Loopholes, Lost Voters, and the Future of the Democrats

You're listening to Comedy Central.

From the most trusted journalists at Comedy.

Central is America's only sorts for news.

This is the Daily Show with your Holy Show Stewart.

Hello, who everybody? How the Daly Show? My name is John Shart.

It has been two weeks since the election.

Two about the it was like two months.

It's been fifteen years since the election.

It's been I mean, this was me election night.

Oh was I ever that young?

Or I ever looked at?

And some?

But Donald Trump is returning to power, and so once again it is time to saddle up Lizzys Doll. Because if you remember before Trump won the election, Democrats will clear eyed about the stakes.

It's times that fascism is called fascism in Americans know exactly what they're voting for. He is paving the way to become a Vladimir Putin or to become an Adolph Hitler.

He is a threat to democracy.

He is a clear and present danger to our democracy, to our way of life.

The damage may be irreversible.

To destruct could be unthinkable, and it would be a betrayal of everything that our framers fought for.

You're not even gonna look up You're not even gonna you know, a little eye contact, a little inflection could drive the danger thing. You give it a little urgency, you know, Uh, I feel passionately. You know, we should fight him on the beaches, in the field, god forbid the streets, yastphalts and side.

It's really all right?

Is it sad that the only thing that really makes it a Schumer impression is I put glasses on? Is that was it really that? I mean, you applauded literally just the glasses. I'm a pair of bifocals away from being Chuck Schumer's.

Your bastards.

Now, I assume now that the Democrats have lost to the greatest fact we've ever faced as a nation, that they will be forthright in acknowledging one the Democrats role in this catastrophic defeat and two the bleak healthscape we now face.

Or we're proud of the fact that we've defeated more House Republican incumbents than they've defeated House Democratic incumbents.

We did flip three House seats from Republican to Democrat and gain back almost all of those that we had lost in twenty twenty two.

Yeah, almost is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Yeah, we almost gained back all we had lost. Almost is kind of a load bearing adverb. Spin wise, finding a positive and what is clearly not good news. You can't parents good news. We gained back almost all of the children we lost on the field trip.

Win win.

It's a new dynamic.

It is a wilful bright siding this shit show that we celebrate in our new segment called the Audacity of Cope. Now, technically, yes, Democrats have less seats, but have you heard who's in those seats.

In this freshman class alone? And I'm going to stop for cheers for each one of these because they're remarkable. We have our first trans member of Congress. We have an engineer from an immigrant community in the San Fernando Valley. We have the first Iranian American Democrat in Congress. We have the youngest member ever elected to the House from New Jersey.

That's not a thing.

How did you go from the reasonably impressive first Iranian Democrat to hold the scene to the I think somewhat reaching for youngest person ever from New Jersey, and then, by the way, to the audience. If you think that that framing is not that interesting. Wait till you hear that this record breaking young phenom from New Jersey is thirty.

Eight years old. Thirty eight years old? Yah, how come on? How far are we going with this?

Oh?

In Illinois we elected a ginger.

Oh hey yeah, yeah.

We elected the first representative from Washington State who looks like he has a terrible secret. He ran on loneliness. Wow, this is gonna be the most diverse group of Congress people to ever get all their legislation blocked.

So inspired.

But you know what, now it's fine.

People, But you know what, those are just lonely House Democrats. How well the head of their party, the outgoing president man the ramparts. During this challenging and fraught peaceful transition to fatism.

President Biden is in Brazil, where he became the first American head of state to visit the Amazon Rainforest. He went there to highlight the dangers of climate change and the need to turn away from fossil fuels.

What the.

No way that desk was there?

No way, not a chance.

In the middle of all this, he disappeared to the rainforest, starring in what appears to be like four Pixar movies in one mixed together.

Clearly up is one of them.

And in conto, I'm gonna say, there's a little moana. Maybe Wally had a powerful anti consumer's message. Well, hopefully listen Wally's down there. Hopefully he has some inspiring words for us.

Mister president, History is literally watching us now.

So let's preserve this secret place for our time and for the benefit of all humanity. Thank you very very much.

Where are you coming? Where are you going?

Just literally just walking away like that, mister President. I'm sorry, the tribe has spoken. Extinguish your torch.

What is happening?

You know?

Maybe this is how we should do the transfer of power.

The winner moves into the White House and the incumbent just wanders off into the jungle so that his nutrients may be returned to the soil. But of course that's the democrats struggle. Donald Trump headed to Madison Square Garden with his grab him by the pussy posse to do his favorite thing, watch people submit.

Oh.

Trump likes submission in the octagon. He likes it out of the octagon. He likes submission from his enemies and even from his new friends. And by the way, it doesn't take much of a transgression to warrant to ben Denee for Trump. For instance, last week, Trump's newly minuted Health and Human Services nominee hit Trump with a bit of a lighthearted jab about his diet.

The stuff that he eats is really like bad. It's a campaign food is always bad. The food goes on to that airplane is like just poison.

That's a little friendly swipe boop, a little bit of ribbing, gentle ribbing poop.

And he will pay for his insudence, President Trump.

Elon Musk, don jor RFK Junior, and speaker Mike Johnson eating McDonald's on Trump's private plane.

Hey yeah, hey, yeah, rabbit, come in here.

You think that's poison?

Yeah, eat it? Yeah, rabbit, eat the whole thing. Yeah, in front of us, right now, eat the whole thing. And by the way, when you're done eating the whole thing, Grimas is gonna come in here and.

Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right.

Grimis.

Hey, hey, Robert, he don't think Grimas can ask.

Why we're doing it. You gotta make eye contag with him all the time. We're gonna film it.

I was just gonna keep going with the premise.

By the way, I know We're focused on the humiliation of r F K Junior, But look at a poor Mike Johnson there, poor Mike.

Johnson right there.

Oh, you didn't even get a seat at the cool kids table. And the sad part this whole thing was Mike Johnson's bachelor party. Meanwhile, Joe and Mika Brazinski Scarborough, who famously warned of the growing threat of Trump's fascism, also had an interesting announcement to make last Thursday.

We expressed our own concerns on this broadcast and even said we would appreciate the opportunity to speak with the President elect himself. On Friday, we were given the opportunity to do just that. Joe and I went to mar A Lago to meet personally with President elect Trump. And for those asking why we would go speak to the President elect during such fraught times, especially between US, I guess I would ask back, why wouldn't.

We because you said he was hitler?

Okay, tap out. But look, we don't know what the visit was. We don't know what the tone of the visit was.

We talked about a lot of issues, including abortion, mass deportation, threats of political retribution against political opponents and media outlets.

Oh, I bet you really lead down the gauntlet, Joe.

I bet you walked in there and just let him have it, didn't you, Joey.

I'm gonna do a one act play called Joe and Mika go to Marlago. Mister President, your rhetoric is outrageous. I cannot in good content those macarousa.

The pick one is well bory. We've learned nothing, even though it putting up resistance to Trump's agenda.

Don't seem to understand who who they're dealing with.

Senator Elizabeth Warren accusing President like Donald Trump's.

Transition team of breaking the law.

Is there are reported, mister deadline, devala required ethics pledge.

Hear ye, hear ye, Hittler, mister reporting deadline.

The war is over. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because.

They glued their balls to their thighs.

That is what is happening.

The election that we've just had was a repudiation of the status quo, an overly regulated system that is no longer responsive or delivering for the needs of the people or their beloved beheaded squirrels, oh rip peanut. Government is theoretically a constitutional system of checks and balances between equally powerful branches.

But what government actually is is an.

Overly complicated, byzantine, bureaucratic maze of rules, loopholes to those rules, and norms, complex enough that a, if you want to find a rule that keeps you from doing something, you'll find it, and b if you actually want to do something, you can find a loophole to get around said rule. And then the norms are just how often you've had to pull any of this shit.

For example, Trump's.

Let's be generous, provocative, and unorthodox cabinet picks. I don't think Hulk Hogan's been nominated yet.

I think he's going to be.

The secretary of Take your vitamins. Democrats are positive.

That the vaunted constitutional rules of the Senate shall be the guardrail to this madness.

Certainly we can fight back.

The president nominates, the Senate.

Confirms we're a check in balance.

We're there to be a guardrail.

The Senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent on this nomination.

Oh shit, you want Matt Gates mister President, prepared to be advice and consented beyond. There is no way for the Constitution to allow you to get past it.

The Constitution does give the president a power to adjourn the House and Senate on extraordinary occasions.

To unilaterally install his most controversial nominees and bypass the Senate confirmation process entirely.

That is our government in a nutshell. The rules say we can stop it. The loophole says that, and so what are you left with the last refuge of losers the norms. I don't think that's appropriate, and I don't think that's what the founders intended.

That is not the customer.

Yeah, you can do it, and it's legal by whatever guy, we're gonna think you're a day.

Republicans exploit the loopholes.

Democrats complain about the norms over and over and over, and it has ghastly consequences.

Remember when President.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to give that a vote, saying, well, it's only one full year before the election.

It's too close.

Now you can make a case that Obama could violate the norm say the Senate failed their advice and consent, and appoint.

Him anyway, and see whatever happens.

Fight.

They just went, well, we never heard of that rule, but okay, smash cut.

Two months before a presidential election, Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court after the completely un foreseeable death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And as you can imagine, the Democrats went right to the nearby kinkos.

Behind me is the McConnell rule.

On February thirteenth, twenty sixteen, when Justice Scalia passed away, Senator McConnell said, and I quote, this.

Vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.

And so Amy Connie Barrett was forced to head back to her homestead, never to be heard from. Oh they didn't give them. Oh all right, I forgot they didn't give it. Look, let this show be the utterly ineffective hypocrisy finders.

I can tell you from experience. It does nothing.

You guys be the loophole guys that figure out how to get shit done. Because they don't give a about your norms. They will exploit any loophole, even if they have to go through clearly closed windows to do it. You would think after Trump's presidency Democrats would have learned, but they doubled down. When Biden tried to get immigration reform into the Inflation Reduction Act and the Senate Parliamentarian told them he couldn't. Did he respond to the rule with the loophole or did he.

That's for the parliamentarian to decide them, not for Joe Biden to decide.

No, that's for you.

Take the parliamentarian and you put them in a locker, and then you bring Grimace in and have.

Him that's why you do.

Do you guys get what I'm saying. Perhaps a demonstration is in order to get anything done. The Democrats feel like they must thread the needle to make sure. Ooh, we have to make sure each norm follows the overly complex bureaucratic process that we created ourselves. Oh, the parliamentary the Ooh, I can't do it because the norm said, I can't get anything done.

Meanwhile, the Republicans come in and all they have to do is finger bang of donut.

That's all I have to do.

Oh, how are we going to get Matt Gates in if the advice and consent?

Oh, right there.

Boom boom, yn there how he did well?

He did?

Do I have to sleep with this? Now I've made you all uncomfortable.

Now Trump has the House, Senate, Presidency, and Judiciary, so it's going to get hard or not easier. Democrats are going to have to forcefully play the loopholes. But the good news is you're well set up for it, with the youngest Congressional representative ever from New Jersey, thirty eight year OLDLR Monica McIvor. Unless wait, I've got a loophole. What if Joe Biden got his vice president to not certify that?

No, No, President Biden.

Wait, listen, listen of the plan, Joe, We'll be right back with Roy.

To Shara, don't go why no nod so I get tonight.

Is an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow, co founder of the Liberal Patriots Substack, and co author of Where Have All the Democrats Gone?

Please?

Welcome to the program? Real Wait to.

Shara suck for joining us.

Hey, my blood jog you your book is whereab all? I don't even know what I'm holding it up to your I'll just hold it up over here.

Where of all the Democrats Gone? This was kind of an expose I think on your recipe for how Democrats lost their coalition.

Written when we put it out last year, basically exactly a year from this your.

Question, did you send it to any of the Democrats?

Not really, No, we hope they'd pick up with it. I guess didn't happen.

You know, you know, people aren't really readers anymore.

Is there an audiobook?

There is an audio book.

Maybe we should have sent that, Tom, or maybe like a five slide PowerPoint deck.

Now you're learning the game right.

First of all, it is a really interesting historical breakdown context of sort of how the Democrats lost their more populist economic instincts and can you can you go through it sort of The Clintons probably began it in a way, but even as far back as Jimmy Carter.

Sure, yeah, yeah, I mean Jimmy Carter had a sort of deregulatory, sort of anti populist approach toward economics. He took on a lot of things that eventually found their way into the Reagan approach in terms of deregulation and so on. And of course with Bill Clinton, we have you know, deregulation of finance, we have NAFTA eventually after Clinton leaves, but you know, sort of he was pushing it along. We have a session of China to the WTO and you have the so called China Shock, which

And there wasn't seemingly much difference other than maybe tax cuts and tax heights, between neoliberal Democrats and standard republican free trade policy.

Yeah.

Yeah, no, that was definitely true. I mean, I was very noticeable at the time, and there's some Democrats who pushed back against it, but they definitely lost the debate, and the Democrats became you know, there's sort of this third way thing in the nineties, right with Clinton and Blair and people like that, and sort of they basically put their chits down and we have to get government

It's coming people, It's going to trickle down. Yeah, a few more decades.

So then it's sort of you get the rise of kind of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warrent, there is this and throughout it, you know, Paul Welson, a progressive wing that wanted a more populist approach, but they could never win the day. And you make the case it's because the money that was coming into the Democratic Party was coming now from business and not from labor.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

I mean the influence of labor on the Democratic Party just declined so much in the eighties and nineties. Of course through our current day. I mean, it used to be labor was the backbone of the Democratic Party. That's what they relied upon for troops, for money to some extent, and that really just becomes completely replaced in the eighties and nineties, and even the culture of the Democratic Party changes because there used to be much more contact between

So it's not I was going to say, what do you think came first, the decline of the labor movement, the decline of people participating in the labor movement, or the Democrats moving away from that as a source of.

Well, I think they were sort of an interactive negative feedback loop, as it were.

I mean, fewer people.

Of unions to kind of a death sprival if you want to be melodramatic about it.

Really I do want to be melodramatic about Okay, well, I don't know if you watch the first.

Act, but I punched my hand through a doughnut hole.

Let's face it.

I mean that thanks be done.

Better, I think now.

But something that I feel like resonated with the audience and has resonated with them in a while. My idea of what happened with the Democratic Party is it was a rejection of a status quo feeling that not just in the working class movement, but in many movements that

You the help you need.

But the parliamentarians really.

Been up my ass, like all night, right, Like I feel like that's a real problem for them.

Yeah, I mean the sense that the Democratic Party isn't responsive to the needs of sort of ordinary the common man and women in the working class, and they're too caught up in other issues or they're too worried about you know, sort of government regulations and parliamentary and stuff, and they're not.

Like laser focused on getting stuff done.

And you know, even in places like New York City where you have you know, very democratic, it's a sense that they aren't pulling out all the stops to make sure everyone gets good services and everything runs well, and you know, effective government is.

What people want.

It's a system in some respects, there's two things. You have to respond to what seems to be the immediate needs and then lay the groundwork for the future. I still think they did an effective job laying.

The groundwork for the first part is what.

That's exactly right.

Infrastructure built, Chick, those great things.

But the new deal worked because it triaged the urgency.

That's right.

It seems like that problem.

By the way, I don't think the Republicans do that either, you know, in terms of.

Let's see, I mean, look at these great cabinet picks that Trump.

They're ready, they're ten and ready for help.

Good people.

Wrong, I was warned about you.

Ruie to share is a dry son of a bitch, right, No, dead on right. I almost think, and this is this is a broader conversation, but if you look at sort of European countries, they're satisfaction with government is higher because it feels like they think the money they pay into government returns in services they actually use. If you break down people's tax bill, the first probably five tranches of

Well, you know, if I knew that, I would be running the Democratic Party and they'd be running the table. But first of all, I mean, you can't hit the target unless you're aiming at it. Contrary to the Zen precept, you actually have to focus relentlessly on delivering for people in their daily lives and figuring out a way to do it. Okay, you know they've got x percent of

And I think they have a sense that they work hard, they pay money into the system, and then that money is Whether this is hyperbolic or not, I think it is it goes to people who don't deserve it. It goes to migrants, it goes to trans people, it goes to the and it's they don't deserve.

It, right, I deserve it?

Right?

Well, the mogrants thing became such a problem obviously because of you know, the extent to which immigration spiked, and then you had people turning up in overburdened urban areas, and you know, you've had a lot of black voters, for example in Chicago saying, why should I vote for for for for Kamala Harris. I mean, you know, they're they're giving away all this stuff to people, you know, who just came in from out of the country that are not even legal.

And you know, but even that tells you though they had an opportunity to do something three years about it, they said they couldn't.

I I was blowny, but I can't do it.

I'm going to wait for First of all, that's the type of language that I have seen.

Wait a minute, I saw your monologue that was I.

Don't know what happened there.

It will get beleeved, okay, But but it is the kind of thing like we can't overturn norms and things, and you're like, well, how did you get to Kamala Harris as the nominee that wasn't enormous?

You overturned out And by the way, when you did, there was an explosion of enthusiasm and excitement because they suddenly felt like, oh, they're recognizing a reality that I owe, now we have a chance, and now we have a chance. Why isn't that more a part of the governance?

Well, I think one. I mean, for example, look at the immigration issue. Right, Yes, there were some tenuous excuses why they they couldn't move on in earlier, But why didn't they move in earlier? It was a lot because the Democratic Coalition is so responsive. Biden was responsive to the various elements of the coalition. You didn't want them to do anything right. I mean, there were a lot of advocacy groups, a lot of parts of the Democratic

You think you get into something interesting with that. And it's something that I you know, rightfully, I think have a blind spot on and that is this idea of woke and dei and that the Democrats are too woke and too dei and that's why they lost and it's hard for me to wrap my head around that.

Well it's not the only reason, but it was a contributing factor, right, And if you look at like there's been some data collected after the election by the Blueprint Strategy.

Group that saw the show the top three reasons there.

You know, I love their listicles listical.

Well in this listicle, the first reason was inflation, This second reason was too much illegal immigration, and the third reason was Democrats being too concerned about cultural issues and not the welfare of the middle class. Right, I mean, and there's similar data from other places.

Here's where maybe you can help me with this.

But the idea of DEI and maybe I'm just working off of a wrong the wrong definition of woke, you know which is. And maybe that's the thing that I don't understand. But like when they say all this DEI, it feels like you're talking about like that one seminar you have to sit in, Like that's like an hour, Like I know, it's a little more it gets eye rolly, but it's an hour.

Right, Well, there's more to it than that.

I think people have the perception that it's being used as a way of allocating things that's different from merit, and that's the real problem. I'm just saying, you know, it doesn't seem to work that well. People don't like it, you know, including non white working class people. So you know that's yeah. I mean, there's there's a very reasonable argument that we need to lift up people who've been left behind by various heritages of vexed hair.

I don't even know why that's controversial.

That's not that's not controversial.

People are fine with helping out people who are disadvantaged. I mean that there's people are good with that. I mean, they don't think necessary.

Here's where I'm lost, right, because you just said people don't like that.

So I guess is it is it because of.

My DEI or reparations or whatever, I mean whatever kind of a basket of things that sound to them like they're going to give people stuff that they didn't you know, sort of earn.

What is it we're doing.

Tariffs are there to repair the damage?

Yes, Riffs are our.

Economic policy that's supposed to make it, you know, sort of more things made in America. It's supposed to help manufacturing workers.

Yes, and so on.

Okay, so what do I suggest that people look at class different from race.

What can I tell you?

It's just but it's all mixed together.

It's all mixed together.

So why are you yelling because you seem to.

Be determined to Uh, I don't know. Just what's your point? It's like race is more important than class.

No, what's your point?

No?

My point is it seems that government's job is to look at the systems that we use in this country to create wealth and progress, sure, and then to look at the natural areas where those systems create collateral damage and repair as best they can the collateral damage of those systems. And I don't understand why we've singled out DEI as the devil and helping manufacturing as smart and good like.

Isn't it all the same thing?

The point about DII is is not particularly effective and lift But.

That's a different argument, does it not?

No, it's not a different argument.

Basically, what I'm saying is that what if you want to actually help people and materialist you want you want universal policies that will disproportionately lift up stay black and Latato poor people because they're more heavily concentrated among people who.

Are will also be covinted that is what is popular.

But they were explicitly disadvantaged, so why wouldn't we try to repair that? But my point is if the government picks winners and losers all the time. We have subsidies for farming areas, and those aren't controversial because they say the policies that we have in place have hurt farmers, So let's get some subsidies in there to ameliorate the damage.

That is a particular one.

If you want to you want to help out people who live in say, poor black areas of poor Latino areas, yes, you can't just channel that money to people who are Latino and black, because that's unconstitutional and is extremely unpopular. If you want to lift them up, have universal programs that actually help people live in those disadvents.

Everybody's for that. Everybody's for that.

That's not d I D I is really different.

I think I know they're completely different.

I think I think said I disagree with you that everybody's for it because I think they view that as woke. That what I just described they would view as woke, and that is.

Of a different that's all right.

I get the sense that in this country people look at entrenched poverty in the cities and think that it is a product of culture and vice, and they look at entrenched poverty in whier areas and think that they are victims of economic policies that they are not in control of. I do think in this country it's viewed differently.

I just think it's.

You know, here's what you didn't get, here's what you didn't get during the crack crisis, deaths of despair, these poor people. But in the federal Christness, rightfully, so you do. And I think some of that has to do with the populations. And so that's my point is why is DEI. I feel like that it's a failure to describe what we're trying to do.

Okay, well, di I isn't the name for what you want then.

Because DEI is the only things allowed.

Behind black and Latino.

But the real things that would help entrenched poverty in those cities aren't done in favor of Okay, we're not actually going to do that, but we will let you have an hour every three months where you get to tell us.

I agree with that. I agree with that.

I think DII is a very poor substitute for those kinds of programs.

Could you just look into that camera and say that do you think it is something that can be fixed? Is it perception or is it reality?

It is a matter of the kinds of programs will have to be promulgated on a universal basis which have a disproportionate effect on black and Latino working class and poor people. That's how you do it, and it's possible to build support for those, I really believe. Don't call it DEI don't call it reparations, don't call it anything like that because those are really unpopular. Call it you're just trying to help people who are disadvantage and then

That is actually pretty popular.

Why do you think the Republicans don't have to play by those same rules, Like if you're pro Palestine, they're very happy going. You're a terrorist sympathizer, if you want certain economics, you're a Marxist and a communist.

They name call constantly. They do the.

Same thing that you're saying they do, So why well they don't seem to ever have like this if.

They really wanted to seriously dominate the country in a way that's different than taking advantage of fact people hated the Biden Harris administration. They would have to like push back on stuff like that. They would have to move to the center themselves. That's the whole thing about the

Generally, the biggest movements in America that have done what you're saying weren't centrist. The New Deal in FDR was considered far left. Reagan and the Reagan Revolution was considered far right. And it seems like the centrist Romney McCain, those guys got their asses kicked.

So I always was actually quite centrist.

I mean really popular interest, Yeah, I mean.

Basically Norman Thomas and socialism.

No, no, it was basically it was the institution of economic talk in the country, and it was actually wildly popular at the time. I mean, people revered FDR. They what he stood up for the common man and woman. Well, okay, but they still liked it.

But it wasn't No, it wasn't.

I'm not defining the center as being a particular ideology. I'm defining it as what do people in the center of the distribution want?

What do they care about? What are their concerns?

You mean like that you're talking about statistical Yeah, that's you know, that's my thing.

Sorry, guilty as charge.

I didn't know statisticians were such argumentative sons and pictures.

Are you pretty argumentative yourself?

Can I tell you something super argumentative?

Like?

I actually don't like that about myself. I'm very contrarian too, like and can get a little sanctumous. Yeah, I don't know what I'm gonna do about that. I have the feeling it's not going to get it's not going to get any better. I'm gonna be one of those dudes where people are just like, don't invite him, right right.

You guys can check out Ruy's work.

Liberal Patriot Dot com ruin. We'll be right back after.

That looks crazy.

So they clean my glasses right before the show. I already had them off up. Never put donuts on your glasses. That is our show for tonight. Before we go, We're gonna check in with your O. It's for the rest of the week.

Does he does it?

So nice to see what's coming up this week?

Well, John, we'll be talking about my weekend trip to mar A Lago, where I went to reopen the conversation with President elect Trump.

Reopened the cup.

Mm hmmm.

Does he didn't you spend the.

Last year calling him a face?

Let's not know how I remember it.

No, but I wanted to go down there for unity. I want to be unified with all the people who he won't be getting revenge on. We had a great conversation about mass deportation, and the bottom line is I can tell you now that, uh, I'm gonna be okay.

What about all the people being mass supported.

Oh yes, I can tell them too that I'm gonna be okay.

Regulations, datsy?

Does you like it?

This week?

Here?

It is you moment to down.

Then you can see him embracing Joe Rogan let's see him. They're gonna get together in a second. Here it comes, wait for it. He's walking and now he's gonna say hello, there's Dana.

Oh not quite.

I think we'll get the Joe Rogan picture in.

Just a moment. Hang on, hang on, that's not quite.

Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by searching.

The Daily Show wherever you get your podcasts.

Watch The Daily Show week nights at eleven ten.

Central on Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on Paramount plus

Paramount Podcasts