Jeremy Boreing

I think each one of them is sort of a disparate and unique case.

You know, Candace wants to be rich and famous.

She's going to do the things that she thinks make that goal possible.

More likely, I mean, she's already very rich and she's already very famous, so I shouldn't say more likely, but is going to sustain and grow her wealth and her fame.

I think that she's essentially non-ideological.

I don't think that ideology is one of her top three priorities.

I don't know Tucker well.

But I do wonder in what way is Tucker of the right?

He's certainly socially conservative as far as I can tell, but on economic policy for years now, he's essentially been owning the socialist positions on almost every economic policy issue.

He speaks exactly like a Bernie Sanders or a Liz Warren on issues of wealth and power and sort of elite influence in the country.

He's part of the we shouldn't even have billionaires wing of the Democrat Party.

I think Tucker's trying to forge a new political coalition in America that's left-wing in its economic orientation and right-wing in its social orientation.

I think that that's like, it's a hell of a gamble.

Maybe there is some giant new majority, a permanent majority that can be formed that way.

I'm skeptical.

We have a two-party system.

I don't think that it's going to work, but I think that it is largely what he's doing.

And, you know, Nick Fuentes, I do think Nick Fuentes has absolutely

of the three of them has the greatest chance of attaining personal political power, but it's a complete Hail Mary pass.

It's like, almost certainly, Nick Fuentes never gets elected dog catcher.