Transcript of Sen. John Fetterman on the Democratic Divide

I don't know if you know this about me, but, uh, my summer wardrobe is— and I've, I've taken to this, been for many years now— is, uh, I wear, uh, only 19th century swimwear. That is, I wear woolen one-piece, uh, unitard bathing suits like you would see on Coney Island, when they first invented, uh, the, the camera. And, uh, and, and I also have a giant handlebar mustache that I glue on and, and walk around with. And so that, that, that's where, uh, that's where the company Quince comes in. Uh, for those of you like me, uh, who are only festooned in 19th century swimwear, uh, Quince comes in and, and, and they, they've got all kinds of options for you that are better than that. You know, they got— what do they got? Linen pants. Come on, Europe. You know what, European linen pants, not like, you know, linen pants from Akron. No, European, the good kind, with a very lightweight. And they work with ethical factories, you know, cut out the middleman. You're paying for exceptional quality, not brand markup. Make your summer wardrobe easier Go to quince.com/tws for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns.

Now available in Canada too. That's quince.com/tws for free shipping and 365-day returns. quince.com/tws. Hello everybody, welcome to the weekly show. Podcast on this summer day, August 4th, Tuesday, primary day, Election Day. Hear ye, hear ye, I voted sticker. That was my one-man show called Primary Day, which happens in August, which, as you know, is great for turnout. We don't know actually what happened in those. We're taping this podcast before the results are in. So by the time you hear it, you will know the results. Of all the hot primaries in Michigan and everywhere else. And it'll look like we don't and that we're ignoring it. But we're not ignoring it, people. I'm not a time traveler, but we are going to be talking to somebody who has very strong opinions about what should happen in this very primary season. And he doesn't know the results of it either. So we're going to be talking about elections. And the results of elections and what those elections might mean for people, all while ignoring the results of said elections, which might make us seem crazy. Uh, but there's probably so much more in this conversation that's going to make it seem crazy.

So let's just get to it. So, ladies and gentlemen, we'll get right to it. We have with us today A senator, United States senator for the great state of Pennsylvania. Go fightin' Quakers. Ladies and gentlemen, Senator John Fetterman. Sir.

Yes.

First of all, where's— where's Senator Fetterman? All I see is a guy wearing a suit and tie.

So, yeah, this is not AI. It's not AI. If I could AI-impose a suit, I would. But— but no, I'm in— I'm in a suit.

But normally I You have a job interview today?

Yeah, well, I mean, but it just— I thought, wait, I'm already in it, so maybe I could just be a treat for everybody.

I feel terrible now. I thought—

well, I'm sorry if you, you know, dressed underdressed in honor of my business casual. Yeah.

So how are things going down there? Do you like being a senator? Is that something that is that an enjoyable job or is it just you sit around just fighting with everybody? What's, what's the vibe down there?

Well, I mean, it's kind of a mixed thing. I mean, it's obviously an honor to be one of Pennsylvania's voices in the United States Senate. And it's also some, some of it's professional wrestling, not really kind of important stuff, but some of it's very important as well, too. And that's really why people, I assume, get into this. To be a part of that conversation. So overall, but I think I've said this, people would be surprised. It's not exactly really glamorous. And now, like for me, I have a 300-square apartment here in D.C. back there, and it's not like— that's not a lot of snappy, you know, West Wing kind of dialogue back and forth thing. A lot of it's more like, mm, kind of a thing. But, but sometimes it is. Really important thing that will impact a lot of millions and millions of Americans.

Are you guys going to have your recess in August, or is that— are they— as far as I know, they keeping you there?

Last night there was an overwhelming, like overwhelming bipartisan procedural vote last night for a continuing resolution, and I think it was 89-4. And now, so overall, that's—

can I guess the 4?

Yeah. No shutdown. No shutdown. Yeah.

Rand Paul.

Yeah, well of course he votes no on, like he would be like cheeseburger and he would vote that shit down. I mean, but yeah, and then I think it was Warren and then I think Sanders. But overall some people didn't go there because it was a travel day. But that's a strong statement saying that we want to avoid another shutdown. And I'm elated to know that without a doubt. I mean, we've been through the two longest shutdowns of all American history. And that maybe at some time put me at odds with my party because it's always a bad thing to shut our government down and it shuts down parts of critical of our country. And it also punishes a lot of these workers. Now everyone here in the, in Congress are paid, but the people that aren't are like the people on the front line, like at TSA and doing those things. So, uh, overall we have to find a better way. To, to figure out things without shutting our down in kind of a tantrum.

How at odds are you with the party? You know, you said it sometimes puts you at odds. You clearly— you're the guy everybody points to now as you're in the, I guess, Manchin or Sinema role, the kind of contrarian. So, so what's your relationship now with the—

Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. I know. I mean, there's— it's really— it's not it's not that at all. I mean, I mean, I deeply respect them as well, too, but I'm not that— I think that's— it's like an easy take to assume that. And that's just not me. If you look at my voting record, I'm in 90-some percent voting the Democrat line. And now how I differ, how I differ is— and that's become much more and more pronounced— Israel, you know, after '07, the Gaza War. And nobody really saw how things would continue. We wouldn't be part of it. Now here we have it, the Iranian war now, and then in smaller other kinds of way, shutting our government down, countless kinds of vote to shut our government down. I would vote with the Republican side, not because I am a Republican, but just because the Democratic Party, we used to always be the party that says we must never shut our government down. That was part of what the Democratic Party really was. And I represent I represent Pennsylvania, really the most purple state really in the country. And now I don't represent just Democrats.

I represent all people here in Pennsylvania. So these views are firmly rooted in basic kinds of democratic values. But after the Trump reelection, that just kind of flipped some things on its head.

And you— do you attribute that to, you know, the what they call Trump Derangement Syndrome. Do you believe that, that the Democratic Party in those instances is suffering?

I agree. It is a real thing. It is a real thing. And that makes it more difficult to try to call balls and strikes. And now, you know, I'm aware, I'm aware that if I happen to disagree with like the party line, You know, there's a price to pay, but I think it's more important to be, hey, I honestly think this is, this is the right take and I think what's appropriate. And, and now, I mean, there's a lot of stories of how I've become, you know, increasingly more unpopular with, with Democrats in my state. And I'm aware of it. But these were all very specific choices because I think, you know, this is the correct take.. And now I would rather have people know what I happen to believe because again, they are, they're rooted in very democratic kinds of values.

Well, let me, let me sort of, so let's, let's tease that out a little bit. 'Cause I, you know, in, in America right now, the Republicans have the Senate, the House, the judiciary.

They have the trifecta.

Supreme Court, and they have the presidency. Yeah. Democrats represent— it's a pretty 50-50 country, wouldn't you say? I mean, we're, you know, right now at least Democrats are represented by, you know, millions and millions and millions of votes, but they don't really have the way that the Republicans have governed any say in anything. And so wouldn't you say that trying to use any leverage that they possibly could have to to get things like reforms to ICE agents that don't seem to be trained, that, uh, are creating violence in the streets of America, that aren't going after the worst of the worst but are frightening hardworking, uh, immigrants into staying in their homes. Don't you think that's a legitimate reason to try and leverage whatever opportunity they would have. TDS seems like a convenient excuse for a lot of legitimate concerns.

Hmm. Yeah. Well, the only actual tool and the only actual real leverage that Democrats have, that's the filibuster. 100%. You know, and I just had an op-ed in The Washington Post and I was trying to remind America and Democrats specifically, that we, including me, we were so wrong about scrapping the filibuster back in the 2022 cycle. Now, we all ran on that and we all were committed to eliminate the filibuster. And if we were successful, we may have passed some things back in '22, but 100% in January of 2024 or 2025, you know, they would have been able to run the table, 100% run the table.. And if anyone that's listening have been horrified or troubled by the lot of the, lot of legislation being proposed, that would've been amateur hour compared to how they would've been able to remake our society because they would've had the trifecta. Trump was at the apex of his power and they could have passed and done everything. And if the Senate was working on basic majority like the House, we would have rendered ourselves as essentially a smaller version of the House, and they would have been able to remake our society.

Wouldn't you say they, they have remade our society, you know, by using gimmicks like reconciliation, by using, using executive power in ways that hadn't been used before? Haven't they done that already?

Yeah, well, a lot of those executive orders were just overturned or stopped by the courts. And now I know I kind of took— I kind of got whacked when I said, well, what is a real constitutional crisis? That's when— that's when the president is going to defy, you know, court orders. And because it doesn't describe the solution in the Constitution, that is a crisis. And as far as I know, that the president hasn't defied a single court order. Now, a lot of noise, but he hasn't defied any specific ones.

Well, he has. I mean, he's— he's defied court orders and congressional law. I mean, just Even in the TikTok case, you know, you guys voted that that had to be divested, and he just— he ignored that. He just didn't do it. And then he handed a pretty powerful social media tool to his friends, the Ellisons and other people. I guess that's my point, is I understand you're saying there are certain norms or things that you don't want Democrats to do. But given the legitimate concerns that people have about executive overreach, you know, these types of—

Sure, absolutely. That's a real thing.

Of course.

Yeah. But, but I'd like to revisit this idea of the filibuster, the Democratic Party, and I am part of it, and I was definitely part of that, to eliminating the filibuster, how dangerous that was if we were successful and they would have been able to pass every single, you know, wish list, you know, on the Republican playbook. And now we would have been a whim of the political extremism, and they'd be able to pass everything. The only thing that we, we've ever stopped— Save America Act and other things.

Yeah, that's, that's the only thing the filibuster has, has actually done. In fact, you've played kind of a role in getting their nominees going. You've been kind of the, the contradictory vote from the Democrats to get him some pretty controversial appointees. I, I'm just curious because the filibuster seems like it hasn't really stopped them from doing— getting the people that they want, getting unqualified people into the cabinet, into, uh, the, the Department of Justice.

Yeah, I mean, and, and many of them, many of them I didn't vote for. And if you're going to bring up Blanche, I'm not going to vote for him. Will too. There's some that I would vote for, and then there's, there's many that I haven't because that it's just I don't believe that's the kind of right person for, for, for the job. Overall, I, I really try to call balls and strikes. I, I, I do think, like, for example, Mayorkas, he did, he did a terrible job. He was, he was never should be impeached. He didn't break the law, you know. Incompetence, you know, is not, you know, for impeachment. But, but overall trying to describe an honest assessment that as, as, as a Democrat from Pennsylvania, that's been, that's been my role. And if you look at my voting record, you know, I haven't, I haven't changed these core things like pro-choice. I don't pick on, turn our back on the gay or trans community in America. And very, very pro-immigration, very, very pro-union, all of those kind of boilerplate kinds of Democratic issues that, that hasn't changed. So, so that, that's where we're at.

And now you talk about ICE. Absolutely. You know, like I called for Noem, she has to go. And now we brought in a new leader. Now I've said this, deport all of the criminals, 100%, deport all of them. I hope we could all agree on those things. We need to secure our border. We do need to secure our border. And then I've said, do not target otherwise hardworking, you know, migrants. That are a very important part of our economy, specifically like in my state, in agriculture too, or tourism or these other kinds of positions to trying to find the right balance of, of secure a border, deport all the criminals, but stop targeting otherwise innocent kinds of migrants here.

But they are, they are doing it.

My wife was a former Dreamer.

Yeah, right. But that's my point is so they are targeting those people. And, and they are, you know, there have been killings and even Homan has admitted that the training on the killing in, in— I can't remember if it was Maine or if it was the one in Minnesota. You know, there's quite a few of them. So I guess my question to you is you're agreeing with the majority, I think, of Democrats on that. Yeah, but not agreeing vocal, like. Right. But not agreeing with their method of How do Democrats influence that if the Trump administration is running roughshod over what you just said? They're not just doing the criminals. They've deported citizens there, or, or they've jailed citizens. They've taken, uh, immigration, which was generally a civil concern, and made it a criminal concern. They want to build giant warehouses where they just bring people that are there on, on civil violations, or what used to be civil violations. So if they can't use things like a threat of a shutdown, where would, where would you suggest they use their lack of power?

Well, you know, I, I work with the new Secretary Mullen, and now all of those warehouses in Pennsylvania were canceled. I mean, that, that's a fact. And shut the government down on that. There wasn't one single ICE reforms or anything, you know, like you can want reforms and you can engage in those dialogue, but shutting the government down when that has zero, zero impact on the way Homeland Security is going to operate because they were funded through the big beautiful bill. The thing that I never— I did not vote for that as well too. They had unlimited money. So for me, it was a decision. Should I just vote to shut our government down, even though every single Democrat in my caucus knew that it would have no direct or even an indirect leverage over ICE to behave the way that we all want them to do? So do that. That's, that's a demand from an agitated, angry base. And I'm willing to say, look, that's the wrong thing. That's the wrong solution for a reasonable conversation to have with people saying we want to make those kind of changes, um, for ICE.

So, so what is the way to make those changes? Because my understanding of the shutdown was, uh, they were saying we will shut it down unless you make those changes, not that, uh, somehow that those changes would be made because it wasn't funded. I, I understand that that's what you're saying, but that was the, the threat.

Yeah, and, and there was no, there was no, no forced any kinds of things. So we We, you know, the Democratic caucus there walked away with empty pockets about shutting our government down on both sides. So that's, it's a reasonable kinds of concerns, but it's the wrong tool or the solution in order to achieve it. Win elections, win elections, and then that puts you in the better position.

Ground News. That's what I'm talking about. Because these guys, they're not, listen. You know me, I'm not a big fan of the news outlets, those bastards. That's right, can I say that on this? Bastards. Ground News is a website and an app, because this is, uh, America in the 2020s. You got to have an app, and it helps you better understand the news you consume. Uh, they got a Blind Spot feed, helps you find stories that aren't being covered by, uh, your side. It is instructional in a way. You begin to see the matrix The Matrix. Not The Matrix 3 or even 2. The Matrix. The actual Matrix. The one with Neo. The real— not the, uh, you know what I'm talking about. You can see who owns every news outlet and you compare how these different outlets frame their stories. Like, Bezos might frame it differently. No, I'm just— I was just a name that popped into my head. No reason. No reason why. To get the same unlimited access to the Vantage subscription, go to groundnews.com/stuart. And subscribe to get 40% off. I've partnered with Ground News to get you the discount that is available only for a limited time.

That's groundnews.com/stuart or scan the QR code on screen. Thank you to Ground News for sponsoring this episode.

And now you have, you have my, my party, you know, they're returning back to the worst impulses. Abolish ICE. Abolish the border and say these kinds of extreme things.

You're saying the Democratic Party is returning to abolish ICE and abolish borders?

Yeah. I mean, a lot of the people that are winning, like, you know, you know, when we're filming this, you know, in Michigan, both, you know, the person that's going to win is calling to abolish ICE. And then the governor race in Wisconsin, she— in fact, she even said abolish prisons as well too.

She's— but she said that she had said that previously and she's walked that back in the same way that a lot of people— well, I mean, in the heat of the George Floyd moment said defund the police and then ultimately said, you know what, that, that was an emotional response and I think that was the wrong policy. But aren't you elevating what seems to be a— I mean, how many people have— like 3 3 DSA or 5? It seems like the Democratic Party is, is largely still just the Democratic Party. And there are some people that associate with either the DSA or social democracies that are, that are gaining a foothold. But I don't imagine how many— what are we talking about, 3 or 4?

Well, it's, it's, it's actually many more. There's one in Colorado. There's many in New York. And now I just seen the, the, the recent poll, over a third of Democrats identify themselves as socialists or, or have sympathies towards in that kind of way. So it, it is, it is a significant issue, right? And I would remind people, we got wrecked in '24 because a lot of the extreme things that we, we were saying in 2020 now came back to haunt us. And that's why we found ourselves here in the minority. And I'm saying, hey, We can't go back to the same extreme views because we have to win actual battleground states. It's not echo chambers in Brooklyn or now. And here you see the people with these extreme views are breaking through in Michigan and in Wisconsin and places like in Colorado in there. So I'm saying let's resist these extreme kinds of views to abolish everything. And now the DSA is, is, uh, an emerging, uh, factor here. Now that's— I'm not elevating him, I'm just describing what I'm witnessing that's coming as a regular Democrat. And now that's, that's the reality. And I think— I expect El-Sayed will win by double digits.

So let me, let me see if I can frame this in a slightly different way. Um, why do you think it is that there is a kind of momentum behind these more, you know, as you would call them, extremists, or I would say, you know, they're a mix. There's a certain nuance to it. But don't you think that that's happening for a reason? In other words, the same sort of impulses and energies that drove Donald Trump's rise— economic populism, a dissatisfaction with the status quo, on the Democratic side, couldn't you say that this is happening because establishment Democrats, the party that you're talking about, that you think is the more reasonable party, hasn't delivered for people in the way that they think is appropriate? You know, these moments don't happen out of thin air. These are conditions on the ground where people are dissatisfied with the status quo and you have candidates that come up and they present economic proposals and other proposals that feel more urgent to the moment. In other words, why are you blaming them when in some ways you could be blaming yourself and your colleagues?

It's not— well, I'm not blaming. I'm describing here where we are and what's happening now, too. And, and I'm like, when we have people winning elections saying absurd kinds of, of positions that were absolutely toxic back in 2020, and, and saying, stop saying these kind of extreme things are not workable in the real world overall. And, uh, don't we want to win? Do we want to be the people, you know, leading, leading the conversation instead of having another kinds of subordinate position like we are currently in and have been since January of 2025.

So you think you lost in 2024 because of the extremism of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz or the Joe Biden administration?

Yeah, I mean, I mean, I was, I was on the, you know, in fact, El-Sayed, for example, he was a big leader in the uncommitted, uncommitted saying don't vote Democrat, don't vote for these people. And now, like, some things that I've never done, you know, I drove thousands and thousands of miles all across Pennsylvania to try to elect Vice President Harris. And I've done that. But on the ground, it's very clear we're going down because the energy and a lot of the way that they've been positioned as people that are not in touch with people. And now we've lost the argument. And at no point did I had a strong feeling that we can win this. And anyone spent time in Pennsylvania there during that election, we all understood we have a serious challenge.

But don't you think this, this new sort of energy and economic populism is a response to that?

Well, what is that? Is that socialism? And in more, it's communism. It's, you know, that, that's not an economic model that has never worked in, in the history.

But that's— aren't you just— that sounds like a caricature. That doesn't— El-Sayed is running on— he wants to ban corporate money, wants to tax, I guess, higher taxes on billionaires for housing and education, Medicare for All. You know, when you say that's communism, that feels like— that feels like a caricature.

I, I never said that. I call real communists that, that are cheering for communism people like Hasan Piker, for example, you know, he's a big, big influence, you know, in the Democratic Party conversation. And he is, he is a communist. He celebrates Mao and describes and is going to be proud to visit Cuba and stand on people on those sides. That's not a smear. That's just using the kinds of words and the positions that he has, has made. Part of, part of his, his platform.

So you're saying he says, I'm a communist and I want America to be communist?

No, I'm saying, I'm saying that he has the kinds of views. Now, you were very, very instrumental in delivering aid for victims of 9/11. You know, like, you know, you've been, you've been here and you've been very effective for doing that. You know, for an individual that says that America, we deserve that. Hey, I'm deeply offended by that and I don't support that. And I'm certainly not going to campaign with him or I'm not going to explain that way.

Well, Bill Maher said that the 9/11 terrorists weren't cowards. And you went on his podcast and you talk to him all the time. So I guess what I'm saying is, aren't you cherry-picking certain things and maybe losing the forest for the trees?

The two things are not the same, you know, making it— making a statement compared to saying that we deserve that, opposed to describing it in different terms. So that's just not— that's just not— not—

but he's not running.

And Bill Maher is not a communist too. Bill Maher does not describe Hamas as 1,000% better than Israel.

So for you, it's— it literally is. They've made statements in the past or their economic policies are more sympathetic to socialism. So let me shift it a bit. You want capitalism to survive. Yes?

Absolutely. I'm an absolutely proud American capitalist. And I do think, you know, I'm much more concerned about our country losing, losing to China in the AI race. And now for me, another unpopular view that I might have as a Democrat, data centers, data centers, if we ban them or we have a long-term moratorium, China would be elated, elated on that. And you have frontier models like Mythos and now the new AI version one. They've been able to break out, they've been able to break out and to hack and go attack other kinds of organizations. Thank God that they're American companies. The second the Chinese are able to have those frontier models and unleash them on there, so now that's going to make these small small potatoes in terms of the kind of economic damage that an AI model with those kind of capabilities like Mythos, you know, in the Chinese hands or say another one, you know, that's what I'm really concerned about for me.

But that, that, I mean, that's a case for stronger regulation, which we aren't doing because the AI companies—

we should, we should have, we should have regulation, right?

But they're, we're not doing it because the AI companies are paying millions and millions of dollars into our government. But I want to get back to sort of what we're talking about. You're saying you're a capitalist. So this is— I just want to reframe the argument a little bit because Piker, I don't think, is a communist. I think he said he's socialist. But the point being, do you think capitalism isn't one of the reasons there's so much energy on the left now for this type of populist rhetoric? Is that many people believe that capitalism, as we are practicing it, meaning a lot of corruption, crony capitalism, a lot of the playing field is tilted towards capital investment and away from labor, that capitalism as it is being practiced in America is increasing inequality and leaving too many people behind. And that this energy is not there necessarily to destroy it, but to reform it in a way that will rebalance the scale. This is, I guess what I'm asking is, don't you think this is coming from the lived experience of people under the way capitalism is being practiced in America in this moment?

I think, I think I return it back to this idea that AI is transforming the, the world 100%, whether you have to like it or not. Uh, it's like if someone is going to win, and for me, I want America to win that because we are the good, the good guy, you know, in this. And now the second we, we hinder our own ability to develop these kind of tools, the, the Chinese will seize the lead, and then they would weaponize that in ways and the kinds of damage they could inflict are untold trillions. And that, that's my real concern for a lot about that overall.

No, I, I think I'm understanding sort of your position on, on AI. I'm talking about the broader conversation on your being, uh, very critical of those on the left.

No, no, I'm, I'm not being critical. I'm just describing, and, and I'm saying, you know, if anything, the left is very critical about about as, as a Democrat, as for me, that began— I have very strong views on Israel, you know, and I think it's a wrong thing to shut our government down.

Understood. But I'm talking about the broader— you're saying you don't like these people because they're socialists and communists? No, you're a capitalist.

It's not a personal thing. It's not a personal thing.

Well, you've caught— you've called them the dirtbag left, which is somewhat personal.

The dirtbag left. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, that is, that is a term. That is a term. Absolutely.

I mean, it's— yeah, it's somewhat derogatory, but, but my— I guess I'm trying to, to get to the point saying, do you think the way capitalism is working in this country is working, is working the way that it should? And don't you think that your voters And you describe yourself as a progressive years ago. You don't do it anymore. But don't you think your voters are feeling the effects of a system that benefits capital and disadvantages labor?

I mean, for me, this idea there, you know, in terms of what is a progressive right now, but for increasingly, you know, the defining issue within Democratic Party is is Israel and the Gaza War overall. That, that has become like the defining issue right now in a lot of these elections, you know, overall. And that's just my take. More than anything else, my proud standing with Israel through everything after '10-7 has put me at odds more than anything individual than anything else overall.

Hey everybody, if you know me, you know I like to cook. That's, that's the first thing that you think of, chopping herbs that I grew myself on land that I plowed with my hands. I don't even have a plow. I use my hands. That's how much I love the earth and food. But for those of you who are not like that, who are not me, who don't grow your own award-winning cabbages, Surely you follow my work at the state fairs with cabbages. Uh, there's a company called Factor. Factor will do everything that I do out of love for you, out of convenience. The, the Factor will shop, prep, cook, and they will deliver it to your door. Not only will they shop, prep, and cook— that's, uh, a difficult thing— they'll bring it to you You don't even— you don't have to get out of your chair. That you just leave your gullet open. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd pour it down your throat. I don't even think— they might even chew it for you. That's how good these people are. And the meals are fresh. They're not frozen. Meals ready in 2 minutes.

And, and 100 meals to choose from. More than that, probably. Labor. I am the bear. That is my life. But not everybody has that commitment. Not everybody is a Michelin star homemaker like I am. And if you're not, Factor makes hitting them nutrition goals easily without planning and grocery runs and cooking. So please, please do this for yourself. Head to factor meals.com/tws50off and use code TWS50OFF. To get 50% off and free Daily Greens per box with new subscription only while supplies last until September 27th, 2026. See website for more details. So you're saying though, just to be clear, you believe that capitalism is, is working very well and that we really don't need.

And I'm— what I'm saying, John, is, is that's a, that's a fair question, and I'll respond. Where is an example across the globe where it's working better? Uh, socialism or, or communism have behaved in a better way that's more fair or equitable?

Well, so social democracies or have, have raised the living standard. So here's, here's what I'm trying to, to get at. Is that you're saying the argument is between capitalism the way it is— you get what you get and you don't get upset— or socialism and communism. And I'm saying the greatest threat to capitalism is that it's not delivering for the majority of people because the system is rigged for those who have capital and investment money. There's a million different ways that they do it. Lower tax rates on capital than labor, untaxed or barely taxed unrealized gains, corporate tax cuts, corporate loopholes, offshoring-friendly rules. There's, there's a million different things. So let's go back to the '30s. In the '20s and '30s, Norman Thomas was the socialist candidate for president. Eugene Debs was a candidate for president. These were socialists. They were people that they felt like it was the Gilded Age inequality. It wasn't working for people. The Depression hit, the New Deal basically incorporated a lot of those socialist ideas for a social safety net, for better laws for labor. Unions benefited greatly from that. Those reforms and a lot of that energy came from what you would call the dirtbag left at that time, I would say saved capitalism and saved America from having more of a, a, a more socialist or communist type revolution.

And don't you think we would be better off using the energy from the left for ideas like banning corporate money and strengthening labor unions, all stuff that I imagine you support, rather than denigrating them and caricaturing them? Why not work with them so that the capitalist system you love—

What does that mean by working with them? And now, like, so overall, I don't necessarily agree with everything of your argument.

Sure, sure.

Well, it's like the Great Depression. You know, we're not in the Great Depression, you know, and the economy continues to grow overall and without a doubt. And then some things are too expensive. Without a doubt, there are. But eventually, I think the market will address that. Back in '24, the whole world was eggs, eggs, eggs, eggs, eggs, you know, out of control. And now then when it, when it returned back to a normal price, people don't talk about eggs anymore. So it's a lot of these other things. You know, overall, and then World War II. And that reminds the world that we saved, we saved democracy in our country and we are the good guys. And there are people on the far left now, they're making it seem that, that America is, is the problem, or we are the, we are the aggressor, or we are behind, uh, many of the troubles here across the globe.

So in other words, if El-Sayed or AOC or Bernie Sanders has proposals, uh, that strengthen a social safety net or readjust corporate tax rates or change the way that— or here's just a simple one: tax capital, capital gains in the same way you would tax salaries. Like, work is for suckers. Work is taxed at a higher level than, uh, investments. Doesn't that, doesn't that tilt the playing field to people who already have money? And if the progressive left is saying these are the types of things that we need to do, wouldn't that appeal to you?

Well, what appeals to me is eliminating unlimited money in politics, without a doubt.

And that's a position that they hold.

Well, it's, it's not— they, they don't own that. It's like I've been saying that. I mean, any reasonable person realized that Unlimited money is a poison in American democracy. I've been saying that from the beginning. It's not, it's not something that they own or for that. Now, my race, my race, my race was $320 million in my race in '22. And then in the '24 cycle was half a billion dollars for a Senate race. And now watch, watch how out of control that race is going to get here in '26. And then in '28, it's going to make my race look quaint in terms of the billions of dollars that are being thrown at that. That more than anything is the accelerant on, and it's fueling a lot of the extremism for now too. And, and also another problem is the primary system too. The extreme, extreme views are the most activated and they are the most part of the primary.

Sure.

And then that pushes people away from, uh, a reasonable kinds of solution for things to, you know, it, whether on both sides, left or right too. And, and I I reject both the extremes on, on either side.

But it seems like you're more comfortable angrily denigrating the extreme or what you consider the extreme on the left than the right. Like in the, in the way that you felt, say, in the way that you talked to El-Sayed, like, why call them pro-Hamas if they just want to criticize?

I said that because he's campaigning with people that are absolutely pro-Hamas.

Well, who— you mean Hassan Piker, you say, is pro-Hamas? And so you're, you're basing this just on that?

He said he is, you know, like, if you campaign and proud to align yourself with pro— very pro-Hamas people, it's a reasonable person to conclude. It's like, yeah, I, you know, I, I have a pro view for Hamas.

But I guess what I'm saying is I feel like you're caricaturing people's views if they're critical of Israel. If someone says, I think Hamas and Israel are both, uh, criminal organ— you know, doing, uh, killing people for terrible reasons, that's— how is that pro-Hamas? That's not saying—

no, what I'm saying, it's like people that just says Hamas is 1,000% them or democratic or ally Israel, then yeah, that's pro-Hamas.

But saying they're less evil than Israel, if they think Israel is evil is not the same as pro. I'll give you an example.

No, like, okay, like Piker's— Piker said a lot of incredibly, you know, very pro-Hamas kind of thing. I'm not going to— it's like, it's like if you support Hamas and campaign with people that support Hamas, then that identifies someone as pro-Hamas.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't— I have not seen statements where these candidates say I am pro-Hamas. What I have seen is statements where they are very critical of Israel, the Israeli government, and the way that they have conducted themselves in Gaza. And by the way, they're not alone. The ICC and the UN and Human Rights Watch have all been unbelievably critical. And I guess I'm having trouble figuring out why I feel like you're caricaturing it. Let me, let me go at this a different way. You're pro-gay rights. Yes.

Yeah. I mean, I'm coming up on the 13th. I'm on the pro-13th anniversary. I was the first, first person to, to solemnize a gay marriage, you know, when it was illegal in Pennsylvania.

Beautiful. Yeah. And you're, and you're, uh, someone who is pro-trans rights or, or I absolutely—

I was the only Democrat that's saying, you know, when they actively were trying to ban trans Americans from our military.

Right. You know, so what the right would say about that is that you're pro-mutilation of children. That's what they would say. That would be their caricature of your position. Do you agree that that's what they would say?

What I would, what I would say is what I'm saying is, is right now our party is starting to elect people that are going to struggle to win in the kinds of places that are going to define who's going to win in '28. That's, that's a fact. And now a lot of these ideas and a lot of these extreme views are coming from the kind of people that have never won a real competitive election in state that holds both sides., you know, and hold people accountable to explain a way forward when we live in a very divided country right now. So overall, I think the responsibility is to police, to police your own ranks, you know? And it's like, there's plenty of people, as I've been criticizing some of the Republican views, but overall describing what garbage is garbage, like P. Hustle in Maine, you know, like I was, you know, like he was an absolute garbage.

Oh, Platner.

Planner. Yeah. I mean, like, so that's not a caricature.

And you were saying that before the allegations of rape.

What I'm saying is it's like a Nazi tattoo on your chest means like, yeah, you probably have Nazi inclinations. And if you are accused of roughing up your ex-girlfriends, yeah, that's, that's, that's a nonstarter for me. And if you think an American hero, you know, that's being, being shot by the Taliban is a dumb motherfucker that deserves to die. I think that disqualifying is too— I think Maine has a better person to, to represent, you know, my party.

So there's just a couple of things here, and I appreciate you having the conversation. If your concern is elections—

Me too. You've been very fair here.

Yeah. If your concern is winning elections, I don't know if you coming out and calling people pro-Hamas, which I think is a caricature of many of their positions, is that helpful to them? And second of all, you've been very, you know, you called President Trump a jagoff in 2016. Like, we all, we all have tweets.

I put it on a shirt. I sold them.

You put it on a shirt. And now you've been very complimentary to him. And if your concern with Graham Plattner is you didn't think he was very nice to women, you're ignoring an awful lot of evidence for the current president about his relationship with women. So my point is, there seems like there's a way to go about this that embraces, as you said, the 90% of things that you agree with, and try and utilize that energy to reform a party that has a, a worse, uh, public image than herpes in terms of getting things done. It, it, this feels like it's playing into the hands of Republican caricatures.

Hm. Why can't people on the Democratic side finally figure out why Trump was so competitive and winning 2 out of the 3 last cycles? Why is he still here? Why are we still doing it? Because we keep losing.. And now we keep returning back some of the extreme thing. That's not a caricature. That is a fair assessment of where we are with these kind of things.

But we didn't— Kamala Harris was not a progressive left candidate. She was not a Tim Wall. Like, they're— I guess everybody said Donald Trump couldn't win.

Yeah, I campaigned all across it. That— and now, you know, all those signature kinds of Trump things. Big, beautiful bill. I did not vote for that. And Save Act, I said, will not vote for that. And some of these big signature ones. And when we vote for Blanche, and this week when we're filming, I won't for him either as well now too. So what really matters is the votes and what's behind that. And what's really set me apart of most of the Democratic Party is Israel. And that's fair. It criticized John Fetterman on Israel without a doubt. 100%. So that's been primarily— and that's been driving our party in ways.

Is that so? For you, you could agree with them 90%, but Israel is the red line.

Absolutely. Israel for me, like, I can't ever turn my back to Israel after, after where it's at.

But so— and I mean no disrespect on this, but that is not our country. So it's— I don't understand. You're saying that these candidates may have great ideas for our economy. They may want to do the exact same thing you want to do in terms of getting money out of politics. They may want to increase the social safety net. They may want to change the balance of power from capital back to labor. But if they don't agree with you on Israel, you don't want them in your party.

Well, I don't know who you're referencing to specifically.

No, I'm, I'm, I'm referencing what you just said.

Name one. Plettner.

So in other words, Syed or AOC or Bernie Sanders, I assume you agree with a lot of what they say economically.

And what I'm saying is like, if you are a DSA member, if you are a member of a specific political party, run under your own banner. And now I think Bill Maher said something very insightful. He said, you know, the DSA are colonizing, colonizing the Democratic Party. So just be Democrats if you're going to run under the Democratic Party for that. Why have a DSA party for overall?

But aren't there, aren't there things? It's, it's just an organization. It's not— we have a two-party system. We don't— it's like the Freedom Caucus. In the Republican Party. There are, you know, there's Randy Fein and Oglison, all these nutbags that are also part of an area. And Republicans, I'm sure, may not agree with all of them on all kinds of things, but there is no other party. I guess you could, you could try it. But my point is, if you don't disagree with them on a lot of things, why not use some of that energy? And even like Mamdani in New York, is DSA, but there are things in the DSA platform that he disagrees with. And I'm assuming there's probably things in the Democratic platform that you might disagree with, but you don't disavow the entire thing. You're literally saying it's all— we can all have discussions except when it comes to Israel, which is not America. It seems like a weird line to draw.

Well, I don't think that's weird. I think, I think what history demonstrates is, is that when, when people or a government or people turn back to the Jewish community, things end really badly.

Jewish community and Israel are not the same thing, brother man. They're not. That is not the same thing.

No, no, no. It's like, hey, it's like if I have to pick a side for, for after 10/7 and after Iran, you know, I'm always, I'm always going to stand with Israel. I'm always going to vote and support whatever that's necessary to protect themselves and to prosecute Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran too. And the very left never said a peep after Iran executed 30,000 to 40,000 young people in there just for protesting for democracy.

You think that the left is pro-Iran? Pro— not the country, but the regime? They're not.

What I'm saying, though, is like, if anyone in the Democratic Party is fine with Iran building a nuclear bomb, I disagree with that person.

I think most people are— again, I think you're caricaturing the issue, but I want to— is there anything you would criticize Israel about?

No. What I would say is, is that I have not a single Democrat that's willing to go on record saying I'm cool, it's okay if Iran builds a nuclear bomb. And I supported last summer bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities. I think that was a necessary and important thing. Because Iran is becoming close, close, close to, to building a nuclear bomb. And that would—

I think the case was not made by this administration that Iran was close. Netanyahu's been claiming they're 2 weeks away for the last 20 years. But my point is, so would you say everything Israel is doing is for their own self-defense? That the way that they've taken up destroying its enemies?

Yeah, yeah, that is destroying its enemies.

Or flattening a tiny area and pushing 2 million people into 30 to 35 to 40% of that territory and having a siege of that area? Is that in their— is that in their self-defense?

No. What I'm saying, it's like people forget that the Hamas were just rapists and they were terrorizing and killing civilians. And then they stole 5— no, how many? 250 people from their families and they kept them underground and brutalized them and raped them and starved them for over 2 years. And that's why they refused to give them back. And that's what forced Israel to engage in that Gaza war when they refused to send their people.

And there is nothing in the prosecution of that war that gives you pause.

What do you mean?

The killing of tens of thousands of children?

No, absolutely awful. Absolutely. Because Hamas has embedded themselves, you know, behind these people and using the the Palestinians as human shields. Sinwar described the death of innocent Palestinians as a necessary sacrifice. That's how Hamas has designed that.

There are people in Netanyahu's cabinet who have said they would like to nuke the Palestinians, not Hamas, the Palestinians. I'm just— I guess what I'm trying to get at is I don't understand why we can't criticize even someone that you think is an ally for actions that we deem to be morally reprehensible. Like, I don't understand how you can defend the settlements in the West Bank. And, you know, I don't understand how you have no criticisms over their actions, over their increasingly messianic, ultra-right-wing government that seems to think relentless war is the— like, that you can bomb people out of resistance. Have you ever seen a movie called Gatekeepers? It's people that have been in Shin Bet and ran the army in Israel, and they're talking about how the strategy that Israel has, uh, of, of disproportionate retaliation, even though they are by far the most powerful force in that region, is not a path to keep Israel safe. Hey everybody, I, you know, obviously it's a podcast, so like you got to do ads. That's just kind of the way the world works. And you do the ads and you try and be selective in terms of the companies.

Like somebody might come to you and say, uh, would, you know, we'd like to advertise with you, and you're like, wait, but don't you guys make, uh, a Death Star? But every now and again a company comes along and you're like, Oh shit, I use those. Hey, you actually go like, oh yeah, those are great. And that's where we're at now. Bombas. Bombas is great. I use those. And not just like, not in the sense of like, oh, socks. Yeah. I mean, everybody uses those. I'm not a delicate flower. I'm not, I'm not one of those bold doxider no sock dudes. That we all read about in the '80s. Bonfire of the Vanities and such. None of that. No, I wear the socks for comfort. But the socks I wear are Bombas. They're phenomenal socks. They're soft. They're top of the line. They feel incredible on the feet. When your feet feel good, that's the starting block. That's the baseline. That's your foundation. You know what I'm saying? Now they got t-shirts and underwear too. What? Start with the foundation and build all the way up in comfort and generosity. By the way, head over to bombas.com/weekly and use code WEEKLY for 20% off your first purchase.

That's bombas.com/weekly, code WEEKLY at checkout. Do it now, you fucks.

What I'm saying is, is that, that Israel was entirely open to a two-state solution. They were offered a two-state solution. You know, I actually got a chance to talk to former President Clinton about that and reminds the people that they were offered 96% of the West Bank and they get to pick 4%, you know, for part of Israel. And they had East Jerusalem as the capital, and they would have had their entire nation. And now, now going on 26 years now, they reject that. They did not want a two-state solution. They have a one-state solution, and that's from the river to the sea. And that's part of why, you know, antisemitism is run amok in our college campuses and in the, in the streets. And now they're protesters showing up in my office at my home and following me and screaming and calling about and claiming about genocide. And now it's not a genocide. And if there was a genocide, that's because Iran refuses to relinquish this idea that they can destroy Israel. Now live in peace and now live your lives and stop funneling billions into Hezbollah and Hamas trying to destroy Israel. That's That's the honest and the dynamic in the region.

And now there will be a democratic election in Israel in October. Will Netanyahu win or not overall? But that's the true only democracy in the entire region. So it's like I've never said that Israel is perfect. What I'm saying, though, that's our special ally. And now until we're admittedly at war, I'm going to stand with our, our special ally and describe the circumstances with Hamas or Hezbollah Or the way Iran continues to behave.

No one's saying it's not a dangerous neighborhood, but I think the behavior of that government is worth more than— and as their not just special neighbor and ally, we're the ones who fund a great deal of it. You know, they've— Israel has made, in the way that they've sort of indirectly funded Hamas, it very difficult for moderates. You know, when I mean, we're getting into a, a whole thing here, but I think you believe Netanyahu and his government are operating in good faith, that they really want, uh, a peace deal. And I'm saying they're not. Netanyahu's been very clear that he doesn't want a two-state solution. He said it. He said it's not going to happen. There will be no two-state solution. And yet they say that they are a democratic state, but demographics there would say they can't be a, a true democracy because they'd be worried about that diluting what they consider to be, uh, their Jewish state. Now, that's a whole other argument of whether states should be this or that, but the point being that when we went to war in Iraq or we went to war in Afghanistan, I criticized America for the way that they were prosecuting that war and the cavalier way in which we were wasting American treasure and American lives.

That doesn't make me pro-Al Qaeda in the same way that if you criticize Israel for devastating an enormous group of people because of Hamas, not Palestinians, Hamas, they are not the same. Jews are not the same as Israel.

They are the government that the Hamas, the Palestinian people have elected.

They elected them in, what is it, 2008. And there hasn't been an election since. And it was a desperate people in a siege situation.

Yeah, because, because They elected a murderous, you know, system.

Now, Sharon pulled out the settlements from Gaza, and then you had a double-blind study. Was Israel going to help the moderates or was it going to empower the extremists? And Israel's actions during that time empowered the extremists and undercut the moderates. And they've done that over and over and over again. Look, you can say that the Palestinians are trying to kill the Jews, right?

But it's—

let's say it's Hamas or Hezbollah or whatever it is, or Iran.

Mm-hmm.

Jewish settlers are killing Palestinians. And when they asked Netanyahu about it, he said, well, it's just like 100 to 150 juvenile delinquents and we can't quite get a handle on it, meaning Israel wasn't able to control this small element that was killing people, does that mean that the international community should say you don't deserve a state because you don't have total control of the violent elements in your midst? But that's what they're saying. Why does Israel get to decide?

Well, the defining question is, does Israel engage in a genocide in, in Palestine?

Well, according to the people that define those things, yes.

Okay, well, and, and I strongly disagree with that. By definition, that wasn't a genocide. The, the Jewish community actually experienced a true, true genocide for that. Now, if Israel's goal was to eliminate, you know, as many Palestinians as possible, they could have accomplished that a long time ago. For that, they were not engaging in, in a genocide.

Just because you're killing a group, just because you're killing a group slowly doesn't mean you're not killing a group just because you could do it faster.

No, no, no, no. That, that, that was the terrible collateral, the collateral, you know, of a, of an urban war that forced Israel to fight behind because Hamas was holding their hostages and refused to disarm and send our people back home.

I think they've killed like 1,200 Palestinians since the ceasefire.

Yeah, I mean, most of them were, were, were killing Hamas leadership. And I think that's necessary. You know, when you have people that were responsible for organizing 10/7, you know, it's like, I think, I think it's entirely appropriate to eliminate them.

I think eliminating the people who organized 10/7 is entirely appropriate. That is absolutely correct. But in the same way that if we had gone into Afghanistan and just flattened it, the American people would have been outraged that we had no discernment, that we couldn't tell the difference. The issue here is dehumanization. Whether you're dehumanizing Jews and relating them to Israel, when you dehumanize a group, when you're unable to discern the difference between the worst of the worst, the same way we're doing with our immigration policy, It all ties together through, uh, Middle East policy. If we allow dehumanization in any form, then we are complicit in the results of those dehumanizing, uh, actions. And by being unable to tell the difference between a democratic socialist and a social democrat and a Hamas supporter and a communist and a Zionist and a Jew and Netanyahu and, uh, uh, uh, an actor in good faith, we lose the ability to solve the problems that we're facing because we are caricaturing and dehumanizing.

John, is it a fair— is it a fair question here? Has become the term Zionist, that's become a slur, you know, on the Democratic side. If someone refers to your you're a zio or you're a Zionist. That's become essentially a slur for people to say that thing. And that's, that's part of where the party has lost its, its way in there. If you're describing people that I'm very supportive of, of a Jewish state, and they've weaponized that against people.

I think if they believe that that Jewish state is acting in a manner that is overly violent and dehumanizing and constantly at war in a region. That's where that's coming from.

Well, or it's like if Hamas refuses to disarm and they refuse to send their people back home, I mean, then still right now, they've never been able— willing to just disarm and now start the process. That made them viable targets. And I support Israel eliminating people that were part of planning 10/7.

I think most people support people eliminating those who supported 10/7. But will Israel disarm the settlers? I mean, they've given them weapons and those weapons are being used to kill.

There are moving— they're moving parts. But what makes it impossible right now, because Hamas and Iran and Hezbollah refuse to say Look, we've lost and now we have to find a better way to rebuild our society. And I'd remind people that Iran eliminated and just killed in their streets and, and just killed tens of thousands of its own young people. Yes, they're hanging. They're hanging, you know, teenagers for just asking for democracy, too. I don't see the kind of college protest outrage and saying, How Iran has done and they continue because they don't consider Iran an ally.

They don't give money to Iran. We don't give billions of dollars a year to Iran. We sanction them. We try to do various things to remove— we try and scorn them. We try and create the situation to undermine that regime. But what we haven't learned is that 40 and 50 years of endless wars don't get us the peaceful results that we are searching for. They don't make it that the whole point of all of this is to build coalitions of, of nations of good faith to try and create a safer and less violent world and not just play into it with bigger weapons and more weapons. Because we see what happens. All the bombing that we've done in Iran, and they've got some lawnmower parks and a couple of RadioShack things, and they continue to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed. Like, When are we going to learn that violence— or in Stephen Miller's thing, right makes might makes right— when are we going to learn that's not necessarily the case? That the whole point for us should be to create a society and institutions that move us away from that violence?

Because we've already discovered a quarter century ago that peace and negotiating a very incredibly insanely fair settlement, they rejected that. They don't want that. You know, we've tried other thing right now. And if, if Hamas and Iran did not done what's happened in '10-7, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

I don't know that we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because, at every turn, the answer has always been tighter control over areas that Palestinians live in and, and more bombing. And more things. I don't, I don't necessarily know that that's the case. And all the Arab states in 2002 offered Israel to normalize relations for the granting of a Palestinian state, and Israel rejected it. And Rabin, who was trying to make peace in that area, with the Palestinians, was assassinated not by Hamas, but by an Israeli extremist. So the idea that they are somehow blameless or have done nothing wrong is— I don't understand why we can't criticize them.

Well, I am not ever going to think, well, they have a valid point if they're killing and, and firing rockets at civilians and now they're raping them and they're filming, you know, setting families on fire for the way they behave, that thing. And they abuse the own Palestinians too. And all of those accusations. Have been disproven. No question about starving people. And now the UN just acknowledged, oh, actually, Hamas has been, been stealing all of the aid and they keep the prime stuff and they resell the stuff to the poor Palestinians as well, too. A lot of that thing.

So, so I just got to— I mean, even senior military officials had told The New York Times in July of 2025 that there was no evidence that Hamas systematically stole UN aid. But that's not the point.

Well, in June of '26 is that there was evidence there. They were right.

It's actually I think if we don't have the ability to criticize a so-called ally for egregious and violent behaviors, then we are not an ally, and we shouldn't be, because we should have the ability to stand up morally in situations that we need to, even for people that we believe to be on our quote-unquote side. Our inability to do that is a real detriment to our own moral foundation.

Yeah.

I mean, I'm very much aware what the Democratic base would demand of me and to have these specific kind of beliefs and views and take the kind of votes. And I refuse to do that knowing exactly that that would put me in political peril. And I don't have any regret about those things. So, but overall for me, you know, when you have this existential kind of a war after Tiananmen and how things continues to continue for under those terms. Now, it's like, what side? Hamas? Israel? Israel. That's an easy choice. Hezbollah firing tens of thousands of rockets at civilians in, in Israel. I'm absolutely going to support Israel. What about Iran? Same thing right now.

What about Team Humanity?

Oh, yeah. I mean, I, I am where it's not actually that choice.

It's about Why are we, why are we willing to sacrifice so many young people that have nothing to do with any of this in that region for this idea that it's merely Hamas versus Israel? That's just an over, I think, simplification of what's happening there. Yeah.

I mean, and what's becoming is this entire conversation.

Yeah, you're right. You're right.

You're in a very fair conversation.

No, no, no, no, no. I appreciate it.

And it's like this become like the ultimate litmus. You know, as Democrats emerging right now, and now I'm not, I'm not dumb. I know voting, voting against the War Powers thing. I know that's incredibly toxic as a Democrat right now, but I do think it's fundamentally important to make sure that Iran is not able to build a nuclear bomb. So that's, that's just put me where I'm at. We have different views and, and that's, that's defining the Democratic Party.

I, in some ways, I think we have the same views, but with different strategies. I guess what I would say is I'm not down with the nuclear bomb and I'm not down with Hamas and I'm not down with a murderous Israeli regime that dehumanizes a huge group of people either. I'm not down with a world that has lost the ability to solve its problems through collective action and diplomacy. That's the biggest problem. And our government is complicit in that as well now. You know, that dysfunction. How do we get back to that, Senator? How do we get back to a functional— like, even the immigration system. Lankford comes up with a solution that both parties sign off on, and Donald Trump comes in before the election and says, tank it, because I want to run on the dysfunction of the immigration system.

And I knew, I knew we would get rolled on that. I'm like, there's no chance. Trump is going to hand over one of their largest kinds of issues. Like, I fully expected we were going to get rolled over the bipartisan deal on immigration now. So that's, that's what happened.

So in your mind, is it possible to get back to that, or are we now just in a dysfunctional cycle? And are you more worried about the progressive left than you are about the right?

I'm worried about— we people are forgetting that's like, how do we win elections? It's like, you know, have, have the kind of views that the majority of people that are going to define who's going to be the next wave of leadership. You know, you have to win these people over and not offend them or to put them off the way that's already happened and have made the Trump administration so competitive over the last 3 cycles. Winning 2 out of the 3 and could have easily won the one in the middle now too. Now, there was no voter fraud in Pennsylvania. As the lieutenant governor, I've described that secure, you know, absolutely fair, fair, fair. If you only complain about an election if you lose, then obviously that's demonstrating that that's what's behind those things. So that's, that's where we're at. And these extreme views that have never won have never won a meaningful election overall. I'm saying let's consider, like, let's not revisit that after we've seen how badly that's ended.

Any possibility they're running to the left in the primary and will tack a little bit to the center in the, in the regular election?

Well, I mean, who knows how that's going to be under these extreme things. You know, Trump administration has made virtually anything politically possible. And that's why you have some of these people in our party winning that have described things in extreme views that it's made— it's okay, or they dismiss it or say that it doesn't really matter.

Right. Well, we certainly appreciate the conversation, Senator. You've been very generous with your time. You've been wearing a suit, which I have to tell you gives you a little gravitas. As you were talking, I was like, you know, I wasn't going to listen to this guy, but I'm—

but overall, John, you know, I've always been a long-term fan. Like we discussed where when you made some guys famous because of the Six Degrees from Bacon.

Kevin Bacon.

Yeah, that's how long I've been with you back then.

Did you go to college with those guys?

Yeah, yeah, I went to college with those guys. Yeah. All right.

The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon guys.

Yeah.

Yeah. Found out the genius that Kevin Bacon was, was connected to. Entire, the universe overall. So that's how long I've, uh, followed you. But thank you for having me on, and this was a very fair conversation.

Well, that's very kind of you, sir. I appreciate your time, and I appreciate, uh, your passion.

Likewise.

And, uh, and, and enjoy, enjoy the rest of your day.

Okay, well, you as well.

Thank you, sir. Take care. Hey folks, I know most people look at me and they think to themselves, well, that, that's a fashion plate right there. But actually, uh, you know what I am? Comfortable. You might be thinking, well, sure, if you wear the same t-shirt as last week. But do you know where you can find clothing that fits into this? A company that I actually love, Quince. Quince has got all the fall staples— denim, the boots, leather jackets, the unbelievably soft. What do they call them there? 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters. I'm not talking about, you know, Des Moines cashmere— Mongolian cashmere. So what makes Quince different? They work directly with ethical factories. They cut out the middleman. Uh, you get top quality materials and craftsmanship at half the price of other premium brands. Go to quince.com/tws for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. That's quince.com/tws. Free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com/tws. Folks, uh, I don't know if you can hear it in my voice, I'm tired. Didn't sleep well last night. I, I, I need a good night's sleep. I always need a good night's sleep. And you know what I could do?

I could, I could buy a new mattress. Little, little, maybe a princess bed. Maybe get a little four-poster thing, throw some mosquito netting on there, spend a ton of money, or I gotta do the only thing that matters. Get some nice sheets, some nice clean, freshly done, comfortable sheets. That's what you need. The Boll Branch way. Pull it. It's the best way to get a better night's sleep is the bedding. Get the nice bedding. You don't want the chafing bedding. You don't want I sleep in corduroy. Who would do that? Makes no sense. You can upgrade your sleep with Boll Branch. Get 15% off your first order plus free shipping. Bollandbranch.com/TWS with code TWS. Boll Branch. B-O-L-L-A-N-D-Branch.com/TWS. Code TWS. To unlock 15% off. Exclusions apply. That was interesting.

Yeah.

I'm not really sure what to think here. He definitely feels very strongly about certain issues.

One in particular.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, I feel like we all just got out of one of those movies, you know, those movies where it's like sort of— it's like there was like a weirdly traumatizing scene in the movie and now we're all just like, uh, do you guys, um—

so I'm gonna take the C train.

Do you want to go get something? I guess I'm just gonna go get a slice and maybe go home, sit in the quiet together, and, uh, yeah.

But it—

I'm weirdly thrown off right now.

Yeah. I mean, what I will say in looking into him is like, he's right. He does vote with Democrats over 90% of the time. And even though, you know, he doesn't grant that same leniency to other people that vote with him, that would vote with Democrats 90% of the time because he disagrees with them over Israel, like he is better. You know, I think about it in baseball terms, like he has a high WAR. He's better than— he's better than Mehmet Oz in terms of wins above replacement. But I would still rather—

you have no idea how happy you're making me right now. If you start going into advanced Senate analytics, he has a high WAR. Fantastic.

You know, he's better than a Republican in that position. And I think a lot of Republicans would say he has a high WAR in that he's better than a Democrat in that position. But I think both parties would rather somebody more in line with their viewpoints in that position. And so the fact that he's running again, I think, is totally delusional.

Well, he's going to have to pull either an independent— I don't think Republicans— I mean, maybe he can win there as a Republican. I just don't know how.

No, I don't think he can win there.

I don't know what he would have to do to, uh, to flip that around.

He made a totally fair point that in terms of the signature legislation of this administration, he has not been on board with it. What he has done is made it a little bit— he's, you know, greased the wheels a bit on tough votes for them. He's made it so they can peel off a couple people here and there. Susan Collins, guess what? You get to look good to Maine because John Fetterman has flipped sides, and that's called politics. And if you're not good at doing that, you shouldn't be in politics.

And the other thing that I think he didn't acknowledge is that it's one thing to vote with Democrats 90% of the time, it's another thing to recognize people's frustration with Democrats not delivering when they had power, when they're out of power. Like, the reason why the energy is coming from the left is dissatisfaction with this. It's not extremism. Kamala Harris didn't lose because the country thought she was nuts and extreme. It's that Democrats didn't believe in her enough, didn't present a vision.

She didn't present a vision.

Only had 107 days.

Yeah, what?

I memorized the days. You guys brought it up last time and I didn't know that it was 107. And now this time I know he's never going to forget it.

Ever tattooed on his arm.

Never going to forget it ever again.

Britney, should we take a deep breath and do some questions? Yeah.

Should we take a shot and do some questions?

All like, I do feel like, what the—

All right.

All right. What do we got, Britney?

John, did Senators Cornyn and Tillis just get bamboozled by Trump and Blanche, or will Trump and Blanche keep their word?

Oh, I think they'll keep their word. You know, there's a saying in Washington: there is no more honorable a promise than a Trump promise. That's why, you know, they don't just build triumphal arches for everybody.

Of course not.

You have to earn the triumphal arch. You have to earn the drained reflecting pool. No, I think that in many ways Tillis and Cornyn took a large knife to the lining of the Senate, to their own integrity, as well, to their own— I mean, even in the thing, like, it's not just the weaponization, uh, fund, the $1.8 billion, which I'm sure he'll reconstitute in some other—

hey, it's $1.776, all right?

$1.776, that, that, that's a good point. And watch, we're going to find out the there's a weird $1.776 billion gap in SNAP benefits to babies that don't have formula. Like, he'll find it somewhere. But the idea that they didn't have the balls to be like, oh, and you're not immune from the IRS. Yeah, like, you're— you don't just get to do whatever the fuck you want whenever the fuck you want to do it. Like, that was their principled stand. Like, and they've got nothing to lose.

Nothing. They've already lost it all.

You know what's nice to know about that, though? Sometimes you think, you know what, these guys are cowards, that they hold what they really believe for political expediency. They don't ever say it. They don't stand on principle because they're fearful of, of losing their livelihood in the Senate. And it's nice to know that for these guys, they're actually just shitty. That there is no moral principle that they're standing on, that freed from the, the bounds of primaries and losing your job, they still suck, period.

Just the worst.

Love it. What else we got?

John, do you think a third party created by Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene is the answer to the flaws of the two-party political system?

You know, I don't know, um, but, you know, obviously being one of the first people on their mailing list, I'm gonna assume that I'll— that I'll find out. Um, to get into the Platinum subscriber, uh, circle that I had to do, and there's just a few, uh, filthy, uh, my favorite thing was the picture of it. Like, it's a picture, but it's taken from— like, I don't know if there was an adjunct restaurant or like a different— like, there was a little area over there by the Sunday bar, and they were like, do you guys want to take a picture of this? Oh, and make sure no one can recognize us. Sure, I can do that. I can do that from way back. You want to make— you want to make sure you get in the entirety of the restaurant. You want to get in all the decorations.

I think it was Tucker's house.

What?

Oh my God, you're right.

He lives in a Cracker Barrel.

His basement, it looks like— it literally looks like an Applebee's.

Yeah.

So this is, this is the new Tucker, by the way.

Yeah, the cabin in Maine Tucker.

Yeah, he was the old— the old Tucker was, I'm Buckley, I've got the thing, I'm a young, uh, conservative with a sassy mouth and a contrarian streak. And now he's like, no, I'm actually the Marlboro Man. Honey, I'm going to head on out to the, to the podcast mines, put in my 8 hours a day toiling with the microphone.

Get some dirt under his fingernails.

Let me get that dirt under. Let me rub a little bit on my forehead and take one of them pictures in that— what do you call it there? Sepia. Let me, let me put 5 zins in my pants. Is that Shoeless Tobacco, or are you just happy to see me?

America first, baby.

What else we got?

Last not least, what is James Carville?

That is— did you see Disclosure Day?

Yeah.

No.

Now you know what he is.

Oh, that's not fair.

You know, to the alien at the, at the end. When he stood up.

He was so tall.

Listen.

Cut to black.

Listen. You know, my favorite part about it was when he goes, I'm not going to be a part of any part of a party that Hasan Piker is a part of. Well, didn't you just say, like, he's a communist, so he's not part of your party, so don't worry about it. Or he has a— I'm not going to play a part in a party that has a role in, and you're like, don't worry, you won't. Like, I don't know, I don't know if he understands how time works. Yeah, like, that's— I mean, and not to be gross about it, but like, yeah, it's okay.

No, I think that's fair.

Yeah, that young guy, yeah, that's, uh, a fiery preacher for economic populism and, and, and other things. Nope, I'm gonna wait till he burns himself out, and then I'm gonna come back in, in 2040.

It's the '90s, baby.

Let's go and restate. Me and Mary Madeline are gonna do a show.

Why do they keep putting him on TV?

Because he's available.

Because he'll say things that get aggregated. Like, that's— they— in the same reason, like, you know, that they, they, they clip things. He's a guy that will say— and by the way, contradict himself every couple of months.

As soon as he's been proven wrong.

Which, by the way, like, when was the last time you won something? Yeah, fucko. Like, he tries to still get— remember Clinton had 'It's the economy, stupid'?

Yeah.

So now he's playing on that still. It's like, that was, I don't know, 1992.

It was, yeah.

And he was out there now like, 'It's the— it's the socialism, stupid!' And everybody's just like, 'Was that a play on— what is he talking about?' Like, he's literally out there like, 'Tip a canoe in communism too!' Like, 40% of the electorate did not vote in that election, right? 'I don't like Ike. I don't like Piker.' You're just like, what? I— nobody understands even the ref— nobody understands my reference point, and I'm fucking 20 years younger than that dude. All right, how do they keep in touch with us?

Twitter. We are Weekly Show Pod, Instagram Threads, TikTok, Blue Sky. We are Weekly Show Podcast, and you can like, subscribe, and comment on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart.

Oh, and I'm sure they will this week. Holy shit. As always, unbelievable job: producer Brittany Mamedovic, producer Jillian Spear, video editor and engineer Rob Vitolo, audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, and our executive producers Chris McShane and Katie Gray. We shall see you next week. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.

Paramount Podcasts.