Ep. 309: Rubio '28? (2/16/26)

0:00Welcome back to Highly Respected. I'm your host, Scott Greer, and today we're going to have another invigorating and incredible episode for you guys. So sit back and enjoy. And so today we got three different questions about Marco Rubio's Munich Security Conference speech, asking for my ideas of about it. We got it from myopic EOR, text, and nitro, all asking about my thoughts on the speech, which I'm actually just going to use this as an opportunity to discuss what I really find interesting about the speech is that it's basically Rubio coming out of the shadows of Vance's shadows and positioning himself as a potential challenger in 2028. I think the speech in itself, you know, it's good speech. It was a

1:00great speech. I think it's what we want to hear from the administration. It was also offering a more conciliatory tone towards the towards Europe and in difference from last year of Vance's speech, who we went off and he went off and cascaded the EU, which wasn't very not a good time to do that. And we've had a lot more aggressive tone towards Europe over the last few months. And now this is more like we're all in this together. We're the same civilization. We're a child of Europe. We all most of the people who founded this country came from Europe, which is strong line. We want to emphasize the European connection between us, between our peoples and the strength of Western civilization. We all are appreciative of that. And so it's good to hear that from Rubio. And I think it's, you know, even from what they're saying at the conference, they're trying to say that we're moving beyond the type of liberal democracy value-based commonalities into or more

2:05interest-based foreign policy outlook, more realism, which is I think what we want. Actually, it's not what I think it's what we should strive for and want from the foreign policy. And so I think it's largely good. Europeans enjoyed it. They certainly liked it a lot more of the Vance's and Trump's rhetoric on the matter. And the entire online right thought it was awesome because it was a declaration that, you know, it's no longer about liberal democracy and all our values of equality and stuff that we've always said before. It's, you know, something more than that. It's a shared culture and civilization that we have. And it's funny because somebody asked about the Jeremy Carl hearing, which we'll talk about, you know, later on the podcast. It's a bit separate from what's going on with Rubio. But it's very funny that, you know, Jeremy Carl and Rubio were talking about the same things except Jeremy Carl just called it white culture in his books and

3:11writings while Rubio just called a Western culture and pretty much no one was upset about it except for far leftist. So I think that's a positive development and all of that. And whether it'll lead to diplomatic changes in Europe, we'll see. I mean, a lot of the Munich Security Conference, you know, merits and a lot of these other speeches. We're still saying like, Europe needs to go our own way because we can't trust these Americans anymore. They don't, they're not committed to liberal democracy. And that was even the speech that merits was giving. It's like, we believe in free trade, not protectionism, which, you know, Europe's been engaged in protectionist policies before they weren't completely free trade. So I'm not sure what they were saying about that. But they don't like how our protectionist policies are hurting Europe. So there's all all that going on with this speech. But as I said, I think the most interesting element is this is Rubio taking the time to shine and demonstrate himself as a possible 2028

4:11challenger and potential Republican nominee in 2020. Right now, Vance is the overwhelming favorite. People don't think that's might not be the case because they're online, you know, mostly online writers and liking Vance are at least half of it. You know, there's a very strong divide on it, probably even more so than Trump. You know, Trump, some people will come around and praise Trump. And some days they'll be very anti and other days they'll be positive. So people will go back and forth. You know, a lot of people on the right don't have like a hard anti-Trump. Or there are fewer people with hard anti-Trump positions compared to Vance Vance. It's either hard anti or pro. And there's a lot more hard anti than there are hard anti with Trump. And then there is, you know, people in the middle who are more skeptical or like, well, I'm not sure about Vance. And so he, if you gauge things by online rhetoric, you would think that

5:14Vance's loss most was for. But among Republican polling, when they pull about the primary in who they would pick, Vance is overwhelming favorite. A while these polls, Donald Trump Jr., who is not going to run, he's already backing Vance is, you know, in a distant second. Rubio is barely cracking 10%. And that's the same with Cruz and a lot of other possibilities. He is far ahead the favorite. But that can change because a lot of that is dependent on Vance being seen as a successor to Trump. And if Trump makes it known that, well, maybe he's not, I think he's not wanting to declare Vance as a successor, is that he's open to someone else in the admin being that successor. And the most likely candidate to challenge Vance for that is Rubio. He would, Trump would prefer a presidential premise where pretty much all those cabinet secretaries compete to be the most pro-Trump and

6:18the successor to Trump. And you'd have Hegseth, Nome, maybe Besson. I don't know who else you'd expect for that. But pretty much none of those people are going to run for president. I don't know if Hegseth and Nome is probably not going to be around by the end of the year. If she is, that's not going to be a miracle. Hegseth, I don't even know if he'll be around by the end of, you know, the end of the admin. But we'll see. I don't think they're actually going to run for president. And I don't think they're going to gain much support. And the real people who are wanting to run for president are people outside the admin who are not going to play presidential premise. Cruz is already signaling. He's critical of Trump. You could see DeSantis do take a similar path. Hawley, if he wants to get in, a lot of those people. And there's also going to be the extremely online anti-Trump candidate. Maybe not explicitly because, you know, Bannon wants to run. There's going to, the funny thing is there's going to be a whole lane for

7:22anti-Trump from the right. And it's going to have a lot of competitors in it. Massey, I guarantee you, Massey's going to run. Bannon wants to run even though the main issue in that lane is going to be Epstein stuff. And I don't know how his connections are going to how people are going to handle his direct connections with Epstein. Marjord Taylor Green might run. There might be, you know, somebody from the influence or sphere who runs in that lane. Maybe Tucker decides to run. There's going to be a lot of, there's going to be a very competitive lane. But it's only going to get like 5% support at most in the primary. So you're going to have that. You're going to have the anti-Trump for the center, which probably will be represented by Nikki Haley. Maybe a few other people will be competing in that lane. But and then you're going to have the people who are generally pro-Trump, but outside the admin and don't want to be a direct successor to Trump or can completely continue on the administration. And it's policies and you'll have crews, desantis, some other people in that lane, but they'll

8:26try to be pro-Trump. You'll have that. And then you'll have the people from the admin who will be fully pro-Trump and running on continuing the administration for another 40 years. And that's most likely to give you a competition between Vance and Rubio. Rubio chooses to run. But the issue is, as I hear this a lot from people, is that Rubio is more electable. Rubio seems to be a more cany politician, is that he seems to know how to pitch himself to independents more so than Vance. He's less online. That's true. And this makes him more palatable and more electable. And I would probably agree that on paper, Rubio seems like a better or more electable candidate. But the real issue is, is that for whoever the Republican nominee is, especially for an administration candidate, they're all going to be running on the Trump legacy

9:31for all the plus and minuses. And they're not going to have Trump's charisma. So the challenge for any Republican candidate is to retain and bring back that Trump coalition that he had in 2024 and then utilize that to win in 2020. And they're going to have you have to run on everything that Trump did. This is how party candidates are when they're succeeding in incumbent or trying to succeed in incumbent. They have to run on that candidate's legacy regardless if they might think things are different or whatever. And for Trump, Trump's going to ensure that that candidate is running on continuing the administration. This was what happened with Hebert Humphrey at 68. It's that he had differences with LBJ, but he basically had to run as LBJ at 68 because otherwise LBJ would have withdrawn his support. And he had to do this and

10:35that is considered one of the factors in him losing the election. There was that, which that's another matter whether that's true or not. So yeah, that's 68. Then the most relevant example or most recent examples obviously in 2024 where they didn't have to worry about getting Biden's support. But they all, you know, people say, well, maybe if they go on with someone different than common, the fact is that that candidate was going to have to run on the Biden administration. Whoever they had, whether it was Shapiro, Newsom, they would have all had that albatross around their neck. And having to say like, why did you guys pedestal this scene out old man for so long and say he was completely mentally healthy and all his terrible policies? And so it didn't matter who you had, you had to, you had to run on the administration's legacy and its agenda and its record. And that's going to be the case for the next candidate. Now, I think for a lot of us

11:37are for most of base, that's going to be a good thing. Base is going to love that. They want another four years of Trump, Trump, unlike Biden, unlike LBJ. In fact, he has a real personality called around him. A very strong personality cult that's going to exist for as long as he lives. And it's probably going to carry on past his life as Republicans. This is how they treated Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was dead for 15 years or around 15 years. I think he died and always actually the mid 2000. I think he died in 2003, 2004. But for another over a decade and Republican candidates in 2016, we're still quoting Reagan and debating over who is the most Reagan ask. And this was the same in 2008. This is the same in 2012. And it was only due to Trump that basically everyone stopped caring about who was most Reagan. For primaries that are going to come up starting in 2028 and carrying on into the 2030s, they're all going to be competing for who's the

12:40most Trumpian, most Trump-esque and siding Trump in a similar way that's with Reagan. Now, that's going to be good for the base. But depending on how the public is perceiving the Trump administration, that might not go over so well. I'm not one of those people saying Trump is a disaster. Trump is about the same approval rating that he had in his first term. And there's less public opposition and outrage towards him than there was in the first step. And he's also not as weak of a president as he was in the first term. So I don't think this is much of a problem. In 2020, if he had not had COVID, he was going to win. He's probably going to win the popular vote in 2020 without COVID. And then even with COVID, some people say he might have won the election, which I think it with, you know, it had to take an unprecedented level of breaking the rules, you know, tech censorship, all these unprecedented acts to have Biden eke out at narrow victory, even if you believe that Biden won. It was like an extremely narrow

13:44victory that was seemed that Trump should have been crushed due to all these things going on. And some people say he might have actually won. And I think actually if they did not allow the ridiculous, you know, free for all mail and ballot rules, he would have absolutely won, would have been a clear victory. And if they're at an app in COVID, he would have won the popular vote against, especially against Biden. But all that aside, you know, there's not Trump, there's not going to be Trump in 2020. And that's more going to be a downside for the Republicans, because what could be the cases that they get people think that they're the next candidate will have all the pro pluses of Trump and none of the downsides is like, he'll be more ashamed, he won't have the 500 word essays on true social going after Bill Moore and the Rob Reiner desolation and some of the other things that I find very amusing. But I probably not very good for a normal presidential

14:45candidate. So they think that they're going to be, it's going to be Trump without the drama. And that was, you know, the pitch of DeSantis and the Republican voters rejected that. And this is going to be some of the promise of the next Republican. But in fact, it's, they're not going to have that charisma personally. So people are not going to have this direct attachment towards next candidate that they have with Trump. There's all these low propensity voters that voted for Trump because he's entertaining. He, you know, does funny stuff. He's always on TV. He's got a great, huge name recognition. And he seemed anti-establishment and so people went and voted for him. You know, Ruby on Vance are going to both have the problem, which I think it's going to be either one of them who's the nominee in 2028. I don't see anyone else being the nominee. I don't see Cruz. I don't see Bannon. I certainly don't see Thomas Matt. See, are any of these people being the real Hogan nominee? It's most likely going to be their Vance or Rubio. But, and both those

15:50candidates, even if Rubio looks more electable on paper, is going to have the same problem. It's going to have the real issue is that they're going to have to run on Trump's administration, continuing that legacy with all the pros and cons. Most of that's going to be cons in a general election. Or I think it's going to have a lot of strong cons in a general election while not being Trump. So they're going to struggle to rebuild that base that Trump was able to build up for 2024 to give him that victory. And at the same time, they're going to struggle with independence who, you know, Democrats are going to have that advantage of, you know, without that larger than life character who's able to grab media attention, no matter what he does, that person's not going to have that. And it's going to be harder to get low, low propensity voters out. You know, the young male advantage that we had is probably not going to be much of a factor in 2020, regardless of who it is. Doesn't matter if it's Vance or Rubio. They're both

16:53going to struggle with that with a lot of these anti-establishment people who are very into conspiracy theories that and, you know, there's been polling on these types who a lot of these people were Obama to Trump voters and then were Trump to Biden voters. And then we're back to Biden and the Trump voters, you know, they go all over the place, you know, they're going to struggle with that because these people are going to be like, well, the economy is maybe not so good. They perceive the economy not being so good. Also, those people maybe are going to be the type of voters that are most likely to care about Epstein and some of these things and they're going to be upset about that and they're just going to struggle with that. And they're not going to, they're going to be the party in power and the establishment. So some of these people who voted Trump simply for being anti-establishment, they might just vote for whoever the Democrat is because it's like, well, that's change and I want change. And so that's going to be a difficult thing for them.

17:53And there's not going to be that level attachment and they're going to have to, even if the Trump administration is going well, which I think it will be are probably better than the most online rate things, they're people or might still be in a change mood. You know, this happened in 2016 where, you know, the economy was doing pretty well in 2016, especially compared to the high point of the recession. You know, we're not really having that many problems comparatively speaking, you know, woke us starting to merge and they're starting to be this race riots and some of these matters and Islamic terrorism as a threat. But things weren't that bad under Obama, especially compared to Biden. And there's less of public backlash towards him and he still had high approval ratings and Obama would run for a third term he would have won. By a large, probably a larger margin than he won in 2012 and 2008. But so those are the,

18:57those are the issues that he has, even if things are going well, the person who's the party candidate who's going to be there, they might have just had enough of Trump and won something different. And that is difficult for no matter how things are going. And I think that's why people went with Trump as they were tired of Democrats in Hillary Clinton. And Hillary Clinton wasn't running as quite as direct successor to Obama and they had their own problems. It was very seen in she had not been the admin for the second term. So she was able to have it agree with independence, but that turned out to not be, that turned out to be a negative. But I think with any Republican, even if they get someone out of the admin, I think it's someone within the admin, they're all going to have the big issue having to run continuing the Trump administration while not being Trump himself. And some people think that would be of all the pros and other minuses, but it's most likely to end up being a lot of the cons and other pros are pluses of Trump's personality, charisma to animate American people and get people to vote for them. And Democrats, they're likely

20:02to win the House. I mean, it'd be shocking if somehow they did not win the House. I don't think you're going to win the Senate, but they are going to utilize that opportunity to ensure that the next Republican candidate is incredibly damaged by the time 2028 rolls around. And they're going to be investigating people are close to both Rubio and Vance, and they're going to want to hang in the same way. The Republicans hung the border nests, all these foreign policy disasters and the sluggish economy around Kamla's neck are and for Biden, you know, but before he left, they're going to do that for the next Republican candidate. They are going to try to make the public think that this administration was a complete mess and the worst administration ever. Now, whether that succeeds or not, that's a matter of point. I mean, they tried to do this in 2018, and this is how Trump got impeached the first time over the Ukraine thing, but everyone forgot about the impeachment. Like, a week after his impeach of the Ukraine thing, that was a complete

21:08non-factor in the 2020 election. And even before, I mean, clearly COVID made people forget about it, but even before COVID, no one was talking about it, and it would have not been a factor in the election if COVID had not occurred. And even think about his impeachments didn't matter at all in 2024. So some of this stuff might not hurt or was not capable of hurting Trump, but it might hurt candidates without that personality, just persevere and people just like shrug their shoulders. Because Trump does have the advantage is he's able to do all these crazy wacky things that would hurt other political candidates and other politicians, but the public just shrugs. And it's like, oh, well, but Vance and Rubio can't get away with that stuff. And then they by proxy are going to be the ones blame for this stuff, rather than Trump. So they'll be having to enforce to talk about this stuff and all the things on record. And Trump is going to want to keep them wanting to defend the

22:13administration no matter what. And if there's ever a slight shred that they might show independence away from Trump's presidential agenda, Trump is going to attack them. It doesn't matter if they're in the general election. Trump will just like have a whole social post going off on them. And that is going to be made clear. So they're not going to have any degree of independence, ability to maneuver away from things that might be unpopular with the administration or things that they may not agree with the administration. They're going to have to run as total like Trump loyalists and I love Trump. And I am carrying on Trump's legacy while not being Trump. And that's going to be that's going to be a difficult pitch in 2020. I don't I'm not going to say the Republicans are to lose in 2020 as it's far too early to make that conclusion. As even to go back to 2020 election, you know, I thought Trump was going to went out right and well, maybe he did and went out right in 2020,

23:17but you know, he was not able to stay in office. We'll say that. And then in 2020, you know, around this time in 2022, I thought it was going to be extremely difficult for Trump because he wasn't allowed on Twitter. He wasn't allowed on social media. And then all these things change, you know, Elon brought BOT X. That was hugely important for us winning the election. And you know, there was this backlash against peak woke and his criminal investigations didn't really pan out the way Democrats thought and a lot of other observers thought so he was able to win. And so a lot of things it's far too early to predict, but I think you can make the educated assumption that it's going to be a very difficult election for Republicans. It's going to be a much more difficult election than 2024. And I think that with Rubio, Rubio obviously wants to run for president. But is this the time for him to run? And the thing is if he, let's say he

24:21runs and becomes a nominee, if he loses his whoever's, whoever's the nominee, their presidential fortunes are likely over as everyone is going to blame them for losing. And Trump is going to ensure that that person is blamed for the election loss and not himself. And most conservative media is going to be happy to do so, whether they're pro or anti-Trump. Because anti-Trump forces are going to realize it's more convenient to bash this person and to use this person as a proxy target to attack Trumpism rather than Trump himself. Because Trump is going to still retain this massive level popularity among the base and among conservative media consumers. So it makes more sense to attack that candidate and to savage them than it does to Trump. And then pro Trump forces and wanting to defend Trump and say that he would have won this election if he was on the ballot are going to then savage his person and say that they lost and it was not Trump's fault. And Trump is obviously not going to take the blame for this. So that person is going to have

25:27to raise the r of Trump. And then if they lose, it's going to be very tough for them to run in 23rd to due. Because Trump is going to say this person lost. I could have won. I could have won big time big league and they lost and they got they got shlonged. And that's going to be the the fact. And Vance is if he's likely nominee, but he's probably not going to have a much more political future after this. Because everyone is going to be happy to blame him for the loss if he loses. Now if he wins, that's a completely different matter obviously. And so it would be the same for Rubio. Rubio would be blamed for this. This would, you know, we've got to cast him aside. We're going to get some of more pro Trump or a better candidate to run in 2032. And both pro and anti Trump forces will be happy with that arrangement to blame that person. So it would look better for if Rubio thinks that they're going to lose in 2028. It makes far more

26:30sense to allow Vance to run and lose and have him out of the way is arrival and be very well positioned for 2032. Now he will be, you know, a little bit older. He'll be, I think, almost 60 in 2032. I think he's born in 73 or 72. So I think he would be nearly 60 at that time. But still young enough. But just that's a young man compared to who we've been electing so far. So I don't, and I, you know, newsrooms are going to be around that age of 2028. And I look good for his age. So we'll be probably fine on that. So he can just wait to, he's not, he's me under 60. You know, we've been electing guys in the late 70s. So last two elections. So it's not going to be that big of a deal. I think it's just wait and run in 2032. And if Republicans lose in 2028, they're going to be well positioned to balance back quickly and do well in 2032.

27:30I don't, it's, we're not going to have like permanent democratic power. They're going to try to do some crazy stuff. But the most likely they'll fail in the late 2020s. And it'll have the Republicans bounce back. And whoever the Republican candidate is in 2032 will be well positioned to be in the White House. So it might be in Ruby. I might think it's better just to wait four years and then be probably the most strongly positioned candidate for in 2032. But with, and Vance will have his presidential fortunes completely dashed. And Ruby, I might have another transformation. So one thing, this is both a thing to be skeptical about Rubio, but it's also makes him a better politician. Even though both Vance and Rubio have changed their politics, Vance planted his flag a lot more firmly in the ground to say this is what I am. He built up this reputation over the last five or so years is that like I am Trumpist, I am, you know, for a new

28:35Republican party where we're casting aside the old conservatives. And this is what I'm about. And he really planted his flag and much more firmly than Rubio. And it'd be much harder for him to have a transformation away from that. And he is also being the most loyal Trumpster to get there can be. And he is not going to be able to transform himself away from that. Rubio is going to be able to transform himself more. And I think it's also unclear what his true politics would be. Right now, he's, you know, a Trumpian nationalist. I think we like that. And it shows the popularity of these politics. And so it's good that Rubio is adopting this. But I don't, I think that Vance would be more committed to what he says right now in office than Rubio. Rubio, we don't know what Rubio would like to be like his president. Because he's even, even since he lost a Trump, he's had a couple of different transformations. You know, he went through this. Sorab Amari, populist phase where he was still pro immigration. And then, you know, he became more of a Trumpian

29:42type. And he still was, you know, he's been all over the place in foreign policy. Sometimes he was like calling for realism and not interventionism. Other times he's still the same Neo conservative. But now he's into populist economics are making populist rhetoric. So I don't really know. And we really don't know what Rubio would be like his president. Now, it could be a full return to the old conservatism. I think that's why a lot of the people who don't like Trump and really don't like Vance. And they're starting to come out more hostility towards Vance. And that is part of the enthusiasm for Rubio's speeches that people are wanting to have an alternative Vance. And it's not just the online right that, you know, thinks that Vance is, you know, the Annie Christ or something, but it's also these old conservative types. And they see Rubio as someone who would return the old status quo, restore the old status quo far more than they do with Vance. Now,

30:45Rubio could advance, you know, Trumpism without Trump in office. You know, it could be very right wing. Do most of what we like. We don't know. I think Vance, you have a better idea of what he would do. I think he would care. You'd be carrying on Trumpism without Trump. I think that's pretty much guaranteed. I don't see that with Rubio. But that also in a way would make him appealing to moderate voters and suburbanites. So you don't know what would happen with that. So and if he is not the candidate in 2032, he could have a completely different persona and message for 2032 than it would have run on in 2028. So that's my think thinking on him running a 28. Whether he chooses to run or not because it's always a bad bet to not run when you have a good opportunity to do so and to expect that like, oh, well, Republicans are going to lose or they're

31:50going to or this guy's going to win. I'll just wait my four years to run. You generally have to strike at or at the early the earlier the better. Like Obama had not run in 2028. He would have never been president. Chris Christie failing to run in 2012, ensured he would never have a shot of the presidency. And there's a lot of people like that. And it it may seem a smart bet, but a lot can change. You know, advance could end up winning. And Rubio is expected to be the running made. I don't think he'll face much the blame if he's the running made. It'll be the top of the ticket that that faces much of the blame. So he could, you know, that could be, you know, we could advance could win. And you have to wait another eight years and a lot of things could change by then. Or, you know, even if he waits and doesn't sign up for doesn't run for president, they lose. And he, you know, the country faces some new transformation. And they want some type of different type of

32:51candidate. And it maybe have been his best shot in 2028 rather than 2032. There's that. So I think, even though Rubio says he's not going to run, I think a lot of people are going to be pushing him to run. There's a lot of the lot of the neo con Jewish donors do not want to support vans. A lot of it's due to Tucker. A lot of them, they don't like its foreign policy. A lot of the old guard conservators don't want vans either. No, you could see the Koch network and others trying to back him. Right now, a lot of those donors and institutions are lining up behind crews. But they have to realize that crews cannot win. Crews is not going to be the nominee in 2028. He could be, he could be competitive, but he's not going to be the nominee. Because Trump is not going to like the fact that it's someone outside the Iron Man who's been critical of him during this administration being the candidate. He is going to ensure that he wants someone from within the administration who is going to be in a complete Trump loyalist. And the choices for

33:55who are most viable in a primary are either Rubio vans. And I think that a lot of the smarter donors and figures are realized that, you know, it's not going to be crews, it's not going to be disantis, that if they want someone to not, if they want it to be someone not named JD vans, they're going to have to go with Rubio. And I think that's, there's going to be more of a buildup over the next year for this matter. And I think Rubio might be convinced just to run anyway. The only reason he would not is if Trump rolled really solidifies behind vans, which they are starting to do. You know, TPSA is backing him. Don Jr. is going to be backing him. A lot of other forces are going to be backing him. Trump may decide that he trusts vans more than Rubio. So that might convince Rubio not to run. And it's better just to be his running mate. He also may see it's a bad idea. But in early 2027, that it's like Republicans get destroyed. But that is in politics you'd ever know in early 2027, it's going to be too early to understand. Or 2027,

35:00it's going to be too early to know whether they're going to lose or not. So that is my thoughts on Rubio 2028. But I ask if I think he'll run. I think he will. I think it's, you never know when you have your shot and waiting for the next time. It's a bad move in politics. There's going to be a lot of forces, a lot of donors and others who are going to be pushing him to run. And I think the enthusiasm that he's been experiencing over his Munich Security conference speech sees him as the alternative for people who don't want to back vans. And he's able to demonstrate as like a serious person in the admin unlike except the moment some of the other more clownish figures of the admin and Bondy. So I think he's going to have that appeal and that's going to convince him to take a shot at it. But a lot can change. I mean, if Trump just comes out after

36:07midterms and says he endorses vans, then that's the only way that I think he's prevent him because I think there's going to be enough people telling him he needs to run. And he, I think vans' star power might start to get diminished. And he might think it's it's time to shine. But if he is the nominee, he's going to have a, and he loses. That's probably the end of his bloc who career. That's the same with any Republican nominee at 2028 because they're all Trump is, Trump winner lose. Trump is going to come out looking fine from the election. As if they win, it's like, wow, the people love me. They want to continue it. And that they lose. He's going to say the people wanted me and this guy who was not me lost. And he's going to take that assumption. And I think most of the conservative movement and the base is going to assume that. And that guy who is the nominee because Trump is not, unless Trump like immediately passes away after leaving office, which I don't think is going to happen, he is still going to remain a incredible, powerful force within conservative

37:12politics. And he's going to try and he's going to make sure that everyone knows that he would have won the election on like whoever the nominee is. So that's a tricky. That's a very, it's a very risky decision to run for office in 2028. Vance, it's his only time. If Vance doesn't run, that's like saying he's not going to be president. Vance, this is his only time to run and he has to take that shot. Rubio does theoretically have another time at 2332, but at night, not be his time when that when 2032 rolls around. So we will continue on with questions. I got a lot of questions about the SAV Act. Due to normative, asked about the SAV Act. Do I think it would pass? And I think Gilles enjoy us also asked about it said SAV Act. Do I think it's a pass? Well, I mean, they got

38:13the 50 votes, but the thing is they're not going to get they can't get a pass at filibuster. Republicans are fine with supporting it, but they don't there's not enough votes to overturn the filibuster. And they want to do a different type of filibuster. I think it's a standing filibuster rather than a talking field. The difference is that basically Democrats are going to have to occupy the Senate floor to prevent the SAV Act from going through. That also means that pretty much Senate business is going to shut down. And they hope that they can outweigh the Democrats and they'll give up. But that's that's a bet that might not work out. They don't think it's going to work. And there's not a lot of Republican leadership is non-enthusiastic for this idea. I think Gilles Adorer cites reconciliation, which they would get it through a budget bill, which I think they would have to get it they'd have to do a whole new process. I think that might require a whole new vote if they want to get it through budget reconciliation. But there's no way a Senate parliamentarian is going to say that that's part of a budget bill because it has

39:13nothing to do with the budget. Democrats shut to do this with Amnesty and in I think 2021 or 2022 and the Senate parliamentarians like you can't do this. It has nothing to do with a budget. And the SAV Act has nothing to do with a budget either. So they're not going to get it that through and Republicans with all these moderates in the Senate, they're only going to vote for that bill if the parliamentarian approved it. So I don't, unless they try to do this thing with the filibuster, which Thune and leadership doesn't really want to go with, there is a way where they can still keep the filibuster, but then they go with a different filibuster, which offers the possibility they might get it through, but it's unclear. I would say I don't think the SAV Act is going to pass. I think they got Susan Collins support, but she's not going to back like the measures to get it passed. And that's the same with a lot of these other Republicans who are saying they're supporting it. I mean, it would have a huge, it would have a huge help for us. It would definitely

40:15help us in future elections to have, you know, strict nationwide, not ID requirements, would 100% help us. Now, I'll reduce a lot of these frivolous, are these dubious rules around mail and ballots and a lot of other things, but I don't think it's going to get passed. Unfortunately, but we'll keep paying, we'll keep an eye on it, we'll keep paying attention towards it. I think, really, it's going to be another way for them to attack. It's rile up the base to attack leadership, which it's now increasingly turning into just attacking Trump, at least on the online sphere. I don't, it's different from Fox News and a lot of the rumble sphere, but with our, you know, Twitter space, it just ends up with like attacking Trump. And we're like, we're done with politics, we're going to have a revolution of some sort. We'll find our cadre for revolution somewhere, but it's going to happen. So that is my thoughts on that similar question or a good question. We'll go back to Gilson George's

41:20other question. Actually, I want to go to this, this question before somebody asked about Obama and Hillary, their thoughts on immigration, but I want to go to this because it goes to people complaining and how the right online right reacts to this. This comes from James, James says he was listening to podcasts between Jay Burton and Dave Green. And they talked about chimped energy, apparently Dave Green took the position that he didn't like chimping because he said it doesn't influence the Trump administration at all. He went on to say that we're not on team Trump. They said the American government is the enemy and they need to operate as if Trump will always make the wrong decision and he doesn't have the will to use power. What is it they think they will build apart from what we're doing now? Well, the thing is I'm actually also critical of some of the always be chimping because it generally turns into just always be blackpiling and always be complaining. I think there's, I'm fine with tactical chimping, you know, occasionally, you know, if something, you know, Trump says something stupid about student visas or H1Bs or, you know,

42:21he's wanting to bomb Nigeria or something, you know, I think that's fine to criticize. I think you can criticize a Trump administration for doing stupid things. And I do that as well, you know, when they propose stupid ideas, you know, the 50-year mortgages and all the stuff and student visas, it's H1B comments, which are different from what the administration's policies are because of reducing H1B visas, you know, it's fine to criticize. And sometimes they do respond to the criticism because they see these as their supporters and they see the influencers as, as necessary for the Trump administration agenda. But I think they're getting tired of these the chimping and they realize that they don't control any voters and their voters pay attention to Fox News, not to the online influencer sphere. And they still care about this. As, you know, we can look at the case of Jeremy Carl, which we'll bring up to next as the next subject, is that

43:23they would have likely pulled his nomination because he's unlikely to get through the Senate Senate hearing because, you know, John Curtis, there's enough Republicans who are coming on criticizing him and they think he didn't perform well in the hearing and he's not likely to make it through. But the admin realizing that it would really black pill the influencer sphere and he got all these influencers to stand up for them, they're standing by him. So they're forcing the Senate Republicans to vote them down and to take the blame for rather than themselves. And so that does show a level of influence. And the fact that they still have these memes and all the things that they don't fire people for being found for being secret racist or something, I think that they still have a degree of influence. But it also a lot of the chimping just acts as a way to black pill people to have this position that Trump is the enemy and GOP is the enemy and we need to do our own thing. They have no idea for what to do. It's for a lot of us, we just exist in fantasy

44:26world where if we give up on politics, we'll have a magical revolution that will enact all our policies. The thing we need to realize is that we don't represent the style of majority. We are a very narrow niche opinion in this country. The majority does not agree with us. The only way that we have ability to have power is to attach our ideas, which were by themselves be unpopular or largely unpopular. I know there will be the sometimes immigration restriction, sometimes. But what you look at a lot of the online rights off of being anti-democracy, anti-Quality, race realism, full-on race realism, these ideas, whether we like it or not, and I think this is unfortunate, are not popular with the public. The public doesn't want a dictator. The only way we are able to promote these ideas and get some people to agree with them is if they are attached to mainstream figures who have a degree of popularity, such as Donald J. Trump.

45:30But we always assume that we can separate ourselves and then we're going to be instantly popular. The alt-right got this into their heads and it led to Charlottesville and everyone hating them and the destruction of their movement. We didn't learn any, and a lot of people didn't learn any lessons from that and they just think that they will build our own thing and not have to deal with a lot of people just don't want as like public commentators, just don't want to be pro-Trump. They'd prefer to imagine their own world where their ideas are very popular and that they have the chance of taking total power. And so there's an appeal to that. I understand why people go with that, but it's not a realistic view whatsoever. You have to be faced with reality as it is and work with it. Otherwise, we're not going to have any change in this world. But people just think that, well, if we give up on politics, we turn against Trump and the GOP, then our own side will able to rise up and gain and represent the solid majority, but that's not going to happen.

46:30Really, what's most likely to happen is Charlottesville. Charlottesville, they already had a Charlottesville 2 point out, but it might be like Charlottesville 5.0 or whatever that might happen. It'll just be that. And really, the alternatives that people always suggest is I had a tweet about this. I have an article coming out later this week about this. Is the four alternatives are move to a rural compound, get a few guys to walk around and mass, vote Democrat to have the acceleration to accelerate things, which that doesn't really work. And then fourth is former third party, which we have plenty of mistakes of that, but once again, people don't learn. Because the thing you got to realize is that we don't have mass support. We don't have a lot of money. And we don't even really have organizational ability, because most right wing groups just end in pathetic circumstances and can't extend into a mass movement. Some of it's the lack of mass support, lack of money,

47:31also hostility, you know, if you're involved with this stuff that you're going to, you know, suffer professional consequences and reputational consequences. So you have to deal with this stuff. And the only way we can really advance our thing, our ideas is through the GOP and Trump. I think that's now other people who are influencers, they can advance themselves independent of Trump. But I think if you want any political change of political power, you have to accept what the GOP and Trump are. And that's our only hope. And if you get rid of Trump, there's a great chance that GOP returns to its old self and that we are politically irrelevant and have no access to any politicians or mainstream figures. And we're just, you know, building our own little fantasy regimes and our own little sandbox on the internet. So that's, I don't have an idea, but we, people like to believe that there's some alternative. Like, well, the collapse will happen and we'll turn to podcasters to lead us, which that is never

48:35happening in a collapse. We'll turn to criminal who said to lead us are people who are capable of wielding violence and that's going to be most likely criminal organizations independent of the state. But he said, picking back on the previous question, James, he said it sort of highlights what you said earlier that even though we're getting things, we've said that we've wanted for decades, the constant complaining from our side could eventually lead to them getting turned on out as getting tuned out as Vivek did. Like you said before, patronage is a two-way street. If your patrons keep telling you I'm not on your team, don't be surprised when said team tells you to f off. I think that's the case. I think one thing is if we lose in 2028, this is not going to be a victory for the online right. A lot of Republicans are going to be like this. We've had this experiment. We're moving to something else. We get a lot of rewards from this administration and the current paradigm within conservatism. Most of people who were not

49:36around in the 2010s have no perception of it. There's all these incredible things happening and I think a lot of people just want to blow that opportunity and pursue some fantasy revolution that's not going to happen. But yes, I agree with that take. So a good takes on that. We'll move to Mark. Mark asked the thoughts on Obama and Hillary basically telling the DNC to moderate on mass immigration. Will they listen and if the Democrats keep on losing on the issue, when will they actually moderate on immigration? All the Danish left have ever. Well, Obama's always said this stuff about like, oh, we're national laws and, you know, I did a lot of deportations and you know, they called me into the border and cheap. That's because I was committed to rule law. And when he was trying to pitch an embassy, he he tried to boost the number. He tried to boost the deportation numbers. It's more interesting with Hillary. They all were sort of on this

50:41page. The Democratic leadership of 2024, they realized that open borders that they had under Biden killed them and insured that up Trump won in 2024. And so they've tried to adopt a different line. Newsom is also doing this where Newsom's like, we've got to have trauma borders and not have illegal immigration, but we're not deporting people. And that's basically the line is that they want to have illegal immigration solve, but they don't want to deport anyone. They just want to keep people from coming to the border because they realize that this really upsets the public. And so they just want to say they want to have the perception that they're more moderate on immigration while not actually being moderate on immigration because they don't want to have any internal enforcement and they want to abolish ICE. And so the new message is going to be pro-border security, but probably not giving any funding for it. Anti-ice. Now, will that work in a primary where people the whole base is fired up about immigration? And it's likely wanting to return to the open borders of Biden. I'm not sure if that will happen, but the moderates,

51:49the leadership realizes that they need to have a different line of immigration. They have to admit that illegal immigration is a problem that they have to talk about rule of law and they have to talk about that they should have a secure border. They're not going to have a border wall, but they know that this is necessary for them to appeal to moderates and independence. And this is part of, you know, they're trying to move away from peak woke. I think it's going to be a problem in 2028 because anti-ice sentiment is going to be on unprecedented. It's going to be really off the wall in democratic primary. And I think some guys would say, well, we don't like ICE, but we want border security and they're going to be shadowed down by activists. Activists are like, that's also racism, fascists. And I could see them forcing the Democrats to basically adopt the old Biden line in order to please these activists, no matter what they're saying right now. I have this point and this is probably going to be one of the few things that could save Republicans of 2028 is they don't learn from any of their mistakes

52:51in the past and then they repeat their mistakes that killed them in 2024 and hurt them with the public. And they're going to do it again in 2028 because they can't escape their base and their activists. I think the activists are going to be insisting on no open borders. They don't want to, they don't want any talk about border security. And I think Democrats are going to, you, this sounds sensible, what sounds sensible from Obama and Hillary. I don't think that's going to be what the winning candidate in 20 are the winning nominee is going to be saying in 2028. Second question, thoughts on David Lynch in his works. A lot of right wingers uses media as an example, right wing art. Do you agree with that? I don't think it's specifically right wing art. I'm not the biggest David Lynch fan. I like Twin Peaks, but I don't want to use a term weird, but it's not just, it's something I don't quite relate to. It tries to hard to be weird and different in my, I would have probably deeper thoughts on this than an IQ someone.

53:57But it's a lot of stuff I just, like, I didn't like Bullhole and Drive and some of his other works. Blue velvet's fine, but I think if I watched it today, I probably would not be as big of a fan of it. You know, there's a bit of a too much of a hard to observe a settlement. Now people always say this is completely un-Irock that he appreciates beauty. There's not a sense of irony or post-modernism with it, but there is just a type of forced weirdness to David Lynch and a lot of his works, and I don't find it as enjoyable as other things. Now, I'm open to be more pro David Lynch, maybe if I reassess his films with fresh eyes, maybe I might appreciate it more, but I'm not the biggest David Lynch fan. I'm far from what people say, he's like, you know, this right-wing art, and he definitely had different politics than the average of Hollywood. It was more into right-wing ideas. I wouldn't say it's specifically right-wing art because I mean liberals appreciate

54:58it more. And also, this is a big difference between all that I did at our audience. Our audience would absolutely hate David Lynch films. I would never put on a David Lynch film for my parents. They would absolutely hate it, and so would most conservatives, but I'm fine with those art. I don't begrudge people who like David Lynch. I think people maybe make a big, too big of a point to say like, oh, I love David Lynch. David Lynch, David Lynch, but I view this as a matter of different tastes, but it's not really something I get into. I've tried very hard to get into David Lynch when I was in college, and it just didn't really connect. But I'm willing to give it another go, so maybe we'll have an IQ supplement on it someday. We'll go to Gillis and Joyer's other question, he asks. So it seems like the UK finally has a genuine right-wing party with Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain. It seems the entire British online right is done with reform, given all the X-Tories in the parties. So how do you see this schism playing out? Restore seems like the only

56:00party that is willing to actually do mass depredation, so hopefully they just replace reform. Well, I mean, reform had a pretty strong agenda. I think, you know, Restore is definitely more right-wing and seems to be more in line with what we want. And I've talked to a lot of British white-wingers, and they can't stand forage. Forage is too much of a gay keeper, and he's also really blunt in telling, you know, when right-wingers will interview him and they'll be like, well, what do you think about this? And it's like they say very right-wing talking points. And most politicians from our side will entertain them and indulge in them, but forage just simply like scolds them and cast them out. And that makes him not very popular with the right there. So a lot of people just don't like forage. The problems with the parties I don't think Lowe have, this is a, I always insist on the point of charisma, which people have gotten very mad about this. When I said, DeSantis has negative charisma, this is why he's not going to challenge Trump, people are like, that doesn't matter. Personally, it doesn't matter. No, it matters a whole lot

57:04in politics. And why forage has been so successful is it's very charismatic, very funny guy who's able to out there. He's a very talented politician. He's the most talented politician in the UK. Whether you like him or not, you have to admit his talent, who's still on the scene. You could argue that Tony Blair, you know, he's still alive, but maybe more talented politician, but Tony Blair was operating with one of the two major parties. Well, forage has always been on the outside. So I think Lowe's going to struggle with that, that he's very appealing the all in right, but I don't know if he has that much appeal, a much of a leadership and personality to lead a party. They're also going to have problems with all these third parties, especially in the English sphere of who they picked to select. The media is going to have a field day. They're probably going to get some people with some bad optics posting and some other things that reform had this. You know, maybe they just need to go along with it, but they'll struggle to find the candidates that would be good on the ballot. So I think they're going to have problems. I think it's going to

58:05most likely just take away votes from reform. And I mean, they are better than reform, but you have to go with what's the most likely game power. And I think reform has the ability to game power and make forage prime minister and reverse immigration policies, even if he's not as trustworthy, even if he's not as good as River Lowe. I don't know if that I don't really see that is happening with restore, but we'll see. We'll see. It might be good down the line because like, let's say reform gets in power and they fail to do anything. Then that will help restore and be like, we weren't a part of this government. We were something separate. And that might help build up restore. And they're old party system and Britain that they built up for, you know, over a century, which was primarily between, was a three, you know, three part, mostly a three party system with conservative and labor competing with one another. Liberal Democrats still being around.

59:07And that's the party. That that systems, I mean, the conservatives seem to be over. You know, they've got two splinter parties now. And River Lowe seems to be winning all over the anti reform right wing parties because there's like a, there's like a million of them that are not reform. And he seems to be gaining all that support, but whether they'll be enough to win over voters out of its skeptical, I think reform is still going to be performing better in elections. But it might be good for down the line if reform government is complete failure. And people want to turn to an alternative. And there is that alternative there. So I think it might be better in the future, depending what happens. But for right now, I think it might act as a vote splitter. But that's still the same. I mean, reform seems to be just completely overtaking conservatives. So it might not make that way with difference. But and you know, Lowe was kicked out of the party for probably reasons that, you know, for us should have just not bid the bigger man and allowed him to stay in the party. And

1:00:13I know he's having to pay the consequences for that. So that's it. I think their agenda is great. It's what we want to see for America. And it's certainly great. It's certainly better that more trustworthy than it is or form. But you have to think of like practical politics and who is most likely to win votes and who is most likely to gain power. And the near future and that's reform. Restore doesn't have the ability. Now they might have that ability down the line. It depends on who they recruit. I do have the skepticism. It's very hard to operate political party new political party formations because you're dealing with different people. We'll say that. You don't have that institutional framework and the money that the bigger parties have. Now, restore has a has a friend and Elon Musk that he might help them with. So that might help them establish themselves down the line to gain power. But we'll see. I wish them the best. I don't I don't I don't want to criticize them too much because I think that they they're a right wing

1:01:17party. Most of the people I know in bread seem to be very happy with them and very excited about them. But I do have some skepticism over what they will be able to do in the next election. So that's that's my thoughts on that. Preston is asked a great question. So that's thoughts on clavicular. I find it pretty interesting and entertaining and probably a peak example of right wing ideas hitting an at a political audience. I think it's really funny. I don't really get people or attacking him. I think it's just really funny content. You know, it's it's like a better form of reality TV. He just goes around mocks people or gets bogged. He goes and meets these fun adventures. These women who sometimes might have boyfriends or it seems the Brett Cooper thing was harmless. So I don't want to say that example. But somebody was on that stream where he was at the fashion show. And it's a woman of fiance. Apparently she was hitting on him on stream and she's like, Oh, shit, my fiance's not going to like this. And it kind of exposes some of these women who

1:02:21like, you know, no matter if they're got a boyfriend, husband, you know, Brett Cooper accepted. I'm not throwing her in there. We like Brett Cooper. So I don't want to attack her for that. But you know, others that they'll just throw themselves a clavicular and he's just like funny guy and he just seems to just not care because he's focused on improvement and looks maxing. And it is promoting right wing ideas, even if they're not specifically. I think when he talks specifically about politics, like when he had an argue with Michael J. Knowles, it wasn't, it was rather silly. But when he talks about like a philosophical framework, because it's like very anti-galitarian, very focused on self-improvement, it's very neat change in a way, because this guy is struggling to make himself better. He's doing crazy things that other people would look down on. And I probably don't recommend some of these things like using a hammer on your jaw, but he's going above and beyond to exceed his limitations and to ascend. And there's a rigid hierarchy in the world of clavicular.

1:03:23And it's very white. This is not, you know, he is not at all a wigger. He is not like sneaker at some of these other influencers. He's very white-coded. And he's very white himself. And I think it's presenting a much wider cultural alternative for young white men than a lot of the other stuff that they have out there. And he's, I probably don't recommend going all these supplements and stuff he's doing, but I think he's just entertaining character. He's funny. He's on new adventures. I watch his clips. You know, there's now these like, all these guys trying to mug each other for on behalf of clavicular. And it's just like funny stuff. And I think it's better in terms of like stuff that they're going to watch on like TikTok and these streams. And it's not political content. This is like a lot better for them to watch. And it's, it is giving young white young men a white right-coded alternative to what to what other things are out there. And I think

1:04:27if you compare him to someone like Angitate, which I made this point, like Angitate, I like some things about him. There's also something. And I think he's very smart guy. You know, he gave a very brilliant lecture on like the three three tiers of world powers, which I thought was pretty good. And I think some of the statements he makes, but there's some very tall tree aspects of Angitate. Oh, besides the alleged section, there's also just like the life cells presenting. It's like, you've got to have this ostentatious display of wealth, which is very appealing to non-whites and new immigrants. Like all these immigrant groups are like really into the stuff. Like I gotta have the jewelry. I've got to have the sports car. I've got to have all this. It's like very crudely materialistic. And I think that's not really the case with clavicular or clavicular. The goal is just to look as good as you can to looks max and to send the limitations placed on you. And I think that's a, I think that's a better model and entertaining. It's less

1:05:29non-white coated. So that is my thoughts on clavicular. Bahaisu is back and he's wanting my thoughts on the movie Black Hawk Down and do you think it or a movie like it could be greenlit today? No, it couldn't be greenlit today because it's showing white guy shooting black like Africans the entire movie. I've been asked this a lot. We'll do an IQ summon on Black Hawk Down soon. You know, the 25th anniversary is early next year of it because it was released in early 2002. It's released after 9-11. So I'll probably do something around then. So yeah, I know that's a year out, but we're still going to be talking about it. Well, it will definitely do an IQ summon on Black Hawk Down. I think it was a great movie. I watched it rewatched a few years ago and I thought it was an awesome movie and I was like, man, this is like, this is amazing. This amazing was made in 2002. So we will definitely, I'll read the book,

1:06:34you know, and all the things going on at Somalia. So we'll add in historical context for it. So I think it'll be a great IQ summon. But yes, I'm on the question of whether it could be greenlit today. No, silly Billy just kind of has to, I don't know if he was a real question, but he was just throwing something out there. He's like, what do you think of the idea that's being forced down everyone's thoughts at Black and fitted all these necessities we use every day? Proved traffic signal, carbon filament for light falls, dancing, speaking loudly in public basketball, fighting, happy magic, but I think it's less, but I'm less tuned in with the mainstream than in the past. I don't know if it's as being forced down as much as we think. The real promise, if you if you round any kids and if you learn what they're hearing in kindergarten and preschool, is that, you know, this is from relatives with their kids and some friends with their kids, is that they're getting a real education on this. And I have, you know, a young relative of mine.

1:07:34And it's like they're talking and it's like, oh, yeah, tell us about George Washington and he just being talking about George Washington Carver. And so that's like not good that they're learning more about George Washington Carver than George Washington. Are there that's being planted in their mind more? And I had to learn this as a kid as well, you know, 20, 20 years ago. And are not 20 years ago. I'm not the older 30 years ago. My bad getting my day in my timeline wrong, but yeah, back in the 90s and, you know, we were having to learn that stuff. So it's rather stupid. I probably should, we've already done a lot of, we already have a black history month IQ someone's lined up, but we'll do something on the black inventions down the line probably next year. We're now mocking it because people are doing this funny thing where they have like these AI generate images like this person invented like reading a 1910 and it's like, oh, wow, and they just make up stuff. And it's really increasingly become a makeup stuff. And I

1:08:37think it's necessary to mock it. And I think the online right is getting this stuff out there. And I think a lot of stuff is also reaching into reels and TikTok as well. So it's a more positive thing that's happening with that. Kmax asks about doing IQ something on time to kill. You know, probably, you know, it's, it's not really, he's like, Wokeness is early is 1996 now that I don't want to say this is Wokeness is just something mainstream. Doing something on John Grisham novels would be very good. And John Grisham movies are mainstream America love these like middle America love this. And they're insanely libtarded and insanely libtarded films. Time to kill might be the worst of them. But they're all similar in their focus on what they're betraying America as. And with like, and he's like a Southern lawyer and you expect him to have like, you know, conservative views. He has conservative sensibilities in how he, and this is why they're very big among middle Americans like his both

1:09:40as the novels he wrote and then the films based on them. But you know, it was some time to go. So I'd probably do something on that down the line. Uh, let's see who else we got. Renown, I'm going to do with he sent three questions. But one of them is, I've been meaning to get to this. I haven't got to this and it's about Jeremy Carlisle. I do find it blackpill in the Jeremy Carl. If we consider to moderate near circles, this tree does the extremist in the Senate. No, I don't find it blackpill. I think it's, I think it's more of a white pill that he got so far in the Senate hearing is that he was nominated. And the thing that Republicans are not upset, this is both a blackpill and a white pill is that Republicans are not upset about his comments about whites and immigration and all that. They're upset about his criticism of Israel and Jews, which is disappointing that this is all they care about. But it's also showing that they, they don't care as much about this stuff is, um, the stuff that Democrats are attacking him on as they do with other things. I think the fact that he got this far is a white pill.

1:10:45You know, Americans aren't really ready for a certain level. Aren't really ready for that conversation about white culture and white identity. And people still get uncomfortable about that. But the fact that what's thinking him is some very milk toast criticism of Israel and like one comment like saying Jews like to play a victim. It's like they obviously do. And that's also blackpill, but it's also not surprising. And yeah, I think what we consider to monitor it is very different for what the Senate considers a moderate. And it was always going to be difficult for him to get through the Senate hearing. I think he would have gotten through last year because there's this build up of opposition towards Trump within Senate Republicans. They're more willing to push against his nominees. They're tired. You know, it's a lot of them are criticizing his immigration policies. And I think Jeremy Carl is a victim of that. If he had been gone through his confirmation hearing in the fall, he would have gotten through.

1:11:45And that would have been a white pill. You know, and the administration's standing behind him. So that's also a white pill as well. I don't think it's that I think we shouldn't be surprised by it. You know, the Republican Party is still not where we want them to be. And that's going to take a lot more work. There's other questions I disagree with yours. He actually asked a question. I'm going to get to his the one in which he asked if he liked his wife and daughter should go to the women's leadership summit. Sure, I don't think there's any problem with that. I don't really know what their timeline is, but I'm sure it'll be fine experience. But his other question is something to go on. He disagrees with my assessment of Jonah Goldberg. I think he's a very talented and generally amusing writer. He would almost certainly find a broad audience, as long as his ideas weren't explicitly at odds with a prevailing psych guys. If you have been a student anonymous author on a far right blog 15 years ago, or even today, his post would have likely been among the most popular. I've always hated his writing. So it's like always like he always imagines he's extremely funny. And he has these extremely shitty jokes that he is the conservative. I say with like

1:12:50people unironically say, Huzzah! He will say Huzzah all the all the time his articles and his tweets. And he tweets all the time about his damn dogs. And it's like nobody wants to see your damn dogs, Jonah. He's like a very self-obsessed person, which a lot of pundits become. I try to avoid that, but he he's been like this and he's always been an asshole to people. Wait, I remember a talker talking about him. And you know, there were acquaintances and knew each other for a long time. He shared stories about how much an asshole he is. And he's clearly his asshole because I remember back in the Trump years, you know, he would always have his like how dare you disagree with me. You are inferior being to me. And you know, make that to a lot of people who are Trump supporters and everything. But now he's like on the outside. So he's not, you know, having as much sympathy as he did before. I don't I mean he has like a he can he has a style. He's you know, he has a calm style. But even some of his longer articles, you know, with their very self-absorbed and a lot of pundits, once they're given free range to just talk about things,

1:13:54they just go off. And I don't think his books are very good. I read I didn't read liberal fashions, but I read suicide the less. And most of the book is just him making crappy jokes along the veins of Hussah or just like these like obscure references to like Mel Brooks movies. And because they could serve it as pretty good of his you love Mel Brooks movies and stuff like that. And then him just like my friends said this, my friends said this. And it's just like him signing random friends who talk about like how liberal democracy is awesome. So he got his foot in the door thanks to his mom, Lucy and Cole Berg who ran, well, I forgot. The site had her first name in it. It was like kind of a drug report type of repost site. It was still big in the 2010s, because I remember my daily collar columns would sometimes be reposted by there. She's been dead for a few years now. She mainly made her name and it's one of the people who were involved in Monica Lewinsky and getting her story out there. And her role in that was very CD,

1:14:59but she was already a mainstream because of her operator and that's how she got it. A lot of people in media or products and nepotism, but that's another story. I don't think he's very talent to our very interesting thinker. I think even someone like Bill Crystal is more interesting. And I think actually maybe unintentionally funny, but I think he's more interesting. There's also people who really master the art of columns that he didn't really quite do like Charles Kraut Hammer, but a lot of these people. And he also Kraut Hammer had a better knowledge of things, but I think Goldberg was made because he's seen as like a young conservator and he was supposedly funny and he's not funny. And I think the real thing I hate about people, it's one thing that makes it very hard for me to like Elon Musk is that people who think they're funny, but are not or some of those unbearable people possible. And that's like Jonah Goldberg. And people find him funny and like it's about us disturbing as people find Elon Musk funny.

1:16:00So we're moving along. We got New England Refugee. He's got a question. He was watching, he was asking about similarities between Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump. He's watching the president's document on it. And he said the pedicote affair or seems like something Trump would be involved in. Him attacking the bank is like Trump's terrors, the amount of catatour, Sagittarius fire resembles Trump first term. What are your thoughts on the comparison? Yeah, it's an obvious comparison. There's not many presidents like Trump, but Andrew Jackson is the closest one. I don't know. There was like a never Jackson moment movement that was built. That was basically the wigs were never Jackson's, which combined, you know, national Republicans of the vein of Henry Clay, along with states' rights Republicans like John Tyler and ended up with a bizarre political amalgamation and coalition there that didn't quite work out, but they were just never Jackson's, never Jacksonists. And that was similar and the people thought he was on

1:17:02fit for office like Thomas Jefferson, similar way with Donald Trump. And he did have a major impact on politics like Donald Trump did in a populist orientation. But yeah, no, there's definitely a lot of comparisons with that. That's, uh, I need to do an IQ someone on Andrew Jackson at some point, probably later this year. So we will cover that more in depth on that IQ someone, but yes, there are definitely, there's not a lot of presence you can compare to Trump, but the closest is Jackson. And so now we are down to, okay, we're last, but certainly not least, if I missed your questions, please harass me and I'll get to them on Wednesday. But okay, we're like, ask, once upon a time I was going to critique your definition of wokeness for being too America-centric, then I realized the exact parameters would include almost all the Marxists from abroad since and including the man himself. I don't think any of the big names Lenin Stalin,

1:18:06Mao, Shay Ho, etc. ignore the plights of blacks in the United States. The only potential exception are literally who's like Belakun who I'm giving a 75% chance is someone you can't name off the top of your head. I can name Belakun off the top of my head. Was this intentional or happy accident? Uh, I'm not sure what the question is. Um, uh, I recommend submitting that, re-submitting that to the mail bag. I'm not sure what you're asking here. Uh, for my definition of wokeness being for being too America-centric, I don't like to describe Marxism as woke. I think that's something separate. I'm not one of those people who is, you know, it's just like, oh, well, they're actually were anti-liberal. They're just focused on completely different things that the modern woke are. Both of them share hostility to capitalism, but I think it's just a different focus, you know, you know, modern wokeness is not as obsessed with the proletariat, even if they're anti-capitalists, and they're also operating from a different paradigm, you know, communism was a product of the

1:19:11industrial revolution and the economy and society produced by it, wokeness is a product of post-industrial society. And so, and it's very America-specific. So, um, I'm sure I did not answer this question, but I recommend I'm not sure what you're asking. It was what is intentional or happy accident, but you can definitely submit that, re-summit that from the mailbag and I will answer it then. So, this is- that is it for highly respected today. We'll be back with more great content this week, so be on look up for that. So, until next time, stay respected.