The Adam Mockler Show - I Debated Trump’s BIGGEST FAN… Watch it UNFOLD!

Episode Date: May 1, 2025

Adam Mockler with MeidasTouch Network breaks down Donald Trump's Join my Substack as a free or paid subscriber: https://www.adammockler.com/subscribe Become a member to support me! https://www.youtube.com/Adammockler/join https://patreon.com/adammockler Adam Mockler Socials: Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdamMockler/ Discord: https://discord.gg/y9yzMU3Gff Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adammockler/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/adammockler.bsky.social Twitter: https://x.com/adammocklerr/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/Adammockler Contact me at: [e-mail] Adam Mockler - amock LLC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

First of all, I've seen you everywhere. What's your name? My name is Brick Suit. Can you get him up here? Get him up here. Now we know who he's voting for. How do you feel about the tariffs thus far? Fundamentally what you look at is what is the purpose of the tariffs. The purpose of the tariffs isn't to raise prices.

The purpose of the tariffs isn't to punish the people who are importing products in the United States. The purpose of the tariffs is to provide a financial incentive for the reshoring of American jobs jobs and to bring production of certain categories of goods back into the United States. That's the end goal. The tariffs are a tool to achieve that. So yes, there's short-term economic turbulence, but there's a long-term benefit that's significant. And actually, I think if you didn't have the tariffs, in the long-term, you're going to be much worse off. So it's better for us to have this little bit of dislocation right now in pricing than where we would be 30 years from now if we didn't implement it.

In order to restore manufacturing, you need to leave a grace period for manufacturers to move here, to import supplies. Not only to Trump not leave a grace period, but he's created such an unpredictable economic environment in America where the capital investment needed for those plants just aren't there. Not every small business owner is going to have the ability to pop up a plant over the next three months. It'll take years, maybe a year with a lot of outside investment.

I feel like right now people don't want to invest in such an unpredictable environment where one day you have 135 percent tariffs. The next day you might not have 135 percent tariffs. Can you see where I'm coming from there? Yeah, I can understand that. But I think that when the dust settles, we're going to have that, we're going to have that incentive. And so, you know, at the other end of the spectrum, though, you could say that that unpredictability also prevents people from building a new factory in China. It also prevents people from investing in an overseas production thing.

So even if the unpredictability is introduced to put a temporary pause on people building those factories, when they make their next generation of factory, I think, is a greater chance to come back to the United States. And I think that we have to acknowledge that at some point the influence of robotics and AI and even just computer vision synthesized with robotics in a manufacturing line is going to make for plants that are much more efficient than, say, the human capital intensive plants that we see in China and Asia. And so when that next generation of plant is built, those are the plants that need to be here, not overseas.

I agree with your last point regarding the plants that need to be built here, but I also disagree that China is now a more or less reliable ally. I think countries will actually be moving towards China. Because think about this, in four years, a new admin could come in in America, completely changed tariff policy. In China, there will likely be a steady hand. And I heard a really interesting argument. The average tariff before Trump came into office was 5%

across the globe. Now America has a 10% blanket tariff. So if you're doing trade, you see two zones. The U.S. is like a big red no-no zone of 10%. The rest of the world is only 5%. You see where I'm going, right? So like the U.S. is now the most expensive trading zone in the world. But coupled with President Trump's policy of reducing corporate taxes to 15% for items made in the United States is a powerful parrot. So you have to look at it as a whole. It's not the tariffs as a standalone. It's the tariffs and the benefit of the lower taxes on goods produced in the United States. That makes sense. Just to wrap this up, my main problem is that Trump's own goal doesn't seem very... I've talked to a lot of people here, and everyone I talk to

has a different reading of Trump's goal. Some people say he's trying to reshore manufacturing. Some people say it's a negotiation tactic. Some people say he's just trying to remove the income tax entirely, which if we're trying to build things at home, that means we won't be importing much to tax, so I don't know how we remove the income tax. My worry is that when we're trying to head towards such a few goals at once. We may not land where we want to be, and we're kind of gambling the economy. Yeah, is there risk? Yes, but it's managed risk. And like I, and going back to something I said further, if we had just stayed on the economic path that we were on prior to President Trump being reelected, I think that would have been

disastrous. What was wrong with it? Biden's economy was fine. The deficit is wrong with it. What's wrong with the trade deficit? I mean national deficit? Not so much. What's wrong with the deficit is it was contributing a significant amount. I know the time the budget deficit. I get it. Not the trade deficit, the budget deficit each year contributing more and more to the national debt to the point where it would become unsustainable. So the national debt, I don't necessarily think that we can pay it off. I'm not one of those people that says no money for anybody until we pay off the national debt. I recognize the fact that the national debt is probably not going to be paid off. But I want to see it grow slower or perhaps not even grow at all. That would be even better.

and I think that you know the level of the national budget that is spent the federal budget each year that's currently spent on supporting the interest on the national debt is dangerously high and cannot increase for much longer before it becomes cripplingly high we're in a window of time where we can still act on it

and I believe that this needs to be done how would you rate the first 100 days of Trump's presidency what's your grade so far? Yeah, A plus minus. A plus minus. Now what's the plus four or what's the minus for? Well it's an A plus grade but we always like to leave room for improvement. So, you know, so A plus minus. I could have said, like, later he might be A plus plus,

but A plus minus because some things could be better, and so we got a little bit room for upside. So not many qualms. I'm assuming you're happy with the border. Border is fantastic. The number one thing I think people should look at is look at the job President Trump has done at the border, how rapid and significant the change has been there

versus the Biden administration. And he's been able to do that because he hasn't had any judicial opposition because it's totally within his control. So if you were to extrapolate the progress we've made on the border into all the other areas where they're trying to make progress, I believe we'd see rapid progress in those as well if it weren't for the issue of judicial injunctions. So you're asking for more executive power concentrated within the presidency?

I don't think I'm asking for any more executive power. There's less judicial checks. So that gives them more power, though? The power's already there. But the courts stop it. Well, that's what we need. the court stop it legitimately is the issue? Should one judge in a federal district, in a state, have the ability to assert the intent of the duly elected executive of the United States

implementing the national policy that he would like to go forward with and campaigned on? And importantly, I believe that people on the other side of the political spectrum should see this as an issue for themselves as well. Someday, there will be another liberal president in office. do they want a judge in Texas putting the ban on everything that that president wants to do? I think the beauty of the American political system is there within limits there's room for change

but if we allow one judge to stop that change, we'll never have change again. Well, this did happen. I think Biden tried to completely wipe out student debt and that got held up in the courts. So I mean, there are many examples of the president being checked by courts and it's positive. I would make the argument I know you're talking about the aliens and enemy act

but if you want to talk about Kilmar-Orego Garcia for a second, I'm going to respectfully push back to know. That's fine. Yeah, yeah. So with Kilmer... But one thing, though, on the issue of student debt, settled by the Supreme Court, not injunctions by local federal judges. Okay, so with the Supreme Court, if we want

to talk about Kilmore, they did make a 9-0 ruling to facilitate his return. Do you think the Trump admin should follow that? I think that the, that that 9-0 decision was more about the procedure that was implemented as opposed to a final judgment

on the, you know, it was more like referring it back as my recollection is that was referring it back to the lower court for additional scrutiny additional scrutiny when it came to the word effectuate but with facilitate they upheld that part and then they also said that your rights don't really dissipate at the border even if you're here illegally when you're deported by the u.s your rights don't dissipate my worry is people keep making the argument that an judge is trying to conflict with trump but the original withholding of removal order came from an immigration judge in 2019 and when trump broke that that was like an illegal deportation Listen, you can get criminals out of here.

Get criminals the fuck out of here. But do it through the proper process so we're not illegally deported people. Is that fair? Yeah, I'm not advocating for any illegal removals of people. Certainly not. Definitely, definitely went done by the book. And actually, what I think we should do

is we should look at the long-term costs of allowing illegal aliens to remain in the United States. And if we think that that's so onerous that we don't want it, let's make some financial incentive for them to self-deport. Let's make them an offer they can't refuse. Like, hey, you're going to be gone? Okay, you're self-deporting.

You agree not to reapply for admission in the United States for a moratorium period. Here's $5,000. Take it as your parting gift and you're gone. And in the long term, that's probably less expensive for us. What if we did that study and we found out that immigrants are actually a net benefit to the economy and they make us more productive and they help the unemployment stay at a study rate? Would you then be okay with people staying here or would you still want to deport? So we'll go into the word that you used there, which is immigrants, which I interpret

as being lawfully admitted immigrants to the United States, which of course I am. in favor of lawful immigration. I think the problem is people who have entered illegally don't have that. And illegal immigration to the United States is unchecked, is, is, is, not a net positive. There will be people who are positive, yes, but I believe it is a net negative overall, strongly. So you were praising the Trump admin's handling of the border and of immigration, but if you want people to come over here legally, which I do as well, shouldn't you provide proper processes and funnels for people to do that. From my understanding, Trump has made it way harder

to seek asylum in America. He's made it a lot harder to come through through the legal channels. So could you say that maybe Trump should try to reform the border while he's doing his immigration plan? Is that fair? I think that what's happened at the border

is the stemming of illegal migrants' crossing. So in terms of the legal immigration pathways, a totally separate issue. But asylum is a legal way of coming here, and he's stymied asylum seekers a lot. what he has changed is the ability of anybody to walk across the border, raise their arm, and say, I am seeking asylum. And Joe Biden saying, check, you said the magic asylum word.

Here is your plane ticket. Here's your bus ticket. Here are your benefits. Here's your free phone. Welcome to America. Here's a green card. You can now work. You are an asylee.

So what Biden did was take away any of the vetting for actual asylum seekers. So if you're going to say that President Trump made it harder, what he's probably done is just return it back to a much more accurate vetting process to see if somebody actually is legitimate asylum seeker versus someone who was coached by a non-governmental organization to ask for asylum because that will let them enter the United States. And that is fair. The easiest concession to make ever, as someone who obviously, I'm more center, Biden was very weak on the border.

I don't know what that dude was doing for the first few years. Thank you so much. That was a really solid conversation where we actually went into policy. No gotchas, nothing like that. I really enjoyed that, sir.