold, to recruit young people, to try to make sure they were seeing a good future. And then obviously, the war compounds all of those concerns. Gas prices go up, diesel prices go up. There's really no good explanation for going back on the promise of no new regime change wars in the Middle East. And so That's how I see it. That's what I'm reading in the exit polls. And I think that this was a tragedy that, you know, Lomas and I were discussing week by week on our show. I know you guys were discussing. It was all foreseeable. And for me, that's the great disappointment. It was just a bad policymaking, bad focus, bad decisions. And look, we live in a democracy and this is what you get if you don't fulfill your promises. If you're not making sure people's economic fortunes are taken care of, not making people optimistic about the future under your leadership, you're going to get wiped out. 00:22:00 Speaker 5: Exactly. So let's get into the specific exchange you had. So Ross Dalfat, formerly of the New York Times, now at 60 Minutes, he had an article for the Free Press as well, where it's how the new right failed is how he described it. So the new right, the idea is we've created a new conservative movement. It has detached itself from the old, you might call it, Reaganite era shibboleths. 00:22:25 Speaker 3: It's not. 00:22:25 Speaker 5: It's post-Bush. It's much more assertive about what government can do. It's much less focused on foreign policy. And it basically argues that failed. You pushed back on this, basically saying, no, the new right did not fail. It basically just suffered a in your way of framing, that it's connected to the president, who is himself not really a member of the new right. He's not really an ideological person in that sense. But why don't you build that out for our audience? How should we think about what did the new rights role play in what just happened? 00:22:59 Speaker 8: Yeah. 00:22:59 Speaker 2: I mean, first of all, Ross is great, and we love Ross, and we kind of debate on the substance, but all respect for Ross. But But he's completely wrong on this. And it's kind of even hard to parse because it's just not supported by the facts. And charitably, it depends on how you define new right. I think the new right was an intellectual movement of mostly younger conservatives that wanted to buck the old GOP consensus and The issues that were important to them were related to immigration, trade, kind of a skepticism towards regime change wars, an aesthetic movement. There's a new design and aesthetic sense that came out of the new right. And look, criticisms of the new right are fair. I think that tariffs, you know, the new right was really protectionist in nature. I think it's absolutely fair to criticize tariffs, to look at the evidence, to say that they actually weren't popular. They may not have even worked. even in their own presumptions. I think it's fair to criticize some of the new right aesthetics. You had DHS accounts and White House accounts doing these like Zoomer edits of people in chains getting hauled away by ICE agents. Even at the time, I said, hey, this is not good. You don't want to be doing this. That's certainly a fair criticism. But on the big questions, what Trump's mistake is, And let's say concentrated in the Iran war, gas prices and the perception of an unaffordability that stems from that cluster of war making, global oil markets, people's perception of prices at the pump and elsewhere in their lives. This was the same mistake that George W. Bush made. So, in fact, Trump rejected the new rights ideas where it really mattered. And exit pollsters suggest that Trump was wrong. The new right was correct. And the real tragedy of the new right is that after the first 90 days of 100 days of the Trump administration, Trump essentially washed his hands of anything new, right? He said, hey, thanks for being part of the coalition. We're going to give you a DEI ban. We're going to kind of put the screws on higher ed. We're going to pass executive orders, kind of taking the ax to some of the trans agenda. And after that first 100 days, it was Mar-a-Lago. It was the foreign policy decisions. It was an entirely different milieu. And so on the substance, the new right was wrong. But tragically, the new right was not able to persuade the president to its position. And the results are bad for everybody. 00:25:48 Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, one of the things that you know, I struggle with being in the position that I'm in is, you know, I've seen the tweets, like, I miss Charlie more than ever. You know, goodness, I feel that very intimately. And I sort of have always rejected that Charlie could have waved a magic wand and fixed some of the mistakes that were made. But I do acknowledge that Charlie did have a line to the White House, and he was able to influence and push his worldview. Ultimately, I don't think he would have been successful when it came to Iran. Obviously, that was something the president deeply was concerned about and wanted to pursue. But I mean, the way that you're framing this is essentially the continuum was cut off at some point, and the message was not getting through. That influence of the new right, the ideas of the new right that we see, by the way, are broadly popular. We see voter ID passed in different places. We've seen protection of women's sports passing, even Washington, you know, your home state of Washington. Now they're, they're, they're protesting in the streets of Seattle after a popular referendum on that. So these ideas, I think in the silver lining is that they are popular, that we are on the right track, but they, that, that communication channel or the continuum didn't make its way after the first hundred days. And I, and I, I struggled to, to reckon with that, you know, could Charlie have done something? Could he have gotten those new right ideas injected into the lifeblood of the conversations that were happening in the White House? We'll never know, but it. 00:27:21 Speaker 2: Is something that I... It's certainly possible. And we do know for a fact, we would have been better off with Charlie making the case. And he was making the case, in my view, to me personally, persuasively on the Iran war. But We weren't in the White House. We're not in the deliberations. There's a tight circle of people that made the decision. And ultimately, you know, I reject the idea from some people, even on the right, who say, oh, you know, it's Israel's fault. It's so-and-so's fault. It's the lobbyist's fault. 00:27:56 Speaker 8: No. 00:27:57 Speaker 3: No. 00:27:58 Speaker 2: Everyone is obviously, you know, every country, every foreign country, they're going to lobby on the best, on the self-interest of their citizens. And that's their right. That's their duty. This is how international politics works. The only decision maker on the war was the president himself. And so the president made the decision. Trump is very determined, very, he's a man of his own will. I think everyone would agree with that. And he made this decision. He didn't back down from this decision. He doubled down on this decision. And it was a disaster. What else are you going to say? And I think one thing that I am, one silver lining of the midterms is that I think we can all be a little bit more honest now. And if not, like, not that we were dishonest before, but I know everybody was careful with how they presented things, how they phrased things. And what Charlie was good at was balancing a coalition between trying to make those calculations of how to, what is the most best persuasive methods. And in some cases, that means with a more gentle approach. At this point, I think we all need to just say, cards are on the table. Everybody's got to just be extremely blunt with their assessment. What went wrong? What do we do moving forward? And in a sense, leading up to an election, you want to be strategic. You want to be persuasive. You want to be tactful. You That's over. And one good thing about getting wiped out is that you have an opportunity to reset and to say, where were we being honest or dishonest with ourselves? Where were we missing things? 00:29:39 Speaker 4: What did we. 00:29:40 Speaker 2: not understand at the time? 00:29:42 Speaker 3: So this is the dynamic you were just alluding to. I want to dive a little bit deeper into it because there is a segment of the right that basically broke with the president on Iran, right? They decided this bridge is too far for me. We're going to completely come out against the president. He's betrayed us. And they basically contributed to the coalition fraying. And then at the end, after this historic loss, then they get to say, hey, see, I told you so. And that I have a problem with because– you're right. We get to be a little bit more honest. We get to, we get to sort of say, Hey, we had these concerns and out of coalitional principles, we were trying to be positive. I candidly, I had no idea there was going to be this bad. I was, I was predicting like a D four electorate and it went D 20 in some places. So I don't think nobody was being dishonest in that, in that respect. I mean, at D four, we probably hold the Senate and we probably, we have a chance to even hold the house. Uh, so I thought it was a jump ball, but listen, that group, that now gets to say, I see, I told you so. Well, they sort of contributed to the problems with a lot of their listeners probably staying home. I'm not blaming anybody here other than, you know, ourselves writ large. But what, like, that's, they're really, I guess the question is, was that a morally justifiable reaction? Were they in the right? Or was that something else? 00:31:06 Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess it's the difference between what is the principle at stake? How do you do it? And what are your motivations? And so let's take someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene. On the basic substance, she was right. Skepticism of the Iran war was the correct position, I think, on the merits. I thought so at the time. And as it turns out, was absolutely the right position in relation to public opinion, democratic opinion. However, how she went about it was destructive to not only her own goal. I mean, it wasn't influential on the president in any way, but it was also destructive to the coalition as a whole, which is by by proxy destructive to the other principles that are at stake. 00:31:52 Speaker 4: Right. 00:31:53 Speaker 2: You know, the president works on every issue, not just one issue. And so I think what someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene did was, you know, right on the merits, narrowly, narrowly looked in. but wrong in the approach, and I think almost certainly wrong on the motivations. This was obviously kind of narcissism, attention seeking, you know, podcast launch or whatever she's doing now. And so I think that you can say, you know, that's not the right, it wasn't the right way to do it at the time. But look, those Iran war critics who broke with the president, setting aside motivation, setting aside how they did it, were not exactly wrong. And so in a sense, you have to let them take a little victory lap. They put it out there, and it turns out that the ultimate decision in a democratic society is the election. And so according to the election, they were right. 00:32:53 Speaker 3: Yeah. And I don't want to presume to understand MTG's motivations or anything like that. I actually tend to give the benefit of the doubt to a lot of people that reacted very strongly against the war. And yeah, to your point, they were proven right. I mean, but my heart is for this coalition. And in our position, I disagreed with the Iran war. I was skeptical about it. I chose to give the president a lot of leash because, frankly, he's been proven right before many, many times. But my heart was for this coalition that Charlie devoted his life and ultimately gave his life to build. And The question then becomes, can we rebuild it? Can we put the pieces back together? And what then needs to happen? 00:33:39 Speaker 5: In fact, I want to specifically, because we're going to have Democrat Senate, Democrat House, we've got to have someone up in 2028. What are political initiatives the right could be pursuing that allow us to rebuild that credibility, reform? Put that focus where Charlie was saying on the domestic sphere, on helping boosting young people, winning them back. How can we do that, frankly, without just handing all the wins to the Democrats in the process? 00:34:06 Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you have to you have to do the things that voters were mad about and you have to address those concerns. You have to meet them where they are. And then rebuild that trust. So that's not easy to do. 00:34:20 Speaker 3: Right. 00:34:21 Speaker 2: But it is absolutely possible to do. And so you have to get prices down and you can get prices down through monetary policy. You can get prices down through on the demand side, on the supply side, on the monetary side. A lot of things you could do to make it easier to build houses, to make it easier to afford groceries, easier to afford gas. get people feeling like the economy is moving in the right direction. And then on the foreign policy side, you've got to figure out how to wrap up this war in the Middle East. In theory, we destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities. We've assassinated the kind of first layer of their leadership. We're in this stalemate. There's really no sense in continuing. I don't see any possible avenue for a regime change. If that was going to happen, it would have happened long ago. So you have to figure out how you can extricate yourself. And in reality, right now is the perfect time to take the L. And I've learned in life as in politics, sometimes you just have to take the L. And if you take the L and you take it, you know, standing up straight, you own it, and then you move on. Actually, people are more likely to be gracious to you than if you try to save face at all costs. You try to hold on. You try to manipulate your way out of it. Look, sometimes you screw up. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes you make a mistake. All of us have been there. And I think now's the time to just say the people have spoken. We're taking the L. We're getting out. We're going to protect America's interests in this way. We're going to focus on making sure that the domestic life for Americans of all different racial backgrounds, all different social classes, all different age groups. We're going to make sure that everybody feels like they have a buy-in in America and that burritos are not $ 20. 00:36:16 Speaker 4: Oh, inevitable. 00:36:20 Speaker 2: And to bring up Colbert's favorite statistic of the year. 00:36:23 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, it became a stand-in for a lot. I mean, listen, I'd still maintain that it's political. 00:36:30 Speaker 2: The burritos were $ 20, according to voters. 00:36:32 Speaker 3: That's how they felt. Yeah, I was justified in that. But I mean, it became a stand in for so much. And I maintain that it's political malfeasance to ignore what your voters are actually feeling. 30 seconds. I know it's not enough time, but J.D. Vance, they're now saying it was his fault for the MOU. He prolonged the war and he's being disloyal to the president. Your initial reaction? 30 seconds. 00:36:56 Speaker 2: I mean, no, look, the president is the president. And J.D. Vance's job is to support the president. And so I think blaming Vance for this is nonsensical, but holding Vance responsible for it is inevitable because he is the vice president. He does serve at the, you know, well, he serves the president as vice president. We'll leave it that way. And so, look, he's part of the administration. He didn't win in that final debate either. That's the way the cookie crumbles. 00:37:26 Speaker 5: Rufo, thank you for joining us. Can't wait to have you back. 00:37:29 Speaker 3: Thanks, guys. 00:37:29 Speaker 2: $ 28. 00:37:33 Speaker 3: May not sound like much, but to a scared mother considering abortion, it can help provide something incredibly important, a real opportunity to pause and see her baby for the first time. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can reach for her phone, search for abortion pills, and have the pills delivered directly to her home. She can move from fear toward abortion incredibly quickly, but your gift can help create another opportunity. For just $ 28, you can help provide a free ultrasound through Preborn Network Clinic. There, a woman can see her baby, receive compassionate support from people who will listen, and consider another choice before abortion becomes her answer. And when women see their babies on ultrasound, 80% choose life. Let me repeat. When women see their babies on an ultrasound, 80% will choose life. $ 28 can help provide one ultrasound. $ 280 can help provide 10. And right now, thanks to a dollar-for-dollar match, your gift is doubled. 00:38:30 Speaker 4: Call 833-8555. 00:38:32 Speaker 3: 833-850-2229. That's 833-850-2229 or 833-85-BABY or click on the Preborn banner at charliekirk.com. One more time, guys. It's so important. 833-850-BABY or click on the Preborn banner at charliekirk.com. All gifts are tax deductible and Preborn is a five-star rated charity. 00:38:54 Speaker 7: Preborn was so special to Charlie and it's so important to me as well. Right now, you can help make motherhood possible by providing ultrasounds with Preborn. I'd be so honored if you'd prayerfully consider joining us. 00:39:08 Speaker 8: All right. 00:39:08 Speaker 3: Welcome, everybody. Hour two is on, and we have Andrew Wilson joining us for this AMA. Andrew Wilson, the debater, host of The Crucible. Welcome, Andrew. Good to see you. 00:39:20 Speaker 4: Good to see you, too. How are you guys doing? 00:39:22 Speaker 3: Well, we've been better, Andrew. We've been better. It was a tough day. I know you have a lot to say about it, and I think some of our questions from our audience are going to help get us in there. And so why don't we just get straight to it, to these listener questions, and we'll pepper in your thoughts throughout, Andrew. So, Josh, Josh, you're our first caller up for the show. Please unmute yourself and welcome. 00:39:46 Speaker 8: Yeah, good afternoon. 00:39:47 Speaker 9: Good afternoon. 00:39:48 Speaker 10: So my question is regarding to Ohio this week, where my biggest concern isn't necessarily lockdown Amy herself. 00:39:55 Speaker 4: I'm more of a running mate. 00:39:57 Speaker 10: I never took her seriously because, again, I can't stand her voice. She's like 10 times worse than Kamala. 00:40:04 Speaker 4: And I. 00:40:08 Speaker 10: Yeah, so I didn't like Vivek too much, but I voted for him anyway, knowing that he would support President Trump. 00:40:14 Speaker 4: He would work with ICE. 00:40:15 Speaker 10: He would get rid of the Somalis. He would get rid of deportations. But then, you know, you subsided that with H-1B visas and data centers and everything else. But what actually do we know about her running mate and his political background? I'm concerned that since she has never held a full time job and always quit. That the plan is she's going to quit and we're going to be stuck with him and he might be worse. 00:40:37 Speaker 5: Well, the funniest thing about him is he's a novelist. Did you know this? So her running mate was David Pepper. 00:40:42 Speaker 11: Yeah. 00:40:43 Speaker 5: And he's spent the last decade as his hobby. Like, he wrote a book in 2016. So ahead of the time a little bit, he wrote a book in 2016 that was about Russia running intelligence ops to elect Republicans in the U.S. So I guess he's an OG Russian collusion lunatic. 00:41:01 Speaker 3: He's the. 00:41:02 Speaker 5: It's like a blast from the past. 00:41:03 Speaker 3: Yeah, isn't he... He's a Cincinnati-based attorney and longtime Democrat figure. It looks like he was... Was he the DNC state chair or something? 00:41:15 Speaker 5: His Wikipedia uses a photo of him from 2014, which I find pretty funny. Like he's a missing person. 00:41:21 Speaker 3: What I think is interesting about the Ohio race, though, mostly, is... the controversy with Vivek. I have a question, and then I'd love to hear Andrew's thoughts. Did you hear a lot of pushback against Vivek around conservative circles? Did you feel like your other conservatives in the state were not convinced by Vivek Ramaswamy? 00:41:42 Speaker 10: The ones that I spoke to, they said they were going to vote for him. But then online, you saw all these conversations by saying, I'm not voting for him. They're calling him every racial slur under the name in the book. It's like, you know, look at the alternative. Now we got the alternative. And yes, we pretty much were blue for the past eight years under DeWine. But at least we forced DeWine to sign conservative bills like the heartbeat bill and others that were conservative. So I'm hoping that our state legislature will hold the line and that we don't have to actually rely on our rhino conservative or rhino Supreme Court justices. 00:42:20 Speaker 3: Andrew Wilson, your thoughts on Ohio? 00:42:23 Speaker 12: Ramaswamy was a mistake. But in another election year, he may have been able to win. This election year was a complete and total repudiation of Trump and the Iran conflict. Truth is, is that him being a Hindu didn't do him any good at all. One of the biggest problems and kind of criticisms that has been moving towards the right in recent years is is how open the bigger tent is becoming when it comes to people who want these H-1Bs and other things. Vivek also kind of sunk himself quite a bit when he said he wanted to open the state up to new migration coming in. 00:43:00 Speaker 4: People really hated that. 00:43:02 Speaker 12: So ultimately, unfortunately, caller, you're going to have a hard time because Amy Acton is awful. 00:43:10 Speaker 4: And you're going to have to deal with her now for many years. 00:43:15 Speaker 12: And yeah, all you have left is your state legislature lobbying them hard in order to stop some of the more progressive actions that she's going to take. 00:43:24 Speaker 3: At least you got that. At least you got that. And I think in Texas, right, Andrew, we have a similar the Senate's holding on, right? The state Senate there. 00:43:35 Speaker 12: Yeah, it's it's holding on. I mean, there's a little bit of lifeblood, but it's bad. And the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, governors in many cases have more power over the state. than the president does of the nation. And, you know, governor, governorships are especially important. And, you know, we're looking down the barrel of some significant progressive policies, especially in the frontline border state, which Texas was. California being a border state has always been very pro mass migration coming in and has set aside many sanctuary cities. Texas didn't have that problem. It was the it was the frontline, really massive border state. And that's what the major concern is here, is that they're going to roll back the immigration policies, and that's exactly what they're going to do. 00:44:25 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, all the cooperation with ICE and DHS is about to go out the window in Texas, which is a huge, huge loss. 00:44:32 Speaker 5: Well, we'll see, because they're talking about that emergency session to make it a lot harder for them to. 00:44:36 Speaker 3: Use emergency powers to not collaborate. We're going to have some of their legislators on next week, actually, on the show to talk about that. 00:44:43 Speaker 4: But they're also saying that our current governor. 00:44:45 Speaker 12: is pushing back against getting rid of those emergency powers. So that's the word that I've been hearing around the campfire. So you got to be cautious here, right? Like when Republicans are in office, we really got to remember that we need to wield power because Democrats do. 00:45:02 Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, listen, at least in Ohio, you've got that legislator. Hold on to that. Lobby them hard. Make sure they tow the line and they don't give any freebies to this Just absolute. I mean, she's the, she's the white Kamala. She's just a wine mom slurring her words. She's awful. So Godspeed in Ohio. 00:45:21 Speaker 5: Let's hope they run her for president. 00:45:23 Speaker 3: Yeah. Michael, you're up next. Please unmute yourself. 00:45:26 Speaker 9: Hey, I was afraid I wouldn't be able to get on. 00:45:27 Speaker 13: So I'm a 38 year old truck driver and I'm absolutely furious right now. You guys are closer to the administration than any of the most I can talk to you. What is their plan to, to make sure I don't continue punching them in the face at the ballot box? 00:45:41 Speaker 3: Did you not vote Republican this time, Michael? 00:45:45 Speaker 9: I honestly split my vote between the GOP and the Libertarians. 00:45:48 Speaker 5: Okay, so let's build this up. 00:45:50 Speaker 13: And I certainly wasn't writing the 500 postcards I did. 00:45:56 Speaker 5: No, let's build this out. So you said in your written version, you're absolutely furious. What are you most furious about? 00:46:02 Speaker 9: Okay, so they started a war we didn't vote on. 00:46:05 Speaker 13: They ran on cracking down on illegal immigration where... Instead of going after businesses, they went after individual immigrants, which is, I mean, J.D. 00:46:16 Speaker 9: Vance is a Marine. 00:46:17 Speaker 13: I mean, that's like clearing a room and you could drop a 2,000-pound bomb on a building. 00:46:20 Speaker 9: It's just not necessary. It's all the. 00:46:27 Speaker 13: Comments from the administration about workers and needing to continue to bring in H-1Bs for various things. You had multiple times where large tech corporations were coming in with H-1B requests. You had them not cracking down on the immigration fraud and truck driving. 00:46:53 Speaker 9: You've got a. 00:46:55 Speaker 13: Lot of stuff like that at the federal level that is. 00:46:59 Speaker 9: Solely on the federal government. 00:47:01 Speaker 5: Yeah, we're almost at a break, and I think this deserves a detailed response. So thank you for describing that to us, Michael. And we hope you stick around to the other end, because there's a lot to be said here. Because I think you'd agree, Andrew, that's a mix of very true things that a lot of people are angry about, and we clearly need to pivot. But some of that's very interesting, like the H-1B thing, or like the truck driving thing, where I'm worried that there was some bad faith action on our own side to demoralize you. 00:47:28 Speaker 3: All right, Michael, I appreciate your... comments here, but it's funny. You brought up cracking down on illegals trucking. They are doing that. They're working on it. 00:47:36 Speaker 5: I remember they put out the graphic. Thousands of them, actually. 00:47:40 Speaker 3: Do you think that by splitting your ticket that you're going to empower more crackdowns on it or less? 00:47:47 Speaker 13: I'm from Indiana, so I'm in an R-plus 20 district and my guys still won. 00:47:52 Speaker 9: So my effect I had. 00:47:56 Speaker 13: Was in not writing the 500 postcards to get out the vote. My individual vote at my level doesn't matter much because it's still heavily R. I know one last thing I was going to bring up is that Trump dropped the cabinet on Massey. 00:48:12 Speaker 9: Well, he didn't. 00:48:15 Speaker 13: Call out a single senator soon or anyone else holding these proformations. 00:48:20 Speaker 9: And it was even some of the people that shouldn't be in our camp. 00:48:24 Speaker 13: And that to me was just, That's valid. 00:48:30 Speaker 5: I will note, President Trump, he's always been a guy who has his feuds, his beefs. He's had a beef with Massey going back to Trump 1. He was trying to primary him, and he just failed those times. This time he succeeded. But I want to continue building out some of this because you're entirely justified to be concerned about H-1Bs, about certain immigration stuff. One of the things I worry about is a lot of people were saying, They've done nothing about H1Bs. That's an anthem you would hear when you hear people complain about it. Meanwhile, I'm looking at a discussion forum for H1B actual people trying to get one, and they're apocalyptic. The top one on Reddit's H1B, for example, is the midterm results won't change the fate of H1B in the next two years, and it's talking about how it's fallen off a cliff, that it's so difficult. 00:49:16 Speaker 3: I think it's 90% of new H-1B applications are down, and 25% of the renewal requests are down. And they tried to put a $ 100, 000 basically levy on any new H-1Bs. That got blocked by a judge, but they are working on it. 00:49:32 Speaker 5: But it still messed up the number of new applications. So I will say, I think we've definitely gotten the lesson on the war. That was a mistake. I think they need to find a way to end that as quickly as possible and to credibly show that a decision like that won't be made so cavalierly again. 00:49:48 Speaker 3: The part that really resonates with me is this idea of young men are pissed off and they're frustrated. So, Andrew Wilson, you can just take it. Your reaction to Michael, our caller here. 00:50:03 Speaker 4: Michael, are you still there? 00:50:04 Speaker 3: I think he is. Nope. Did we lose him? 00:50:07 Speaker 9: I'm not sure. I've got terrible reception. 00:50:10 Speaker 13: But I just want to say that the H-1Bs, going after individual H-1Bs is great and all, but I didn't see them going after the companies doing it. They still played patty cake with the powerful kingmakers hiring illegals that are hiring H-1Bs when they're clearly Americans. 00:50:25 Speaker 4: Well, that's not, I mean, but that's not true. 00:50:29 Speaker 12: Trump increased the, Trump increased those I-9 audits. I mean, I think they weren't they up like 300 percent or something. The I-9 audits. He was going after employers. But my question to the caller is like, who cares? That's all done now. Like Trump is now a lame duck president. He can't do anything. So complaining about whatever the policies were makes no sense to me because there's no change which can now be affected by Trump. 00:51:00 Speaker 4: He can only veto. That's it. 00:51:02 Speaker 12: He can't really do much else now. So like what's what was step two of the plan here? 00:51:08 Speaker 9: What was the Senate would have anything anyways? 00:51:10 Speaker 12: Well, no, they would have passed legislation, of course. And by the way, I see no reason why or what you're basing that on. But the most important part here is like what is what was step two of the plan? 00:51:24 Speaker 4: What is it? What was what was actually like step one? Communists get into office. What's step two? What was that? What was step two? 00:51:32 Speaker 13: Punch the neocons in the face so hard they stop trying to derail a clear majority vote for the under 45s. 00:51:38 Speaker 4: So, okay, but how does this do that? 00:51:42 Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean, won't they just turn back over to moderates if things get bad enough? If the GOP establishment decides that they're going to run moderates again, and it's the case that the economy is jacked, your taxes are high, everything's unaffordable, which it will be, If the GOP puts up moderates, why wouldn't the American public just vote for them to get back what they lost? 00:52:03 Speaker 3: I'm sorry. 00:52:04 Speaker 13: My reception is terrible and you broke up. I heard I heard that the GOP running moderates and the GOP are going to run moderates anyways. We've got a whole bunch of people at the federal level and frankly, all over the place that vote in private in these in the in the chute. My mind is blanking right now. Before it goes to the floor, you have committees. They vote in committees like a no-toast Democrat, and then they only take a few votes on the House as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. And the Senate was the least effective it's been. 00:52:41 Speaker 3: So let me address– can I address the Senate portion of this? So you had Tom Tillis, who fought the president actively. You had Rand Paul, who would fight the president from time to time. You had Cassidy, who voted to impeach him. He would fight the president, was always dragging his feet. You had, there's, Joni Ernst would be a problem sometimes. She's gone. Tillis is gone. Cassidy's gone. McConnell, McConnell retired. He's gone. Basically, the inaction that you saw in the Senate was focused on those guys plus Lisa Murkowski. Susan Collins would usually come through for us when we needed her, but now she's gone. All the bad actors except for Lisa Murkowski got dealt with either in the primary or now in the general. So you would have been left, even if we would have had 50 in the Senate, maybe 51, I would take those 51 to punch way above their weight class than the crop we had before. And so when we're trying to reform the party, the place when you do that is in the primaries. When you're trying to get them as conservative as their voters, you do it in the primaries. Yeah, we still would have had a Lisa Murkowski problem. Yeah, Susan Collins would have played patty cake with us, but she would have probably come around. We couldn't get anything done because we had basically five senators that were dead weight. President Trump pushed really, really hard on the Save America Act, couldn't get it done. Senator Mike Lee, he was really pissed off. I even think Thune, had he genuinely had 50, probably would have gone along with it. So my point is, when you're hoping to get all these things done, and then you said you split your ticket and that it didn't affect your district, I bet there was a lot of people who said the same thing in South Carolina. I bet there was a lot of people who said the same thing in Nebraska and Iowa and Kansas, and it did have an impact. And now we don't have the numbers. So now we can't get anything done outside of vetoes and executive orders. So I understand that you're frustrated, and I am too. And you're talking about your question was, what's the plan to reach young men? I think the plan has to be like, hey, we screwed up on the war, and we're going to fix that. And we're going to unwind that problem. And we're not going to do it again, and we're not going to listen to the neocons again. That has to be the takeaway here. So that's what we're fighting for. I think when we talked to young men at Turning Point, the war was huge. The Epstein rollout was huge for them. The credibility gap was huge. So you've got to restore credibility, and you've got to restore trust, or else they're not going to believe you when you say you're not going to invade some far-flung country again in the future. That's just my take. Andrew, Blake? 00:55:14 Speaker 5: Well, I think it's good. 00:55:16 Speaker 3: I think. 00:55:17 Speaker 5: I just want to thank you for that call because I know it. 00:55:20 Speaker 3: Was real. 00:55:21 Speaker 5: Yeah, it was real. And I'm glad that you weighed in. We definitely want to hear from people who stayed home or split their ticket because we have to learn from this or we're going to get cooked again in 2028. So thank you again. 00:55:35 Speaker 3: I talk about jobs and industries on this show all the time, but. I didn't expect to find an entire skills trade community on TikTok. Plumbers, electrician, builders, and contractors sharing the work they do every day. And it went way beyond tips and tricks. People were sharing their craft, connecting with local contractors, and talking about how they were building their businesses and growing their teams. It opened my eyes. to how people in the trades are using TikTok to share their skills, make connections, and find new opportunities. I remember thinking, this is exactly what we need more of, people sharing what they know and creating opportunities for others. And I never expected to find a community like this that's the thing about TikTok. You start with something you know, and suddenly you're finding a whole new side of it that surprises you and leaves you wanting to know more. Your next discovery is waiting for you on TikTok. Learn more at TikTok.com slash discover more. 00:56:28 Speaker 5: Uh, Tiffany is next. So, uh, Tiffany unmute yourself. And what's your question? 00:56:33 Speaker 11: Hi guys. I am going to be attending Amfest for the first time this year. And so I just wondered if you guys have any tips or advice for a first time goer, um, and a bonus question kind of for Blake. So I'm Catholic and I was wondering if you would have any Sunday mass church recommendations as well. 00:56:53 Speaker 4: Oh yeah. 00:56:53 Speaker 3: So are you in Arizona? 00:56:55 Speaker 11: I'm actually in North Carolina. 00:56:57 Speaker 5: I'll be traveling there. 00:56:58 Speaker 3: So it goes through Sunday. 00:56:59 Speaker 5: I'm totally blanking on the name of it right now, but there is a Catholic church basically in downtown, uh, Phoenix that's right by. And so you can totally go there for a service on the Sunday morning. If you're there on that last day of Amfest, or of course there's a lot of Saturday evening ones. Uh, if you want to branch out at all, uh, St. Bernadette's in Scottsdale is a very excellent Catholic parish. Uh, It's gigantic, has huge crowds every single Sunday, and they do communion where you go to the rail and you have to get it from the priest. when there's like hundreds of people there. I've seen the communion take 25 minutes, so if you want some spectacle, that's interesting. I know Andrew's a Protestant. He's probably dying as I say this. 00:57:39 Speaker 3: No, Andrew's Orthodox. I'm Protestant. 00:57:41 Speaker 5: Oh, is he? Sorry for that mistake there. And then, as for AmFest advice, first of all, thank you for coming. We encourage you all to come. I know it's not the same vibe as it was after 2024, but. 00:57:55 Speaker 3: it is, uh, was incredible. It's going to be incredible again, that the ticket sales are through the roof. And I don't mean to, I don't want to, you know, sort of break news here, but I think this is gonna be your first time coming to Andrew Wilson. So there's that. 00:58:09 Speaker 4: That's correct. 00:58:10 Speaker 8: Yeah. 00:58:10 Speaker 4: And debating too. 00:58:11 Speaker 3: Yeah. Tips and tricks. I would say, you know, just explore all the different little parts of it there. Yeah. There's the general session, but the breakouts are, are awesome. Media row is awesome. You can just like you know, hang out around media row and like watch different people debate, watch people. There's tons of spectacles everywhere. It is the most overstimulating environment I subject myself to every year. And there's just a lot going on. And it, it really will be, I think even more important now going into this next year, because everybody's going to be talking about what do we do from here? How do we regroup? This is going to be the, the, the forum to which to have those debates. It really is. So yeah, It's going to be interesting to see. 00:58:54 Speaker 5: I guess my big picture advice, make friends, meet people, because that's how you can build a lot of fun relationships. You can look forward to meeting them next year. Don't just fixate on the speakers. There's a lot that's going on besides the speakers. 00:59:05 Speaker 3: Up next is Don. Don, unmute yourself. Welcome to the show. 00:59:09 Speaker 8: Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my call. 00:59:13 Speaker 3: Of course. 00:59:14 Speaker 8: I've got a couple of questions. The first is, what did you make of the White House sending out that conservatives need to watch what they're saying, that they are watching us? 00:59:30 Speaker 3: Andrew, did you hear about that? The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House put out a communique out to, I guess, its network saying X, Y, Z, X, Y, Z. Oh, and by the way, we're watching everything you guys put out and monitoring the situation. I saw that. Listen, I tend to not be that bothered by it. I've been aware of the way that the White House monitors media. for a long time. I kind of go back to what Rufo said in hour one, that, you know, I think this is a time to be honest. I think it's a time to understand that, yeah, we were all building a coalition together before, and there were some people that chose not to. And, but right now is a time for reckoning. You gotta, you gotta come to grips with what just happened because that was historic. We haven't seen a loss like that since Watergate. And so we gotta be really honest about it. Andrew, you and I were texting about this, this idea of, What was the right choice as a commentator when you you know, I know you were skeptical about some of the war ambitions and that sort of thing. But you were also like, hey, I'm not voting for a commie. So but but there were people who made the opposite choice and they broke and they publicly criticized the president beforehand. 01:00:42 Speaker 4: Yeah. 01:00:42 Speaker 12: Well, the problem is, is like when you have power politically, you don't give it up because you may not get it back again and you may not get it back again for two decades or ever for that matter. The truth is, is that Turning Point was in something of an impossible position because it's the case that you have to keep the communists out. What choice do you have? You have to keep the communists out. Well, at the same time, you can be against the messaging of the president, especially when it comes to the war in Iran. So I know that you're not a big fan of that, Andrew. And I know that Blake isn't either. I've talked with both of you briefly about it. The truth is, though, is like, what choice do you have? Trump's only going to be there for two years. 01:01:28 Speaker 4: That was it. 01:01:30 Speaker 12: Or two more years. It's more important for us to keep that red wall in place so that communists didn't get in, from my view. So in other words, the criticisms are valid against Trump and the Iranian conflict, but what choice do you have when it comes to this other than to keep communists out? Putting the communists in doesn't actually have the effect that a lot of people wanted. What they wanted was, like the previous caller said, We want to punch the neocons in the face and show them, you guys can't bully us. You can't tell us what's what and then expect our vote. I actually understand this. There's a logic to it. The problem is that the accelerationism versus incrementalism, if you're getting 60% of what you want or 65% of what you want over time, that begins to add up over victories. The burning down your own power base in order to send a message is not only erases those victories, but then you have to restart with incrementalism again. It's actually usually a bad idea to do it that way. So in this case, this isn't just a minor setback. I fully expect most of the Trump agenda, which has been passed, to be completely rolled back by Democrats the second they can, especially if they get the presidency in just two short years, which they may. And they're in a better position now if they do than they would have been if they lost the midterms. We may have been able to lame duck them the same way that Trump is being lame ducked now if it was the case that they didn't have these sweeping victories. So I thought that the strategy was the incorrect strategy, but I do understand the logic behind it. So now the question just becomes, what do you do? Between the dissident right wing and the mainstream right wing, especially when it comes to punditry and politicians, a new coalition has to emerge or we're done. 01:03:24 Speaker 3: Yeah, and I would just, to the caller's question, Dan, your question is, did I see it? Yes, I saw it. Do I think that that was an overt threat or something? You know, not exactly. I mean, here's the thing. 01:03:38 Speaker 4: President Trump has always watched the media. 01:03:41 Speaker 3: Yeah, he does. 01:03:41 Speaker 5: Anyway, the man probably consumes more media than anyone alive. 01:03:45 Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say that. Yeah, I would just say that. Listen, President Trump has so much of my respect. Yeah, the war was a problem. It ended up being a political catastrophe. But he also revived a dead and dying GOP and gave us the most conservative governance, you know, minus the war, minus a couple other things that we've ever seen. So many things that we wouldn't have ever been able to achieve without him. And I think people that are quick to forget that, I think that's dishonest. I think it's shameful, actually. You can disagree with him on foreign policy or the Iran war. You can disagree with him about how much he talks about ballrooms or things like that. But to completely write off some of the other accomplishments when we were looking at Jeb Bush as our standard bearer in 2016, I think is really, you know, I don't got a ton of patience for that. But I understand the frustration. 01:04:34 Speaker 2: I do. 01:04:35 Speaker 3: And I understand the betrayal that people feel. I understand it because I talk to our students. So I think right now is the time to be honest. And there has to be a reckoning. But eventually we're going to focus our fire right on the left where it needs to be. Because no comments. 01:04:49 Speaker 4: Yeah. 01:04:50 Speaker 3: All right. God bless you, man. We got Jonathan. Jonathan, you're up next. Unmute yourself. Jonathan. 01:04:57 Speaker 2: How goes? 01:04:58 Speaker 3: Well, we've been better. 01:05:00 Speaker 5: Yeah, we have been a bit better. But we have to remain cheerful warriors no matter what. 01:05:04 Speaker 4: So. 01:05:04 Speaker 3: Yeah, what's going on, Jonathan? So that's why I brought this up. 01:05:07 Speaker 14: I think he's doing a rope-a-dope and really actually looking to get all the criminal activity and just totally destroy the election fraud base that's there. And he just wanted to watch them steal it as much as he possibly could before he actually brings all the DOJ and things going on. I think that's what he really did. 01:05:29 Speaker 4: You mean you think Trump is doing that? 01:05:31 Speaker 14: Why would he congratulate everyone on winning? when there's so much fraud going on. 01:05:35 Speaker 4: This doesn't make any sense to me. You think Trump is doing that? 01:05:41 Speaker 14: I think he let them win. I think he let them do it. 01:05:44 Speaker 12: That's totally delusional. 01:05:48 Speaker 14: Let me finish. It's totally delusional. Let him finish. You're interrupting me. 01:05:54 Speaker 4: Let me say my sentence. Thank you. 01:05:57 Speaker 14: I think he's going to catch the criminals in action. 01:06:00 Speaker 3: I really think that's what he's doing. 01:06:03 Speaker 5: So I, what I'll say, Jonathan, we've gotten a few emails suggesting this. We have one who said, you know, all the DOJ lawyers fanned out across the country. They're waiting to spring a trap. What I'll say is I was around in 2020 and I ran into a lot of similar theories about that, that president Trump, he was waiting to spring his trap to catch the fraud. It did not happen then. Obviously he contested the election. He attempted in a variety of ways to challenge it and that did not succeed. And he eventually left office. 01:06:32 Speaker 3: And I think. 01:06:34 Speaker 5: I'll be very blunt with you. I think this is coat. I think a week from now you will see Democrats are still confirmed as winners in all these races they say they've won. Maybe we turn Mississippi around or something. But I think President Trump is just... I didn't say it was going to. 01:06:50 Speaker 4: Happen right away. 01:06:51 Speaker 3: I don't think it's going to happen right away. 01:06:52 Speaker 14: I think it's going to take about two years. 01:06:55 Speaker 2: I didn't say it was going to happen right away. 01:06:56 Speaker 14: I just think that's what it's doing. 01:06:57 Speaker 3: Yeah, so here's what I'd say. Listen, I'm actually... I've been watching all the tweets and Laura Logan's take on Texas, and I'm going to dive into it. I really am. I've got a call-in with her. I'm open-minded to that. But I think it's a really, really hard case to make. And the reason is because the evidence is there. The White House themselves, this has been reported now widely, were looking at the data, and they were talking about making jokes about– you know, seeking asylum in Israel, you know, because they knew it was coming. They saw that it was D13. I heard some reports, not publicly reported, that it was actually closer to D15. And that's what we saw. We saw Florida went D5 to D8. And so the wave hit Florida too. They were not immune to it. And then in the rest of the country, it was like D10 to D20. So depending on where you were. So I think it's just going to be a very, very, very tricky case to make if there's any truth to it. I certainly want us to do voter ID. I think there's been too much immigration. There's been too many trust-me-bro voter registrations. I want to go into all of that. But I think in this instance, I just think it's going to be a tough case to make. Plus, a lot of these people have already conceded the races. So once you do that, I don't know what you're out of. 01:08:18 Speaker 5: But on the long-term theory, I mean, we want to make the most of it. 01:08:21 Speaker 14: Doesn't have to be whether or not the person concedes the race. It just has to be done judicially. There's nothing to do with whether the person concedes or it's not. 01:08:29 Speaker 3: The question is, was there a fraud? Even Laura Logan's making that point. Can you make a case? Can you bring the case to court? 01:08:35 Speaker 14: And then can you get a conviction? 01:08:37 Speaker 4: That's all that's required. 01:08:39 Speaker 14: It doesn't matter whether or not the person actually concedes. The person could have planned to concede beforehand. They could have actually planned to concede. What if some of the rhinos actually planned to concede before the race was even done? Before the votes even started? 01:08:55 Speaker 3: Andrew Wilson, you got a thought here? 01:08:57 Speaker 12: You got to take your L, dude. We took an L and we need to deal with the fact. 01:09:02 Speaker 4: I'm not saying that I'll do it. 01:09:03 Speaker 3: I'm just saying, hang on, hang on. 01:09:06 Speaker 4: Just real quick. Hang on, hang on, man. Hang on. Let me make the case. 01:09:09 Speaker 13: Let me finish. 01:09:10 Speaker 14: Let me thank you. 01:09:11 Speaker 4: I was in the middle of talking. You interrupted me. What are you talking about? No, I wasn't talking. 01:09:17 Speaker 3: Oh, you weren't. Yeah, hold on. Hold on. Jonathan, let Andrew finish his point. Let Andrew finish his point. Jeez, man. 01:09:24 Speaker 12: If you could just calm down for five seconds and let me get it out. 01:09:27 Speaker 4: So the thing is. 01:09:28 Speaker 3: Yes, it would help if you let me finish. 01:09:29 Speaker 14: You've interrupted me multiple times. 01:09:31 Speaker 4: Okay, you go ahead, bro. Do I get to finish? 01:09:36 Speaker 3: You say that a lot, too. 01:09:37 Speaker 2: I'd like to get to finish my thought. 01:09:39 Speaker 3: Thank you. 01:09:39 Speaker 12: Go ahead, man. 01:09:39 Speaker 14: I'm not saying that. What I am saying is I think that they planned it beforehand to actually throw some races. And it doesn't matter whether or not they actually decide, hey, I concede. The question is, what is their fraud? 01:09:55 Speaker 8: Who did the fraud? 01:09:56 Speaker 3: Is there evidence of fraud? 01:09:57 Speaker 14: And can we get that to the court and get a conviction? 01:10:00 Speaker 3: That's the question. Got your question. That's the standard. 01:10:03 Speaker 14: It's not who won, who lost. The standard is, was the law broken? 01:10:08 Speaker 2: Can we get enough evidence? 01:10:10 Speaker 3: Can we grant to court? 01:10:11 Speaker 14: Can we get a conviction? That's the standard we should be looking for. 01:10:13 Speaker 3: All right, Andrew, the floor is yours now. 01:10:15 Speaker 4: That's the legal standard. All right, man. I'm sorry I interrupted your interruption. 01:10:18 Speaker 12: But the thing is, is like as we go through this, you got to understand that you're living in delusion, complete and total delusion. 01:10:27 Speaker 4: We also have exit polls. 01:10:29 Speaker 12: We have lots of data to the contrary here. The fact of the matter is, is that you're not going to be able to go with my election fraud this time. You're just not going to be able to do that. The truth is, is that we got stomped on. We got stomped on. because of the public sentiment towards the Iran conflict. And that was just one of many criticisms, but that's the main criticism. And as you're going to find, the numbers bear out. Like Blake was just saying, he was around during the first round of election fraud. And by the way, that didn't go very well for the right either. When Trump did all the stop the steal stuff, that didn't actually go very well for us either then. So I would be very cautious about jumping the gun into thinking that there was some sort of like massive election fraud that was going on. 01:11:12 Speaker 4: I'm sure there was some. I mean, there always is. 01:11:15 Speaker 12: But I would be cautious about thinking that you lost the entirety of the election due to fraud. 01:11:20 Speaker 4: That just seems absurd to me. 01:11:22 Speaker 3: All right, Jonathan, thank you for your question. But, you know, listen, I remain open minded. I'm always open minded this because my spidey sense go crazy. I just think in this instance, when you see a D20, when you see D20 waves, that's not a blue wave. That's not a blue suit. That's a blue nuclear bomb. I'll be more frank. This election was not taken by fraud. Fraud can matter on the margins. What they did in Alaska, that was fraudulent. Maybe decided the race. Stuff they do to loosen the rules. 01:11:51 Speaker 5: In California, they get some house wins because they make it incredibly easy for illegals to vote there and they love to gum it up. In Texas, we lost by over a million votes. That is not fraud. That is that we got our butts kicked. And we have to honestly confront What made that happen? 01:12:07 Speaker 3: They got a lot of indies. They got a lot of defectors. And there was a bunch of new voter reg in that state. 01:12:15 Speaker 5: Texas and California have almost the same demographics, for what it's worth. So Texas has been trending blue for a long time, and we were vulnerable. If you want to know, in 2018, they were confident about Beto upsetting Cruz. And a big reason Ted Cruz won, whatever you think of him as a candidate, as a politician, Ted Cruz is a very good political operator. He took it very seriously very early on. He went all out with saying, this will be a tough race. Got to hold on. And he barely hung on. 01:12:45 Speaker 3: It was like a two-point race. 01:12:46 Speaker 5: In a race that was much better for Republicans than this cycle. 01:12:50 Speaker 3: Well, and that's the interesting thing that we saw from David Shore's data, right? So the left-wing data guys. He says, without Iran, you have a normal wave year. We would have lost in normal fashion, but it would have been probably like a D4 year, D5. Iran made it a D-10, D-13, D-15, D-20. Amy, you're next. Please unmute yourself. Welcome to the show. 01:13:13 Speaker 15: Hi, guys. 01:13:14 Speaker 3: Hey, Amy. 01:13:15 Speaker 15: My thing is, hey, I'm from Ohio, and not only am I worried about my state, I'm worried about America. I think that people jump the gun and flip sides. I think that they don't know what they did. And we're going to reap the repercussions of it. And I also do believe that maybe Charlie had a bigger influence on the voters than what we, you know, did we actually underestimate his influence? And it didn't get out this time. 01:13:44 Speaker 3: Andrew, you want to take that? Curious your POV from that. 01:13:48 Speaker 12: I do not think that even if Kirk had not been assassinated by a leftist scumbag, that this election may still have very much gone the same way. 01:14:01 Speaker 4: The truth is, is that the Iran... What's that? Go ahead. 01:14:07 Speaker 5: Go ahead. 01:14:08 Speaker 12: Oh, I was just saying that the truth is the Iran conflict, that really did trump in right from the outset, that did him in. Venezuela had the potential to do it too, but that was just so clean and the exit was so clean that nobody could really say much about it. But The concern of a Middle Eastern quagmire like we dealt with for many, many years in Iraq, especially considering the amount of Iraqi and Afghani veterans that we have in the United States who are voting age and politically active, they were terrified of the potential of another quagmire, which they feel like we're getting into. 01:14:41 Speaker 5: Yeah, I think the only way you change this outcome is, yeah, if Charlie could influence the president to choose differently on Iran, but we've explained why... It's probably unlikely that that would happen. Just President Trump, he's very strong in pursuing his goals. 01:15:00 Speaker 3: President Trump had been bringing up Iran for 40 years. Yeah. Legitimately. And I don't think we, even as his supporters, understood how deeply committed he was to making sure they didn't have a nuke. And really writing, I think something younger people don't understand is how much Trump felt disgraced by Iran back in Jimmy Carter years and early Reagan years. And how he wanted to right that wrong. Yeah, I think... I didn't realize how deeply he held that, but then you saw some of the old bulls really resonate with that POV from Trump. 01:15:30 Speaker 5: And the way he's... Even in 2014, before he was running for president, the way he was complaining about our policy on Iran. It is something that's stuck in his head, and a thing you see with President Trump. Even the ballroom. People talk about this. He's wanted to have a better White House ballroom. He was complaining to the Obama White House about this, and they didn't call him back. That's a factor in why he ran for president. 01:15:51 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:15:52 Speaker 5: The president is a guy with very long-term passions, concerns, you could even say obsessions, and sometimes it plays out well, sometimes it plays out badly. Now, did Charlie matter a lot overall? Absolutely. He was a once-in-a-generation persuasive talent combined with that organizational networking talent. I think he would have been able to really communicate to the White House, here is where this is going awry really badly. Here is how you need to pivot. I think he'd be incredibly valuable now just laying out, here's what you need to do to make the next two years not a disaster to right the ship. 01:16:30 Speaker 8: Yeah. 01:16:31 Speaker 3: Listen, I think in general— Go ahead, please. 01:16:35 Speaker 15: I have another thought. 01:16:35 Speaker 9: Like, I mean, yes, facts. 01:16:38 Speaker 15: Like the Iran war played a part. 01:16:39 Speaker 5: Yes, facts. 01:16:40 Speaker 15: The prices had a lot to play in that. but like we didn't have a Senate that did anything. The house did, but we didn't have a Senate that did anything. And we was trying to usher in a new Senate to work with Trump and things would have got done. And I just think people fell to that. And I'm utter, I'm utterly disgusted. Like I have been so distraught and I know we got to hold the line, but yeah. 01:17:02 Speaker 3: Yeah. I actually agree with the caller's last comment is that the right approach would have been to get Trump some reinforcements in the Senate. That would have been the right approach. But it turns out people wanted you heard our caller earlier in the hour, 38 year old trucker who was so pissed off about the Iran war and what he felt was a series of betrayals. He all he could think about was punching the neocons in the face. And so ultimately, that's what happened. There was enough people that were just so ticked off rather than doing the pragmatic thing. They wanted to do the emotional thing and teach a lesson. 01:17:36 Speaker 5: They can give our country. 01:17:38 Speaker 15: I mean, I don't agree with him because give our country over to communism and people who's going to destroy it. I'm really scared for this nation. 01:17:45 Speaker 3: Never, never, never, ever. 01:17:49 Speaker 15: I live in urban Ohio and I drug 20 people to the voting booth. 01:17:52 Speaker 5: I mean, all voted red. 01:17:54 Speaker 15: So I, yeah, I did my part and God bless you guys for trying. I'm just really scared for this nation. 01:18:00 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:18:00 Speaker 12: Well, in the current crop of them are the worst. They're one of the worst crops we've ever seen. And I don't think they're going to get much better in just a couple of short years. But this is a very bad crop of them. And they're going to go after everybody. 01:18:19 Speaker 4: Everybody. 01:18:20 Speaker 12: And that is their number one priority. That even includes political commentators. 01:18:25 Speaker 4: They don't care. 01:18:26 Speaker 12: And I've been watching their back and forth on X and inside their little communities. And their mandate is Investigate, obstruct, destroy. And that is what their plan is. 01:18:41 Speaker 3: Yeah, I really feel for Amy and so many other people. Do we have more questions, by the way? Yes, we do. 01:18:49 Speaker 5: We have several. 01:18:50 Speaker 3: You should be worried. You should be worried. And people that gave up on it, I think, I understand why they're frustrated, but it was really damaging. Go ahead. Who's up next? 01:18:59 Speaker 5: I think we have Juan is next. 01:19:01 Speaker 12: Juan. 01:19:03 Speaker 8: Hi, guys. 01:19:05 Speaker 3: Hey, Juan. 01:19:06 Speaker 8: Hi, how are you? 01:19:07 Speaker 6: I call, this is my second time calling. I call in 2023. I talked to Charlie, uh, back then. I'm, I'm, uh, I am from Argentina originally. I'm here on a F1 visa. I want to stay here in the States. I, I I've heard their complaints about H1B. I don't, I don't believe in that visa at all because I don't get in the lottery for that visa because of my nationality. It's more for other nationals from other countries. 01:19:43 Speaker 3: H-1B, I think, is 70% Indian and 20% Chinese. 01:19:47 Speaker 6: India and China are the ones that get more of those. 01:19:53 Speaker 3: I'm in favor of banning them, just to be perfectly blunt. 01:19:57 Speaker 6: But I'm in the F-1. I'm already... There's a work authorization called OPT. I already have it. I am trying to work, but I see a lot of people skipping lines and all that because of what we just said or getting a moratorium or something like that because they crossed the border by feet. I want to stay here, and I'm pretty. 01:20:32 Speaker 6: Messed up right now because I probably have to go back to Argentina right now because I came with savings I never worked because I couldn't because with F1 it's very tricky to work in some degrees you can work with a student visa in something called CPT which is Curricular Practical Training and But it's hard anyways because you are a student and international and all that. But yeah, I'm there. I'm all for legal immigration like me. I know a lot of people that are doing things. 01:21:14 Speaker 3: By the book. Here's what I would say to you, Juan. I actually have a much more open heart for people that our government already said to them, hey, come over and do all this stuff because we love all this mass immigration. And then you took them up on it and you're here now. And you're like, hey, can I stay? I want to stay. It doesn't mean it's your right to stay, right? The OPT has been widely abused. The F1s have been widely abused. So you might get caught up in a lot of backlash to programs that have been abused a lot. My heart goes out to you on an individual level. It sounds like you're a good guy and you want to be productive. But we've ultimately got to establish a baseline here. So I think, you know, keep pursuing that visa. But, you know, I'm reminded of a story when Trump got elected. Somebody in the DHS said, you would not believe how many phone calls I've gotten from like senators who want me to like, you know, do a solid for their nanny or for their housekeeper. And they were like, no, no, no solids. No, no special, no special privileges just because you're a senator. So at some point you have to just say, We've got to reform these programs. We've got to get mass immigration down. And it does mean that sometimes people like you are unfortunately going to have a harder time staying. But my heart does really go out to you because you came. When did you first come to the United States? 01:22:36 Speaker 5: 2021. 01:22:39 Speaker 3: Yes. You came under Biden. Yeah. 01:22:41 Speaker 8: Yeah. 01:22:42 Speaker 5: I would say a thing to feel better about is you and many other legal immigrants are frustrated by that scene. Those people who cut in line, scammed the system, cheated. And they get away with it. And at least for the past two years, they have not been getting away with it as they once did. 01:22:58 Speaker 3: Andrew, you got thoughts? 01:23:00 Speaker 4: Yeah. 01:23:00 Speaker 12: I was just curious, uh, with the collar, do you receive any sort of aid from the state or the federal government? 01:23:06 Speaker 5: No, never. 01:23:07 Speaker 6: I wouldn't accept it. 01:23:08 Speaker 4: So you came on. 01:23:09 Speaker 12: A student visa and you didn't take any, no state aid at all. I, I. 01:23:15 Speaker 6: Saved Argentina is a pretty dollarized country. Uh, Normally, we all save in dollars, in U.S. dollars, so I saved a lot of money to be here, and I lived with my savings that are almost done, actually. 01:23:33 Speaker 12: I mean, that's a point in your favor, but the truth is the American public and the right wing especially, but even many on the left who support unions, they really would prefer to have a moratorium. on immigration coming into the nation so that we can focus on domestically our own people. And I think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And I understand that there's going to be people who are going to get caught up in that. But I'm kind of OK with it. I mean, those are those are the breaks. The Democrat administrations, they promise you everything. And then when the right wing gets back in charge, we have to unfortunately be the adults in the room and put America first. 01:24:15 Speaker 4: Yeah. 01:24:15 Speaker 3: When do you find out? on your uh on your your applications well. 01:24:21 Speaker 6: The opt already when i is out i am i i i'm even eligible for a stem opt stm opt which is up to three years of working here yeah. 01:24:35 Speaker 3: Why do you want to stay don't you have javier malay now in uh argentina it's a good it's a good place right. 01:24:44 Speaker 6: Kind of. He fixed a lot of things in the macroeconomics of Argentina from 500% yearly inflation that we had with the previous administration. Javier Millet put it at 30% yearly in 2020. 01:25:04 Speaker 3: But you're just worried about going back, your job prospects aren't going to be as high, things like that, I assume. 01:25:08 Speaker 6: Yeah, Millet doesn't have prospects of being re-elected. 01:25:14 Speaker 3: Well, that's too bad. I haven't looked into that for a while. Listen, my heart goes out to you on an individual basis, but at the same time, we're just trying to restore law and order. We're trying to restore American sovereignty and put Americans first. But God bless you, and thank you for calling in. Andrew Wilson, that was fun! Got a little feisty there a couple times. I loved it. Check out The Crucible, his great debates over there. 01:25:39 Speaker 4: And thanks for having me. 01:25:44 Speaker 9: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.