The Duran Podcast - High Stakes, US Elections 2024 w/ Robert Barnes (Live)

Episode Date: November 1, 2024

High Stakes, US Elections 2024 w/ Robert Barnes (Live)

Okay, we are live with Alexander Mercutis and we have with us the great Mr. Robert Barnes. Robert, how are you doing today? Good, good. Right on the eve of the elections, the election, we have legalized election betting markets in the United States that are easily accessible for the first time in quite a while. So that's interesting, seeing how that shapes and influences the narrative and the rest. But we're right in the home stretch, just a few days away from what many consider a very consequential election, not only for Americans, but for the world. For the world. And I see that you have a link there underneath your image, sportpicks.comals.

Where can people find you and tell us about sportspics dot locals as well? So, yeah, that's where we're putting up all the election picks, depending on which betting market you have access to around the world. you have in the United States, you have Cal She and interactive brokers and predict it, despite the Biden administration's attempt to prohibit it, which is its own topic. Then around the world, you have polymarket funded by Bitcoin and crypto. Another place where crypto has opened up financial freedom is in the political betting space. You've got some famous people making bets on the election in that context. You have Betfair based out of the UK.

UK used to have a monopoly effectively, kind of like the city of London on finance. The city of London was the place to go if you had to place bets on an election. Like I did back in 2016, walking around, placing little bets in small shops. My overcoat little three grand here, four grand here, two grand there. That was a lot of fun. And on bet online or bet US, some of the global books where you can bet on everything all the way down to the margin of victory. You think is going to happen in every single state, jurisdiction, Senate, White House, you name it. So there is a moneymaking opportunity present for some.

And I post all of my recommended picks at sportspicks. Dot locals.com. Got hundreds of recommended picks depending on which market people have access to. And that's where I'm going to be active on election night. We'll have an open live chat. And like in 2020, it was very profitable because as we got closer to midnight, told everybody it was time to sell out of the market because some fun things might be happening between then and 6 a.m.

Or funny things, depending on your verbiage. And so a lot of people were able to make money on the 2020 election, despite Trump not ultimately prevailing the and the rest. So, yeah, so sportspicks.com. If you want to track the election, want to be active in the live chat, want to see what the picks are for the election, just curious. Or if you want to try to make a little money at it, there's people trading in the stock markets.

There's a Trump basket of stocks. There's a Harris basket of stocks. There's all kinds of people who have a lot of money at stake on this election directly or indirectly around Washington, D.C., and a lot of people in Kiev. I guess I'm supposed to call it key, whatever the new phraseology is. They got a lot of money on this election outcome in their own way. So there's some people that might be looking to extradition-free countries, depending on what happens in the election. So there's literally trillions of dollars that are normally going to change hands effectively by who wins an election night inside and outside of the betty. markets. But, you know, the prospects for peace in the Middle East, prospects for peace in Europe,

prospects for peace around the world, prospects for some degree of independent financial system, separated and segregated from our current central bankers and central planners, all of that at stake. And what may be one of the most consequential presidential elections, not only for America, but for the world in the near short term and the long term. A lot at stake. Absolutely. So let's get into it, guys. by the way, Robert, you're looking good in that Iran merch. Yeah, exactly.

I got the shirt, I got the hat. I really love the mug. Mugs are great, too, by the way. Got a little tea going, got a little British tea going. The, you know, down with a little bit of a cold or whatnot. But, and then we were asking what the book is. The book is from Robert Kennedy, Sr., in 1968, his campaign text, to seek a newer world.

When I was 12 years old, my father had passed away a few months before. there were two books that I really sort of cling to that I read all the time as a sort of mentors of a kind. One of them was, I told Bobby Kennedy the story. One of them was Donald Trump started the deal, which had all these little things that I remembered forever. A plan for the worst possible scenario, but expect the best possible scenario. It was a classic Trump mindset approach. And the other one was Robert Kennedy Seniors, great campaign tech, very hopeful,

optimistic, idealistic campaign text of 1968. And it's fascinating, you know, here we are, flash forward, you know, 60 plus years or so later, or about 55 years plus later, more than half a century. And the key, the biggest political development in the modern era has been the unity ticket of Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. for the White House. It's brought in people like Tulsi Gabbard, has brought in a lot of people from outside the political spectrum from outside the Republican Party establishment. And they're talking about dramatic and radical things if they get elected as it relates to public

health policies, it relates to foreign policies, it relates to trade policy. It relates to a lot of things that could be the biggest political revolution in modern American political history. Alexander, let's just get started. A quick hello to everyone that's watching us on all the platforms. I will have all of Robert's links where you can follow him in the description box down below and a big thank you to all our moderators. Thank you to everybody. Alexander Robert, let's start talking about the elections. Let's do so. And indeed, it's an enormously

consequential election. And as Robert was just speaking, it just occurred to me that the very earliest election I have a clear memory of is the American election of 1968, which was also seen as very, very consequential by lots of people. And I can also remember Bobby Kennedy's candidature at that time. The amount of people, I was in Greece, obviously, and everybody was talking about it. Then, and we all remember what happened and the shock and sadness that people felt at that time. So American elections, they are massively consequential, and I agree this one is going to be especially so for the world and also for the United States.

So, Robert, where are we? I mean, you know, there's lots of claims at the moment. The media here are telling us that the early voting figures are going for Harris, that she's leading, you know, by huge margin in the early voting. You find if you look, read the articles carefully and you squirrel down through, you'll find little comments tucked away that actually this is fairly common in the early, early voting that in fact, Democrats do, tend to be ahead and that in fact is principally women who vote early and they tend to

link to the Democrats. But that's not a qualifier that you will see in the titles. But anyway, what is your overall mood? I mean, everybody here is very unsure, very nervous. I don't think it's any secret that here in Britain, they are very, very keen for Harris to win. Establishment is. they don't want Trump back at all. Some parts of the media here are also very critical of Robert Kennedy, just to say. I mean, you know, he's coming for some attack here. And that was before he started to team up with Trump. So the British are very, very nervous about this election.

The establishment, at any rate, is. And, you know, they're very worried that you can sort of almost see the sort of knuckle turning white as they sort of grip their desks or laptops or whatever, talking about it. But they don't really know where it's going. They want Harris to win. They fear that Trump will. What is your sense at this time? I mean, who do you think is better positioned at this time? I think, I mean, if we look at the betting markets, Trump is now, for the first time ever in his political candidacy, history, even including the Republican primaries of 2016, even going back to early 2023 during the sort of peak lawfare against him, he's the favorite.

In the polymarket, which is mostly traded by crypto, he's as much as a two to one favorite to win the election on Calci, which is a U.S.-based betting market that won in a lawsuit against the Biden administration to open up those markets. he's at a like 55 to 60 percent favored the unpreicted which is a university sponsored site he's around 50 percent floating sometimes into the favorite territory all that same in the British betting markets and the offshore betting markets offshore from the U.S., the global betting markets. Trump is a favorite of anywhere from 60 to 70 percent depending on where he's at and most most of that has been dictated as soon as Kalsi came online here in the United States, it started driving

the betting markets because people in the betting offshore betting world didn't want to get arbitrage between the two. And it's the reason the Biden administration didn't want the betting markets to be available to U.S. citizens. It was similar to Brexit. That, you know, Brexit, the ordinary punters, they're called there in the UK, the working class gambler was putting a lot of money on Brexit passing. And that was an interesting. indicator that the polls and what the media was saying about Brexit wasn't true. On election night, you could actually get Brexit to pass at 10 to 1. So because of that, the Biden administration didn't want an alternative narrative.

They wanted the narrative from the institutional press and from the American media and university sponsored polls that would have always been anti-Trump. They understated Trump in 2016, understated Trump again in 2020. and I suspect they're understating Trump again in 2024. However, the polling hasn't been as lopsided as it has been before. For the first time ever in media polls, university polls, Trump, and a fair number of them has a lead even in the national popular vote. And given to the way the electoral college works,

basically there's a majority of the electoral college is more Trumpy than the country as a whole. So in other words, if Trump were to lose the, he lost by four and a half points, the popular vote in 2020, but only lost by less than a point in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona, often by tenths of a point. So that gives you an idea that Harris, in order to really win, she needed to win probably by five or more because she underperforms in the swing states, both the Sunbelt, Georgia, North Carolina, and the further western parts of the Sun. belt, Arizona and Nevada, and as well as in the Rust Belt. The interesting thing is the coup against Biden, the Democrats staged in the summer to replace them with Harris, which has never happened in American political history before, putting somebody in there that's never been, never had to win a vote of a single primary in the modern era for the last century plus since primaries have taken over. It is, it worked temporarily. The media was able to create a lot of hype around her and get a boost

and get what's called a response bias in the polls. And it worked up until the debate, and it worked for about a week after the debate, and then it all started to fade, as could be kind of expected. From a fundamentals perspective, it was very hard to see how Harris was going to beat Trump because historically in American elections,

like most elections around the world, people vote their sense of security and their pocketbook. They only vote other issues if neither security nor their, their pocketbook matter. And those are relatively new, the environment is relatively neutral. But when people think the economy stinks or when they don't feel safe because of either domestic chaos or crime or foreign war or war on their borders, then they tend to reject

the incumbent party throughout history in almost all elections. That's been especially true in the United States. Most comparable analogies with when the economy was, when the economy was, thought of as bad by voters, regardless of the objective data that's being falsified and fabricated on a daily basis by the Biden administration in egregious ways, it was just gaslighting people. But when people think the economy was bad and people want sentiment, they can look at University of Michigan, they can you look at Gallup that have done these surveys going back for decades. The only times you would find comparable bad economy sentiments as bad as people

think right now would be 1932 19 uh and 1992 and 2008 all three elections the incumbent party lost in a blowout in the electoral vote uh when they have felt the country's not secure or safe because of unhappiness or dissatisfaction with foreign wars or domestic chaos like 1952 like 1968 uh the in both of those cases uh the incumbent party lost here you have a combination of those events. Like if you dig into the data, the number of people who think they can't buy a house, can't afford to buy a house, can't afford to buy a car, can't afford to buy like a basic utility, like a dishwasher or, you know, even a TV, things for their major furnishings for their house, is the highest rate it has been in the University of Michigan's consumer sentiment data

outside of 2008. So, and if you dig into the who feels that, it's a younger working class. Like in 2020, what the Democrats really benefited from was a younger population, millennials and zoomers, who were they were given stimmy checks. They were allowed to work from home. They're allowed not to work at all. They, they're, you know, nobody could foreclose on them or evict on them because there was delays on that issued by the federal government. They didn't have to pay back their student loans. So in that environment with mass mail in voting, the implied promise of the Democratic Party is that that kind of life would continue. You could invest in, you can use your Robin Hood app and invest in the stock market and so on and so forth.

And that as soon as Biden came in, all the chaos would end. The chaos associated with Trump, the chaos associated with the pandemic. All that would be solved if you just elect Joe Biden. And they turned out at very high rates. And within two years, the promise for the Democratic Party to them had not been made. And that all of a sudden they'd start paying back to student loans. All of a sudden, they have to start paying back the rent. All of a sudden, their credits are serious risk.

All of a sudden, they can't work home anymore. All of a sudden, the stimmy checks are gone. And everything costs a lot more. Right now in America, housing is more unaffordable and inaccessible than it has ever been in American history. In the last century plus of them keeping this data. Rent's too damn high as the old saying goes. Buying a house is not possible. Buying a car, a new car, not really.

possible. Buying a new major utility, not really possible. People disproportionately living at home at the highest rate in the modern era. So about a year and a half ago, you saw these millennials and zoomers, especially Hispanics and African Americans and working class minorities, millennials and zoomers, say they wanted a divorce from the Democratic Party. And the group, the precandidate who is tapping them the best, they don't listen to institutional media. They're not tuned in to CNN or MSNBC or any of the three major networks. They don't read the New York Times. They don't read the Washington Post.

They don't really care about any of that. They're on TikTok. They're on social media. They're on alternative podcast channels. That's who they love. And Donald Trump's own youngest son, Barron, is a huge fan of those same mediums of communication. Robert Kennedy tapped them first in their frustration. And that was the fuel for his political surge and his potential rise in the polls.

And then he turned around and gave that, by uniting with Trump to Trump. And you look at those voter groups, that's why the polls have moved. The polls have not magically got better at polling older working class whites. Kind of like if you're a UK person, imagine if the polls constantly underestimated

the folks in the Midlands. That's what America's polling has been now for a decade plus. It can't get older working class voters, especially in the industrial Midwest. And it still can't get an accurate sample of them. And so consequently, the polls will always inflate the Democratic margin here more often than not, especially if Trump's on the ballot.

And the, so what's happened is that younger working class is shifted drastically away from the Democratic Party. Ultimately, after the Trump-Kennedy ticket embraced Trump, they haven't embraced Republicans all the way up and down the ballot, though. They're still skeptical of the Republican brand. So what they do for the Senate, what they do for the House, still in doubt. in all these key very close, very tight Senate races, a bunch of very close, very tight House races. Democrats believe they will hold the House. Democrat or take back the House.

Democrats believe they'll not suffer bad losses in the Senate. And Democrats believe Harris will pull it out in the end on the grounds that people just won't tolerate Donald Trump back in the White House after January 6th. That's the Democratic internal narrative. the early voting data they're deliberately sort of diluting themselves with because the mass bail in vote that happened in 2020 is not happening here in 2024. It's down over half. And almost all of that decline is coming from Democrats.

And it's coming to what's called low propensity voters here, people who only voted in 2020. Didn't vote in 2022, didn't vote 2018, didn't vote in 2016. They turned out in 2020. and that voter group on the Democratic side that are registered Democrat or modeled Democrat according to the data, that voter group is disproportionately not participating. And it's across the country. It doesn't matter whether you're looking at Maine early voting data, New Jersey early voting data, New York early voting data, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, really bad out in the South, the Sunbelt. In Arizona, Republicans are going to have the biggest lead on election they've ever had in their history in the sense that there'll be

there'll be a 300,000 likely vote edge, 300,000 more Republicans than Democrats that will have voted in the Arizona elections. Here in Nevada, all Democrats have dominated early voting for forever, and instead Republicans are winning it for the first time and forever. It looks like Republicans will have a 20, 30, 40,000 vote edge on election day, and Democrats have always underperformed in the Trump era their vote margin. So they have 50,000 vote margin. They win by 25,000. They have a 40,000 vote margin. They win by 25. It's that kind of number.

And so that's why they're in trouble in Arizona, trouble Nevada. The other thing is black voters. The other thing that's happening is younger black men, younger Hispanic women, younger non-college white women. These are working class low propensity democratic leaning groups that are not religious, not married. So culturally, socially, aligned with the Democratic Party.

They're just not voting at record rates. We're going to have one of the lowest levels of black voter. participation compared to white voter participation than since before the Obama era. And the similar with certain democratically leaning Hispanic constituencies. While Republican leaning in Florida, Trump is likely good to win Puerto Ricans outright. This is a group he lost by 35 points in 2016. Miami-Dade County is likely to vote for Trump due to the combination of Cubans, Venezuela, Venezuelans, Colombians, and Puerto Ricans trending towards Trump. And then the Democrats have been,

Harris is literally running below Trump with pretty much every single demographic in the country. And the only question is can she avoid losing so many of them that she could sneak out an election victory? The issue is that she underperforms amongst older blue-collar whites in the industrial Midwest, and particularly with non-Hispanic white Catholics,

who Biden, for all the criticism people might have of him, he was Scranton Joe. You know, he was a recognized, figure amongst baby boomer democratic voters in the industrial Midwest. Kamala Harris is the Indian from Canada. She's not relatable at the same level at any rate. We've never really had any quite any people could say Barack Obama, but he was a very charismatic candidate who learned his politics in Chicago.

So he knew how to communicate in the Midwest. Harris did not. Harris is from California in terms of her politics, barely won an attorney general's race in 2010. She's never been that good of a candidate. People are seeing that. She can't sit down with long interviews, can't do Joe Rogan, can't do any of these formats or structures. And so she was the dumbest lawyer I ever dealt with in court in terms of her office. So it's just not, if people are seeing the reasons why some of us thought there was no way they would replace Biden with her because she would perform worse than Biden.

Biden would have performed better than her because he could hold and attach to some of these older groups, despite his mental status, that she had. has great trouble reaching into. And then you add in the Israeli conflict, which is creating problems for the Democratic Party. The ability to try to walk that line between Israel and Palestine is not a viable line in the U.S. The closest you could get is someone like Trump, who promises peace.

And there he can win both voter groups by promising peace. And because he delivered it for four years, it's believable. The Harris campaign has tried to be Uber pro-Israel, and then pro-Palestan at the same time. And all that happened is they're bleeding votes out of both sides. They're going to have the lowest rate of Jewish support in the modern era, the Democratic Party. They're going to be down margin 15, 20 points. They're going to, and that matters in places like Michigan.

And they're bleeding Muslim and Arab votes. They're going to be down 20, 30, 40 points. There's polls showing Arab Americans and Muslims voting for Trump. I don't think it'll be that high. But you're talking about a group that in the U.S. has historically voted Democrat by a 40 to 50 point margins. major Arab Muslim leaders have endorsed Trump out of Dearborn, Michigan and other places. And to the degree that they don't vote Trump, a lot are not going to vote or they're going to vote Jill Stein, where she's available on the ticket. So you aggregate that.

It's very hard for me to see how Harris pulls it off on election night. But the media folks and the rest are going to be pushing every narrative they can about women voters, about early voters, about their media polls, saying that she's going to pull it out because they, need that psychology of that momentum moving forward. But I think even they down deep, don't really believe it. And you can see it in how negative the Harris campaign has been over the last week and how much more positive over the Trump campaign has been. Trump's going to places that are difficult to win Virginia and New Mexico. She's struggling to defend Virginia. She pulled money out of North Carolina and shifted to Virginia. That's not the sign of a strong Democratic campaign.

I'm just going to make a few quick observations. I mean, I've been following this election, obviously, from the distance. I don't have the granular understanding of how America votes. But the points that you said about working class voters being very conscious about living standards, it's absolutely true. It's absolutely correct to anybody who's been involved in elections, and I've been involved in elections in Britain, and I've been involved in elections in Greece, and I can say that it's exactly the same there.

It's exactly the same everywhere. And it's not surprising, and it is right that it should be so, because after all, elections are supposed to be about, you know, what concerns people and what should concern people more than anything else, obviously, is their condition of life and of their families, too. People are always far too haughty and arrogant about these concerns. but if you actually spend any time with these voting groups, you can understand that completely.

But if you are faced with this problem, if people are feeling under economic pressure, then the way to win the back, or at least the way to make some, to get them to listen, is to come and explain how you personally, as the candidate, are going to make them their condition better.

And at the very least, you've got to show that you understand, that they are not doing very well, that they are under this sort of pressure. And this is what I have not understood at all about the Kamala Harris Democrat Party campaign. I mean, we've had endless talk about this incredibly strong economy, which people who can't afford a washing machine or, you know, buy a car or have no hope of buying a house. And, you know, I know all about that kind of thing. They must be very, very insulted, won't they hear that?

They must say to themselves, these people are just absolutely not interested in me. And they talk about a strong economy. They mean a strong economy for themselves. They are not interested in me. They don't care about me. So that's already going to annoy and anger people. And instead of a program, we've had memes.

We've had, you know, the joy meme. I mean, you know, everybody's got to be absolutely happy and full of joy because Kamala Harris is the candidate. Again, I mean, that's not the way that you reach out to the kind of voters, both, by the way, the younger voters and the older working class voters that you describe. I mean, it's difficult to convey, by the way, to people who don't know, how tough-minded these sort of voting groups actually are, especially in a country like Britain, or indeed, I'm sure, the United States,

where people are very, very experienced in elections. The electorate is a very experienced, tough-minded electorate. It's seen, it's heard all kinds of things of politicians. They're probably pretty cynical about politicians anyway. You tell them both for me because I'm the candidate to joy. It's very weird. And then, of course, the weird, that the other side are weird. What does that even mean?

And, you know, they spent weeks on all of this. And then, of course, it all became exhausted. And it turned out that they didn't have anything meaningful and important to say. And so what they started to do was to say rude and absolutely horrible things about the people on the other side. except that that does two things, which if you again have any experience in elections, you know what a mistake it is. Firstly, it's not believable.

I mean, Donald Trump has been around in American life, not just American politics, but in American life for decades. People know him very, very well in America, I'm sure. And I mean, they've already made up their mind about him. And they just won't relate these kind of claims that have been made about him to, you know, the person they know.

That is one thing. But the second, which, certainly my aunt, who was involved in many elections, which has said is an absolutely disastrous mistake, is that what you're doing is you're drawing attention away from yourself and what you're saying, and you're transferring it to the other person. So instead of people talking about you, Kamala Harris, they're talking all the time about Donald Trump. And that isn't a good idea in itself. You need to be out there. You need to be talking to people, conveying to them, what your plan is.

You need to project a real, you know, program which people will close around and feel optimistic about and say this person not only cares about me, but actually delivers. So this has been the strangest democratic campaign. of the strangest election campaign. I have ever seen a candidate who is unable to explain a program doesn't seem to have a clear idea of what exactly she's proposing half the time, I mean, just to say. And a campaign which has been running on empty and largely on momentum. As I said, it doesn't make any sense.

And it really does make one wonder about whether the Democratic Party machine now is such a machine. It's so much built around, you know, machine politics that it's completely lost any sense of actual elections and campaigning and how to win over people and how to actually win elections themselves. So those are the things I just wanted to say. I don't want to comment about any of that, Rob. But those were my immediate views. And, you know, I've followed many elections, not in the United States closely, but in Britain and in Greece, certainly. I mean, I think they thought they could adopt European election techniques to the U.S. election. And, you know, that a lot of European elections are announced, and it's a relatively short, compressed election schedule, you know, six weeks, two months.

And that the media felt confident, well, okay, we can just introduce a new, candidate, rewrite that candidate, because until she was chosen to be president, the presidential nominee, she was the most disliked vice president since Agnew in public opinion polling. As a someone who had run, you know, for those of donor background, then the attorney general in San Francisco, part of the Willie Brown political machine, then got elected attorney general in the state, then got elected the U.S. Senate, then ran for the presidency herself in 2020. She was the favorite of both big tech and Wall Street and big parts of

the Obama world was split between her and Buttigieg. And she did so disastrously on the out campaigning with actual voters that she had to withdraw before they even cast votes in Iowa. It was one of the biggest disasters of a campaign ever run.

She weasles her way onto the ticket with Joe Biden. And there was suspicion that the reason why Biden chose her is that Biden thought she provided Agnew-like insurance. so that they couldn't take him out down the road because she was so limited in her political acumen. Not someone who's really curious about public policy. Her father was sort of a left-leaning economist from Jamaica. Also, extraordinary, only in America.

Could we have the first African-American president and have no slaves in his ancestry but have slave ownership in his ancestry? And then the first African-American vice president have no. slaves in their ancestry but have slave ownership in their ancestry gives you a little bit of a sense of where their their their pedigree comes from if you will their their background not from sort of the working class african-american roots um her mother was indian was an immigrant from india uh very smart uh they they met at berkeley uh her parents then she grew up mostly in canada which they avoided talking about at the convention which i found fascinating and the uh but that's where her coming of age was. So she's very distant. I mean, Obama was distant to a degree because he'd grown up in

Indonesia and outside the country to a substantial degree, but he'd really tutored himself in American politics in Chicago for a decade plus before he ran for anything. By contrast, Harris, you know, grows up in Canada, goes to Howard, goes to the Bay Area. So you're really not that connected to American political life in competitive, contested elections. There's no, there's not many working class groups you have to really appeal to beyond democratic base oriented voting groups. So she didn't have the background to suggest and had no resume, no CV, curriculum beat to suggest she would be good on the national stage. Everything suggested otherwise. But the media was so confident in their ability to manipulate the public narrative that they thought,

we're going to prove to the world, we really dictate American elections. We will pick somebody who nobody thinks should win, nobody thinks can win, someone who's never received a primary vote in her life for the presidency of the United States, and we're going to make her the next president of the United States. We'll overthrow the existing president of the United States, force him to step down, and then we'll anoint her. And when only anoint her, will promote her in such a way, with such a media blitz, that we'll be able to take out Trump, even in an electoral environment, as difficult for incumbents as this one. And that's why you're hearing media people say, as was reported yesterday in certain circles,

high-ranking corporate media types, saying that they'll be horrified if she loses because it means their power is either neutered or gone. And they're terrified of that prospect. What if it doesn't matter what CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, even Fox, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the L.A. Times, anybody else thinks.

and then you've got billionaires and millionaires who own places like the Washington Post in the case of Bezos and in the case of the another one in case the LA Times. They see the writing on the wall and they're like, we're not going to go down with that chip. So we're going to sell our newspapers and not endorse anybody for the first time. It's kind of shocked. Institutional left in the country. So the enthusiasm for Harris is very limited. Now, see, her campaign thing has been to promote musicians,

and celebrities at the event and to get people to come out. And this is without a doubt in my view, the most Orwellian campaign I've seen in American presidential politics. Because as you pointed out, Alex, the whole, you know, the joy, everybody's got to be joyful, everybody's got to be joyous, you know, the, like right out of a scene from 1984. I mean, you got to get together and cheer in a certain way and you got to cheer in the right way.

Or maybe you're out of the party. out for good. It has this just sort of state, it's what they accuse Trump up. It has a fascistic vibe, not in terms of governmental policy, but in terms of that, that sort of collectivist mindset that everybody needs to be on the same page or troubles coming. So it's been, in everything they, as you pointed out, there's a lot of confession through projection going on. What they're accusing Trump of, fascistic, plans to use the military against his dissidents. plans to use weaponize the Justice Department against his critics. These are all things they either have done or quite clearly are planning to do,

which is disturbing and unsettling in its own right. There'll be a lot of unrest either way, but I think there will actually be more unrest if Trump loses because people have doubts about whether he actually lost with an honest election. And of course there'll be a mental health breakdown amongst the professional managerial class here. in the U.S. in places like New York that can't conceive of an indicted, impeached, bankrupted, at least that was the goal, Trump prevailing.

You know, they don't see that as lawfare. They see that as vindication of their theories about Trump. The rest of the world sees it as lawfare as bogus cases promoted for bogus reasons. But they don't. The bubble is so small here. You know, it started with the whole safe space, movement in response to the kidnapping risks of the 90s to where kids grew up, you know, it was dangerous to be around other people, to be around strangers, you know,

where kids used to grow up, you know, play games in the street and go do whatever they want. That was no longer the case. It was, you know, play dates and structure. And then you go to college at safe spaces, graduate school, safe spaces. They literally, as the book, Big Sort details, they've started only going to the same churches, same social clubs, same, uh, um, uh, uh, uh, neighborhoods, same schools, everything to where you're in, they isolated themselves from

middle America. And it's why like they believe their own nonsense about like the economic data. And so all, as you pointed out, what they're doing is they're gaslighting people and it enrages them. That, you know, there was a, there's a viral video a couple of weeks ago from a young black man. Who, the Democrats knocked on his door. And he was like, well, here's why I have problems with the Biden administration and Harris. and like, oh, you don't understand. That's all fake. That's all fake news. The economy is great. Economy is totally, totally great. I was doing an event with George Gammon and some folks out here in Vegas, rebel capitalist. And he was asking me, he goes, okay, so when we get some economic data here, this was a couple of weeks ago, what's the odds that the data is inflated and suggest everything's great again? Economism said pretty high. They're going to report a good GDP number. They're going to report certain good payroll numbers. They're going to report numbers that don't really make sense. to people in the lived economy, lived world.

But all they do is they keep insulting them by telling them the economy is great. They insulted them. Their fact-checking of Trump they did during the debate and Vance backfired. Because they're sitting there telling people, oh, there's no problem with immigration. Immigration is totally under control. You can't bring people from totally completely foreign culture. There's been an issue throughout Europe and large parts of the rest of the world, even in Central and Latin America. and suddenly think everything's going to be kosher.

I mean, the Haitians have had a different life for a very long time, different cultural viewpoints, different. You go back and read the old reports of when the Marines were in Haiti and what they witnessed and how it was a cultural shock to them. And you decide to take a bunch of people from Haiti and who don't even speak the language and drop them in the Springfield, Ohio, of all places? I mean, you know, there's New York, there's some other places where are better at sort of melding in

immigrant groups, but this was kind of insanity that they have set of policies. And then you convince them nothing bad has happened. There's no crime increase. There's no housing costs. I mean, when Vance was on with Rogan the other day, he said, look, the universal demand for illegal immigration is coming from big corporations who want to pad their pockets with cheaper wages, which was Bernie Sanders of you in 2015 until he suddenly decided to go woke an identitarian rather than be a class-based politician.

And that's sort of what happened. So when they tell them, oh, there's no issue with immigration, everybody in their neighborhood knows the otherwise. When they tell them there's no issue with crime, everybody knows a story of somebody close to them and knows otherwise. And then when they tell them the world is safer? I mean, Kamala Harris said,

U.S. military is no longer anywhere in the world. So this is in the debate. And it's like, no war zones. And there's some military soldiers spoke up. They're like, that's news to us because we got shut at you. yesterday. I mean, we're all over, but we're 400 military bases. It's absurd. The, but they're sitting there saying, hey, everything's fine. And yes, and some other world is more peaceful? I mean, you've got people like Alan Lickman with his 13 keys, which really just means

do people feel safe, do people feel prosperous? But he's decided to ignore all that because he hates Trump. So he goes, oh, the Biden administration has had no foreign policy problems whatsoever. In fact, it's only been one foreign policy success after another. That's what you're going to call Afghanistan, the people hanging off of planes and us leaving people behind and us bombing an innocent family. That's what you're going to call Ukraine, which is on the border of a country with a war that has a bunch of more nuclear weapons than we do. That's what you call the Middle East being a flame and news every other week. Is something going to escalate or is it not? Is Iran just playing? Is Israel just going to look like they're fighting, but not really escalate,

or do they suddenly escalate? Because you play that game, sometimes things get out of hand real easy. And so it's like under Trump, and this is their big problem. They're only pitched down. Trump closing argument, it's simple. Harrison Biden broke it. I will fix it. How do you know that? Because I fixed it before.

I had four years of peace. I had four years of prosperity. I had no new wars. The Middle East was not a flame. Europe was not a flame. The border was under control. Real wages and real median incomes grew for the first time in 25 years under Trump. of blue-collar working class middle america whereas they know just the opposite has happened chaos

inflation cost of living people doing two or three jobs all the net job growth under biden has gone to foreign-born individuals almost literally amongst native born americans there's been negative job growth under the bide administration that doesn't even get to wages not staying up with the cost of living getting to corey i particularly items that go to the american drink like for the ordinary American having your own home, be moving out on your own as a young person. Having a car has been a good, bad, or otherwise, wherever you think of it environmentally, politically or otherwise, it's part of the American identity and has been since the 1950s. The being able to go on vacation, being able to afford that new, cool little appliance.

Those things are what bring joy to the everyday ordinary person, economic, and materially, and at least having the belief that that will be coming down the road, which Trump was a master at creating that perception in people's minds. Now they are so negative about the current economy and so negative about where things are going under this administration that all the Democratic strategy has been, we're going to gaslight you and tell you're very Orwellian. Nope, the economy's great. There is no crime.

The border's under control. There is no war. Everything's peaceful. Everything's great. And then they'll try to gaslight you on Trump. pretend that you don't remember Trump was in office for four years. So he's going to be this fascistic dictator that's totally crazy that's going to ignite the world on fire and going to destroy the economy and only cares about billionaires.

They already know what Trump would do because he was president for four years. And they just want to convince people pretend he wasn't. So it's been one of the worst organized campaigns I've seen. But it's when you, just for those out there, the global audience, think of people who run the EU, people who run NATO, running a political campaign. And that's what the Harris campaign looks like. And it's as incompetent and inept and out of touch as those people are. And I would just quickly add, the other side has actually run, I think, a very much better campaign altogether.

I mean, one of the things you must say about both Trump and Vance and Kennedy, because Kennedy is absolutely an essential part of the campaign. I mean, they each talk to Americans in a somewhat different way. But a few things. first of all, you get the sense that they like Americans. I mean, that may not sound important or obvious, but it's actually extremely important. If you know anything about elections, if the people you're talking to,

if people you want to have vote for you, you get them to feel that you like them. If, in fact, you do like them, then they will like you. And you see that very, very obviously, for example, when Trump goes out, these meetings. It was very interesting how in the debate,

Harris really didn't get the sense of what these meetings are, which Trump does, because you can see in these meetings that he's actually connecting with working class America in a way that she never can. And he learns from them, and they learn from him, and they both like each other. And Vance is the same, by the way.

Of course, he comes from that kind of background. He knows it very well. He's extremely fluent, very, very articulate, but he's never left it behind, which is again, very interesting. And Kennedy is different because, of course, Kennedy's in some ways more cerebral. I mean, you know, I mean, I don't think he's more intelligent or more intellectual. I just mean that his style has a more professorial thing, which by the way, young people like, I should say, I, I, you know, it's what they're used to and they like it. But again, he talks to people in a serious way. They will listen to the way he talks to them.

And I was listening to some of his speeches. I thought one of his speeches, the one where he announced, well, his decision to support Trump, it was one of the most brilliant, perhaps the single most brilliant one anyone has made in this election up to now, just to say.

But he does, it in a way that people not only can follow and understand, but in a way that respects them. I mean, he's not trying to be what he's not. He's not trying to be working class in the way that Vance is or, you know, somebody who's worked with workers closely in the way that Trump does. He's obviously the patrician, professorial Kennedy. But again, you get that sense that fundamentally he likes the people he's talking to and he's really interested in them. So it's a completely different campaign.

By the way, I just ought to say if you go back and you look at the speeches that especially JFK used to do and they're very interesting, by the way, very different. There's an awful lot of RFG that reminds me of JFG, just to say. Anyway, never mind. And that's, it's warm.

And it wins people over. And each of them, Trump, Vance and Kennedy, they bring different perspectives. They're able to appeal to some extent in different constituencies, but they have also different ideas. And it's very interesting to see how those ideas have complemented each other, how Vance, for example, has articulated very interesting ideas on foreign policy,

which is obviously my big interest, which take some talking points that Trump has, but they give a kind of idea structure to them in a way that Trump hasn't quite done. And then Trump talks a lot about economics. And by the way, he's interesting on economics, much more interesting than people realize. And I mean, he's now, you know, got this thing about tariffs and McKinley and all of that. But again, this isn't actually so different.

That is based on the real understanding of American economic history, which I don't know to what extent Trump is actually ready, but he does seem to have a sort of core understanding of it. And, of course, it's again, tells America, workers that he's thinking about them. There's talk about tariffs, whatever criticisms economists and people like that might have about it. It's not only historically founded, but it's also relevant to the people who are worried about their jobs in the steel mills and the factories and the car factories and all of those

places. And lastly, of course, you have Kennedy, who's much more, as far as I can see in interested in social questions and of course medical questions and medicine, I guess, and all of that is hugely important in America today and has been, by the way, for a long time, but it's become particularly important because of the pandemic. And again, he's able to talk about that in a very, very interesting way. So you have a very, very interesting campaign on the other side, on one side, and another campaign, the other side, the Harris campaign, which is said nothing. I mean, I think, you know, I should just give away. We've had some exchanges,

Robert and I, but I've just struggled to see what exactly Harris's ideas and policies are. And I've never really got any sense of them. I mean, is she in favor of price fixing or not, for example? Just ask it. And then you have a vice presidential choice. on the other side, who's just been a complete empty suit as far as I could see? I mean, I just cannot understand, again, the electoral dynamics or thinking, if you like, which resulted in them choosing Waltz to be the vice president. Because he is, I mean, if you add zero to zero, which is what Harris is, and you add another zero to it, you just end up with zero.

Anyway, that's my views. Just to say, just any thoughts on that? I mean, they couldn't pick Shapiro to be BP, the Pennsylvania governor, because he's Jewish, because they were trying, and he had strong Israeli connections, because they were trying to walk that line. So they ended up with somebody mediocre. And the other aspect with Harris says she didn't want anybody that could overshadow her on the campaign trail or might have ulterior objectives of running for president themselves.

and Walsh, that was, so thus Walsh fit the bill, he's happy to be anybody's sort of cutout. And even though he has not, you know, when he was a congressman from southeast Minnesota, he portrayed himself as a pro farmer, you know, high school football coach, pro guns. And then once he gets into the governorship in Minnesota, all of a sudden he becomes a Twin Cities liberal. And he's anti-guns. And he doesn't care so much about farmers anymore. or he was the guy that was rewarding people if they ratted out their neighbor

during COVID. You know, has your neighbor walked outside the house when it's not, you know, it's curfew time. Have you seen him not wear a mask? You know,

he was the guy creating a snitch line across the state. So it gives you an idea for his mindset. But what a lot of these people are is they remind me almost of Hollywood actors. They have no core. Like, it's striking how they have no core.

And as you're pointing out, this comes through. Nobody can get, a sense of not only what they believe, but who they are. It's like, who exactly is this person? And Harrison, the Willie Brown model in San Francisco was be as bland and generic as possible. And that can work when you're running in the Democratic primary politics in California and you're trying to dodge the hot buttons. It does not work on a national stage. People want either one of, Trump has always been brilliant at this. He recognized that it's more important to have a strong

brand than to be personally likable. Like Harris's campaign has been obsessed with her personal favorability. That isn't really what matters. When people, I used to say if you want to bet on a presidential election in America, this would throw people off, but I'd say, bet on the person who's the better liar. And I don't mean that as a moral judgment. I mean, imagine you're in a situation, the Nazis are at the door, and you've got to have somebody lie to save your life. And there was lie for a good reason. Which person would you choose to be successful? And it's because down deep, Americans want a president that they feel safe with, that they feel will protect them, even if they don't like them, even if they don't care for them, even if they don't trust them in certain settings.

As long as they trust them to be, it's the sort of whole bad boy phenomenon, right? The, you know, it isn't that women pick bad boys because they're bad boys. It's because they're going to get things done. They're going to deliver when it's necessary. They're going to protect the household when necessary because they don't have any limits. And that's where Trump always chose that brand. He wasn't aiming to be likable. he was aiming to be seen as strong as strong backbone.

That's the way it throws people off when they try to assess his foreign policy. He filters everything through that lingo and language. So everything's about being strong. Everybody's a killer, you know, that kind of stuff. But it can misapprehend the fact that he is very much peace-oriented as reflected in his first term. And what's the number one thing he brags about is no new wars on his watch for the first time since like Carter. That depends on how you interpret certain conflicts under Carter.

Because we kind of started the whole Afghanistan thing in part there. But the, so that that, whereas Harris's people are like, just be likable. Like one, they all come from, I don't know if you have this over like model parliament maybe in lower levels of education. But in America, you have these things called model UN and model Congress, but particularly model UN. And you got all these nerds that line up and do this. and that they're professional probably like Reese Witherspoon from the movie the election I mean that they're that they're into pop to being part of the political class

from the time they're like five and they avoid substance everything's technical they're very uber technocratic right somehow everything's non-ideological and so they they don't develop a real sense of how to actually win elections they think winning elections is how much you spend here and how much you spend there and how much you raise over here. Winning elections is about message and it's about trusting the messenger and liking the message.

And they've done neither with Harris. And you're right. The biggest transition with Trump came when they failed to kill him. That was the moment he took a turn. Because the big question some even within Trump camp were concerned about

was would we see a repeat of his first term in terms of bad personnel choices? that led to undermining his sort of reformist policies, whether foreign policy or domestic. And he had sort of avoided, avoided answering that for a while. But after the failed assassination attempt, on that same day, he calls J.D. Vance and says, you're going to be VP.

He calls Robert Kennedy and says, let's talk. He gets into contact with Tulsi Gabbard. And that's not a coincidence. He decided from that moment, Trump's second term would fulfill every idea and ideal reformist that he had. That meant taking apart the entire public health apparatus in America that's killing our kids on a regular basis, then so be it. That if that meant taking apart the entire intelligence apparatus, then so be it. Taking apart the entire military security establishment, so be it. And I mean,

Robert Kennedy is going to have a dramatic role in not only public health, but in foreign policy. Tulsi Gabbard's going to have a major role in the personnel that get picked in foreign policy. You're not going to see another John Bolton. You're not going to see another contrary to what Ben Shapiro is trying to spend, Mike Pompeo will have no role in the second Trump administration. So these are people that are on the outs at many levels.

Now, Trump, for his own reasons, will say nice things about different people in different places, but I wouldn't overstate that. That was a radical shift. And once he shifted campaign-wise to that, All of a sudden, his surrogates include J.D. Vance, include Robert Kennedy, include Tulsi Gabbard. These are great surrogates out on the campaign. The two, the doctor and his wife that are big into the public health. All the, you know, Brett Weinstein, a bunch of people all of a sudden come on the Trump train. And it's the, they were able to achieve what, like, France can't seem to figure out, which is how do you unite the popular streaks of the left and the right? And, you know, Melanchon's can't. and Le Pen's camp just can't get past one another. And that's more on Melanchon's camp than Le Penz,

but what it does is it allows people like Macron to keep running France. The key, the breakthrough for Trump, to put him over the top, not only in terms of the election, but in terms of an effective administration, was his unity with Robert Kennedy. And it was credit to Bobby Kennedy he could see through it interdependly. He is the closest to his father and his uncle, President John Kennedy, of any of the Kennedys. Now, in part it's because he's the oldest of that group, and he was around them while they're alive

longer than the other Kennedy sibling for the most part. That's still alive. But he was also politically engaged in ways some of the other kids were not. But you can see in your right, his speech style, in his political acumen, his recognition that he could create a unity ticket with Trump and how powerful that could be on a populist left-right marriage and how reformist that could be.

was essential. If he didn't have that political skill to see that, he ends up a spoiler and gets nowhere. And so that was brilliant and brilliant on Trump's part. And Trump, I know the people that are behind the scenes on the transition team, Trump is absolutely delivered in a sense that Tulsi Gabbard's going to have a big role. Robert Kennedy's going to have a big role. People like Steve Bannon will still have a big role despite them locking him up for most of the election,

which is still insane. A Harris running around saying can't vote for Trump, though he'll lock up his opponents while Steve Bannon was still in prison. It's just mind-numbing. The level. But yes, so the Robert Kennedy was critical to particularly bridging that new group. So like the I helped create a group called 1776 Law Center. And we did a survey that got into both Kennedy World and Trump World and Congressional and Senate campaign back in the earlier parts of the summer.

And what we were tracking is why are these working class younger minorities, millennials, zoomers, why are they divorcing from the Democratic Party? The whole Democratic Party's mantra has been for two decades, we're going to have millennials and zoomers with us for forever, and particularly Hispanic and black, zoomers and millennials. And they were losing them at record rates. I mean, if you look at, say, for example, independent black men who identify as independent,

not with either party under the age of 45, there has been a 40-point margin shift from 2016 to 2024. It was massive. And the media doesn't want to report on it. You know, occasionally it will spike up. New York Times will occasionally talk about it. But they don't want to talk about why are, is this massive Hispanic ship? Why is there a Hispanic black voter ship?

So instead of the narrative will all be about women and if Harris loses, they'll say it's because America's misogynist, they'll be that routine. Plus, Joe Biden shouldn't have held on too long. But the underlying fundamentals of why those voters were shifting were you could call the four quadrants of freedom that I was called sort of the opposite of Bill Gates' dystopian dream. you know, Bill Gates, you know, big tech, big food, big medicine, big media, that sort of quadrant of control that Bill Gates has a deep financial and institutional institutional role in around the world. It was fascinating. Listen, J.D. Vance didn't know the stories that Joe Rogan got from Robert Kennedy about all up around me. I mean, Gates at different times has been banned under investigation in India, under investigation in Africa. He's now under investigation in the Netherlands. because of who he is.

He's one of the nastiest bond villains on the planet. He makes George Soros look like a walk in the park to a degree, because he's been more insiduous at his influence. But that control grid requires people beyond it for big tech, big food, big medicine. They control our bodies. They control our brains by the information sources available to us, by our cultural expression, what's permitted, what's not, and what food we were able to digest what medicines we put in us.

And what we found with these young working class voters is they overwhelmingly didn't want to be any part of that control grid. They want to get food from their local farmers market. They like the organic alternative health medicine folks. They're the leaders on the vitamins and the supplements in that whole world. They're ahead of the curve of their boomer parents. They don't like the big tech control. They don't like the social impact it's had on young women.

women and other people that's been insiduous and toxic. Zumers are dropping off of some of those places like Facebook for that reason. And they don't like the big media control. Don't trust them. That's why they choose podcasters. The Joe Rogan is the Walter Cronkite for young people, for those people that remember Walter Cronkike's dominant media influence in the 60s and 70s here in America. That's who Joe Rogan is seen as amongst younger people, millennials and zoomers in America. That's why Roe Trump and Vance appearing on Rogan mattered more than any other media event that could take place. And what is it going to do? It's going to break records for total viewership and listening of any podcast potentially ever. So you look at those combined issues.

And the methods, the modes, the means of communication that have been chosen, this election of Trump wins will be an indictment of big media, will be an indictment of the control grid of the Bill Gateses of the world and an invitation to the reformers and the outsiders and the rebels to truly restructure American policy top to bottom. Elon and Vivek, two people, the establishment should not have isolated, should not have ostracized, should not have made adversaries of, but they did. People like Nicole Shanahan, you know, the part of the, you know, her ex-husband was a bit, one of the Google founders. So a lot of independent wealth there. Well, you know, her, her daughter suffers a vaccine injury. And all of a sudden, she starts,

politically wondering what's going on. And one of the biggest Democratic contributors becomes one of the biggest Democratic critics. Elon, buying Twitter, he did all of this because he thought the world was going to go to hell in a handbasket on the Biden-Harris agenda, but in part because he was targeted over and over again, targeted for every kind of harassment known to man

by the Biden administration because if he didn't do exactly what they wanted, when they wanted him to do it, like get involved in the Ukraine conflict in a particular way, he had no interest in getting involved in. Then the consequence was that he knew his own life and future and freedom and every dream he had was at stake. And so they've united this kind of, you know, in the memes, they're the Avengers, you know, however you put that, the different means. And then to your last point, Alex, the, or lastly, to the point about

accessibility of these candidates, not only communicating a certain brand of strength, of confidence, of belief, of really trying to put these policies through, but also the other personality aspects, but you're absolutely. like Trump doing, there's been eight iconic photos in this campaign that are going to be there for 30 years. I mean, between the Trump mugshot and then you have the Trump shot where he stands up and raises his fist right after they try to kill him. And then you have the Trump Kennedy shake, handshake, where you got the fireworks, lights going off in the background. And now you've got Trump at McDonald's and Trump the garbage man. And like, he really boosted with young voters after the McDonald's thing.

and a lot of blue collar voters because they're like, this guy really likes this kind of work. They didn't feel like this is a billionaire looking down on us. There's a political class person who looks as, sees us as beneath them. That this is a guy who would sincerely like to make sure he got the fries right, didn't touch it with his fingers and maybe put a little extra. And there's a guy who loves being in the garbage truck

and driving around in it and all the rest. So he's not your typical billionaire. And the stereotypes and caricatures of them have fallen apart because they've communicated in an accessible way on issues that really matter to the key voter groups. Absolutely, and just to add about Trump, two other things. Firstly, he has a sense of fun,

which is not to be confused with, you know, this joy. By the way, you're absolutely right. You're talking about joy. I mean, you know, the joy of 1984. And by the way, there's all sorts of other emotions in 1984. There's the six-minute hate. We have all of that as well. But anyway, but seriously,

I mean, Trump has a sense of fun, which these people don't have. And it's real. I mean, he actually enjoys doing these things. And you can see that he does. And that's one reason he does it very well. And I thought I was very interested by your point about strength and about Trump knowing how to convey strength. Of course, one of the reasons he conveys strength very well is because in a very real sense,

he is strong. I mean, as somebody who has survived, I don't know, you will tell us how many were, was it, 20, 30 lawsuits of the kind, you know, threatened to lock him up

to, you know, accuse him of every conceivable thing on planet. Well, you're a trial attorney. I've done some work in that field myself. Anybody who knows anything about the legal system knows what an absolute nightmare how it grinds you down if you get through it and here's a man he comes through it all and he's still cheerful

and he's still funny and he's still exuberant and he can joke about it and he can go on and say that he's been investigated more often than alphonse component which is absolutely true by the way it's entirely right so i mean that really conveys strength and somebody who's able to pick himself up after having part of his ear shot off. And, you know, who's come face to face with death. And then says himself, well, you know, what I must do now is, first of all what I would show that I'm here and lift up my hand and reassure my supporters.

I mean, and as Alex and I have pointed out, that was in the true classical Greek sense. And I was brought up on classical literature and all of that. So I know exactly what we mean. And we know this is our language. This was a truly heroic moment. I mean, it really was conveying incredible strengths and defiance. And at the same time, he's also thinking,

he's thinking, well, this is the moment when I have to speak to J.D. Lance, and he's going to be my pick for vice president. And then he decides, you know, this is the moment when I must also speak to RFK. Now, these are the actions of a unusually strong person. You know, I'm going to say this straight away. I mean, you know, you could criticize Trump for many things. You can talk about his inconsistencies, his low attention rates and whatever, the fact that, you know, he tends to move from one thing to another.

But at a fundamental level, a cool level, he is very strong. and accessibility. He goes and talks for three hours to Joe Rogan. Can you explain the importance of this man? He has this conversation. And of course, it's always challenging to conduct a conversation like that. He's not watching and minding every word that he's saying, which you can see that Kamala Harris does.

She's constantly worrying about her next sentence. He's able to do that. Vance, by the way, can also do that. I mean, he also goes and speaks to Joe Rogan. What does Kamala do? She tries to set conditions. She says, you must come to me and we're only going to speak for one hour. And I'm going to set, I mean, be much more honest and consistent position.

If she said, no, I'm not going to speak to you at all. I've got, you know, more important things to do on campaign. But she says, well, okay, I will speak to you, but it must be on my terms. Well, that is a terrible move, I would have thought. It conveys arrogance and it also conveys insecurity. It gives the impression to people that she's scared of a meeting with Joe Rogan, a program with Joe Rogan. And maybe rightly so. So accessibility and strains, they are both there.

I think even in Britain, it is now incredibly. increasingly widely acknowledged that the lawfare was a disastrous mistake. And I've heard people say that the Democrats calculated that it would be the lawfare that would knock out Trump and win the election. And they didn't realize that it would turn out otherwise and it would turn out the way that it did. Yeah, it's exactly what we discussed at the time, that this attempt to martyr Trump through legal weaponizing the legal system would, in fact, rally surprising constituencies to them and to the point that, you know, 50 cent is featuring Trump in his concerts, right,

after he got shot. I mean, it's just extraordinary. So, but the, but you're right, the lawfare as a whole backfired. And best illustration of this is the Democrats planned on making democracy. It's like capital D democracy, very Orwellian, their idea of democracy. democracy is when you take the person who won the most votes and remove them from the nomination, replace them with someone who got no votes. It's like, I still don't think this is where Demos came from in the old Greek tradition,

but okay, maybe I missed the history. But you see the weaponization of the law fair. It's also a turn people like Elon Musk, you know, Bill Ackman, you know, a bunch of big, big, big, demo, like a lot of our polling data for 1776 Law Center was shared through the big tech dissonant world. It wasn't just Palmer Lucky and Peter Thiel and that crowd. It was a bunch of other people. They were like, this scares us. I mean, there's, you know, the prominent businessman that was all over TV after the New York verdict saying, I'm not going to invest in New York if this is the new rules.

If I can be politically targeted. I mean, this is a manifestation of what we talked about when they did the sanctions on Russia. You're going to terrify the entire world to disinvest from the United States. Get out of the U.S. financial system. get out of the U.S. Swift system, get out of the U.S. banks, get out of U.S. investments, or if somebody like Kamala Harris doesn't like you, boom, you're broke tomorrow, whether you're a citizen or a country. And that was just going to terrify people. I mean, I'll give an example. Well, nuts the lawfare has been. And I'm encouraging Trump's team, if they win, which I think they will,

to put together a whole, a pardoned team to deal with the lawfare, to highlight to a Americans in the world where these cases have gone awry. So they're not able to say, oh, Trump's just pardoning himself or he's pardoning his family or he's pardoning his political allies in January 6th. All of them, I believe, deserve pardons independently. But to show, you know, a bunch of other cases where there's been egregious misuse and abuse of our legal system, whether you look at the Alex Jones cases, you look at the Rudy Giuliani cases, these insane verdicts.

You look at Dominion, getting close to a billion dollars, when they have any of the show real damages, and you're getting ridiculous verdicts that you're using the legal system to basically bankrupt your political opponent, like they did with Trump in the New York case. So the question earlier, will they announce that before Election Day? No chance. Those are all Democratic judges in New York. They'll likely wait to see what the results are on Election Day, then issue the decision that will say that the verdict was always bogus from day one. But there needs to be a highlighting of these cases systematically and systemically.

Put together a pardon team, put together a lawfare team to highlight cases that win AWOL. Cases where the government harassed people either civilly or criminally. I'll give you a classic example of this. Now, he's on board with Ross Ulbricht getting his sentence commuted, the Silk Road guy. Whether he really was Silk Road has always been an open question in my mind. His lawyer, Joshua Draytell, was an old buddy of mine. he got railroad in the court of public opinion. But you look like the Harris administration turned everybody in the Bitcoin space against them,

including the Winklevoss twins, including all kinds of people. But look at what they did to dissidents. Just like Elon Musk could see what was going to happen to him if he didn't get active politically against this administration by what happened to people like Roger Veer and Bitcoin Jesus. I mean, he's got, he would be brilliant for Trump to pardon him just so he could say, hey, you know, I couldn't pardon Jesus, but I can pardon Bitcoin Jesus. But putting that aside, here's a guy who's just independent guy. I mean, he's been a victim of lawfare in the past.

This is the guy who went to federal prison. It's one of my favorite little trivia questions. Roger Beer first went to federal prison for what crime. And if people try to guess this or this and this, it was for having the wrong fireworks. That's right. He didn't have the right permit for fireworks. And they sent him to federal prison for that. So, and now they're going after him.

And it's not a coincidence. I mean, Roger Veer is part of the Bitcoin Cash movement. wants to keep Bitcoin independent from the intelligence agencies and the central financial planners, wants it to be a real tool of financial freedom for people around the world. And is it a coincidence that all of a sudden he shows up on the Justice Department hitless? That all of a sudden he's being indicted for things nobody's ever been indicted for. Nobody's been indicted because they disagree on the interpretation of Bitcoin as a taxable transaction a particular time point. No, nobody's been indicted over an exit tax.

In America, we try to impose a tax on you. anywhere in the world. We're one of the only countries in the world that does this. Trump is talking about, we see you get rid of that as part of his tax reform proposals in the same context. So here, Roger Veer leaves the country, you know, decides that you don't want to be part of the U.S. political system anymore, sees what's coming down the pipe. And years later, he gets indicted on completely bogus tax charges. As a tax lawyer, I could look at it and say, this is an insane prosecution. They're trying to prosecute him over. They want to remake new tax policy on Bitcoin through Roger Ferrer's indictment.

They want to establish the right to do a property tax. In the United States, there is no property tax because the Constitution prohibits it. It requires apportionment. And the income tax only allows income to be taxed, not property. And what they're trying to do is say, no, we can actually tax property. Because if you say you don't want to be a U.S. citizen anymore, we now magically have the right to do a property tax. And if you don't pay what we think you should pay, we're now going to put you in prison for light, which is what they did with Roger Revere.

So they have these novel tax theories that make no sense that are dangerous to everybody. But everybody knows the real reason why Bitcoin Jesus got prosecuted. It's because he's Bitcoin Jesus. And because he said that maybe the intelligence agencies shouldn't try to co-op Bitcoin. And he's one of the highest profile of people doing it. That's how this system responds to everybody like that.

You stick your head up for five seconds. And that's what the lesson of the Trump lawfare was to everybody. It was like, oh, that can be me. That can be me, even if I'm, Elon Musk. That can be me, even if I'm Bitcoin Jesus. That can be me, even if I'm some ordinary schmucker, some elderly lady that just went on an unpermitted tour of the capital on January 6th and committed no act of violence and was often invited in by the law enforcement agents. So that's why right now on the polling question, democracy and corruption, there is no democratic

advantage. Something that was a 40-point Democratic advantage in 2020 is now gone because the American people have seen through the lawfare. They're like, this is insanity. And they want nothing to do with it. They wanted independent, impartial FBI. Now, some of us pointed out, the FBI has really never been that way. It was politically created by Jay Edgar Hoover, who used his roles as a Bureau of Investigation with the Justice Department and the fear of communists and anarchists in the 1918, 19, 19, 1920, with cases, by the way, managed to never solve. How is it they never saw some of these anarchists, supposed anarchist crimes? people should ask themselves that.

But the, whether, you know, some other things might have been in play there. But he was able to use those to create the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has been as political as any law enforcement bureau in the world during its tenure. Just the normie didn't know it because the one thing the system was good at was shaping the media narrative. People believed in institutional sources. They believed in judges. They believed in prosecutors.

They believed in FBI agents. You know, it's kind of the drag net world of TV. Look at how much America. culture is built around how wonderful American law enforcement is, how wonderful American military is, this propaganda started to fall apart when they went after Trump because all of a sudden it was a crash course. Maybe these other cases are bogus. Maybe these agencies are corrupted. Maybe they're corrupted at the core. Maybe we need just a complete restructuring at the very top of them, as is what Kennedy is planning, Tulsi Gabbard's planning, Trump is planning. And all of that's because they radicalize them

by trying to impeach him, imprison him, bankrupt him, and kill him. And it turned out what they got was not a weakened Trump, not a softer Trump, not a or a treating Trump, but the strongest Trump that's ever been, both on the campaign trail and in the next administration. So where are we going to, where are we going to be? Because if we get Trump elected in November, on the 5th of November, are we going to have a result on the, on the itself. A lot of people have been asking me that question. And I was wondering whether you had any thoughts about that. And secondly, will this be challenged? Will there be attempts? After all,

they've said he's a, you know, would be dictator. They've used the F word against him. They've used all of these things. If you believe all of that, you could almost say that they're under an obligation to prevent him becoming president. I mean, This is the other terrible thing, by the way, about this kind of rhetoric, is that it does, in my opinion, license extreme acts. But anyway, what will they do? Will they just accept the fact that he's been elected? Will they recognize the election after the fifth?

Will there be attempts on the contrary to do things with the electoral college? Or will it be so cut and dried and so clear that it'll be impossible? and if he does become president, will he face the same kind of problems that he faced the first time round, the Justice Department, completely out of control, obviously working to remove him, and intelligence community doing the same problems right across the entire government, bureaucracy, the deep state, in other words, unleashed against him in all its horror, will he face all of that, or will he be in a far stronger position this time with a popular, mandate and with a much, much stronger, much more consistent, much more coherent and disciplined

team of people supporting him. Again, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. Absolutely. I mean, I think he has aligned himself. It's by far the best campaign staff he's ever had that are campaign team when you put people, not necessarily, there's some people inside the campaign organization that are the same kind of swamp creatures as past. People like Chris LaSivida and Susie Wiles. These are not reliable. worthy people. They're corporate lobbyists, but their role has been mostly relegated to secondary significance. The real policymaking, personnel making, people are of the Robert Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard variety, and people that they in turn have brought it. People like Thomas

Massey is going to have a significant role in agriculture. People like Rand Paul is going to have significant impact on both State Department potential policy and Federal Reserve policy. J.D. Vance, you know, it's talked about having the same Federal Reserve. skepticism is Robert Kennedy, as his uncle President John Kennedy. So the reformist agenda is real and they know it's coming. The question is, are they in delusional mindset so that they've convinced themselves they can't lose? And that's why we didn't see any unique October surprise, though a real October surprise would have been a positive one for the Harris campaign, not a negative one for Trump, because after you've impeached, indicted, tried to imprison and kill a guy, there's not

much more you can say about them that's going to move anybody on that side of the aisle. But on the other side, maybe they could do something pot, like get a piece deal out of the Middle East, get a piece deal out of Europe, put the army on the border, you know, something drastic and dramatic that could have moved the needle, but they didn't choose any of those things because down deep, Joe Biden wants Harris to lose. I mean, do people really think it's a coincidence? He put a MAGA hat on in September and walked around with it. He said, oh, it's just a joke. I mean, then he comes out on the day Harris does our big closing argument campaign speech on the ellipse to remind everybody of January 6th and all the rest. He comes out and says, by the way, all the Trump people are garbage.

I'm going to do twice as bad as what Hillary did with deplorables and go, golly, gee, I'm just this old guy. Keep screwing up. Right. Come on. He feels bitterly grieved that he was tossed to the side. And this is an issue that goes into Biden psychology of the time. He's talking about it. He's a little kid.

You know, people make fun of me at school. da-da-da-da-da. Mommy said, I was always smarter than anywhere anyway. You know, that kind of mindset with him. The idea that Obama could just, he always thought looked down on him, and he always thought never respected him and never held him in proper regard. He wants to be able to say only he could beat Donald Trump. Obama couldn't do it, Hillary couldn't do it, Harris couldn't do it, only the great Joe Biden. And everybody just disrespected old Joe. So that's one limitation on backlash to a Trump victory. is that Biden's just fine with the Trump victory, is my suspicion. And if so, you're not going to have at least the top of the White House trying to cause hurdles. Second question is whether the election officials will recognize it as such. So there, they have painted themselves in a corner, the Democrats and all the election hierarchies. Dave told everybody to question an election is treasonous behavior, seditious behavior. So how does Jamie Ratzkin and that crowd run?

around and pretend that now they can challenge it an election. Yeah, it's a Democratic Party tradition going back to, you know, the 1970s. But the, there's no Republican president's been elected since Eisenhower. They've actually believed it was legitimately elected. They thought Reagan stole it with Iran-Contra hostage to deal 1980 from Carter. So the, what are they going to do? Are they going to, uh, the election suddenly turn around and say, no, now it's okay, to challenge an election, question an election, contestant election. I think they've ideologically, in the court of public opinion, painted themselves in such a corner, that's very hard to do. So then you have the election officials themselves, and I always call it the margin of fraud.

And what I mean by that is when the historically in American elections, when you have an election that's close enough that you could pad the ballots with questionable ballots, that's what I'm calling the margin of fraud. If people know that the election is not going to be that close, they're not going to risk getting caught or even doing any fraud. That's why you tend to only see allegations of fraud when the election is really tight. It's because the fraudsters have no interest in pursuing it when there's more risk than reward. I think the margin, if the national polling is correct, if the environment is reading it right. Take, for example, one of the most predictive metrics, last four presidential cycles, has been Gallup's polling on two issues. Which party do you identify with, particularly for independence, which party do you lean towards?

And second, what are the top issues in which party do you favor on those issues? Whichever party wins that tends to be the exact margin since 2004. Right now, for the first time in the history of Gallup polling, which goes all the back to the 1930s, the Republicans have an edge and party affiliation identification. It's predicting that Trump will win by three points. If Trump wins by three points given the electoral college leans towards him by another three or four points, well, that means it's not close on election night in North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, or Arizona.

And underneath the hood, the early voting data shows Democrats doing far weaker. They're not getting that low propensity vote that, that young working class voter, that young black man, young Hispanic female, young non-college, a white woman is not interested in Kamala Harris. They weren't able to sell why they should be enthused and excited for it. They're disappointed by the Democratic Party, and they're just not voting. And so that's already showing up in the early voting data in states that vote early heavy, like Nevada, like Arizona.

You can assume it's going to trend everywhere else because so far it has in the limited data we have from those other places. So in that instance, I don't see how the election officials try to play games because they know they're under heightened scrutiny because of what happened in 2020. And then you have people like the governor of Pennsylvania, like some of these key states, you have Democratic governors in Pennsylvania and Michigan. However, you got Republican governors in Nevada and Georgia. The two Democratic governors, including Democratic governor from North Carolina, all think they're going to be a future presidential candidate. whether Shapiro in Pennsylvania, Whitmer, Michigan, Cooper, North Carolina. They don't want Harris to win. If Harris wins, they know their chance of ever becoming president next to no.

And it's probably not a coincidence that the Pennsylvania legal authorities keep accidentally catching people doing fraudulent behavior in the election contest. There's already been like seven different cases and six different contexts in the last week. My guess is that the governor. He was your peer wants to look like. He went to such great lengths to help Harris. He was willing to even consider cheating to do it, while in fact exposing it in such an early scale because it's so bold and brazen

that it prohibits and precludes it from happening on election day to help guarantee she loses. And that's how nasty these people are. These are not true cause people. Their personality ego, they're pure identity ego driven. They don't care about the, like, J.D. Vance really cares about a bunch of issues. I remember talking to him for an hour and a half about Ukraine

before he came out with his statement opposing getting involved in Ukraine during the primary stages of the Republican campaign. He was very thoughtful, very considerate. But what he was evaluated is the only reason why he already had fame. He'd already made a movie about him, his biography, his life story, already had wealth. He'd been very successful in the business world. He had no reason to subject himself to all this with a young family. He was doing it because he couldn't get out of his head what happened to him and people he knew that went to war in Iraq. rack, believing the patriotic cause and discovering they were systematically lied to,

and they died for nothing. Their friends and family and others died for nothing. He couldn't get that out of his head. He's like, if I can do something to prevent the next one, I'm going to. And so you have people who are cause driven, idea driven, belief driven, values driven, on the Trump side of the ticket that creates a unique form of unity and dedication, whereas on the Democratic side down deep, they're all waiting to knife the other. They can't wait.

Buttigieg would love to deny Harris when the right chance comes. I mean, some of these Democratic, you know, Biden will do it, Buttigieg will do it, Whiphamer will do it, Shapiro will do it, Newson and California will do it. I mean, Shapiro, after the garbage statement was made, went and made a bunch of media circuits saying, what a terrible statement that was. Well, why are you highlighting that, uh, there, Josh? So now, not that, you know, any of these guys are geniuses. I mean, he decided to keep going after Amos Miller, the Amish farmer that I represent,

trying to shut him down to this day, pending in Commonwealth court of Pennsylvania, And what has it led to? 80,000 new Amish voters out of Lancaster County who have turned out to vote with mail-in voting that didn't vote before in prior election. And the reason they're turning out is their whole way of life is being put at risk by the Democratic Party policies, as they've witnessed in the Amos Miller case. So I think that I'm hopeful that we don't see the last piece, will there be unrest. There's a lot of predictions of unrest, civil unrest, riots, protests. I don't know how much that will be because the zeitgeist for that, the energy for that, comes from younger groups, comes from Antifa-related groups, hard progressive groups. They are much more concerned with Israel and Palestine than they are Donald Trump at the moment.

So I'm not sure they're going to take to the streets and have BLM-style riots if Trump wins because a lot of them are deeply disappointed in the Democratic ticket. I mean, Harris wouldn't even meet with certain Palestinian leaders at the Democratic National. Convention. So the, as he tried to, you know, walk that line between the two groups, that is mostly politically backfired. So I'm hopeful that we don't see, we see more like a 2016 response of some shock in elite circles that already people are drastically increasing their psychiatric demand that the need for counseling is spiking in places like New York. So I'm sure there's going to be plenty of that. And plenty of pharmaceuticals they take.

But I'm hopeful we don't see a repeat of 2020. We don't see a repeat of riots. We don't see some false flag or staged event that derails a Trump inauguration. You can't put anything past them because the biggest worrisome sign of this

group is that they're too dumb to recognize their own risk. That's what, you know, when you have the Victoria, someone that asked about Victoria Newland, this is someone that's, you know, trying to recirculate rushigate to remind Trump why she and her pals and allies and family members should be put under inquiry. And at a minimum, as J.D. Vance said yesterday on Joe Rogan, stripped of their security

clances forever. But frankly, more probably needs to be done. There need to be some criminal prosecutions of people like Anthony Fauci, people like Bill Gates, people like George Soros, who has funded massive NGOs to illegally import people into America. That's a violation of federal criminal law. You can't aid and abet illegal immigration in the United States. There's no question he's behind large parts of it with his NGO ties all over the place. Fred Weinstein discovered it in person in Panama when he was down there. So I think there need to be consequences for those people.

And the question is when those people recognize and realize those consequences might be coming, do they take some sort of drastic action that puts the whole world at risk? Unfortunately, you can't rule that out. But right now I'm hopeful that that isn't what happens with a Trump election on Election Day. Excellent. Excellent, Robert. Well, this is where I finish my questions. I just wanted to say one thing, which is about Amos Miller,

which is that obviously lots of people in Britain have been writing or contacting me or speaking to me about his case. The other day, to my astonishment, because I get people from all over. We had the Duran, we get people from all over the place. But people from China, you know, they were taking an interest in the case as well. Not out of, you know, party political or, you know, whatever. it is, but because of course food security is actually a big topic there also. So I was fascinated by that. I just wanted to pass that on. Thank you very much, Robert Barnes, the amazing, wonderful, insightful, always insightful and always interesting and educating Robert Barnes for speaking to us today.

And if you can just stay a little, I'm sure Alex has some questions to pass on to you. Robert, you have maybe 15, 20 minutes to answer some questions? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. The first question that came in, Robert, that we actually talked about before the show started, was which state is going to have the highest voter turnout? You said Minnesota, correct? Historically, it's Minnesota.

They have a real high turnout, big. You know, the America is a very much a melting pot. So you have different groups that impact different states. The most Trump trending group in the upper Midwest in Wisconsin and Minnesota, but parts of North Dakota as well are Norwegian voters because the Norwegian voters that settled in the United States came from the countryside, as opposed to a lot of the Swedish voters

who came from the more urban centers. And so the Norwegian vote is a very populist vote, but it's a deeply anti-war vote going back over a century. Trump has done very well with that group. So that's what will do well in Minnesota. And it'll probably be closer than a lot of experts expect. Wallace is the governor there. The big question is whether the Twin Cities hold such a dominant

there are over half of the vote and it's a very liberal trending jurisdiction, does it offset the rural areas and in particular the iron range that may be swinging, an old school working class area of old industry that has been trending Trump, that Trump might take this election cycle? And then does he believe votes as badly out of the Twin Cities as he did in 2020? It was very close in 2016 in Minnesota, only three points. It was about the same as the national vote margin. And the issue there is, does Harris underperform because there's a big Somali Muslim population there that is unhappy with very big protest vote during Democratic primary about the Israeli conflict? So how does that play out?

Does Trump make some inroads in the excerpts? Does the same young voter trend take place in the Twin Cities too? So Trump might be able to steal it. But Minnesota is probably better than the odds. I think the odds are saying 10 to 1 at Minnesota, I would say more. like two to one Minnesota that he could outside chance but could do it because certain variables could all flow in the same direction. But Minnesota usually always, they're very responsible. You know, you don't have to watch the Cohen brothers to get that sense from that part of the

world that they themselves came from. The great filmmakers of Big Lobowski and other, in Fargo and whatnot, I have a real sense for the mindset up there. But they tend to be the highest participation rate. If you'll measure it by voting eligible population or by registered voters, they tend to usually hit the top and probably will again this cycle. Sticky Marks wants to know, is Steve Bannon out of jail? Yes, right? Yeah, he just got out yesterday. Okay. And Shane Cameron wants to know, is it possible for Bannon to advise Trump in some capacity if he wins next week, maybe as an outside populist voice? Oh yeah, he definitely will be

part of that world. He's part of the Kennedy. You know, someone that Kennedy also talks to the, I mean, for those of people that don't know, I mean, to give people an idea of how different this Trump administration can be, you know, Robert Kennedy

publicly stated his favorite source for foreign policy and foreign world relations analysis. And it's the Duran, as he publicly stated. It loves the Duran. That's the kind of change of perspective we're talking about. The populist voices are having a much, will have the most say, and the reformist and

geopolitical realists and the war skeptics will have a bigger say in this administration than any American administration since World War I. Sparky wants to know about J.D. Vance. Is he related to Zebulah advance? I believe we've had this question before. It's possible the president of same Apple-Lyman. sort of networks. So those names don't tend to be too far down the tree. And there's obviously geographic ties because J.D. Vance's side of the family comes from the Appalachian part of Kentucky.

So he grew up right across the border in Ohio, but he often spent a lot of time in Kentucky. And you get a really good sense of who he is with the movie that's available on Netflix based on his biography. But you keep going down to eastern, western North Carolina. line of Appalachia where all the hurricanes hit, and you have similar kinship groups across there. So I don't know if he definitely is related, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was. John Roberts asks, Britain recently voted for labor and quickly became disappointed with Kirstommer. I'm worried the same could happen in the U.S. with Harris.

A divided Congress means nothing happens to how likely. What about Congress, Robert? What's, what's the take up on that? Well, the other things you guys pointed out, it wasn't so much Britain had a love affair with labor. They were disappointed in the Tories. And until the Reform Party came along, they didn't really have an alternative. And they started to surge towards them, but just not a tough momentum soon enough. Otherwise, I think they could have surprised everybody and won some seats.

But labor has proven how they can completely destroy any advantage. This is not the Labor Party of Blair or anything else. in terms of their at least connection to ordinary voters. It's the same thing. It's happened. Labor Party's happened to Democratic Party in America. So the Labor Party, go back to 1950s. I mean, I mean, still a good number of their parliamentary members

came from unions and working class background. Now none of them are. They're all lawyers, doctors, PhDs, masters, all that garbage. Same here, Democratic Party of the United States. Same thing, professional class taken over and they kicked the working class out. That's why the Teamsters didn't endorse. anybody for the first time and forever. That's why firemen's unions are turning their

backs on Harris. That's why a lot of unions don't even want to get involved. Senator Federman from Pennsylvania said that Trump's going to walk all over. Pennsylvania is going to win with ease because of what's happening in the union in blue-collar country. So you go down ballot

and the key is the generic Republican brand still doesn't test well that it has, you could say, if you're looking at it from a UK perspective, sort of a a Tory shadow of this Romney, McCain, Bush version of republicanism, which was anathema to most of the Republican Party historically. And people forget, Reagan actually lean, for all the tough talk on the Cold War, he was,

he tried to avoid getting involved in actual hot conflicts. Same with Eisenhower. Despite being in general, he tried to avoid escalating conflicts. He had a bunch of generals and wanted to nuke everybody on God's Green Earth because, hey, we got an edge with a nuke. And before that, you know, the Republicans were the isolationist party, the anti-war party. It was the Bushes that really changed that. But that vestigial image amongst millennials and zoomers and minorities is such that they trust Trump

and particularly your Trump, Kennedy, Tulsi combination in ways they don't trust generic Republican for House, generic Republican for the Senate. They also run incompetent campaigns. They have these professional managerial class people managing their campaigns that, think the way you deliver the message matters more than the content of the message. Like if they were, we had circulated with all of them, like if you're talking about, you take a stand on vaccines. If vaccines cause injuries, big drug companies should not be immune from liability.

Not just because of that issue being popular with a certain group of people, but because it was a filter. People are like, okay, if you're for that, you're not a generic Republican. You're not a corporate Republican. You're not a war-oriented, Cheney Bushite Republican. So that's where they're struggling. But I think Trump's coattails will be long, and I think it'll be long enough that Republicans will not only take the Senate,

but likely take it by a big margin. It would be, you know, Carrie Lake's a big underdog in Arizona. I think she's going to win. They're big underdogs in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. I think they win two of those four. They're going to take West Virginia. They're going to take Montana. think Ohio is going to be that close. Trump's going to win Ohio by double digits. I think

Sheldon Brown is done. I think Marino is going to be in. So you might see 55, 56, 57 Republican senators, and more importantly, more of a populist hue to that side of the Senate. People like Carrie Lake are very unique in the Senate. You know, one being willing to be very skeptical of war publicly. You know, before Vance, Rand Paul was kind of it in the Senate for raising questions about war. Now you might have three or four of those in the U.S. Senate. or six outspoken that could really help bridge the new Trump administration with nominees they need to get through the Senate. And the House, similarly, I think the media and the election markets seem to think

that Democrats have a pretty good chance. I think Democrats don't have a very good chance. I think it's going to be an R plus two. What happens when Trump runs is a bunch of people vote who don't otherwise vote. They don't vote in the midterms. They do vote when Trump's on the ticket. And what happens is when they, even though they don't trust the generic Republican, When they get in there, they're like, ah, screw it, they'll just vote Republican down ballot.

That's what happens nine times out of ten in the modern electoral error. I mean, it's like I was looking at my ballot, and there's a couple of low-level races I had no idea about some like constable or something another. And I just picked the guy whose name was Jimmy Dean, James Dean. I was like, oh, he's named to James Dean. Okay, I'll take that guy. Right. But these kind of people that, when you vote down ballot, you know, they say they're undecided in the data now, polling now. they usually end up breaking Trump.

So I think Trump, big win for the Republicans in the Senate and the House, are also likely to occur if Trump does well at the top of the ticket, particularly some of these close states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, if he's winning him by three or more, then he's probably going to carry the Senate candidate and the House candidates along with him. We have a lot of questions about Elon Musk. So OMG Puppies says that Elon Musk is all in for Trump. And he says he worries that his business will be destroyed. of Kamala Wins.

Mark Cuban says he's prepared to take ownership of Twitter. Crystal clarity. Okay. And also on Elon Musk, Robert, as you answer about Elon Musk from Carol, do you have any information on the subpoena for Elon by PA? I imagine Pennsylvania. Oh, Pennsylvania. So Elon is, if you sign a petition, you qualify to potentially receive a million dollars

as a gift or as a payment to be a spokesperson for supporting free speech and Second Amendment rights. And the media went nuts about that. And so Philly DA sued saying this has got to be illegal because he's one of the only billionaires backing Trump, right? Most billionaires still on the Democratic side. Most of the big money still on the Democrat, big tech on the Democratic side, big corporations on the Democratic side. He's just one of the dissidents that's broken free. and they went them back on the plantation. That legal case won't go anywhere. Now, the other thing for, you know,

they were launching investigations everywhere. They were harassing SpaceX. They are harassing Tesla. They were going after the Delaware courts, tried to order them to pay back a bunch of money. His own stockholders repeatedly said he should get paid against his own stockholders' interest. That's how he moved out of California.

That's why he moved out of Delaware and relocated to Texas. He has brought a bunch of suits there in Texas against a bunch of people that have done illicit activities towards him. But so I, the Elon believes that everything he cares about, you know, exploring space, new technologies, you know, the, you know, flourishing freedom, as he puts it, is at risk in this election. And he puts money where his mouth is, not only in buying Twitter and making it a free speech space again, but also in political action committees, touring, Pennsylvania, all the rest.

So it was one of the great mistakes. It was kind of the arrogance of the Harris, Biden Harris administration that they thought everybody should bow to them. Just like Joe Rogan, you come to me. I tell you when you get to talk. I tell you what questions you ask. I tell you where it starts and stops. I'm Quala Harris. You're Joe Rogan.

And they did that with Elon Musk. And they're like, you're either going to play ball with everything we want. So if we want Starlink here and not there, you're going to do it here and not there. You know, that kind of behavior. and when he said, no, that's not how we're going to operate. They're like, okay, we'll put you under civil rights investigation in one jurisdiction, criminal investigation under the SEC, put you under a fraud investigation over here, we'll get lawfare lawyers to try to take away all your money that you've been paid by the company on grounds.

It was somehow fraud on the stockholders that keep repeatedly approving. So they just waged a mini-Trump lawfare on Elon Musk. They radicalized in red-pilled Elon Musk, who had started to get red-pilled because of all the COVID-lockdown policies. you know, much as Robert Kennedy got red-pilled by it, he got red-pilled by it, David Sachs got red-pilled by it, and the Ukraine conflict. People like David Sachs and others, I'm like, this is insane. Why are we in the middle of Central Europe trying to fight over a country that's literally named the borderlands to try to get into a nuclear war with Russia?

Over what? It made no sense. So, yeah, Elon does see this election as existential for him and his businesses. All right. Let's stick with foreign policy. Robert, we have a lot of questions there. The alchemists sparky as well as communism incorporated are asking about Pompeo. What is going to happen with Pompeo? Will Pompeo be in Trump's cabinet? What do you think? No. So, you know, Trump will say nice things about Pompeo. He did on Rogan. It doesn't mean anything. The people that are pre-clearing people on the transition committee, include Robert Kennedy, include Tulsi Gabbard, include those kind of people in the national security structure, so that Pompeo's got little to no chance to be part of a new

Trump administration. Okay, from Beverly and Zariol are asking about Trump's foreign policy, wars. Will there be, what will happen in Ukraine? What do you think will happen in the Middle East? Beverly is asking about NATO and the EU. Will they survive? And Zavis, Ariel is asking about if Harris wins, what do you think will happen in the world? So I think for Trump, he has made such a big deal about how he'll get peace in Ukraine before he even gets inaugurated once he wins, that he'll make sure that happens. And honestly, it's not that hard. I mean, you get Ukraine to fold by just saying no more money. So you can get Ukraine to do whatever you want.

It's what you can get Putin to agree to. And what's probably going to be is they're going to carve off all the territory that Russia. has already declared there. So that those territories will go and they'll make Ukraine commit to no NATO presence and no joining NATO. And that that will probably, that most likely we'll see what Putin agrees to, but that's kind of probably the terms Trump is thinking about. That he's like, these are all Russian areas anyway, so who cares?

Let's get rid of this. Let's not have this hotspot at risk. And let's see what we can try to restore some degree of normalcy with Russian relations, which is going to be a much harder thing to do than he probably thinks it is. The degree of Russian is just cutting the ties and think the West is just a waste of space to ever deal with ever again runs deeper than I think people in Trump camp and other places recognize. So we'll see how that works. But he's deeply committed to it. So he'll get done one way or another.

On the Middle East, he wants, it's already leaked out. They told Netanyahu, by the time I'm inaugurated, there needs to be no kind of. conflict in Gaza. So get it done. Whatever you're going to do, you got to do it between before me. Once I'm inaugurated, no mas. You got to end it. So that's, and he got a lot of Muslim support by promising peace in the Middle East. So he, he takes pride in the peace. He always has been a closet peace, Nick, actually, since the 70s, despite what can be misleading rhetoric because he believes in, hey, I'm always strong, you know, et cetera. America's always strong. That's how he thinks you get peace by, you know, peace through strength, that whole routine.

But so I think our chances of new wars are drastically less if Trump is elected than Harris is elected. Harris is the kind of person to prove herself by war. He's the kind of person to go to war with somebody because she feels insulted at some diplomatic event. I mean, she really mentally unstable, individual, aside from all the stories about the pill popping and the drinking. You can put that aside, this is not a minute. You can just watch her and like, whoa, this is not someone I, this is what JD Vance point. He's like, she's not even curious about public policy. When she was given intelligence briefings, she wrote, did she go back and say, oh, well, let's look at this.

She wrote back, she said, there's too much gendered language in here. We need to change our intelligence briefings to make sure the gendered language, there's not too many stereotypes about women in it. It's like, what in the world? I mean, that's your leader? I mean, can you imagine Vladimir Putin taking Kamala Harris seriously? I mean, I'll give him great. He trolled great because we want Kamala Harris to win. There's nobody in Russia early wants Kamala Harris to win.

But, you know, he had fun, you know, doing the trolling. I mean, I mean, he did it masterfully, too, because like, look at, I mean, look at how she, you know, she got to, she was so popular, she didn't even have to compete in an elections to get the nomination. I mean, it was, you know, multiple levels of trolling there by Putin. But so I think foreign policy perspective, you can expect a lot more peace, a lot more troops brought home, a lot more bases shut down. The big question is how institutional does the reform go?

Because as the question asked, if it's real institutional, we should be out of NATO. Trump's first instincts were correct. It's just an invitation to war. It's like the treaty agreements before World War I. You know, that's not the real reason World War I happened. It provided the political pretext for it to occur. It'd be out of NATO. Just to be done with it.

Disconnect from the EU. Now, on trade, Trump is moving in that direction. I mean, that's the way he's talking about. Maybe we'll just get rid of the income tax altogether. He goes, you know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on so. security, no tax if you live overseas, no tax on crypto. And now he's thinking, maybe just no tax period. And we'll go back to a tariff basis. That'd be very hard to pass. But it gives you an idea of where he's thinking. He wants to leverage the U.S. customer

market to create better jobs in reindustrialize America. That's his, like that's his disagreement with China. It's not over foreign policy. It's not over war issues or anything like that. His view is, I don't want U.S. jobs in China. I want U.S. jobs in the U.S. And that's about it. So I think you'll see a de-escalation of conflict around the world because we already saw it when Trump was president for four years ago. And he's got a much better team to achieve it this time than he did that. All right. All right. All right. Let's do three more questions. Is that all right, Robert? Sounds good. Wrap it up. Okay, great. What are your thoughts on the voting machine password league? I'm not sure. That's happened to multiple jurisdictions. Colorado happened somewhere to other states as well.

I mean, this is why I don't understand. The whole world can do elections with paper ballots without machines. Why does America need machines? Number one, number two, the whole world can count the ballots on election night. Why can't we count ballots on election night? It makes this look like a complete joke. Everybody knows it's a big scam that it's designed to invite fraud. And, you know, we should just get rid of it, given the global example.

But putting that aside, these machines create risk. and some of it are things like passwords to access machines to record votes for the most part we have paper receipts so that people have a paper ballot they get to see that's separate from the machines so your vote is locked into a machine and only a machine so the ability to cheat is actually in that format is limited without getting caught but it's just a sign these constant issues i mean secretary of state is a democrat from michigan had to come out and say there's a whole bunch of problems with Dominion software machines at the moment. In Kentucky, the way in which the pad was structured was such that if you pushed for Trump, it showed up for Harris. I mean, you know,

this is not increasing public confidence in elections. And so hopefully this restores the need at a federal and national level to go back to paper, the same thing that worked for a century, paper ballots and being hand-counted by ordinary people. That doesn't mean you can can prevent all forms of election fornication even then. You know, look at Box 46 with old Lyndon Baines Johnson out of West Texas, 1946 Senate race. But you make it a little harder, a little trickier. And that's what all these stories, to me, reinforce.

I don't think it creates a high risk of election fornication in this election, because I think the margin will be big enough that there won't be enough temptation for it. And what's interesting is I think Democrats bought their own story. they believe that that was organic, authentic voter participation in 2020, that there was nobody out there mass gathering mail-in ballots. There was nobody in apartment complexes and nursing homes and post office boxes voting and registering for homeless people and other people without them even knowing they voted. They believe that didn't happen. They believe those are all honest turnout. Well, why is over half of the vote mail-in vote disappeared from 20 to 2024? But on the positive side,

that suggests that we're not going to have the same election fornication risk as last time, because we don't have the same mail-in ballots as last time. Let's talk about the cabinet. Should Trump win, Robert? Tropical Rocket says predictions for Secretary of State and Defense. Darren a levy says, I hope Trump grooms Tulsi to be his successor. Arcane Eclectic says Tulsi Gabbard will make an excellent Secretary of State. and Sparky says, shouldn't RFK Jr. be made CIA director? So Kennedy wants a position that does not require Senate confirmation.

He wants to be kind of a roving kitchen cabinet advisor, making policy and personnel recommendations in areas of both public health and national security. And he's been basically given a mandate to do precisely that. But for that reason, he is not seeking any Senate confirmed position, not only because you have to deal with the Senate confirmation process, but also it limits him to that one office. And he doesn't want to be limited to that one office. And so he will be in a constant continuous role advising Trump on policy and personnel in areas of public health and national security and declassification. Trump is going to declassify all the Kennedy files, the Robert Kennedy files, the John Kennedy files, the Martin Luther King files, the Russia Gate files.

they're all going to be declassified, which will expose the deep state's greatest crime in America, not necessarily on the world's state, but in America. And so I think Tulsi Gabbard would not surprise me to see her in a cabinet position and a high-ranking one, something like Secretary of State, something like Secretary of Defense. I think her formally joining the Republican Party was met as a bridge to that end. So I think someone like, I think you could see Thomas Massey in a critical cabinet position. I think you could see Rand Paul in a critical cabinet position, either in the financial sector of the State Department. I think you're going to see a lot of those kind of people that you could see Mike Lee in a key cabinet position.

You could see people like that. So you're going to have a much more populist coloration, anti-war focal point. Now, could McGregor come back in? I think McGregor is going to be on the short list. the question is as national security advisor or something else. The McGregor has not been bashful at his public statements over the last two years. So it might get a little tricky going through Senate confirmation. So he might end up with a position that doesn't require Senate confirmation.

But Kennedy has great respect for McGregor. Tulsi Gabbard has great respect for McGregor. Trump has great respect for McGregor. So I think you might see him back in in a significant position. And then right now they've been coming up with the list over the last. two months actually. This started two months ago. They weren't going to wait for the election for the transition team. They weren't going to make it a government funded team. They were going to make a private operation outside of governmental control. And so they've been coming up with names all the way

through. You might see someone like Harming Dillon at the Justice Department. And I think the goal is to find people who can get through Senate confirmation, but are on board with the policies of the more populist reformist side and will trust those people behind the scenes to implement a lot of those policies and personnel. So I think that's the combined personality they're looking for. They're looking for somebody who can be good in front of a camera, who can get Senate confirmation and who can be on board doesn't have an ulterior agenda, who's not Mike Pompeo, not John Bolton, not what's his name, the guy that's come out against him recently, the first or second national security advisor. All those cats, he wants to get rid of. Millie's not only going to get

fired, Millie might get court-martial. So, I mean, some of these people open their mouths up big. But if you have any wondering about what a Harris administration will look like, it's being advertised to me right here in Nevada. She went through a whole list of, look at all these CIA people that endorse Hillary, Kamala Harris. Look at all these Pentagon people that endorse Kamala Harris. Look at all these national security people that endorse Kamala Harris. Look at the Cheney's, in Kamala Harris. I was like, if I knew nothing about this election, that alone would guarantee I would get out to vote just to vote against you. Like the deep state is for Kamala Harris. If Paula Harris is in, deep state runs everything. To a degree, they probably haven't in quite some

time. All right, let's do the final batch of questions for Robert, and we will wrap it up. Thank you, Robert, very much, because we know that you're fighting a cold. Alexander is also fighting a cold, but we're powering through this. Basil wants to know your thoughts on Austin and the Pentagon doing something in January 6th if it turns Trump's way. What are the chances that something happens? And Robert, to wrap it up, what happens to the Republican Party if Trump loses and what happens just in general to a post-Trump Republican Party? What does that look like? What was that first question again? With January 6, are you worried if Trump wins that the Pentagon does something, Austin?

There's definitely risk, but I think they've painted themselves into such a corner. They've suggested questioning election results at any level is so treasonous that you belong in prison for life. And so I think that makes it very difficult for them to go plausibly to the court of public opinion and pull some shenanigans themselves. Does it prohibit it? I just think it makes it less likely than more likely. I think the Republican Party has changed forever. Trump has changed it forever. The unity with Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy and bringing on J.D. Vance as his successor,

all pointed in the same populist direction. Now, it is the Republican Party in many respects prior to the Bushes that even Reagan and Eisenhower leaned more in this direction. Reagan famously imposed tariffs to protect Harley Davidson. so on and so forth. So the, it's returning the Republican Party to its roots is what some would say that come from the old populous side of that party historically and ancestrally. Places like Eastern Tennessee and Appalachia, only congressman to vote against the first, first actions in Vietnam was an East Kentucky Appalachian Republican. So the, that history, that's who's taking over the party. That's where the zeitgeist is. That's where the mojo is.

I don't see the Kamala Harris version with, you know, Haley and Liz Cheney ever coming back to the Republican Party, the Republican Party ever accepting them back. So I think that ship has sailed once Trump survived the lawfare, that was done, finished. So the Republican Party will be a populist party for the foreseeable future, regardless of Trump's own presence in it. Now, I think having somebody as good as Trump from a marketing campaign perspective, not easy to do. J.D. Vance is very good in his own right, but Trump was an animal of his own accord. So I think that the degree to which the party has sustained success post-Trump

will actually depend on Trump's success. When Trump's no longer on the ticket, they need him to make the institutional reforms in the country over the next four years that can allow a populist version of a Republican Party to be sustainable at the popular level and electoral level and institutional influence level going forward. So much of the future of populism or reform, however you see it, depends heavily not only on Trump's election,

but a successful populist-oriented Trump second term. Great Robert Barnes. Thank you very much for joining us on another epic live stream. Robert, once again, where can people find you and tell us a bit about sportpicks.locals.com as well. Yeah, so we got all of our election picks. If you want to see those for all the election betting markets around the world or prediction markets, wherever they may be called, or if you're just investing, all of those are up and posted at sportspicks.com. On election night, I will be active throughout the live chat, getting any intel or information, whether it's exit poll data or early voting data.

I'll be sharing that at sportspicks.com in the live chat. We got a live group there. It's a lot of fun. We also do soccer picks, basketball picks, football picks, all the rest. American football, European football, you name it. It's a big Champions League matches coming up next week. Europa League matches going on. So all that too.

But for the election side of the equation, sportspics.locals.com is where I'll be. All right. Alexander, we actually answered a lot of the questions, but we still have some other questions that we can answer in a dedicated video. That means Alexander will do to answer all of the questions that came up on this live stream. So let's say thank you to everyone that watched us on Rockfin, on Odyssey, on Rumble, at Duran.orgas.com, and on YouTube, a big thank you to our moderators.

Alexander, Robert, any final thoughts before we... Well, my two final thoughts. First, you to say thank you to Robert. I mean, you've held on for over two hours, fighting at Culls, answering our questions and the questions from our viewers. brilliantly. And can I just say, I mean, I think we are all incredibly grateful. So generous in your time and so, you know, strong to power through your cold in the way that you've just done. So just to say

that. And secondly, this is going to be one of the most consequential elections ever, even by the standards of American elections. And to have it all explained in this way has been amazing. And thank you, roll of the answer to that. And remember, if you want to know what the next Trump administration is evaluating on foreign policy, you would be better off watching the Duran than having the CIA's daily bogus intelligence briefing that Trump himself has said, no thank you to throughout the election term. Fantastic. All right. Take care, everybody. Have a great morning, afternoon or evening. Take care.