The Adam Mockler Show - Watch Trump’s LEGAL NIGHTMARE in EARLY AM

Episode Date: May 16, 2025

Adam Mockler with MeidasTouch Network joins a panel to dismantle Trump’s foreign bribery pipeline, MAGA’s collapsing narrative on trade, and the GOP’s deadly plan to gut Medicaid to fund billionaire handouts and military bloat. 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

Hello, everybody. Welcome to the Micahirf on show today. I'm with Adam Mockler, a guy that I've been a fan of Adam since Adam had like, what was a 10,000 followers on Twitter. Yeah. And a real OG. Ditto. I used to be fan of you as I was coming up as well. I mean, I always look up to your policy insights for sure. Thanks for having me on, brother. Yeah, I know. It's super great. So the first thing I want us to talk about is what's going on in the Middle East because this is the timely news of today. The White House is. account is posting Trump like with you know in the UAE what do you think about this kind of redirection that we see with Trump's policy in that area it's a very performative stunt where they had some sort of like Trump investment day just for him they're really really clearly trying to get on his good side with some sort of expectation of a transaction and it's almost humiliating for Trump that they'll gift him over and over this big ass jet or the palace in the

sky, I believe they call it, right? And Trump takes it, gleefully, is likely going to spend taxpayer dollars trying to refurbish it, not understanding the transactional nature of these countries. They view him as a sort of old-fashioned monarch-style president where they can get a transaction, could pro quo very, very openly. So regarding his policy in the Middle East, I mean, my grandpa is from Syria. He was born there. My dad was born in the U.S., but he grew rope in Syria. I'm Syrian. Obviously, most Syrians are pretty white passing, but I think that the Syrian president is obviously better than Assad, and he knows what game he's playing. I believe there was an article saying he floated the idea of a Trump tower, and then Trump immediately

lifted the sanctions. So his new Middle Eastern policy seems interesting, but what have your thoughts been so far? So I think, I think, first to give some context, there's this Qatar jet situation. There's also the fact that Pam Bondi used to be a lobbyist for Qatar under an enormous. enormous contract monthly. So this administration is just covered with Qatari influence. There was an article about a year ago about how 250 MAGA influencers were getting money from Qatar. It's up further their agenda. And so when I look at what's going on in Syria, he just lifted sanctions. I think that might be a reflection of the Syrian president's overtures saying we might build a Trump tower here. I also think it's the first signs of Qatar's influence, right? Their element of the quid pro

Oh, because what does Qatar want? What Qatar wants, they like Syria. Syria is no longer controlled by the Shiite kind of Iranian-aligned folks. Now it's controlled by the Sunni majority. And so they're fans of this new Syrian government. And I think you're seeing actually really interesting shift in Trump's policy. He used to be just dogmatically pro-Israel. Now he's becoming pro-Arabs.

And I think some people might think it's ideological. It's not ideological. It's just about who's offering him the most stuff at any point in time, who's in his year, right? Because most people don't know this, but Israel's been invading Syria, like they're occupying part of Syria right now. If there's any group in the Middle East that's pretty upset right now, it's Benjamin Net and Yahoo and the Israelis. Ironically enough, the thing that made Israel a longtime ally, the fact that they were an

underdog in a sea of countries that were hostile, the fact that made them an ally is now kind of flipping on them because Trump is like, wait a minute, there's a sea of people around you that could fund me. Holy shit, that's a lot of money I could be pulling. So yeah, I agree that it's very transactional. I do remember Qatar funding the MAGA influencers. I mean, I was going to make a joke. Like, you're telling me that foreign hostile actors, hostile foreign actors are funding MAGA influencers? No. Get out of here. Yeah, I know. I mean, it's an effective investment. It is. You want to divide the country. You own a spread. You know what? It's a multi-pronged situation. You spread anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, misogy, racism, all the isms. And you create a less

cohesive society. Meanwhile, Qatar is able to get ahead by, you know, like, I don't know, getting the U.S. President wrapped around their finger. Well, let's also be clear, you know, the economy of Qatar is the GDP is like $224 billion. Trump says they've pledged $1.2 trillion of investment in the U.S. economy. Now, he could be talking about, you know, their sovereign wealth fund, right, which is a pretty large sovereign wealth fund. A lot of it's already invested in the United States, right? Like, it's just very unrealistic that, you know, they can marshal an investment that's five times the total economic output of the country and put that in the United States,

given that, assuming that all that wasn't already invested, right? Maybe they already had $900 billion invested in the United States economy. They add a few hundred billion dollars more. That's realistic. There's just no way that headline figure that he's promising is true, which honestly,

it's expected at this point. But it's just another obvious lie told by this administration. Dude, all of the trade deals are lies. The craziest one, It's not even about the Middle East regarding tariffs is South Korea. Donald Trump basically voided a contract that Obama signed with South Korea that essentially had free trade. There were no effectively zero barriers.

It was free trade. And Trump nuked that, essentially tore the piece of paper apart and then taped it back together and acted like he was the one that signed a great deal. But the only thing is the Obama one was actually passed through Congress. So it was consistent among administrations. The new Trump one is at the whim of whoever the administration is right now. So Trump is ripping up prior deals, but only reinstating them for a short term and acting like it's this massive win. But dude, the headlines and the attention economy is so brilliant because there were a lot of headlines saying Trump cuts deal with South Korea. Trump claims to cut deal with South Korea because all these mainstream news organizations cover it with zero actual like, what I want to look for?

like context surrounding it. Maybe Trump falsely claims repurposed South Korea deal is a new, I don't know. It's hard to write a headline in this environment, and outstanding, like, completely partisan just because of how ridiculous things are. I mean, look at the UK trade deal, right? We had, we've always had trade barriers with the UK, but they were relatively low. He imposes these tariffs. Now he lowers them, and it's a trade deal,

but the tariffs are now higher on both sides than they were previously. That's your fantastic deal. I mean, the art of the deal with Trump appears to be imposing extraordinarily high tariffs, getting retaliatory tariffs from the other country, and then negotiating like 50, 60 percent of that increase away, but no actual improvement. Now, the justification I've seen from some MAGA folks is, well, now the tariff balance is more favorable, right? So we have higher tariffs on them than they have tariffs on us, and it wasn't that way before.

But I think these people don't realize maybe they're just being intellectually dishonest. The tariffs are paid by us, right? So like we have higher, we're paying higher taxes on their goods than they're paying taxes on our good. I don't see how that's a win for anyone. It's not that it's also the fact that just to build on what you're saying regarding tariffs and Trump's Trump is trying to rationalize it, they will fall over themselves to post-talk rationalize the tariff policy. I've debated a ton of Trump supporters about this, as I'm sure you have. And they'll say multiple things. They'll say, number one, he's trying to reshore manufacturing.

But then they'll say, first of all, if you want to reshore manufacturing, you've got to leave a grace period. You can't have such an unpredictable economy that there's no room for capital investment. But number two, they say that he's trying to negotiate a trade deal. But number three, they say he's trying to eliminate the income tax. But these things are contradictory. If he's trying to reshore manufacturing to the point where we're not really importing anything, then what are we going to be tariffing for the income tax? Yeah, we have no tariff revenue.

But if he's negotiating, then he's necessarily undercutting any. domestic production, but they'll just fall over themselves. And it's so funny to watch them week after week, try to, again, post-talk, justify, rationalize anything that happens, right? Well, and let's address the manufacturing point. You know, domestic manufacturing is higher today than it was 50 years ago, whenever it was apparently the heyday of manufacturing. What's lower is manufacturing employment. And that's what people mean. They don't mean reshoring actual like output. They mean reshoring jobs. They don't understand that actually the employment in manufacturing has been going down since like 1930 or something like that.

And it's been going down everywhere in the world, pretty much including China, right? Who's China outsourcing to? Well, a lot of it just has to do with the simple fact that we're becoming more efficient at producing TVs, right? We're becoming more efficient at producing things in general, using more robots, which means you need less human beings and more people go into the services sectors. If you actually graph like NAFTA and all these big trade deals on the time series, we can put up this graph in post-production,

you'll see that those trade deals have seemingly no impact on manufacturing employment. The second thing is even let's say we were outsourcing, and there's like this, you know, we're outsourcing manufacturing jobs to other countries. A big problem is for the manufacturing jobs we currently have, which we do have plenty, have plenty. If you impose tariffs on the imported materials we use to make things,

what does that do to our manufacturers? Right? Let's say you're producing airplanes in the United States. You're going to import a lot of things for those airplanes, right? We live in a complex global economy. And so if we impose tariffs on the imports that provide materials for that airplane reduction, now our planes, the planes we produce here are more expensive compared to the planes produced in the rest of the world. That's why Trump's tariffs last time around actually led to job losses. And they're projected this time around to lead to more manufacturing job losses. process. Yeah, one more thing just to build on what you're saying, because that was brilliant. And then we can get into a little bit of like prescriptive policy on tariffs. So we're not just, you know, analyzing what Trump is doing. We can give our own prescriptive, you know, policy ideas. But I read this really interesting article.

I can try to send it to you for post-production that Trump has essentially created two trade zones across the globe. Before he took office, the average global tariff across all country is like just, it was 5%, roughly 5%, a little bit below. Now, the average U.S. tariff, just from the U.S. is 10% on every country, right? It was like a blanket 10% tariff. So when you're another country looking to do trade. Except Russia, by the way.

Yeah, except for Russia and North Korea. We have to remember that. Except for Russia and North Korea. So when you're another country looking to do trade, you see two trade zones in the globe, the effective 5% tariff from before, and then a big red no-no zone that is the United States of America with a double tariff, a 10% tariff. And you know this, but even if Trump removed the tariffs, which he has in multiple forms and then still kept some, even if he removed all of them, it still takes 30 days or 45 days for some of these shipments to actually leave the port. There's a delay.

Supply chains are disrupted. And small businesses cannot thrive in an unpredictable environment like this. But Trump supporters don't care. I mean, I went to his 100-day celebration rally, and they would rather stay blindfolded. But as far as prescriptive policies, not to live out too hard, but when it comes to semiconductors in particular, didn't the Chips and Science Act kind of take care of a lot of this? There were actual incentives to reshore manufacturing in the form of,

I believe it was like, first of all, a $50 million investment. But then wasn't it hundreds of thousands of dollars or tens of thousands of dollars in tax cuts or tax write-offs? Right, right, right. It's a subsidy, basically. Yeah. If you want to produce chips in the semiconductors, right, the stuff that's in cars and phones and everything, we are going to make it a lot cheaper to

produce it here by subsidizing it effectively through this really like indirect complex tax mechanism. And this is, it's funny because a lot of the Trump supporters talk about this problem with the Chinese and over-reliance on trade as if Democrats haven't realized this. Like it's a novel thing. No, we've been talking about this for a long time, actually. And what a lot of people, the economists say, is, okay, if you want to, bring something on shore, you should subsidize its production so you don't put American

industries at a disadvantage. Because as I mentioned previously, if you put in place tariffs, you're raising the cost for American firms, which leads to them doing worse in international competition. But if you subsidize producing something here, you're not raising costs for American firms. Right. And so that's what we did with chips. And that's actually one of the main reasons why we've had a lot of semiconductor investment that Trump has parroted it as a huge accomplishment of his tariffs. There's questions about whether even that's effective, but that's a much more reasonable strategy than the one Trump's used. But bro, have you considered putting a 200% tariff on every single country with no explanation

or clear angle? Have you considered that? Yeah, I have not considered that. Now, regarding economic policy, this might be a good opportunity to talk about the republican budget plan which came out recently or they're working on it do you have any thoughts regarding some of the news we've seen on that um yeah so i talked to a few congressmen today i'll can claus and then um a few other people i chatted with and i think that so they just got to have a 26 hour marathon sprint regarding the house energy and commerce committee. And Republicans, they're slippery. They promised that they wouldn't cut Medicaid, but then they targeted the one committee and they necessarily have to now. And Democrats are

trying to push back. I guess my thoughts are that the fact that they are trying to make tax cuts for the richest people in America while Trump is about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of refurbishing this plane, not to be, not to speak in platitudes, but the fact that the Trump admin is wasting this much money while then trying to cut Medicaid is, really, really bothersome. And we got a message around that. It's crazy to me because, I mean, you look at the welfare system. It's very dysfunctional. Nobody denies that. We have over 80 federal welfare programs. There's a lot of ways in which you could try to reform the efficiency of this system. I mean, if you know a poor person, they probably struggle to get benefits, even if they're a very

deserving person. But instead of trying to go after actual inefficiency or make things easier for poor people, or go after corporate welfare or special tax breaks, all these different types of abuses. They go after health care for poor people, specifically poor mothers and disabled people. What kind of priorities do you have to have to target that of all welfare programs, right? That Medicaid is one of the most justified. Medicaid's the reason why plenty of people get lifesaving care. And the cuts that they're asking for are catastrophic. So much so that a Center for American progress estimated today that if these cuts went through over 20,000 people extra a year would die, right? That's the price in blood for these Republican tax breaks. What are the tax breaks

in particular that they're proposing? Well, first of all, my grandma actually said that she's okay with her social security going towards Trump's military march. She said she wants it to go. No, no, she didn't say that. The tax cuts that they're proposing in particular, I don't know the exact code yet, but I'm pretty sure it's just tax cuts for the richest of the rich, correct? Right. So, like, one of them is they lowered the top tax break for rich people from 39.6% to 37%, which is very expensive for the country. And then we'll keep it that way. Because the weird thing about how our country works is like everything expires. So their tax breaks that they set up, actually a lot of them are going to expire this year. I'm sitting.

them up for like a meltdown. So all these tax breaks they made for rich people, they're basically trying to extend and expand to a certain degree. I think they want to expand corporate tax breaks as well and capital gains tax breaks. I've heard Trump's talked about this multiple times. I think it wants to lower the capital, no, the corporate tax rate again, because that's what Americans have been yearning for, Adam. We're out in the streets demanding lower taxes for corporations. And tariffs on all of our allies. Yes. Higher tariffs on consumers, lower taxes for corporations. So there's other cuts, I think, as well, and there's other changes to the budget.

One of them, I think, you sort of hinted at, which is increasing the military budget. What do we think about that idea? Increasing the military budget isn't inherently bad as long as you're doing it in the right ways. I mean, increasing the military budget can be good, but when you're doing it at a time when you're enacting the most isolationist policy seen in 100 years, allowing Vladimir, you're Putin to go on a rampage in Europe, I mean, taking clear bribes from the Middle East, while again, pushing away a lot of our NATO allies and floating the idea of like not even

acting on Article 5 if it came to that. I think that increasing the military budget is scary and counterproductive because that means he's moving towards this isolationist policy where he thinks America first means America only when, I mean, you know, you can increase the military budget, hold other NATO countries accountable to meet their two to three percent, A lot of them were meeting their 2% and build this coalition, this alliance, the same alliance has allowed all of this peace and prosperity. But it all seems a little bit counterintuitive. You're going to push our allies away who make us stronger.

You're going to bully our next door neighbor. So when Trump is increasing the military budget and then floating the idea of annexing multiple countries, it's not as fun as when Joe Biden is increasing the military budget because he wants to protect Ukraine, right? Right, right. you know how good of a policy this is depends on what the military is going to be used for that's a good way to put it if it's going to be used for defending Taiwan and Ukraine from authoritarian invasions right that's one thing and that's pretty justifiable right you know what is an extra 100 billion

dollars to save entire countries from destruction right destruction that also harms our economy indirectly but if it's going to be used to help shore up our attack forces on panama unless interested in the idea. If it's going to be used against the U.S. population, right? Because this administration wants to go against, overturn habeas corpus, the right of us to not be in prison arbitrarily, I'm very much less interested in the idea. And especially in a context where we're told every single day by Elon Musk that the national debt is a crisis. Is it a crisis? Or is it not, right? Because this budget proposal doesn't decrease the deficit a little bit. It doesn't increase it a bit. It increases the debt ceiling by $4 trillion more than any budget plan in the history of

the United States. It's like they're talking out both sides of their mouth. And so that's the last part of this budget bill I want us to talk about. How serious do you think our national debt situation is? And how bad do you think it is that this budget plan is going to dramatically increase it if it goes through? I think it is a pretty serious problem. I mean, a lot of times Republicans can have a misunderstanding. I sometimes Trump, confuses like our deficit and our debt. I don't even think he knows what he's talking about, but I mean, it's probably not solid that it's growing at this rate. The thing is, Republicans are to blame for a lot of it, yet they try to place the onus on Democrats. And honestly, it's a failing

of, it's a, it's a messaging failure on Democrats that we can't have American people understand this. They think that Democrats are uniquely weak on the economy when time and time again, Republicans spend more, cut taxes for the rich, get us closer and closer to a recession. I mean, all of these things you know, of course. So, I mean, the broad answer is it's probably not too good. Yeah, no, I think it's terrible. And most Americans would be surprised if you told them the last time we had a budget surplus, which means not only are we not having a deficit, but we're paying off the debt, was under Bill Clinton. And that budget surplus went away because of George Bush's huge tax cuts for the rich.

It's actually estimated that if those tax cuts had never occurred, we would have fully paid off the debt by now, no debt at all. And so I think it's a big problem. Right now, we're borrowing $2 trillion a year, which is about 32% of every dollar we spend. I mean, imagine if you borrowed that much and you did it year after year after year, soon you're going to have to be paying a lot in interest, and we are.

Next year we're going to be paying $1 trillion a year, just in interest, for comparison, Social Security is like $1.4 trillion. By the end of this decade, we're going to be spending more just on paying interest on the debt than on any other thing in the budget. So it's a huge problem. And that's why I get so pissed off that some people would cast their ballot for Republicans because of it. They don't recognize that under every single Republican president since 2000, not only has the debt gone up, but the deficits gone up. And under every single Democrat the deficit has come down maybe not enough but a lot and so like that's the difference and it's an important issue i just wish people recognize that it's clearly one that favors the

democrats to put it in gen z lingo all of that we're cooked we're incredibly chat chat we're cooked a little bit you want to talk about habeas corpus for a bit and let's do marando brego garcia i had to do a lot of research for him for one of the jubilee debates i went into because it was at the time when all the Supreme Court rulings were coming out. You're studying law, right? Yeah, I'm heading. I'm heading in. Or in the fall.

Yeah. Did you read the four-page Supreme Court ruling? I did not. Oh, it's incredibly interesting. A lot of these, dude, these Supreme Court rulings are really interesting. The way that they type, it's just so, like, assertive and authoritative and, like, solid. They know what they're talking about. It's almost like their Supreme Court justices.

But in it, they make a few key arguments. They say that obviously they have to facilitate the return of a Brego Garcia. They asked the lower court to clarify what effectuate means. But the important thing is, they say that your rights don't just disappear at the border, especially when the U.S. has jurisdiction over you because they're the one deporting you, and they're the one paying the prison to keep you. So the U.S. still had jurisdiction over Armando, Abrigo, Armando Garcia. And they said that essentially the Trump badman is playing this odd game of heads-eye win, tales you lose, with habeas petitions, where they don't give you the chance to file a habeas petition.

or get the right to due process before they deport you. It's kind of in the middle of the night. And then after they deport you, they're like, well, tails you lose. We don't have the jurisdiction to bring you back. There's nothing you can do either way. It's heads I win, tails you lose. And it's pretty terrifying. And what I always say is that when you create a new class of people with no due process,

you can then endlessly justify putting anybody into that new class or into that new bucket. This is always how it works. We've been lectured by right wingers for decades and decades before even we were alive about the threat of tyranny. This is why we need firearms, right? We're going to resist authoritarian government. And yet, they're not resisting. They're actually supporting what's going on.

You know, looking at the case of Kilmer-Abrego-Garcia, it's crazy what is doing in this country right now. I don't think people recognize how bad, like how unethical they are compared to other elements of our public safety forces. ICE officers can lie to you. They can literally just lie to you to get what they want. Let me give you an example, an anecdote, actually, I believe it's out of Houston, of a person who needed medication and they were with ICE agents. And these ICE agents said, just sign this document and you will get your medication. It's the waiver for your medication.

They got the medication, right? They signed the document, and it was their deportation order. So they got themselves deported. They will do whatever they can to seal you up in the middle of the night so nobody knows that you've been taken, right? And so they don't even, they don't drive in marked cars and they don't wear uniforms. I mean, it's like completely insane what they do. Often, whenever they have a warrant, they don't have a judicial warrant. They just have their like more preliminary warrant, but there's no lingo difference. And so they'll say, we have a warrant, you have to come out,

even if you actually don't have to come out because it's not a warrant signed by a judge, right? That's like the ridiculous level of an ethicality. And people are willing, to write off the rights of undocumented immigrants and say, okay, well, you know, that's, that's their problem. This is the kind of police situation that exists in authoritarian countries for normal people. And once this infrastructure is established for undocumented immigrants, that same process can soon be used against us. And, dude, J.D. Vance was making this terrible argument that I then saw a bunch of MAGA supporters repeating over and over verbatim. And he's like, what do you expect 15 million trials for 15 million illegal immigrants?

That's not going to happen, you dumb libs. That's not what I. And it's like, okay, he's making the argument for suspending due process, essentially. And he's straw manning us by saying that we want 15 million trials when due process can be as simple as a notice in the mail. Due process is as simple as the ability to just defend yourself once or a notice that this is coming. We don't need 15 million court trials. And then when I went into this Jubilee debate, I remember. I heard this exact same argument, and I was like, dude, you're just parroting J.D. Vance's

slimy, slippery argument. Yeah, like, he keeps using crazy large numbers of undocumented entries under Biden to kind of justify this authoritarian process, but 15 million people didn't enter under Biden, 21 million people didn't, 30 million people didn't. That's all the numbers they've used. It's more like maybe a few million. It's a lot, right? People can complain about it.

They certainly do. But it's not that insane of an amount. That's kind of the amount of total undocumented people in the country. It's also important to recognize that, like, we have an asylum process. A lot of these people came with genuine asylum claims, and it exists for a good reason, right? The asylum process was invented after we refused to let in Jews during the Holocaust. You know, Jewish people on boats were coming from Nazi Germany to hear Jewish people, and we were turning them away because we said, well, you have to fill up. your visa applications and your refugee applications back back there right and you couldn't go there

obviously because it was dangerous for Jewish people that's why we said well we should allow people to be able to claim asylum at the border right and people have done that a lot of people that are here shouldn't be kicked out right because they're not here for bad reasons and dude this kind goes back to Trump supporters falling over themselves trying to post talk rationalize everything he does because I can't tell you how many MAGA voters have told me we only want to deport criminals. We only want to deport the worst of the worst. If you're staying here to have a better family, that's fine. But then anybody who's brown to them is a criminal. And when Trump begins to strip away people's student visas and do other, you know, fashy things, they endlessly justify

that. When Trump begins to deport mothers and two-year-olds, they justify that. So, I mean, it's like to go back to your asylum talk, they say that you should come here the right way through the proper channels, but isn't asylum technically a proper channel? Why the hell would they then try to remove the ability to seek asylum legally and then say that they want to deport everybody who's even not a criminal? I don't know. It's like, okay, you know, let's say you don't like the asylum system and you think we should be far more restrictive. So you don't like the process. But here's the truth. Most people came through the process. They came to the border. They said, I'm an asylum seeker. It's not like they just like juked border security, right? Border security was

there and they said, oh, hey, like, there's a person here. Okay, I'm going to let you in, right? They turn some in the back. They let some of the men, right? They're like, oh, you don't really seem like a gang member, you know, you're poor or whatever, you're allowed in the country. If you don't like that that happened, that's not the immigrants fault, right? They're like, oh, yeah, we don't need to have due process or anything for all these people all there. They're bombs, they're criminals, right? That's not even, that's not only not a criminal offense, right? Because they're civil offenses. That's not an offense. There's nothing illegal that happened there, right so if you want to change the process change the process don't punish all the people that fall the old one that you didn't like right but they don't know that like you talk to republican voters and talk to my grandparents right they have no idea that like these people are not all criminals that genuinely like just dodged border security like helicopters and like jumped over the vans and whatever the hell like and i feel like this is how our immigration discourse has gotten so divorced from the facts right like this word illegal immigrants is one of

them right they use it all the time it is not illegal to be undocumented at least not now um and like i don't know i'm going crazy but like i i hate where our immigration discourse has gone in this country no you're totally right i mean you're like over like it's it's it's not that complex when it comes to how republicans think about it um we're both making it too complex they don't want to reform the system they just think brown people are scary and bad well that's why they love south african asylum seekers right like the new refugee policy of the united states is if you're pro-America we don't care you're from Afghanistan you help us fight al-Qaeda the Taliban whatever don't care where you're getting deported if you're white specifically from

South Africa the post you know that the pre the the former champion of apartheid in the world yes what your flights they matter and we want you in America I've never seen I don't think there's any country in the world that has such a clearly racist uh immigration policy but perhaps I'm mistaken yeah I mean yeah i mean we'll see where we are in a few years thank you for watching this stream make sure to follow me if you don't follow adam already that's that's completely crazy uh but follow me on youtube i'm going to be doing these streams like two three times a week