reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 is asked if Trump is an insurrectionist, to which they respond that he certainly supported an insurrection, but the court will decide if the 14th amendment applies. The conversation then shifts to a potential hostage deal, with no clear expectation but a push to make progress. Speaker 1 is then asked about a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, and they mention that Maduro seems to be keeping his commitment to a free election, although it's not yet complete. Finally, Speaker 1 is asked about their reaction to the death toll of 20,000 in Gaza, to which they respond with a brief statement. The video ends with thanks to everyone.

Speaker 1 discusses the human cost of Venezuelan and regional instability, noting that Venezuelan people have suffered and that many Hondurans have migrated due to conditions in their own country. He argues that the opposition in Venezuela had been winning elections, but the regime led by Maduro “stole every election,” stating that they have a copy of poll results on the cloud and that the government did not want to see them because they knew they lost. He attributes a high death toll in Honduras to drug trafficking flowing through their country, largely coming from Venezuela, and asserts that the U.S. framework designating drug trafficking as terrorism is justified because the flow of drugs harms the United States and Honduras, causing bloodshed and economic damage. He claims that illegal drug flight and sea routes brought jobs to Honduras but also bloodshed, and that the highest number of lives lost in fifteen years in Honduras occurred due to these drugs. Speaker 0 asks about the stance on U.S. intervention, whether intervention is sometimes warranted, as with Maduro, or if there should be no U.S. intervention in Latin America regardless of administration. He notes that Maduro’s regime has involved U.S. military actions and leadership changes, with claims that the U.S. bombed Venezuela, captured Maduro, killed members of his government, and sent him to jail, a situation some view positively while others see as a breach of international law. Speaker 1 responds from a human perspective, emphasizing the suffering of Venezuelan and regional populations and the mass migration from these countries. He argues that Maduro’s regime stole elections and contrasts this with the citizens’ desire for democracy. He states that the Trump administration’s framework to label drug trafficking as terrorism has implications for Honduras and other neighboring countries affected by drug flows, corruption, and violence. He suggests that President Trump confronted a long-standing attempt by Venezuela and its allies to influence elections in the region, and he asserts that Maduro should be given a chance to defend himself in a trial. He acknowledges sovereignty concerns but argues that many people worldwide do not understand what has been happening in Venezuela and its impact on the region. He concludes that intervention decisions depend on whether there is another way to save Venezuela and notes the broader regional consequences of the Venezuelan crisis.

"Who cares if Venezuela is run by some corrupt, petty tyrant? It's South America. They're all like that. It's always been like that. Just take their shit. Get as many countries on our side of the ledger so that we can take their shit. I don't know. Is that complicated? But on the other side of this debate, you have the ideological neocons like Rubio, like John Ratcliffe, the CIA director. You have these other people that insist. No, that's not good enough. We need a US puppet in place. We need a this female resistance leader that's pro democracy. Their election was fake. Dude, our election was fake. You think our elections are real? They said Maduro lost the twenty twenty four election. Yeah, Biden lost the twenty twenty election. We wanna start with that? This is a historic phone call. I actually probably favor regime change in Venezuela, to be honest. I think that that is a perfectly legitimate strategic goal of The United States. You know, we talk all the time about Israel and the war over there. And those are wars that don't benefit The United States at a pro American regime in Venezuela. Probably would be good for us because of the resources they have."

Mario and John discuss the potential Venezuelan regime change and the broader implications of U.S. policy. - If a coup proceeds, the first step in the plan would be to remove Maduro. There are reports that Maduro sought amnesty from the U.S. to step down, and Trump reportedly refused amnesty. - John notes that when the U.S. government is serious about attacking a country, naval movements are a key indicator he learned at the CIA. He observes that the U.S. recently sent the USS Gerald R. Ford and its 11 accompanying battleships and supply ships, signaling seriousness about action. - The CIA’s alleged use of drugs to weaken other countries is mentioned. John asserts that drugs in Venezuela are not Venezuelan; they originate in Colombia and Ecuador and transit Venezuela en route to West Africa, ultimately to Europe. - In considering what would happen in Venezuela if Maduro steps down, the expectation is chaos. The discussion notes that the narrative around Venezuela has shifted alongside discussions of Iran, Russia, Ukraine, and China, and asks what the initial reaction would be when seeing this narrative shift. - John reiterates the naval-movement heuristic for assessing U.S. seriousness about regime change, noting the presence of carrier groups as a sign of intent. He questions the upside for the U.S. in removing Maduro, given that the U.S. excludes Venezuelan oil from purchase and refining and there seems to be no clear upside. He adds that the U.S. would ideally want to strengthen Venezuela’s economy to reduce immigration, but that is not reflected in current policy. He also discusses drugs, reaffirming that Venezuelan drug flows are primarily transiting to Europe, not the U.S., and adds that China’s five-year-ago decision to build a Caribbean refinery is a factor, arguing that the refinery shift is a strategic move opposed by the U.S. - Mario notes Maduro’s offer of full access for U.S. oil, but John emphasizes regime survival as Maduro’s main concern and questions whether Maduro’s offer would be a valid solution. He points out that China is expanding and becoming a major trading partner in Latin America, but he does not see this as a direct solution to regime change. - The conversation touches on the possibility that naval movements could be a bluff to force Maduro to withdraw. John says such moves happen in the South China Sea and could lead to Maduro fleeing, but they would create a power vacuum with pro-M Maduro factions within the military and without regional support from Colombia, Brazil, or Mexico, complicating U.S. aims. - They discuss the possibility of the U.S. offering Maduro safe passage rather than an outright coup. John suggests that a large-scale ground invasion is unlikely, given public opinion and the country’s size and terrain. He compares potential post-regime outcomes to Libya, warning that U.S. attempts to impose a peace post-regime change often fail, leaving chaos and long-term instability. - The dialogue turns to the opposition figure Maria Machado, with John stating that she does not command armies and is not clearly more viable than Juan Guaidó; he suggests the next leader, if Maduro leaves, might be a senior military officer. - They consider the long-term consequences of regime change, including the risk of chaotic transitions and a military-based government. John shares a cautionary Libyan analogy about a constitutions project that never materialized into stable governance. He recalls a 2003 Iraqi intervention example to illustrate misjudgments that history often repeats. - The discussion closes with references to Hezbollah and Iran connections in Venezuela and the hope to avoid another Libya-like outcome, emphasizing the potential heartbreak for Venezuela and the complexity of foreign involvement.

Speaker 0 argues that the premise is disgusting and cites CBS admitting that sixty percent of those arrested had criminal charges or convictions, while noting the majority were non-violent. They question what “non-violent” includes, listing drug trafficking, child porn, fraud, DUI, and human smuggling, and mock the idea of those as harmless offenses. They accuse CBS of trying to influence public perception and claim, “What are you trying to do here? It’s like you want more people to die.” They proceed to highlight CBS’s claim that forty percent of ICE arrestees had no criminal past, arguing the distinction should be about status in The US. They counter with examples: an MS-13 member who shot, tortured, and murdered five people but “forget it, in El Salvador,” suggesting he’s nonviolent because he wasn’t convicted in the US. They compare this to other cases where alleged criminals killed in the US had no prior US criminal history, and to scammers running fake day cares who haven’t been prosecuted yet. The speaker contends that crimes committed outside The US do not count, and posits that we should owe Nicolas Maduro an apology. They note that this is coming from “the same media that lectures one death is too many, which is used to justify insane regulations in public health policies,” referencing the pandemic and the claim that “a single death is a tragedy,” contrasted with a later statement about a jogger being killed during lunch. They frame the report as an effort to stop deporting bad people by portraying the target as peaceful illegals and by saying they lied when they claimed to do “the worst first.” They argue that resisting the goal of deporting the worst first forced ICE to use a wider net that included all illegals. They claim that if Waltz or Fry had cooperated, the issue would never have arisen, and state that their goal was to prevent deporting criminals so ICE would be forced to sift through all illegals, which would be a political win for those who would say, “They’re not going after the worst after all.” The speaker concludes it’s moronic, not to protect people but to protect political power, and that this allows the narrative to say a murderous felon came here looking for a better life, when in fact, it was a better knife.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government. And those two those two things beautifully coexisted." "Exactly. And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

Mario and Max discuss the January 3 operation in Venezuela, its potential objectives, and the wider geopolitical implications. - The operation raised early fears of a full amphibious invasion or a new war, with rapid questions about how Maduro could be kidnapped with so little resistance and whether a single downed helicopter could have produced a catastrophe for Donald Trump. Max notes that 16 guards of Nicolas Maduro were killed, including his personal bodyguard who had guarded Hugo Chavez, and suggests this could indicate the operation was choreographed or left open to a deal through Maduro. - Max says he had woken late and watched the event unfold, and he entertained theories about a negotiated exit for Maduro that would leave the Pesuv (Chavista) structure in place, enabling a transition to a figure like Delsy Rodriguez (the vice president) who would work within Chavismo to exploit Venezuelan resources for Trump’s cronies. He states he predicted that Trump would claim Maria Carina Machado did not have enough support to rule and would not be returned to power, a point he supported with sources and his reading of Trump’s behavior, including Trump’s condemnation of Machado’s Nobel Prize and disregard for Juan Guaido. - Max describes a theory of a deal and questions whether the Venezuelan military stood down. He notes that the US military is dominant but that losing a single helicopter could have become a political disaster for Trump. He mentions Joaquin Padrino Lopez (defense minister) and Diosdado Cabello as other power centers, suggesting that even if Maduro was abducted, a power vacuum could destabilize Venezuela. He cites Cabello signaling resistance by appearing on the street with military figures and the Second Republic flag. - The conversation covers whether Delsy Rodriguez has broad support in Venezuela. Max recalls Rodriguez’s 2021 interview and her role during the COVID response, portraying her as stabilizing economically and presiding over ministries, which aided an economic revival supported by China and others. Max suggests her potential as a US-friendly figure but notes she lacks the military backing to consolidate power against other Pesuv factions. - Mario asks about Maduro’s leadership, and Max rejects the idea that Maduro is purely incompetent, noting corruption under the Bolivarian regime and Maduro’s own background as a student of Simon Bolivar, a former bus driver who rose through the ranks. He argues Maduro was not a stupid leader and contrasts his profile with Trump’s. He warns that achieving regime change would not be simple, given Venezuela’s polarization and the military’s importance. - The discussion turns to the economic situation in Venezuela. Mario references statistics: economy shrinking by around 80% since 2013, 95% in poverty, oil production down, living standards collapsed, and out-migration. Max acknowledges some statistics may be flawed but agrees that Delsy Rodriguez had presided over an economic revival and that China played a central role, purchasing a large share of Venezuelan oil and helping with oil infrastructure, while Iran and Russia also provided support. He notes the impact of US sanctions and the broader “financial terrorism” narrative, arguing that sanctions and IMF-style measures contributed to economic decline and the diaspora’s views. - They debate who bears responsibility for the crisis. Max emphasizes longstanding US sanctions and political interference as primary factors, arguing that the US sought to undermine Venezuela’s sovereignty and to plunder its resources, with Maduro’s government framed by Western outlets as corrupt; he cites evidence of corruption and suggests a pattern of coercive measures against Venezuela. - The conversation covers the purpose behind capturing Maduro. Max suggests the aim might be to replace Maduro with a more pliable figure who would cooperate with US oil interests and allow greater control over Venezuela’s PDVSA structure. He discusses the possibility of grooming a candidate from within Pesuv or returning Machado, though he notes Marco Rubio’s public stance that elections could be delayed to avoid destabilizing Venezuela. - The role of China and the broader multipolar dynamic is addressed. The Chinese envoy’s meeting with Maduro hours before the strikes is seen as signaling China’s interest and as part of a broader message to China, Russia, and Iran about US reach. Max believes the operation sends a wider message of US willingness to act in the hemisphere and to police resource access. - The interview ends with a comparison to the Panama regime change (Manuel Noriega) and a reminder that Maduro will be tried in the Southern District of New York. Max notes that Machado’s supporters and US associates are calculating future power arrangements, while Maduro remains central to ongoing debates about Venezuela’s political and economic future.

The conversation centers on accusations about Venezuela’s leadership and the international response to Middle East conflict. Speaker 0 asserts that “the woman” who is supposedly taking over Venezuela is pro Israeli and pro Likud, noting she signed a cooperation deal in 2020 with Netanyahu’s Likud party and fully supports Netanyahu’s war on Gaza, asking, “This is why we're seeing the bombing of them right now?” Speaker 1 counters by outlining a pattern of what they view as permissive international inaction. They assert that “The UN has allowed the bombing and destruction of Beirut and Lebanon. They've allowed the bombing and destruction of Syria. Every day, they permit the bombing of Yemen's Arab people.” They then ask what major Western capitals—Berlin, Paris, London, Washington—will say as they “keep encouraging the Hitler of the twenty first century now against the noble peaceful people of Iran.” They declare, “The Bolivarian humanist peaceful people of Venezuela say no to war,” urging that the madness must be stopped. Speaker 1 then addresses Israelis and Jews directly, framing themselves as a Christian and Sephardic heir who tells them to “stop Netanyahu's madness.” They state that only “the people of Israel can stop this madness.” They question where warmongering will lead and warn about the consequences of racism, intolerance, hatred, and violence. They ask whether missiles and bombs will subdue the will of the world’s peoples and call for an end to aggression against Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Yemenis, and the noble people of Iran. The speaker emphasizes that “The ball is in the court of Israel's Jewish people” and urges an end to this “immoral war, this criminal war.” The exchange conveys a sense of urgency and moral appeal, framed as a call for stopping perceived aggression and imperial complicity, while highlighting the interconnections between Venezuelan solidarity with peaceful movements and opposition to ongoing bombardments in the region. We shall see.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "You never you never once said, hey, I'm I'm out on America. On America's right." "And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government."

Speaker 0 and Professor Jeffrey Sachs discuss the US attack on Venezuela and the detention of President Maduro, with Sachs calling it an illegal act and part of a long pattern of American regime-change operations. Key points: - Sachs calls the attack on Venezuela blatantly illegal and part of a sequence of what he describes as illegally aggressive US actions. He cites recent US threats to invade other countries, including Nigeria and Iran, and the declaration that Greenland “will be ours,” arguing the US is operating outside constitutional order, ruled by executive decree, with Congress moribund. - He notes that the arrest of Maduro is not the end of the Venezuela story, emphasizing a history of regime-change operations since World War II that have created instability, coups, civil wars, and bloodshed. He points out he has not seen mainstream US media question the action, criticizing press and congressional reaction as insufficient. - Sachs argues Europe’s response has been weak, describing European leaders as cowering to the US and labeling the Nobel Peace Prize recipient Machado (Norwegian prize) as having been rewarded for supporting the invasion narrative. He criticizes the EU for lacking diplomacy, multilateralism, and attachment to the UN Charter, while noting Russia and China condemn the action but will not intervene militarily in the Western Hemisphere. - He asserts Trump’s rhetoric includes “the oil is ours” and “our companies will go back in and do business in Venezuela,” calling this approach crass imperialism. He warns this sets a precedent for other actions in Latin America and beyond, linking it to broader goals of sidelining international law and UN institutions. - The discussion turns to broader implications: the US “rules the Western Hemisphere,” and European leaders’ support signals a wider collapse of international norms. Sachs predicts a dangerous trajectory with potential ripple effects if violence escalates in Venezuela or elsewhere (Iran, Gaza). - Regarding the future of Venezuela, Sachs explains that the US has pursued regime change for decades, with Marco Rubio as a leading advocate of invasion. He describes the operation as a decapitation of Maduro and his wife rather than a full regime collapse, suggesting long-term unrest and instability are likely outcomes, referencing Lindsay O’Rourke’s work on covert regime-change operations. - On broader geopolitics, Sachs argues that the US is attempting to counter China in Latin America and that the incident will not deter China or Russia from condemning the action at the UN but not engaging militarily. He warns of potential escalation if Israel attacks Iran following perceived US-led aggression, highlighting a dangerous contagion effect and the potential for a wider conflict. - He disputes the notion that democracy equates to peace, citing historical examples (Athens, Britain, the US) and describing US intervention in Iran since 1953, including the overthrow of Mosaddeq and subsequent conflicts, sanctions, and pressure to destabilize Iran’s economy. - Sachs stresses the need to revive the UN and multilateral institutions, arguing that the world should respond to a “rogue” US and prevent a total breakdown of international law. Speaker 0 closes by noting media framing and European reactions, and Sachs restates that Ukraine should be understood in the context of ongoing US projects, not as a direct parallel to Venezuela, calling for a broader understanding of US foreign policy and the military-industrial state. Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 thank each other for the discussion.

- Tucker Carlson Today debuts with Douglas Murray as the chosen guest, presenting him as someone with “crystal clarity” on global and national events, though Carlson previously described Murray as clever but not an expert on anything. - Carlson discusses Trump, saying he would not be a good president and would likely cancel the next election if elected; he adds, “We didn’t understand the country we preside over,” encompassing both the political class in DC and those with authority or money in the United States. - A speaker quotes Carlson stating, “I hate him passionately. I can’t handle much more of this.” and notes Carlson saying, “We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,” adding that Trump is a “demonic force, a destroyer, but he’s not gonna destroy us.” - Carlson mentions following Bobby Kennedy Jr. at a Donald Trump rally in Madison Square Garden as part of discussions on American politics and national sentiment. - In an aside about foreign policy and allies, Carlson says: “America’s supporting Israel because it’s an ally,” and notes that Qatar is a close ally with “the largest American air base in The Middle East” located there. - On global health, the discussion references “The Chinese coronavirus” as a major event that will affect life, adding that it’s “definitely not just the flu,” and includes a claim about past flu deaths versus COVID, with one remark questioning if anyone they know died of COVID and noting uncertainty about that. - The conversation touches on military ethics and civilian harm, with a claim that incinerating tens of thousands of civilians would be “a bad thing,” and then a provocative line about not calling for nuclear weapons against Ayatollah if there’s a belief in a murderer with nuclear weapons. - A controversial topic is raised about teenage sexuality, asserting that a 15 to 17-year-old boy is biologically driven to procreate and faces a choice between harming a peer emotionally or seeking a safer, though illegal, outlet with a professional partner; the stance is framed as “harm reduction.” - There is a reference to Emmanuel Macron, with a claim that he was 14 or 15 when he met someone, and a challenge to the assertion that it is wrong or child molestation; the broader point is about Buchanan’s argument that American involvement in World War II may have been a mistake, inviting scrutiny of that view. - The host recounts a summer after freshman year spent in Nicaragua to engage in war, linking to broader foreign policy debates about war and citizenship. - A provocative claim is made that anyone who serves in a foreign military should lose his citizenship immediately. - On Sharia law, the transcript states: “Sharia is intolerant. Women have, in the Quran, fewer rights than men do. I think that in every Muslim majority country in the world, non Muslims are treated, have fewer rights. Sharia law is bad, Seth. I don’t know if you’ve heard that. It’s bad. It’s worse than what’s happening in New York and Detroit. It’s just bad.”

Speaker 0 argued that Maduro was not democratically elected and was not cracking down on drug trafficking to the U.S. and other countries, contrasting this with Honduras’ crackdown on drug trafficking supported by agencies like the DEA and Southcom, which earned praise for the Honduran government. The discussion then turned to U.S. policy. Speaker 0 asked whether the interviewee supports what the Trump administration did, or believes there is a line that should not be crossed. They noted that the U.S. military action against Maduro—bombing the country, entering, capturing Maduro, killing members of his government, and taking him to jail—was seen by some as positive, with Maduro described as a criminal who destroyed the country and economy. Speaker 1 responded by focusing on the human impact in Venezuela and other Latin American countries. They stated that a large portion of the population has suffered, with a notable number of people migrating from Venezuela and Honduras. They asserted that elections in Venezuela were stolen by Maduro’s regime, stating that the opposition’s poll results were stored in the cloud and the government did not want to see them because they knew they would lose. They described this as not democracy. They added that, since Hondurans left the country due to trafficking, vessels by sea and illegal flights were bringing jobs to Honduras, but also causing deaths and bloodshed. They argued that if the Trump administration framed Drug Trafficking as terrorism, it was warranted because the drug flow to the United States harmed not only U.S. citizens but also Honduras, which faced the highest death toll in fifteen years due to drugs coming through its borders, largely from Venezuela, and that nothing was done about this by prior administrations. Speaker 0 then asked for the stance on U.S. intervention in general: should intervention be allowed only in certain cases (e.g., Maduro), or should there be no U.S. intervention in Latin America under any president? Speaker 1 shared a Venezuelan friend’s view that there are no options to change Venezuela and that intervention might be necessary if there is no other way to save Venezuela. From a Honduran perspective, they believed Trump’s actions helped not only Honduras but also other Central American and regional countries along the drug-trafficking routes, by reducing corruption, bloodshed, and deaths. They argued that the political machinery Chavez created and used to stall elections in other Latin American countries had previously gone unchecked by the U.S., and that Trump faced Maduro with a confrontation. They concluded that many people in the world do not know what has been happening in Venezuela and its impact on the region. They stated that Trump confronted Maduro, who now has a chance to defend himself in a trial, and emphasized the issue of sovereignty for every country.

- The discussion begins with observations about Venezuela: the country has banned pornography, abortion, gay marriage, sex changes, and usury. The speaker notes that in Venezuela you don’t have credit cards with 40% interest. - Ben Shapiro’s response is referenced. Tucker Carlson is said to have argued that Maduro is culturally conservative. The speaker questions this framing, saying, “Who gives a shit? The guy's a communist dictator. Everyone in his country's eating dog. He's shipping fentanyl to The United States to kill Americans.” The speaker insists that the issue isn’t Maduro’s cultural stance but his overall dictatorship and the actions attributed to him. - The speaker emphasizes a personal stake: “Why do I give a shit whether he's anti LGBTQ rights? I do. I do. I'm not moving to Venezuela.” He states he is not pro-M Maduro but personally cares about Maduro’s stance on LGBT rights, citing concerns as a parent. - The speaker expresses a personal stance against abortion, describing it as unpopular but clear: “For sure, I'm against abortion.” He says he would personally become poorer to end abortion in the United States, even if that means sacrificing wealth, although he acknowledges that isn’t a choice most people can or would make. He notes that many people share this concern. - The speaker comments on pornography, saying he doesn’t think pornography is good and that it hurts people. - He also mentions beliefs about gender, stating he doesn’t think pretending that the sexes are the same is good. He references a claim he made earlier about not caring, followed by reiterating his concern, “I don’t give a shit,” in connection with Maduro’s positions. - The final point raised is Maduro’s stance on Israel, with the speaker indicating that Maduro is against Israel. - Throughout, the speaker contrasts personal, moral concerns (abortion, pornography, gender issues) with geopolitical considerations (Maduro’s dictatorship, drug trafficking, and attitudes toward Israel), asserting that the personal stakes—especially as a parent and as someone who would sacrifice wealth to end abortion—drive his emphasis on these issues.

The speaker asks, why are we doing this and why are we so opposed to Nicolas Maduro. On the street, most people would say they don’t know who Nicolas Maduro is. But in places like South Florida, where people recognize Maduro and can identify Venezuela on a map, the typical answer shifts: because he’s a communist or a socialist. The speaker asserts that this is true: Nicolas Maduro and his government are very left wing on economics. The speaker notes an interesting distinction: this left-wing stance is economic, not social. In Venezuela, gay marriage is banned, abortion is banned, and sex changes for transgender individuals are banned. The speaker describes Venezuela as one of the very few countries in the entire hemisphere with those social policies, emphasizing that these policies are conservative socially. The speaker adds that Venezuela is one of the very few nations in the region with those social policies, specifying that it is on social policy, not defending the regime. The speaker mentions that only El Salvador comes close in conservatism, though El Salvador is much smaller. Additionally, the speaker brings up a political point: the US-backed opposition leader who would take Maduro’s place, if Maduro were removed, is described as eager to implement gay marriage in Venezuela. This is presented as a counterpoint to the idea that the opposition is globally liberal or that the regime is uniquely opposed to liberal social policies. The speaker references the notion of a “global homo” project and implies that the reality is different from that belief, labeling the project as not crazy after all. The overall argument ties Maduro’s economic leftism to social policy conservatism, and contrasts Venezuelan social policy with potential shifts under the opposition, while noting public recognition differences about Maduro.

Speaker 0 discusses the legality and practicality of stopping drug-running vessels versus fishing boats. He asks, “If you can seize a tanker without killing anyone, shouldn’t that have been the way that these fishing boats were also stopped?” He clarifies the confusion: “Fishing boats? Well, the drug runners? The drug runners. Those aren't fishing boats.” He explains that the discussion involves two different authorities: “article two authority” and sanctions. He states that “the president and the commander in the chief has identified and designated terrorist organizations who are cartels who run drugs that kill hundred thousand Americans a year,” and asserts, “there’s no legal question that he has the legal ability to blow those boats out of the water.” He contrasts this with sanctions: “these were economic sanctions by the president as delegated by congress. Those were enforced by civil authorities with the aid of the US Navy.” He emphasizes a distinction between violent drug-trafficking activity and the legal framework of sanctions, insisting, “If you’re asking me if I have sympathy for narco terrorists killing Americans whose boats that are carrying the drugs that kill Americans, I don’t.” He adds, “I have sympathy for my neighbors in Missouri who’ve been poisoned, who die. And we finally have a president who cares about them more than the Democrats care about going down to El Salvador to drink margaritas with terrorists.” Regarding policy toward Venezuela, he states, “Are you open to troops in Venezuela?” and notes, “That’s not that we’re not talking about that at all. We’re talking about actually enforcing sanctions.” He mentions the president being open about the consideration and says the administration is weighing options, including actions in the hemisphere and the broader competition with China. Asked specifically if the Trump administration should try to overthrow Maduro’s regime, he replies, “That’s not that we’re talking about at all.” He asserts, “The president was kind of open about that. I don’t know what you’re talking about.” He references Senator Hawley’s opposition to U.S. ground troops in Venezuela and reiterates his confidence in the president’s decision-making, calling Trump “a realist who understands that we have to pivot away from Europe’s overreliance on the generosity of Americans,” and emphasizing there are “real interest here in our hemisphere” and in countering China. He concludes, acknowledging “we have real interest here in our hemisphere.”

Speaker 1 states they respect Ben Shapiro, agreeing with him on some basics and his love for Israel. The speaker disagrees with getting involved in foreign wars and prioritizes their own country's interests. Speaker 0 mentions being criticized for an "America First" mindset. Speaker 1 elaborates that disagreements should be addressed with debate, not character attacks, which they attribute to the left. They lament the tendency to impugn a person's character instead of addressing their arguments, finding it "incredibly low." They claim the left short-circuits debate by attacking character, labeling opponents as racist or indecent to avoid engaging with their ideas.

The conversation centers on Venezuela and regional concerns. Speaker 0 notes that there were voices suggesting Venezuela isn’t so bad and that Latin America isn’t either, but they remain unconvinced. They ask Abe for good reasons not to be convinced. Abe responds that there are good reasons: Venezuela is getting worse, little by little, as long as oil money continues to flow. Speaker 0 then relays information from experts: Venezuela, apart from Iran, is the only government that propagates anti-Semitism around the world. The claim is that it’s already formalized, first within the country and then outside. The discussion moves to what actions might be taken. Speaker 0 asks whether there is any pressing effort underway. They say they’ve talked to Jesse Jackson, noting the relationship, but it’s not for Kenra; there are other plans, which will be discussed in a moment.