You have a lot of politicians on the Democrat
side who got behind authoritarian practices during COVID.
I'm not going to support those individuals,
but the authoritarian practices today,
you're willing to look past
some of them,
yes.
Come on,
man.
The mainstream political left commits more
violence than the mainstream political right.
None of what you're saying makes any sense.
It sounds like you're honestly grifting a lot.
You can say that.
Let me ask you a question every fucking year and it doesn't happen,
and I never,
it just hasn't happened yet.
Do you want me to get you a soapbox?
It's really I can leave.
You want me,
I'm really easy to do what you do.
It's really easy to do what you do.
Is the United States.
Tracking towards civil war
or is America more united than it seems?
Hi everyone,
I'm Paris Rose and I'll be filling in for John today
from Jubilee Media.
This is Surrounded,
where one brave soul faces a room full of disagreers.
Today we're debating which political party is more violent
is authoritarianism on the rise in America
and have both parties abandoned their oath to the Constitution?
I'm here with our future guest,
moderate political commentator
Tim Poole.
Hi,
I'm Tim Poole.
I'm the host of Timcast IRL and today I'm surrounded by progressives.
My first surrounded claim
is that the mainstream left commits more violence than the mainstream right.
If you'd like to be the first debater,
get to the chair in 321.
How's it going?
Great to meet you,
buddy.
How you doing?
Pretty good,
pretty good.
There seems to be like a broader implication
with your prompt that there's this domestic threat
from mainstream left politicians.
Like,
do you really think Hillary Clinton's like leading the Vanguard Revolution Party?
Like,
no,
what,
what is your take?
When you look at the violence that we do see.
Uh,
there's,
it's,
uh,
from,
I,
I describe it as from blunt to acute,
which is
with the fringe extreme right you'll see extreme,
uh,
mass shootings.
You'll see,
you know,
someone will show up and unload on people,
things like that.
On the left though,
you'll see riots,
vandalism that you don't see from the right,
but.
The point I'm making is that when you break down
the ideology that motivates individuals that commit political violence,
there is more,
more often an overlap between what the Democratic Party espouses ideologically
and what we see in street level violence,
as well as maybe assassinations.
What is is what the Republicans would espouse.
I mean,
I couldn't disagree more.
What,
what ideologies that the Democratic Party is promoting
that leads to these types of violence.
Anytime you see an act of violence that's typically attributed to the left,
it is immediately condemned by every Democrat.
Politician.
You couldn't point to one that actually endorses that
where you have somebody like Donald Trump who's
literally the president of the United States saying that
we should call for the death of congressional members
who are fulfilling their civic duty and saying,
hey,
maybe you shouldn't,
uh,
fulfill illegal orders if you're in the military,
and Donald Trump's asking for them to be put to death.
How is that not inciting to violence?
No,
that is,
that's absolutely terrifying.
I completely disagree with that.
My,
my point more so is that when you see,
say,
uh,
the George Floyd or the BLM riots.
You end up with,
uh,
Biden and Kamala themselves promoting fundraisers
for those accused of committing these crimes
during which crimes,
which crimes could you point to?
So in Minnesota you had,
uh,
there was famously there was a firefighter who opened a sports bar.
It was burned down.
In fact,
when the,
uh,
local news went to interview him.
About his dream bar being burnt to the ground,
it was ransacked.
I don't think it was burnt to the ground.
They,
uh,
while they're filming the story,
there were people looting a safe and stealing it.
Well,
I think that there's absolutely a big
difference between a lot of the private buildings
or private enterprises that were targeted versus
like public institutions like the police precinct.
Like
you're somebody who I've seen the iconography on your show,
you're,
you're a big patriotic guy.
Love 1776,
right?
That wasn't the most peaceful way that we had,
you know,
criticizing our government or saying that tyranny
shouldn't exist with the Revolutionary War,
but I will say on before they signed,
I will say,
I will say that the police precincts,
that the same people who committed a brutal murder
using state violence in order to justify that,
we,
I think we can understand why people would rightfully be,
be mad without any accountability control
of the police department in Minneapolis.
That that is not the central,
first of all,
we're talking about the mainstream political left,
which politicians are endorsing that type of
ever said politicians were endorsing it.
Then what's the mainstream left?
So you have
activists
whose ideology aligns with politicians who are you say
that those activists identify with the Democratic Party,
the ones that are committed by the Democratic Party because let me tell you,
the,
the leftists that you could talk to,
not the biggest fans of the Democratic Party Party in favor of Black Lives Matter.
I,
I would say yeah,
I,
I'd say even most moderates,
I'd say actual moderates,
not,
not right leaning conservatives who claim to be moderates riots.
Usually those people also agree that police violence is something
that should be the riots Black Lives Matter motivated?
They were motivated
by Black Lives Matter.
So that ideology is espoused by,
so my point is Black Lives Matter is not encouraging violence.
Black Lives Matter is recognizing systemic inequality where they were,
they were telling people to go be violent.
I'm saying that there are violent individuals
and with the riots,
a lot of them,
which we've seen,
can you tell me how about this,
Chris?
Tell me who Chris Wray is.
Do you know who Chris Wray is?
Explain it to me.
Well,
you,
you have a show talking about politics every day.
I would think that you know,
but Chris Wray was the former,
let's not,
let's not do this.
If you have a point to make,
let's make a point.
Let's not try and play these games.
So Chris Wray was the former FBI director under Donald Trump's first term.
He said that
he even agreed with the findings from both the congressional research session
that
right-wing violence is way more proliferate
in this country than left-wing violence.
That's not,
that's not meaningful to a voter.
Let me explain.
The Republican Party rejects neo-Nazism,
correct?
No,
Donald Trump invited Nick Fuentes to have dinner with him,
with Kanye West.
So tell me one politician who went out and campaigned for the neo-Nazi vote.
Uh,
I'm blanking on his name,
but Gawzer,
uh,
Gozar,
and that,
is that a main Arizona view in this,
in this country?
Well,
we could talk about Gozar,
we could talk about Matt Gates.
We could talk about Gates.
I'm not endorsing neo-Nazism,
and Donald Trump said you kidding me?
Nazis should be condemned entirely.
No,
he is literally partnering with the America First movement.
He was a America and neo-Nazism are totally different,
bro.
So you don't think neo,
do you think Nick Fuentes is a neo-Nazi?
Oh,
I forgot you've had him on your show.
Oh my God,
I would literally forget.
I wouldn't describe Nick Fuentes as a neo-Nazi.
You don't think that Nick Fuentes celebrating
Adolf Hitler is not neo-Nazi adjacent.
I think you have to be very specific on what your terms are.
And so when you go to an American voter and say something like,
this is our moderate,
by the way,
everybody,
this is our moderate indeed.
Keep going.
So
when you go to a regular American and ask them
what is meaningful to them in terms of an election.
You don't have Democrats or Republicans endorsing violence,
but you also don't have,
uh,
Charlie Kirk's a good example.
He threw out Nick Fuentes,
he threw out white identitarians,
white nationalists from his events.
They were not welcome.
That's mainstream.
You don't have riots coming from.
The Republican Party and the right,
although you do have January 6th and things like that.
When you take a look at the,
say,
the shootings of the Tesla facilities,
the execution of Aaron Danielson,
the assassination of Charlie Kirk,
and
one of the attempted assassinations on Donald Trump,
not the,
not the Pennsylvania one.
You can see the underlying ideologies overlap with the Democratic Party.
When you take a look at like Nick Fuentes,
he's opposed to the Republican Party.
He's actively,
he's been actively endorsing Democrats right now.
He's been saying that the Republican Party is too left for him.
It's not that he's opposed to the Republican Party in principle.
This is literally my point.
Nick Fuentes comes out and says,
do not vote for Trump.
The mainstream Republican Party is at odds with these people.
No,
again.
You're looking at all of the empirical data,
the violence is way more on the right.
So you can say what your feelings are.
You can say that feeling nor the claim.
It is not meaningful to a voter to say
we don't like neo-Nazis and white supremacists
because the Republican Party is not saying
they want to say let's be objective of where the violence is coming from,
and if it's more substantially coming from the right,
that is a problem that needs to be tackled coming from Charlie Kirk.
OK,
we're not talking about Charlie Kirk,
we're talking about the overall ideologies.
In fact,
we're not.
So you're telling me,
you're telling me that the prioritization of hierarchies,
both ethnic,
both cultural,
that is not a dangerous ideology,
but something like BLM that says,
hey,
maybe we should take back police violence,
maybe you should have accountability for people who are
in charge of certain aspects of our nation,
committing violence on citizens,
those are absolutely completely different ideologies.
Apologies
and the fact that you're saying it is more motivating
for violence that the left wing is encouraging people to take
those that are committing violence accountable in the last 10 years
there have been over 465 incidents of left motivated political violence
that aligns with the Democratic Party,
and there's been one
on the Republican side,
which is January 6th,
which,
which admittedly is particularly egregious.
January 6th was that's why we talk about blunt versus acute.
Now the problem is I already know what all you're gonna say.
You're gonna cite FBI stats and Cato,
but it's not meaningful to me or any voter
to tell me why white supremacists are
violent because I don't like white supremacists,
nor will I vote for them.
And more importantly,
you bring up Nick Fuentes.
He is not aligned with Republicans and he's advocated against them.
And I think,
I think for somebody who don't like him,
I think for somebody who has a political show
where you talk about this stuff every day,
you are completely misreading the conversation
when you're saying that those that are engaged in like civil disobedience or like.
I'm not talking about voters.
You're,
you're telling me that those people are
canvassing for Democratic politician said that,
which is actually not true,
absolutely in favor of canvassing.
I'm in favor of,
uh,
protesting.
I'm saying that you're,
I'm not saying that you're against that.
I'm saying don't try and frame my argument
like I'm upset with protests because I've defended,
I've defended Black Lives Matter blocking streets.
I've defended left aligned progressive groups like uh
anti-capitalist groups blocking streets and environmental groups.
I stand with civil disobedience and I've defended them every single time.
If you want to block.
A road,
there's what is it that you're saying is more violent on the left.
You mentioned Black Lives Matter.
You mentioned these.
Let's talk about uh the Tesla facilities being unloaded upon or shot up,
right?
These are motivated by an ideology that you will hear from Elizabeth Warren.
Now,
of course,
she's not telling people to shoot anybody,
but she is coming out saying Elon Musk is a dangerous threat to this country.
And then you end up with someone going and pulling a rifle up and shooting up a Tesla.
It's when you understand that the right always says politicians.
Are not responsible for individual actions.
Elizabeth Warren saying,
hey,
maybe we should have the same sort of economic policies they have in Scandinavia.
That is not her encouraging,
go shoot up a Tesla facility where Donald Trump's saying,
let's hang the people.
Let's hang the people who encourage
those in the military to actually fulfill their duties.
That is completely my claim is not that the
right is completely the leader of the Republican Party,
my dear.
I to say that these are equivocal at all
is completely condemn 100% what Donald Trump said,
calling for the death of those politicians.
We have to move on.
Great to meet you,
Tim.
Likewise.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
get to the chair in 321.
Hello.
Hi.
What I find really interesting is the whole premise of
like the Occupy Wall Street movement was to protest,
right?
It was specifically geared towards making sure that
the general public
was understanding the situation at the time,
which had a lot to do with anti-capitalist,
um,
motives,
right?
And so when we're talking about who's more violent
than who we have to be very specific that.
The violence that is uh recorded in the data
is not ideological violence.
It's not this like rhetoric.
It has to be evidentiary.
So
if you're going to say like,
oh,
Black Lives Matter,
um,
and any leftists uh that are associated with that are automatically violent,
that's just not the case and but that's what you're implying I'm.
that
when you have riots in this country,
overwhelmingly,
the underlying ideology aligns with the mainstream left ideology of this country.
But what you're saying
in your prompt
that you wrote
is that
the left is more violent than the right.
The mainstream political left commits more
violence than the mainstream political right,
right,
the mainstream.
And what I'm trying to tell you is that.
The data is not showing that that is the actual evidence.
If you're talking,
no,
it doesn't 775/10 years,
75 to 80%
of violence,
actual violence that is being tracked
as domestic terrorism
comes from the right.
It's white supremacist groups and white supremacists are not,
uh,
in,
in a large political party getting voted for.
Yes they are.
The Republican Party
is a very largely right wing.
It is very far right.
If you,
but they're not white supremacists,
nor would,
nor are the Americans voting for Republican Party because
they want white supremacy Make America Great Again means?
I think it means making the economy improve.
I think it means
building our cultural institutions.
Well,
you can according to what time?
According to what time?
I'll give you that.
Probably the 80s
because Trump's an old man.
I,
I would,
I would say the 90s seriously doubt he meant the 80s.
He's much older than the 80s.
Well,
your,
your interpretation of
Donald Trump's opinions is separate from
when we see a riot,
what is motivating the riot,
when we sees an assassination policies,
don't they?
Indeed,
and nobody,
no one,
no one here is making the claim that Donald Trump is innocent,
nor
does he not.
have individuals who you're attempting to make a claim that his
type of ideology that leads his policy is not nearly as violent
as the left,
how many riots have there been largely anti-capitalist,
which is largely anti-fascist.
None of what you're saying makes any sense.
It sounds like you're honestly grifting a lot.
How many,
how many Republican riots have there been?
Um,
I don't know the exact number,
but what are you classifying as a riot?
What?
Because if you're completing protesting with rioting,
that's a very different thing.
No,
we're talking specifically about people
ransacking Tesla facilities,
vehicles,
charging stations.
You're so obsessed with the Tesla thing.
Why don't we actually talk about,
I think it might be.
I don't a rifle and I don't shooting is like investing in your company or something,
but let's like remove the Tesla out of it.
That has nothing to do with what your actual prompt is saying.
No,
that's actually what is.
No,
it sounds a lot like then you're arguing something decided no,
you're arguing something else because it sounds like you went from somebody who
was doing really important work in Occupy Wall Street to then grifting all.
All the way to defending the far right people,
that's crazy.
What was the important work?
What important work?
You said,
in terms of Occupy Wall Street,
I,
I think,
you know,
in terms of that movement,
I thought it was,
um,
it,
it was one of the first times in our generation that we were able to see
an actual organization against capital.
Can I ask you how old you are?
No,
you cannot ask me how were you politically active during Occupy Wall Street?
Yes,
I was.
Did you follow the news about me during during Occupy Wall Street?
Uh,
not specifically,
and the news was that Occupy denounced the violence.
I had filmed leftists deflating police tires who physically attacked me,
and I was attacked by a masked individual smacking my camera out of his hand.
Occupy Wall Street vendetta for you then gave me indeed,
if you're taking,
if you're getting emotional about this and you don't want to have an argument,
that's fine.
Do I look emotional?
You do because you don't know what happened during Occupy.
And your argument is off because you don't.
This honestly sounds like you have a personal vendetta from your
history that has absolutely nothing with what your actions prompted,
which is around far right people being much more violent than the left.
We have to pause.
Love the passion,
but pause.
All right.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please get to the chair in 321.
You got it.
Nice to meet you.
How's it going?
Good.
I think we should just get to the heart of it.
Donald Trump is a fascist.
He has Nazis in his administration,
his entire messaging
was resonating with Nazis from the very beginning.
Donald Trump,
when rallying for 2024,
had a massive rally in Madison Square Garden.
What was the significance of that rally?
You tell me.
Yeah,
it's the same place,
same date as the Nazis
in the 1940s.
Literally.
Um,
Donald Trump said that,
uh,
immigrants are poisoning the blood of America.
In their varmint.
Who also said that?
You tell me.
Hitler.
Literally,
Donald Trump has openly
said things as dog whistles.
So you may say that it's not mainstream,
but the entire ideology of the right
speaks to those people.
Let me ask you,
what,
what do you mean by fascist?
Uh,
far-right,
authoritarian,
ultra-nationalistic,
14 tens of fascism,
all that.
But there's a specific definition of fascist.
Do you just mean that
he's,
he's an authoritarian?
No,
I mean that he meets all 14 tenets of fascism,
fascism,
which is what.
Do you want to go through all 14 points.
I don't.
I,
I'm trying to understand your argument,
but so,
so my point largely is we see people say Trump is a fascist,
but there's,
you know,
if,
if you go to,
if you go to an academic and you look at fascism,
say Italy,
there,
there's a common argument that you have the,
the,
the merger of corporate corporation and state as the defining
element of what fascism is.
There's different forms of fascism,
right?
And the actual premise is the authoritarian.
Donald Trump is absolutely a fascist,
he's,
uh,
like I said,
he has Nazis in his administration.
I think we're shifting,
um,
Pete Hesset.
How,
how is Heck and literally has a proud Nazi tattoo on his chest.
Stephen Miller is absolutely a Nazi.
Stephen Miller does not have a Nazi tattoo on his chest.
That's,
yeah,
no,
he does not have.
He has a Catholic cross on his chest.
OK.
All right,
cool.
Um,
I mean,
guys,
look,
I,
I went to Catholic school when I was little.
I left,
I left in 5th grade.
Pete Hegseth is not a Nazi.
Yeah,
that's that,
OK,
cool.
Um,
question for you.
When Donald Trump and his
administration specifically actually implement policies
that go at the heart of what Nazis want,
like,
targeting
the first group of people they targeted was the transgender community,
same thing as the Nazi.
The,
the actual Nazis specifically targeted
people that weren't like them.
There's been a persistent and consistent attack on undocumented immigrants,
black people,
women,
anyone that's not a straight white male in America.
My,
my,
uh,
principal claim is not that Donald Trump is innocent,
nor perfect nor good.
My claim is that when you look at street level violence,
domestic terror,
etc.
you'll,
you'll find more violence coming from the mainstream
left as opposed to the mainstream right.
Because I do think it's fair to point out white supremacists are violent,
they do evil and horrible things,
and we all,
we all condemn that.
The white supremacists are a part of the mainstream right.
Oh,
they're not.
They,
they literally are.
There's no circumstance where you can go on TV.
Thank you.
You can return to your seat.
You've been voted out.
Nice meeting you.
Alright,
if you'd like to be the next debater,
please get to the chair in 321.
How's it going?
That was,
that was an easy grab.
You're right there.
So
the first thing I'll say is I think it's
a bit disingenuous to characterize any of the,
all of the property damage committed during BLM as
left-wing violence because there are gonna be rogue opportunists,
opportunists during the biggest civil rights protests in American history.
That's first and foremost.
Um,
the second thing I would,
I would like to say is
I don't think it makes sense to confine political violence strictly.
In the context of individuals acting with political motive violently,
I think it ignores institutional violence.
Theoretically,
you could say the 1960s,
uh,
civil rights movement was more violent than the,
uh,
counter protesters,
but
obviously the institutional violence
of segregation,
right?
So,
so what I would say is that the Republican Party is,
um,
and the mainstream political right is far more violent
because they support.
Uh,
ICE ripping and separating families from one another,
even from people who have no criminal background.
Uh,
you know,
ICE deaths under ICE custody has skyrocketed even as a matter of parade,
war abroad,
etc.
But domestic,
I,
I'd love to talk the war stuff.
I'm a sure,
you know,
a big foreign policy guy,
but,
uh,
domestically,
did this not happen during,
uh,
Barack Obama's administration?
Uh,
it did,
but not to the same extent.
And,
but,
and he,
and Barack Obama was criticized for it by who,
the political left.
Agreed.
So my point is not to say again that there's no violence on the right,
uh,
and I think the institutional argument is actually a good one.
However,
I,
my,
my view largely is when you look at Occupy Wall Street,
for which I was there and I watched police instigate fights,
or when I was,
I was on the ground during the,
uh,
the,
the protests in,
uh,
on West Florissant Avenue,
and I saw police throw a flash bang grenade
at protesters who were not doing anything violent.
The issue is these police are under Democrat administrations still where their,
their chiefs are often appointed by Democrat politicians.
So again,
I understand the
the left and progressives.
That to me is also a little disingenuous because it's not as though the police,
as a matter of its institution is a left wing institution.
No,
in fact,
usually the police are protecting and on the other side
of left wing the protesters that IC under Trump,
I'll make the argument of police under the Democrats,
sir.
Well,
I,
I don't know.
Well,
the
Which is it does law enforcement defer to their,
to their politicians or not?
It,
it,
it depends with because ICE is an executive agency.
They,
they do,
and the police department in Minneapolis is under the Democrats.
Yes,
right.
And we all agree that there's problems there,
but they're criticized and often on the other end of,
of left wing protesters.
So for instance,
the protest against ICE here in Los Angeles,
it's usually against left wing.
So what is it,
left on left violence?
Is that what you're claiming?
You think,
you think police protesting against,
uh.
Or committing violence against left wing protesters,
that's left on left violence,
really?
Yes,
I think that's,
I think that's ridiculous and absurd.
The police who live in these cities tend to tend,
they,
they tend to be more moderate,
but they're not hard conservatives.
But is the institution is the policing as an institution,
particularly left wing institution in New York?
Well,
I,
I define a left-wing institution.
Exactly.
What I would say is
Democrat politicians are the ones appointing these police chiefs
and these administrations who are enacting these policies.
But are they so when you're voting for someone.
One
into office.
This is not conservatives doing it.
It's not mainstream right wingers putting in police that beat protesters.
But who,
but who politically supports the police as a matter of their
rhetoric and ideology,
the right or the left,
right,
but the right,
the right doesn't live in these places,
yeah,
but nor do they appoint these people.
Sure,
but don't,
don't tell me that ICE under Donald Trump,
but not police under Democratic politicians.
Hold on.
The left doesn't appoint,
also doesn't appoint protesters who commit
random acts of violence against property.
That's not my argument.
I know,
I know.
But what you earlier you were making the case that
it's the ideology that motivates what these rioters are doing,
and that's the reason why the left is ultimately responsible.
The underlying ideology is overlapping with the Democratic Party.
Sure.
And so what I'm saying is that if you want to be consistent,
the underlying ideology that supports the police and as,
as a matter of institution,
and when the police are cracking down on left wing protesters,
that's overwhelmingly on the side of conservatives,
except they're not in very large in these places and you're applying a locality.
To the nation,
they may not make sense.
They,
they may not be like technically in police in power are not motivated by the
Republican Party to go out under a Democratic mayor to arrest protesters.
The problem is that this,
the police is still,
as a matter of institution is more of a right wing institution than a left,
certainly even,
even on the other side of,
but the point is a police officer who goes out in New York
and arrests a protester does so at the best of a Democratic politician.
I,
I don't,
I don't think it's true.
You've been voted out by the majority.
Please you.
Alright,
if you'd like to be the next debater,
please get to the chair in 321.
What's up young man?
Listen,
oh yeah,
I haven't been young for a minute.
No,
slow down with that.
Listen,
I think it's,
it's,
uh,
really quick that I condemn,
I condemn,
I condemn is a really cheap cop out.
That's not gonna work.
It's because the people around us are not low IQ like your average viewer.
It's important to recognize,
make an argument.
So I'm,
I'm about to.
You don't have one,
is that it?
If you want,
you wanna be insults,
we can go for insults and I'm just,
I'm about to,
we can wrap.
I'm about to wrap.
Stop delaying my time.
So it's important to recognize that a simply I condemn is
not sufficient when the Republican Party has created a permission structure
for individuals to go out and do violence against,
I'm about to tell you with impunity.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a good example.
Trump administration.
The Trump,
they electoral process,
you know,
they lost in the courts 10,000 times,
right?
That's not true.
It is true.
But actually released a report on it.
Yeah,
they lost 10,000 times it would be like 1000.
They murdered numerous American citizens,
and guess what happened to the individuals that carried out those killings?
What happened to them?
Have they been prosecuted?
Any
investigations,
do you know?
I,
I believe they have not.
Why?
It's almost as if when you commit violence,
you're wrong,
you're going to be protected.
That's what's going on.
That's why Christine No went out and said that Alex Freddy was a domestic terrorist.
That's why Stephen Miller said the same thing,
and everybody in the entire Republican Party
apparatus is echoing those talking points,
because whenever there's violence,
they,
they don't condemn it.
They condone it.
They,
they congratulate it,
and they pardon it.
Law enforcement's duly elected by a by a population that voted in
plurality for ICE to go out and engage in these behaviors citizens,
which sometimes,
yes,
absolutely.
And oh,
they voted for ICE to kill American citizens,
really?
Yes.
Do you,
do you,
the,
the average Republican,
I don't think they're that who said the average Republican would vote,
but do you not believe that there are people in
this country that would vote for ICE to harm people?
Is that your,
is this your argument?
Do you believe this is terrible.
So you think not a single person in this country wants to harm illegal irrelevance.
We're talking about the fact that there is
a top-down approach by Republicans like Donald Trump.
Can I ask you the question again?
Can you?
Can you answer the question and allow it to happen,
foment violence in.
Can you,
can you answer you're running cover for it.
Can you can you actually,
you just did.
No,
I didn't.
See,
I'm,
I'm pointing at ICE violence.
You're saying that people vote for it or whatever.
You don't think that there are white supremacists
voting for ICE to go and harm migrants.
Are you saying that white supremacists voted for
Donald Trump so they could kill migrants?
Yes,
I am.
OK,
good to know that white supremacists make up part of
the Republican Party and Donald Trump's doing their bidding.
Yes,
I,
I certainly believe they do.
OK.
The initial claim that I'm making is that there is absolutely violence on the right.
I already agree with one of the previous debaters
that there's institutional violence from the right as well.
The best argument against my.
actually is that the right when they get levers of power,
will use law enforcement
as their as their vehicle for the violence that they want to engage in.
Those things are all fair.
My point is that we are not seeing a nice long drawn out concession.
Thank you for,
but it's not a concession because maybe,
maybe we agree.
Oh,
OK.
See,
I,
I think,
didn't you say the modern political left
commits more violence than modern political right?
So now you're saying just because
there are riots coming from the left does not mean they're morally right
or wrong or does not mean the right is better or worse.
This is a statement about volume of violence that
we see and a meaningful issue to a voter
as to what is the underlying motivation that we see pushing
violence in this country.
So when you have ICE going out and engaging in these actions,
this is like a Clarence Thomas level of interpretation with that prompt.
That is not what I,
I,
I don't know why you're trying so hard
to disagree when we actually have common ground.
Pause,
we are out of time.
Thank you.
Nicotine,
the ultimate biohacker's secret weapon,
has made a wild comeback.
But why is that clean lifestyle still fueled by big tobacco's chemical laden slop?
For those who switch out LEDs for incandescence,
source raw milk,
and read every single label,
it's time to stop compromising.
Introducing
Knick Knack,
the nicotine solution that actually complements a clean routine.
This family owned company
manufactures a superior nicotine lozenge
right here
in the USA.
Affectionately known as a lip brick,
this fully dissolvable option is crafted with just 6 premium ingredients,
including real essential oils for authentic flavor.
There are no pH adjusters,
no plastic pouches,
and absolute.
no waste.
Available in 3
and 6 mg strengths,
this is nicotine perfected.
Reject the compromise and raise the standard.
Go to knickknack.com/surrounded and use code surrounded for 20% off
or use the store locator to find knickknacks near you.
Warning,
this product contains nicotine.
Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
My next surrounded claim is that the Democratic Party
has embraced authoritarianism.
If you'd like to be the first debater,
please get to the chair in 321.
Uh,
that was fast.
Nice to meet you.
Let's start off not by,
oh God,
don't make me defend Republicans,
but let's,
let's go.
Let's go.
All right,
let's talk about authoritarianism.
What does an authoritarian government do?
So it's typically,
and,
and particularly in my claim,
it's a reference to suppression of dissent,
suppression of speech,
uh,
control of voting or manipulation of voting for the power,
uh,
for the,
uh,
let's just call it,
uh,
control by a particular group of politically or claims one at a time,
yeah,
first on suppression of.
Speech indeed just a few hours ago today,
Trump subpoenaed reporters
for trying to report accurate information on the war in Iran.
He said no,
that can't happen.
Awful.
That's way more authoritarian than what we're seeing on the left here.
Well,
I mean,
if it's,
it's hard to quantify what is more or less authoritarian,
but certainly bad when when President Trump is trying to stifle speech.
Wait,
can you,
do you want any example of Biden doing anything even comparable to that?
I can.
We can start with Alex Berenson,
who is currently in a lawsuit because the Biden.
Administration personally went to social media platforms
using his name to be suspended
for his reporting on COVID vaccination and and and mandates.
OK,
at a top level though,
who's doing the majority of the like
actual suppression of speech here?
I,
I don't really have good words for the Republican Party,
to be honest.
My,
my,
my issue with this debate is,
is in fact what we're seeing right now is that
I'll make a claim about the Democratic Party which has done awful things,
and the immediate response is,
but the Republicans,
and I don't like Republicans.
Here's the thing.
We live in a two party system,
right?
We can have this great grift of like,
oh
well,
the Democrats are bad,
but we can,
and the Republicans,
they might be worse,
but the Democrats are still bad.
But the option is between Democrats and Republicans.
So if Republicans are worse,
it doesn't really matter if Democrats are slightly bad.
But
I think we don't love Democrats,
but we feel that Republicans are way worse
when they institute these far more authoritarian policies.
It's,
it's hard to quantify more.
And the question is,
does it suppress speech,
and I certainly think Donald Trump has taken actions.
There was a human,
let's look at human lives.
If we want to do like a quantification here,
let's look at ICE.
3 American citizens have been killed by ICE.
That's way more than the number of
American citizens killed by immigration enforcement under,
say,
Obama,
but it's way less than the amount of American citizens killed by Barack Obama.
No,
it is true.
Yes,
it is.
OK.
Well,
look,
I,
I don't want to be disrespectful,
but,
um,
one of,
one of the biggest issues to me.
The extrajudicial assassination of Abdul Rahman
al-Awlaki by the Obama administration,
and this is what early on in my life
when I was very anti-war,
very lefty,
still anti-war,
and voted for Barack Obama,
and then he murdered in favor of the war in Iran.
Absolutely not.
And Barack Obama killed a sixteen-year-old American citizen
who was at a civilian restaurant in Yemen.
We can.
These are all bad things.
We can be like,
oh well,
both parties are pretty bad,
but like we have to,
when they go to the ballot office,
when I go to the ballot office as a voter,
I have to actually put in a vote.
I have to decide Democrat.
A Republican or throw my vote away and vote for some third party,
libertarian.
If I'm picking between those and there's one candidate
who just brought us into a war in Iran,
is causing this massive conflict,
tons of human suffering,
that's foreign.
That's foreign policy.
Domestically,
we see ICE attacks on American citizens.
We see 56 people dying in ICE detention camps in just a singular year.
You compare that to under Obama,
the deporter in chief.
Across 8 years,
52 people died.
Way,
way,
way fewer.
What we're seeing is dangerous conditions domestically.
Way more people are dying,
right?
We have a lot of this like qualitative discussion.
You bring up a lot of anecdotes,
but if you actually like quantify the number of
deaths that are occurring through these authoritarian mechanisms,
it's very,
very clear that when I vote,
I'm choosing the lesser of two evils and voting Democrat.
Let's talk,
let's talk about a few structures of authoritarianism.
Uh,
we'll,
we'll go with 2016,
and you brought up Donald Trump subpoenaing these journalists,
so we'll get,
we'll get broad on this one.
In 2016,
Gizmodo published an article that Facebook had been,
had been suppressing news and information from conservative outlets.
This is Gizmodo.
They're a progressive outlet.
In fact,
I worked for the company that owned them,
and I,
I was a Bernie supporter in 2016.
And so agreeing with this reporting and knowing the reporters behind it,
I reported this.
NBC News,
all of these major institutions then claimed
I was a right-wing conspiracy theorist.
Let me finish,
for,
for claiming that these things were happening that they reported on.
Then what we learned is that
under,
under
Obama,
under Obama and under Biden,
and don't get me wrong,
this was under Trump as well,
there was an active effort from the FBI.
They,
they were given a backdoor access to Twitter and Facebook
to remove.
Content that they thought objectionable to the government
and it was not done at the behest of Trump or for his benefit,
but to the benefit of those who had been defending him in the press.
So notably myself,
who was calling out these censorship practice
practices.
I was falsely slandered and maligned by the media over this.
These are institutions.
Now when you say that Donald Trump is mad at them,
I agree subpoenaing journalists depending on the issue can be bad,
but to see that from Obama
through Trump and into Biden,
they were.
given access.
This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
It's a violation of the 1st Amendment.
We're missing something really important.
We're lumping together all of these different
types of sort of suppression of speech,
but there's a fundamental difference.
When we see like left-leaning suppression of speech,
often that happens from like a bottom up,
where you see what I'm taking an action.
No,
I gave you a specific example of the Biden
administration going to a major big tech company,
giving them specific instructions to remove people who are saying not.
We saw that in the context of COVID,
where vaccinations was really,
really important.
In fact,
800,000 lives were saved by vaccines.
We have a really strong,
you can give me every reason for why you want to be an authoritarian.
They always have a reason,
and saving lives is always wonderful.
There's a fundamental difference between suppressing free speech on,
say,
the war in Iran,
where there's really bad stuff going on and we need to talk about it,
and say,
spreading vaccine misinformation.
In the US we've had really long moral versus.
Differences of importance and that's fine.
Clear and present danger test but we're
talking about authoritarianism has many different reasons.
Did you think
that all the tyrants of the world never gave a reason as to why they,
they needed absolute authority?
They always did,
and they always do.
And even today it's the case whether it's Trump or anybody else.
So when Biden's administration said,
because COVID misinformation kills,
we will silence you,
that's authoritarianism.
You can argue that you agree with it,
but it still is authoritarianism.
How about we can use Cuomo in New York as an example.
He shut down churches in violation of the First Amendment,
and when he was sued and lost,
he issued a secondary executive order changing
the words to keep the churches closed.
That is authoritarianism.
And you,
you right now defending it is my point.
I have no problem saying Trump should not go after journalists,
but you seem to have a problem saying that the Democratic
administrations should not be doing what they're doing as well.
OK,
pause,
pause.
You've been voted out by the majority.
Please return to your seat.
Yeah,
yeah,
yeah.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please get to the chair in 321.
Long distance from back.
You made it.
I'm surprised you made it.
So one of the key parts about authoritarianism is influence over elections,
and we've seen that throughout the history of right wing and left wing,
the right wing
side of this country has constantly been election deniers.
Famously,
Trump tried to find votes in Georgia to win the 2020 election,
and now we're seeing that they're claiming voter fraud
in the city of Los Angeles mayor's race.
Well,
can I ask you a question?
Uh,
how many,
uh,
how many presidential elections in the last 20 years were denied by Democrats?
Were denied by Democrats.
Yes,
but mainstream members of Congress going on the floor,
rejecting it.
None,
all of them.
Do you see the Democratic Party trying to create an alternate slate of electors
to actually try and overturn a democratically elected,
certainly a different argument,
but no,
that,
that was in,
uh,
I,
I think that would have been 1960,
but.
Certainly not in the last 20 years.
So,
uh,
we can completely agree Trump's efforts in 2020 were substantially different
from,
say,
a handful of members of Congress and high profile
personalities coming out and saying the election is illegitimate.
But I will say,
while it is not particularly mainstream,
there,
there actively are groups across social media
that believe the election was stolen,
just go on threads for for a few minutes.
threads.
You will see tons of.
Progressives arguing the election was stolen.
Tons of bots,
you know,
I'm really,
you don't think the internet,
theory.
I agree with the
theory actually.
So,
so look,
but,
so then if you're talking about the right or to the left overall again,
we are talking about the overall picture here.
Where is the majority of this coming from?
Well,
let me,
let me ask you a question.
You mentioned California.
Uh,
I wanna ask you a question.
Uh,
let's,
let's say there's an election that takes place
and a ballot comes in 3 days after that election.
It's signed with a picture of Mickey Mouse,
and it's hand dated.
Do you think that is a real vote?
So guess what?
In California,
when you don't have a correct signature,
you can do this thing called ballot hearing,
where you take that ballot back to the voter and you say,
is this really you?
And you have to get that signature again.
And that.
I don't think they registered with the Mickey Mouse signature.
Well,
that's actually legal in California.
In fact,
the,
the example given,
I think,
in Santa Barbara is a Kirby Starr image.
Now the challenge,
uh,
with this is,
and,
and that's why I'm not a fan of the fraud argument from Republicans.
I just stop,
stop saying fraud.
This is legal in California.
In California,
you can draw a picture of Kirby Starr in any manifestation.
Now the problem is signatures are supposed to
be unique to an individual because they're,
they're,
they would be falsifiable,
meaning I've never seen your signature before.
How can I match it?
But if you sign,
uh,
if you sign up,
if register to vote with a picture of Kirby,
anyone in the world can draw the picture of Kirby.
So in California,
the challenge that I,
not everybody has the same name,
the same Social Security.
I know,
but the point is,
if a ballot is received by a homeless shelter,
anyone can fill it out and draw a picture of Kirby Starr.
So there's a limited number of ballots that get sent to registered
voters who are registered with the state and universal mail-in voting.
And for instance,
there was a homeless shelter in Venice Beach that
received 185 mail-in votes despite no one living there.
And so yes,
because people that live on the street have addresses registered
to shelters completely don't have anywhere else to get mail.
And so what we've already seen is undercover video
showing that activists do go to places like Skid Row
and secure a voter registration
where in one video,
a man who's clearly not a woman says his name is Teresa.
Sure,
he'll fill it out.
Now the problem is that man will fill this out under the name Teresa.
He will sign,
he'll put an X,
a mark,
which is legal in California.
The other issue is that.
Ballots can be received,
so it,
it gets complicated,
but in California,
if a ballot is received before the election,
it can be hand dated.
If it's received after the election,
it has to be postdated.
However,
a ballot can only be rejected if two independent
independent officials can prove beyond a reasonable doubt
it has violated one of these tenants.
So I do take issue with Republicans saying voter fraud,
voter fraud all the time when it's legal to do this in California.
But I think if you go to a regular,
a regular American and say.
You ask him this question,
and I'll ask you this question.
How did Nitia Raman surpass Karen Bass,
both Democrats in mail-in votes only after Election Day?
Because
young people vote later and Nita Raman won the young vote.
Well,
the,
the truth is that the DSA on their website advocates for ballot harvesting,
which is legal,
and they're allowed to do it,
and
more power to them.
It's very smart.
So do the Republicans.
They go to security to senior centers all
across the country and we're gonna pause here.
You've been voted out by the majority.
Good talking with you.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please get to the chair in 321.
No contest
likewise
elections as you were talking about the other person before,
I think are sacred.
I think elections are sacred
and I believe that they are the most fundamental thing
to American values and democracy.
We have never seen.
Ever in American history,
the attempt to subvert a free and fair election
compared to how Donald Trump and his cronies did on January 6th,
and I think that it's absolutely ridiculous to claim
that that is somehow comparable
to the Biden administration,
uh,
talking to Facebook and certain social media platforms to ban Donald Trump.
When
social media platforms have been under attack by Donald Trump as well,
we had in Florida how the right now chair of the RNC was,
is now,
uh,
pursuing
legal action
against,
uh,
Facebook,
Twitter,
etc.
for banning Donald Trump,
which was a decision that they made.
Without Biden's interference,
well,
I,
I don't think,
I don't think arguing like a civil litigation is a,
it's,
it's hard to,
it's hard to argue civil litigation as a big political issue.
If,
if there was,
if there was a contract violation committed by a company and Trump wants to sue them.
Certainly if you have the opinion,
you don't believe that there's,
you believe there's malice there's the current RNC chair,
right,
right.
My,
my,
my argument is pursuing like regulatory action against them
for banning Donald Trump,
right?
So,
so these are civil issues
and the challenge is,
I don't know the facts.
You don't know the facts.
You don't think civil issues can be political.
They certainly can,
but the point I'm making is that
sometimes companies do bad things and we need regulatory bodies to go after them.
I'm I'm in favor of that.
Now the question is,
are the Republicans bad for doing it?
Honestly,
I don't know because I don't know the underlying issues of the case.
Maybe they are,
maybe they're not.
So I'll bring up another instance.
I mean,
in Massachusetts,
for example,
we just had two Republicans who were
running for Attorney General and lieutenant governor
who were literally faking signatures on their ballots up,
literal dead people lock them who,
and,
and if you look at the papers,
they're the same signature.
Down the ballot,
it's the same person this uh out this uh third party that they hired who was literally
didn't have the same exact handwriting
and they,
they tried like to lock them up
thousands of signatures across Massachusetts were
then considered moot because they were
literal dead people from all across the state and those are two Republicans
and you have,
I mean,
there are countless instances of Republicans,
not.
Donald Trump
trying to subvert American elections,
and I think that is one of the most authoritarian things that anybody
in this country can do is to subvert the free and fair elections.
United States,
I think certainly that we have a problem with
two,
ancient political parties.
I think the real,
the real big picture is here,
and I'm not,
and I'm not saying this to dismiss your,
uh,
your,
your anger over what these Republicans did.
That's,
you're certainly warranted to believe that.
Uh,
I agree.
I think they should go to jail for that stuff.
The problem is both political parties are playing this,
this procedural game of trying to steal elections through the pop procedure
instead of convincing people.
The Republicans are redistricting in all of these different
states to give themselves January 6th was procedure.
I'm not,
I'm,
I'm talking right now about
both parties and,
yeah,
certainly January 6th was a riot and it was very,
very bad.
You,
we can,
we can agree on those things.
I'm saying that both parties have these procedural efforts to increase their,
their ability to win elections.
Right now.
Republicans are redistricting.
I fundamentally disagree with that because Republicans were the ones that voted
against a bill to ban gerrymandering federally in the United States.
Republicans were the ones that continuously deny the fact that
Joe Biden won the 2020 election free and fair.
Democrats have not.
Once and have been,
they have been very consistent on this,
on protecting American elections.
It's in our name.
Democrats in 2016 accused Donald Trump and his associates of being Russian assets
and trying to steal the election at the pest of a foreign adversary,
going so far to accuse the President of the United States of treason.
There was a multi-year investigation that cost tens of
millions of dollars that ended up being nothing.
That's election denial.
Now I don't think that's as bad as a bunch of people storming the Capitol.
That's terrifying and substantially worse,
physical violence.
But
yeah,
I think if you look.
Back at the history of this country going back decades,
it would be a bit naive to say that
the political parties aren't doing everything in
their power to steal power from each other
again,
so I mean we can,
I don't want to pivot to Mueller,
um,
which in fact also,
also when
when Mueller,
when Mueller passed away,
rest in peace,
an American hero,
uh,
he,
Donald Trump literally said,
I'm glad he's dead and he no longer can hurt innocent people.
I know.
So like,
again,
another instance of Republicans,
I would consider threats against people like that.
Throw him out there.
When he said that,
I said it was disgusting.
I mean,
it's horrifying.
But it doesn't,
doesn't change the fact that Bernie Sanders,
Bernie Sanders had the election taken away from him illicitly.
I think,
uh,
in 2016,
I was fervent for Bernie.
He was talking about securing borders because the Koch brothers,
industrialists,
wanted to bring in cheap labor.
He was talking about getting better wages for the working class,
supporting unions,
and I said this is the only guy who's been speaking to issues for the past 20 years
that actually matter to the right to working class American people.
And what did the Democratic,
absolutely,
and what did the Democratic Party do?
They use superdelegates to make sure he could not win.
OK,
so first off,
I actually,
I'm,
I'm a big fan of Bernie myself.
So I guess it's something you could agree on there.
I will say that if you,
you as a supporter of Donald Trump,
I find it kind of ironic that you
believe in anything closely related to Bernie Sanders.
I'll give you a few examples.
9 million people who are Democrats voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
Yeah,
and,
and
I also say
3 million,
like millions of people,
I think it was a couple million in West Virginia,
uh,
your state that voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary.
Then had to switch to Donald Trump.
I criticize my own party for that,
and I think that that was wrong.
My point is not,
my point is not that the Democratic Party has never,
ever,
ever
used something or participated,
I would say,
in bad faith in elections.
My point is that we see consistently from Republicans,
like consistently over and over again,
again,
I think that that's like the both parties are all bad.
You literally had Donald Trump try to subvert the election.
You've been voted out by the majority.
Good talking with you,
man.
Good.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
Nice to meet you.
Thanks for coming.
Appreciate it.
So
yeah,
you're not gonna have me defending the Democratic Party.
I mean,
let's go.
I feel like a lot of people,
yeah,
and I don't wanna defend Republicans moving towards,
uh,
fascism on both sides.
Uh,
I do want to bring up two unique things
that Trump has done that no one has ever done in United States history.
So two is suing a pollster for a poll he didn't like in the state of Idaho.
And I think the biggest issue is the Israel issue.
So you have someone like Trump who,
you know,
sold TikTok to Larry Ellison,
and he also owns CBS News.
He also entirely,
right?
I think we both agree that's just not good where you give
someone a media apparatus,
you know,
and a social media apparatus like TikTok,
um.
I,
uh,
I,
these things worry me for sure,
um,
I,
you know,
I think,
I think where we're gonna agree with like Democrat and Republicans is,
uh,
the issue of Israel particularly
that,
that
if we're talking about authoritarianism,
this is why I say like don't make me defend Republicans.
Like there's some things I will,
but,
but the Democratic Party and the Republican Party,
I,
I feel like as an establishment
largely aligned with each other and then there are these like lesser issues that,
that,
that divide,
and I think,
uh.
When you look at uh TikTok,
when you look,
I,
I'll tell you this,
the,
the TikTok was sold
explicitly because of Israel.
The,
uh,
so the story is this,
um,
initially Republicans were very mad about TikTok because
it seemed to promote progressive uh content,
progressive ideology.
Republicans had been banned.
People supporting Trump had been banned.
So the Republicans come out and say we got ban TikTok.
We,
we can't do this.
Democrats said no,
but then something changed after October 7th,
we saw the rise of
conduct critical of Israel and supportive of Palestine.
All of a sudden the Democrats are like,
you know what,
now we agree with Republicans and we've got to ban TikTok.
And then Trump comes out and says no,
no,
we're not gonna ban it,
which he does not have the authority to do.
The bill was passed.
It was signed by the president.
When Trump came in office,
he was supposed to initiate that ban,
but instead,
what did he do?
He sold it to a supporter of his
to change the structure of that content to benefit
his worldview,
which does align largely with many establishment Democrats.
Yeah,
I agree,
and you know,
you have him sanctioning the ICC,
the prosecutors.
I mean this is the fascism we're talking about
so when you have you know Russia and China that
don't wanna participate in the the Western system this is why
then you have France you know that's.
That's trying to get away from the tech companies because
our own politicians in those uh uh that legislation.
Uh,
they put that they were,
um,
that any country that has these databases will,
will be forced to give the data to them.
I think,
so I think if,
if it's not a singular issue of Donald Trump,
like,
clearly the Democratic Party joined in,
in the,
in the cheering on of the banning of TikTok because of his content.
And so I think that just shows that we've got an authoritarian problem in this,
you know,
elite circle of
whatever the military industrial complex or,
or big banks and all of these,
you know,
wealthy groups,
they're,
they're interested in similar things.
No,
yeah,
I agree,
but we're gonna pause here.
You've been voted out by the majority.
Well,
we got,
we got a little bit.
Nice meeting you.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please get to the chair in 321.
Nice to meet you.
Gotta say I'm not a fan of either party,
to be honest,
same boat as you on that one.
the left embracing authoritarianism.
Right now that they don't have the House,
they don't have the Senate,
they don't have the White House,
they don't have a majority
in the Supreme Court.
If these guys are authoritarian,
they're the crappest authoritarians I've ever seen.
They gotta go back to authoritarian school and learn how to be authoritarians.
Well,
or how to win,
right?
Losing,
you can still be an authoritarian,
like Nazis lose power,
but they're still Nazis.
Well,
they're losing,
they're losing at all levels,
they're losing everywhere.
I,
yeah,
the the Republicans crushed them,
and I think doesn't mean they're authoritarians though.
Well,
no,
I mean you can be an authoritarian and lose,
right?
OK,
so there's 3 actual elements that we need
to talk about authoritarianism.
One is dismantling of institutions.
One is eliminating your opponent
and suspending elections.
Those are,
those are very specific claims to some authoritarians.
I haven't seen elements,
those elements present within the left at all.
Donald Trump was arrested several times with except with the exception of one
that was the eliminating opposition.
I did see it,
but it was when,
when they arrested Donald Trump several times and then tried to get a.
They,
they filed a suit to the Supreme Court
to get Trump banned from being able to run.
I don't remember that,
but I do remember you don't remember that guy at a rally going,
the 14th Amendment her up,
lock her up.
Who is that person again?
I forget.
All right,
it was the same guy who weaponized the DOJ against all his
political opponents or deployed the National Guard to beat down our protesters,
deployed to terrorize families and tear apart communities,
or launched the Save Act to try and
just
put voter suppression tactics in place so we could steal.
An election,
imprison protesters for 10 years for marching down the streets.
I think tell the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by.
I'm ready to mobilize you to launch another insurrection.
Let's go.
Oh like a soapbox.
Who is that guy again?
I forgot.
If you'd like a soapbox,
we can set one up for you.
But if you want to have a conversation,
I'm sitting right here.
Go for it.
I think the position is indefensible,
but I'd love to hear your take.
Go for it.
Well,
you're allowed to not like Trump.
He's done a lot of bad things.
Thank you.
Now we're talking about the Democratic Party,
the things they've done,
and you've,
I think.
And I'm not saying this derisively,
but I think there's many things that you're
ignorant of the Democratic Party has done.
You talk about suppression of their political opponent.
Well,
yeah,
they sued so that Trump could not run for office.
They,
they
tried to claim he was an insurrectionist.
He was ineligible.
He was arrested several times.
They arrested his lawyers.
Now,
by all means,
every authoritarian makes the argument they're justified in their use
of of authoritarian tactics to remove their political opponents.
That doesn't change the idea,
or I should say the philosophy behind what they're doing.
So if You want to accuse Jenna Ellis,
for instance,
of doing something wrong because she drafted a letter arguing on Trump's behalf.
That's,
that's authoritarianism.
By all means you can say she was wrong to do it.
She's a criminal,
but we are seeing
when you start going after people's lawyers,
by all means tell me you think she's a criminal and deserves it,
and I will tell you
the people of this country now stand in fear that Democrats
are going to arrest them if they engage in illegal practices.
We're going to pause here.
We are out of time
at home.
My next surrounding claim
is that the United States is tracking towards a civil war.
If you'd like to be the first debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
Welcome back.
You miss me.
So
listen,
I,
I think that we are getting closer towards,
uh,
a a peak of civil unrest in this country,
and in all honesty,
I'm gonna blame people like you.
This entire time you've been trying to blur the line between what
separates you and a person like me and everybody in the circle.
The truth is you don't agree
on your show.
You have 5 white supremacists around you and 1 liberal,
uh,
lawyer talking about why we should protect the Constitution on Twitter.
You're mentioning the civil war and why we need to have a civil war,
civil war 24/7.
Now you've said civil war numerous times.
Slates of screenshots over the last 4 years alone I'm not
talking about shooting ivermectin up your ass all the time.
I've never advocating for ivermectin.
It's,
you have literally no idea what you're talking about.
You've not done any research and you've never used Google.
I've never advocated for ivermectin,
not once.
He's not gonna stop.
I've never used it.
I've never used iver.
I,
I said no,
you shouldn't use it.
I'm gonna get to if you wanna make things
up,
you wanna,
you wanna just waste time,
then we can waste time.
But if you haven't.
You're wasting time right now.
Yeah,
so if I'm about to give it to you agree with me on the issue,
but you don't like me,
then we can agree and you can.
No,
I think you're responsible.
You can get an individual like your man.
If you,
you just don't want to finish,
you know where I'm gonna go with this.
Do you agree?
You,
you,
you so mistrust you're allowed to blame me all you want,
and then we can agree and you can leave.
You just want to run away from the conversation.
Are you here to dispute my claim or agree with it?
I think you're responsible.
That's fantastic.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Oh,
you don't want to hear why you're responsible.
It doesn't matter because you're here to dispute my claims,
right?
Not agree doesn't matter.
You don't.
All of a sudden you want to stick to the definition of your claims,
but when it comes to just about everything,
everything else you wanna agree with me and you.
You're not gonna stop talking,
are you?
Are you,
are you gonna sit here and agree with me you control yourself?
You're like 50 years old.
You're gonna calm down with me.
Calm down.
You come down.
I don't agree with you.
I disagree with you on everything.
You make fake claims.
Of course I do.
If if anybody's doing something that I don't actually believe
in it because you're getting paid by other country,
I argue you're Joe Rogan for adversaries,
bro.
I advocated on Joe Rogan's show,
David,
can you please address the claim?
I think America is getting closer to civil war
and it's all because of people like Timple.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Have a nice day.
Yeah,
you're a coward,
bro.
Well,
if you don't agree with me,
I don't know why you're here.
Also,
I would recommend doing research before you apply you come to a place like this.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
Welcome back.
Good to see you again.
Great to see you again.
Yeah,
um,
the first time you talked about this was in 2019,
so it's been quite a while.
I think it was before that calling for civil war.
I've never called for civil war,
or not calling for,
I'm sorry,
uh,
said that we're on the brink of,
of civil war.
And what was the citation I had for when I said that?
I would love you.
It was The Atlantic,
and it was a journalist who interviewed several national security experts who said
that there is a range of opinions in the national security
space that the US is trending towards a civil war,
notably.
That when you,
when you cite people like Stephen Marsh,
journalist,
as well as Barbara F.
Walter,
former CIA,
the US academics describe the period that we're in as civil strife,
meaning
there's a,
there's a criteria of death that has occurred
for political reasons over the past year or years
for which the next phase would be civil war.
However,
tracking,
we'll make my point,
tracking towards it,
uh,
I,
I've not said that it will happen.
Although there have been many people who have said that we are
in a cold civil war or some kind of cultural civil war,
I always,
always caveat because I,
I don't actually have a strong prediction that acts,
first of all,
you do have a strong prediction if you've been saying this since 2019.
There's 40 articles about it people can look this up.
There's 42 of your titles that have the.
Word civil war in it with big fonts on the front.
They sure do.
So why is that?
It's sensationalist.
It's easy to get clicks on that.
There's a reason why you say it because it's very profitable for your business.
But there's a,
we have 1600 episodes of just IRL.
There comes a point where people stop taking your predictions seriously.
Are you gonna make an argument,
or are you mad at me?
I'm not mad at you.
OK,
then,
let's make an argument about whether or not we are tracking.
No,
no,
no.
If you're making an argument you don't like my thumbnails or you don't,
you should I say my name over and over I'm
saying that you say bullshit in order to get money.
But what,
let me ask you,
let me ask you a question predictions.
Let me ask you,
let me ask you a question.
You can.
I will agree with you that there's increased polarization.
I,
I would attribute a lot of that to people being specifically online.
Let me ask,
uh,
there's a lot less interaction with people that are,
are in different camps.
Let me ask you.
Question,
you're gonna sit here and tell me that we're way
more polarized than Alexander Ham Hamilton and Aaron Burr,
who like shot each other with their disagreements.
You're gonna why was that Aaron Andrew Jackson,
who's the sitting president,
do you wanna have a conversation,
or are you just gonna be?
Why was Aaron Danielson shot the shot in the chest twice?
Sorry,
why was Aaron Danielson shot in the chest,
uh,
I the chest twice disagreeing that political violence is taking the place.
You say Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr,
but.
When I ask you a question about an assassination,
you,
you defer where you can say that.
Let me ask you a question war every fucking year and it doesn't happen and I never,
it just hasn't happened yet.
Let me ask you.
Or if it does happen,
you say,
see,
I've had it all.
Let me ask you a question you're the same thing as like the Christian rapture
people who say that the rapture's coming every
fucking year and when it doesn't happen,
do you want a soapbox?
Do you want me to get you a soapbox?
It's really I can leave.
You want me,
it's really easy to like do what you do.
It's really easy to do what you do.
Like you literally just say
the Civil War is happening next year.
Civil war is happening next year,
it's coming.
Make sure you subscribe to Timcast.
Continue to watch my videos,
please.
Follow us on YouTube,
follow us on Instagram.
It's,
it's easy to do what you do,
bro.
Well,
we're gonna have.
So for your uh.
Tim,
thank you for returning.
No one's actually had a debate yet.
Are we going to actually talk about whether it will or will not happen?
I mean,
sounds like it's gonna.
All right,
if you'd like to be the next debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
Welcome.
Nice to meet you.
Hey,
nice to meet you.
I think we are
being constantly fueled
by the people that are already in charge,
that are up on top,
that are already wealthy
and that already have power over the entire government.
Donald Trump has
8 billionaires in his administration,
including himself.
You see his sons profiting,
you see his friends profiting,
you see everyone in close ties with him profiting.
OK,
they're not gonna give up this power.
I don't think we're on the verge of a civil war.
I think we're due for a revolution.
Well,
and I don't,
I hope that's peaceful.
I hope that's not violent.
I hope
we change.
This is fantastic.
No,
no,
I appreciate this.
Can I ask you some questions?
Yeah.
Do you believe that Donald,
and I'm,
I'm not trying to accuse you of believing this,
but do you think that Donald Trump is a fascist?
Um,
yes,
I do.
Do you,
do you think that there are Nazis in his,
in his administration,
do you,
do you think that,
uh,
they,
uh,
I mean,
how do you feel about them using the military to go after,
uh,
undocumented migrants in this country?
I think it is an unnecessary use of force when we should be targeting
violent criminals that have come into this country illegally illegally.
That should be the sole focus when 70% of detainees in ICE custody
do not have a criminal conviction.
We're wasting resources and trying to use a show of militaristic power,
which is a huge,
huge proponent of fascism.
Uh,
how do you feel about the death of,
uh,
Renee Good and,
and Alex Predi?
Unjustified.
Are you gonna do anything about it?
I'm gonna rally everyone here.
I'm is rallying going to stop murder?
I,
I don't do this.
Is rallying gonna stop the killing of annoy my few 100
friends and followers on my Instagram post by reposting news stories.
Do you think rallying will stop the killing of people?
What I'm doing here now
is trying to show people that they need to speak up,
that we're not against each other,
right and left.
Do you believe speaking up will stop ICE from killing people?
I think speaking up will get us to the right.
Process of voting people in the midterms
and in the next election
so that we can make changes the constitutional way.
How many people do you think will die between now and then?
Too many.
There's already been too many people that have died.
So my,
my,
again,
this is largely based off,
I,
I don't know if it's,
so are you trying to incite a civil war?
No.
Do you want a civil war?
I'm asking what do you actually believe do you want to do against ICE?
I like ICE
and you're happy that they're killing people.
No,
OK,
so what are you gonna do?
I'm gonna vote for Trump again.
He's the one that's allowing guys to kill people.
He's not voting for JD Vance,
as I just said,
he's the one not taking accountability.
See,
I,
see,
I,
I think there's a distinction here.
For one,
the claim is meant to be like nonpartisan,
but I have,
of course,
my partisan views.
I like the Trump administration though they've done a lot of bad things,
and that's fine,
and we can call it those bad things,
but I'm going to continue to support it.
My point largely is either
the progressives will stand up against what they
perceive as fascism or fascism takes over,
which they are by all means we just had the
largest protest in the history of the United States.
We're gonna pause here.
Thank you.
You've been by the majority.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
OK,
so the whole thing about civil war
is that I do think that you need some sort of leadership,
you know,
that is being financially disenfranchised to incentivize a civil war,
and we don't really have any strong progressive leaders in office currently
that are being meaningfully financially disenfranchised,
um,
the way slavers were.
So I think that you don't,
that's the challenge,
I think.
That is absolutely,
yes,
that is you don't if you take a look at civil wars throughout history,
we can use the Syrian civil war as an example.
It started with a dozen or so disparate factions,
largely of locals
and various ideologies that ultimately coalesced around 11 group,
either the Free Syrian Army,
but then ultimately got taken over.
So civil wars can be fomented through small factions that bubble up.
Certainly,
but I,
I think that you are vastly overestimating the uh.
You know,
kind of militant,
uh,
capacity of the American left
like we truly do not have
like a far left in the US that would be willing to take up arms.
It is so,
so,
so small.
Furthermore,
I do think that
technology wise
it's not,
you know,
it's,
it's not an even battle anymore
like
the military,
the US military,
which is largely conservative and currently,
you know,
uh,
Trump is in charge of them.
Uh,
the,
the technology that they have to track,
surveil,
to,
uh,
remotely kill people
would be absurd.
I mean,
I guess we could do some sort of guerrilla warfare,
but this is American territory.
It wouldn't go down like Vietnam,
you know,
like we know where we are,
we know where we're going.
It's just this is actually,
this is a fantastic point,
by the way,
and this gets into what's known as the generations.
Warfare.
So the earliest generation of warfare,
obviously is a guy punching a guy
as we got into,
uh,
you know,
the 1700s,
well,
maybe even before then,
you get field battles and drums and trumpets and this,
they,
they refer to this largely as like 3rd generation.
4th generation is what they refer to as insurgency,
terror,
guerrilla warfare tactics which we saw
famously people bring up during the American Revolution.
Many people refer to the period we're now in as 5th generational warfare,
and the,
the question is,
what is the purpose of conflict?
And it's to typically,
not always,
but to gain control of resources or a political group.
Usually it's to gain control of something,
and it could be for ideological reasons or economic reasons.
What we're witnessing now,
which what I,
I would say maybe we're not going to have a
what's called a hot civil war but remain cold,
is the use of information technology for the
purpose of controlling populations like you've described.
So
for the,
in the broader picture.
I would argue that what we are seeing now
with TikTok and Instagram may actually stop kinetic conflict,
which would be people shooting each other,
and we may actually just end up with people being brainwashed and,
you know,
waving Israeli flags or something.
Well,
I mean,
we're,
we're already kind of there.
I mean,
like
Peter Thiel and Elon Musk are,
you know,
the two most powerful tech dudes,
and even Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos to some degree,
they're in Trump's pocket or maybe Trump is in theirs,
um,
and
there's just.
You know,
online there really isn't a way for the left to meaningfully take control,
not in a,
a real sense.
I just,
I think that yes,
the country will continue to get polarized,
but will we have a civil war?
No.
pause here.
Thank you.
You've been voted out by the majority.
good thank you.
Alright,
if you'd like to be the next debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
Hello
When January 6th happened,
I actually thought we were headed towards the Civil war then I thought,
oh my God,
this is really
bad
and um,
so much so that what ended up happening is that gun sales
increased
predominantly on the left because
they were so afraid of what was gonna.
Happen
and we had been seeing documentaries and
um you know news networks talking about the far right extremists who
were already training with like AR fifteens and things like that that were
attempting to
potentially start a coup
and so
if we were talking back then I would actually agree with you.
The reason I disagree with you now
is because we don't have a um a faction of the left
that is nearly as uh violently motivated as the right is
so
if we were to talk about a hypothetical civil war,
then I would argue the far right would start it specifically because of what.
You just said you said
that you would like to re-elect Trump,
that you would vote for him
for a third
time,
but you didn't say Vance,
you said Trump,
right?
And I think,
and I think
that goes down to the ideology of
again your argument around the Constitution.
He,
there is a faction of MAGA that wants him to run again.
And skirt the constitution so that MAGA can stay in power.
I think
in a hypothetical
that would lead towards a civil war
and so,
OK,
but people like yourself who continue to spew this type of rhetoric of
is it gonna happen?
Is it gonna happen?
I think you're want it to happen.
I think you're exaggerating the,
the things that I've said about it.
I mean,
I think that last conversation was absolutely fantastic everything
that you talked about is online and people,
so I think,
I think,
I think I've interviewed national security experts to ask
them if they think this is going to happen
when you have one gentleman saying yes and it's my fault.
I,
he doesn't have to like me.
You don't have to like my opinions or what I do.
But I think when you also say that
when MAGA wants to elect Trump for a 3rd time,
you are correct,
they do.
And I,
I also agree this is going to create an untenable situation for the country
that I don't believe progressives or Democrats will accept.
I don't see Trump and his base backing down,
and I don't see the,
the,
the left,
liberals,
Democrats,
or otherwise
agreeing to back down.
It's a simple question.
Would anyone in this room sit back as Trump
seized a third term in power?
They,
I don't think they would do it.
So you,
you,
you can have a fascist takeover,
a revolution,
or you can have a civil war if this is the case,
and I hope to God it's not,
because you know what I'd prefer?
I'd prefer to watch the,
the,
the soccer match and have some chicken wings.
I don't,
I don't wanna
deal with conflict crisis.
I don't like having to live in a,
you know,
I have multiple bodyguards with me today.
I have to,
I,
I have to have people standing outside of my house because we got,
I got you scared of the progressives in here?
I'm not scared of anybody in here actually.
I think you guys have been absolutely lovely,
but there are lunatics.
In December of last year,
someone drove by my property and opened fire on,
on,
on our buildings,
and I,
I,
you're gonna blame that on the left too.
I'm,
it was a left aligned.
Individual who did it,
but I mean,
I'm not blaming you guys for doing it,
and I certainly would acknowledge that there are people on
the right who engage in violence all the same.
What I'm saying is I don't want you to be in fear,
uh,
in fear of your life.
I don't want to be in fear of my life.
I prefer this.
This is you guys have been absolutely awesome.
We disagree.
I mean that guy really hates me,
but I got,
I don't want him hurt or anything like that.
I don't want to live in a country where people
are attacking each other without trying to understand each other,
right,
but the rhetoric that you're spewing is leading towards that.
You want Trump again,
which means the rhetoric that you're spewing online,
the political commentary that you're spewing online,
is teasing it.
It's like it's like,
will they,
won't they,
will they,
won't they?
I don't want.
Donald Trump for a third term,
but I,
I would,
I,
I would prefer,
uh,
you know,
JD Vance,
maybe Rubio,
but
and indeed,
and understand that Trump won the plurality of the vote in 2024 and
he has a large support base despite his polls being very low.
He does,
and we'll see what happens with the Republican Party in 2026 and 20208.
But you can't just
wish away the existence of a polar of a of a another political faction
with a polarized worldview compared to yours.
I do not see a reality
where Republicans accept the worldview of the of the
progressives who are gaining ground in multiple places,
namely in New York,
and I don't see the progressives accepting
the,
the Trump worldview as you've described it.
And the reason that we're not going to accept it is because people
like you and the reason we don't accept it is people like it.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
Nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you,
Jeremiah.
OK,
so we know that the USA is very resilient,
right?
We've weathered so much.
So we've weathered,
we've stayed in,
we've stayed intact,
and we weathered,
um,
1968 riots,
McCarthyism.
Um,
what else?
Civil rights era,
um,
civil war,
so,
but the thing is we stayed intact,
right?
So
my thing is,
is that
we can have polarizing views,
right,
but
nothing that we're dealing with right now is as
intense as anything we've that I've just mentioned,
and none of those things led to a civil war,
so I'm.
Unless the right plans to enslave the left,
where,
how are we gonna have a civil war?
So one example that I often cite,
which I don't know that,
you know,
a,
a lot of this is probabilistic,
uh,
I,
I like to use Colorado as an example.
Colorado allows for abortion up to the point of birth,
the woman's discretion,
but Oklahoma bans it,
and they share a border.
So you have a potential for conflict in that regard because if a woman is with a man.
And she's 7 or 8 months pregnant and she decides
to get an abortion in Colorado where it's legal,
the state will try to stop her.
We have already had an instance where I'm not sure it was a Southern state,
it might have been Mississippi or Alabama where they accused,
they,
they charged,
I believe they attempted to charge a woman
with conspiracy to commit abortion by fleeing the state.
And so the issue that arises is at the ground level when a man says.
You are taking my child to be murdered and the woman says,
no,
it's a,
it's,
it's a fetus.
I'm getting an abortion,
and this results in people on the ground
traveling between jurisdictions with different laws,
which creates a problem for Colorado and a problem
for Oklahoma which probably don't want to fight.
So but what I'm saying is that if,
if you,
you're saying the nation would fight,
we don't even see internal fights within the states,
like separate states.
I would think that we would see that first before we'd see the nation.
Well,
we saw in Texas when the Biden administration deployed uh federal,
federal police and the Texas National Guard came and they
were actually in dispute over the concertina wire on the border
because Texas doesn't have the constitutional authority to deport.
They sent out their state National Guard in defiance and we
of the federal overreach here in California when Trump did that,
um,
overreaching sending the Marines.
But guess what?
But the thing is military hasn't defected.
The claim is that we are tracking towards one,
and I think that's an academic claim,
but it's also possible we have a revolution tracking,
tracking like in 1100 years,
like,
no,
tracking means that what we have seen over the past 10 years
historically runs parallel to other stories that have
culminated in civil war but don't always.
So that's why academics say today's period in
the United States is called civil strife.
the civil,
the civil rights era was civil strife as well.
We're gonna pause here.
I think you've been voted out in the majority.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
Welcome.
Hi,
nice jacket.
Hi,
thank you.
When you say that the US is heading towards civil war,
um,
I fundamentally disagree with this claim because I think
that for any country to go through civil war,
3 key things need to happen.
The first is geographic fracture.
The second is the military defecting,
and the third is institutional collapse,
none of which we see in the United States.
Well,
let,
let's address the claim number 1.
We actually have seen massive internal migration from,
uh,
blue states to red states and red states to blue states.
So the geographic hyper polarization absolutely is happening.
I didn't say polarization.
I said geographic fracture.
There are plenty,
there are plenty of blue cities in red states,
so where's the fracture?
Has anybody,
has,
has any,
has any state tried to secede?
There have been,
there have been instances of states trying to secede from themselves,
not really,
no.
What,
what you are in,
in eastern,
which states are trying to secede?
Northern California is trying to secede.
You've got Eastern Oregon trying to secede.
No,
no,
no.
You've got,
you got,
you got a district what I'm what I mean,
what I mean secede is not,
are people wanting it to happen.
Is there a little bit of a movement going on?
Is there mass voting for a state to secede?
No,
there's not.
The state of Jefferson,
are you familiar?
No,
there's and greater Idaho.
Did it happen?
They,
they're,
it doesn't happen.
I believe we had 2 counties.
Hold on,
hold on.
If you don't know this,
don't just say you don't.
Eastern Oregon had 2 counties voting to secede from the state to join Idaho.
Did it happen?
It,
it did not.
It does not happen,
no,
because,
but whether it did or didn't happen in the in this country,
people trying to make it happen.
We're extremely polarized in this.
Maryland tried to secede geographic fraction.
Western Maryland voted to join West Virginia.
People tried.
It doesn't happen.
I understand.
I think a lot of people
look at American history and,
and then believe all civil wars happen in this context.
But in fact,
the United States is unique in this regard
and that we are,
we are,
we were,
we were positioned for civil war
because.
You had state jurisdictions with
great authority that were in defiance of the federal government.
You,
you use this rhetoric a lot and it's very,
very dangerous to use this rhetoric because it gets
people up in arms and gets people rallied up.
This kind of rhetoric is the same kind of rhetoric
that Donald Trump uses to rally up right-wing conservatives.
This is so dangerous that there are only
two possibilities for why somebody would say this.
Either they're blatantly exaggerating and grifting for money,
or,
or
they genuinely believe what they say and they don't.
Know,
and they don't give their audience the 20 seconds of
respect on Google it would take to learn otherwise.
The US is not heading toward a civil war.
There's clearly more than what's happening.
There's clearly more than 2
reasons why someone would say these things,
there's not.
And,
and,
and that's being intentionally derisive and not and not informing anybody.
It's,
it's the truth because we're not heading towards a civil war.
I'm telling you pause it here.
We're out of time.
All right.
Well,
it was good talking to you.
Nice to meet you.
My final surrounding claim
is that the Constitution effectively does not exist anymore.
If you'd like to be the first debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
Nice to meet you.
Doing well,
going well.
So
what is the purpose of the claim?
So,
uh,
the first question is what is a constitution.
The constitution,
it,
it actually refers to what constitutes a body politic.
As of right now,
I would make the argument that first,
what is known to most people,
the interpretation of the Constitution dramatically has
changed over the past several 100 years,
not just with amendments,
but with the language itself.
Though
many people might argue they're originalists,
some might say they're textualists,
it doesn't even matter if they claim those things
because their view of the Constitution has changed.
As of today,
there's actually two distinct large body politics,
if that's the way you say it.
And they do not agree
on the interpretation of the Constitution.
Thus
we are seeing claims the Supreme Court is no longer legitimate.
We've seen that for some time now.
We've seen,
we see Republicans angry with Amy Coney Barrett and,
uh,
and Kavanaugh over their rulings,
and we're now hearing,
uh,
arguments that politicians should just ignore the
Constitution outright or or the Supreme Court.
I'm sorry,
in this capacity,
even though this would violate the Constitution.
But that wouldn't necessarily work because if
the founding fathers were creating the document,
they knew that this was going to continuously progress because they believe.
In the modernization of the United States
that was going to continuously go forward.
That's why you had Lincoln making the Reconstruction
era amendments and even the progressive era amendments
like the 16th Amendment with the income tax,
the 17th Amendment.
We're not arguing amendments,
but what I'm saying is,
is that the Constitution has always been able to progress and change.
If you're looking for the issues when it comes to the Supreme Court
and what everybody else believes,
that happens on the left and on the right.
Everyone has the disagreements when it comes to the Supreme Court,
but the problem is when you look at the Trump administration,
what they're currently doing right now is making.
Executive orders saying that they're going to ask
questions about the 14th Amendment when the reality
is that he wanted to change the first section of the 14th Amendment to his own.
Is anyone stopping him.
Uh,
the Supreme Court did actually.
Not only did the Supreme Court stop them,
uh,
initially,
that's what
he was promised.
He was,
he was hoping did not have happened.
That's why he was sitting in April
with the Supreme Court trying to be basically
the muscle of the executive in the judicial.
So,
so,
so Trump,
Trump hasn't stopped.
In fact,
they're preparing another executive order
under the same,
same line that was.
Just rejected but targeting territories.
But then you would agree with that the fault then would be coming from the
political right then in this case because when it's not a question of fault,
it's a question of we are not seeing
the,
but my point largely is
there is a left and there's a right in this country that are
so more they are so distinct neither views the Constitution as being upheld.
But that's not necessarily true when you look at it,
it is true.
Well,
well,
I'll explain to you as the reason as to why it's not.
You think Trump's upholding the Constitution.
I don't think he's upholding the Constitution,
but I know for a fact that the left has been or the Democrats have been
actually holding up the Constitution a lot more.
If you look at.
For example,
well,
if you look,
for example,
with Bush,
do you think Republicans believe the Democrats are upholding the Constitution?
Do I think that the Republicans are holding it?
Do Republicans in this country believe Democrats
are holding true to the Constitution?
They don't,
but that's because that's the point.
There is no unified body politic that operates under the Constitution.
That's specifically opinion base.
When you look at,
well,
hold on,
when you look at different
members and,
uh,
different
presidential
terms,
you look at Trump,
he's trying to take it down with the 14th Amendment through executive orders.
The AUMF under Bush,
he took away the ability for the Congress to actually.
Player war with that simple,
simple document because of September 11th.
I haven't seen Obama do that.
I haven't seen Biden try and do that whatsoever,
especially when it comes to the past 20 years.
The reason as to why we're in those situations is because of these two presidents.
Now what my argument is,
is that while they may say individuals may say this,
what we're seeing is actual executive powers,
exec exact legislative powers,
actual judicial powers on the right that are specifically doing this.
I pause.
You've been voted out by the majority.
Good talking with you.
Good talking with you too.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please get to the chair in 321.
How's it going?
Nice to meet you.
Um,
an issue I kind of take with your interpretation of
the Constitution is that you're kind of like taking this originalist
approach to the Constitution and that every single word
in the Constitution should be taken as literal.
No,
I'm not.
So what,
what,
what do you mean essentially by like,
so,
uh,
so the,
the founding fathers,
uh,
it was a split between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
There was an argument as to whether we.
We should,
we should have an unwritten constitution
or a written constitution.
There was a fear that with an unwritten constitution,
it would evolve too dramatically and you'd end up with tyranny.
So,
uh,
one faction says,
hey guys,
write it down.
In fact,
they wanted not just a constitution,
they wanted a bill of rights.
So the,
the argument is fundamentally a constitution
is what constitutes the body politic.
When you have a group of people that are largely morally aligned,
they all basically agree,
then you have a constitution.
We are seeing an increase in,
uh,
geographic polarization.
This is resulting in,
uh,
the Congress becoming equally polarized with
radically different views of what the.
Actually means so our Congress is very,
very,
very centered,
right?
Our Congress is very much in the political center.
So to say that they're very these radical figures,
I think it's,
it's strikingly ironic.
Well,
no,
they're,
they're polarized,
right?
They vote on party line almost all the time,
even when it doesn't make sense.
And if you don't,
Trump gets you removed from office like Massey.
So,
so that's polarization,
right?
So they're gonna vote for the agenda of the right or the agenda of the left,
and I think that this way to explain it is.
The amendments are the easiest way to approach this in understanding that the,
the Constitution being largely in my view non-existent is
the suppression of speech that we
saw from Democratic Party administration officials.
So that violates the First Amendment.
You,
you have to admit though,
like the First Amendment doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want.
Like it certainly means you can express political opinions,
but it has continually targeted.
It has continually,
like our,
our judges and our Supreme Court has continually
ruled that there are limitations on free speech.
I I can't,
I can't scream that there's a fire in a movie.
Yes,
you can,
Brandenburg v.
Ohio.
You're wrong.
Like,
like,
there,
there needs to be a precedent already.
Like that doesn't,
that doesn't really,
there has to be a threat of imminent danger.
That's not,
yes,
that's,
that's true.
You have to do that.
Nice meeting you.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please head to the chair
in 321.
Welcome back.
Shake your hand again.
All right,
you're telling me that the Constitution effectively doesn't exist,
right?
Not that it's necessarily like low quality,
but that it like effectively just does not exist at all.
Well,
let's not be super extreme.
What I mean is
there's obviously a document we know what it is,
we use it for certain guiding principles.
To the power that our parties want.
My specific argument here is that the Constitution,
whether or not it's being handled in like exactly the right way,
it does exist.
It's an important matter,
then great.
The thing is,
I don't know what your personal views is.
My job here is just to dispute your claim.
The claim is
that it effectively does not exist.
My argument is,
insofar as we're all talking about the Constitution,
we have a court flawed or not,
the Fourth Amendment being upheld that reviews
the Constitution,
is the Fourth Amendment being upheld?
I'm not a constitutional scholar.
I don't know,
but there's active debate about it.
The answer is,
the answer is that it's not,
and we've had a serious issue with flat cameras,
for instance.
One video I just watched where a guy got pulled over wrongly and arrested.
Because
a flat camera flagged his car down.
Now when the police show up at your house and accuse
you of a crime with fake evidence and you get arrested,
that is a violation of your rights.
Now,
certainly we can argue that because of the Fourth Amendment,
you can go and dispute it in court,
but you could dispute it in court with or without
the Fourth Am absolutely against those like flawed cameras.
But again,
that's not the point of this topic.
When we're talking about does the Constitution exist
insofar as there's still a court review system.
Let's not be,
let's,
let's not argue semantics,
sometimes there's not.
Uh,
a good example is the case of.
Andrew Arnheimer,
where he was arrested in Georgia and brought to New Jersey in
violation of his constitutional rights and put in prison because of this,
which ultimately resulted in him getting out.
So I understand there is a constitution.
I know there's a physical piece of paper,
and I know that it does work,
but I'm saying effectively,
because what I'm saying is it has become so disputed
and so ignored in most capacities that we may as like
people are not abiding by it.
The Democrats don't believe Republicans are.
Republicans don't believe Democrats are.
That's my point.
That it,
it's,
it is an ineffective.
Thank you.
You've been voted out by the majority.
Good talking to you again.
Alright,
if you'd like to be the next debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
How's it going?
Nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you,
Luke.
What is the point of telling
a bunch of different progressives
that
a bunch of things that we all agree with.
I don't know,
you tell me.
What is the point of that?
You're sitting within this pocket of safe moderation,
right?
You are a former Bernie bro,
right?
Oh yeah.
Hell yeah,
I agree with you.
I was there when the bird landed on the podium in Portland.
I was fucking there,
man.
I completely agree.
And we both probably got disenfranchised by our
party,
right?
I didn't vote for anybody in 2016.
Sure,
hell yeah,
you did your part then.
Right,
so my question is,
what is the point
of arguing this with a bunch of people who agree with you?
Shouldn't you be surrounded by a bunch of
people that you so-called condemn?
Um,
I guess it's a production question.
Yeah,
I,
that,
that's it.
I mean,
I don't want you to say I,
I have claims,
and if,
if we agree,
I guess we can,
we can all smile and shake hands.
But like this is a direct question to you,
like,
why sit in this pocket of moderation if you
so clearly condemn everything that's going on on the right,
a group that is so clearly eroding
the Constitution.
Why are you sitting here arguing with people that agree with you?
Is your,
is your argument that I should be a progressive or a
liberal because I don't like what's happened to the Constitution?
No,
I think you should be a little bit louder about the things that you actually believe
instead of
this like safe
beanie wearing moderate.
But what does that mean?
Well,
I condemn everything that the right has done.
I didn't say I condemn everything the right has done.
I,
let's put it like this.
When I look at the option in 2020 between Donald Trump and Joe Biden,
I was actually supporting Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang,
and the Democratic Party does what the Democratic Party does.
So I said,
OK,
well,
who's the guy who's going to have my back more than them?
These people I view as
authoritarian,
bad for a bunch of.
Different reasons
and and Trump's first term,
it was a nightmare what they were doing.
And Donald Trump put out a second term agenda and I said,
you know what,
there's a bunch of these things I agree with,
and the Democratic Party I find to be it is untenable what they have done.
Tim,
like you are a smart guy.
I,
I'm,
I'm not going to sit here and call you dumb and shake my head at you.
You're a smart guy.
How were you so easily conned?
In what way?
Saying that like,
well,
no,
he's gonna do what he says he's gonna do.
But
what do you mean?
Like,
get,
give me specifics.
OK,
um,
like I appreciate that the,
the line of thought,
but you gotta be specific.
Give me a specific about something that you voted for Donald Trump
to do
tariffs.
How did that work out?
Fantastic for me.
Yeah,
we're all rich,
right?
We're all,
we're all cruising.
That's,
that's working out for us.
Well,
I think,
I,
I think,
I think you,
there's a fundamental fundamental misunderstanding among people who don't do
manufacturing or run businesses on the issue of tariffs.
So for me,
the issue of.
Trade control was extremely important.
We don't see that from the Democratic Party,
so I voted for that.
Trump did it,
and I fully acknowledge that there's negative repercussions,
but it's called spending money to fix problems down the road.
Why are you willing to erode the Constitution,
something that you so vehemently fought for?
No,
I think,
I think Democrats erode the Constitution substantially more.
So,
uh,
we can talk about the 1st Amendment,
we can talk about the Biden administration going in and get people banned.
That's the easiest one.
We can talk about the Fourth Amendment.
I remember that nasty Democrat,
uh,
Brandon Carr,
who,
uh,
took down
Jimmy Kimmel,
the stand-up comedian that I am.
What what did Carr say?
He,
he made a call directly to NBC.
Why should
unilateral government power
be used like that?
And why are you
just saying,
I condemn that,
but you're actively doing nothing to fight it?
No,
no,
I think,
I think the issue largely is regulatory bodies exist.
I agree with the existence of regulatory bodies.
Sometimes they do things you don't like.
You didn't like it here,
but I'm sure you like regulatory bodies elsewhere.
So I'm not,
I'm not,
I'm not going to come out and pretend to be.
Angry about something that is complicated or litigation we
don't understand because it's it's tribal points for me.
I'm going to say,
what did Brendan Carr actually say?
What did he actually say when he called NBC?
You need to take Jimmy Kimmel down.
He did not say that.
Then what did he say?
I don't know,
and that's why I don't have a strong opinion about the issue right now.
Right?
So you can't tell me what he said.
You can't pretend to be angry.
We're going to pause here.
Thank you so much.
You've been voted out by the majority.
Boisterous.
I appreciate it.
Nice meeting you.
If you'd like to be the next debater,
please head to the chair in 321.
Welcome back
So the whole point of it being like,
oh,
it's the left,
it's the right.
I'm a constitutional abolitionist.
I want it gone.
Who's the constitution written for?
It's written for the original American colonists who started this country,
which were
largely white Protestants.
So it was written for white men that own land,
right?
Mostly,
yes,
yeah,
perfect.
And after that,
everyone else has been given rights.
Right,
they've not been given rights.
I would argue that over a long enough period of time,
there's been advocacy to make the
Constitution protect against a government infringement.
The,
the Constitutions given the rights that protect the white men that own land.
Everyone else,
I don't think we're disagreeing.
I'm just,
I'm saying we don't,
the Congress doesn't give us the rights.
It stops the government from doing things.
Yeah,
sure,
it gives you the protection from blah blah blah.
Fine.
Yeah,
and it was like overwhelmingly white European so the point that I'm,
I'm making is
we've seen throughout the history of our
country that other people have been attacked,
right?
Every other marginalized group has been attacked.
There's been amendments,
there's been back and forth,
whether people do or do not have access to rights.
The whole point that I'm getting to is the United States Constitution
needs to be thrown out completely.
Thomas Jefferson agrees with me.
Thomas Jefferson said that the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.
Now,
around that time they were dying early,
so I'm thinking it's like 50 years or whatever,
but he made the point that if we actually have,
uh,
legislation,
laws,
or a constitution that governs people
in the future based off of what we've written,
then we're doing an injustice.
So saying that we should uphold something that was written 250 years ago
when I was 3/5 of a person.
Like,
what are we doing?
Oh,
back then it was worse than that.
That's compromising.
Have you,
uh,
have you read the 1619 Project?
Uh,
I,
no,
OK,
cool.
The reason the Constitution and the,
the way the United States government is set up,
it's literally because the founding fathers were slave owners.
They were racist slave owners that wanted to uphold that power,
and they wanted to give the power
to the states.
Well,
there's there's a lot of context missing from that.
You're familiar with the,
the,
uh,
issue of the Declaration of Declaration of
Independence in South Carolina and Georgia.
Thomas Jefferson was angry with the king for bringing slaves to the colonies.
I'm not saying he wasn't a racist.
He,
he wanted to include a provision of the biggest reasons
for the Revolutionary War is because Britain no longer wanted
to uphold chattel slavery and the colonies wanted to because
they had been so successful as far as making money.
The colonies period.
The Southern colonies.
The colonies period after the Civil War,
then they shifted away where you saw kind of a split where
the northern colonies didn't want it as much as the southern colonies.
Before the Civil Wars besides the point.
This is around 1820,
in fact.
No,
I'm saying after,
after the,
so around 18 after the Civil War,
I'm sorry,
after the Revolutionary War,
right,
right.
So yes,
yes,
very shortly after the Revolutionary War,
Thomas Jefferson had written a,
a statement for the Declaration that stated
the king has brought people to this land to wage war against us,
something to that effect.
And South Carolina and Georgia
contested to its inclusion in the Declaration.
Because they wanted slavery so bad,
but don't get me wrong,
one of the,
one of the biggest drivers was the fact that there was a slave that was in the colonies
and his slave owner took him to Britain,
and Britain
actually had a rule that no one could be slaves,
and so he was able to win his freedom for being in Britain,
and that shook the foundation
of the colonies,
which forced them to actually
push for the Revolutionary War and then come with the United States Constitution.
The point that I'm trying to make is the
United States Constitution needs to be abolished because.
It does not protect all the people.
We need to completely rewrite the United States
Constitution Constitution and give protections to everyone.
Everyone needs to have
equal rights under the protection of the law.
We can,
we can go back and forth about everything else.
Do you,
do you think that,
uh,
I,
you're,
you're allowed to have the opinion,
you don't like the Constitution and all that stuff.
I'm not gonna argue.
Do you think,
how do you think this country would react
if you were successful in abolishing the Constitution?
Yeah,
I think that it'll be a violent revolution.
Pause here.
We're out of time.
I,
I appreciated that,
yeah.
All right,
Tim,
it is time for the final debate.
You'll have 10 minutes uninterrupted.
Now look around the room
and choose who you like to continue the dialogue with.
Uh,
I think I'll go with,
uh,
I like this guy.
Why did you choose Luke?
He had asked me questions about why I believed what I
believed or why I would vote the way that I did,
and I thought,
I thought it was genuine.
I thought we could have a good conversation,
so I'm interested in hearing also what he thinks and what he believes and
where,
where maybe we'll disagree and agree.
My surrounding claim is that in 2026,
all moderates are cowards.
All right,
well,
uh,
no,
sure,
and I certainly don't think,
don't think I am.
I think that,
uh,
11 of the biggest problems that we have in this country is,
uh,
media polarization.
There are,
uh,
family members of mine that only watch MS now,
and there are family members of mine that only watch Fox News,
and
I watch both.
And so then I see,
you know,
when,
when I turn on MS now,
the only thing they're talking about is going to be in one direction.
I turn on Fox News,
the only thing they're talking about is in the other direction.
And this makes people really on edge,
and then say,
I need to be on one side.
It crafts a moral worldview.
Well,
I certainly understand your point,
you're,
you,
what I'm actually,
let me do this.
Are you saying take a side,
stand up for something?
More or less
I'm saying that over the last we'll say 26 years,
right,
we have been,
well,
barring 2016,
so from 2000 to 2016
we were kind of controlled by a centrist government
and
I feel like that.
Even though Barack Obama was a progressive for his time,
we view him now as pretty centrist,
right?
Uh,
we're in a room full of progressives,
um,
I would agree just even back then as well,
right.
That opened the door
for someone like Donald Trump to come in
and actively erode our Constitution
and the very foundation that our country is supposed to be.
Well,
is it,
is your argument that everyone should be against Donald Trump then?
No.
So then,
then what's your gripe with the gripe with moderates?
Centrism
and moderation in 2026
in the age of
AIPAC money,
in the age of
Larry Ellison,
Barry Weiss,
all of these talking heads,
all of these political entities,
Peter Thiel,
Mark Zuckerberg,
all these,
this technocracy that we are not far from,
right?
Why
do you get
to sit in the middle
and argue both sides
while raking in dollars
from these exact entities?
Well,
what's your,
what's your
proposal?
What's,
I,
I guess I'm trying to understand.
Uh,
my view of what it means to be moderate is that
sometimes the right is correct and sometimes the left is correct.
Sure,
and I think my view is,
I,
I come from,
uh,
interestingly,
the area of Chicago where I grew up has turned red.
It's firefighters,
it's cops,
it's working class Joe's.
Why is that?
That it turned red?
Yeah,
I think for a lot of these people they feel that
the,
the Democratic establishment has abandoned them on a few issues.
The,
the mass migration that we saw or the large migration whatever you want,
wasn't,
wasn't there a huge,
yeah,
like you're saying,
wasn't there a huge migration of blue
to red and red to blue.
Right,
you,
you made that claim.
You mean like California to Texas,
and,
and New York,
inner city Chicago to outer city Chicago suburbs,
things like that.
Yeah,
the people in my neighborhood didn't really move.
They don't have the money to do so.
So there is a large migration.
doesn't mean every neighborhood migrated,
but
particularly for where I grew up,
it's interesting that the politics of the
neighborhood kind of tracked alongside myself.
Like
in 2016,
I was for Bernie.
My the area where I grew up,
it was like largely blue.
Uh,
I didn't vote for anybody.
In 2020.
I said,
I guess I'm gonna vote for Trump.
That's the things I don't like about him,
but here's what I,
what I agree with him,
why I don't like Joe Biden vote for him.
Well,
unfortunately,
I think one of the big issues with Afghanistan,
and I'm not gonna say Trump's done well with Iran particularly,
you know what I mean,
but,
uh,
there was an issue of,
uh,
for one,
I was for Tulsi Gabbard.
I donated the maximum to Tulsi and to,
uh,
to Andrew Yang,
and,
and Andrew Yang,
how's Tulsi doing?
moderately well.
I mean she's not particularly in the political limelight as of right now,
but I do believe she's gonna try and run a spoiler candidacy against Democrats.
Sure,
Andrew Andrew Yang doing?
Andrew Yang not doing so well.
I mean,
he's got the Forward Party,
but why do you think that?
Why do I think what?
Why do you think that Andrew Yang is not succeeding in today's day?
Because I believe the Democratic machine,
like they did to Bernie ices out anybody who
wants to actually win on a populist grassroots level,
and I don't know how to vote for someone like Joe Biden who I think is evil,
and I think him and the administration,
Hillary Clinton have done such horrible things
that.
I said we,
we need,
like Andrew Yang was my principal guy,
a big fan of Tulsi as well,
largely because she had military service and
was in opposition to these foreign wars,
and we didn't get it for the second time,
I said,
I guess I'm voting for Donald Trump
for a few reasons.
He was the only one talking about
why we need trade controls,
and I agree with these trade controls,
but I fully recognize that they do cause short-term economic damage,
and that's bad for a lot of people.
I can recognize that.
Why do we,
why
are we in the position.
Or why,
why as a country
did we end up in that issue with trade?
Why did that happen?
There's a lot of arguments for it.
If you go back to the 90s,
you can look at these,
these general free trade agreements.
The belief from a lot of individuals is
that when there's trade agreements between countries,
you prevent war.
Who passed those?
These,
these,
these laws
that go back to both parties over the since,
since 1950.
So in the 1950s,
who passed them?
Like what,
what,
where did they align politically?
Both parties and we call it the,
we call it the Unit Party.
I would say they they'd probably be pretty close to the center,
right?
One would call them a moderate.
We call them the Uni Party.
I,
I don't think moderates the right way to describe a cabal of elites who
lie about their views to attract the most voters possible and steal power from,
from the working class.
Sure,
like,
like moderate is
just means.
So if you believe that,
what are your views in 1950?
Where are you voting?
Where are you casting your vote?
Oh,
I'm not voting for any of these people.
Well,
to be,
to be fair,
I think we're the products of the 1950s.
We'd have all strange,
like very strange political.
Views,
but I would say right now,
uh,
are you familiar with the liberal economic order?
Yes,
I,
I think it's,
it was insane.
And then the policies that we got from it leading up to before Trump came in
was the continuance of this,
this,
this policy by which
the United States imposes economic sanctions and military,
uh,
we'll just call it their military because it could be occupation or bombings
on other countries unless they enter into debt
with an international.
Banking system
and they thought,
you know what,
this will prevent World War II and it and did it?
No.
So they entered into foreign sovereign nations and took away
the rights of the people to vote as they wish.
How is that different like the central bank entity,
right?
How is that different than
most of the individuals on the right taking money from AIPAC?
That's not a good thing.
I don't,
I don't agree with that.
Those are bad things.
Then why do you actively support that?
Why do you actively support a president who's made.
Billions of dollars since he's taken office.
Why do you support that as somebody who loved Bernie?
The simple answer is the things that I align with,
clearly you don't align with,
and that puts me in a,
in a Trump position as opposed to a Democrat position.
Sure,
you have a lot of politicians on the Democrat
side who got behind authoritarian practices during COVID.
I'm not going to support those individuals.
I will,
but the authoritarian practices today
you're willing to look past
some of them,
yes.
Come on man,
come on,
like do you want me to,
do you want me to lie to you and equivocate and pretend that I think politicians are
I don't want you to lie to me and I'm so thankful that you're being honest.
And I'm glad these cameras can see that,
and I hope your fan base can.
And I'd say this every single night on my show.
It,
it is silly that you get people who come on here and try to defend the indefensible.
Like sometimes you're a conservative and you're wrong.
Sometimes you're a Democrat and you're wrong.
It's,
it's silly to come here and be like,
no matter what the argument is,
I have to tribalistically defend something that's stupid.
But here's the issue.
There are things that Democrats have done that terrify me,
and I cannot support.
Now that being said,
is there good that they've done?
There's a possibility,
uh,
you know,
the one thing I like to,
I like to shout out for,
for Joe Biden is banking and ATM issues.
I know it seems a little light,
but I can't believe that the right attacked Joe Biden
on the issue of trying to get,
get rid of ATM fees.
I know a guy.
It might sound so light,
but you gotta start from the bottom.
It sounds like a very safe Republican moderate belief.
And that's,
and,
and dude,
you are entitled to have those beliefs and like
we live in this country,
we are allowed to disagree.
This constitution that you allege that is fully eroded,
we still have the ability to do this,
and that rules,
but
I will say.
We've all seen what's been going on in our country this summer.
We,
we've been holding the World Cup here.
We've been seeing people come here and see this country for what it truly is,
and they love it.
They love it,
right?
It's great.
What do they love about it?
Well,
I love when they went to Chicago and got the deep dish pizza.
I,
I love the people who said,
where'd that deep dish pizza come from?
Giordano's?
Yeah.
OK,
that's that last name,
that doesn't sound like an American last name.
Where'd that pizza come from?
It came from America.
Immigrants.
It didn't.
No,
it didn't Chicago style deep dish came,
came from Chicago.
But,
but it's it's like the descendants of immigrants if you want to get technical.
So
what I'm saying is
these because American style pizza was uniquely
American and distinct from Italian style pizza.
Totally.
I know where chicken tikka masala comes,
but it's still pizza.
Do you know where chicken tikka masala is a British inclination.
I get it.
Like I fully get it,
man.
We agree it's amazing.
You are talking to a 365 pound man with a knife tattoo.
You think I don't know where tikka masala's from,
Doc?
Like,
I,
we love it,
we agree.
I mean,
I,
I don't love that it's their national dish.
I think.
I'm,
I'm part Korean.
My,
my,
I had,
I had family who fled war and came to America
and were welcomed in the beautiful bosom of this nation
to live an amazing life.
Then why are you voting for an entity that wants to erase that?
They don't want to erase it.
I think you have a misconception.
I think,
I think it comes down to,
I look at a Biden administration
that brings in a,
a,
there's wide estimates from 4 to even upwards of 20 million,
right?
And,
and if you pick what number you think is right or what's wrong,
it doesn't matter.
We saw,
we saw mass migration into this country
on a large scale,
and I think that is bad for the economy.
I think it's bad for the younger generation,
and I see ideologies pushed by Democratic Party
politicians and activists that I think are detrimental
to the future of the,
of the younger generation in this country,
namely my child.
So,
so we keep talking about the civil war issue,
the secessions and everything.
The big issue that's going on geopolitically
is we've got a massive target on our back.
Wouldn't you want more people to be in this country
to fight against that?
Wouldn't you want more hands the target?
Like I mean like who's who's the threat?
We are
Israel.
Through us
is a threat.
So we have,
but you're saying like there's gonna be retaliation in the United States.
They,
they are hanging banners calling for the
the assassination of our sitting president.
And I,
I,
I don't agree with that.
I don't want that to happen
if that were to happen.
I,
I do not like the outcome that's going to,
I don't,
I,
I don't see how bringing in more people from around the around the world,
which,
whether right or wrong,
changes that.
Wouldn't,
isn't a larger country stronger?
Isn't China vastly more advanced than we are?
Not necessarily,
no.
Yes,
they are.
Is India,
like they,
they,
they have,
they have high levels of poverty in certain areas.
I think they exist within a caste system that we're we're comparing.
I think,
I think the United States likes to put on these airs,
particularly Republicans,
about how everything's perfect and great.
When it's not,
you've got slums.
Japan does this,
China does this.
Every,
you know,
it's,
it's hard to gauge who's
like which country is going to be the,
the,
the pinnacle of success of their,
of their ground.
I don't want us to be the pinnacle.
I want us to be the country that we should be.
Which is
a country that continues to change and grow and develop and welcome people in.
I'm gonna pause here.
We are out of time,
so I wanna thank you both.
I wanna thank all the debaters.
It was great,
man.
You guys brought a lot of passion.
I loved it.
Tim,
I wanna thank you for taking them all on.
That is not easy.
Would you like to continue this conversation on our podcast?
Yeah,
absolutely.
Love to hear it
and I love that you guys watched and tuned in.
Thank you for watching and catch us next time.
I think it was great.
I think,
uh,
everybody did a pretty good job
as long as we're trying to have a real conversation and get to the heart of it,
things usually work out well,
although there was that one guy who seemed really mad at me,
you know.
I,
I came here holding Tim to a very high standard.
Um,
that of at least a 5 year old
in in grade school.
I mostly think that Tim doesn't care about what the fallout of his rhetoric is.
He's primarily focused on one thing and one thing only,
and that's generating profit.
Well,
when you tell me that because I want to vote
for what I believe and I'm making civil war happen,
that's just proving my point.
I think Tim
stood on his own 2 ft about his beliefs.
He did not
lie about his perspective beliefs.
But I do believe that his beliefs
are
inherently cowardly.
People,
they get their view of me from clips presented by progressives who,
you know,
they accuse me of grifting.
I would counter with if they watched my show even one time,
they wouldn't come to me and try and make arguments that I don't
believe him.