Lindsey Graham is Dead & His War is Alive

What's up? What's up? Everybody, welcome to a brand new episode of part of the problem. I am Dave Smith. He is Robbie the fire burnstein. How you feeling, sir? I want to get out of Houston, but you know, it's, uh, it was fun porching last night. And this is what you got to do if you want to do the Sunday porch, but I've not left this hotel room, basically, I'm for you. You're at the same hotel that we were at all weekend. And it's a fine hotel. There's just nothing here. Yeah. It's a bit of a weird feeling when it's a gig that I already got back from and then I podcast with you and you're still there. It does feel like I knew I forgot something. Oh, Rob, no, I left you. I left my laptop, charger, and Rob. Um, all right. Hey, guys, was it thank you to everybody who did come out this weekend in Houston? It was so much fun. Rob's never leaving. But if he does ever end up getting out of there this Thursday, we will be in Huntsville, Alabama one night only at the levity live out there. And then July 17th through 19th, we will be at Zany's Nashville. Really, really looking forward to these shows, man, I love, I love that club. So very much looking to, looking forward to getting out there this weekend. Comic Dave Smith.com. If you want to grab tickets, anything you want to plug real quick, Rob, before we start. Yeah. I got, this is my craziest stretch of porches, but I've got Lebanon, Tennessee, doing a late show on Sunday of the FBI and trap and scheme. Then Chickamog with Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia, San Point, Idaho, outside of Seattle, and then more stuff coming at you. But this is the crazy stretch. All right, very nice. Well, look, I mean, let's, let's get into it, Rob, because there's a lot going on. So Lindsey Graham, Lindsey Graham is dead. The war he's pushed for for 30 years is alive. And Mitch McConnell is somewhere in between all of that and more on today's part of the problem. This is, I got to say, man, up there, this got to be up there with like one of the more stunning pieces of news. I can remember, it is almost a little bit surreal. But yeah, over the weekend, Lindsey Graham dropped dead. He died, I mean, the jokes right themselves. Like he died doing what he loves most selling a war. Like he went to Ukraine to try to put what? That's this isn't kind. All right. But anyway, so he went out to Ukraine. He comes back and suddenly dies. There were, there is second favorite thing. Well, well, not only he, you know, he's was a man in his 70s, his early 70s, does not have any known, you know, serious disease and did not appear to be in, in poor health, you know, seemed kind of like his same old however you want to describe himself. And so, you know, when something like this happens, it is just, I don't know, there's something kind of shocking about it. Lindsey Graham has been, however you feel about him, he has been a, an absolute staple of the establishment, particularly the war hawk establishment. The guy has been, oh, I mean, he, he was in this, between the Senate and the House, he must have been in Congress for 30 years, something like that. And I think he did, he did was eight years in the House and then 20, 25 years or something like that in the Senate. Like, I mean, he was just just been there forever. And to have someone like that suddenly dropped dead, it's just very rare. And it's a, it's, I don't know, it's a bizarre kind of like surreal feeling. And of course, I mean, there's so many different angles on it. This will be right per conspiracy, which I've already seen all over social media. And maybe we'll talk a little bit about that. But I guess before we even get into that, one of course of the, you know, there's, there's almost like this, this huge debate that's raging Rob now about how it is that we're supposed to respond when people like Lindsey Graham died. And I remember me and you talked a bit about this. I think a lot of these same, uh, these same arguments came up when, uh, when John McCain, uh, died. Cause of course, John McCain and Lindsey Graham had somewhat, uh, similar, you know, well, reputations, I guess in DC, you know, both, both known for being a, you know, I mean, look like DC is a pretty goddamn pro war town. War is literally the only thing that DC produces. And, you know, the, the US federal government has been the most war hungry organization in the world for the last 25 years, at least. And again, these are guys who even amongst the DC crowd really stood out as being the most hardcore war hawks. Like the, the, the old expression would go, John McCain, Lindsey Graham never met a war they didn't want to fight. And I mean, it's, it's really not an exaggeration, Rob, like, at, ever, there was never a six month break where there wasn't a war they were advocating for. These are people who have, you know, like, I'm, I'm a, I'm a 43 year old. And Lindsey Graham has been, like I said, in the Senate in Congress for about 30 years. My entire life, he's been advocating for another war right now, this second. And so, of course, when people like that die, um, amongst the super majorities of the American people who hate these wars, you do see, like, an outpouring of celebration. And, and in some senses, even downright cruelty, um, about the fact that this guy died. So I don't know, like that's, if you get what I'm saying, like, that's kind of the big discussion right now. I guess I was, I'm interested to get your take. And I think you'll agree with me on this. But I would just start it off by saying, there is in response to this, you'll see a lot of people talking about how it's really undignified to be celebrating when somebody dies. I'll just start by saying, look, I'm not, I'm not like, uh, there's something about death that I do think we all should have some respect for. It's a force more powerful than any of us. And we all know that it's coming for all of us. It's a very weird thing about the state of what it is to be human. And I do think that when people die, no matter who the people are, um, probably the correct move is to have somewhat of a somber tone and have some respect for things more powerful than yourself, um, that threaten the good and evil alike. That being said, when I see all of these people, Rob, like trying to be like the whole monitor, comparing this to Charlie Kirk and people celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, I'm sorry, these things are nothing alike. They're nothing alike. You're talking about how we're supposed to feel about people with real political power who used that power to advocate for nothing, but the misery and slaughter of innocent people. I'm sorry. It's like, what are you going to tell me too that like when, when Joseph Stalin dies, I should really, you know, think about his, his family who he meant something to and not say bad things, only say, talk about the positive things that he did. Well, I don't think so. So anyway, I don't know, curious your thoughts on all of that. So this is, uh, this one's a tricky riddle because I do kind of feel like, uh, being too respectfully these individuals and death almost set it up for the next people to operate in this way. And it's almost like good if everyone realizes just how hated these individuals are and how evil the actions that they took were. So like, if you turn around and start celebrating these people and you go look at the service they did to the country and that he was a senator for 26 years and you celebrate the accomplishments, I almost think that that's to a detriment because there's almost something more cleansing of going, oh, wow, that guy was a bad dude. And here's all the bad things that he did. And I almost think it's like, it's kind of important to have that consequence of if you were a guy, you know, enemy of the American people trying to pull us into every single award that he could, that's, that's more of an enemy than a friend. So I think celebrating the guy and trying to pretend like he's a hero. I think that that's a nightmare. Now in terms of celebrating death, like, I don't know, that, that feels too disrespectful, but at the same note, I have some mean jokes planned for run your mouth. Well, look, I mean, I would, I would say professional comedians making jokes is kind of in a different category, I guess, but yes, I think the broader point you're making is important. I thought everyone who celebrated Charlie Kirk's death, I thought that was disgusting because, you know, Charlie Kirk, even if you disagreed with him, he was just engaging in free speech and spreading his ideas and people who were related to his ideas. So I thought, you know, I thought that you were being psychotic if you saw what he was doing is actually being an enemy to you and that you, your ideas couldn't handle someone who was just engaging in speech for, you know, a different idea of how people should live their lives. All right, there's all really great points. No, listen, there's are really great points. And I think, you know, I remember I was on, I think it was appears Morgan panel or something. And I remember we were talking about the, the top peers had brought up. This was right after that woman, not the guy, not the pretty guy, but the woman got killed in Minnesota when she drove off in the car. You remember the one I'm talking about? I don't remember that now. She was like being detained by ICE. She's drove, she peeled off in the car or I keep saying peeled off. People corrected me on that, but she turned out and the officer shot at her. So we were talking about that and there, and Pierce brought up how a lot of people like right wingers on social media were kind of like, you know, what was it called? F-A-F-O, good for her. She got, which, you know, like that kind of attitude. And he compared it to the Charlie Kirk, the kind of celebration of that. And I remember I was on the panel. I think there was another, there was like another kind of conservative type who's on the panel with me. I can't remember who, but they immediately objected to that comparison. And then I also did kind of go, yeah, well, look, they are different things. I mean, those, because in those cases, you're even going like, look, however you feel about whether she was driving the car at the officer or however even you feel about whether he didn't need to pull the gun out. You know, there's something about like a cop gives you a direct order. You violate it and try to drive your car away out and die there. That I'm sorry, that is worlds apart from I just came here to give a speech or to give a back and forth answer questions. Like there's something about like a private citizen who had not committed a crime. Like in the same sense, Rob, that if I, and I mean, like, if I just went up and pushed some guy and he pulled out a gun and murdered me. Now, that's not justified, obviously. I can't just kill someone because they push you. But that's very different than I'm just walking down the street and someone shoots me in the head. Like it's not different in terms of the crime it is, but it's very different in terms of like the nature of the situation. And so anyway, it's not even appropriate to compare Charlie Kirk to like someone who drove away from a cop and then got killed. Let alone to somebody who is a US Senator who pushes for every single war and whose signature like trademark reputation is that they will always be more of a war hawk than whoever the second most biggest war hawk in the Senate is. I'm sorry, that's just a different thing. They're enormously different things in the same way that any look and this is what uncovers so much of this kind of religious, you know, religious stateism or whatever that we're supposed to have in America. But again, just just think about this like if it was another country, right? If it was another country, name any like, you know, horrible government, whoever it would be picked from the 20th century, whatever I said, Stalin before. So let's keep with that, right? If there was like, if Joseph Stalin died or just some Russian, okay, they didn't have podcasters back then, Rob or whatever. But like, let's just say there was some Russian dad who was arguing even for communism, even on behalf of Stalin. But he was just making his political arguments like he was going around to a university and arguing that like, now Joseph Stalin's model is actually really good. And we're going to overtake the USA and if communism spreads throughout the whole globe, it'll be really wonderful. And someone murdered him. We would see that as a very different thing than Joseph Stalin the man himself died, right? That wouldn't need any further explanation. It would just be very obvious to all of us like, well, one of those is one thing and one of those is something else. And like, okay, so the comparison just doesn't exist. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the American people are against all of these wars and think that they're a mistake. Lindsey Graham supported every single one of them, including the latest one. And people hate that and people hate that. And this is I guess what's kind of different about it, Rob, right? Like this is obviously, I mean, again, this goes with that saying, but here's like one of the, the obvious things, right? The people who hate Lindsey Graham hate him for a very specific reason. And what is that reason? Because of the innocent people who die as a result of the policies that he spent his whole career. But so again, it's not there's a real asymmetry between say that and hating Charlie Kirk for being whatever, for being pro-life or being a Republican or being whatever, like that's a different thing. You hate him for the dead innocent people. And so it's like the idea in the same sense that if anybody was eulogizing Hitler or Stalin in an unbelievable flattering way and was to do it on the justification that, hey, look, the guy just died. So let's be polite. Let's think about his family or something like that. It's like, well, the obvious reason why we don't tend to agree with that is because we immediately go, yeah, but think about all the other many more family members of people who died because of this guy. And I'm just not sure if someone could explain to me for a reason other than I was born on this plot of land. And some German guy was born on that plot of land. Explain to me why there is a reason that the same thing shouldn't be true about US politicians who supported the most agree just wars based off the most obvious lives because I'm not really seeing it. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is sheath underwear, the underwear of legends. I'll be telling you about these guys for years. They've been a long time sponsor of the show and I love them because the product is just unbelievable. It is the most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you will ever own. Get yourself a pair of sheath. You'll never wear anything else. That's what I did. It's the only underwear I ever own. Sheath.com, the best pair of boxer briefs you will ever get and long time sponsor of this show who deserve to be supported. Go there, sheath.com, make sure to use the promo code problem. That'll get you 20% off your entire order. Sheath.com promo code problem. All right, let's get back into the show. Yeah, listen, I'm not going to be posting or celebrating death. That's just not my personal thing, but there's just, there's something to be said for if somebody made these decisions for his entire career, and then there's an outpouring of hatred and celebration for when the person dies, you know, that might be a kick in the pants of the next senator of like, look at what the general public actually thinks of this. And if you, and in the inverse of that is just if you're going to lark with the government, like these people aren't evil rulers above us and then just go, well, this guy was a politician, so let's celebrate him for the, that he did. I don't know, you're just playing it like then you don't really care. You're just kind of, you're, you're, you're, you're playing into the power structure. No, I think you're accepting the obedience. It's a really important point that you make there, man. And that because look, it is sometimes you do have to measure things by what effect they have. You know, there's an old thing, what are they? There's an old line. I forget who came up with the line, but they said like a system's purpose is its results. And like, I don't know if that's always, well, there's a, I don't know if that's always necessarily the truth. I believe it was like a critique of communism that it was wrapped up. But like if you, if you implement the same system over and over and over again, and it yields the same results over and over and over again, at a certain point, intentions are kind of meaningless because in the real world, the purpose of a system is what it does. And who's quote is that, Natalie? I could not, I could not remember this. Anyway, it was a smart thing that a guy said once, Ted Kaczynski. Oh, was that Kaczynski? Oh, that's hilarious. That's really far. They did. Well, every now and then you will come up with one of those quotes and it was Ted Kaczynski. He had a few good quotes, you know. Anyway, but so it in a similar sense, you just go, well, look, as you're saying, Rob, the effect of this is that a whole lot of leaders see that Lindsey Graham dies. And then this is how he's met by his own countrymen, like treated like a traitor, like a treacherous pig who was absolutely hated by the people. And I agree with you. I'm sorry. Sometimes you go, I'm not sure that that bothers me. You know, Rob, like, there are situations. Sometimes you ever see someone do something and you're like, you know, I wouldn't do that, but I don't hate the purpose that it serves. You know, like, this happens sometimes. And it's one of those examples coined by the British management consultant Stanford beer. Huh. Okay. Well, that's not, not who I thought it was. Okay. Anyway, um, it's, uh, yeah, I think that, you know, in a similar sense, you see sometimes, I don't know, Rob, have you ever seen, you know, uh, when women do that really passive aggressive thing that you hate in politics, where they kind of like, like, you call it out a lot where they like ask a question without asking the question or make an insinuation or something like that. Like sometimes you'll see that on social media where someone does, like, they do like something really dirty like that. And then just like some random guys like shut up. And you're like, all right, look, I wouldn't be talking to a random woman that way because I just don't believe that's how you talk to ladies. But like I couldn't see the purpose in it that it's like, yeah, okay, don't like stick your head in here and think you're just going to call someone a racist without actually saying it. You're going to get met back with this. There's something to that. I, I hope that, um, listen, I have absolutely no problem with war hawks in America, uh, very much knowing that they are hated by the American people and not just hated by the American people, but hated so much that they might even celebrate when you die. They might even laugh at your face and laugh as your family, you know, grieves you, um, in, in your funeral. I, I don't think that that's necessarily a bad thing. That being said, I advise everybody like, yeah, don't protect your own soul at all. costs, you know what I mean? Like, don't be grotesque. It's good. It's good to just start out. There's also a difference if a person dies of natural causes versus a political assassination. Because if you're celebrating a political assassination, you're endorsing the political violence. Well, that's true. So that's also just, it's just a different look. No, absolutely. I mean, yes, I think that's a very fair point too. Now for the conspiracy side of it. Sure. Well, I mean, there's almost like a bigger conversation, you know, just over like a netta conversation over the conspiracy industry in a sense. You know, I was thinking about because it's, it's, we're coming right up around the year anniversary of, of Charlie Kirk being murdered. And I just was, was almost thinking about maybe doing an episode about kind of about that in the aftermath and all the theories on it. But you know, there's again, this is something me and you have probably been talking about since we've been podcasting together. And it's a thing that's really exploded over the last couple years. And it's, it's much more obvious now. But you, when you have a situation where essentially in the 21st century, you know, for 25 years, 26 years, whatever it's been now, you know, it's been like, there's been like 17 major crises that the government has just lied to the people about and the media has lied to the people about. And there's been all types of conspiracies that turned out to be true. And when you have an environment where you have an incredibly corrupt government that lies all the time, an incredibly corrupt media that lies all the time. And they're not just lying, they're lying in service of an agenda that is also making certain groups of people filthy rich. And that's just the fact. And these lies include, you know, the actual policies include wars and mass murder campaigns and lockdowns and all types of totalitarian policies. It's just you, you create fertile ground for conspiracy theories. And of course, and there's nothing wrong with conspiracy theories. I mean, a lot of them are correct. But you, it's as in the same way as in a one-on-one relationship, if you just lie to a person over and over again, you lose trust. And that's all that really conspiracy theories are is a massive lost in trust from the people in the institutions. And then people, so then you see something like this. And if you know that if there was foul play, they'd lie to you anyway, you start wondering whether there is or whether there isn't. So in any way, I guess in an example like this, where we are in the current landscape, like right now in America, you just see something like this and you go, oh, well, it's just a guarantee that Twitter is going to be going crazy with theories about what might have happened here. Did any theories particular grab your eye, Rob? Well, all right. Firstly, I just agree with everything you just said that in this environment, post COVID and Russia hoax and everything else, like there's just there's no way to ever accept the official narrative. And anyone who just points to the conspiracy theorists and go, hey, you guys are just wrong. There's no evidence. It's like, well, if the government just tells me something, that's almost evidence of the fact that that's probably not true. And so the person who's questioning the official story is probably going to be closer to the truth. And that's not true all the time. Sometimes the government does actually tell you what happens, but we've just been allied to very great. I mean, right now the straights are apparently open. So pretty aggressively lied to. And I don't think questioning the official narrative is not intellectually honest. In this case, the fact that he went over to Ukraine and then died within 24 hours of what they called a sudden illness, one of the only things that we have out of like the church committee was that the CIA had invented like a shrimp poison that they could shoot you with. You wouldn't even know that you had been shot. There'd be no more. I think you'd have a heart attack 24 hours later. So the idea that this guy couldn't have been poisoned while he was out there and have it appear like natural causes. It's not outside the realm of what intelligence agencies could do to a person. The question that you would be left with, though, is why is Russia taking out Lindsey Graham and not Zelensky? If they're able to get inside Ukraine and that easily and take people out and is taking out Lindsey Graham right now, that advantageous to Russia that it's worth doing so. Now, if Russia did in fact take out Lindsey Graham, the positive side of that story is that the United States of America does not want us to know that because they don't want to have to go to war with Russia on behalf of Lindsey Graham and be like, oh, this is foul play. You guys just cross the line. But I just, I don't see why Russia would be doing that. So I think it's unlikely. Yeah. I mean, I think, look, I mean, this would be kind of broadly speaking. This would be almost like my message to conspiracy theorists, okay? This is what I would say to conspiracy theorists in 2026. I'd go, first of all, as Rob said, you're already starting from a huge advantage because if you just assume whatever Washington DC is telling you is an 180 degrees opposite from the truth and it must be not what the official story is and it must be some conspiracy. Well, not by the laws of logic, but just by the reality of the situation over the last few decades, you would have ended up being right at least eight out of 10 times. So you're and there is a tremendous amount. There are a lot of people who get furious about the conspiracy theories or they try to don't gun the conspiracy theories. Right? Like, this is Ben Shapiro every single day mocking Candace Owens for just asking questions. Oh, are you just asking questions? Meanwhile, keep in mind, Ben Shapiro has never, there's never been one government policy that's made his blood boil as much as she does. I've always said this, you know, Clint Russell was making this show this point on one of his recent shows. I thought it was a very good point. I've made this point a lot over the years and he may have said it in different language than I am, but oftentimes you can really judge people based off what issue they get most exercise by. Like, that's a really good litmus test, actually, for like political commentators and stuff like, like, what actually gets you furious? What do you care the most about? And you would think, because you're always going to be really out of whack if you're hierarchy of priorities isn't like in line. So if you're like, if you care way too much about shit that really doesn't matter, you're going to be kind of useless. And anyway, um, but so, so there are these people out there who are like trying to dunk on the conspiracy theorists all the time. And it always seems to me that those people are just acting in service of the regime, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It's like, look, man, yes, people get a little bit sloppy with their methodology at time. Yes, there are theories that don't turn out to be true. Again, this is like the example that I use is like, there's like the, the husband who's just cheating all over his wife, constantly cheating on her and lying to her. And then she's like, you know, she's like, I know you were out with another girl on Friday when you weren't answering the phone. And he wasn't. He wasn't out with a girl on Friday, but she's convinced he was. Now, in a narrow sense, you could say she's wrong. But like, if you spend all your day saying the big story there is that she's no, no, no, the major story is that she's right directionally. She's right in spirit and got one of the details wrong and was sloppy. But the big story is not that. And likewise, you know, if you just could see what, what our government has done to this nation, let alone the other nations of the world over the last 25 years. And like, that's your big outrage that the American people don't trust them so much that they assume it's even worse than what the reality is. Like, I don't know, get the fuck out of here. My first thought when I saw the storyline, I was like, man, who just who just took out Lindsey Graham. But then another way, this one was just batched. I saw Israel did it as a threat to Trump to let him know he's next. And I was like, you really think Israel just took out their best asset and yeah, well, that's the thing where here's, well, here's the thing, right? So, so I want it. This is still, I'm still in the preface of my message to the conspiracy theorists, which is just that like look, man, you're never, this is part of the reason why for all the years when I would go on all of the big shows and they would ask me to denounce Nick Fuentes or Candace Owens or whoever else it is, I would always refuse to. And part of it is because like, well, I'd be like, I'm friendly with those guys. Like, I like them. I don't have to denounce them for you. But then like part of it is also that there's something about you doing that that almost elevates that to being something that even is, is worthy of being denounced or that somehow it, you're insisting that it is my role to play hall monitor of the internet dissidents and to run around and, and let everyone know when they did a racism or a conspiracy theory and that they, it's like, I don't know. What are you talking about, dude? Like, like, Smotrich and Ben Gavir are in the Israeli government. Tell me about something. a podcast or said, you know what I mean? Like it's just too irrelevant and unimportant to the major outrages of the day, even if it is something I disagree with. And so, I will never become that. I'm not gonna be the internet hall monitor. I will say particularly of the dissidents and only of the dissidents, of course, not of any of the pro-war advocates as I'm demanded to be by comedy club owners or whatever. I would say while all of that is true, my advice to the conspiracy theorist would be that, look, I mean, if you're just being honest with yourselves here, there's a lot of sloppy work going on over the last year, guys. Just a ton. And like, that's not helpful to anybody. You can't, you know, there's nothing wrong with just asking questions. There's nothing wrong with speculating about what might have happened. Just don't sell other people on a certainty that you yourself don't even really have. That's kind of been my beef. This is why I, and I call it a lot of flack if you remember Rob for immediately after Charlie Kirk got killed. Kind of standing up people who were saying it's Israel right away and going, yo, you don't have, like, you can't, the standard can't just be that there's a narrative that's sexy and you kind of want that to be the real story and therefore we bend over backward. That's all I'm saying. You got it. If you want to be a good conspiracy theorist, you got to Occam's razor, a lot of shit, a lot of shit. You got to always be like, look, there could be another explanation that's not as sexy for this. And even assume that as a starting point. You know, look, people in their 70s die. That shit does happen. It doesn't to me make a tremendous amount of success that Russia would have killed Lindsey Graham. Nothing's going to change, Rob. Taking him out wasn't strategic at all. It would have to be purely symbolic or personal. I'm going to need to see some evidence before I believe that. Okay. That all being said, I wouldn't shut myself off to possibilities. Who knows? Dude, anytime someone like at this level dies right after a trip to Ukraine, the thing is, it's again, Rob, it's the husband and wife example. What's the real problem here when the wife is adamant that the husband was cheating Saturday even though he wasn't, but he was cheating every other day? Well, the real problem here is that there's no trust in this marriage. You're lying to her. These are the fundamental things you need to fix. And the problem we have is that you want a society where when something like this happens, there's confidence amongst the people that like, oh, we're going to get to the bottom of this. And right now, there's none for good reason. I still think it was a disgruntled, rest stop, lover. I mean, listen, that is not the worst thing to start from. No, but I mean, look, it is, look, again, he was old. He was not that far off from the average life expectancy. And I will say, as as people, you know, talk to talk to people in their seventies and like, they all know some people who have just died, like just died, you know, didn't seem that sick. It was a thing came on and they just died. That being said, you would want to be pretty damn exhaustive in an investigation about something like this, right? Because a US Senator returning from not only, look, I mean, it's not only like, like if it makes sense, what I would be more inclined to believe if we were going down a conspiracy route. I just haven't seen any evidence to point to this. But it would almost make more sense that it let's not that it's exactly what you said, but that like it's some personal shit. You know, Lindsey Graham has been intimately involved in the conflict in Ukraine since at least back in like 2014 and he's a, you know, Rob, this has been an incredibly corrupt country. As you know, as billions, not just with the billions of dollars, the hundreds of billions that have been flowing in in the last few years, what has it been in the last four years or whatever now, but I just mean historically, Ukraine's been an incredibly corrupt country. Maybe he was involved in something, maybe some deal went bad. Maybe you know what I'm saying? It doesn't have to just be Israel makes no sense in this case. Israel found it necessary to take out Lindsey Graham of all people and that wouldn't really send a message to Donald Trump. Well, that message would be no matter what you do, you're not safe, right? I mean, what would, so, okay, so that doesn't really make sense to me. Russia, I don't know, but again, I do just think, I think that there is, look, there are people out there, like Alex Jones, who it seems like is almost operates in a realm independent of credibility based on his predictions, if that makes sense. I think in general, I would warn people against just, just being really loud and guessing, I don't think is good for the dissident movement. And I think that if you're being sloppy and you have poor methodology and you're putting together like wild conspiracies, I think that if it's seen that that is what the dissident movement is doing, I think it's going to largely discredit it in the eyes of a lot of people. And I think you lose a lot of your own trust with your own audience. So I don't, you know, I think that's bad to do, but not because I'm like morally outraged about it the way Ben Shapiro is. You know, like, well, like he was supposed to sit here like, while a little girl school is being blown up, you're outraged about the latest Charlie Kurt conspiracy or something that to me, like that sure as hell ain't the answer. But I think you want to be, you want to try to be as accurate as you can with these things. That's always the way I've tried to be with them, you know. Yeah. Well, everyone else, it's, it's, it's the COVID thing of wearing a mask. It's the indoctrination of, hey, we all got to be in line in the lockstep, not just with the government, but with my version of what the government's supposed to be. That's why even Ben Shapiro would criticize Donald Trump on, you know, if Donald Trump was running his mouth on conspiracies, but then Donald Trump's pitching an iran war and Ben Shapiro is all of a sudden, he's the greatest thing that ever happened. But, you know, for all the people who are just, it's what you say, we can't, the biggest problem is that there's going to be a lack of faith in our institutions. It's like, good, the institutions are terrible. They just gave everyone bad medical advice. Why should everyone have faith in them? That's actually the wrong takeaway from this is we need more faith than bad institutions. Yeah. But I have to say the conspiracy chatter, it's all the same thing of like, we need everyone indoctrinated in, in, in line, and we need to ostracize anybody who questions this because we can't have people falling out of the ranks. Now, there's an analogy there between like the people's view of government and prices in an economy, you know, where it's like, okay, the, the price isn't actually the problem. The price is signaling that something else is the problem. And so if you just try to change the price, that's not really going to deal with the issue. And, you know, if you could think of this with like, your body having a fever or something like that, it's like the fever isn't that, the virus is the issue. This is your body's response to that. And so in other words, like, you know, as we were talking about on the economics episode a few days ago, but let's just say for whatever reason, there were like, you know, if every steel plant, you know, happened to get struck by lightning or something, and then the price of steel sky rockets, because there's far less of it, passing a law to lower the price of steel is not the issue. The issue is like repairing all of those steel plant, you know what I mean? Like it's like, no, there's a real problem that there's tangibly not enough of this desired good. It doesn't matter if you make the price less. And in a similar sense, you know, as you're saying, the trust in the institutions is a signal about the performance. And so it's not that you want institutions to not be trusted, but you want them to not be trusted if they're lying. And so these are institutions deserve to not be trusted. All right, guys, let's take a moment and think our sponsor for today's show, which is crowd health, an amazing company providing an amazing service. And this summer they want to tell you about real freedom, healthcare that actually works for you. Now, you've heard me talk about crowd health in the past, but now they've made it even better with their black swan membership. The no BS alternative for people who want control over their care, their costs and their lives. For just $85 a month, you get a dedicated team of expert bill negotiators who are fighting for you, access to low cost prescriptions and lab testing, a hand curated network of high quality, affordable doctors, vetted by crowd health, no insurance companies, no restrictive networks, no bureaucrats deciding what you can and can't do just you in charge. And if a real black swan event hits, you handle the first $15,000, the crowd steps up to help cover the rest. It's healthcare the way it should be closer to the freedom we had before Obamacare turned it into a bureaucratic nightmare. So this summer, stop renting your health from the system, take your power back and enjoy the season with real peace of mind. If you're ready to make the switch, head over to join crowdhealth.com and use the promo code P O T P at checkout. Just join crowd health.com and you'll get the first three months for less than $85 if you use the promo code P O T P at checkout join crowd health.com promo code P O T P. crowd health is not insurance opt out, take your power back. This is how we win. All right. Let's get back into the show. Anyway, you know, as evidence, look, I mean, you know, as what can you say? I mean, I guess like my final thought almost on the Lindsey Graham thing is like, don't tell me for a second that any of them would be kind to any of us, you know, in our, in the wake of our death. Of course, national review ran like a scathing obituary of my life. Rathbar after he died, you know, for the crime of being against government wars, they could celebrate your death. But you know, of course, Lindsey Graham's is not in a not insignificant way in a very significant way. Lindsey Graham through his unwielding support and relentless whipping and pressure supported the war in Iraq for the entire thing, including the surge, supported every surge in Afghanistan, including, you know, the war from the beginning. And he might have been in, I guess he was in the house when the war's launched, but voted for him and then voted for every continuation and acceleration. Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, obviously Iran, obviously Gaza, obviously Ukraine, huge cheerleaders of all of these conflicts. I mean, the guy is in large part, very responsible, directly responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of innocent civilians. So yeah, that's, that's what we're talking about. And of course, his, he left us with this latest disaster of his, which is still very much ongoing and don't, you know, if, if again, the commander in chief, the presidents are ultimately the most responsible person. I, I, I suppose. But if you were trying to find people responsible for the warfare state, Lindsey Graham would be on a short list of people, you know, like been in DC the entire time advocating for this the entire time. And a lot of the reason people hate him is that he was pushing this war in Iran for the entire, you know, last 25 years. And it is the disaster it's turning into Rob. What can we say on the latest here? The latest on the war in Iran, the MOU I guess is officially over. We're back at war. Should we, here, let's, let's go to the Donald Trump clip. Let's go to the first clip. And then we can, we can discuss. But we had a deal, but nobody knows we had a deal. It was a done deal. And then they broke it. They always break it. We've had 10 deals with these people. And so we're just going to hit him very hard. And we're going to, we're going to keep the straight and we'll probably run it will become the guardian of the straight. Maybe we'll call it the guardian angel of the straight. And we should be reimbursed for that. When we do that, we're going to be reimbursed because the other nations are very wealthy that are on our side. And we can't be expected to do that for nothing unlike we had for many years. You know, we, we guarded the straight for 50 years more. And we never got paid for it. They made all the money in the United States. We just, you know, not, they wouldn't, it's amazing. It's, we, we never make, we guarded it for nothing. And now we're going to guard it. And we're going to get paid for guarding it. A lot of money. But we just want to be reimbursed for doing all of this for putting our people in danger. But we're really not putting people. We're really saving people. Remember this. They killed 52,000 protesters so far as of this moment. The number is 52,000. So who's going to protest? And a lot of people are surprised about the protesting that, you know, that they haven't. But nobody's going to protest when they get shot. They have AK 47 machine guns aimed at people's heads. If you move one foot further, you get shot. And then they'll shot. They'll shoot 10 of them. And everybody flees. Who's not going to flee? They don't have guns. Right. So they're a bad group of people. Let me just tell you that. I don't say that often enough with that statement. They're a bad group of people. They've been this way for a long time. And right now they're getting their ass kicked. And in the top form. Sure sounds like it. Sure sounds like they're getting their ass kicked. All right. What can we say here? So just for anybody who hasn't been following the news on all of this, you know, the essentially the MOU fell apart from the very beginning. There's two major issues that it fell apart over, which were Lebanon and the straight of her moose. You know, there's there's of course, both sides are claiming that the other side violated the agreement. Certainly the Iranians have a strong case that we violated it from the very beginning. Perhaps the Americans also have a case. It's hard to say like what the Iranians are claiming their understanding of what they're allowed to do in the straight right now is there's there's some dispute there. None of it really matters. What matters a lot more is what we can learn from the posture that both sides are taking here. You know, one of the things that's allowed us to have some good insights into to this war and to kind of get it right throughout has been I've been telling you, you know, reading the drop site guys and what the Iranians are saying. And reading Jeremy scale over this weekend, you know, what they're what the Iranians are telling him is that evidently the negotiators keep requesting that they just like give Donald Trump a win. They're like just just just just give him this one. Just do this. So like just let them go in that lane instead of this lane so that he can say that the and at every turn the Iranians are like what? No. We're not trying to help him claim victory here. And in fact, it does seem to me, Rob, that the Iranians, look, this is just my read on the situation since the MOU to now. But it seems that even though the Iranians were clearly in the advantageous position, clearly the Iranians had won with the memorandum of understanding. It seems that they are going out of their way to rob Trump of a victory narrative. They're really trying to do what they can to not let him claim that this was a big win. And I think just purely strategically, regardless of how you feel about it, it's an interesting gamble because obviously on the one hand, if you really want the war to be over, you want to allow Donald Trump some wiggle room to like claim victory. That's what we want, right? Me and you, Rob, we want, I guess, him to be able to claim victory a little bit because then he can maybe end the thing. But from the Iranian perspective, they may think that like the Americans in general really need to learn this lesson so that they'll never want to do this again. Either way, this is in many ways, I think, rob a low point for Donald Trump in the war. Yes, it's circular. We've been here a million times before. I know this is difficult. It makes it difficult to cover the war. I'm sure it makes it difficult to listen to coverage of the war. But there's like, it's a really big low point for Donald Trump to now, after all of this, Rob, after turning and trying to use the non-interventionist rhetoric and sending JD Vance out to every TV show. By the way, I haven't heard from JD Vance in a little while, have we? After all of that, to now just turn back to their mean because they don't stick to their deal. And so we're going back and now just these empty promises of will run the straight, will get the money. It's all going to be great. I mean, dude, at what Rob, we are almost five months into this thing now, man. This has been going on for quite quite a while. I'm sorry, everybody defending this thing at the beginning was saying it's going to be weeks not months. And then I said, that's the same thing Dick Cheney said about Iraq. But this is, this is where you're at now. Still, none of your war goals achieved the deal destroyed over two issues, Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz that did not exist before this war. And now we're right back, Rob, to what they've announced, blockading their blockade on the Strait of Hormuz again. Now we're right back into that how much more can the global economy take of this while reserves are depleted. So bad spot for Trump, bad spot for all of us. Yeah, it's amazing to be back in this exact same spot with Donald Trump telling us he's taking the straights. They're going to take the Carg Island. And it's like, but if that could have worked, why didn't you do it? And now that you're going back to blockading the straits, what exactly is I thought a week ago, you were telling me that the oil was going to go up and that you're going to have massive problems and the stock market's going to come down. So what's the plan now? What's changed? And even the strikes in Iran, I don't know what they're hitting. You know, they're actually getting the rest of the missile capabilities suddenly we got the bombs that can get that far underground. Suddenly, you know, what do we even hit? Well, also this is the thing, right? Is that everything? I mean, and this is literally what I'm hearing from the experts and the people involved. Is that like everything worth hitting has been hit. You know, they can't touch the stuff that's underground and everything that's above ground, they've already got and now they're just kind of going trying to find targets. But it's like, there's not, you know, even when Donald Trump goes fine, so we'll go back to bombing them. Like, right, why is that supposed to be a win for us? What do we get? And then leading to what? You know, Donald Trump has been, again, this isn't like Donald Trump. If you're a Trump supporter, what do you say? What was the tweet about ending civilization? What was that? Did he have a mental breakdown or was he trying to get them to capitulate? What are your options here? He was trying to get them to capitulate. Okay, it didn't work. This whole time. You know, So how Donald Trump is simultaneously trying to sell you the idea that the Iranians are desperate to make a deal and also that they won't make a deal. Well, I mean, I don't know, where's the evidence of this desperation? It seems like they've taken everything you condition them and they're still standing there still defying you. That's what all the rest of us are seeing. And so like at this point, how can you defend this? All right, guys, let's take a moment and think our sponsor for today's show, which is gold back. If you haven't watched my interview with Jeremy Corden, he's the CEO over at Goldback. Click over and watch that. It's a, it was a really good interview. It was one of those ones that stuck with me. There's a lot of problems that we have in this economy that we talk about on the show all the time. Right up there at the top is the debatement of the currency. And that's the problem that Goldback is trying to solve. The dollar is lost over 99% of its value as measured in gold. Now, one of the major problems with gold is that it's not treated as money anymore. But Goldback is tackling that. They're real 24-karat gold that you can spend like cash. They're one of the most affordable ways to own fractional gold and they've already become the leading non-crypto alternative currency out there. No accounts, no fees, no data tracking, just person-to-person transactions in a currency tied to gold accepted at thousands of businesses across multiple states. So stop relying on a broken system, head to goldback.com/dave to learn more. That's goldback.com/dave. It's an interesting situation, Rob, as you said, after Donald Trump admits that the economy was on the brink and that there's nothing else we can do. And after Rob, this is another thing that's really crazy about this latest turn. And this is why even though I guess even though we've been around this carousel a few times now, Rob, this time feels a little bit differently to me is that, so we've been here where he's threatening to blow them all up, threatening the blockade, the blockade. We've been through this down several times and then it's we have a deal, then it's back to this, then it's we have a deal. One of the things that feels very different to me this time is that on this latest loop, when Donald Trump got to the other side, he was way far to the other side than he's been. This, you know, if that makes sense, like he went more hardcore against the war after the memorandum of understanding than ever before. And as you correctly point out, he pointed out the economic devastation that would come if the blockade and blockade, if the dueling blockades continued. But the other thing that I think is really important to keep in mind here is that he also walked away from the original war aims. This is a really big deal, you know, Donald Trump also in, if you keep in mind here on this rotating carousel, Rob, what's different about this side than the last time we are here is that he's now officially acknowledged that we're not talking about no enrichment of uranium. We're not talking about no ballistic missiles. We're not talking about no support for Lebanon. We've already conceded again. Let me say this very clearly so everyone can hear. We've already conceded all of the war aims, all of the original war aims are gone. Minus the vague. They will never get nuclear weapons, whatever that means. Get them to say that when they were already saying that before the war. They will never have the thing that they don't have that they've already said they will never have. Okay. But you don't have any of the rest of them. And so now, now he's going back in and I guess, you know, the, not that this was true, Rob, but ostensibly on the previous rounds of threats. He was trying to get all that shit, too. Whereas now with these rounds of threats, there's no more pretext, the pretext of that. It's just the straight. And you know, look, I mean, I don't know what to tell you here, Rob. Look at the game. He's been playing. He conceded all of this, you know, Donald Trump, it is unbelievable how it's not even a thought in their mind that like we're just out of the memorandum of understanding, even though they signed on to it. We're just out of that now because these guys are so untrustworthy. There's going to be a tough pitch, Rob. Yeah. Well, who knows how long he's even going to stick with this for, so we'll find out. But I mean, the lives. It's insane. He's now telling you that actually I ran going to call and said, yeah, we're good to go. And then went right back to bombing. My read on the MOU is that Donald Trump had capitulated and said, you guys can keep the straights. But then he was telling everyone, hey, just go through, it's open, it's open. And I ran, it's like, you got to coordinate with us. And that's what it really blew up over. However, the tit for tat strikes seemed to be somewhat restrained with I ran not really like no one after the worst of targets. So it seems like they're not looking for a full-scale fight. But they're definitely signaling, hey, we're good with this not being over unless you're actually going to make good on giving us our money, letting us hold the straights and letting us sell our oil on the international market. So it just seems like we're back to exactly where we were before the MOU. And I don't really see them going through that MOU process again, which didn't seem like it was going to hold up. But you're just left with what's the plan here and Trump, I mean, I love that lie from Trump. We protected the straights forever, we're reactivly in the straights, protecting the straights. I think they were just open. I don't think anyone's ripping us off on that one, bud. Well, here's the reason why the lie is so preposterous is that, well, let's say, let's say me and you are in a room with like one of my kids. And then you decide you're going to attack one of my kids. And you push me out of the way and you attack one of my kids. And then I go, you know, I was protecting my kid that whole time until Rob attacked my kid. You go, well, no, you weren't protecting your kid. Rob had just not chosen to attack them yet. Like if you're incapable of protecting the kid when the time comes, then you weren't protecting them before that. Does that make sense? Right? Like if you're not, you were, so in other words, if there's a guy who can beat the crap out of you and he beats the crap out of you and takes your stuff, you can't say until he did that, I wasn't letting him until he did that. I was protecting my stuff because clearly you have no ability to let or not let him. My point is that no, we weren't protecting the straight. A ran hadn't done this yet. Clearly, they could have done this anytime they wanted to. If they had done this 15 years earlier, what would we have done that's different than today? Right? Because that, no, the only real takeaway here is that a ran had allowed the straight to be free all of this time. Now, maybe they didn't realize they could pull this off. Maybe they thought it wouldn't be in their strategic interest. I mean, they made the decision not to and then they made the decision to do it now. But the bottom line is that, Rob, it's been months of this now, months since a ran closed the straight of our moose. If Donald Trump is able to take it over and open it up, if that is an option, why have we not done that yet? What are we to believe here? The only, I mean, it's, this thing just becomes clear and clear as time goes on. But the only lesson that you can draw is that he's lying through his fucking teeth. As always, yep, and no signal to the plan whatsoever. So who the hell knows? Yeah. Yeah. No, that's right. That's right. Do you want to, do you want to play the mom Donnie video before we get out of here? Maybe we just respond briefly to that. Mom Donnie calling out free market believers in a, in a recent speech. He mentioned, what was it here? It was, it was Hayak, I think, who he called out. I saw Bob Murphy, the great Austrian economist, Bob Murphy, tagged me in, and you, I believe, in this on Twitter, Rob, and it was, so what is a, let me see if I can find it here. I know I sent it over to you. Yeah. It was a, you might as well play the video. Yeah, you told us to take note of this here. Yeah, play, play the mom Donnie video socialist understand economics just as well as capitalists. Here we go. Throughout this process, I've been reminded of the words of the Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayak. If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists. These past months have shown us anything. It is that socialists not only understand economics, just as well as the capitalists who came before, but that we can solve their years of mismanagement through an embrace of our principles. There's nothing fiscally responsible about balancing the budget on the backs of working people. Throughout this process, all right, Rob, it's a great quote by Hayak, well, what do you think? What's your, what's your take away? All right. I mean, the idea that the prior administration was free market capitalism that created the problem that we're in now, I mean, that's cartoonish. And then also, at some point, austerity measures are when governments realize, oh, we have to actually be fiscally responsible. We've totally ruined our ability to be able to borrow money. We are not able to afford all these things that we promise people. And so now, we're both going to map the tax and give you guys less benefits so we could balance our budget. So, quite literally, when the socialism experiment comes to an end and you have to switch over to being physically responsible, it will be a decision to do it on the backs of the working class. And that's exactly the illusion you guys are trying to pretend it will not be the situation. It's either that or rationing and just more control over your lives as things crumble before you. But yes, the idea that the prior administration was an incredible marketplace of free market capitalism, the creative this deficit that he is now going to fix with socialism is exactly the stupidity of the pitch of the socialist that they have a better way of fixing the grift that you just lived under. Yeah, I mean, the thing about it is, right, is that Hayak, the reason why guys like us, like quotes like that from Hayak, is because socialism does not work in theory or in practice, and it is incoherent in many different ways. And what's funny is that even as, look, the Hayak quote itself is an assertion, right, it's not an argument. If socialist knew what they were talking about, they'd agree with us. Okay, then essentially Mamdani makes an assertion back. Actually, we know what we're talking about and we're just fixing your mistakes. But even in Mamdani's response, which again, there's nothing of substance there. But even in that, he just completely contradicts himself and demonstrates how dumb the whole thing is. Think about this. The argument of free market capitalism versus socialism or something is that you want to balance the budget on the backs of working people. Okay, Rob, what budget, what budget are you talking about balancing the government budget? I mean, presumably he's not talking about my checkbook, right? You're talking about balancing a government budget, the New York City budget or the New York State budget or the Washington DC budget. So you're talking about balancing, paying for government spending on the backs of workers. Well, we don't want the government spending. How are you putting on us that we want to put that spending on the backs of workers? Rob, let's just take two things here, okay? Just objectively speaking here. Here's something that Mamdani believes in that me and you do not, right? We're in the business here with advocating for policies. We are advocating for free market policies. He's advocating for government policies. He believes in a tax on working people. We do not. We don't believe in income taxes. We don't believe in property taxes. We believe that the middle class shouldn't be taxed. He believes that the middle and working class should be taxed. And yet he's claiming that it's our system who wants to balance the budget on their backs. What does that mean? This is, again, it's like, look, you can sit here in a cert that actually you do understand economics or something like that. But the idea that Frederick Hayek wants to balance budgets on the backs of workers. This just doesn't, this is gibberish. It makes no sense. What I, you know what I would say, Rob? I don't understand this because I don't think this is that crazy, okay? This show has risen in status over the years. I'm a New Yorker myself. And I'm also somebody who has defended Mamdani when he has been smeared in unfair ways by insane Zionists. I would challenge Mamdani. Come on the podcast. I'll come to you. We'll do it in New York City. Let's have a good conversation, not a debate, a conversation about economics. And I would love if you could just explain to me what social, why Hayek was wrong? And socialists really do understand economics and how you can undo the mismanagement of all of these capitalists. I would love, love to have that conversation anytime, any place, New York City. I'll come to you. There you go, Rob. End it with a challenge. Any thoughts? Are we down the gauntlet? No, porchstar.com. Come and support the porches. A lot of shows coming up. Stand up comedy and my presentation on FBI and trap and schemes. Hit the porch. Hell yeah. And of course, ComicDabesmith.com. Come see us this week. Alabama. Nashville, Tennessee. We will see you there. All right. Peace. [MUSIC PLAYING]