Can Maga stop the bleeding? Can they pause this ongoing civil war or is just about to get worse? That's what you've got many asking right now as conservative and right-wing figures continue to go after one another, and now you've got people like Candace Owens fully entering the fight. While this has been bubbling like we talked about yesterday, the main issue kicking things off was Tucker Carlson interviewing the white nationalist, Riper leader, Nick Fuentes. Right, because while you had many defending Tucker's choice, you also had many others, including Ben Shapiro, arguing that by platforming Nick Fuentes, Tucker was not only platforming anti-Semitism and other hateful ideologies, but engaging in those conversations himself. And then Ben also brought up the fact that Tucker previously interviewed Candace Owens, who also platform Nick and has been criticized for spreading anti-Semitism and other conspiracies, though to say that Candice Owens and Nick Fuentes are the best of friends. That would be, uh, let's say short-sighted, if not just outright wrong. Well, now, Candice has responded, but not just because Ben Shapiro brought up her name, but because he brought up Charlie Kirk's name. You know, since Charlie's death, Candace has spent a lot of time discussing the investigation,

suggesting that there are truths to uncover that we don't really know about, and also alleging that he was facing threats over his changing views on Israel. Right, and this is another major point of contention that we've seen, you know, many involved denying this, but she also talks about it a lot on her podcast, people agreeing with her. But for Ben Shapiro's part, he mentioned Charlie because Charlie and Nick Fuentes, they were very much at odds with one another.

And so Ben argued that Tucker actually betrayed Charlie and his legacy by having Nick Fuentes on his show. Now, Tucker Carlson has seen fit to launder Nick Fuentes, the person who hated Charlie most and who wished him destruction. That's not an active friendship. It's an act of sick evil. And then you had Owens not happy with Ben for saying that.

They've decided posthumously that Tucker Carlson was a bad friend to Charlie Kirk.

And do you know who can actually debunk that pretty easily?

Yours truly.

I got you guys.

Okay?

And it's just a little bit of common sense.

Before Charlie died,

really kind of just before he died in July, I interviewed Nick Fuentes. And Charlie and I discussed the interview and never once did he tell me not to speak to Nick Fuentes. Never once

did he consider it an act of betrayal. Never at any point did Charlie say don't do that because that's ridiculous. It's not who he was. What I will not allow is this absolute inversion of reality where Ben Shapiro becomes any sort of voice on who is and who is not betraying their friendship with Charlie. Right, so Candace's comments, they bring more and more attention to this whole situation, which I will say has been getting more coverage in many mainstream news outlets.

Were you at MSNBC putting out a piece declaring that Nick Fuentes is winning the MAGA Civil War? Also over the weekend, you had the Atlantic writing. Fuentes said he wants to drag the Republican Party kicking and screaming into the future, into the right wing, into a truly reactionary party, and saying his vision is coming true. The gap between Fuentes and the rest of the right is narrower than it has ever been.

And you even had a New York Times piece going as far as to declare him Charlie Kirk's successor, saying plenty of conservatives, especially Jewish ones, abhor Fueness's growing clout. But by cheering on Donald Trump as he promoted conspiracy theories and systematically destroyed bulwarks against nativism and bigotry in the Republican Party, they helped make Fuentes' rise possible.

Also, regarding the New York Times, who took this picture? What was the lighting? Is there a filter on it?

These are just questions I have personally because I have never seen as good of a photo of Nick Fuentes as what the New York Times put out.

I consume a lot of right-wing media to stay in the know, to do this job. These look like two different people. It's like the New York Times went out of their way to try to make him look like James Dean. But that aside, even though you have outlets and a number of people think that Fuentes is winning by, you know, getting this airtime, getting into more mainstream maga spaces, that doesn't also mean that for a sizable chunk of the Republican Party that they don't view him as fully toxic and radioactive. So you've seen a ton of Republicans trying to distance themselves from not only him but Tucker Carlson denouncing anti-Semitism. But then also an interesting aspect of this is while you know some do think that MAGA does actually need to have this civil war, they're also looking at the calendar and saying, hey, can we put a pin in it? To all of my Republican friends with large followings, can we please refrain from infighting for just two days? Let's do all we can to win on Tuesday, then you can all go back to fighting each other. As well as, why are so many conservative pundits focused on infighting and e-drama instead of key elections? Really makes you think. The regarding elections and voting for her part, you had Candace Owens writing, not voting until we learn the truth about who killed Charlie, not lifting one finger. But also with that, it's not just MAGA freaking out. It's election day, a lot of people are freaking out, and you have all eyes on the New York City mayor's race. because 34-year-old state assemblyman Zoran Mamdani is looking more and more likely like he's going to be the city's first Muslim leader.

It's youngest in more than 100 years, and one who has openly described himself as a democratic socialist. All of which has some very, very excited, but also its inspired Islamophobic attacks, a billionaire spending spree, and the threats from the president of the United States who falsely labeled Momdani as a communist. And in fact, Donald Trump has now publicly endorsed Mumdani's opponent, Andrew Cuomo in the 11th hour. And again, he repeated his warning, though it really comes off as a threat, that the city will suffer if Mom Dani wins. So this also shouldn't be the most surprising thing, because you had Trump saying on 60 Minutes on an interview that aired on Sunday. It's going to be hard for me as the president to give a lot of money to New York, because

if you have a communist running New York, all you're doing is wasting the money you're sending

there.

So I don't know that he's one, and I'm not a fan of Cuomo one way or the other, but if it's

going to be between a bad Democrat and a communist, I'm gonna pick the bad Democrat all the time, to be honest with you. Of course, like any engagement, it was an official official until he posted something to social media. With him writing that if Mamdani wins, he'd cut the city's federal funding to the very minimum as required, saying the city would have zero chance of success or even survival with Momdani at the helm. Then, claiming that a vote for the Republican candidate Curtis Sliwahoo looks much better without the beret is a vote for Mamdani and adding. Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it. Mumdani is not. And then as far as Mumdani's reaction,

...