Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #178 - John Kerry Says Biden Is ALL IN On The GREAT RESET, w/Destiny

Episode Date: December 4, 2020

Tim, Ian, and Lydia host guest Destiny (@TheVoid on Twitter, @Destiny on YouTube) discuss the recent election, Donald Trump's job performance, Joe Biden's strong suit, freedom vs security, and healthcare. Support the show (http://Timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Supreme Court has ruled in favor of churches in California. There are more lockdowns on the way. Joe Biden's advisor, Dr. Osterholm, says we need a six-week hard national lockdown. But it seems like in many different circumstances, the Supreme Court is saying you can't do it. There have been already several rulings over the past year stopping many of these lockdowns. We just saw the Supreme Court ruling in New York. But it seems like we're still going to be going through this back and forth of those who think we should and those who think

we shouldn't. But I bring this up because there is something else behind all of this, and it's called the Great Reset. The World Economic Forum said that COVID is an opportunity to reset global capitalism so that global stakeholders have a better, you know, I don't know, responsibility towards the planet. And the New York Times, the BBC, many outlets said this is a conspiracy theory. They call it the Great Reset Conspiracy Theory. Well, what they add is that the theory is there is a plan

to reset global capitalism, but COVID was a hoax. That's not necessarily what the Great Reset is. And so when you Google it, it's really funny. You'll see the World Economic Forum saying the Great Reset opportunity and the next to it, the New York Times saying it's a conspiracy theory. Well, regardless of the conspiracy stuff, I can say fine to the New York Times. But The Hill has recently published an op ed, John Kerry reveals Biden's devotion to radical Great Reset movement. And we can see in statements made by John Kerry, who's going to be representing the Biden administration in terms of climate change, that they want to take advantage of COVID to move into a kind of lockdown that would help alleviate the problems of climate change. Considering what we've already seen, I can only imagine people will lose their minds and things will get really, really bad. So we're going to break all this down and talk about this news, as well as some other news pertaining to Kyle Rittenhouse.

And it works out really well because today we are joined by the one and only destiny hey what's up thanks for having me here and uh how i'll just let you describe yourself do a quick intro because i don't want to you know yeah so i do politics and gaming on which camera looks at me who do i look at that one right there okay i do politics and gaming on twitch and youtube i go by destiny there uh i don't know how i would characterize myself politically probably center left to far left or if you're a communist on far right and yeah otherwise yeah we just run down i'm a huge riding for biden supporter are you really oh yeah a million percent love him i hear him described as obama 2.0 very much

in favor of that so i'm excited for four years of biden maybe eight years maybe he'll go for a second term we'll see otherwise maybe kamala harris will step in for the second term and oh man how exciting would that be most progressive voting record in the senate yes i think people uh they always assume that like it's going to be some kind of internet blood sport we clearly disagree in a lot of stuff it's going to be a fun conversation i think you know we'll have some back and forth it'll be great i think you were mentioning you know all that stuff because where you were looking at me as you were saying biden obama 2.0 and all that stuff oh yeah yeah it'll be fun yeah yeah yeah right on right on yeah we were testing the limiters before this screaming seeing how loud we can go on the

mics yeah we should be good to go yeah we we have this thing where i can we can both scream at full volume and it automatically limits so that you don't blow your ears you guys are welcome ian's hanging out so this would be this would be, too. And of course, Lydia is producing. I am producing. And make sure you smash that like button. Subscribe to the notification bell. We are live Monday through Friday at 8 p.m. Well, let's just jump to the first story.

And we'll talk about John Kerry reveals Biden's devotion to radical Great Reset movement from the Hill. This to me is really funny because they say the Great Reset is a conspiracy conspiracy theory but it's actually what they've been calling it for some time the hill says in june elites at an important at important international institutions such as the world economic forum and the united nations launched a far-reaching campaign to reset the global economy the plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the green new deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes. Obviously, this is, I think it's a biased view of what they're saying, but to be fair, the World Economic Forum has pushed a lot of left-wing

causes as they've referenced the Great Reset. It goes on to say, the two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters, the Great Reset, are the COVID-19 pandemic, the short-term justification, and the so-called climate crisis caused by global warming, the long-term justification. According to the Great Reset supporters, the plan would fundamentally transform much of society, as World Economic Forum head Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, quote, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country from the United States to China must participate and every industry from oil and gas to tech must be transformed. In short, we need a great reset of capitalism. They're going to say internationally, the Great Reset has already been backed by influential

leaders, activists, academics and institutions. In addition to the World Economic Forum and the United Nations, the Great Reset movement counts among its international among its there's a missing word there, I suppose. The International Monetary Fund, heads of state, Greenpeace and CEOs and resident presidents of large corporations and financial institutions such as Microsoft and MasterCard. But in America, most policymakers, including President-elect Joe Biden, have been relatively quiet about the Great Reset, leaving many to speculate what a Biden administration would do to support or oppose this radical plan. They go on to say that at a panel discussion about the Great Reset hosted by the World Economic Forum in mid-November,

former Secretary of State John Kerry, Biden's would-be special presidential envoy for climate, firmly declared that the Biden administration will support the Great Reset and that the Great Reset, quote, will happen with greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine. When asked by panel host Borge Brend whether the World Economic Forum and other Great Reset supporters are expecting too much too soon from the new president, or is he going to deliver the first day on these topics? Kerry responded, the answer to your question is no, you're not expecting too much. And yes, the Great Reset will happen, and I think it will happen with greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine.

In effect, the citizens of the United States have just done a great reset. We've done a great reset, and it was a record level of voting. Kerry later argued that the great reset is necessary to slow the climate crisis and that, quote, I know Joe Biden believes it's not enough to just rejoin the Paris climate accords for the United States. It's not enough for us to just do the minimum of what Paris requires. So I'm not going to read literally every, you know, the last bit of this. It's clearly an opinion piece, but it's talking about something that's actually happening.

Lockdowns. I'm going to ask you, Destiny, your opinion, because you were mentioning before that you're for them. Well, oh, are we going to talk about the Great Reset or are we going to talk about lockdowns? Well, we're going to talk about the Great Reset for sure. I mean, let's see if you want to respond to that first. Oh, that all sounded really cool i guess um the idea that uh we have an opportunity to reorganize things based around like some kind of like ongoing crisis that might expose uh you know weak parts of our economy or weak parts of you know healthcare infrastructure whatever like i

think the idea of capitalizing on those types of disasters and moving new programs forward i think is really good i think it's like pretty standard business practice too, right? Like nobody files bankruptcy and comes back the exact same way, right? Usually it's an opportunity to restructure your business, to get rid of stuff that doesn't work, to improve on stuff that does work. Like, I don't, I don't see the horrible part about that, but more specifically lockdowns or. Yeah. So I guess the general idea is that when they're talking about lockdowns, they're not talking about COVID. They're talking about the great reset and climate change. And that's, that's the gist of what i get from john kerry's statements initially they said the great reset you know of global capitalism whatever would be due to

due to covid it's a great opportunity to do it but then clearly what their real concern is climate change i just because you take an opportunity to um so i think it was chicago i think was one of the cities that had like massive fires that like ravaged the city and they use the opportunity to rebuild a lot of the city's infrastructure. I don't think people were ever claiming they set the fires just to rebuild the city. I don't think I don't think anybody would claim that we want to lock down the country just to further climate change. There might be a way to make climate change or to further climate change. Yeah. That might be an argument that one could make in another world where we aren't topping ourselves every

single day with record numbers of infections and deaths like if we were australia or uh new zealand and we were doing lockdowns continually then maybe like oh hold on there's an agenda here um but i mean like we're we're losing twin towers worth of people every day the idea that this is just a conspiracy to pass climate change agenda stuff it seems like a hard sell to me i don't think it's that it's a conspiracy. I think it's that they're exploiting a crisis. But that's good. Shouldn't we do that?

Not necessarily. Isn't a crisis like one of your best opportunities to like restructure? Like I give with the example of like a failing business. Like if something really horrible happens, generally horrible things happen because they expose some type of flaw or defect in what you do. Like isn't that the time for change? Especially because that's when you're going to get the most, like, activism behind it. Don't people have rights, though? Like, don't you have a right to make choices for yourself, live your life?

Sometimes. Especially with the Constitution. Kind of. That's a very vague sentence. I mean, like, do I have the right to go out and get drunk and drive? You don't. Okay, so we have some rights, right? Insofar as we're not infringing on

the rights of others so whether that's crashing in a drunk driving accident or infecting somebody with sars-cov-2 right it probably depends on what right we're talking about i would imagine yeah so if you don't want to get sick then shouldn't you stay home if you don't want a drunk driver to hit you should you just never drive well that's different that's someone someone who might be sick and doesn't know and is living their life under emergency circumstances like i have to make money and feed my family there's no circumstance where you have to be drunk and drive there's no circumstance we have to be outside and standing right next to people without a mask or whatever we're not talking about that we're talking well i mean if you want to criticize the black lives

matter protests and you know the the biden's you know the big biden rallies or whatever they just did when biden won then yeah there's no reason for those people to be doing that stuff. You know, you can simultaneously criticize them and the anti-lockdown people too as well, right? That's not like, I can criticize both. To my knowledge, a lot of the people in those protests were wearing masks, though. I mean, from what I saw. Well, in the Biden one, they were taking their masks off and drinking and sharing drinks

was like one of the big videos that came around. Sure, that's pretty dumb. That's pretty dumb, for sure. But I'm just, more fundamentally, I'm just saying that like, to come up with the like, don't we have rights? Well, yeah, I mean, of course we do. But I mean, we learned this growing up. With more rights also comes more responsibility, you know?

So, I think the drunk driving thing doesn't work. Like, there's a guy in Staten Island who got arrested trying to run his bar. He has to. Otherwise, he becomes homeless and he can't feed his family. And then what? Do they beg the government for help? The government's not giving it to him. And you can blame Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi. No, we could blame Mitch McConnell. Pelosi sent him like trillions of dollars of bills were dying on his desk. But we still had we still had Democrats saying it was Pelosi's fault. You had

Wolf Blitzer criticizing Pelosi. So I think it's fair to point the finger at both. We can we're pointing a very short dwarven finger at one and we're pointing like the nose of Pinocchio at the other um in terms of people fighting over specifically you know what is pelosi pushing for what is she not pushing for um there can be back and forth over that the fact of the matter is there was some like 2.5 trillion dollar bill that was left in mcconnell's desk when he moonwalked out of the senate after they confirmed acb so i mean like the blame is not even remotely close to equal there the house passed legislation the senate let it die that's true you can't you can't both sides that one, I don't think. But I well, I think that's

whether or not it's me trying to do it. This is what people are doing. Right. Well, so Wolf Blitzer might have specifically criticized like, hey, Pelosi, he cited Ro Khanna. What he cited Ro Khanna. He was citing Democrats who were calling out Pelosi and Pelosi didn't want to answer the question. So look, if like obviously, if you're on the right, the right's going to say, see, the issue with the HEROES Act was that they wanted fun. Like, you know, they were stuffing things in it that didn't make sense. And the Republicans did the same thing. They wanted money for an FBI building.

I don't want to go off on the Democrat versus Republican. Well, it's important because I don't be, obviously, as a huge diehard Biden fan, I'm going to fight viciously back against the idea that both sides messed up. The fact of the matter is, is that if I go into the senate um they did not give us legislation for any type of coronavirus release and pelosi did she delivered we have that legislation it's sitting on the floor of the senate and it's never going to be called for a vote well so i want to i want to keep it to yeah the lockdown rights the great reset stuff yeah so the government is clearly not providing for people regardless regardless of whose fault it is. You can say it's Republicans' fault, then absolutely.

What is a working class man or woman to do when they're told, specifically in Staten Island, the issue was that this bar wasn't allowed to serve people, but two blocks away, everything was normal. They said this specific zone has been locked down. So when the guy said, I have nothing left, I have nothing left to lose, the money that did go out overwhelmingly went to massive corporations. The lockdown is overwhelmingly benefiting. The money should go to massive corporations, right?

No. Why not? It should go to the people who can then buy resources, go to the businesses to make sure they can cover their costs and their taxes. Okay. So the PPP loans, I wish I could remember what every word you're saying for it, but the PPP loans were loans given to corporations that allowed them to cover up to 2.5 months of employment expenses when they paid employees.

If they did that, then the loan was going to be forgiven. We still haven't gotten the paperwork for what that forgiveness looks like, but that's the point. So if I have one corporation that hires 10,000 people and another company that hires 10 people, well, of course more money is going to go to the corporation because there's more payroll to cover, right? But it's not, but the corporations aren't. It's a semantic issue.

It's not semantic. No, no, no. It's very important. Yeah. What I meant was not that a small business with 10 employees was getting money. What I meant was when the lockdown happens, the money ends up in the hands of the ultra wealthy. The stores that are allowed to remain open tend to be the big box stores.

And that's why we saw the massive profits, the massive spiking in stock value for these big companies, notably Amazon. The working class people got $1,200. Yeah, stock values are definitely a thing. But if you – I'm just talking very specifically because it's very important to understand each of these policies. So the PPP only works for you if you pay out employees. So I got a PPP loan. The way that that works, the way that the paperwork details is that when I get that money, I can claim up to two and a half times the expenses of all of my employees.

And the only money that's forgiven for me is what I pay out to my employees. So for me personally, there were like two people that I kept on payroll just because, oh, well, the government's going to pay for it. Yeah, screw it. I'll take the PPP money and then I'll continue to pay them out because it'll be forgiven. I only kept those two people on payroll because the government gave me that PPP money. And any corporation isn't going to pocket the money. It gets paid out to employees. It has to be.

Did they give you money to pay your rent pay your taxes pay your costs replace perishable goods no it's just to cover the cost of employing the employees so everything yeah what happens the lockdown is massive businesses the likes of mcdonald's starbucks they can shut down and they can roll and they can observe oh 100 i agree small businesses are being destroyed so that's the question i said don't people have rights when when these people we've seen we see now there's a west michigan story going viral where a guy there's a news report going on a guy walks out of his restaurant and he yells to the the news reporter he's like is this you're talking about me and he said they've taken everything the money is going to their friends it's going to special interests these the bailout that came out people did get

a stimulus and then money did go to small businesses. But if the small businesses are shut down and can't sell things, what happens? The restaurant, their perishable goods, gone. They can't reopen. So in New Jersey, a third of small businesses have been destroyed. Sure. And I've heard similar in New York restaurants and everything. Like a lot of places that are closing are never coming back, probably. So it's a tragedy, of course. Yeah. So I guess to keep it in context of the Great Reset, talking about exploiting a crisis to make some change is also destroying the lives of people, resulting in spikes in suicide, spikes in crime. I don't think we're locking down, though, for the Great Reset.

I think we're locking down because record numbers of people are getting infected and dying from the coronavirus. If we can do something on the backs of that, I don't think that would be the worst thing in the world. Maybe part of that Great Reset, and I'm almost positive without knowing the intricacies, I'm pretty sure that part of that great reset is probably going to be like more stimulus for small business owners. It's going to be covering health care for people. It's going to be more types of like checks or disbursements during like times of crisis. That's probably going to be baked into that great reset as well. Because as you accurately pointed out, the relief that we got so far, even the PPP loans were a joke. And what is it?

One $1,200 check, I think, went out to every American. It would have almost been better to send nothing because that $1,200 was like a slap on the face. It was wrong. Do you know that 23.6% of all U.S. dollars ever created was created this year? I was not aware of that. That's crazy, right? It doesn't sound too crazy. It sounds like probably the Fed is doing what it can to.

The Fed's primary job is to reduce inflation and to curb unemployment, which is funny because Trump always takes credit for low black unemployment, even though that's squarely in the job of the Federal Reserve, which has no oversight from the president. But the Federal Reserve probably sees that we are spiking unemployment as long as we're not raising in inflation, which we haven't been. Their goal would probably be some form of quantitative easing or super low interest rates or whatever. So, yeah, that makes sense. I think, first of all, I'd say I would agree with you on a lot of these things. And also, if your perspective is the lockdowns are strictly because of we have this pandemic, that's an opinion, I guess.

You'll argue that you're correct. I think when you look at certain jurisdictions and you look at the World Health Organization saying it's a very, very last resort, it should be avoided, and it can be, And they do it anyway. It sounds to me like, well, they've said it. They want to exploit COVID-19. It's their opportunity to enact this policy. And they didn't say it was because of COVID-19. They said it was because of climate change. So should I disregard the World Health Organization's warning about lockdowns? I don't know among major countries, because I know there are some small ones, but but among every country we're 11th right now in per capita death and we lead the

world in absolute death i don't know what last resort sounds like to you but that sounds like we're pretty close to like last resort there but so the people who like this is the big challenge our economy is is what do we drop like 30 percent or like 30 something percent this year potentially yeah people are we're facing mass evictions. Mass unemployment, yep. The reason I pointed out the printing of money is that that is absolutely not a solution in any capacity. It's a desperate last resort where they're just like money printer go brr, desperately

trying to keep the machine churning in some capacity. But if people ultimately stop doing things that give them the money value, then ultimately we just were headed towards some kind of really serious economic collapse, especially with. So if something I'm not going to disagree with you here, and we talked a little bit about the software. The problem is, is that right now we have the worst of both worlds and that we are doing half-assed lockdowns that are locking down just enough to absolutely destroy small businesses and average workers. But we're not locking down enough to prevent the spread of the disease so what we're getting is the disease is spreading almost uninhibited or it almost feels like it's uninhibited i'm sure it has been to some extent

and then we're seeing all these businesses closed down and because we're doing it in such a in such a lackadaisical manner like nothing is actually moving in a positive direction we haven't eliminated the virus any part of the u.s we're still in like that map this isn't like purple spreading and almost every i think in every single state um and then people are suffering severe economic harm as well right now whatever we're doing i like if you were to ask me like well should we just not lock down anything whatever if it was between just doing no lockdowns and doing what we're doing now i might even say like okay yeah like like whatever i think that's i think that's it actually sure the the guy at the

restaurant that i mentioned in michigan he straight up said, if the government gave me enough money to keep everything moving, I'd happily walk away for two months. Yeah, for sure. I think it really just comes down to— If we were going to shut down businesses, we have to support them through the shutdown. You can't just expect people to stay home and have—we don't expect American Airlines or Walmart or any other massive corporation to have six months of savings. And these people are doing revenue in the 9, 10, 11 digits. Why do you expect, you know, Frank that owns a bar down the street to, you know, like small business owners aren't making tens of millions of dollars a year off of their business.

You know, these people aren't going to have the savings to get through six months of not operating their business. It's a tough problem. I think you have a lot of people on the right saying, protect the vulnerable, social distance, wear masks, but reopen things. And then many on the left, I suppose, in your instance, lock everything down hard but cover the cost to make sure people make it through this. Well, the thing that sucks is it feels like – and this has been – I'm going to – I so look forward – I want to feel like this argument is never going to come back again, but I know it will under Biden. Republicans always cry about deficit spending.

But for some reason, when they're deficit spending for their pet projects it seems like it's okay i don't understand why we got trillions of dollars of tax cuts from trump that he celebrated about you know growing the economy which congratulations every time you don't tax yeah and massive debt i think he campaigned he can't biggest budget deficits under trump of all time some of the biggest budget you to your deficits of all time and i think that the thing that leaves people frustrated is it's like i don't understand why you can't help us why can't you give us money if you are spending so much on the war machine which was supposed to go away or on you know large businesses via tax cuts and everything like it seriously that's the frustrating part trump campaigned against the deficit and the debt

and and here we are and there was there was an interview with Ted Cruz where he was like, you know, well, Trump didn't campaign against that. And they're like, he did. He did. Explicitly, yeah. I think that's an indication of like, you know, political parties will say one thing, but as soon as they get power, you know what I mean? Like everybody wants free speech when they're in the minority position. And then once they're in the dominant position, they're like, no, no, we got to clamp things down. Maybe you want.

I mean, yeah. I mean, a man carrying over $400 million of personally guaranteed debt probably isn't going to be the best person to responsibly manage a country's budget either. Yeah, but see, that's a framing thing you're right there, right? It is a framing. I'm framing that a man that has a massive amount of personal debt that he's personally guaranteed is maybe not. What are his assets? Probably enough to cover it, but probably not enough that he wants to. Like $3.2 billion. I think it was either Wall Street Journal one that went over that.

Yeah. But anytime you're having to start to sell off things that you own to cover that you bring together, it's probably not a good feeling. You can do it. Yeah. Yeah. Forbes, I think, put Trump at 3.2 billion with liabilities of like 400 million. Something like that.

Yeah. So yeah, you know, I don't want to, I don't want to go off on a news thing. Sure. Yeah. It's frustrating. To center back, it's frustrating to me and a lot of other people on the left

and I imagine on the right as well that constantly hear about how we can't just spend all this money on you. It's frustrating. But we could do massive tax cuts and we could spend

a lot of money on overseas wars and that just seems very wrong. Yep. Yeah, man. The war, get me going on the war thing. Absolutely.

Spending money doing nation building in foreign countries when we could be fixing the pipes in Flint and helping people in this country. That's the interesting thing. I think ultimately what it comes down to with the lockdown debate is I think if we work out all of those issues, what's left is will the two-month mass printing of money have a serious detrimental effect on the economy, the savings and the retirements of American people? Will it be a bad thing for them? You know, or if we that's basically it. Right. So conservatives would say we can't just print money.

We can't just do that. We can't just lock everything down and freeze it, especially at this point, considering it's been a year now when businesses have been destroyed. And I guess the leftist position is you can and you have to. Yeah, I guess it monetary policies are very complicated um i know that there's always the uh inflation boogeyman that is looming behind every politically expedient argument but it seems like we haven't seen that massive uninflation yet we've been running historically low federal funds rates for long times now it just isn't there i know that there's at least five libertarians right now in chat screaming that we need to go back to

the gold standard and we're printing money and it's out of bed do you see that trump i think it was trump he tried appointing a woman to the federal reserve who wants to be on the goal wants to put us back on the gold standard that's very funny um i thought it was hilarious yeah but absolutely delusional um but yeah no i mean um we need to get ron paul in here he can have an argument about what's delusional about the oh oh wait are you asking me or would ron paul ask me that no no no like ron paul would clearly be like you're right you're crazy you know you're right yeah of course yeah man i was a huge ron paul supporter when i was back in college really 18 19 yeah oh man so so so let's let's let's do this let's we'll uh look man i think i think we agree that we we have to go one way or

the other we're sitting on the fence we either need to jump into the we're gonna lock down for two months everybody's getting some kind of handout or we need to go into like okay we're gonna severely lax all two months. Everybody's getting some kind of handout. Or we need to go into like, okay, we're going to severely lax all the lockdown stuff. And we're just going to see who dies. But like, we have to keep people's lives running. Because there is damage. There is collateral damage to a lockdown that people are, most people are, except even more some of the suicide. Not having a business, not being able to run anything, mental health issues.

And like, yeah, actually, yeah, there's a really well-known Twitch streamer that killed himself, most likely because of the lockdowns. A friend of mine that traveled a ton, and that was like his way of getting out. I know there are a lot of people like that, maybe that not necessarily killed themselves, but like severely, like negatively impacted in terms of mental health related to that. So, yeah. Wow, man. I've heard a lot of stories. There was a, there's this dude that I know, his son committed suicide.

He was tweeting about it and said, having a young kid who's locked up and even with resources, this guy's a wealthy dude. That's just – it destroys their mind. Not to mention that like I can't imagine – so I'm very lucky. I have a nine-year-old son because of how they – because he lives in a wealthy school district because I'm wealthy. They have long-distance learning with like iPads and stuff. And even for them, even for that technologically very literate school district i get the emails every day i don't know if other parents have this issue where it's like hey guys if you got logged out of the ipads you know like this is how you get back in or like it just seems to be like such a nightmare for everybody i can't imagine the poorer schools

that can't afford that type of technology yeah i don't i don't know what those people do you're out of school for like a year some people didn't get to have their senior prom some people didn't get to do their graduation like i would have cheered for all that um you know i when i was when i was younger i would have as well very anti-establishment well i just want to say i'm gonna play video games but most people probably wanted to see their friends and socialize and do stuff yep well so that's a good argument why there shouldn't be lockdowns for the sake of mental health and everyone and actually or good argument for why we should have had very strict lockdowns for two months and then maybe started to do like much more controlled reopenings like they've done in australia new zealand or south korea so then the problem isn't so much a conspiracy as it is

two factions fighting and getting a half-assed response instead of one solid response to either the problem is that literally every single thing in the united states is so unbelievably politicized that you can't do anything without somebody looking at you like you have a political agenda behind it and part of the reason is because of stuff like talking about the great reset like that on its face if you were to say like hey if you're ever doing like a massive restructuring do you think you should take that opportunity to optimize like part of your workflow every reasonable person like yeah probably yeah but like when it's phrased and that like do you think that people are pushing for extra coronavirus lockdowns just so they can shove aoc into every person's home forcing you to get on your knees and worship the green new

deals like well okay like i i feel like the framing of that is a little bit disingenuous and it further serves like that hardcore hyper-partisan politicization of american politics the world economic forum put out a video that said in 2030 you will own nothing and you will be happy so when they then say the world economic forum do you mean like one person who works in one subsection that does youtube videos? They published it. It was published on all social platforms. They wrote a big long article about it. And then they later clarified when there was a backlash that it wasn't intended to say this is what we want to happen but what we think may happen. So the issue is if you launch a campaign around this, you include within it like critical theory, intersectionality and stuff.

And then you say you will own nothing and you will be happy. And then people like Trudeau who say we're going to have a reset, people like John Kerry are advocating for locking everything down, which is destroying ownership. Sure. It's like people – I'll put it this way. Not that it's a grand conspiracy where they all got together and said we want to destroy ownership, but that they think it's a good thing. They like it. They've advocated for it. And now the policies they're bringing about are bringing about what they want.

Sure. So you can argue, we can prove intent. Yeah, I understand. The problem is that like, I can't argue against a story. I can only argue against particular policies. So like, if we are concocting this grand narrative behind the schemes that we're trying to get rid of ownership of everything and blah, blah, blah, and like this, like, well, I mean, like we have like a bunch of discrete facts and we could connect them in that way we want to but i don't know if that's the most appropriate

way to do it and even on its face um i i could even defend that statement on its face that actually a lot of people are in support of that that you will own nothing and be happy um so as a gamer um something that's been very interesting to me is most people today use things like steam as a platform you don't own any of the i don't know if you're familiar with steam of course yeah you don't own any of those games if valve goes bankrupt you've lost everything that's a bad thing sure but but the convenience that it provides is you know on another level and that's why people like it or you don't own any of your music you listen to it on spotify you listen to it on itunes we don't have the um the vinyls we don't have the cds we don't have any of that anymore so like i'm not now i'm

not defending the idea that we should own nothing okay i'm an ardent capitalist i like owning things um i for i have all of my music is backed up on flack files on my hard drives that i keep it up because i like that however i don't think that these ideas are necessarily as crazy as we make them out to be because we give the least charitable reading of it and then run with the biggest conspiracy behind it instead of like well what's like a more nuanced like approach in the middle for like what do they probably mean what are the goods and what are the pros and cons and like how can we you know work with this i guess i think i think conspiracy implies that it's a secret of some sort i will just call it yeah

that's not for me to say sure when i say conspiracy i mean like a plan of people sure yeah i understand when i when i say conspiracy i don't mean like a crazy you know lunatic when i say conspiracy i mean like a planned thing that multiple people are working on to bring about some kind of change like a conspiracy um but it has a very negative connotation, so I understand that. There's a group of people. They have international interests. They think we should use the COVID lockdown to reset global capitalism.

And then there's people who don't trust the policies they're putting out when the World Health Organization themselves. I have the quote. Sure. Let's see if I can...

Full lockdowns should be a very, very last resort and can be avoided, World Health Organization's Europe chief says. So this was in October. When you see the story, and it was basically carried over, I'm using CNBC, people are wondering why then they're pushing for all these lockdowns.

I don't want to read it or even say it. Well, I don't think we've even pushed for full lockdowns anywhere in the US, have we? No. So we haven't even done a full lockdown anywhere. Well, what do you mean by full lockdown? Well, what do they mean by full lockdown? I imagine that the WHO probably doesn't mean, when they say like full lockdown what do you mean by full lockdown well what do they mean by full lockdown i imagine that the who probably doesn't mean when they say like full lockdown i doubt they mean like

outdoor seating at all hours of the day at most restaurants yeah you're probably right yeah when they say full lockdown they're probably saying like closed because i've been in california for a couple years now i don't think we full lockdown anything you can go to any westerns a couple years but over the past years like you can still go out to restaurants you're just outdoor seating or you're sitting in every other place california says don't leave your home don't walk around well past 10 o'clock i think just recently they did that i think newsom said on monday i think they just said like no more gatherings of 10 or more people yeah but this is the i think this is the first time california's went this far but even at that i'm pretty sure restaurants are so open like i literally ordered

din tai feng like the day before we we left like we we went to the uh restaurant and picked it up and there's still people eating out there and everything so it's interesting too yeah because well it's the constitution there's only so much they can do to enforce this stuff you look at europe and they had they had this uh video go viral of a woman who brought her mom to a mental health facility and they detained her tased her she's screaming and naturally people are like this is messed up i mean actually you made it sound like you disagreed with australia new zealand's approach to things because australia has been super draconian i don't necessarily disagree um i just i wish that we had a more three-dimensional view of what it means to have the right to do something because the way that when i grew up the way that i was taught is that when you get more rights being an adult is awesome

but there is more responsibility that comes along with that there's no you're never given a right to do something that doesn't carry a greater burden of responsibility behind it like that's always the case um and a lot of the times when i talk it's so weird when republicans talk about rights usually they're talking about restricting rights i notice that anytime a republican talks about states rights what they're actually talking about is taking rights away from you they want to like curb like abortion um or they want to restrict access to like funding for like planned parent they usually or they want to make it harder to vote for whatever reason voter id or if you don't agree with that make it harder whatever like it feels like when people talk about like states rights um what they they uh or make it illegal for like gay people to get

married they're talking about like taking rights away from people which is old examples well now they are because the supreme court said but i mean there was that famous um who was the woman that uh mike huckabee supported who was saying like i, I'm not going to marry, you know, these gay people, even if they would. Oh, the clerk. Yeah. So these are, thankfully, some of these are older examples. Sure. But even with, even regarding things like, like, what do you call the city, sanctuary cities, right?

People like the state shouldn't have the right to do that. We need to take this back. It feels a lot, a lot of the times, like when people talk about states' rights, it feels like they're actually talking about taking rights away from people, which is – It's not like a couple of those examples were just security. Well, I mean what is security but the restriction of a right in exchange for – what's the quote? Like somebody that demands security in exchange for their freedom will get and deserve neither or something. Will get neither and lose both. Yeah, sure.

Well, so – but the argument, it really is, yeah, it comes down to uh freedom versus security and at a certain point you do need security it's just a question of where the balance is right for sure so you can it's crazy to me that like people will look at like illegal immigrants and be like we need to we need to ship 13 million people out of here because a few people every year get killed by ms-13 or we need to get them all out of here and then we look at like 3 000 people a day dying from the coronavirus and it's like well do we really need to wear masks they're very very different they're very different the issue of illegal immigration has a lot to do with the economy as well just a way more than just it has to do with the the security of uh of our elections

the security of our physical you know safety and it has to do with the jobs market. So elections, physical safety, and jobs market. The coronavirus is hardcore affecting all of those, right? The election and all the mail-in voting. You can't deport the coronavirus. And so the conservatives tend to say, we should protect the vulnerable, we should have social distancing, wear masks, and we can keep the economy running, and schools seem to be safe. And then the left tends to say, lock it all down, provide stimulus and support.

So I hear what you're saying early on because we did go through this already. I guess the thing that makes me sad is that I grew up – so half my family is Cuban. My mom and dad were both Air Force. They ride or die for Trump to the end of the earth. And my mom is an incredibly nationalistic, very proud American loves this country would would, if the Air Force called her back in today, she would, you know, strap up in her little flight suit and go and fly to wherever they wanted. I know she would. And it hurts when I grew up hearing about all these amazing things that America was capable

of that America had accomplished. And we did Silent Generation, World War Two, we did a lot of amazing stuff. And then when it comes to controlling a coronavirus individually we can't take responsibility for this we can't just wear a mask and stay away from people apparently that's really controversial we sucked at getting testing out because trump didn't take it seriously he didn't push for it anywhere near as much as he should have we weren't able to enact any of the other measures that other countries that was a complicated point though but we'll come back i don't believe it was complicated i understand that we can say that like well some tests are put out and they failed i think that in States, regardless of what some people say, I think that this country possesses the greatest technological innovation in the world. If we wanted to get tests out and if the political will was behind it, we would have had that out way earlier.

Because South Korea had the same first day reported case as us. And they have, like, I think they have, like, 240 deaths from the coronavirus. Why couldn't that have been us? And South Korea is this entire little peninsula. It's like a metro metro that's why it's easier for them that's harder no new york that's one of the things my new york city got so crushed tightly packed together but it's all the international travel and everything look how many different states with different jurisdictions with different governors all protected by the 10th amendment trump can only do so much and when you have new york uh city having their their health experts come down and say everything's

fine go outside you have people in california of, Nancy Pelosi, doing the same thing. There's an argument of who took things more seriously and who didn't. But ultimately what it comes down to is Trump doesn't have – Vosch argued Trump should use the constitutional war powers to just assume control and then force things. So firstly, that would be insane. Imagine if Trump would be using like executive powers in times of national security to do insane stuff like tariffing China or sending troops down to build the wall. I mean, he's already done this. These weren't even national emergencies.

Now, I'm not in favor of Trump. That's very different. Well, it's, yeah, because he shouldn't have done it there, but you could make an argument that he might do it here. Maybe he should. If there was ever an argument to exercise these powers it would

probably be in protecting like a 9-11 is where the people dying every single day in the united states i don't know if like terrifying china is the same level of national security and that's why it's not a big deal what do you mean well trump putting a tariff on china people say for the most part like okay we'll see how that plays out well no a lot of people were very upset because he did this unilaterally and he exercised executive branch powers to do it under like threat of like war or whatever, which is a little bit insane. So I'm just saying,

I don't agree with Vosch's argument, but like if you're going to argue in favor of Trump abusing the executive like he has so far, it seems strange to make the argument that he shouldn't do it here. Has he abused the executive? I think that saying that we need to go, that the border wall to the south

is some like horrible national emergency that he needs to send people down to build part of his wall or whatever? Or saying that we need to have a national emergency tariff? I think that's very strange. I think that's an abuse of power. And then more importantly, back to what you said before, Trump can only do so much. Trump actually can do so much because he is so unbelievably popular in the Republican Party. Trump still has like a 93, 94% approval rating in the Republican Party.

If Trump went around, yeah, if Trump went around and told the governors, listen up, guys, we're going to close down for a couple months because it's your patriotic duty, blah, blah, blah, you better believe that any Republican governor or anybody that's in any plus Trump district is going to be in lockstep behind them because they don't want to lose reelections. In terms of securing the border, that is the power bestowed upon the president. If he's going to say the United States government, we need to protect our borders we do if he's gonna do trade negotiations it's something border policy and border legislation though that's clearly in the realm of like congressional authority this is stuff that should be passed through congress this went through a series of

checks and balances congress fought with trump they refused to give him the budget he want the supreme court sided with trump exactly he does have very broad powers but like spiritually speaking right i don't think't think we would want Biden or Obama to come in and say like, oh, well, I'm going to open all the borders because I think it's good for our national security. Right. Personally, I would say like this feels like something that should probably go through Congress. You know, I didn't like DACA under Obama, not because I didn't like the policy, but because it's like, OK, well, we can't get anything done through Congress. So now we're going to like kind of broaden our executive powers and write integration laws. And we see how horrible that is because anything that can be done via executive action can

be undone via executive action. They can't. Trump tried to undo it. The Supreme Court said no. Well, I think. So technically it's true. But weren't there parts of DACA that I think were rescinded? I don't know if that's still being fought in an ongoing manner.

But I know that they basically shut them down on several instances yeah it's complicated to go back and forth um but um yeah like executive order is just a really bad there are parts of our government that people complain about so the supreme court is one of them and the executive is one of them and they say that the power has expanded so much in these areas but i think the reason why it appears away is just because congress has been so unable to do anything that that's the only place that we can get any meaningful action out of so let let's talk about Biden and Trump, then we'll expand upon this. You're you're you're super excited for Biden. Yes. Oh, yeah. Why? For every so one, I think that we will finally hopefully have some cohesive idea of how we're supposed to deal with

the Coronavirus as a country from somebody that is not insane when it comes to talking about virus related stuff so no weird stuff about bleacher uv lights no pushing weird medications like hydroxychloroquine that he didn't take when he was sick no he was reported that he took it uh no he said he took it as a pro right before he got sick when he actually got sick he got the good stuff he didn't get that weird stuff that he was selling all the suckers on TV that worship and support him. But hydroxychloroquine has been used for decades. It is considered –

Not for COVID-19. For sure, for sure. So there were preliminary studies. This is the craziest thing about the news cycle and how they deal with Trump. There was actually TechCrunch and several European outlets that reported a promising study showing hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, you know, with zinc in combination was showing that the severity was reducing. They actually replicated this in other studies. Trump comes out and just starts repeating it.

And then all of a sudden the media flipped on it. So we even saw lefties write about this saying it is the weirdest thing. The moment Trump says something about a news report, the media changes the narrative and says it's a bad thing. Because the problem is it's not Trump's job to be saying these things. If a random TechCrunch article wants to come out and say, hey, there was some retrospective analysis done on hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics like azithromycin. No, no, no. It was literally a study on COVID. And they found the severity was dramatically reduced.

All of the prospective studies done on hydroxychloroquine have showed that it is nothing. It does not help with the severity of the disease. There have been some retrospectives that when compared against different standards of care, like maybe. But the reason why it became popular initially was because that scientist in France, the doctor Raoul, came out with his like N equals 12 study. I think he dropped one person from that died. And after like one weekend, he was like, hey, we published the results. And then like that was it. There was a ton of past research that said for coronavirus and for SARS-CoV-1, H.R.S. chloroquine was effective in reducing severity.

Sure. This probably led the scientists to say, let's try it out for SARS-CoV-2. Which is fine. Which is good. There were promising results early on. But as soon as Trump said it, the media went nuts. That's the crazy thing. Because it's not Trump's.

Because Trump is a different person and it's not his job. So here's part of the problem when trump comes out and says it when trump comes out and says something that hasn't been thoroughly vetted by the medical community isn't recommended by somebody who would be more in line to recommend that like say somebody like fauci right when trump comes out and says it it changes the worldwide discourse when it comes to these drugs so there was a really good article published in nature about some research scientists that complained about how hard it was when they were trying to run trials on other drugs.

So Dex, Dexamethasone and Rondesivir or other drugs. Nobody wants to be in the loser trials. Everybody wants to be in the hydroxychloroquine. That's what Trump was talking about. Nobody wants to risk being in the dummy trial for some loser drug. When Trump is on TV talking about how he's taking hydroxychloroquine every day.

Like it's not his job to do that. He's absolutely irresponsible for him to be on TV talking about that. I disagree. I mean, he's going to talk about what he sees in the news. I'm not going to blame the president. Is he like a Muppet? He sees something and he says something? This is like the most powerful man in the world. I think that we can be a little bit more critical. But everybody does. What do you mean? Trump is not everybody. Trump is the president

of the United States. And he gave a speech where he said, we're doing a great job. We're seeing some promising studies out of France. There's a hydroxychloroquine they're talking about should he not tell people that we're making developments and there's some promising you know medications the problem is that even if i was to grant you that it stands in stark contrast to the reasons why he gave for never talking about the coronavirus initially right like he's saying that like oh well it's all this stuff secret because i don't want to start a panel but now he's out here talking about all these potential miracle drugs and

everything like i i just i think that it's very irresponsible for him like i even get nervous talking about like certain medications on my stream because i don't want people to run out and i know i have that power and i'm not the president of the united states right i always just say ask your doctor the doctor knows best for you which is great and if trump said that you're like hey there are drugs out there that might be trying to talk to your doctor but that's not what he was saying he was talking about oh we got hydroxychloroquine this great new miracle drug and i think it's going to be the next do you remember who are you do you remember what the white house said on school closures

the science is on our side and anderson cooper i think that's something the fact of he just doesn't care about your children at all um i think jennifer rubin said he wants your kids to die or something like that this was actually what kaylee mcconnelly brought up in a press briefing mind you that's why i'm so i remember that that remember that narrative when Trump and the White House came out and said schools should stay open. Well, now we're finding out that even Fauci is saying, yep, but so much later that we've caused irreparable damage to many people's lives and families. And there's been suicides when Trump was actually right the whole time.

Was that irresponsible when they said that that time? People can can say different people can save the same thing for very different reasons like it's very obvious that trump is pushing to open schools because he's desperate to get back to some level of normalcy for the election because whether you agree or disagree with trump this election to a large extent was probably a referendum on how he dealt with the coronavirus and getting people back in schools and getting people working because a lot of people don't know this um schools are can be two very important things for families one it's how your kid can eat sometimes depending on how poor you are and two um it lets mom and dad go and work daycare because yeah because daycare is unbelievably expensive oh my goodness so public schools allows yeah the economy to keep moving

yeah but the problem is is that when you're pushing for things on only a political basis, and it doesn't seem like you're laying out like good comprehensive plans for like, so for instance, like Fauci, and I think it was even on the White House site, have like these plans for like slowly reopening based on the number of reported cases, daily averages, blah, blah, blah. Like if that was the type of thing that was being said, then I could have been more empathetic. I was like, okay, cool. It seems like Trump just wants to reopen things in a responsible way.

But instead, it's like, we got to open all the schools you got to get them back we got to get back to normal it was like probably not like the most science driven answer he's given i mean it's an it's an opinion the people who like trump are going to say trump cares about me and he's fighting for my family the people who don't are going to say he only cares about the economy why didn't trump pressure mcconnell to release any stimulus if he cares about our family so much maybe he doesn't think stimulus is the right way to help families and he thought that it would be devastating to the economy to just print money and the best way to do it was to release the lockdowns which is what he thought it wasn't devastating to the

economy to just cut taxes for like all the wealthy businesses or to authorize the ppp loans he thought that was good for the economy like like people think that the heroes of their own story you know what i mean i understand it's strange that he thought that these were such positive measures but he couldn't pressure mcconnell to release any kind of stimulus to the average American person. I think he said that the stimulus will be the vaccine and we need to reopen because people should be working. So it's just there. I don't think there's mustache twirling villainy. I think I don't think there's mustache.

I think he's just selfish and stupid. But the problem is we are months and months into this and we got no other stimulus. He is our leader. Where was it? How do you feel about Fauci saying early on that he was doing the best possible, that no one could do better? Every time somebody contradicts Trump, they get immediately fired. Look at the, I think it was the cybersecurity head of the DHS that came out and said, well,

this election was actually pretty secure. And Trump instantly fired him. So it's not surprising to me that Fauci, a man that's been working in government for, what, like 30 or 40 years or something, he came out it was like oh yeah i think trump he's been defying him for months he has been defying him but that's there's a very careful line you have to skirt if you've ever worked a corporate job and you've got an idiot manager you know like you don't go out and say like why are you doing this it's stupid it's more like maybe i kind of do i think you're doing a great i get fired sure yeah well you don't want to get

fired it's more like you're doing an amazing job i think we could do a little bit better here right so of course you think fauci lied to the american people to save his own job i think that fauci was saying things in the most diplomatic manner possible because he wanted to serve the american people and i get immediately fired by trump saying he would saying trump did the best possible job and no one could do better is a big difference from we're trying as hard as we can i don't know if he said no one could do better. I would be better. I would be curious the exact quote is. But even so, I don't think that's very relevant to policy going forward, whether or not Fauci

says that Trump did a good or bad job. I don't know if it's Fauci's job in government to be second guessing the president in his past decisions. It's Fauci's job to give us the best leadership going forward. And I know that there have been times where Fauci, and you just said it right, has been at ends with the president and him like promoting certain drugs or him talking about certain things, whether the coronavirus or Fauci says, well, I disagree here or whatever. And even I'm pretty sure there were a few months where we didn't see Fauci anymore because of his, like, behind the scenes fighting with Trump. But, yeah, I don't think that just saying, well, Fauci said Trump was doing a good job.

Like, wow, you think? Like, Trump, the guy that fires literally every single person in government that's not immediately agreeing with him, like, doesn't surprise me that he was, was like a little bit careful when he would publicly address trump so on that note the cyber security guy that trump just fired would it not have been in his best interest to say this was the most secure election we've ever had that's literally him saying i did a good job don't fire me um but it's that type of thing is it's very hard um so like there's like two schools of thought in terms of like how to change a system do you go full renegade and say this sucks this is over fire me i don't care or do you kind of like suck it up work from the inside you know like okay well sure this sucks but like as long as i like keep my you know mouth shut i can actually enact change on the inside like um when the dhs guy came out and said what he said i think that

he probably felt an obligation to the american people to let them know the government doesn't stand behind trump and his like election fraud claims so i feel like that doesn't surprise so so i'll read a little bit he said fauci said we've never had a threat like this and the coordinated response has been there are a number of adjectives to describe it impressive i think is one of them i mean we're talking about all hands on deck is that i as one of many people on the team i'm not the only person since the beginning that we've recognized what this was. I have been devoting almost almost full time on this, almost all almost full time. I'm at the White House virtually every day with the task force. I'm connected by phone throughout the day and into the night.

And when I say night, I'm talking 12, one, two in the morning, not just one. So I can't imagine that under any circumstance that anybody could be doing more. I mean, obviously, we're fighting a formidable enemy. This virus, this virus is a serious issue here. Take a look at what's under China. And, know yeah yeah he goes into it's a really long i don't want to read the full uh it's a really long paragraph sure the gist of which is like he's like as the as who's kind of become the face of this virus he's like champion like yeah we're doing everything we can the government which is kind of what i would expect him to do is to be like a cheerleader for the government i don't expect him to come out and

like these guys suck our coordinated federal response but non-existent trump is a horrible leader like i don't think that would be his job and it would probably send a bad message to the american people as well if if you know the criticism of trump is that he was downplaying this early on to avoid a panic and that was a bad thing then isn't their responsibility on fauci the problem with if you want to say that you're downplaying something to avoid panic that's fine but the problem was is that while he was downplaying it there weren't steps being taken behind the scenes to prepare us for what was coming it seemed less like downplaying it to avoid a panic and more pretending it didn't exist and hope it didn't come to american shores because there's a difference between publicly saying like

okay guys listen i don't think this is going to be a big deal and then behind the scenes you're like okay listen we need to get testing on board we need to make sure that we have some form of contact tracing we need to like communicate with board. We need to make sure that we have some form of contact tracing. We need to, like, communicate with governors, make sure we have some. Like, there would be that. But instead, it was just like, well, look, we locked down travel from China, LOL. And then in a month and a half, we did nothing. Oh, well, look, we locked down travel from Europe, LOL. And, like, that's it.

Like, I don't think that he was just trying to avoid a panic because there was nothing going on behind the scenes in that gap of the China and European travel ban to show that he was taking it seriously. It seemed he just didn't think it was a real thing let's talk about biden sure what do you uh what do you like about biden um so one thing was the top down um hopefully some sort of top down level um response we get for related to the coronavirus um that respects rulings and everything i know i don't know if we've talked about it yet on air but the supreme court did decide that it's really mentioned yeah religious students which is probably fine i can understand that ruling from the Supreme Court. I would hope that churches would individually say like, OK, well, maybe we'll suspend sessions.

But I can understand that. But some top down coordinated response from the government related to coronavirus. Number two and three are close to intertwined is going to be like the economy broadly and health care broadly. I'm very interested to see what sort of economic policies we're going to see from Biden, especially in regards to his strong support of unions and especially in regards to, I don't personally like the policy, but pushing for a 15-hour minimum wage. I'm very curious to see where that ends up. Bad news.

Why do you say that? So he wants to combine that with a high corporate tax, yes? That's bad. And he's also been, part of the obama administration very much in favor of free trade agreements i love free trade agreements well so you know what the combination of those three things will get you corporations facing high wage costs and high taxes will just move their their factories and their their businesses over well that's part of what you have baked into any multilateral trade agreement though is the idea that um so um nobody

talks about this on the right or the left one of the nice things about free trade agreements or multilateral trade agreements is that obviously what you just said can happen. OK, you if you're going to make it so that I can export my supply chain to a place like Vietnam. Well, I'm just going to make all my stuff over there because I can pay those workers way less. demand some sorry some labor standards um on the uh side of other countries in order to bring them onto a more level playing field so that you're not exporting um all of those jobs so two really good examples of this is one is that the um i can't remember the united states mexico um usmca yeah usmca the united states mexico canada agreement yeah so part of this agreement that trump champions all the time was um i think they they demanded like an increase in wages for Mexican workers that worked in certain factories to try to dissuade people from exporting too many jobs over there.

And then another good example is part of the negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, obviously dead now, but part of those were historic labor reforms in Vietnam that would have bolstered a lot of the labor rights in that country. And a lot of those just completely went away as a result of the TPP negotiations falling through. It's good for Vietnam, but it's not good for American workers. Well, if you force them to pay their workers more, it is good for American workers because the increased liberalization of trade means we have another trading partner

that we can buy and sell stuff from. But the fact that you have to pay their workers more means we're not just shipping all of those jobs overseas because they still have some minimum level of wages that they have to pay to discourage that. There may be those negotiations on labor rights, but the cost is still remarkably cheaper to have our factories all throughout Southeast Asia than here in the United States. And we've seen that. We've seen the fact that we don't produce our own medicine anymore.

Sure. I mean, this is one of those insanely multifaceted things that I agree with you in practice. It becomes a lot easier to spread supply chains throughout the world because it's cheaper in certain areas to manufacture it. That's not always a bad thing, but it's also a thing that we could combat if we would have more honest conversations about, like, what is a multilateral free trade agreement supposed to accomplish? So, for instance, the Paris Climate Accords. So very common criticism that nobody on the left talks about is that these things seem to give a lot of leeway to developing nations. Like, why would I join any type of pollution, you know, restriction that's going to let china and india compete uninhibited with now my shackled economy they can't pull right like this is insane um so like but but the only way that we

can address those types of concerns have to come through multilateral trade agreements that's it there's no other way to do it china is way too big as a country a few tariffs or a couple sanctions aren't going to do anything to them they have access to the rest of the world market. You have to get together with a bunch of countries to set these standards. It didn't work. We thought that the trade with China was going to normalize China and make them freer and better, and they went the other direction. Well, so this has been something I've read about this since the 90s.

This has always been like the China conspiracy. People are always saying that when China, when when the middle class booms when they increase their trade like they're going to become more liberal the people are going to demand political freedoms doesn't seem to have happened but i don't think we necessarily need those things to happen i think we can acknowledge that china exists as this kind of like you know authoritarian behemoth that is going to do what it's going to do but the only way that we can accurately deal with that is to partner with other countries in order to enforce like the kinds of restrictions that we want on them we can't do it on our own like we've seen trump try to do it with terrorists doesn't really work that well he keeps saying over

and over again we brought them to the table but like not really the big things that we were pushing for related to like intellectual property rights i think we didn't see any progress there whatsoever china continues its belt road initiative all throughout europe and asia and everything like it's either either there i think there's two outcomes in this this this china uh issue full-scale warfare or capitulation okay i'm gonna suggest kindly a third option what if instead of every single time something bad happens in the world and we all hide from each other and get scared and locked down what if we continue to reach out be the world leader that we used to be in the whole whole NATO world and everything where we tell other countries like, hey, let's all work together on this common idea. And then we pressure China that way. Couldn't that be like a better way to do

things? But hasn't that been exactly what they've been trying to do that's not been working? Well, I mean, there have been a few key events, especially recently that have kind of pushed people into a lot more kind of a scary area where they're worried about working people so the 2013 syrian refugee crisis for instance caused a whole wave of governments in europe to have thanks obama well to some extent yeah um although bush got us largely involved in at least originally syria was obama yeah all of it oh it's complicated uh well i'm sorry you're right it was the cia no that's too communist um no no so i mean like the existence of like the existence of like isis that exists in syria and gains power in syria like like a lot of that came from the destabilization that started in iraq and a lot

of that came from you know bush that got us into iraq i'm not saying that obama is absolved of this i think that obama could have done a better job foreign policy ways but it's hard it's very difficult and nobody has gotten that right um you um do you know about the qatar turkey pipeline um i believe i've heard of this but this is the reason why the u.s got involved in syria well because the idea was to get syria locked down so that they could run that pipeline from from yeah all through i've heard this from people yeah but it's it's true 2009 um i think it was actually no, maybe it was. Yeah, 2009. The Guardian reported this, that in 2009, U.S. intelligence said we will have a ground incursion in Syria because they have refused to give us access to build the pipeline, saying that they would not go against their ally, Russia. What Russia and Syria were then planning on doing was using Iran to tap the same well and run that pipeline into Europe, strengthening the Russian gas monopoly in Europe. So the U.S. had a plan for years before we actually ended up on the ground. And then funneling weapons to rebel groups eventually built, they eventually came

together and we got ISIS. That is a story that one could tell, but I don't think that everything that happened in Syria was just a result of the United States wanting to secure an area for that pipeline. That might have been a nice side objective that maybe could have come about. I know that the United States probably wanted to see Assad gone. And if he was gone, it wouldn't surprise me if he wanted somebody loyal to America or American interest in there. And if that did happen, maybe I'm not sure. The Guardian reported that in 2009, the U.S. wanted to be in Syria. They needed an opportunity to do it. When the Arab Spring happened, the United States said, now's our chance. Provided weapons and resources to the rebels, eventually put U.S. soldiers on the ground. Now we're involved in that. And look, that's why, you know, getting into the Biden discussion about war and conflict, bringing up therian refugee crisis was a product of yes bush

totally and obama ramped things up um in regards to the syrian stuff yeah for sure um in regards to another reason why i say foreign policy is complicated is like a lot of people are critical about obama and the um and all of the drone strikes and the killings was it an american citizen i think we killed in yemen uh we killed in Yemen? I think Obama killed four American citizens. Yeah, I know there was one that was like super ultra heated. 16 year old in Yemen. Yes, yes, yeah. Obama signed off on blowing up a civilian restaurant in a country we aren't at war with.

And when they asked him, why did you kill? Why did you sign off on killing the 16 year old? They said, we were trying to target somebody else, a terrorist leader. Oops. When people followed up saying, why did you authorize a drone strike on a civilian restaurant in a country we aren't at war with? It's just womp. Sure. All those same drone strikes and all those same bombings have only increased under Trump, though. Not in the past few years. But yes, absolutely. In the past few years.

No, they've actually been going down quite a bit. They might have gone down where they started the administration. But in the four years we've had Trump in his first four years, he has done more drone been going down quite a bit. They might have gone down from where they started the administration, but in the four years we've had Trump, in his first four years, he has done more drone strikes and more foreign bombing than either Obama or Bush did.

You're correct. And hiring Bolton was the stupidest thing the man could have done. And we still have troops in Afghanistan. We still have troops in Iraq. But he's trying to take them out.

We still have troops in Syria. What do you mean he's trying to? He's been trying to get rid of them for a long time. Why hasn't he? Because, did you know that there was a White House, there was a federal official

who lied about the amount of troops we had in Syria to trick Trump into keeping them there? And that when Trump said he was ordering the troops to withdraw from Afghanistan, both Democrats and Republicans got together and blocked him in Congress. Trump fired the Pentagon civilian leadership, and this was reported by the AP, in an effort to get loyalists who would finally pull our troops out of these countries. This is one of those things where I wish I knew more information about it, but I completely do not agree that that is even remotely possible. You're telling me that the president of the United States that was able to get the Supreme Court to say,

well, I can tariff China for national security reasons, couldn't control where we were deploying or withdrawing troops from? That sounds unbelievable. Especially when he was unilaterally approving strikes on Soleimani and Iraqi airports and stuff. I know, it was messed up stuff for sure. I find it very hard to believe. It wouldn't surprise me if trump was using this as an excuse but i mean even if this was true like you've got a guy that says he's a business leader that's supposed to be on top of handling all this stuff who like one guy lies to him and now he has no

control over his military he's the commander-in-chief it's literally the primary job of the president they're they're they're there are a lot of people in government who are doing everything their power to obstruct trump and most of them are Trump appointees. Yeah, I know. It's just one of these. Trump's hired a bunch of dumb people. So at one point, but you have to hire Bolton. But you have to ask yourself at one point, is it no longer the deep state's fault when

the deep state is 50% Trump appointees? Maybe Trump is just highly incompetent. Look at the rulings that we're getting right now on the election fraud stuff. These are Trump federal judiciary appointees that are coming back and saying like listen man you are insane these affidavits are crazy there's there's there's no joke at this like there's no i'm i can't believe the defense i'm seeing for for what's going on in in in these trump lawsuits trump put up this 46 minute video and i listened to it and i i'm not gonna i'm not gonna mince words trump did not present his case well they they talk through the same like, I think it was a 46-minute on Facebook.

I think I watched the same video. Usually there's talk through the same, like, seven affidavits every single time. There's legitimate, there's way more affidavits. There's way more articulate individuals presenting evidence. And for some reason, the Trump team is not bringing it together. Maybe it's not as legitimate as some alternative media suggests it might be. No, I think the issue is when you hear trump do a 46 minute video and he can't actually calmly cite matt brainard and

he points to a picture and says look at that how does that make sense i'm like you're not giving me an articulate breakdown of why the issue is why is it that in all of these federal cases where these are being brought and the judges are actually no the trump campaign has three oh maybe the trump campaign personally you can't you can't tell me that some random people filing a lawsuit is reflective of trump you can't tell me that an affidavit alone is like valid evidence that like something horrible has happened it is witness testimony is evidence okay well in that case there's a 13 year old that has an affidavit out there meaning they've signed it or penalty that trump raped her that was retracted though sure but a lot of these affidavits are also under scrutiny

followed by it as well. Evidence is not proof. Evidence is not proof. That's weird. But I'm just saying that just because there's an affidavit doesn't mean that this absolutely happened.

So, for instance, when Giuliani brought the Miss Johnson, what was the name of the Indian lady that testified for so long in front of Michigan? Yeah.

It was like Johansson or Johnson or something. But she came, and she gave a lot of the exact same testimony that had already been stricken down in court so for instance she talked about being in like the tfe voting center and she was like the election officials told me not to verify signatures i don't know why they were doing that and when the judge went through it he was like well that's because that wasn't your job they were verified what they even got let me ask you a question what what's the what's the point of a of an observer what is the point of an observer i What is the point of an observer? It super depends on every individual area, I would imagine. Broadly speaking, probably to observe, I would imagine.

Like to observe what? The matching of signatures on ballots or whatever when they're opening and closing. Would you agree with the judge who shot down Trump's, this actual Trump lawsuit, saying that so long as an observer is somewhere in the building, it counts as legal observation? It probably depends on the precedent set by prior cases. Doesn't that sound bad faith? What sounds bad faith to me is that all of this stuff was brought up after it was shown that Trump had lost the election. Where were all of these complaints on election night?

Like complaints that the— That observers weren't allowed in, complaints that the Dominion voting system— They were all over Twitter. They absolutely were not. Yes, they were. There were a few random tweets, but it wasn't— Let me just cite Will Chamberlain, who was on the ground going throughout Philly as a lawyer, posting photos and videos. People were complaining about being booted.

But you've got to understand, a lot of these people aren't on social media. They don't know what to do. It's not about just being on social media, because part of the reasons why these federal judges are throwing these cases out, so specifically in regards to that Indian lady, because on election night, none of these people were actually complaining. It wasn't until Giuliani went around soliciting affidavits days later or weeks later. Asking for asking for asking like, yeah, are you a witness? Do you have evidence?

Yes, I do. Please come forward. That sounds like the normal thing you have to do. Doesn't sound a little bit strange. Imagine if a judge said complaining. None of these. No, it doesn't. Imagine if a judge said, we're not going to use this witness testimony

because the witness to the murder only came forward a month later after a cop found him. That's ridiculous. It was more like all this widespread wrongdoing was apparently being observed. They have to collect the data. But they weren't...

Why didn't they go through any of the proper channels to report any of this? Like what proper... They did. I think you just don't know this. Like Matt Brainerd specifically said he gave his information to district attorneys. I might not know this,

but none of the federal judges that have reviewed these cases apparently know this either because that is one of the most consistent reasons why these get shot down. It absolutely is. So do you know what the basis of the Pennsylvania lawsuit was? Which one? Trump's got one Pennsylvania lawsuit. What is the basis for that one? That vote observers weren't allowed to actually observe the ballot process, the counting process.

OK. The court ruled that so long as an observer was somewhere present in the building, whether they were allowed to actually observe is meaningless because the election code doesn't specify distance. That is one of the most insane things I've ever heard come out of a person's mouth. We know why vote observers exist because we have photos from Bush v. Gore of people staring side by side up at the ballot, arguing over whether or not it was Bush or Gore. Wasn't one of the Pennsylvania cases that they won, the small one, wasn't one of the cases they won was when somebody related to the Pennsylvania election stuff said

that we were going to allow people to vote up to a certain length in time, or it was something where like what they had said wasn't necessarily bad. But the judge came out and said, listen, even though that's not really bad, it's not in the purview of your job to do that. You're not allowed to do that. And I think that was the one though that's not really bad, it's not in the purview of your job to do that. You're not allowed to do that. And I think that was the one case that they won, and I think that was in Pennsylvania. I don't think that was a Trump campaign specifically. That might not have been their lawsuit, but that was the one lawsuit in Pennsylvania for a small handful of ballots. But if the code doesn't specify it or if it's explicitly not specified, then I mean like what case do you have?

What standing do you have there then? Also – Judges interpret the law, right? So when the law says, as per election code, observers shall be there to observe the vote tabulating process. We know that the spirit of that law, the reason why we have it is so that you can have scrutineers making sure someone isn't going Trump, Trump, Trump. So no, no, no, no. That was Biden.

But they put people way far back behind plexiglass walls. And the Trump campaign said, why were we not allowed to observe? Why would they challenge any of these laws before election night? Because the law, there's no ruling on it. First of all, do you understand what injury in fact is? That you need some. There has to be damages for them to bring. So when the Trump campaign did sue beforehand, the Supreme Court reserved their right to

judge to issue later on. On the basis of what they sued over mail-in voting. And this is not this is a totally unrelated thing now there's a bunch of different lawsuits there's a bunch of different sure but now we're talking about like i'm talking very specifically about we can talk about the dominion voting system or more specifically we are talking about some stuff sure about the observer stuff right if this all was codified in state law and the law is there and we've held prior elections we just had elections two years ago you can't nobody challenge it i'll explain? I'll explain it to you. I'll explain it. You can't sue on the basis of clarifying what the law really means until

you have injury in fact. It doesn't have to be suing. Believe it or not, there are other ways in this country to change laws. There are legislations, both in the state and federal level, that can change these laws. You don't need to sue to change anything. If we pass a law saying you have a right to observe as I count votes, right? Do you reasonably believe you have a right to look at me and the votes? Why did anyone think a judge was going to say, nope, nope, it didn't specify that you had to actually see the vote so long as you're in the building? Come on, man. That's unreasonable.

You're saying, come on, OK? Trump for months, because they knew that they were going to get destroyed on the mail-in ballots, Trump for months was calling out the mail-in ballots and guess what he was doing that far before any lawsuits had to be followed years far before any injury occurred okay they were calling these out why didn't they call it anything related to voting observers the reason why is because they know it's all bs no they know that this fraud didn't happen one million percent because because if i was somebody that had a massive vested interest in making sure that these elections weren't going to be rigged, I wouldn't be calling this out after Joe Biden wins.

Hold on, man. It's probably something that you would have brought up beforehand. You can't be serious that you think it is reasonable that so long as an observer is somewhere in the building, that counts as observing the vote counting process. You can't be serious that you think that the only reason that they would challenge this is because, like, well, now they've lost the election and now this is the first time they've noticed it. These laws have been in place in some place for decades. And in previous elections, people were allowed to actually look at the ballots. No one knew that this time that these precincts,

specifically Pittsburgh and Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, were going to bar observers and they'd have to sue over it. Okay. They didn't last time. Why would they know? For a big, Tim Pool prediction, not taking into context. Do you think they're going to sue over it. OK, I'm going to ask for a big for a big Tim Pool prediction, not taking into context. Do you think they're going to win any of these lawsuits in a meaningful way? Not like there were four ballots in a mail-in thing, but do you think that they're actually going to win? Absolutely not. Why not?

First of all, when a judge says, did you have observers in the building? And the Republican says the amount of observers in the building was a non-zero number, but we were not given meaningful access to the votes. And the judge says, well, according to the election code, it doesn't specify the distance by which you can observe. Therefore, you have no grounds to sue. That is clearly bad faith. If Trump is going to lose, it's going to be for two reasons.

Many of these judges and one judge even said this. If you think I will, he said, you can't expect me to rule in such a way that would disenfranchise millions of voters. That's that's absurd. I can't do that. That's not all he said. No, no, no. I'm just I'm bringing up that point specifically. There was a very important second part to that. And he said, I can't do that with no evidence. He said that one would think that if somebody was coming to me to disenfranchise even one vote, that they would be coming with a very strong case with lots of evidence, but let alone millions of votes to bring such a shoddy case built on poor legal arguments with no evidence or

shoddy evidence that that was the full quote for that. So the point I'm saying is there's an unwillingness to take such a massive and unprecedented move in a court without evidence. There is evidence. There isn't, though. Just because a judge said without evidence doesn't mean there's no evidence. Not just one judge, but people have gone through so many of these affidavits. Are we talking about Trump's lawsuits or random other people? I don't know one million percent of the distinction between only Trump's lawsuits and all of the other

ones that have been brought up. People have been rooting and cheering for Sidney Powell. And look at what happened with Tucker Carlson when he was like, where's the evidence? They ripped him apart. They left Fox News. And now many Trump supporters are going after Sidney Powell because they're saying she's actually a Democrat trying to undermine the Republican Party. Well, of course, the craziest thing, because anybody that's not lockstep with Daddy Trump is immediately castigated. And well, for sure. But people are so adamantly behind Sidney Powell and Lin Wood.

It's it's crazy. Like when I tweet, I tweeted that it sounds like Sidney Powell's getting her information from conspiracy forums. Oh, people started tweeting me like crazy. And they've been, they've been making fun of me like, oh, how dare you now? What Trump she's contradicting Trump. Like that stuff. I keep saying it over and over again. You come out and want to claim that this company was founded in Venezuela, smartmatic, and then Sequoia and all this stuff may be true. That's totally fine. But bro, you need extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. When we're talking about a judge in Pennsylvania and the lawsuit wasn't about fraud is another thing that the left keeps doing. Trump has specific lawsuits pertaining to

the validity of mail in voting and absentee voting deadlines, et cetera. So in these court cases, the judge will ask for a simple clarification. Are you alleging fraud? No, your honor, we're not. We'll take a clip of that and say, aha, this proves that Trump is saying there's no fraud and the lawsuit isn't claiming it yeah he didn't sue over fraud because that requires long-standing investigations that are hard confusion then was because some of these judges were trying to figure out what standing they even had then to be there because because initially it felt like the thing that i feel when i read the differences between what's what's being reported in these court cases versus what giuliani comes out it says giuliani sounds like he's alleging some massive white election fraud absolutely but then when it comes to them talking in front of

it's like the meme with the the little dog and then the like the shredded dog and the shredded dog is like Giuliani in front of the cameras alleging fraud election conspiracy and then when he gets in front of a judge like okay I'm not saying fraud but like I don't think this lady was allowed to be in an area where she was supposed to be and it's over like the the smallest minutiae ever and they don't even have good evidence what they're doing I think I think it's fair to say that the Trump the Trump campaign is not delivering in terms of the legal process by which they go after fraud, 100%. I also think it's fair to say that the legal strategy over challenging voting systems and ballots is a legal strategy, and that's it.

I wish that that strategy, if it's something that they so deeply cared about, I wish that they would have done that prior to the actual election. No, but you don't understand, man. How could they have known that the observers wouldn't have been allowed? Maybe they could have specified it in the code. It seems like Trump has every other conspiracy theory in his head about how he's going to be disenfranchised. You don't think having people observing the vote would have been like an important thing? The law existed, though. They had them. They didn't specify the distance. And I don't even know. And also, I'm giving you a lot here because I haven't read the exact verbiage because I'm willing to bet that when I go back home and I actually read through the case, it's going to be more than just like they had to be anywhere in the building.

That's literally what it was. My guess is going to be that it's probably been consistent with state laws over all prior elections, and it hasn't been a big deal before. But now people are just really mad because of the massive increase in voters for Democrats on the mail-in ballots, and that's why everybody's losing their mind over it. Let me ask you, should we have scrutineers, people who look at the ballots as they're being counted from both parties or even a third party? I don't know how these elections normally run, but it sounds like it would be a good— Yeah, it sounds like it'd be a decent— Is it okay that this time they didn't do that? I don't know if that's the case.

I don't think in the majority of places that is the case where it wasn't like that. No, no, no, no. It's specifically the Pennsylvania suit. Yeah, specifically in some few instances people say that happened, yeah yeah so you have these videos coming out where people are standing 100 feet away with binoculars and they're like i literally can't see anything one of the most important lessons i've learned in my life is to never believe anything i've ever seen in a twitter video i just over so many things i don't know what what the video what time what was it i don't know it was you or somebody else that i'd heard just recently say something about like um like all of

these uh votes are being reported by machine like you don't see people it was you or somebody else that I'd heard just recently say something about like all of these votes are being reported by machine. Like you don't see people walking around with votes. We did. Literally on election night, you saw people like delivering votes and stuff to county houses and stuff. They're bringing them from other counties. Like when it comes to videos, I don't trust any of that on the internet without like a greater story context around it because anybody can take one video of anything. Sworn affidavits. Sure, sworn affidavits.

So sworn affidavits in combination with the videos. Sworn affidavits is interesting. And them saying we can't see. we can't actually observe the votes. A big portion of what Julian is bringing forward right now in Michigan and these other places is that all of now, a judge recently issued an opinion citing that it seems very likely the plaintiffs will win on the merits that this is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court shot it down on a narrow ruling that it was too late to sue on this, you know, even though they just found out about it. They should have brought it out. They just found out about the law? They just found out about the acceptance of late mail-in voting?

That it was in violation of the Constitution. Why why they didn't see it initially you know what it sounds like it sounds like they lost and now they're going back and trying to certainly does okay absolutely agree with you which makes it hard to believe in good faith when i have but but that's not how that's how the legal system would work well according to some of these judges that's explicitly how the legal so for instance some of these rulings the judge explicitly will say the fact that she didn't follow any of the chain of command or the fact that this person didn't report any of this on election night is very damaging to their credibility. Why would it matter if the lawsuit was now or later when they weren't asking to do anything to this current

election? But the reason why it matters is because of these things are happening. They're only being reported retroactively. It seems like it's in a way to lose it. It wouldn't have to buy in winning rather than to any actual. But if it wouldn't have an impact on the election, then it's irrelevant. What do you mean? The lawsuit wasn't asking to do anything to the current election. They asked the courts to issue their advice on relief, meaning perhaps in the future we won't do no excuse mail-in voting. The Supreme Court said it's too late to sue for this, dismissed with prejudice, meaning these people can't bring these cases up ever again. What's interesting is that the lower court ruling was that it would have been detrimental

to several of the plaintiffs who actually won their elections. Mike Kelly won and then sued, saying, we didn't realize that the Republicans passed an unconstitutional law. And the judge actually issued an opinion saying, as this would be— I did not realize somebody passed a law. They realized the law was passed, but many people didn't know that it was unconstitutional. What changed? Did they read a tweet?

They read the Constitution. No joke. After election? They didn't do that when the law was being passed? Isn't that part of, like, your job as a legislator? I'd be willing to bet there was somebody who was looking at what's going on, what can we do, and the motivation was very much, Trump is losing this. However, the lawsuit wasn't brought by Trump.

It was brought actually by a guy who won and several other people as well as a guy who lost. So it was a mixed bag and they weren't asking for the election to be thrown out. They were asking for the courts to advise on what relief could be. Sean Parnell sat here just a week ago and he said, I don't want anyone to be disenfranchised. I'm not saying this vote has to be thrown out. This election has to be thrown out. We all thought this was constitutional. I'm just asking for maybe the court will advise us. Maybe they'll say, hey, this, we need a constitutional amendment. So from this point forward, we're going to say no to this, no excuse mail-in voting moving forward. And then you get a constitutional amendment. You know what's really crazy about it? When the GOP was passing, the Pennsylvania GOP was passing

Act 77, which is no excuse mail-in voting, they actually started the process to amend the Constitution and halfway through stopped, changed some wording, and then it got passed, signed off by governor. So this is a bipartisan approval. Most people didn't realize what had happened. Wait, that doesn't sound like a bad thing on its face at all. If you were going to pass something and then you realized it was going to be unconstitutional, so you go to change the Constitution when you realize well hold on if we

reform some of this bill no no no no you said reform i said they change some of the words okay so laws are the words that make the laws let's let's let's not play semantic games it's not a semantic game if it is well when you say change some words like i can change some words and make anything anything else what do you mean by that so let's let's let's not play semantic games let's define it when the constitution says absentee ballots require specific excuses to be allowed okay and the law they initially presented was no excuse absentee they changed absentee to mail okay that's the that's it are there an entirely different set of provisions that come in under mail-in ballots versus absentee is there a whole different part

of their state legislature that has a different way of dealing with the same thing the exact same thing and that's why the judge in the lower court ruled the plaintiffs will will will likely be successful on the merits and then the the higher court said we're not ruling on the merits we don't know it's just too late okay well sounds like they should have brought it up beforehand they're going to the supreme court okay i don't be interested when it goes to the supreme court so one of the one of the issues that i have when people keep saying affidavits affidavits affidavits is it on the first hand is it feels like somebody's sliding down a mountain grabbing branches or whatever as he's going down like initially we're grabbing all the mail-in ballots are voted fraud um then

we were saying you know um uh we've got the uh dominion voting machines are made in venezuela and then somehow hugo chavez is coming back to life to blah blah blah no no no stop stop stop first of all the dominion stuff is nuts in my opinion i know that's crazy i can't believe these machines existed for so long and no one said anything about them until after the election. In 2006, CNN reported on it. What did they report? They reported that they were completely insecure,

there was a bunch of problems and all this stuff. And one of the things specifically that they reported is stuff like a lack of paper trail or no ability to audit these machines, which has been some of the stuff that has been corrected and fixed in almost every single state that allows these machines to function. Hold on. You said Hugo Chavez came back to life. Sure. No one's argued that.

Okay. I'm just hearing Chavez's name a lot recently. Because Smartmatic, there's a WikiLeaks release from 2010. This has been on the internet for over a decade. Cablegate, where they say in 2010, Hugo Chavez was providing resources to a group of individuals in Venezuela who are the principal owners. And if you travel through all these different shell companies, you find it originated in Venezuela. That's where that Hugo Chavez comes from. Sure.

I feel like the argument that Hugo Chavez came back to life is an attempt to ignore what's actually being presented. Well, I'm attempting to make the people sound insane because they are to assume that there's some wider play by some other country. But why are you doing that? You don't need to ridiculous you don't need to i think well because for me because i do a lot of humor so i think it's funny when people invoke shava so much try to scare people not thinking that some machines are stealing our election but to say like this narrative that confuses the actual argument from people wait what is the actual argument the actual argument is that going back uh you know a decade plus back 20 years, there was a series of companies that were started with the express purpose of being able to hide through audits that votes were manipulated. There is a company, Smartmatic, that was involved in this and has ties to Venezuela as per diplomatic cables that were leaked 10 years ago.

So we've known about this for a long time. Why did the DHS and the Department of Justice— I'm not saying it's true. I'm not saying it's true. But it's ridiculous. I'm saying the difference— It's crazy. 10 years ago. So we've known about this for a long time. Why did the DHS and the Department of Justice... I'm not saying it's true. Oh, sure. I'm not saying it's true. But it's ridiculous. I'm saying the difference...

It's crazy. There's a difference between what these people are actually arguing and coming out and saying he was shot as a return from the grave. So on the level of these Dominion voting machines, if any of this was true, it would be the largest political news story related to elections in the past 100 years. Do you trust the media? To report something like this? No.

This is like Pulitzer Prize winning related reporting. They won Pulitzers for the Russiagate stuff. Sure. Well, there was a lot of good reporting and a lot of credible indictments that came out of that. Unlike the Benghazi and the email hearings. But regardless, I'm just saying that like this level of election fraud would be like

an unimaginable, unprecedented level. What were the indictments related to Russia? So one had to do with the Internet Research Agency, which was funded by the Kremlin, which had a whole bunch of foreign but those were foreigners not trump and not the trump administration correct yeah um yeah there were no indictments related specifically to trump's cabinet although we did get some indictments kind of like around that um yeah so the manafort stuff came out of that um flynn got caught lying to the fbi um although daddy trump pardoned him um cohen went down for uh the new york related stuff and the election you know the crazy thing

about the manafort stuff is you know they found out about that what did they find out about you you know that how they find out found out about manafort i read a lot of weird stuff today some guy's office and they found a ledger that was like written on a piece of paper whatever for manafort for owing him money and so they didn't report to the state department and stuff but go ahead politico reported that ukrainian operatives were trying to sabotage trump and so they sent documents to a DNC operative. And then she, you know, passed it along saying, here, we got some dirt. Go after him.

And they did. So it was political. It was, you know, political. So all of Manafort's charges were just 100% political stuff? I didn't say all of it. I'm saying they found out about a lot of his documents because it was passed off for political reasons. That shouldn't be surprising to anybody. Sure.

I don't know how that absolves. I didn't say it did. I said it's interesting that you know we've got ukraine stepping up we've got this you know political battle people are trying to go after each other yeah i'm sure people are trying to send people dirt about other leaders literally all the time we had assange and wiki leaks and they're doing all of that for a long time for their left um we also as a result of all those indictments found out a lot about how the um how the dnc was penetrated via the spear phishing stuff by the goose over 2.0 hacker and everything we saw a lot of them in diamonds as well some people should not be some people don't use computers and a lot of people with important with access to really important information you know but uh but let's not yeah yeah go back to

the voter stuff yeah the point is on the pa on the pennsylvania point that I'm bringing up is we had a serious conundrum in terms of voter observation. It is, I think, widely accepted that we should have observers making sure that people aren't falsifying the vote count. Sure. Do you agree? If the Pennsylvania court just ruled that's not the case, should we change it so that is the case? I would have to see the on the specific ruling for that argument, because more often than not, when people cite these, usually they're sure. Sure. So let's just say I personally I think you should probably have people observing the election.

I can't think of a reason offhand why you wouldn't. That doesn't make sense to me. But I would have to read into why they made the ruling they did. So check it out. The issue would be then if the judge made this ruling on the grounds the election code doesn't specify distance. I mean, then why wouldn't say Trump 2024 just be like, we're cleared. We got a ruling from the court.

We know what we can do now. And you can't sue us unless you have injury in fact. Therefore, when it comes time to election, all Republicans bar all Democrats and we can't lose. We can write down whatever numbers we want. If you want to, yeah, go for it. So it's a serious threat to our election integrity. It could potentially be. Yeah.

And if somebody were to bring it up in that manner, I'd believe them when they said that. But right now, it just feels like Republicans are doing anything they can to try to flip the election results. I think, yes, 100%. And I think the Democrats, they didn't—I don't think they tried to flip the results in 2016 for the most part. There was a whole lot of the Hillary can still win stuff. Hillary conceded the next day. But— Absolutely not even remotely

similar. It's remotely similar. Maybe like the way that Antarctica is remotely close to Pluto. Do you see the videos of celebrities saying the Electoral College must vote for Hillary Clinton? Do you think there's a difference between celebrities saying something and the President of the United States

trying to undermine the election? That's why I'm saying these aren't remotely similar. Yes. Und trying to undermine the election that's why i think these are remotely similar yes undermine see that's that's that's framing well it's when you say so 2016 trump said millions of illegals voted he started that with no evidence that's undermining the integrity of election and then in 2020 he's saying that there was widespread election fraud that literally no agency no other credible person has backed up save for the melting head of giuliani Like no one else is backing up on this. His own DHS turned on him on this with his own appointee. His own attorney general, the sword and shield.

What did he say? Barr came out and said that as of right now, there is no evidence of widespread election fraud. Wait, wait, there's more to that quote. What else? That would have changed the outcome of the election. Would have changed the outcome of the election. Okay. To date, we have not seen evidence on a scale that would have changed that what else did he say too what else

he also said that they looked into the dominion machines and based on their analysis of it they didn't see any evidence also that those machines were filming votes i think the dominion stuff is is over the top look you got you got brian kemp and brian uh was it brian kemp is the name right and raffensperger okay they're both brian was it brad raffensperger okay mixing their names up or something but these are republicans i don't think there's a grand conspiracy where members of the Trump-supporting Republican Georgians are like, ah, now's our chance. But people really believe it. Yeah, they do.

I think, for one, partially because a lot of people play into it. You do as well, right? How do I play into it? When you're tweeting stuff— I just straight up agreed and said it was nuts. Sure, I know. But it feels like a lot of your rhetoric gives a lot of credence or credibility to a lot of the lawsuits that challenge how know like how the election is

being like i like the fact that you're willing to say that you think that the elect do you do you think that the election the majority of the election was legit that maybe there were a few but you think for the the results stand i think what people need to realize too is you don't need widespread fraud to alter the outcome of an election you know you would no you don't you you need maybe one person in four key districts absolutely not or one person with a usb stick absolutely not that's not how these work it is it absolutely i actually was in vegas at defcon when they hacked the voting machines i watch them do it i don't know what voting machines they hacked but hacking it hacking one machine or

hacking a series of machines is a lot different than the step-by-step process that goes through tabulating results reporting but they all go in the machine right sure but there's also paper trails behind all these votes as well and they didn't did they do a hard signature audit i don't know if they did they did they did a risk they have their yeah their risk assessment audits but there is a paper trail behind every single thing but now the problem is saying well for some of the ballots that were taken to the mail and things they've been separated from the and they destroyed the verify or whatever. That's a problem. They destroyed.

So with the observers in Pennsylvania, they destroyed the secrecy envelopes. So now it's like, what do we do? They destroyed them before anybody could could check to see if they were legit. Why would they do that? But you so you believe the election is legitimate as it stands. But maybe there are some things we could fix going forward because that's a stat. That's a stance I could maybe. I would say as of right now, I said this and I got ragged on hard for it on September 7th.

I said it on like on the 8th, I think. No, no, no, no. It wasn't the 8th. It was the 9th because I took a day off because I was like, everything is crazy. The simple solution is Trump got oceans 11th. That if – the cheating, as I would frame it, is the mass changing of rules well before the election, using COVID as a pretext when Act 77 was even passed in October. The Democrats did everything in their power within the system to give themselves advantages. They were going door to

door. They were doing democracy in the park. They were doing illegal. Democracy in the park was illegal. The vote raffles that we just saw emerge all these these videos through all these different swing states, was also illegal. There's no evidence as of right now. I should say there's not enough. Have people been charged over this Democracy in the Park stuff? I would say not yet. I don't know. But I will say there was one person so far charged with 135 counts related to basically getting infirm people to vote and signing off documents for them.

There's currently a case going to the the I think the district attorney in Pennsylvania, where they found several thousand ballots all filled out in the same handwriting for Joe Biden in the names of elderly people in various nursing homes. So this stuff happened. It exists. Can I say that this is the reason why Joe Biden won? I can't. So I'm not going to I do not agree with Trump when he says I lost due to a rigged election and widespread fraud. I say, well, there's evidence of fraud to the scale that would have generated a flipping of the election. I would say, no, there was impropriety that would have changed the outcome of the election. But what we're talking about with that, with Trump's lawsuit in Pennsylvania is disqualifying six hundred and eighty two thousand votes because they weren't observed as they were counted.

And as Giuliani said, Mickey Mouse could have filled them out. That is not fraud. That is them saying we should disqualify these votes in an attempt to win because they weren't allowed to observe them. I think it's a problem that people weren't allowed to observe them properly. I don't know that disenfranchising the state is the appropriate path forward. That's mostly agreeable. I would say for life pro tip for people in the future or anybody um either playing video games with friends or trying to run a country if you have severe problems with the way that rules are

it's usually good to try to change the rules before you lose otherwise everybody's going to look at you sideways wonder if you actually care about the rules or if you're just trying to get them changed but they're not trying to change the rules with the observer well in terms of like saying well in terms of specifying the distance or in terms of like having observers in a certain area or whatever it sounds like they want to refine these rules to some extent. I think I think that hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet. However, there's a there's a Trump supporting lawyer, a friend of mine. His name is Will Chamberlain.

He said it's not going there. Sure. The Supreme Court. He said it was it was it was on appeal. So you saw that court case where the Trump appointee was like, get out of here. OK, they appealed it. And that case was them appealing just to have the right to amend the argument in the first place. And they was like get out of here okay they appealed it and they uh that case was them appealing just to have the right to amend the argument in the first place and they

said get out of here so well if this is the same one that i'm thinking the reason why they told them to get out of there is because i think that this was a giuliani this was a trump case right it was yeah they'd amended this case like five or six times and i think giuliani showed up they wanted to amend it for a second time that was it and so what i wish i could remember exactly what this was but i know that i watched my because there was a legal analysis video of one of these that giuliani got thrown out of court because they they had moved different lawyers on and off of this case so much and then they pushed back and they tried to amend the case so many times that eventually the lawyer was like hey you know why they changed the joke like get out I know you're not going to say because of the threats. Yeah. The, the, the, the, the, uh, a bunch of high profile verified leftists, uh, the Lincoln

Project posted the phone numbers of lawyers. And then within a day they said, please judge, let us leave the case. Like that's, that's, I mean, that's the only reasonable, that's the only reason they did it. The judges quit the case after being threatened and harassed so i've had unfortunately a lot of bad uh experiences with people higher education that makes me wonder sometimes but i would feel like it feels to me that it would be pretty obvious and if you're a lawyer you'd probably understand this that if you are going to be working on a

public lawsuit you're probably gonna get a lot of public backlash they weren't ready for any of that i'm not saying that's good if the i would say no posting phone numbers that's pretty abhorrent however it feels more like they probably left because they saw the case was meritless rather than just like oh we got death threats so we decided to walk away that's possible to highly improbable to me but that's possible too but that's speculative more so i would say if if we get the lincoln project a bunch of news stories were published saying you know republican pack that PAC, you know, anti-Trump Republican PAC publishes private information. Twitter forced the tweet down. And then within a couple of days, the lawyers put in an official request to leave the case.

Our only chain of events is this. So I think it's the simple solution is they were threatened and harassed to the point where they said, we don't want to be involved anymore. Sure. I guess it's just surprising to me that a lawyer would say, I can't believe my information went public on one of the most public lawsuits being filed in the world right now that's very strange to me there's no other there's no other issues and how come all the other lawyers you know aren't we're not getting harassed are staying on why are they are the other lawyers aren't getting harassed at all i find that hard to believe as well i'm sure that any public name that's on any of those filings probably gonna get the lincoln project publishing your phone number

is probably very different from just being a law firm on one of the suits. Possibly. Yeah. But. So anyway. Did you watch the Project Veritas guy that they originally had that was going to, that had signed the affidavit saying he was told to backdate stuff or whatever? That O'Keefe was talking? Yes, I did.

Did you ever listen to the full interrogation of this guy? When he retracted his. Yeah. Yeah. I did. So one of my worries for the affidavits, that and then watching, reading through some of the judge testimonies. A lot of these affidavits are people, they're being truthful, they're signing what they believe to be true. But the problem is their observations are just not bad like they think they are.

Did you hear what the guy said after? Well, after O'Keefe brought him on and butted him up somewhere, he's like, no, I got mind controlled or whatever by the interrogator. So if you listen to the interrogator, everything that they walked through was like, it was pretty obvious the guy's claim was way farther than he ever could have made. I disagree. The guy literally walked across the aisle to the desk and he's like, hey, if I'm talking, because the guy had said when he was across the aisle,

he's like, I very clearly could hear him saying like, we need to post-date or back-date some of the ballots. And the guy's like, hey, can you hear me over there? And the guy like doesn't even respond. And he's like, hey, hello? And the guy's like, oh yeah, yeah, I can hear you now. And he's like, okay. So you think the guy made it up in the first place?

I don't think that he made it up. I'm not I don't think that he's that malicious. I think he probably heard a word or two and then maybe extrapolated. And then his mind probably ran with it after that is what it seemed like based on that like two hour interrogation. A guy hearing something and then being like, I can't believe that happened. And then telling someone is probably more accurate than a federal agent coming in and saying, sit down. And he says, what did he say?

I'm scaring you right now. Like, why did you hear that stuff? Yeah, of course. So what do you think happens when some regular like kind of dopey dude is sitting there and a federal agent is kind of drilling him? You didn't hear it, did you? You can't hear it, can you? You're right. Don right don't worry everything is for you we're scaring you right now so it was a creepy it was a creepy recording it it wasn't it was totally fair the guy had originally stated that he had heard crystal clear like across the the across his whole office and

he'd heard some and he signed a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury and so did the there plenty of people signed affidavits for a lot of different things, right? Sure, sure. But. Witness testimony is evidence, but it's not definitive proof. When it came time for him to actually talk to the guy, he walked back almost all of his strong claims that he couldn't hear the guy talking across the house. And maybe he didn't hear 100%.

He was told to backdate things that like, and I listened to the entire interview and it sounded pretty fair to me. If the guy had accurately heard it, because initially he did feel a lot more confident when the guy asked a few questions, he started to kind of like falter and the statement and i know keith likes to clip out like five second you know like power statement saying like yeah i'm putting a little bit of pressure on you because that's what you do when you watch the full thing so did we listen all hour and it was it was it was not like look i used to work wait it was not what it was not uh a calm reasonable discussion trying to affect finding mission. It was unbelievably calm.

The guy spent half the discussion. Like, the guy being interrogated was like, oh, yeah, I wanted to go to criminal justice. I went to school for it. And the guy was like, oh, yeah, you know, like, that's so cool. Like, yeah, you're probably smart. You know, all of this. Like, seeing the police tactics, the investigator was playing good cop 1 million percent the entire time. It doesn't mean he's not pressuring the guy and playing upon putting memories in his head he even said we want to

pressure you so that you can you can make memories and did you remember when he said that right he said we want you to you know when we pressure you this way then you can form memories i'm pretty sure exactly what he said was that when we pressure you you're more likely to remember what actually happened is what he said that under some pressure the truth will come out or whatever was ultimately i think the argument's kind of pointless on this one guy sure well it is just this one i've noticed a pattern for a lot of these affidavits that what'll happen is is that somebody will file an affidavit saying like oh yeah like i saw election fraud and then when it comes time to like well what did you see and it's like well i was in this room and i think i saw a thing and like the the actual claim

is actually way less than the super extrapolated thing that ends up on the affidavit is what it feels like to me. I don't, I don't, I don't think the, uh, the affidavits, uh,

go particularly far. Witness testimony is evidence. It's used in criminal court cases all the time. I think the, the, the best evidence we have so far is the voter integrity project. Are you familiar with Matt Brainerd's work? So the statistician guy?

Yeah. He's a data. Uh, I, Oh God, I might've, if he was in front of michigan where he tried to explain no he wasn't allowed to testify in michigan i think oh okay then that was a different data i think that was right he yeah he went out there so we were supposed to have him and he went out there he's like i'm going to testify there and then he's like i was not able to testify okay so what he did was he i believe he purchased the publicly available data from several swing states he then hired three call centers and he gave him a list of questions to ask did you request an absentee ballot did you send in an absentee ballot things like that and he found

in a bunch of different circumstances uh that was one of the things they did they also cross referenced the national change of address database with people who voted they found i think i could be getting the number wrong was it was it 20 000 in georgia yeah i think 20 000 20 000 people in georgia who had changed their addresses voted in their new state and voted by absentee in georgia that's like he's got they've actually published parts of the database you can see the names he actually he also found i think tens of thousands of people who listed commercial addresses with fake apartment numbers in nevada i think it's like 11 000 or so that's legitimate hard evidence so was that going to show up in a court case where it's the fbi took it already so the fbi proactively reached out to him and this was how long ago did this happen four days

three why how long ago was bar statement or so the fbi looked into things and it didn't look like there was bar said to date we have yeah but what was that to date? How long ago did Barr publish that statement? Wasn't that just a couple days ago? Yes. We haven't seen evidence on a scale that would have altered the outcome of the election. Okay. Something to that effect. The FBI just reached out, reached out to Brainerd requesting, this was reported in a few outlets, he mentioned it. We'll see if anything comes of it. But this is one of the reasons why there was a big backlash between people on the right

and what Barr had said and why Barr then clarified the next day, we are actively investigating and we'll take any credible report, you know, or whatever. So Matt Brainerd is probably the best evidence. But again, it's not definitive proof that there was an outcome you

know changing that come the election i'm not saying that you know maybe maybe the fbi did review his data and they said well these 20 000 are 50 50 trump or biden so it wouldn't have changed anything possibly the problem too is that like and again i hate that i'm not familiar with the specific uh specific thing but i know in front of michigan they would testify that like oh well here's evidence of voter fraud as well um there were 120 percent of of the people yeah or not voter turnout but like of the registered voter whatever here um like they would use these right right right i know but the reality of what happened was well you know some people move the voter registration updated or some people here but like this isn't evidence of voter fraud it's just evidence that there needed to be an update

in like the registry one of the biggest problems uh in trump's argument and a lot of conservatives bring this up is when they're like you'll see a tweet where they say there's 7 836 dead people on the voter registration in this place and it's like yes because they died and they haven't been purged or are you yeah are you saying they voted because that's a different you know so i hear that a lot from the from the right i'm like that's irrelevant exactly without proving that they voted you need yeah Yeah. If you have proof they voted, then all of a sudden we're like, whoa. And there have been some instances, but I think in one instance... I think there were a couple where like somebody sent in a mail-in ballot and then died before

the election. I think some of these are like Louisiana or something. I misread something and tweeted like, whoa, dead people voted. And then I went back and I was like, ah, they voted and then died. But there were some instances that some mainstream outlets found where there were a couple dead people who were found to have voted. Sure. So the issue there is, is there voter fraud?

Yes. And the Heritage Foundation has a list of it. Is it widespread to the scale that it changed the outcome of the election? That's not been proven. Sure. That's the best way I can put it. Obviously, the left will say, of course not. The right will say, of course, yes.

The reality is there's evidence. There's crazy evidence, but it's not been proven. And I don't think it will be, to be completely honest. I don't think – and a lot of conservatives agree with this – that you have an apparatus that could even investigate on this scale 150 million votes to figure out who did or didn't. The Matt Brainerd stuff, the voter integrity project, is probably the scariest stuff we have so far. There's a guy named nayshawn garrett he's he's a college uh collegiate is that how you say it collegiate wrestler training for the olympics he lived in arizona he moved to tennessee he got a phone call from one of the call centers asking if he requested an absentee ballot he said no i

voted in tennessee i moved here a while ago to train for the olympics they said did you didn't request it you did not submit one he says no you didn't request it. You did not submit one. He says, no, I didn't. They said, somebody requested and submitted an absentee ballot in Arizona in your name. And so he then went public, went on Fox News and said, that's not me. I didn't do that. That's crazy. I'd like to see an investigation and some prosecutions and or at least at the very least investigations. Maybe there's no prosecutions because we don't know where it leads to leads to but if you've got people changing their addresses and then voting if if if this uh database thing on the national change of address database from brainerd is correct and he has 20 000 people in georgia who changed their address but voted in

two different locations either they voted twice or someone voted in their name we got to investigate that sure especially if trump supporters are outraged and demanding clarity. The crazy thing to me is that at a time when this country is dramatically and hyper polarized, the Democrats confident in their win should be like, please, Trump, take the resources you need to investigate and compare signatures and do what you need to do so that we can then tell you we won definitively. Instead, it's... But they're doing that.

They're not. They're blocking it. There's... They've been doing all of these're not. They're blocking it. They are. There's, there's, there's- They've been doing all of these investigations, or they've had all these court cases in all these states. No, no, the court cases are not investigations. The DNC has countersued,

and the ACLU has countersued, blocking the Trump lawsuits. So they're not cooperating, and they're arguing against it. You said that Barr himself and the FBI was following up. You said that that list was turned into the FBI, and these investigations are working through these things it's not like the investigations are happening no no for sure i'm saying the democrats should come out and be like yes

absolutely please investigate i mean i guess it depends on what they believe the merits of the case are if it's so ridiculous that all this is doing is just tearing the country asunder because they're constantly challenging every single little part of the election process it can only it can only do the opposite that's not true though though. You can draw stuff like this for years. No, until they can't find any evidence of anything, and then Biden wins the federal college. How long did we have to listen to Trump talk about how Obama was from Kenya? Like, they could draw this out for so long. But there's a constitutional process.

Sure, there might be. But again, legal constitutional processes can be years long. On January 20th, whether or not there's an investigation investigation there's going to be an inauguration sure and and the investigation can carry on and fine let them draw it out sure we did we went through three three and a half years and we were still technically going through russiagate because adam schiff won't drop it and here we are and we all kind of just roll with it and the pulitzer prizes and all the awards and then we we realized it was all of these people testifying under oath. They had no evidence.

It didn't happen. Wait, what thing didn't happen? So you had the likes of, what was it, like Brennan and Clapper. You had people, Schiff. They were going on TV saying, yes, it happened. We have proof. Wait, what happened? Trilogian with Russia.

I've heard. Sorry. OK, because I've heard a lot of this. But then in the skiff, when they were doing the closed-door testimony, they said, oh, no, that's not true. I don't have any evidence. And so that actually got released, I think, in like I've heard. Sorry. Okay. Because I've heard a lot of this. But then in the skiff, when they were doing the closed-door testimony, it said, oh, no, that's not true. I don't have any evidence. And so that actually got released, I think, in like October or something. Sure.

The point, I'm not trying to rehash all that. I'm just saying, if I can go through all that, I got no problem saying either we let the investigations happen, and maybe we find something, maybe we don't. But so long as people feel that in good faith we are taking their complaints seriously, we can prevent destabilization of what is already an extremely hyperpolarized country. Sure, I can understand that. You must understand on the other end, though, there is a little bit of frustration with what feels like endless investigations into nothing related to things like Hillary Clinton

or Benghazi. These things, how many hours of court hearings, how many months did we get drips about Hillary's emails, buttery emails over and over and over and over again like i'm going to disagree because i honestly think that if you want every single american to be rightfully enfranchised if they have the right to vote then you more than anyone else you and all of the democrats should 100 want every possible investigation because we want this to be true free full and fair for every legal citizen in the u.s sure and i hope that they do their investigations i hope they present their cases in front of the courthouses that's fine but they should be an investigation the way that all of

this is played out it really does even the verbiage they use the the it's never when julianne's talking it's never like i want to ensure that this is a free and fair election i want to ensure that everybody's kind of it's like we think we can find enough votes here to change the outcome of the state that's literally they straight up asked sydney powell one of that in relief and the kraken lawsuit was declare trump the winner yeah like they're literally asking explicitly like this is supposed to be the part they're not supposed to say out loud you're supposed to keep that quiet you're trying to but like so i i'm not saying that like i hope the uh investigations are blocked if they have merit but um i mean it would i would

understand why some people would feel a bit salty that investigations would get dragged out forever. I know a lot of people who are salty about the Russiagate elections, you know. And I think that as a, you know, with compromise comes one side rolling their eyes while the other side shakes their fist. I mean, Flynn was communicating with people in an unauthorized manner before he went to the White House. He literally lied about it. I thought you said it was unauthorized. Did he lie about communicating or was an unauthorized manner before he went to the White House? He literally lied about it. I thought you said it was unauthorized. Did he lie about communicating or was it unauthorized communication? I believe that he lied about it to the FBI, his communication.

Do you know the story? I think you're walking into a landmine. My walking into a landmine? Which part of—do you think Flynn going to prison or being charged with lying to the FBI, do you think it was illegitimate? Yes. Why? Because he was the acting national security advisor who was communicating with his Russian counterpart. Then why did he lie to the FBI? Do you think it was illegitimate? Yes. Why? Because he was the acting national security advisor who was communicating with his Russian counterpart.

And why did he lie to the FBI about it? Do you know the meeting wasn't a formal investigation? He was hanging out at the White House and they asked him an informal question in passing. And that was the grounds. Did you know that they threatened his son to force a guilty plea? Why did they lie?

Did you know that in the notes? Why did he lie to the FBI? If you right now lied to me, what if you lied to ian and you didn't know he was so mad you think that flynn was talking to somebody he had no idea he was fbi he didn't know he was under investigation there was no legitimate investigation and he was asked a passive question by someone who had nothing to do with him there was no legitimate didn't the fbi and the uh the uh doj both have or i'm sorry not the doj the state department both have a huge

interest in flynn because of his association with kislyak i thought that was like a big part that both of them had an issue with that the state department didn't want him in the white house because they weren't sure obama he was compromised obama state department and then the fbi obama didn't mind if he was there because the fbi wanted to follow him up for a further investigation so you're talking politics not legitimate claims against michael flynn okay you're talking about Michael Flynn, who came out and this conversation the other day with Luke Rutkowski. Michael Flynn came out and basically talked about what the Obama administration had been doing with supplying weapons to rebels.

Obama got mad, fires him, tells Trump not to hire this guy. So Trump says, I'm going to hire him. Then they started having these meetings. This was released in I think it was the Durham probe. I'm not entirely sure. The notes that got released show that there was a meeting between like Sally Yates, James Comey, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, all having this big meeting in which afterwards Sally Yates writes an email to herself explaining what happened. What did she explain what happened in that meeting? She went through grueling detail about how Obama ordered them to make sure everything was on the up and up and done by the book in terms of an investigation of Michael Flynn to some degree. People try to claim that in that meeting that

I think they assert either Obama or Biden, I think, asserted that he brought up the Logan Act. Yes, because it was not true. Even in the notes that Yates left for himself, it was not true that Biden ever brought up the Logan Act in that particular meeting. So there's notes that say Biden, Logan Act, question mark. That's why it was asserted. Sure. But it wasn't the answer. I'm not going to take Sally Yates.

What's your evidence for that? There is no evidence for that. Nobody came out and said that, oh, yeah, Biden was, this was brought up, the Logan Act was brought up on his behalf or whatever. I don't think anybody's ever talked about it. Did you know that notes released by the FBI asked, what should we do? What are we trying to do? Get him fired or prosecute?

Okay. Why would the FBI be trying to get a guy fired? I think the problem is that, and this is something that gets misconstrued a lot, Trump himself, or maybe it was Barr himself, misconstrued a State Department person's words in terms of what is our goal is to get him fired or prosecute, because there was a huge conflict of interest between the FBI and the State Department over what to do with Flynn. And this is where a lot of the fighting between these two agents came from. The State Department did not want Flynn associated with the White House at all. They wanted him out because they didn't want to be as compromised on it. The FBI didn't care if he stayed there.

I shouldn't say didn't care, but they weren't as concerned with that because they thought that they could follow Flynn further up on an investigation. So there was a huge conflict of interest there where we don't know. Do we want him removed now? Do we want to continue to investigate him? That's a fair question to ask. There were two competing agencies that had different goals. Did you know they threatened his son?

When you say threaten his son, I don't know what... If you don't plead guilty, we're going to prosecute your son. Did his son commit a crime? I don't know exactly what the full details were. Well, that seems really important there

because if his son committed a crime, it seems like that would be a pretty important part of... Threatening... Look, you're getting somebody on a process crime because in an informal meeting where he was not being investigated,

he said he didn't talk to Kislyak. Don't you think that's crazy that you could be standing by a FBI agent and he could be like, you ever talked to a Russian ambassador? And you go, no, you lied. I got you. An incoming national security advisor

would lie to a member working the Federal Bureau of Investigation about contact with a foreign agent. Yeah, that seems crazy to me. Not in a formal meeting under investigation. He has no obligation to tell anybody anything. In fact,

as National Security Advisor, why would he be giving away his advice and secrets to some FBI agent he doesn't know? Then why... Or, I'm sorry, he doesn't know, like,

in the sense that... Then why is he talking to him at all about it, then? So you're at a party. You're at an informal meeting at the White House. People are asking me, the incoming National Security Advisor,

about my communication with foreign... probably would say hey miss you know what i don't think i'm going to talk to you about that it seems really inappropriate or maybe it's like no no no because i don't want this guy to know anything about i don't know who he is i don't know what his deal is we're not an informal investigation he wasn't with a lawyer or anything like that and they asked him a question and that was the basis for prosecuting him for lying to the fbi why did they why did the judge throw the bucket on them what happened isn't that strange that when the doj said we want to to drop this, Judge Sullivan did nothing for a month? My understanding was that the DOJ said that they wanted to drop it under Barr and that Barr's reasoning for dropping that is because he said that the State Department themselves were arguing over the FBI about whether or not – about how to deal with Flynn.

And the State Department had a person, and I believe it was her own words. I don't remember her name, but she came out and she said, actually, Barr used my statement because I think the statement had to do with how the State Department was frustrated with how the FBI was pursuing things. But their frustration wasn't that Flynn was innocent. We don't know why the FBI is bullying him. Their frustration was that we don't want you to investigate Flynn. We want him removed immediately.

But the State Department— So they were trying to pressure the Trump campaign into getting rid of his national security advisor. Basically, because the State Department didn't want that guy in there because it was compromised but the fbi trump was the president sure trump was the was the president uh elect he became president it's his his right as the duly elected president to appoint as an acting national security advisor whose job is to communicate with his counterpart and i understand that i'm just saying that there is a reason why there was conflict there and it wasn't just because flynn was some innocent passerby and

the state department was trying to exonerate him so when bar comes out and he cites that particular state sure sure sure sure but that's that's irrelevant to the question at hand in an informal meeting where flynn was not with his lawyer or under you know formal investigation they asked him if he talked to kislyak and he passively said no and that was it what do you think about the um what do you think about the reports now that trump is looking at potentially preemptively pardoning himself or any of his family members? Do you believe in any of this? I don't know.

I don't know. I think it's certainly within the realm of possibility for something Trump to do. But I don't trust a lot of these reports that come from unnamed sources. Ever since we've had that story from Huffington Post, people close to the president say he has no one close to him. I'm just like, these people are just – if if trump comes out and says it i'll believe it trump recently came out at a party and said we're trying really hard to stand for four years but if we don't we'll see you in 2024 good enough for me when they come out and say on unnamed individual claims i'm like sorry i'm just i got very little room for these companies just to make these claims unless I know who the person is. You know, especially after the fact, like, we've seen many, many people just, they hate the

president to the point where they'll say whatever I have to say. And there's certainly people who love the president to the point where they'll say whatever I have to say. I want hard evidence when it comes to fraud. I want hard evidence when it comes to the accusations against Trump. When I look at the Michael Flynn scenario, it looks like Barack Obama didn't like Flynn because Flynn was not good to Barack Obama. So they said, we don't want you. Do you know what the reasoning for why the State Department thought he was compromised was? Why?

In a meeting, he was talking to someone and they, I think it was Yates perhaps. They, he was asked, you know, who do you think, or I'm sorry, in a passive conversation, it comes up that he says, I don't think that Russia is our biggest adversary. I think it's actually China. And that was like, oh, no, he thinks he's trying to defend Russia or something. It's like, well, I agree. I think China is a way bigger threat than Russia is. And then all of a sudden, he finds himself being prosecuted for lying to the FBI. For what? Now, I'll tell you what, he got thrown under the bus by Trump and Trump's team saying he shouldn't and Pence, he shouldn't have lied to us. Oh, it's his fault. And then later, what now i'll tell you what he got thrown into the bus by trump and you know trump's team saying he shouldn't and pence he shouldn't have lied to us oh it's it's his fault and then later they came back and tried to defend him trump's not a perfect guy far from it and he made a ton of mistakes he

threw his own guy into the bus and he should have defended him but the fact that but when he seems to have a habit of doing that he certainly does he has a habit of hiring dumb people too like then calling them amazing and throwing them under the bus oh i love it he's done this with so many different sessions with cohen with yeah that's yeah that's a that is that is the trump uh administration people it's his job no he should have fired a lot more people he didn't fire people that was the problem so look i think you know whether you like flynn or whatever when it comes to the doj saying we're drop it. And a judge started prosecuting. That's scary, man. Look, I don't I don't I don't I don't I'm I'm rather anti authority authority.

I've never been a fan of the FBI. Going back to the days of Occupy Wall Street, where they write them all all the time. And it became increasingly weird to me how many of the people I knew at Occupy became defenders of the intelligence agencies. Sure. More broadly speaking, why do you think that in a federal government where trump has exerted quite a bit of control he's got a lot of his own appointees like why does he still run into so many problems so many of these agencies why it doesn't seem like nobody in the white house even the own people that he puts there sometimes don't seem to be taking his side on anything he does not know how to work the system he he does not know how

government works and he can't make it work. I think, you know, with people like Trump who are business people, when you run a business, for the most part, you're an authoritarian. You're business. You're rules. You're the boss. You can fire and hire within certain confines and certain laws. Why is it that – so when you say that, I feel that 100%. But another important thing about being a business owner, whether you are a supervisor, a manager, a district manager, whatever, or the owner, you never, ever, ever, ever, ever can pass the buck. You can't do it.

If you're supervising a shift and your manager comes to you and your manager is like, what happened on this shift? You would never as a supervisor say, it was that employee. It was that employee because it would be your responsibility. But Trump's the boss. Every single time. Yeah. Why is it? He passes the buck.

Yeah, all the time. Trump will not accept responsibility for anything. It's either the deep state is after him. The Democrats are after him. The FBI is after him. The DOJ is after him. Even when he's going running through good leader saying the buck stops with me i should have done better and if this person failed is is irrelevant because i'm the one who needs to steer this ship for somebody that's not trump has been so ineffectual as a leader so then i guess moving i disagree on that what what why what do you think are some of his like chief accomplishments i guess under this administration i mean the economy was uh smashing in 2019 jim cramer the best numbers of our lives it was from 2013 onwards oh it was dramatically different i mean barack obama said you'll need a magic wand to reach four percent growth and then when trump did it he started laughing at him i don't know what barack obama said all i know is that everybody can look at the economy from

2013 on we were smashing all-time highs consistently. Under Donald Trump, growth was better. Unemployment was way lower. It was good. Unemployment continued to fall, mainly as a result of Federal Reserve monetary policy. For sure. And deficit spending is a lot of bad things, too. But Jim Cramer, the best numbers of our lives. I don't take anything Cramer says about the economy seriously.

He's an entertainer on TV. I don't know what Cramer has to do with it. I'm just from Trump economic policy. It doesn't really seem like he's done much in terms of being an effective leader, in terms of passing awesome legislation. Well, he's the president. He doesn't do that. Well, or championing awesome legislation. He promised a lot.

Dude, the first two years under Trump with the Republicans were a complete and total failure. I think the Republican Party is mostly garbage. Sure, but again, one of the chief things that we elected Trump for was him talking about how he can bring people together and get them to work on things. Seems like he's been more divisive than ever. First couple of years for Trump, completely awful. Trump divisive. He's been quite a bit. The last few years, mostly in the past year, there's been a couple things.

Because I said in January, I will never vote for this man. Then the riots happened. And when riots got close to my family and I saw what the Democrats were doing, it really made Trump look good by comparison in a lot of ways. So that's that. That was you're a single issue voter because riots happened. Actually, I've literally said that for sure. So I've got I've got family who are incapable of defending themselves. And when the riots broke out in Chicago and the leadership, it was insane. I mean, one alderman was talking to the Mayor Lori Lightfoot saying that she was directing the rioters to the neighborhoods and she was nuts and he was cussing at her and screaming. And I get

calls from my friends and family saying, you know, 60 miles west of Chicago, the rioters were showing up and nothing was being done about it. Do you think it's possible that under different federal leadership, maybe the riots would have looked a little different? Or Do you think it's possible that under different federal leadership, maybe the riots would have looked a little different? Or do you think they would have played out the exact same way? And if instead of a president that was constantly deriding the movement and constantly- That's irrelevant. You don't think that matters at all to any riots? I know it doesn't matter because I was at the start of Black Lives Matter when these things erupted. It was under Barack Obama that I got to witness the National Guard pouring into Ferguson. I got to watch gunshots.

But the BLM protests and any riots Colonel Obama were a pittance compared to what happened under Trump. These were the largest scale riots in the history of the world, maybe. So you're saying Trump is responsible for the riots, but not the economy, even though the riots and the economy both started under Biden? I mean, under Obama? That's because Trump can't say good words and make the economy do a certain thing. Why couldn't Obama solve it?

Why didn't Obama solve it during his term? It was 2011 when this started. By 2016, he did nothing to stop this problem. Trump or Obama couldn't do much of anything. Obama couldn't even get his own Supreme Court pick through. Trump can't do much of anything because he's getting blocked left and right. Trump has loaded the federal judiciary. He sure did.

McConnell did. Trump controlled both halves of government and was on the executive branch. And now it's the Supreme Court. How can you give a man so much and yet he claims to have so little at the end of the day what more did he need trump's not a republican the republican party in 2016 when they controlled the the upper and lower chambers their establishment unified on some issues for instance repeal and replace health care why what happened with that yeah they're the republican party is trash and trump doesn't know how to work this and he didn't have the support he needed.

So listen, listen, the point is, I'm not I'm not going to blindly defend Obama or Trump. I think the responsibility with the riots fell under Trump. And guess what? Trump had the DHS deputize state and local police in Portland and started arresting the rioters and giving them federal charges to the point where they started running. They started posting blogs saying, like, get out of your houses because the FBI is coming to give you charge comparable to the charges that were just dropped at the state level. When Obama was in charge and the riots were happening, he said, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. And then for the next four years, because I covered this, I was in I was in Ferguson for a year and a half back and forth, flying in and out as the riots

progressively got worse. And it was then when Darren Wilson got acquitted, I watched the whole street of West Florida go up in flames. With Trump, we had COVID lockdown, which was implemented for the most part by Democrat governors. And Trump opposed it for the most part. Republicans, Republican governors opposed it. When the riots broke out, Trump said, I'm going to shut it all down. And yet the riots under Trump were like 50 times worse than the riots under Obama. Yes, because a combination of the lockdowns and the pent up rage going all the way back into the Obama administration. You don't think any of that rage might have come from the way that Trump talks about any

of these issues? Definitely. Sure, sure. But what I'm talking about is when the riots happened, there's a combination of things. It's not just the riots. It was, you know, in the last several months, Trump was like trying to pull troops out of Afghanistan. I started clapping. I'm like, do it, do it, bring it on.

And then the Syria stuff, too, finding about how they lied. I got the Defense One article. Outgoing Syria envoy admits hiding U.S. troop numbers to trick the American people into keeping soldiers in the Middle East. Well, we didn't need to trick them. Trump wanted to do it the entire time as well. He's talked about running Syrian oil fields. you know, Trump initially tried to pull all our troops out. And then there was a revolt between the Democrats and Republicans saying you can't do this. So then Trump in hilarious fashion, whether it's good or bad, said,

all right, we're going to keep a couple hundred soldiers in here to guard the oil fields. And then all the anti-war progressives just like started laughing and facepalming like this dude just blurts out what the American empire is doing when he brags about selling weapons to saudi arabia for their their constant their war with yemen it's like this dude is admitting the war machine exists and it was it was it was sure but there's also the same guy that talks about killing terrorists and their families and everything too like he's like obama did mama literally did i don't think at the same level that trump has been doing again the first the first four years of Trump's administration have seen more bombings than any other country. We still have wars going on in every single country that we did when Obama left office.

You know Trump is one of the, I think the first president in like four decades who didn't start a new war? Well, that's because there's not many countries left to go to war with at this point. I mean, there literally are. Of course, you know, but he didn't do it. I mean, that's great, but he's not pulling back. He's continued the wars. We still have troops in Afghanistanghanistan iraq syria and um with him trying to remove him like i literally have the defense one article they lied to him to keep the troops in syria that like i've never been more angry in my life when i heard this i i will have to read

this article i'm very curious on how the commander in chief just unless he it's possible because he's too stupid to read the intelligence reports he lied or they gave it they they lied to him they gave him bunk information i don't know how else to put it they they lied to the president because maybe they couldn't fit it in and like the crayola crayon there no he straight up said intelligence quote we were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there jeffrey said in an interview the actual number of troops in northeast syria is a lot more than the roughly 200 troops Trump initially agreed to leave in 2019. They lied to the American people to keep us involved in these quagmires in the Middle East when Trump was trying to end it.

Trump's administration has also been involved in lying to the American people. For instance, when he made it harder to report the number of bombings that have gone on, when he's obscured it. I don't think we've gotten a report of the troops on the ground release since february i think that they stopped publishing those monthly reports like they've made it harder to get information out of the administration related to bombing just this idea i mean like this may be a particular thing that happened in syria but the idea that trump is some peaceful guy that just wants to get us out of all the wars i don't think he's a peaceful guy i think he's desperate for votes sure and i'm like i'll take it when trump says the american people

hate the wars and that's true he says i'll get the troops When Trump says the American people hate the wars, and that's true, he says, I'll get the troops out. And then the machine, the establishment, whatever you want to call it, go, you got it. We must keep our troops in the oil fields. But he still is engaging in all of the classic war hockey behaviors. If it would have been Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Biden that would have killed Soleimani, I think the right would have erupted. Like, oh, why are you assassinating these people? Of course, you're totally correct. Absolutely. And we're still making these multi, you know, massive figure deals to Saudi Arabia for bombs when we're still involved in stuff in Yemen.

I think that people would still be, yeah. I don't see anybody that like, I'm not going to sit here and defend Obama's record on foreign policy because I think there were definitely mistakes made. Probably one of the worst we've ever had in a presidency. Potentially. However, this idea that somebody would be like, I don't like war hawks, so I'm voting for trump on his foreign policy is just that's crazy to me like how many wars out of the middle east but that's not even what he did he didn't he tried and while he tried several times he's doing while he was trying to escalating tensions across the entire world with so many

other countries very problematic like he almost supported a coup in in uh in venezuela i think what is it when he kept trying to recognize uh or not venezuela i'm sorry in bolivia when he kept trying to recognize that too regardless they had it as sorry, in Bolivia, when he kept trying to recognize— Democrats did that, too. Regardless, Trump did as well. Sure. He warmed up—he heated our—hot and heated—he troubled our relations further with Cuba. So then criticize Biden for the same thing. Sure.

No, you can't, though. Yes. They were all in favor of a president. When Biden has talked about that. But even if that was true—first of all, Biden has published tons of op-eds talking about how he wants to give an approach to foreign policy. Now, we can say maybe he's lying in all of that. Sure. I'd like so. So we have a risk that everything that Biden has said on foreign policy might be a lie, which is possible. But we know that Trump is going

to continue the same disastrous foreign policy that has been a staple of America for the last 20 years. Of course, it's true. Trump just purged the Pentagon leadership in order to force a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Well, we'll see if it happens because he's been talking about a withdrawal from Afghanistan since the day he took office if it happens because he's been talking about a withdrawal from Afghanistan since the day he took office. And they were refusing and they were lying to him. Look, man, look, look, look. I just, he's the, this is the one area, Trump is the commander in chief.

If he can do anything, it's moving troops around. If he had the political will to do it, it would be done. I will take an incompetent attempt at pulling our troops out several times over the legacy of the Obama-Biden administration with everything they did. Extrajudicial assassinations. The prosecution of more journalists and whistleblowers under the SB&I sector than all other presidents combined. Getting us involved in more— And how do you feel about—

If this is on point to you, firstly— Trump should have pardoned Assange and Snowden. Yeah. Why he hasn't made any effort to do that at all. I know. And he should. And Trump has also been constantly battling the media as Why he hasn't made any effort to do that at all. I know. And he should. And Trump has also been constantly battling the media as well, saying he's going to open up libel lawsuits. He's going to start threatening them with suing them if they publish mean things about them.

No, no, no. He's right that we need to overturn Times v. Sullivan. Completely think we have to. Do you know what Times v. Sullivan is? I know very well. It's very important to what I do as a content creator. It established the malice standard, I believe, the actual actual malice for uh defamation it is one of the most important protections of a public figure uh in the united states it allows the

media to say whatever they want about you it and then it prevents it prevents a chilling effect from being created on the media where they can't publish an article about somebody because if something comes out and it turns out that that's incorrect then they could be sued for it no uh it's it's times v sullivan it was the actual malice standard meaning you had to know you have to knowingly publish false information about somebody the reason why that standard is so important is because right now let's say that it comes out that um let's say that somebody's doing an investigation an investigation on it turns out they think that i've killed like three or four people they've got a decent amount of evidence blah blah blah let's say that they publish it. It turns out they think that I've killed like three or four people. They've got a decent amount of evidence, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Let's

say that they publish that and it turns out that I'd ordered somebody else to do it or it wasn't exactly that. Well, now I can sue them for defamation. But what happens then to media organizations then? Well, now I never want to report on a public figure because if I'm wrong, I'm going to get sued for it. I'll half agree with you then. I'll say we need reform. We certainly do. What reform? So right now you have, look at at covington right the the arguments for why uh nicholas sandman they were allowed to defame him and be wrong was because he was an involuntary public figure which which gave them the times visa v sullivan standard they settled in fact a lot of the a lot of the cases the right will tell you a celebration these 250 million dollar lawsuits

were settled they won they won probably as some people said nuisance fee maybe a little bit more meaning it was cheaper to just pay them out not not deal with it. But a lot of the challenges that were brought forward were dismissed because involuntary public figure. We need a better standard than this. Look, I think you're right. I think I should walk back what I said because I probably was wrong in that initial statement because the assumption is in good faith. If I read a news article from Defense One that says Jim Jeffrey did X and I then report that, that shouldn't be – I shouldn't be able to be sued for that if it turns out Defense One was incorrect. But that's not what we're seeing now. What we're seeing now is like Today Show published outright lies about me and masked it with framing device language and what am i supposed to do to go up against nbc universal when they put my face

on the today show and claimed i was pushing conspiracy theories which was just total bs i can't do anything about it sure i i don't know specifically which conspiracy theories that they claimed they claimed that because i reported on the uh fox business article about seth rich i was pushing a conspiracy theory that seth rich leaked uh documents to WikiLeaks, which then got picked up by other outlets who claimed I was claiming that Seth Rich was murdered because he leaked. So they just all start lying and playing this game of telephone. I can't do anything to stop. Sure. 50,000 websites all writing garbage. It's impossible. That is frustrating. I can acknowledge that as somebody that's also been maligned publicly, but from we were talking a little bit before the show for a bunch of insane stuff that people say about me um it does suck but it's

one of those things um i don't think i want to get into citizens united it's one of those rulings not a fan of that either sure um it's one of those rulings that's rough but the other side of it i think looks worse can we have some kind of reform i don't i don't know um it's hard because the problem is that so the reason why that actual malice standard exists is to avoid what's called a chilling effect right and the idea is that like people are going to stop publishing things about powerful public figures if they feel like they can just get sued for publishing something that they don't like to read right now right so if i want to sue you for defamation i need to be able to prove like that you knowingly public which is almost an impossible standard to me which is the problem yeah but the problem is that um so the i got a

solution for you oh yeah okay yeah. Okay, go ahead. You should be able to sue, and if you can prove that what they published was false, they must issue a retraction. You can do that, but... It doesn't exist right now. Well, I'll take a hot take here that I'm sure the majority of your audience is going to most media outlets will retract stories that are completely and totally and patently false. It's not true. I could be wrong, but I feel like if you would actually email anybody that published a certain

story related to like these- I worked for these companies. Sure. And they- I've been in the Slack chats with these conversations. You know what they say? Just wait for it to go away. I was in a meeting-

Were you in Slack chats for what, Breitbart and The Daily Caller? Or because the mainstream- ABC News. ABC and CNN, these guys publish like updates. ABC News. These guys publish- That's why, you know, I worked for ABC News and Univision, correct? Sure.

And I was in the Slack chats where they said, wait for it to go away. Don't talk about it. We don't want to get called out for what we do. I guess it's just interesting to me because on any story that I read that's like more than a week old, you'll usually always see that they are updating articles or they are clarifying information. Do you know that stealth edits are so frequent that an MIT project was born called News Diffs to track how often news articles from every major publication surreptitiously change the content of their articles? What is this supposed to –

When news – if the New York Times issues a statement, right, and they say Betsy Kitty is a white cat. Okay. And then it turns out she's actually both white and black. Okay. They would say, correction, update, editor's note, a previous version of this article said X. They don't do that 99% of the time. It's called stealth editing. And a website was created called Newsdisc to show you everything they've done.

And there are some seriously messed up things you can track. Where news outlets publish overt lies, the story goes viral. And then a day later, completely change the article, destroying all the evidence that ever existed. Well, things can get archived now. I would be very interested in seeing articles like that, I guess. I just can't think of anything offhand. I can give you a specific example where Dave Weigel of the Washington Post published a completely fictitious story about Kim.com hacking Seth Rich's Gmail account to plant evidence that he was the leaker. And then when he got, you know, I'll just put it this way to be very careful of litigation.

Six months later, the entire story was changed to become hypothetical. Does it write in the article that they did? They reflected accurately in the text saying that like we've never said they updated it. They never said they I'll look into it after I just and it's up on. It's something I've cited over and over again from news diffs. News this or let mediffs.org. Let me see if I can. I'd have to find a specific article, but this was a really, really big story I tracked for two years and actually got two retractions from Politico and the Daily Beast.

I tracked them down and I got two journalists at each of those outlets to retract their versions of that story because the Washington Post fabricated the whole thing. Happens all the time. There was an instance where, are you familiar with Blair White? Yes. Do you think Blair White is a white nationalist? Probably not. Just no.

Not overtly. She's pretty conservative. Conservative is not white nationalist. I just haven't followed her recently, so I don't know 100%. The Verge wrote a hit piece accusing Blair of being a whole bunch of things she isn't. And when she tweeted, I'd like a retraction, they doubled down and added a whole bunch of out-of-context BS.

Like, you've been victim to a lot of the same stuff. Sure. So you get it. These outlets have no intention of correcting if they don't have to. Yeah, I guess when I'm thinking of, like, retractions or whatever, I'm thinking of, like, more like a reporting of a matter-of-fact. So the Kim.com thing is interesting. I don't know if I would ever push somebody for a retraction on like, you know, like you called me a white nationalist. Because I imagine somebody could make that claim about me.

And I would say like, well, I don't think that's true. And they could probably publish like a paragraph of like, well, you said this or this or this or this. And it's like, okay, well, this is more a matter of interpretation, I guess, or argument. Because some people might think you're a white nationalist if you ever do like a particular thing or say a particular thing. I guess I'm more interested in like matters of fact or statements of fact when it comes to like retractions um rather than like the author said that this person has this political ideology which is like a very fluid whatever thing that's crazy that's meaningless too what it's really uh the accusing someone of having an ideology well the problem is that a lot of this stuff becomes so vague like so for instance like

people will call you a white nationalist if you have like blue lives matter on your profile. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Here's my favorite. Boston Globe wrote that this one guy was a white nationalist. And when I reached out to him and said, whoa, whoa, I didn't realize this dude was a white nationalist. I was like, is there something he specifically said? Because this guy's only ever talked about like Trump and America and stuff. And he said, he's a nationalist, right?

I was like, yeah. Is he a white guy? Right. Okay. So he's a white nationalist and i was like dude come on which is really dumb yes yes and there's boston globe uh the problem with news is i think it's no longer being uh supported oh no yeah it's from 2012 from 2012 i worked for uh vice uh i was a founding member of vice news i worked for fusion which was abc news univision i worked out of the abc building in new york i was i was told in uh time out i was told by the president time out what the the website timed out it didn't i'm trying to load the uh article history i was told uh in a matter of speaking to lie on more than one occasion that if there is a certain bit of news reporting that's true but would be offensive to our audience

we don't report it we side with the audience that's true, but would be offensive to our audience. We don't report it. We side with the audience. That's what I was told to do. Can you give me like a, not a specific example, but like what's like a general example of that? What do you mean by that? Let's say there's two guys in the street, Proud Boy and Antifa, and Antifa walks up and punches the Proud Boy in the face.

If I reported that Antifa punched a Proud Boy in the face, it would be offensive to our audience. We don't report it. We have to side with the audience, which means when the Proud Boy got back up and punched Antifa back, that's what we report. Proud Boy attacks Antifa. We ignore the previous context. There was a video that went viral from one of these progressive news outlets where there

was a woman at a Trump rally and she punched a Trump supporter in the face and then got pepper sprayed. They did this clever edit where you see the crowd and you see her yelling and then there's a white flash and then you see her being pepper sprayed they they did a white flash to cover up the fact that she punched a guy in the face and then was was sprayed in self-defense which was i think pepper spray is much more measured when some like than punching someone in the face depending on but yeah sure right right so these kinds of things happen all the time it's basically why after i left fusion i tried quitting within a year when I was like, this is ridiculous. I don't want to work for this garbage. They wouldn't let me. I was under contract. And when I left, I actually went around all these big companies. I started working at Vice before they had the Vice News Vertical, like the dedicated YouTube channel. And I had to negotiate with them for like six months to actually do it. They didn't want to do on the ground field reporting live or anything like that eventually they agreed because there were people like rocco castoro who's working with me now and some other people advice who are like listen to this dude he's doing amazing

stuff with mobile live streaming they agreed they created this uh this you know this this news outlet and then all of these digital media companies wanted to hire me and were offering me ridiculous money. I ended up working for ABC. It was gold. And then golden handcuffs. At first, they said, we want to do real news. Then they said, no, we don't. We want to make money, basically. So we're going to become a progressive news outlet. Then all the reporting I did, which was conflict, crisis, and very middle of the road, gone.

I tried quitting. They wouldn't let me. When I left, I basically had every company saying come in come have a meeting with us i got told by a couple of these companies tell me what you want to do and we will give you a budget you can do it and then i saw the people working there i saw the things they were producing and i said what the happened to these people and so i said no i started making youtube videos that's it media is is you you see what happened with barry weiss in the new york times no she she was a

opinion opinion editor i think and she quit saying that it's basically become a woke fest where it's like write what we want or else they they they forced the resignation of one of the opinion editors because tom cotton wrote that op-ed saying send in the troops when it came to the riots okay that's that's where news is going they're not not going to, they're going to stealth at it. They're not going to issue corrections and they're ideologically driven. Moral, just the gist of my story. Do you think that this problem

exists in alternative media or do you think they're freer from that than mainstream media? I think alternative media has similar but slightly different problems. The main problem, which does exist in independent channels that are corporations,

is the editorial guidelines of you must report X. So at the New York Times, for instance, they they had a mandate we're going to focus on trump when it was looking like the trump term was coming to an end they said we're going to shift now to oh no no i'm sorry it was russia gate the new york times had um i'm forgetting the names of dean barquette barquette or whatever he said we're going to focus on russia once the russia gate was coming to an end he said okay now it's going to be trump is racist that's the the main driving force which means that if you had someone who had evidence to present that was contrary to that they were being mandated at top-down level not to report that stuff or not to focus on it at the very least that's a problem

on youtube however you exist and i exist and there's echo chambers for sure because people like getting their confirmation bias but imagine going to one website where you can hear you and me at the same time. Doesn't exist on Breitbart, doesn't exist on MSNBC. So independent social media, or I should say YouTube, is way better than the existing media infrastructure for sure. I guess the problem that I have with a lot of alternative media, so this would include people like you or me, or Project Veritas, or any of these other types of YouTube or online entities, is it feels like there is no accountability if you get something wrong.

It feels like there is more, regardless of any of the problems that exist in mainstream media, of which I'm sure there are a plethora, it feels like at least there's some accountability where if somebody messes up and it's made public, somebody is going to get fired or something bad is going to happen as a result to it. It also feels like a lot of these companies have a much higher vested interest in not reporting something completely factually incorrectly, because if they do, they would get in massive trouble for it, and it would hurt their reputation and the bottom line. Whereas it feels like an alternative media, it feels like the goal is to just report,

report, report, report. You can get as much wrong as you want, but as long as you're serving a particular ideological narrative, it feels like that ideological drive is much more prevalent in alternative media than it is in mainstream media, where at least there's some accountability to get i disagree uh when i worked for uh well not not vice at the time but vice definitely now one of the things i started seeing especially working at the abc building and uh at the univision building both i worked at both buildings at different periods completely ideologically driven they told us outright our audience

is young, progressive, and that's our goal. That's who we're targeting. So side with them. That's it. That's your mandate. So when I came to them and said, okay, well, I don't want to do that. They said, well, then you can't, you know, work with us. Aside from the fact that they were super racist, too, which, you know, one of the reasons I don't like the critical race theory stuff or the critical theory stuff. But there was basically, if you're progressive, you're good. If you're not, we're not going to report it. So they basically the craziest thing i worked for this major you know uh massive media conglomerate and i was producing content on my youtube channel with their money and they were like just put our logo on it okay because they didn't want to run my stuff on their channels

even though my content got more views than anything they produced and when they did produce stuff and i told them like i can help you identify the content that is good, that will go viral, funny jokes, short films. They didn't like it because one of the things that got promoted, this is a funny, funny story. I'll try to keep it simple

because I don't want to get people fired from their jobs or anything like that. But there was a, there's a segment called Open Mic Massacre, which was produced by Fusion, where it's a cartoon gag on people like, like social justice activists shutting down comedy clubs or like shutting down comedians.

It's a comedian who no matter what jokes he make makes, he gets attacked by the audience and then protesters show up. It was one of the biggest videos they ever had. And there was a revolt in the company at the editorial level. They were like, how dare you? It's offensive. We refuse.

And they were like, okay, we're so sorry. We'll never do this kind of stuff again. And then they, then they came to me and said, how dare you? It's offensive. We refuse. And they were like, okay, we're so sorry. We'll never do this kind of stuff again. And then they came to me and said, you were right. It went viral. People loved it. We gained a ton of subs.

But the employees are furious. So, you know, we can't do this anymore. And I was like, okay, I'm going to go over there. I'm going to go to Japan. I went to Fukushima. I did my own thing. I tried quitting within like, it was like 13, a bit a year and a month. So I went, I met with the president.

I said, cut me loose, bro. I don't want your money. I don't need it. And he was like, wait, wait, wait, you know, just, you know, let's have a meeting. Let's talk about it. And they really wanted me to just play ball. One day I woke up $40,000 in my bank account and I laughed and I was like, I'm not going to do what you want me to do.

I'm not going to, I'm not going to play this game. And then finally my contract ended and they were like, have a nice day. The New York Times is now seeing it with the with with barry weiss's resignation there was a big story that came out in the new yorker about slack leaks slack messages from people who were basically saying whose side are you on now's our chance to make all this great change happen so what's basically happened is the new york times is becoming ideologically driven now this is you know an nb I believe they're funded by NBC. And you're familiar with NowThis News?

Yeah, I've seen their- They tried hiring me as their third hire, too. They tried hiring me. I went and had a meeting with them in New York. Refused to do it. Their president at VidCon, I think this was in 2017, maybe, 2016, said, We have brought on anti-Trump activists, it was 2017, at the highest level to help us produce our content.

Completely ideologically driven, not fact-based. And when you say there's no accountability for people in independent media, I pulled up a couple stories. I don't want to name these people. But there's two people from BuzzFeed in particular. One guy from BuzzFeed who was a plagiarist who got fired and now is trucking along just fine with all his fans they don't care another guy who was caught spying he went to the financial times he got caught spying on on uh zoom meetings and he got hired right away by another company there's no accountability for these people i have seen people

i would be curious to hear how the second guy got rehired or there wasn't any type of public outrage for it but any time you can find an example of somebody doing something, you know, stupid in a mainstream, like there are people that get fired over stuff. I know that happened during the Russian reporter, for instance, like CNN chopped two guys that got like a, like a couple of minor details wrong related to some election related stuff in 2016, I think. But the, the idea that there is any accountability in alternative media,

though, however bad it must be, or you claim it as a mainstream media, it seems like it's a million times worse and alternative media like you don't watch people just make blatantly untrue claims over and over and over again on any of these channels and you can I used to blog a lot for mines and you can write an article and then have it get massive traction because it's really you know popular for whatever reason and then once it has a hundred million or ten a million views you go and you edit the article and no one knows and you can change the title of the article you can in and you edit the article and no one knows. And you can change the title of the article. You can put the images, change the images, change the entire body of text.

No, there's no oversight. It's stealth editing. And that's – I can imagine that gets abused. So there was an instance at Fusion where the New York Times altered an article from a straightforward news piece about Ellen Powe. It was Ellen Powe resigns as CEO in a statement. She said X, Y, and Z. That was it. It was Ellen Powe resigns as CEO in a statement. She said X, Y, and Z. That was it.

It became the third and fifth high on two different subreddits. The third and fifth highest upvoted of all time on Reddit for any piece of content. The number three, number five. The next day, the New York Times stealth edited the whole article, turning it into an op-ed about feminism in Silicon Valley, saying feminist zero, Silicon Valley bros to, you know, the end of feminism, you know, whatever. And it was this like opinion analysis piece about how it was so unfortunate that she was forced to resign due to misogyny and stuff. Not at all what the original article was. That was a violation of Reddit's rules. And it was serious in terms of internet culture because it was the most one of the biggest piece of content and one of the biggest websites in the world when i went to the managing editor of fusion

and said hey guys like i was it was a slack meeting you know the slack chat we got all these different editors i was like we got a huge story going on right now reddit's pulling its third and fifth biggest story ever about its own ceo which is like a conflict of interest because the new york times stealth edited the entire article turning into an op-ed and they said we do that same thing. And I was like, what? They're like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Don't report that. Are you doing a story?

Don't do a story. It was a managing editor. Don't do a story on that, because we do it too. I ended up getting a private message from the managing editor who said, hey, don't report that, OK? Don't make a big deal out of it. We do the exact same thing. And I was like, if we make changes, shouldn't we just make a new article?

If it's a new article, shouldn't we put update? This article previously said this or whatever. No, no, no, no, no. We do that because we, you know, it helps us make money. The link. What do you think? What do you think going forward? What do you think of the ways to hold mainstream media companies accountable?

What do you think is like the way forward for that then? If you believe that's a huge problem. I don't think there's a way to. I think social media has incentivized rapid rage bait content, anger. I mean, you look at like even the conversations around the fact that you were going to come here is people thinking that we were going to be punching each other in the face. And they're going to make clips saying you destroyed me or I destroyed you. It's going to be the stupidest thing ever. When I think we had a pretty good conversation so far.

People want there to be some kind of tribal rage bait. Now, I say this all the time and I'll completely admit I'm biased. You look at – I've got a couple different channels, and you can clearly see my slants and my leanings and don't like the Democrats for a lot of reasons we've gone into. And I actually think that's totally fine for an individual to have an opinion. I think your opinion on your content is 100 percent acceptable, and it's cool. I think the fact that Kyle Kalinske, David Pakman, the Young Turks, along with conservatives, have your opinions. We get things wrong. We all do.

We're all biased. Criticize us 100%. But aside from the Young Turks, they're an organization, so I'll remove them from this. You don't have a boss telling you what opinions you should have or what you should report on. Kind of, but sure. You do? Well, for better or for worse, we're all a little bit enslaved to the larger corporate culture right i depending on what we publish we can get to an extent right like it's

not the same as having like an editorial manager or having like a boss literally saying like we're writing these stories or whatever for sure right like here's the mission today i want you to write about x and then you might get someone saying whoa that's not true but i don't want to lose my job so i'll write it anyway sure yeah that it's not to that level, yeah. Right. So there is something better in YouTube. The problem is we do have an editorial department, and it's the YouTube community guidelines and the YouTube, what do they call it, the review board or whatever these people do, and demonetization. So actually, this is something that happened to you.

This is insane. I've defended Kyle Rittenhouse a million and one times. I don't get demonetized for it. We make money on the show through ads've defended Kyle Rittenhouse a million and one times. I don't get demonetized for it. We make money on the show through ads talking about Kyle Rittenhouse. You got stripped from the Twitch partner program over it. You want to talk about that? Like, exactly what happened with that? Yeah, I made a really spicy comment relating to defending property from rioters, and people were very upset about that.

Long story short, Twitch stripped you of your income. That's your editorial guideline. Yeah. That's what I was saying earlier, where when you're saying, yeah, well, we don Long story short, Twitch stripped you of your income. That's your editorial guideline. Yeah. That's why I was saying earlier where when you're saying, yeah, well, we don't have bosses, like kind of. But it depends on who tells you stuff. And so that's true, too. Like, you know, the only reason I survive on YouTube is because my opinions are acceptable. Sure.

And there are a lot of people who have unacceptable opinions who don't survive. So we have our bosses. You know, it's not like we're printing our own newsletters and then mailing them to people. That's safe. I guess having your own website is safe. So, you know. Well, no know it's not like we're printing our own newsletters and then mailing them to people that's that's safe i guess having your own website is safe so you know well no but it's not no say registrars can unhost you oh for sure right right yeah that'll happen have you experimented with decentralized or like mesh networks at all um the problem is the more exotic you get with your distribution the harder it is to get advertising dollars so

nobody on bit shoot is making any money that's the challenge yeah we're torrenting their file i mean people do actually but it's through user donations tips yeah it's gonna be a lot yeah you know people make a lot of money through these crypto video networks but that's to me is just a lot of money too is there might be a few that are making a ton but most of them probably not library andreas just going on about d live and stuff do you live they have a crypto no library has like a crypto token of mines has a crypto yeah d live has this uh not d live has their token and then steam it honestly crypto tokens and like direct user subscriptions i think is the future bypassing advertisers on a mesh network possibly i don't know a lot a lot of people are making

a lot of money doing like Patreon style stuff. But I'll tell you, there is an inherent problem in all of this is that people will choose to just watch me or just watch you. And a lot of people will say, I don't like Tim or I don't like Destiny. And then they're only going to get their opinions from one person instead of potentially an organization with an editorial department and different opinions in the op-ed section. So that's why I like, you know, I invite people on who I disagree with. And then I get punished for it. It's, you know, it really comes down to building an audience around people who appreciate hearing a different opinion or a disagreement.

That's why, like, a lot of people get mad that I'll often let an opposing view try to talk a lot. There's a few periods where I just sat back and you explained everything you felt. And it's like, you know, that's your opinion. I can't tell you your opinions are wrong. It's your opinion. There, there are instances where I can bring on someone like Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys and everyone will cheer me on for letting him talk. Then I'll bring on someone like Vosh and people will get mad at me saying, don't let him speak. But my, my goal is like, look, if people don't want to hear, you know, ideas they don't like, then I

guess you can't come to this channel. Cause I want to continue bringing on people who have dissenting views from me or different opinions. Because it's a problem that if people only watch just my one channel where it's just me talking or they only watch, you know, any leftist channel, then we're polarizing. What I'm curious, what responsibility do you feel you have to your audience to disseminate messages that you agree with? So let's say, for instance, your YouTube channel has got a lot of views. I think over 50 million a month at least. There's three channels. Oh, I didn't even know about the third one. Yeah, so there's this.

There's TimCast and TimCast News. TimCast News at its peak got, I think, 55 or so million. And then TimCast got 20. And then TimCast ira got like 26 gotcha the election's over views are going down sure let me down sure so let's say that you have somebody that comes on and i'm from what i know of you you don't seem to be a white nationalist or anything like that let's say you bring the opposite yeah so let's say you bring somebody on and that person has those types of views and you platform that person you feel like they profit

or they grow from the exposure that they get on your show do you feel like you have any responsibility in terms of like messaging or in terms of growing that person's platform or what do you feel no i mean i'm growing your platform to an extent there's probably a lot of people who are discovering you and thinking i might disagree but i'll hear what he has to say and stuff like that i can't i can't control that more importantly though it's uh i don't bring on random nobodies like i'm not going to find some just like neo-nazi lurking in the corner and be like come to my platform and build a career off this sure usually it's like enrique tarrio uh he's he's uh i guess he just i don't know what people call him they call him afro-cuban or whatever he's black he's the chairman

of the proud boys he was in the news i mean joe biden mentioned the proud boys i'm like we should bring him in just for reference on this do you think that the Proud Boys is like a white nationalist linear organization? Okay, okay. I think there are people who are white nationalists probably associated with the Proud Boys, but the Proud Boys have disavowed. And I think what Enrique said was if they find out someone is, they'll boot them. They'll boot them out. And recently the Proud Boys did a joint thing with Black Lives Matter. It was kind of surprising.

I think it was in salt lake city black lives matter organizer came out with proud boys and they issued a joint message message of like what they agree upon even though they really disagree on most things they found the probably stand for exactly the proud boys are western chauvinists so they believe west is best that's like really the gist of it they're west what do we mean by that uh america american values traditional christian conservative kind of issues uh nationalism but they're they're actually fairly classically liberal um okay you can i haven't dug too much into proud boy stuff just generally because i just don't care that much but a lot of times i

hear people talk about like western values usually is like a kind of a dog whistle for white issues or identitarian stuff oftentimes this would be the case but there's an i think there's an overlap white nationalists of course agree with a lot of those things but the proud boys don't agree with the white nationalists there there were people who are white nationalists in the proud boys and then the proud boys booted them out i think the proud boys are worthy of a ton of criticism i've criticized them quite a bit we had enrique on we we talked about a lot of people were like they said i was harder on him and alex jones than i was on vosh and i'm like vosh and i were like yelling like raising our voices at each other i don't know like four hours yeah and it was like four hours you know so but uh if somebody is is is relevant

in some capacity we bring them on a lot of people want me to bring on some america first type individuals and i'm like i'm i will but like i'm not banning people from my show it's just got to be relevant i don't want to just randomly grab somebody and be like here you go you know what i mean sure uh you're i i would actually say you're not controversial of course there i would like there's no grand uh you there's articles about you getting banned there are people on the left saying how dare you defend this guy you know twitch get kind of punished you and stuff sure there's a fraction of there's a faction of people who are like this guy's controversial but for the most part i think you're just like you know another end of personality i don't think either of us are

particularly controversial we're just internet people with opinions who do our shows and rick itario is controversial they're not trying to be disrespectful he is he's the chairman of the proud boys they're brought up in a presidential debate people have strong opinions about him you know so yeah man i get to talk about dmt a lot i'll talk about as crazy as stuff as i can but if it gets like too like youtube censorious crazy tim will be like ah let me drop the hammer on this no what are you talking about it's a good vibe if i talk about the federal reserve or if i want to go into nine no no no i'm not i'm not i have no concern about youtube coming after you i disagree with you personal oh yeah it's personal okay well so it's like i'll

give you an example we had we had uh when black lives matter were riot well when the writers were out you said it was the federal reserve and i'm like these people are not we were talking about riots and why they were angry and you said class issue you said it was the federal reserve and i was like they're not writing over the federal reserve they don't even know how that works or what it is we talked about a little bit it's more of a class i think we were talking about that earlier tonight too that's is really a class issue masked as a race issue but then the class issue is derived from ancient racism combination of factors long story short is there anything else we should hit on or we should go to super chats we're a little we're about half an hour over yeah no big deal for me we got a ridiculous

amount of super chats oh boy yeah go for it yeah or wait actually hold on i'm curious so i will ask because you asked me why i supported biden yeah what so what are what are some positives i guess going forward for why you would support trump i know assuming the election is over but like if you had voted for him uh for 2020 why would you support him over nobody over a biden presidency critical race theory ban specifically targeting uh it wasn't overtly critical race theory it was specific trainings having to do with segregation based on race which was a violation of title 7 in 1964 besides critical race theory yeah what else so uh trump's repeated attempts to withdraw troops from afghanistan which has continued to do even after losing the election.

And look, I said earlier this year I wouldn't vote for the guy. I didn't care. I didn't vote for him in 2016. I said earlier this year that what would get me to vote for him is if he issued an executive order decriminalizing or at the very least ordering the DEA not to prosecute marijuana related offenses, pardoning nonviolent drug offenders with a review because some people pled down and they were pleaded down, and appointing Tulsi as national security advisor, Yang as economic advisor, withdrawing from Afghanistan.

He's my guy. That's a pretty tall order. None of these things happen to be fair, right? Like, fair in the sense that, like, that would ever happen? Well, like, none of these things, he didn't do any of these things. Of course, of course. Like, it was, like, the wish list of, like, I'm not going to, I think the media lies about him. I don't think he's nearly as bad as like, you ever see that segment where MSNBC, the woman said that he's talking about exterminating Latinos?

Like that's the level of like lunacy. The Russiagate stuff was so infuriating. The Ukrainegate stuff was infuriating. So I've got to find myself in one of these positions where for a long time it was like, stop making me defend the guy. Because I was like ragging on him quite a bit in the first few years about foreign policy for sure for broader policy things related to say because you said you were a fan of universal health i think you brought that up i think you think that climate change is probably real climate change is a big problem right yeah definitely so for like broader things like this or for more

assistance i don't know how you feel about like general redistribution of welfare like maybe like free school or something um or a free college not a fan of free college mostly because uh this system as it stands today doesn't work so uh i would say i am in favor of it's it's a difficult position i'm in favor of uh universal health care in some capacity i'm not in favor of banning private health care sure it's like a risk it's like you know restriction line up with biden perfectly Yeah. Yeah. I am for people getting universal education after we dismantle and reform and rebuild the education system. Sure. Okay.

Because they're completely broken. Sure. I think a progressive tax system is a good thing. I think we need to make sure that we do what we can to protect the working class individuals from the vulturous predatory elites and the wealthy top 1% billionaires and all that stuff. It feels like broadly speaking, it feels like you align more with like the Democratic foundation

or platform than you do with the Republican one. What it used to be. You don't think that any of, or do you just think that Biden is lying on all of his proposals? Absolutely. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 with a smile on my face. I was so excited. George W. Bush, all the protests. I was marching in them, watching these music videos.

And everyone's saying, war is bad, Bush is Hitler, and all this stuff. And they were like, Barack Obama, he's going to make sure we have health care. He's going to help the poor. He's going to fix these problems. He's going to bring our troops back, man. You got to vote for him. And I was so excited. And I walked in, and I was like, this is so cool.

These people, like, we found a cause. I can't believe it. Barack Obama broke through. It was going to be Hillary Clinton. And then this guy comes out of nowhere. He's like a regular guy from Chicago. I was from Chicago. Do you think that we did get some like universally amazing things under Obama?

So for instance, the ACA definitely wasn't perfect. But it was definitely. It screwed me really, really bad. All of a sudden, I was having questions with like uh the the the involuntary the individual mandate so regardless of sure so regardless of your personal i guess effect by it do you think that overall do you think that the aca was a step in the right direction or do you think it was a mistake knowing that i think it was like 13 million more it's it's it's nuanced right like the the uh the um pre-existing condition stuff excellent must exist and i'm glad that we're at a point

now where even trump is saying and putting executive orders out. Yeah, forcing companies to pay out instead of trying to drop people because they make a claim and stuff like that. Yeah, yeah. I can't stand these insurance companies. I think we need dramatic reform across the board on so much stuff. It feels like from the Democratic platform, based on what Obama did with the ACA and was trying to do with the ACA, it feels like that's more a step in the right direction than republicans that are just completely trying to dismantle all form of government intervention in health care but for me like most people we we have opinions where we weigh certain

things more than we weigh others sure so that's health care what about like not for me health care wasn't one of those issues i was young strapping virile lead it didn't really mean that much to me but when they said i had to pay a fine because i couldn't afford health care then i i made enough money to where i had i i should have bought health care but i couldn't i ended up homeless i have uh uh i'll be vague with this but someone who was very close to me in my life has been forced to pay was forced to forced to pay the fee and was like essentially destitute because it was like piling up on the taxes i think they just ended up owing money gotcha that's interesting. I don't know, obviously, their exact financial position,

but there were huge exemptions made for people that were even above the poverty line. It would scale off, I think, depending on how much you made. But it's possible that- Living in a city, making a certain amount of money, not being able to afford your rent and food at the same time. Because you'd be under federal poverty, or not under federal poverty,

but for a city, you might be. And so what happened was their tax bill, that they just have a debt to the IRS for that. But Trump got rid of it. I don't know what happened, but that was like. So for so for for generally speaking on things like health care, it seems like we kind of align more on the Democratic platform than the Republican one. What are the Republicans doing? Trying to take it all apart.

They did failing. Well, they got rid of the mandate, which means that it's going to continue to collapse. Probably. You know, I tried to go to the doctor earlier this year and i couldn't because of the aca and uh i was literally told the insurance you have bars you from coming to our facility and i said it's fine i'll pay cash they said no you don't understand you can't come here wait what how no joke i don't i have no idea i never i don't have insurance and i've never had problems getting to any hospital you don't have insurance i don't have insurance because i do have insurance they said under the aca

because you have insurance you are not allowed to come to this facility even if you pay cash i called like three different um like uh just like general physician facilities or whatever and they all told me the same thing sorry figure out where it is so i went to urgent care and i was able to pay cash that's interesting not a fan of that yeah that sounds bad but like even i guess because i unfortunately can't speak to your personal stories you may have had like bad personal experiences with anything related to healthcare system but i mean like it did ensure like over 10 million more people but the problem is what the aca was basically it was like this ridiculous fake compromise where instead of actually creating a system that would i i think there

was good intentions behind it the idea was like how do we get to a universal health care standpoint at least a public option right and so it was okay well what if we make everyone buy insurance and then they pay a fee if they don't and all that did was make sure the massive insurance companies who still don't care about you were able to keep ripping you off well kind of so they there were provisions under the aca that made it for instance that like you're um the total amount of money that you take in like a certain percent has to be paid out in the form of claims you can't have like 50 of your costs going to administrative costs like there were a lot of good things that were made to bring those companies into line um i guess i'm just when i look at like the aca in a lot of ways sucked

but in some ways the aca was amazing like again it ensured a lot more people but costs continue to rise in health care um for some people that were on the border of not qualifying for those like poverty line provisions and not making that much like the working poor you got absolutely destroyed by the aca and the mandate for sure um so it definitely should have went farther but it just it feels like when i look at the difference between like a republican having office for four more years or a democrat it feels like going farther is so much more likely under a Democratic administration than a Republican one. In the end, I'd rather have nothing than broken, I guess. So I'd rather be in a situation where I'm responsible for myself

than whatever mangled garbage we ended up getting. How do you say that to somebody that has, like, a type 1 diabetic? Someone who, through no fault of their own, has, like, it's either they have a pre-existing condition if they don't have some sort of like i'm not voting for other people okay i mean but it's it's the reality i don't know like you like you mentioned my anecdotes you can't speak to them i can't speak to other people and i don't know i don't have those experiences when you go healthcare is not the biggest issue for me and it wasn't thing i ever really paid attention to it didn't affect me okay sure i'm so i'm yeah i'm

just curious i guess foreign policy on the other hand, was I come from a family of many military veterans. I've had in-laws and direct family in the military. And so foreign policy always mattered to me. Even before that, my dad is a former Marine. My grandpa was served. He was in World War II. Foreign policy mattered a whole lot. I grew up in Chicago, hated the wars, hated the waste of money, thought that we were spending

money overseas doing nation building. And this is like I'm a teenager now. Iraq and Afghanistan is in full swing. Obama comes along. It was a lie. It was a complete lie. So for me, the issues were always around like foreign policy was a big issue. Most people don't care.

They don't care at all. But I was concerned about war conflict. And that played into I started covering conflict crisis civil unrest i went to a bunch of foreign countries that's always been in the front of my mind so barack obama i don't care if he got you health care you know why because he blew up kids he he blew up an american citizen for i believe it was four he was arrest arresting whistleblowers when it comes to foreign policy do you give obama any credit for things like fine relations with cuba or like the Iranian nuclear deal,

like steps towards normalizing relationships with Iran? Do you think that any of that was important? I would say to the extent that I know of them, yeah, probably. I think what he ended up doing with Iran wasn't a net positive. I think it was an attempt because it didn't result in the net.

We still have... Nothing changed. Well, nothing changed because now we've rolled back the deal, of course. But before Trump, didn't result in the net we still have nothing changed well even even anything changed because now we've rolled back the deal of course but before before trump we still had uh intense conflict sanctions it wasn't moving well but i'll tell you this we were in the process of easing sanctions right like like people talk about the boatloads of cash right we unfroze a lot of the assets that we were holding um and i think we were taking steps towards like depending on how

many years had gone by like easing a lot of the sanctions there there was a lot going on in that direction with obama pertaining to iran and it was conflict cutter turkey pipeline which you brought up earlier on there was a a report i don't know if it's actually went public maybe i'm uh i'm gonna leak some information that i probably shouldn't because the story was never published but uh iran was smuggling in gold through turkish airlines there was a whole bunch of workarounds that were being granted to them that's not necessarily surprising but i mean them that's not necessarily surprising but i mean like that's also just kind of the nature of the middle east we have our ally turkey that was like the reason why isis was making so much money is because they

were just driving those trucks north right into turkey and just selling the oil and driving on back so and then also you know we talk about like yemen like it would be nice it's like okay what we're done here and then all of the gulf states will look at us like excuse me what do you mean you're done here like hello where you're most important like group of cluster of allies and at least not to not to excuse Obama but just like it sucks the all of the Middle East and even to some extent and I would even say publicly like I'm not gonna blame Trump for what's going on in the Middle East either I will be critical of some of his actions whether it's a baby to the Turks talking about

running Syrian oil fields or any of the Kurds or yeah another yeah abandon the Kurds to the Turks that like, like, that stuff is bad. But I guess, for me, like, my two, the reason why I bring up health care reform policy, I guess, because my two favorite accomplishments under Obama was, I think that the ACA was historic.

What we ended up getting, the compromise kind of sucked, like, undoubtedly, but it was historic in terms of moving that direction and finally joining the rest of the OECD countries and having some sort of public health care.

And then working to normalize relationships with Iran was unbelievable. If that would have been something that would have continued into the future, like thawing relations in that part of the world and getting the Gulf states to just calm down with the conflict. I'm not convinced Obama was doing that.

And I think in the past few months, Trump has these historic peace agreements between Arabic nations and Israel. And it's massive. It is. You know what really kind of offended me and it's very like i don't take offense to many things but it was when trump crossed into the dm crossed the dmz into north korea to me that was like i was welling up i was just like wow because that but all that was horrible that was amazing it was one of the most beautiful things worst things that's ever happened at u.s i'm korean

i i don't know how that you should be even more upset about it because because donald trump with no security with no security crossed into north korea and a tremendous sign of good faith giving me hope that there was actually trust enough where the president theoretically or straight up risked his life they could have just that you know that the north korean soldiers grab south korean soldiers and pull them into north korea trump freely walked into the country with no security shook hands smiled and walked back and i was that was huge to me that's great but at the end of the day all we did was we had a few friendly conversations with kim they continued working on their nuclear program we made some concessions to them after nothing happened like it and it set

back like work in that part of the world i disagree okay well i mean japan and south korea disagree i mean i mean for for a variety of reasons but south korea uh my understanding has been working towards an agreement with north korea that's been improving for quite some time yeah i thought it was incredible to see the president of the united states make that move i guess it was just sad that like for a guy that talks about making deals so much and for an iranian deal that we had gotten concessions out of that he'd completely dismantled we went and we talked to north korea and we got zero concessions out of them and they expanded all of their training programs and everything and they did they did they did bad in a lot of ways and they they played trump but uh i think that was tremendous i think

it's the kind of thing that needs to happen uh whether or not it would have ultimately re you know resulted in uh restoration you know peace in the peninsula or whatever it's hard to say but i thought it was a step in the right direction so i mean listen man the president of the united states walking into north korea with no security is a big deal yeah i guess i don't really care but's a... I didn't really accomplish much. Maybe symbolically it was nice, but... I guess, aside from foreign policy and healthcare, so you don't care much about healthcare.

Foreign policy is... I care about healthcare. Let me clarify. Yeah, go. I think... When I say you don't care about healthcare, I mean it's not like a key voting issue for you. It's not going to make or break your vote.

I think we should have universal basic level care. If you get sick, you can rush to the hospital. They'll give you Tamiflu, which you need. You break your hand, you go to the doctor, they can set your broken hand. If you get more serious, rare genetic disorders that are very difficult, require more resources, that's where private insurance is going to kick in to a certain degree i think we can provide that but it's going to be so limited and difficult to get i think we need we need some sort of not necessarily i wouldn't even call it a public option it's a hybrid system of there are a lot of people who you know kids you see the story they get the flu they die or diabetics they can't get insulin that's the kind of stuff that should be easily taken care of yeah for sure but when someone's got like a rare genetic disorder yeah i don't think anybody is they They are. I've had the arguments. Sure, there might be. For Biden, for the administration that is coming in, the public option is the most

which is a multi-payer system. So you still have all your private health care if you want through your work or union or whatever. And then we have a public option, hopefully, for people that can't afford it. The problem is getting there. What do you mean? Like legislatively or like administratively? Everything, everything.

And I don't think it's a good reason not to try. I think with this system even bernie sanders has acknowledged millions of jobs will be lost in the healthcare industry um potentially yeah it's a problem sure but jobs are never a good reason to keep any particular thing like dismantling the military industrial complex would cost a lot of private jobs as well of course right boeing lockheed aparten raytheon like these yeah so i mean like there's always gonna be jobs right that's why i'm saying it's like a good reason to ignore it i'm saying it's something we have to overcome for sure so i don't i don't see uh a good reason other than like the argument here

from conservatives and i and i respect it is prices would be cheaper if we just had free competition in the marketplace with health care free of the regulations and all that stuff and to an extent i agree but the problem is i don't like uh i don't know i lean left uh morally and ethically on the issue so i like the idea that just because someone works at mcdonald's doesn't mean they shouldn't be provided the care to like fix their broken hand or take care of their kid who's got the flu because they can't afford you know market rates granted the conservatives argue the market rates would be cheap enough for them if it was complete and totally free i don't completely agree i kind of agree but i i still doesn't seem to work that way any other part of the world but well i mean most

of the countries have already instituted some kind of national health care system and it's due to long-standing like europe it has a lot to do with world war ii and stuff like that sure i think the market would price itself in the sense that if they can't get customers to pay the bills they'd have to figure out a way to improve it but kind of so market forces wouldn't exactly work that way i you know i i right i'm saying like so for instance like if i could do some surgery and i could sell it to 10 people for a hundred dollars or just one person for a thousand dollars it might make sense you just do the one person ignore the nine right but market forces are really good at setting prices and everything in the most efficient way to allocate capital but when healthcare we don't want to just allocate capital we want to take care of

our citizens i'm totally for the mixed economy uh i think the current system is great that's why i don't like the far left the socialist stuff sure like bernie sanders banned private health care i'm like that's crazy yeah that plan was insane yeah yeah you don't do that uh i think the challenge is getting to this position and uh i also believe in individual like freedom of the individual which case as a more libertarian leaning person if you want to implement the system it's done through cooperation you have to convince the people we're going to do the right thing and we're going to make it work very difficult task to do and that's the problem i ultimately think it's the weakness of not being an authoritarian who just imposes it upon people for the good of the people like i know

it's better for you so we're doing it in some cases that may be but i don't think it would i don't think we're going to be happier living under one person who thinks they know better than us or a handful of people well that's kind of what i mean like if they impose it on us i mean that's we kind of voted for it right not necessarily uh this is the challenge and i think it's one of the reasons i love this country it's a republic which means there's minority strength that you know you can get a president who didn't win the popular vote. That's a good thing because you don't want just a majority to constantly push a majority opinion. Sure. But if we're pushing something that's making it through, like, the House, the Senate, and the president is signing into law, there's a good chance that a majority of the American people are supporting this.

It's highly unlikely otherwise. I'm down for it. Yeah, for sure. And there's always going to be some minority of the country that's going to be bullied around by them, which is because nobody's 100% in favor of anything. So I think it's an issue. Right. I agree with you. So that's why I think one of the problems we have right now is when – I can't get into the specifics, but Harry Reid did away with the filibuster in 2013, allowing for Trump to get three Supreme Court justices in with a simple majority.

This had been fought with even under Bush. I think people have gone back and forth arguing whether or not the filibuster should yeah the problem well you used to need i guess you needed two-thirds to get a supreme court justice in uh and then harry reid changed it to 51 simple majority kind of yeah for confirmation we need wait for what for senate supreme court confirmation was it supreme court i thought these were for lower federal judiciary picks uh my understanding is that's how trump got three justices in with 51 votes i think that was only done under um for um at the yeah or wait never mind yeah under the last year of obama yes mcconnell said you'll regret this yeah mcconnell was the one that changed it

for the supreme court picks but that hadn't been harry reid are you sure yeah because the democrats were in the majority and mitch mcconnell said you will regret this sooner than you think i wasn't aware that that was for that i don't think that was for Supreme Court related stuff, though. That was for lower federal picks, is my understanding. McConnell was the one who first triggered that for a Supreme Court nominee for Merrick Garland in the last year of Obama's presidency. Perhaps. But I know that roll call says if you don't like the Supreme Court, blame Harry Reid. Yeah, because but that was because of the threatening of the nuclear option for earlier and lower court picks it hadn't been triggered yet for the supreme court it's a minor

approval but um yeah all right well but arguably those threats and then unding the filibuster for the lower court pixel is what led mcconnell to do it for the supreme court fix but i think we it's the best thing in the world would be needing two-thirds majority for approval of legislation. It would force— In the Senate? Either. Oh, sure. Forcing the majority to cooperate and negotiate with the minority. You wouldn't get ridiculous far left or far right or whatever. You'd get them saying, we want to pass this.

Okay, well, you've got to get us to agree with you. And that's good because it keeps us together. One of the problems we've had is how polarized and uncompromising it feels a lot of Congress is right now. I think it's better to have no movement forward than rapid, erratic, back and forth. You know what I mean? Yeah, I kind of agree. The only problem is that what happens then is that all of our movement comes from either executive actions or the Supreme Court. Yep, which is a problem too.

Okay, I'm just curious then. So for one other issue, so healthcare, foreign policy, what's like a third issue that you would like? And besides the critical race theory, like what's another thing that like, oh, like I would support Trump because of this particular thing? It's a tough question. For me, it had a lot to do with the riots. Absolutely. The critical race theory is huge. That may have overtaken, you know, like I said earlier in the year, I said I wasn't going to vote for the guy. But I think critical race theory played a huge role because that's deeply impacted my life. Not just in the sense that there's like this theory and people believe it, but the practical application of directly impacted the safety and well-being of my family and my experience and the stories I grew up. Hate it. 100%. Not the fact that the theory exists. I hate the practical application. So when Trump says, you know, we're issuing an executive order, probably would have done him well to read the theory a bit more.

I was happy. I said, wow, that's great. I don't like this stuff. Good. I'm glad Biden said he's going to overturn that and bring it all back. That to me is a nightmare. The Democrats were trying to repeal the civil rights provision in their constitution with Prop 16 in California. I understand that California is one of the only one of the few states who actually has one. But it's still shocking to me that they were the Democrats all signed on both like state level and federal level were like yep we want to repeal this civil rights provision guaranteeing you can't discriminate the basis of race because we want to and i'm like my understanding is that what starts

in california makes its way to the rest of the country i would not be surprised if democrats in a few years vote to repeal the 1964 civil rights act sure yes uh yeah i guess we'll see have you you know you know why though right um why they want the right to discriminate on the basis of race sure but i feel like i'm almost positive um i looked this up once for so i think the supreme court has already ruled that it is okay to discriminate against even protected classes as long as there's a like a business necessary reason to do so um so like i looked this up so for acting hot what acting acting and uh like why can we have all female gyms you're discriminating against a gender which is like a

protected class yeah and the reason is because actually but they're losing i'm pretty sure are they because my understanding is the reason why those did exist was because the supreme court ruled that in some cases like if it's business as sir you can have like an all-female gym like that's an okay thing to do it may be for gyms but i do know that there is a bunch of guys who go around suing ladies night bars or like lady bars interesting i haven't heard of that i do know that i think one of the important parts of that supreme court case was that um you are not allowed to have like other vital stuff going on in that business that would lead to that discrimination being negative so for instance if you had an all-female gym that's fine but if that all-female gym started to host like meetings

related to some business activity well that's not okay because now you'd be discriminating against men i don't know if like the ladies bar issue is running into that or whatever but i just i don't like discrimination positive or negative yeah sure but so anyway long story short that is a big issue for me i don't like it uh when trump started coming out against the riots i was shocked to see the democrats supporting it uh either passively or directly like defund the police stuff to me is absolutely insane sure and i i've been ragging on i rag on cops frequently like the cops in staten island who are barring this guy from you know from opening his bar to the public even though he's not running the business he's just letting him have free

drinks they're violating the first amendment of the constitution the right to peaceably assemble it doesn't say for what reason so the fact that these cops are like i don't care i'm gonna do it i rag on them all the time i still think to fund the place is nuts and now we're seeing crime skyrocketing and you know a bunch of different places i'll tell you one of the big issues for me though was the the midterm betrayal in my opinion the moderate democrats who won 31 districts flipping control the house to the democrats yeah they said they were gonna they ran on kitchen table issues the economy health care etc they said that they weren't going to play pelosi's game and be anti-trump culture warriors and then they did and they came in and they said impeachment

and that was the name of the game that was the big story that's what carried through and almost nobody stood up to them i mean i think the big problem with that was that those seem to be the only games that would gain any traction i think the problem is of the house under those two years of pelosi the house passed like record amounts of legislation but literally absolutely nothing could make it through the senate so at the end of the day i mean like impeachment over whether or not i'm guessing you probably don't think the ukraine stuff is legitimate but whether or not it was like that was literally the only stuff they could actually get through or have any meaningful impact on in the house because yeah the stuff is not legitimate okay the ukraine stuff you said all right did you say iran stuff ukraine oh yeah okay um that's a

whole other conversation i know i know um but like i mean like they were passing legislation with the house but that's all they can do i think i think a big issue with like the conversation i had with vosh and even with you is different sources of information one of the things i brought up before for those that are listening before we went live was like you can find a source that confirms your bias and it's like really hard to break through this and figure out you can do that yeah i i feel like you can go through credibility stores but obviously most people never will i reinforce whatever opinion you want to on the internet i pull up uh it's true yeah you know who ryan long is the comedian no i don't he did a bit where he's like he just basically says if you like black lives matter you can say that they're doing good or you can say they're bending.

He just goes through all the articles that are like, and these are legitimate, like New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Financial Times, where they just say contradictory things. And you're laughing, seeing a different headline every single day. It's the stupidest thing ever. It makes it impossible to track what's going on. I'll tell you, even with these lawsuits, like Trump wins one, one then appeals one then loses the appeal but appeals again and when i say something like i was talking to someone and i said oh did you hear trump appealed oh he lost the appeal no no he appealed again wait no no i just read today that's like i don't know which one is which we don't know where he's at so so anyway when i look at trump i see uh not that bad i don't think he's

uh i think in terms of foreign policy, he's better, he's, what did Luke say? He's less of a stinky a-hole than all the other presidents in our lifetime, considering not starting new wars being the big factor.

I haven't followed it too closely, but do you know who's currently being accused of killing the Iranian nuclear scientist? Who, Trump? No, I'm asking you. I don't actually know. Israel?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wasn't sure if that was with, I've heard people say Israel. I don't i don't actually know israel israel yeah yeah i wasn't sure if that was with i i've heard people say israel i don't know if that was like a u.s backing or assistance or not yeah i don't like any of that uh i don't like any of that but uh i think under uh i i kind of the challenge is i'm watching what trump is doing right now with the riots that was big what he's doing with critical race theory and what he's doing with at least trying to be effectively withdraw our trips from the middle east okay i know what we get with biden i lived through eight years of it so i'm not gonna vote for that not only that like i think what biden is selling you is snake oil i know the left says the same thing about trump i think a lot of well no i

think i think trump would continue to do the things he's doing now i just think they're all really bad but like getting our troops out of the middle east he hasn't gotten our troops out of the middle east but trying to he continued trying to do it but he's escalated tensions all over the world every other country he did it with bolivia he did it with venezuela he's done with cuba he's done with iran and under and with obama biden they literally entered a bunch of these countries well they entered a bunch of countries kind of libya sure uh and you know i don't know the long story of things nuts Do you know who Sidney Blumenthal is? Talk to me about her.

Sidney's a guy. He is a Clinton advisor from like the 90s and a really good friend of Hillary's and stuff. And so like 10,000 of the emails that Hillary had received were from Sidney. And he had a company called Osprey Global Solutions, which is an arms manufacturing company. So he would email Hillary and be like, hey, when you get us into Iran, we want to set up Osprey Global Solutions to fund this new pro-America government. And Hillary would be like, okay, Sid. And then she'd pass the email to her advisor,

and then she advised Obama to take us into Libya. Basically, he's a, you know, what would you call him, a gun runner and a really good friend of Hillary's. Okay, hold on. Because my Libyan knowledge is not that extensive. But my understanding is that the UN had accused

and had proof that in Libya, Gaddafi was like literally using chemical weapons and stuff against some of the people. There were like

human rights abuses that were... I mean, Trump is the government. Right? Like, what do you mean Trump is the government? Trump's barely the government. But I mean,

when there's enough global... Wait, do you think that Assad ever used chemical weapons in Syria? Definitely. Okay. You don't think Gaddafi...

You don't think there were any human rights violations? I didn't say he didn't. I'm just wondering, when they come out and say things, do you think that Assad ever used chemical weapons in Syria? Definitely. Okay. You don't think Gaddafi, you don't think there were any human rights violations? I didn't say he didn't. I'm just wondering, like, when they come out and say things, do you just, like, do you just trust them? I mean, like, when a lot of these bodies are, like, comprised of, like, multiple countries and whatnot, I guess it's possible that there could be some top-down, behind-the-scenes stuff going on. I'm just saying, like, a lot of these issues come down to who you trust. Sure.

I was unaware. I didn't think it was that contested that there were human rights abuses going on under'm just saying like a lot of these issues come down to who you trust sure for better i don't i i was unaware i didn't think it was that contested that there were going on okay there there are people who think the the like dude the progressive anti-war leftists yeah i'm aware of that i don't yeah they're like it's all made up it's not real every single bad thing around the world is the cia and everybody else exactly exactly yeah sure no so i i say that trust in the government thing not as a dig or, you know, like when the U.S. government comes out and says, we did a thing. It's like,

I would say I don't. But there's Occam's razor, I guess. You know what I mean? Sure. I would just put it this way. I don't trust the government, but I'd support the U.S. over a different country. China or... Right. Exactly. Exactly. Sure. Okay. What was I going to say? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Hillary Clinton, man. That's the other big problem with the Biden administration. He's bringing back a lot of these same people. a different country right exactly exactly sure okay what was i gonna say oh yeah hillary clinton man that's enough that's the other big problem with the with with the biden administration he's

bringing back a lot of these same people and these are just some of the worst people imaginable it's true trump did the same thing which is why i didn't vote for him john bolton wow what a mistake the only real reason i voted for him was like hey maybe he'll keep trying to get our troops out of the middle east i'll just vote for it you know what i mean i'm not i'm not a maga hat wearing guy not a flag waving guy i do think like i said trump is better than president all the other presidents of my lifetime for the fact that he didn't start any new wars sure i guess now biden has written a lot about what he wants to do with middle east related stuff but i'm not gonna be but it's gonna be gonna be kamala harris sure but it's that stuff is so difficult i hope the best um because i mean like

love him or hate him uh love or hate all the wars we can't really just leave everything right like agreed yeah the vacuums and everything created are it makes it like everything is like very rough isis comes back yeah isis or um you know the the taliban and afghanistan and everything and but uh and okay like there's like so But I was just studying Iraq. After we went into Iraq, basically, for the first, they fired 50,000 civil servants that had worked for Saddam. And this was all these unemployed people across the country. And then they disbanded the entire Iraqi military. All these unemployed.

And then ISIS got created. The huge problem with the coalition government, I think we said in Iraq, and I still have no idea why this happened, was when we kicked everybody out of the government that was part of that government, part of the Ba'ath party, is we literally said none of the people that were ever involved in any of these positions can ever hold public office or whatever. And the amount of tomfoolery that went on in that government and how crazy everything became with how horrible the government we put together, the guy that we put in there, um the maliki guy there was just so much mismanagement from that um but regardless of how all of that went down i'm just i'm not envious of being somebody that has to figure out how we leave the middle east now because it's so rough in terms of like because if you just pull everything out a lot of vacuums are created we've got other allies in the region that get irritated um like you know israel or the gulf states don't want to see like a united uh you know like uh syria iraq iran like this united front of people and it seems like we've already kind of lost iraq in terms of like being an ally like it's it's a rough i'm not saying i don't support boys

everywhere but i understand the um even for trump i understand the position what's i just feel like we can't stay there what's up with our troops in pakistan luke mentioned that last night i don't know anything about it oh i don't know but war is about to break out between China, India, Pakistan. So the U.S. has troops in Pakistan to observe? I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I know the U.S. has troops and paramilitary groups all over the world in places you don't know about. We just had breaking news about a CIA guy dying in Somalia in some secret military operation.

I'm sure we have a lot of people in a lot of places. I think – do you know sean parnell is no he's running for congress is republican and he said he doesn't think we can just pull out all our troops because that's how you get isis you create this vacuum and then someone comes in but he does think that we can we can reduce it quite a bit and have a way drawn down presence and just kind of main help maintain i think our problem ever since bush um is we just don't have like a cohesive mission and when you don't really have a clear objective then like this the the one thing that we need to

stop doing is having wars on things like a war on poverty a war on drugs a war on terrorism like these things are going to exist throughout the entirety of the world and when you're when your objectives are so vague you don't really know what you're like when do we you know you know you know you know i made a video praising the Green New Deal before they announced the Green New Deal? Why? Because the idea initially was government investment in green technologies and energy that would bolster the economy, make us energy independent, and environmentally friendly. That sounds great, doesn't it? That would be awesome if that's what the Green New Deal actually was.

Exactly. It's not. They want to change – dramatically change the economy they've got social justice 20 percent of all companies sold to the workers federal jobs guaranteed there's a lot of other stuff baked into that that yeah exactly and that's that's that's that's another reason i just bring that up because it's like you know it's funny i guess i'm classified as right for opposing the critical the critical theory stuff and supporting trump primarily on the on the war stuff and the critical race theory stuff but unlike most other things i say it all the time

and like almost all my videos it's the weirdest thing but i understand when these people make these these these super cuts of me to insult me they purposely dodge the stuff where i've like ranted about flint's water crisis sure over and over again i'm pretty sure that we took a totality of youtube content you're probably being more critical of the left than the right, though. I'm critical of the critical race theory left stuff. Sure. Yeah. But when I say things like,

I understand why people are upset with police and police brutality, and I did an hour-long documentary on it. But I guess the issue is, like, when I've criticized McConnell and the Republicans, it's because they're establishment crony politicians who just want to be in office to get their paycheck and do nothing. And then that's what they do. What do they do? They obstruct. They block and they're appointing federal judges. I mean, that's doing something. I mean, to their credit, Republicans have done an amazing job in the Senate blocking. If you

are a Republican, you should be happy with McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate. They did a great job. They got three Supreme Court picks. They have appointed all the judges. Yeah, they've been doing a knockout job if you're a Republican, yeah. Man, everything is just so crazy and broken right now. Regarding pulling troops, you reminded me when you brought up Sean Parnell and pulling out troops, creating a power vacuum. What we did with the Iraqi government once our troops were in by disbanding their civil servants was we created a power vacuum without pulling our troops out. So pulling troops out is not the only way to create a power vacuum that can cause something like isis we can leave our troops there and still cause that to happen yeah depending on how much you disrupt things yeah we gotta go to super chats yeah go

for it because we were supposed to do it a long time ago we kind of just kept going and just we're basically chilling and having conversation one hour later one hour later well it's been 40 40 minutes uh how how are you okay with very spicy questions where people are mad at you yeah of course it's's my whole life online. Well, here's the first one that comes up. Mr. Obvious says, Destiny said on camera that he lets his girlfriend sleep with other men. Is that true or was that just a meme?

Open relationships are pure cuckery. I like open relationships. So for me personally, and I understand that everybody has their own thing, I don't think I could ever be in a spot in my life where I only want to have sex with one person for for the rest of my life that is a hard sell for me um so so what you're really saying is that your girlfriend lets you sleep with other women well yeah and obviously well but it's equal framing works sure right right well but that's never how it's framed exactly it's funny because like sometimes like she'll complain that like she

feels like um and maybe like i get around too much or it's not for her but then when people like frame it in my relationship it's that i'm literally sitting at home while she's bringing home like these massive bbcs that are just railing her and blah blah i'm just like crying in the corner whatever and it's like okay um different people from different communities have very different ideas of like how my personal life is very funny to see you know project their insecurities under me you know jeffrey miller nope uh he's he's like an intellectual dark web personality okay so you probably you know assume some things about his personality in that context but uh i think he's he's real big into polyamory so yeah that's technically what our relationship

yeah yeah yeah have you um i don't want to derail too much do you hear sam harris recently on the idw and all that no what did he say oh you just he kind of disavowed a lot of it but i don't want to paraphrase it yeah he's he's like really hardcore anti-trump in a weird way like i by all means it's a good he's a good there are a few people on the internet that were i think legitimately like centrist um but they built up very conservative audiences like your audience i think is very conservative you're not you're not correct okay if i go and look at any and i did this before i came because it's because you look at like any of the top comments on like all of your past videos it's all comments are very different comments are driven by controversy so this this this this

this stream we have is one of the like one of the highest super chats we've done because of the controversy the comments of course yeah i agree with that yeah but but okay so i okay so i don't know if i can we're not gonna argue over it but like um there are some people that play a center role but they end up building like very right-leaning audiences and whenever they clash with them they run into huge problems so sam harris example do you know thunderfoot yeah that was a guy that was there a lot of like this is like the game or anything a lot of people came out and they're like oh i'm a centrist they're probably more right than not but thunderfoot legitimately i think had like his principled stance on things anytime he would say anything

negative about trump he would get slaughtered by his audience i will i will say it probably is uh dependent upon um where you are like to call someone conservative or liberal is like it's extremely subjective i kind of i look at the fan bases i guess when i think of like what kind of person is this person because usually the fan base can be pretty telling like what kind of people do they attract so we did a survey and uh i would say that if you were to combine the groups between left and right, left slightly outranks right of my audience, but they're like moderates. Sure. They're not leftists. They're not hardcore.

They're not even traditional liberals. They're just like— And it's hard doing left and right because some people are very like single issue. Like there might be a lot of people that are literally just when it comes to the critical race theory. I imagine because you talk about it quite a bit. They're like that's like their one issue, so they might consider themselves on it. Yeah, and foreign policy stuff. So initially I was like,

Bolton, wow, Trump, I can't believe he's doing this stuff. It's so dumb. But the media certainly lies about him way too much. Some of the stuff is ridiculous. Unfortunately, which makes it really hard. Yeah. There's a lot of dumb stories.

Do you remember the fish food one? Yeah, with Shinzo Abe? Yeah, just dumb. It's a lot of stupid stuff. One of my favorite things about Trump being out of office, one of the happiest reasons why he's gone i'm so looking forward to he's not gone yet well not yet i'm looking forward to moving past the like all the snl the dumb skits and the dumb jokes and all that like i mean dude you know i legitimately hate trump more than a lot

of people but even i'm tired of like all the like okay you know you know what i'm excited for is uh the media just falling apart their ratings were in the gutter before trump trump saved them and even twitter i think there's always things in media that they can criticize i don't think they're going anywhere john stewart a lot of people asked us with stewart they're like oh well after bush is gone like isn't the media gonna have nothing to do it's like they'll always carry on and something but he didn't retire i disagree he did retire after that uh what we saw before trump was apocalyptic. Shane Smith, the CEO of Vice, said we're going to see a bloodbath in digital in the next year or so. Then Trump got elected.

I'm sorry. Before that could have happened, Trump started campaigning. And then all of a sudden, ratings on TV started skyrocketing. CNN's ratings started skyrocketing. Fox News, YouTube viewership, everything started going nuts around Trump. If Trump, you know, if this is the end, if he doesn't stay in public light if he doesn't pull off some triple hell mary whatever twitter was bleeding users before trump started you know before he got elected media companies were downsizing and laying people off over like endlessly even in the past

few years without trump yeah i guess we'll see what happens trumpism i guess they're gonna talk about whatever maybe yeah we'll see what i was going all right let's read let's read some more of these uh super chats a lot of people who uh don't like you joanna davidoff says guy came out of his basement to get on tim's show question uh nice i've been living on my own for the past like 15 i I just read that one. Seriously. The projection is real. Go ahead. All right, let's see. Luke Durkin says, Destiny, if trans men equals men, then men equals trans men, correct?

No. He says... There's a category error, right? So if green beans equal vegetables, do vegetables equal green beans? So if you want to write in the category of men to include trans men, just because all trans men would be in the category of men doesn't mean that all men are in the category of trans men. It's like a subset of the other. Whether or not you agree with trans issues or whatever.

Like, yeah, it doesn't logically follow. He says, same for women. So, are we all trans? YouTube blocking me, hence the use of, yeah, okay. So, I think you clarified that. Sure. Shadi Viceroy says, here's something crazy. How about the government stops dipping their grubby hands out of my pockets?

You lock me down, I lose my job, I lose my house, and then I end up on the streets because the government decided my rights are sidestepped because of a disease. That's horrible. There should be more stimulus. You know what, though? I think one thing I definitely should say is people don't want to be dependent on the government. They don't want to rely on stimulus.

I think that's true of almost everybody, yeah. I don't. So what if people just said, no, we don't want to be dependent on the government. They don't want to rely on stimulus. I think that's true of almost everybody. Yeah. I don't. So what if people just said, no, we don't want to do that? Wait, you don't what? No, I think it's true of almost everybody that nobody wants to be reliant on stimulus. Like people like to work and feel like they're. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, for sure. So then the natural recourse, I guess, would be for people to say, protect the vulnerable, but open the economy so I can work. I think people in Australia, New Zealand and South Korea all like to work, too. And they somehow manage to lock down for a little bit. the virus under control open up go back they don't have the same constitution we do though that's that's crazy sure that's illegal we're talking legal versus philosophical argument right philosophically i think that it's okay to take a break for two months and get everything under control and then go back to work um legally i don't know if there are grounds for it i know people have fought a lot over how much the president can do in terms

of enforcing lockdowns yeah they bring up stuff we did under the Spanish flu and how much the government did there. I don't know the legal arguments there. I think even a lot of legal people don't know the arguments there. I'm not sure. What do you think about universal basic income? I'm a big, like, I have some, like, fundamental principles. I think everybody in society ought to have the access and the opportunity to do whatever they want in a happy, healthy manner. If UBI is the way to get there, then cool.

I know they were running a few UBI experiments in Canada, I think. Not a fan. Although, you're not a fan or I'm not a fan? I'm not a fan of UBI. Oh. If UBI is one of those things that works really well, if we do this in a state or whatever and it's like, wow, this actually enabled so many people, then yeah, go for it. But if not, then yeah.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I don't like unemployment insurance because if you get a job you lose it so there's an incentive to not get a job to continue to collect your unemployment yeah there's a guy on a twitter med medlock i don't know if you're he fights a lot with this guy on twitter but there's um there's an interesting argument to be made about like marginal tax rates basically that um when you have these programs for poor people, what happens is, is that as they earn more money in a roundabout way, they're kind of sort of getting penalized for it and increasing matters because the welfare that they're receiving is like dropping off, which is an interesting argument.

I don't know if I believe it, but basically the idea is that like if you get unemployment insurance, you're in a way punished for working because as you start to work, you're really not making as much money, right? And then UBI wouldn't taper off. You'd always continue to get it as you got better. That's what I like. It's one of those things where I'd have to see how it plays out. All right.

Trucker and Tourist says, lock everything down? How do you get food? It doesn't just appear on the shelf. I am a part of the supply chain for that. We would be forced to be slaves working while y'all get to sit home. Nah, man. You're already slaves working? I'm sorry?

It's a capitalist economy. You want to eat and have food and have a home? You're already slaves to the economy. I guess in the sense that we did it, or we could do it, we did have a complete total lockdown for two months. Absolutely not. Not in the United States. Why not?

Because most restaurants are still seating people indoors. Most places were still open. Oh, you mean in the country? Yeah. Wait, what were you talking about? like we we had the lockdown in like new york for instance it didn't work um my understanding is that the states in the northeast i'd have to look at the coronavirus charts but the states in the northeast that did lock down did a really good job of bringing infections under control pretty sure it all came back

well as you relax the restrictions it comes back of course yeah so that means we're just going to lock down forever um it means that you have to be more careful about the measures that you take in terms of like opening and and the responsible things that you do. So New York locked down hardcore. They did, and they brought the infection rate down hardcore. And then they started to reopen, and it just came right back. Sure. So you have to work on tapering it off.

Basically, the goal is you have to make sure— That's untenable, man. It's not untenable. The goal is to make it so that you don't overflow your hospital, which for the the most part the united states hasn't done so far well so i'm not saying that you lock it down and the virus has gone forever right even in australia it came back in victoria they had a huge spike so we just locked down for two months open for two months locked down for two months i i think the goal would be to have it like it doesn't feel like in the united states we have a good sliding scale of like lockdown level one two three four like we're locked down

now and then it's like okay well we're kind of open like i think florida georgia some southern states have done this where it's like okay hold on guys we're awake and then it's like ah it's great just everything's open again i think that if you have like the more measured like we can do this and this and this and you slowly expand it cases arise you close you open we're waiting for the vaccine like i think that's kind of how you have to play it ideally we haven't hit the point yet in the united states where hospitals are like overflowing that much i think a couple counties in Texas complained about it. It's been specific hospitals.

Yeah, specific hospitals. And there's a lot of empty ones. I know that California has been projecting that over Christmas, if cases continue to rise, where we might get overflowing. I don't think so. Yeah, hopefully not. But that's, like, the doomsday scenario that we're trying to avoid. And so far, we've skirted that, although economically we've suffered a ton of harm for it. I guess the retrospective on this will be very interesting.

Pracar J says, LOL, Destiny got Tim to admit Trump equals incompetent. I don't think that person watches any of my videos. There's a reason why the Trump forums, they called me a bald cuck and they make fun of me. Because I've never been waving a MAGAGA flag i've been saying things like i think he's not that bad i think there's a bunch of things he's done that's way better i think joe biden i got a really negative joe biden thing because of the obama administration all that stuff but uh yeah like we in the conversation i was talking about his lawsuit i talked about it earlier that uh i got i got ragged on pretty hard for criticizing sydney powell and now look what's

happening they're criticizing sydney powell people don't watch my content you know and then they come in here and they have an assumption about me i'm sure you get the exact same thing sure bug pop says common cheap and well-known promising drugs was reassuring consider placebo and nocebo effects some people with terminal cancer prognosis die before cancer becomes fatal nocebo highly correlates with high stress. I'm not sure what that was in reference to. I think he's trying to say that Trump lying about the threat of the coronavirus was better for the overall health of the country, which can be true, but that's only if you're doing work in the background. So, for instance, if we're telling a cancer patient maybe we're being a little bit optimistic, that doesn't mean we halt all treatment and halt all cancer research.

I might be a little bit nicer to you about the outcome of your chemotherapy, but it doesn't mean I'm going to stop giving you the drug. So, John the Great says, I was literally watching the videos on election night of the booting, the boarding of the tabulation rooms, etc. Destiny is regurgitating nonsense. So, there were videos from a bunch of different states. I watched a ton of live election coverage that night. Like, you said it yourself. I agree with you that it's really hard to watch one video and figure out what's going on like there's so much like one video is posted and then and and i and i have to be careful because like i don't want to be eating you know my there's an expression for this but

like i don't want to like be totally wrong we're like two days later it's like you retweeted this video didn't you know that this happened two months ago or like this was like a four-year-old video it's like oh shoot oh i didn't know right a lot of people do that people got some people with that with the uh um look at how horrible these uh uh immigration camps are whatever it's like yeah that's what i was like oh well these pictures are under obama's administration there's a video of a guy getting arrested and then everyone said it was a covet arrest but it had nothing to do with covet it was years ago yeah so yeah so i i try like it's you can paint whatever picture you want with a 20 second clip on twitter and i saw this with uh

with the written house stuff oh my goodness there saw so many different things based on some videos. And it's like, okay. We got you here. Marty says, this guy contradicted himself the moment he admitted he's very wealthy in the beginning. Lockdowns hurt the middle class. Government supports the poor. $1,200 is not going to save the middle class families from losing everything.

He'll be okay. I don't deny that at all. The Trump administration has been great for me. This election is awesome. This election is a win-win for me. Because I saved more money. No, your taxes are going to skyrocket. Well, they are now, but I still get to gloat over Trump people.

But if Trump would have won, I'm probably saving more on my taxes than the average Trump voter earns. So it's a win-win for me. I mean, like, if you want to keep voting in a guy that's not going to help you and is going to give more money to people like me, I'm okay with that. At the end of the day, none of this lockdown stuff hurts anybody in my position. Of course, online content, we are, like like perfectly positioned to get richer off of this conflict. But when I vote, I try to keep in mind like the general well-being of the population. That's what they're saying. What do you mean?

Like I said, I feel the exact same way. I think Joe Biden's going to be bad for everybody. Oh, sure. Well, I'm just saying this guy was trying to make an argument that I'm better off under the lockdown. Of course I am. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I think there should be more stimulus, though. A single $1,200 check is a joke. Totally. I agree. I don't like the idea of endless stimulus though i think i don't either sure i i think if we did the lockdown that we got a protective vulnerable and open it back up

unemployment insurance is endless stimulus well no those usually capped on a certain number i think they extend unemployment under the and it yeah obama extended it a long time ago but that that that's it's that's... There's no money. It's not a lot of money. But there will always be people receiving it. Yeah, sure, but we're talking about like...

In that essence, it's unlimited. He's talking about paying every citizen not to work for extended periods of time, which is a little bit farther than unemployment insurance. I think we got... Take a middle road approach,

I suppose. We did the lockdowns. We tried it. Okay, now what do we do? Now we slowly reopen. We take social distancing measures. We wear a mask. We protect the vulnerable and we get the economy back in in in high gear yeah we'll see

i mean the mortality rate's 99.9 percent for people uh our survival rate i'm sorry the survival rate for people under 70 is like 99.9 percent for it's really high yeah complications but the people that go to the icu that's the thing that this has always been the scare to be clear. Every young person could be infected and like, we were probably not going to die. The, the, the scary part is just that like of the 5% or 10% of people that are

infected that need to go to the ICU. If those beds run out and you run into like your death rate will skyrocket. The comorbidities that concern me. Well, that's, that's it's comorbidities that basically are the, like the rickety bridge you know is this just inevitable anyway from the obesity epidemic well i would say partly i mean

comorbidities are bad but if anything that's even more of a reason to be safe about things right like we have comorbidities in this country that are going to make you more there's got to be a compromise where at a certain point we say okay we tried we did the lockdowns now we got to get back to work yeah of course because starvation and poverty. Yeah, for sure. Or we could do more stimulus. Stoli Clark says, on your show, you've had self-made entrepreneurs,

dignified family men. Then there's this guy. This is why the majority of people know there's about to be a civil war. This guy is an embarrassment. We all need to get ready for a fight day by day. That's where it's going. You're an entrepreneur, right?

Yeah. Self-made entrepreneur. I think I was, if I wasn't the first, I was in the first group of people to quit their job and do online streaming full-time. If I wasn't the first one, I was in the group of the first people. Nice.

I was going to say something before when you mentioned that my audience was mostly conservative. I think the biggest bracket is actually libertarian types. There's probably- Consider that kind of conservative. There's probably an overlap, but I think they're- Do you know about the Jonathan Heitz research in World Foundations? No. What about it?

So originally there were five. Now they say there's six. They added liberty because they found libertarians have one moral foundation, liberty. But I'm probably going to miss them. There's care, fairness, sanctity, authority, and what is it? Loyalty? I think so, yeah. And liberty, I think.

Something like that. And liberals operate on two, care and fairness. They don't really register with the other four. And libertarians operate solely on liberty. So there's a big difference between – like libertarians and conservatives probably overlap on certain issues. But that's the big difference. I did an event. We did a survey and we found that like the biggest share was probably like moderate libertarian types.

Okay. A lot of Trump supporters, though. Like 30% or so. But then like the bigger, you know, was outside of that. Let's see. Andrew Bishop says, I'm in Australia and I know that people were kicked out and not let into some PA's voting stations to observe. Did he say he's in Australia? Yeah.

Okay. Known this since the election. Wow. That's horrible. Buffalo Bill says, how about the PA court changing voter law, not the legislature? Well,

oh, that was the Supreme Court ruling on, uh, what was that on, on the deadlines or whatever? I don't, yeah, I think that was the one case that they won,

right? Where they said it like this, you didn't have the authority to do this. If that's what he's referring to, I don't yeah I think that was the one case that they won right where they said it like this you didn't have the authority to do this if that's what he's referring to I don't remember the specific case but I know there was one where somebody tried to change a deadline that they didn't have the authority to do it wasn't over whether they should or shouldn't but it was they didn't have the authority to do that particular thing Tommy Allen says has he read the great reset plan it's awful you'd have to be

uneducated to think it's good lockdowns aside did you read the great reset at all what is the great reset plan the idea of making stuff more like green You'd have to be uneducated to think it's good. Lockdowns aside. Did you read The Great Reset at all? What is The Great Reset plan? Is it just the idea of making stuff more green-friendly? It probably would have been more fair if we actually pulled up and read through a lot of it. But it's very much like... It's like a 10-point plan. The problem that I have with a lot of grandiose stuff like that is that you can phrase a lot of that to sound good.

But these could be very different depending on how you implement them. So if somebody, for instance, says we have a plan to make buildings more energy efficient, one way to do that could be federal funds that reinforce or change the structure of buildings such that they're more energy efficient. Or it could be a $7,000 tax on every thing you can – there's many different ways. It could be mass conscription. Yeah, sure. To have the National guard do it the only reason i don't usually like like vague broad plans of like this is how we're gonna go green and it's like okay well show me like what you actually want to do like i don't care what your mission i like andrew

yang because of that he was very transparent well because he had one thing it was one thousand dollars a month right didn't he have like a huge uh government i know that he talked a lot about like automation and stuff at the one point that he hammered home all the time was the UBI stuff. Yeah, he got pigeonholed with the UBI. They say that you push Mongo. Is that true? Mongo? Mongo. Do you push Mongo? That's very offensive. Mango? I'm kidding. It's a skateboard thing. I'm so confused.

Someone said, Tim, don't worry. This guy pushes Mongo. What is Mongo? In skateboarding, Mongo is when you take your front foot off the board and push instead of your back foot off the board. Goofy? No, it's not Goofy. It's called Mongo. Goofy is when your right foot

is pointed forward. Regular is when your left foot is forward. Mongo is when in either position you take your front foot off so you essentially have the full end of the board with no foot on it. It's very improper and people are making a joke about it. Last night they were all over me.

I had to read it because I thought it was funny. So there are a lot of super chats where they don't like you. I'm not going to read all of them. Read as many as you want. I don't care. It's fine. I just want to get to more substantive points where people are just saying things like whatever. Let's see. Courtney Gray says,

Destiny, you are not bringing anyone over to your views views Vinegar versus honey If you want to change people's minds then lose the snark and ad hominem I don't think I snarked or ad homed That much in this conversation I thought it was okay There are definitely ones where I do more And there are definitely ones where I try to be more compromising

It really just depends on the audience With this audience I notice I don't want to be too general But when I start to dump on Trump If I just start to insult him People get really angry at the other stuff i say in the conversation if i don't trash trump i don't think that's true i've noticed it a trend because a lot of people that watch this show seem to love him well you're looking at the comments i look at the comment i'm talking about the text comments you know that's why a lot of the comments are making fun of me quite a bit as well especially now let's see dom d says love the show well like i like i mentioned on the on the trump

forum they're posting memes about me making fun of me you know i mean because i didn't get on board with the voter fraud stuff like to a hardcore degree like my it was really funny there's a uh the transparency tube thing does a tracking of who supports and opposes trump's view on uh on voter fraud and they had me listed for the most part as supporting his view and i was like whoa like that's not true and so i told him like you guys did you actually watch my videos and then they changed them to other like neither opposing or supporting i'm like there you go okay because i've i've i just said there's evidence here's the evidence is it proof no but we need to investigate it's not you know same position

let's see dom d says love the show i know this is a big ask but i would love to be on your show it's the most exciting time terrifying time for our country and i'd love to hash it out i message you on parlor tim please reach out also would like to help with future projects well i guess the issue is we always try to have guests that are um without being rude or anything i just just relevant to the certain like like to, you know, to something going on. I think in your instance, for one,

I think people were tweeting you at me and then I think you tweeted at me or whatever, but also we literally are going through this election period right now. I thought it'd be good to bring on. We also, we're going to be having a progressive political candidate coming on at some point. So it's been really interesting conversation.

This is the kind of stuff that I think is particularly relevant for what's going on right now. In the future, i'll probably have a rock star of some sort on or you know we'll see what happens whatever walking tour says not trusting either tim pool or destiny makes this better wish tim had been better he could have been the best but our gen uh the best of our gen but sold out licking trump yeah well there you know there you go hot super chats tonight spicy oh. Oh, yeah. My tongue's burning. Bernard Kim says, Tim, Occam's razor, destiny. It's complicated.

Some people are saying, sorry, Tim, tapping out. Only so much libtardness a man can take in one night. It is exhausting to witness libtards? No, no, no. Like cognitive dissonance. When you see things that oppose your worldview it actually

requires glucose to process it it seems like it is healthy and strengthens your mind to listen to conversations like this correct you by all means please hate both of us all three of us all four just don't trust i like that comment don't trust anyone here listen to it and then do your own research to figure out if it's real or not. That's right. Back to me. I need it. MW says, Tim, having a conversation doesn't mean bend over and let him run a train on you. Well, this is what I was saying. If you have an opinion and you're like,

in my opinion, Trump didn't do a good job, what am I supposed to say? Well, your opinion is wrong. You have an opinion. Okay, whatever. What am I going to... If you argue that... We're talking about Michael Flynn, for instance. That's what it's if you argue that like we're talking about michael flynn for instance okay that's where it's like well hold on let's talk about the facts but if you don't like what trump has done when i when i had vosh on it was like by what metric do

we gauge trump's job on the coronavirus because it's one president in one country and like this kind of it didn't happen in the united states a different time and countries are all different so it's either you like trump and you think he's doing a bad job and here's why, or you like Trump and you think he's a good job, here's why, or you hate him and he's doing a bad job, here's why, or there's a middle ground of some sort, whatever. MD Lego says, This conversation is a prime example of why civil strife is inevitable.

Neither side will concede even when presented contrary facts are proven wrong just to flack onto other and finger point. That's not true. In one instance, I'd say, actually, you're right on that. I should walk that back on time to be Sullivan. And we actually have been very calm in our disagreements. This is an excellent indication of there doesn't have to be any kind of conflict.

We're just chatting. Yeah, I know. I find it like friends hanging out, but we just happen to have cameras on. And that's the kind of point. And just for viewpoints. That's all, yeah. I think we probably have a couple of,

I think of core philosophical disagreements over yeah how to run things which probably is where a lot of our larger so for instance when you say you vote for yourself and not for other people that would probably be like a core philosophical agreement we'd have to hash out to truly like it's actually more nuanced than just to say like that yeah i'm sure because the foreign policy stuff clearly isn't for me sure of course but what i mean to say is like i can't vote based on what other people are thinking i don't know I can't vote for someone else. Yeah. So when I see a policy, I only know how it makes me feel and what I think.

And when it affects other people, I take issue with it. Sure. The health care stuff is like grandiose and confusing in a lot of ways. Yeah, I understand. Dropping bombs on foreign countries I think is kind of easier to understand, you know? Sure. I used to be like full universal health care. And then I started thinking maybe we should only cover like acute health but not chronic health because I feel like people are poisoning themselves with food.

And then they go to the hospital. And I got it. Why would I pay for someone else's poor dietary choices? But then there's things like type 1 diabetes where like genetic disorders that are chronic. So maybe certain types of chronic. It's unfortunately with health care. I say unfortunately. It'd be nice if there was like a merit-based way of covering certain people but you kind of have to just do

it all because it's really hard even with like type 2 diabetes some people are prone to it some people aren't with the same exact diet and lifestyle like i got we got a super chat i think we definitely got to read it says uh tribe and clan says great to hear destiny making excuses for violent rioters because orange man said something disagree with no humanity with this guy trump derangement at its finest i thought that was interesting because you got booted from the partner program on twitch for defending i've taken heat from both ends of this so my stance is so incredibly clear on this and i repeat it one more time if you want to write i support your ability to write to the ends of the earth if it's against public institutions writing against private individuals is that's just larceny

and burglary and theft and vandalism. I don't ever, ever, ever support that. One million percent. But people on the right tell me that I'm pro-writing against everybody. People on the left tell me I'm pro-hit squads destroying. I know, but like, my viewpoint, I think it's super easy. I've always had the same position on sub-defense. If you want to defend your property, that is your right. Like, it's one of the most important things. It's one of the most fundamental things is property rights and the ability to defend the stuff that you own. You train hours of your life. You trade hours of your life to acquire the stuff.

You can defend that. But, you know, if you want to go rioting against, like, a police station, these are public institutions funded by public money. They represent the government. It's a way more powerful message than just, like, blowing up a car dealership. I don't like the rioting. I think protests, whatever. The problem I have is just like violence against other people. Yeah.

It's a challenge, though, because at a certain point, like when I had Voshon, he mentioned, is political violence ever acceptable? Like, what about the Jews rising up against the Nazis? I'm like, for sure. I get it. You know what I mean? Like, yes, there is a point at which you have to fight back and defend yourself. There's also that we also have to acknowledge that political violence has to be a last option or near the lesser. Because otherwise you're in, you get into very weird areas very quickly.

You know, like, could I be violent against Republicans for, like, immigration policy if you are somebody that's impacted? Like, there's, like, a lot of stuff. And I think you can justify some of these. But it gets really weird if you start saying everyone should act on it. Because then we're basically all killing each other all the time for everything, you know? Mitch Stu says, everyone drink when destiny says he's the commander-in-chief a deflection from trump being one man facing american bureaucracy that one man is the head of our military aka the commander-in-chief so well i'll drink to that

check it out happy little tree says as a fan of tim pool and of destiny since the root days this might have been one of the best podcasts in a while thanks bold of you for doing this cool gotta make sure i read the what ones. What's the root? What's your race? I'd say half Cuban, half European. No, your StarCraft race. Oh, you're Zerg.

Vanessa Stoller says, I want this elite shill to go to Flint and tell them that trade agreements are good for them. Tell them their poverty is good so other countries can come out of poverty. What does it say? First, uh one ce he said this it was obvious once he said this it was obvious he is a cnn shill okay i mean like you can say the same i want you to go to other countries like in southeast asia that have been like gaining so much economic power because of the liberalization of trade between them and other countries and tell their global poor that like you guys don't matter you shouldn't have access to this stuff like go away like we're not going to trade with you anymore

like suffer in your own countries i mean like you can play that all day it's a nationalist versus internationalist view it's a dumb person versus an actual economic point of view the reality is is that trade agreements that's the snark trade agreements increase wealth for everybody broadly but some people are negatively impacted and those people have not been taken care of that's the problem if we do trade agreements we should do them but we need to take care of the people that get negatively impacted by them. We don't do a good job of doing that. Slagle Customs says the very beginning of COVID-19, Trump held a live interview with every single governor in the United States and discussed what they needed and who to contact

both in private and public sector and took suggestions to improve. He actually did get praise from Cuomo and Newsom and one other Democrat, I think, too. I can't remember which one. Maybe Murphy. They said that he was doing a great job in helping him out. It was tremendous. Yeah. In regards to some specific things, I believe Cuomo was Newsom. And one other Democrat, I think, too. I can't remember which one. Maybe Murphy. They said that he was doing a great job in helping them out. And it was tremendous. Yeah. In regards to some specific things, I believe Cuomo was specifically talking about getting equipment from the federal government in terms of PPE and like ventilators and stuff. I think he did say like, yeah, this was good that they were able to supply us with that.

Jeremy Landry says, Destiny, I disagree with a lot. I disagree with a lot of what you said tonight. But thank you so much for coming onto the show and exposing me to your arguments. Yes, indeed. That's what it's all about man expose myself anywhere you want me to final why Kayser says

I love Ian he's the best even if I disagree sometimes he's a solid genuine dude that's great gotta read the positive ones too because it's like brainwashing everybody

up there yeah man thanks dude neon noir says tim pool don't you dare skip this destiny you're a beta male good one i had to read it he told me i had to okay you have to i mean you can't yeah uh lauren says nice to see destiny on your show tim best two worst shows on youtube are america first steve franson tim cast destiny stephen crowder david packman voshosh, Shapiro, TYT. Oh, best to worst. TYT on the bottom list. Wait, where was I on that list?

You're actually right next to me. In third or fourth? Fourth, and I'm in third. Behind somebody whose first place was Nick Fuentes' show? Yeah. So it shows you. Wow, but that person holds you in decent esteem. That's great. Look at that mix. I like that. America First and Shapiro geez all right let's see what a broad media consumption you kind of look like

seamus coglan do you know he does freedom tunes i don't know not really kind of look like seamus tommy allen says you want a ussf officer to come on and chat about anything not against the ucmj especially conspiracies i'd wreck ian wait wait tell me that again whoa whoa what the gauntlet's been thrown a ussf officer to come on and chat about anything not against the ucmj i don't know these things i wish i knew what those letters stood for google it look it up all right all right we'll take uh we'll take one more and then it's like 11 40 so we really went long irish man says if there was no government intervention in health care it would be cheap and easy like mcdonald's because it was the cheapest and best in the world in 1950s before insurance insurance is the problem jesus christ educate

yourselves think i i brought that up that was the argument so here's something from a from a computer programmer perspective okay from somebody that's absolutely not a programmer okay anytime you go to make a new project the number one question you always ask yourself, and anybody that, and I know there are a lot of programmers, the first thing you ask is, has this been done before? Because you do not reinvent the wheel on anything. Business owners will do this. Anybody that's starting any kind of business,

what you do is you find out, okay, well, what works? And then, hey, if this works, copy it. Because if I'm going to pay somebody hours to work on something, I'm not going to pay you to do something that somebody else has already done for me. Why would I do that? When it comes to healthcare, every single other OECD country in the world has some form of at least multi-payer system, except for like, I'm not going to pay you to do something that somebody else has already done for me. Why would I do that? When it comes to healthcare, every single other OECD country in

the world has some form of at least multi-payer system, except for like, I think like Switzerland, there's like one other country that doesn't, one really small country, or like Luxembourg, I don't know. But like everybody else does this. It seems to work exceedingly well for most people. If you look at how much money we spend, we spend so much more than everybody else, and we don't have outcomes to show for it. It's horrible. Like, I just, like, we can try to theorize like the optimal healthcare system or whatever, but, like, why not just copy what it tells us? We do have better technology, better access, better treatments.

The only reason— Technology, yes. Access, no. The reason we don't have universal healthcare is because the insurance industries are predatory and they're bribing politicians. It is simplistic, but it's also Occam's razor. It's so obvious that the resistance that's generated by those people— In Europe, they had people dying in the streets after World War II and had no choice. but it's also Occam's razor it's so obvious that the resistance that's generated by those people

in Europe they had people dying in the streets after World War II and had no choice in the US we've built a complete function of like 22% or whatever

of our economy but it's like $22,000 for an emergency room I know very specifically after World War II we also tied healthcare

to our jobs and that was a stupid thing really really horrible thing as well I don't know anybody that's had a friend I had a friend growing up that worked at McDonald's and he was a slave to them forever because he was a type 1 diabetic, and he can't leave because of the preexisting.

What are they? It's like neo-feudalism, essentially. Basically, yeah, because I can't get my health care through them. I can't leave. That's why I think EpiPens and insulin, two really good examples of things that should be cheaper. And that's why I think base- coverage, I'd be totally down for. There's, man, you know what it also comes down to with things like healthcare is,

it's a massive, massive system with millions of jobs tied into it. Yeah, the NHS in the UK is huge, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not so easy to be like, can we jump this entire system and move it over to like a national system? So for me, I usually just sit back and say like,

I can't answer these questions for you. That's one of the reasons why I like things like for instance like a medicare or medicaid expansion because we take something that already works that most people seem to like quite a bit and then you just open that up to more and more people or give them the opportunity to join and then turn that into some form of i don't like i don't like the progressives abolishing private health care no that's the dumbest thing in the world but they lost on that hard yeah they fought for that during the primary season and they lost heart even though they're all crying about it on twitter saying because nobody does that the the okay let, and they lost heart, even though they're all crying about it on Twitter saying- Because nobody does that.

Okay, let me be very, very, very, very, very clear. The medical, the health insurance program that Bernie Sanders was suggesting would have been the most extreme healthcare plan in any country in the world. It was not what Europe does. It wasn't what Canada does. It was the borrowing of private insurance, even from things like dental and medical. Nobody in the world does that. It would have been the most left-leaning plan possible. Those crazy far leftists, huh?

Yeah. Anyway, all right. He did the big ask so that he could get a little less. Sure he did. Sure he did. Maybe. Yeah. Good job there.

Destiny, thanks for coming out and hanging out. This has been fun. We always go extra long when there's more, I guess, adversarial elements to an extent not like i think we're screaming at each other like that but uh thanks for hanging out do you want to mention your your now uh partner your band yeah you can uh follow my channel on twitch.tv slash destiny or i am youtube.com slash destiny pretty easy to find wow you have youtube become slash destiny yeah and i have instagram.com slash destiny wow i'm sure uh the destiny video

game is probably shaking their fist at you oh snap it was easier for them to just call themselves destiny the game on everything yeah every now and then somebody will stumble into the oh because i have also the subreddit reddit.com slash our social destiny people come in and be like hey i need help getting through like the hunter's crucible pretty sure that's the you've had it for a while right like nine years or something so i'm pretty sure that's how i found out about you in the first place because i was playing destiny and i'm like what is this guy? What is I'm trying to figure out how to beat you know? Quick horrible story on my website if you go to destiny you can subscribe directly to me because that's the way the future What is it destiny GG? That's a GG. Yes. I had a I woke up one day and I went downstairs

I had like 20 people had messaged me and they were like dude you need to help this guy like he's in huge trouble say What's going on and I go into my chat and some guy is throwing a temperature he's got a purple name meaning he did the max level subscription he's like 40 a month and what had happened was this guy came into my chat and he was asking questions like how do i get through this like dungeon or raid and everybody in the chat started telling me if you want official tips from bungee you have to do the maximum level subscription and he did it everyone in chat was making fun of him for it because this guy just paid like 40 bucks or whatever yeah that's funny that's terrible oh man

friends we will be back tomorrow at 8pm and I don't normally announce a guest but it's going to be Luke again and we're going to have a good time

just because I know he's here he's not going anywhere so make sure to follow me on Twitter, Instagram, Parler at TimCast check out my other channels YouTube.com slash TimCast and YouTube.com slash TimCast News

we do the show live Monday through Friday at 8pm we're also on all the different podcast platforms so check us out on iTunes Spotify etc and don't forget to follow the other people

who are in the room we got Ian yes follow me follow me everywhere let's to the ends of the earth that's a world of that's a Warcraft 3 Arthas said that

to Malganis oh that's sad yeah you can follow me anywhere and everywhere to the ends of the earth at Ian Crossland and of course you can follow at anywhere and everywhere to the ends of the earth at Ian Crossland. And of course, you can follow at Sour Patch Lids. You can if you want to.

Sour Patch Lids, L-Y-D-S. And we will be back tomorrow night. Thanks for hanging out. And we will see you all then. Bye, guys. Thank you.