Latest / Luke Thomas Gets Political (LTGP) / Dana White: ”I Don’t ’GIVE A SH*T” about TRUMP-UFC Backlash | Luke Thomas Gets Political

Transcript

Dana White: ”I Don’t ’GIVE A SH*T” about TRUMP-UFC Backlash | Luke Thomas Gets Political · Luke Thomas Gets Political (LTGP)

• 0:00
  I saw this yesterday and I was traveling
• 0:02
  and I couldn't get to it, but I'm here
• 0:04
  today. This is actually kind of an
• 0:05
  interesting one. So, UFC President Dana
• 0:08
  White was on the podcast for Katie
• 0:11
  Miller. This is the wife of Steven
• 0:13
  Miller. Um,
• 0:16
  and during the course of the interview,
• 0:20
  he is asked about Trump support. Now,
• 0:23
  it's going to be funny because what
• 0:24
  you're going to hear, we're going to
• 0:25
  react to it, is that he's going to say,
• 0:28
  "I don't care that it cost me." And that
• 0:30
  should not be surprising, right? That
• 0:32
  should not be surprising at all. And the
• 0:34
  reason why it wouldn't be surprising is
• 0:35
  because anybody who knows anything about
• 0:38
  people who don't like Donald Trump, he
• 0:41
  is radioactive to more than half the
• 0:44
  country. His current poll numbers are
• 0:45
  really bad, but at a bare minimum, he's
• 0:47
  straight up hardcore radioactive. is the
• 0:50
  worst of the worst to half the
• 0:51
  population. Now, I'm not saying that
• 0:52
  those populations evenly distribute
• 0:54
  across combat sports. What I am saying
• 0:56
  is there used to be a lot more people
• 0:57
  like me in combat sports and certainly
• 0:59
  MMA in particular. There's a lot less of
• 1:01
  me in part because of the UFC's embrace
• 1:04
  of Trump. It just pushed a lot of people
• 1:06
  out. So, it's been obvious like they
• 1:07
  didn't care. Like, you can't do what
• 1:10
  they've done for Donald Trump. speak at
• 1:13
  all three uh Dana White speaking at all
• 1:15
  three Republican National Conventions,
• 1:17
  making a UFC made combatant in chief
• 1:21
  documentary to say nothing of everything
• 1:23
  they did to rehabilitate him after
• 1:25
  January 6 to say nothing of what they
• 1:27
  did to boost his electoral fortunes all
• 1:29
  the way into 2024. There's no way you
• 1:31
  can do that and be a rational person
• 1:35
  with a functioning mamalian brain and
• 1:39
  then think that people who are political
• 1:43
  adversaries of Trump are just going to
• 1:45
  tolerate that. It's going to be a deal
• 1:48
  breaker. And it was and it has been and
• 1:50
  will continue to be a deal breakaker for
• 1:52
  as long as they go and double down on
• 1:54
  it. So, this is going to be confusing
• 1:58
  because I just made a video recently
• 2:01
  where they were trying to spin it in a
• 2:03
  few different directions about how we
• 2:06
  listen. This is this UFC Freedom 250
• 2:08
  event, this White House event. This is
• 2:10
  for everybody. It's not for left or it's
• 2:12
  right. This is for if you love America,
• 2:14
  to which again I said last time, if you
• 2:16
  love America, you would never have tried
• 2:18
  to rehabilitate a guy who tried to steal
• 2:19
  a presidential election and then return
• 2:21
  him to power so then he can set the
• 2:23
  world on fire. In fact, that seems to me
• 2:25
  deeply antipatriotic. That's my personal
• 2:28
  belief. But beyond that, I didn't buy
• 2:31
  that. I mean, yes, I think that they
• 2:32
  were trying to do some damage control
• 2:34
  and reframe the narrative. But this is
• 2:36
  the problem with what they're doing.
• 2:37
  They have confused messaging all the
• 2:40
  time. In part, they're doing what
• 2:42
  they're actually doing and then they
• 2:44
  don't like the bad media from it. So
• 2:46
  then they try and cast, you know, a more
• 2:48
  consiliatory tone, but it constantly
• 2:50
  finds itself running up against what the
• 2:53
  actual truth is. Let's watch this clip
• 2:55
  and then we'll react.
• 2:56
  >> You've been openly supportive of
• 2:58
  President Trump for a long time. Has
• 2:59
  that ever cost USC UFC any business
• 3:02
  either domestically or abroad?
• 3:04
  >> I don't give a [ __ ] I don't know the
• 3:07
  answer to that question. I've gotten to
• 3:09
  a point in my life.
• 3:11
  >> How do you not know the answer to that
• 3:12
  question? If like
• 3:16
  that thing he's talking about like I
• 3:18
  don't know what the answer I don't know
• 3:19
  if we've lost business. Well, I don't
• 3:21
  know if they've lost business in I like
• 3:25
  relative to the other problems that the
• 3:28
  product is having. It's not clear to me
• 3:30
  that the political turn that the
• 3:32
  organization took is actually the thing
• 3:34
  that is most responsible for the current
• 3:38
  fan apathy. Right? So I don't know that
• 3:40
  that is the thing that I'm talking
• 3:42
  about. But what I am trying to say is in
• 3:44
  changing the sport, in getting rid of
• 3:46
  people like me, in enabling actors down
• 3:50
  the food chain to lean into proTrump
• 3:53
  advocacy and the ways in which that this
• 3:55
  altered both who left the sport as fans
• 3:58
  and then who entered the sport as fans
• 4:01
  and now we're, you know, it's a lot more
• 4:02
  groper friendly than it once was. This
• 4:06
  has been something I've been watching as
• 4:08
  a very lamentable fact for years at this
• 4:11
  point. The idea that you've never even
• 4:13
  interrogated, hey, like we should maybe
• 4:15
  look at this and is this at all an
• 4:17
  important thing to consider for the
• 4:19
  future is mindblowing to me,
• 4:22
  >> especially after COVID and all the nutty
• 4:24
  [ __ ] that went on during that time that
• 4:26
  I only want to be in business with and
• 4:29
  talk to people that I'm aligned with.
• 4:32
  >> Yes. Which is why he I won't say
• 4:34
  exclusively does right-wing media, but
• 4:37
  predominantly does right-wing media.
• 4:39
  predominantly hangs out with right-wing
• 4:41
  people, predominantly, you know, is in
• 4:43
  public with right-wing people. And to
• 4:45
  the extent that he was supporting any
• 4:46
  political project, it's the most extreme
• 4:48
  right-wing political project of the last
• 4:50
  50 years. And he is a chief chief chief
• 4:55
  supporter in helping to make that a
• 4:56
  reality in all of our lives.
• 4:59
  >> Always redpilled.
• 5:00
  >> Always what?
• 5:01
  >> Redpilled like conservative.
• 5:02
  >> No.
• 5:03
  >> So, understand something. He's going on
• 5:05
  right-wing podcasts and they're asking
• 5:07
  him why he's so right-wing and he's
• 5:09
  like, "No, no, no. I'm not right-wing."
• 5:10
  Once again, it's this weird scenario
• 5:13
  where they want to do things that yield
• 5:16
  clear benefit for their lives, right?
• 5:18
  Getting legislation passed, avoiding,
• 5:21
  you know, uh, antitrust scrutiny, you
• 5:23
  enriching themselves, I mean, you name
• 5:24
  it. All the things that can come with
• 5:26
  this. They want to do all of that. And
• 5:28
  then when people who, not even just
• 5:30
  critics like me, but then people who
• 5:32
  agree with them are like, "Hey, how come
• 5:33
  you're doing all this? isn't this and
• 5:34
  their view great. They're like, I'm not
• 5:36
  I'm not, you know, and what does this
• 5:38
  say about you as a person? They're like,
• 5:39
  it doesn't I'm not I'm not that person.
• 5:41
  It's like, dude, even your even your
• 5:43
  allies think you're that person.
• 5:46
  >> No, no, no. I would have considered
• 5:47
  myself a lot more liberal. I would have
• 5:49
  considered myself an 80s or 90s
• 5:52
  Democrat. Um
• 5:54
  >> I don't I don't I don't even know what
• 5:55
  that means. So, what? He's a Michael
• 5:58
  Dukakus Democrat. Is that what he is?
• 6:01
  you know, but I'm I'm more of a common
• 6:05
  sense guy. I'm not a very
• 6:12
  Do you see how all the right-wing
• 6:14
  grifters do this? How many times on this
• 6:16
  channel have we talked about it? They
• 6:18
  constantly say the problem with the
• 6:21
  world is that it went crazy and what we
• 6:23
  are is a return to normaly. And then
• 6:26
  when you actually inventory what they
• 6:28
  think a return to normaly looks like, it
• 6:31
  is the advancement of explicit
• 6:34
  right-wing projects.
• 6:36
  I I I I I'm not political, but I'm just
• 6:38
  going to do my best to take a this
• 6:42
  billiondoll company and marshall its
• 6:44
  resources to return a guy to power who
• 6:48
  tried to steal a presidential election
• 6:50
  who is grossly incompetent. But again,
• 6:52
  just just speaking about the crimes of
• 6:54
  the the things he committed. And of
• 6:56
  course, he's going to unleash hell on
• 6:58
  the rest of the world. But we're the
• 7:00
  common sense guys. Nothing about
• 7:04
  supporting Donald Trump in any way makes
• 7:07
  anyone any kind of a common sense
• 7:11
  thinker. You have to be a little bit off
• 7:14
  your rocker or just flatly
• 7:17
  unintelligent. And I don't know that
• 7:18
  that's necessarily White's case here,
• 7:21
  but to at least publicly proclaim that
• 7:23
  we are the return to a normal almost
• 7:27
  modest politics when you're in support
• 7:30
  of the most extreme figure of my
• 7:33
  political life,
• 7:36
  political person, but I'm all for common
• 7:39
  sense.
• 7:39
  >> What was it that changed for you?
• 7:42
  um the world losing its mind and
• 7:44
  everything going nuts and most of the
• 7:46
  things that you and I have talked about
• 7:47
  during this podcast. Um
• 7:51
  I uh you know I I I would still consider
• 7:54
  myself liberal in certain ways but
• 7:56
  >> okay
• 7:57
  >> very conservative in others a little bit
• 7:59
  of both.
• 8:00
  >> Do you think politics and sports should
• 8:02
  stay separate?
• 8:05
  I mean, h how is she asking this
• 8:07
  question to this guy?
• 8:10
  His entire product is based around the
• 8:12
  opposite.
• 8:14
  What does why like, you know, it's like
• 8:17
  asking Shaquille O'Neal, do you do you
• 8:19
  think dunks are a good idea? I mean,
• 8:21
  like what why
• 8:24
  is the nature of this inquiry? You're
• 8:27
  literally asking a guy who has turned
• 8:30
  a sport more political than any other
• 8:34
  actor in North American sports history.
• 8:39
  And I know I I really need should make a
• 8:40
  video on this because I know there's a
• 8:41
  lot of people being like, "Yeah, what
• 8:42
  about what the NBA did? What about what
• 8:43
  the NFL did? What about it?" First of
• 8:45
  all, the players supported all of that
• 8:48
  because you can't just do that stuff
• 8:49
  without the uh support of the NFL PA or
• 8:52
  the NBA Players Union. Just just put
• 8:54
  that out there. Number one, and more to
• 8:56
  the point, they didn't get behind a
• 9:00
  candidate who was trying to run for
• 9:02
  president so he could avoid what was the
• 9:05
  inevitable
• 9:06
  result of him being imprisoned for
• 9:09
  crimes
• 9:10
  related to the vandalism of democracy,
• 9:12
  the the stealing of an election. And
• 9:14
  actually, there's crimes that were
• 9:16
  alleged far beyond that one, but that
• 9:18
  being the chief among them.
• 9:21
  Again, we're not talking about Obama
• 9:24
  being interviewed on some broadcast and
• 9:26
  then we're off and he's the sitting
• 9:27
  president or retired and not running. A
• 9:29
  political candidate
• 9:32
  and the most extreme one of my life in
• 9:35
  either party, the most extreme for
• 9:37
  national office, you know, not counting
• 9:38
  the ones in the primaries, but like a a
• 9:40
  a one that the party itself nominated.
• 9:42
  He's the most extreme by a million
• 9:45
  miles. And they have the balls to talk
• 9:50
  about common sense, the balls to talk
• 9:53
  about not being political, the ball.
• 9:55
  This is the problem. Like he's
• 9:57
  supporting something that is touching
• 9:59
  the lives of ordinary people and he has
• 10:02
  no concept of this. He doesn't know
• 10:05
  anyone who got deported. He doesn't know
• 10:07
  anyone per and I'm not talking about
• 10:09
  fighters whose condition they ignore.
• 10:11
  I'm talking about like in his personal
• 10:12
  life outside of even work. He doesn't
• 10:14
  know anyone who got deported. He doesn't
• 10:16
  know anyone who is struggling with
• 10:17
  medical debt. He doesn't know anyone who
• 10:20
  is looking at their savings and
• 10:21
  realizing I'm going to have to work
• 10:23
  until the day I die because I'm not
• 10:25
  going to be able to retire. He doesn't
• 10:26
  know people like this. And so, you know,
• 10:29
  the price of gasoline is high. Do you
• 10:31
  think that this will in any way impact
• 10:32
  his wealth or the choices he has to make
• 10:35
  as a consumer or a parent or or a home
• 10:37
  provider or any like the he is utterly
• 10:40
  divorced from these considerations. So
• 10:42
  he has no concept of the consequence and
• 10:44
  the way in which all of us out here can
• 10:47
  feel how much this guy is setting the
• 10:49
  country on fire.
• 10:51
  Utterly utterly removed from it.
• 10:55
  >> And even outside of USC, right, you're
• 10:57
  talking NFL, NBA.
• 10:59
  >> Listen, I would love to I think you know
• 11:01
  when you think about
• 11:02
  >> in the 80s and 90s religion, right?
• 11:05
  That's basically what like politics now
• 11:08
  is like religion. I mean, these guys are
• 11:11
  everybody's fighting overall.
• 11:12
  >> Yeah, the stakes are high, Dana. For
• 11:14
  those of us down here, the stakes are
• 11:16
  high. For those of you where you are,
• 11:19
  the stakes are pretty low, actually. I
• 11:22
  mean, yeah, there's big business to be
• 11:23
  had. But in terms of your life and your
• 11:25
  health being affected, couldn't be more
• 11:27
  low stakes.
• 11:28
  >> All this crazy [ __ ] and and um I think
• 11:31
  we should go back to you don't know who
• 11:33
  you voted for and you don't you know but
• 11:36
  I think it's up to the athlete or the uh
• 11:41
  the organization or whatever if if they
• 11:44
  want to be involved in politics or talk
• 11:47
  on politics. It's up to the individuals
• 11:50
  or the teams or the leagues or whatever
• 11:52
  they are. Not that I think that the UFC
• 11:54
  athletes would have objected in this
• 11:56
  case, but the Trump boosterism was
• 11:58
  something they didn't necessarily ask
• 12:00
  for. Again, I understand that they're
• 12:01
  going to be ideologically sympathetic,
• 12:03
  but I'm just pointing out, did anyone
• 12:04
  like ask them ahead of time if this was
• 12:07
  something that they were in favor of the
• 12:08
  organization doing and and using during
• 12:11
  the course of their fights? No, of
• 12:12
  course not. Doesn't matter. This just
• 12:14
  lays bare everything that really is
• 12:17
  powering all of this. You cannot have it
• 12:19
  both ways. You cannot say that the UFC
• 12:23
  Freedom 250 event, the UFC White House
• 12:25
  card is something for everybody. It is
• 12:28
  something that anyone of any political
• 12:30
  persuasion can enjoy. And then also say
• 12:33
  you don't care if there's a cost to
• 12:35
  Donald Trump advocacy. You do understand
• 12:37
  that there is a cost and a change at a
• 12:39
  bare minimum to the Donald Trump
• 12:42
  advocacy such that it is a deal
• 12:44
  breakaker for thousands and thousands
• 12:46
  and thousands, tens of thousands of fans
• 12:49
  domestically who just don't want to be
• 12:51
  around that. You cannot have it both
• 12:54
  ways. You cannot say, "Well, what we
• 12:57
  really want is for everyone to enjoy
• 12:58
  this." But if you can't because you we
• 13:02
  we are we are advancing the interests of
• 13:06
  the most extreme political agenda of the
• 13:08
  last 50 years. Well, too bad. So sad. We
• 13:12
  don't give a
• 13:14
  Which is it? Which is it? It cannot be
• 13:17
  both. You cannot have it both ways.
• 13:21
  Either your product is for everyone or
• 13:25
  it is not. And I gotta be very honest,
• 13:28
  for the most part, it is not a product
• 13:30
  for everybody. In fact, I get told in my
• 13:32
  mentions all the time, you know, hey, if
• 13:35
  this isn't a product for you, just go do
• 13:37
  something else. And honestly, there is
• 13:38
  some logic to that. Like, and by the
• 13:40
  way, not every sport needs to be for
• 13:42
  everybody. And that's also true as well.
• 13:44
  Um, but nevertheless, when they say that
• 13:46
  kind of a thing, I think they're more
• 13:49
  right than Dana is. They're more honest
• 13:50
  about what they actually believe in this
• 13:52
  particular case um than the overall
• 13:55
  confused messaging that can come from
• 13:57
  TKO. You can see what's happening here.
• 13:59
  This is the real orientation. We're
• 14:01
  going to be a proTrump organization. If
• 14:03
  you don't like it, bounce.
• 14:07
  That's their that's the real attitude.
• 14:09
  And then when they get called out on it
• 14:11
  and they don't like some of the media
• 14:12
  and I'm guessing it's coming from TKO on
• 14:14
  high and kind of m you know they might
• 14:16
  be I making Dana is a strong word but
• 14:18
  kind of trying to get messaging out
• 14:20
  there that is a little bit more
• 14:22
  consiliatory
• 14:24
  then you get this kind of weird
• 14:25
  messaging where one is essentially just
• 14:27
  contradicting the other. But but but
• 14:29
  this is the real one. They'll say other
• 14:31
  stuff and again they might be trying to
• 14:32
  cover their ass in certain ways. I do
• 14:34
  believe that. But like what do they
• 14:36
  really believe behind the hand of cards
• 14:38
  that they're playing this? This is what
• 14:41
  they believe. This is what we're going
• 14:43
  to do. You if your life has been messed
• 14:46
  up by it, we don't care. Oh, look. You
• 14:48
  don't like it that we're promoting the
• 14:50
  MVP of the Epstein Files. Tough [ __ ]
• 14:55
  Oh, but this product, it's for
• 14:57
  everybody. If you love America, it's for
• 15:00
  everybody.
• 15:02
  No, I don't think that's right. I don't
• 15:04
  think that's right. I don't I don't
• 15:05
  think the messaging lines up. Can't
• 15:08
  can't do both. You really have to pick
• 15:10
  with this one way or the other. Now,
• 15:12
  again, I think from now until June,
• 15:14
  you're going to see them play both sides
• 15:15
  of this. You're going to see people like
• 15:17
  Dana say, "Listen, if you don't like our
• 15:19
  Trump support, eat." And on the other
• 15:21
  side, you'll see either him or other
• 15:23
  other media surrogates, you know, start
• 15:25
  to get a little bit more of a
• 15:26
  consiliatory message so they can kind of
• 15:28
  play both sides so that the people who
• 15:30
  want to hear the proTrump advocacy,
• 15:32
  they're going to get what they want to
• 15:34
  hear. And then the people who want would
• 15:36
  be more amendable and open to more
• 15:39
  consiliatory messaging, they'll hear
• 15:40
  that, too. That's kind of the game
• 15:42
  that's being played here. But just
• 15:43
  understand what really is the source
• 15:45
  here. This is not a surprise. If you
• 15:48
  lived through basically 2021 and beyond,
• 15:50
  but certainly before that, but if if you
• 15:52
  were in MMA during that time, this is
• 15:55
  merely an admission of what was really
• 15:57
  powering that to begin with. But I just
• 15:59
  wanted to lay bare not merely something
• 16:02
  of a contradiction obviously between
• 16:05
  these, but how they'll play the media to
• 16:08
  get what they want in both directions,
• 16:11
  but just what really is at the core of
• 16:13
  this. What really is at the center of
• 16:16
  this? It's Dana White on Steven Miller's
• 16:19
  wife's podcast saying, "If you don't
• 16:21
  like the UFC's proTrump advocacy, go
• 16:24
  [ __ ] yourself." Okay, message received.