 All right, thanks so much folks for being here for our main event We before we do this debate just want to do our normal housekeeping If you just made it for this debate only there's a restroom right across the hall and we're gonna do the Free and post-debate poll via hands just in terms of which side you find most persuasive The reason we're doing this is because this conference is sponsored sponsored by manifold Which is an online play money prediction market where you can predict anything including all the debates from debate con for So if you're watching online Click on that manifold link in the description box right now and predict who's gonna be most persuasive in this debate The objective criteria for deciding who is the most persuasive is we're using the in-person audience Polls just by putting their hand up before and after the debate So if you're fully neutral or you're like 50-50 you're like I can't decide you just ask that you'd not vote but if you think that Biden would be better for America's future. Please put your hand up Ryan's just doing a quick count right now and then it's just going to be a percentage change So at the end of the debate will do the same poll and we'll see if the same percentage of people would say Biden rather than Trump So next we'll need if you think that Trump would be better for America's future. Would you slide your hand? You got it. Thanks so much And I want to give you a quick word from Steven who's representing manifold Steven seriously Thank you so much for being with us tonight. I want to give you a chance just to share a little bit more about manifold. Thanks again Thank you for putting on this wonderful event Hi, I'm Steven gruguette. I'm one of the co-founders of manifold manifold is a prediction a plain Money prediction market platform and what that means you can come on to our site and create a play money betting market on any question from serious issues like conflict in Gaza to the winner of the 2024 presidential election the silly things like whether your friends will be dating in a month Like what color dog you're going to get next, you know, absolutely anything you can think of the question You can create it on manifold have your friends come and participate. It's a lot of fun And I I hope you enjoy the debate itself and the market on the debate 100% and with that we're going to jump into this debate. Thanks so much folks and Steven the floor is all yours Wait real quick you emailed us a list of a bunch of questions. What is our opening statement? What do you want it to be about just the general topic or exactly? Okay, if you just like your top three reasons, let's say your top three reasons Sure, we'll go do a few what do I have 30 minutes for this or how long because Jesus first of all I would like to I would like to honor my debate partner Shawn who has a The unenviable position of defending the undefendable Donald Trump So I Guess I'll focus on one area although I imagine our talks will take us across a lot of different areas When we're looking for who would be a better president for the next term I think something that's important is to look for what are the things that the president can actually affect and What are the records of both of these presidents so far on the things they can claim to affect? One of the areas that I'm gonna fix it heavily on because this is an area where the president can take point is going to be of course foreign policy Trump's foreign policy in almost every single regard was an unmitigated disaster The photo opportunities that he had with North Korea the lack of concessions that he gave from them the discomfort of our allies in the region as a result from that Exiting us from the Iranian nuclear treaty that we are no longer allowed to re-enter that we don't have any control over anymore As Iran races towards nuclear weapons That we have completely lost all oversight on The obscuring of the number of drone strikes that we're doing as Trump has sought under his administration to make it harder to See how many drone strikes were actually happening and the fact that these drone strikes were still probably increasing or remaining the same under his administration Though it's hard to tell The abandoning of allied forces in northern Syria the Kurdish people that we're working with to fight ISIS that he basically abandoned to Turkish attack The lack of any real agreement made with the Taliban the fact that when he did those round of talks with the Taliban The Afghanistan army was not present the or the Afghanistan army was not present the idea that he kicked the can on the road Or he kicked the can down the road on those talks until the next administration, so he wouldn't have to deal with it The the fact that he says that he would be the one to solve the Ukrainian issue despite the fact that he did literally nothing about Russian occupation and Crimea The fact that he was constantly antagonistic towards both of our neighbors Canada and Mexico and our neighbors afar Angola Merkel famously saying that Europe can no longer look to the United States for leadership around the world The fact that Trump undermined NATO question why we were even in it made it sound like the most important part was just individual countries Contributing some military budget to it The fact that the parts of his foreign policy that were supposed to affect us economically sucked The tariff agreements with China were a disaster Everybody agrees at this point that it amounted to I think it was like a 72 billion dollar tax that Americans ended up paying And it didn't even target China in the way that we wanted it to as opposed to say the chips act that Biden did that actually centered a lot Of new semiconductor manufacturing at home Yeah, the yeah, I mean I'll do inform policy there And then I'm sure we'll talk about other things like crime domestic policy everything there But I'll turn it over to Sean see where you want to go from there Yeah Well, I'm glad you want to focus on what the president can actually impact because as of right now with split government and likely We're not gonna have a president at least for the full term with both chambers of Congress It really is down to what the president can impact now It's interesting that you would lead with foreign policy because one President that we're talking about actually had a guy that had to be stripped of security clearances Due to the fact that he was loyal to Iran which was uncovered in emails in a recent scandal This of course is Rob Malley and Rob Malley was only the head of our side of the negotiations for Iran And it turns out he was recruited by the Iranians years ago and was advocating for them So in that particular point I'd rather have somebody rip up a deal Then put in an agent for the other side as the person to negotiate a new deal as far as what the president can impact one of The big things that they can affect in our day-to-day lives is through the regulatory state now Trump was actually the first real deregulator in American history with just 20 Regulations that he removed while he was president just 20 the average American is estimated to have saved in terms of income $3,100 that's $3,100 in your pocket due to the fact that the Trump administration was using his executive power to pair down the regulatory state this amounted to $220 billion in cost savings for consumers and for businesses by contrast our buddy Joe Biden has added $360 billion in new regulations big-ticket regulations and compliance for this just the paperwork is 220 million hours if you think that that is not impacting you economically You got another thing coming and speaking of economic impact many of our major cities in this country have to deal with a Migration crisis now one of these candidates even though the wall didn't get built Let's be honest Campaigned on building a wall the other candidate campaigned on having asylum seekers rushed to the border now Here's the problem. I'm in favor of asylum Everybody should be in favor of asylum if people are in danger and all that we want to help people because we're kind and compassionate people But the thing is when you have migrants that know for a fact and their economic migrants make no mistake about it that They can go to a border agent Say the right words and then be put into our asylum court system that creates a giant backlog It actually hurts our ability to help those who are legitimately seeking asylum and this was encouraged by the Biden administration By contrast probably the best policy of any president related to immigration in the last 20 years President Trump instituted a policy called remain in Mexico now the idea behind this was pretty straightforward If you're saying I'm fleeing let's say Venezuela due to the fact that I feel like I'm being persecuted or whatever Well, the route to Venice from Venezuela to the United States goes through about eight different countries Now if you're afraid you're going to be killed or persecuted or whatever the reasons for asylum There is no reason why you shouldn't stop and apply for asylum in each and every one of these policies Even though it's called remain in Mexico It just means apply for asylum in each country and then come to the United States after you're rejected Because again asylum is supposed to be about safety not economic opportunity Of course the Biden administration didn't didn't not continue that policy He encouraged people to flood to the border and now we have about seven million Border crossings according to the cbd data a bunch of republicans will tell you eight million you pick whichever number you want It's not good and we're suffering the consequences for that major cities in this country Are having to pay to hotel these people and what's biden's response? He wants to fast-track work permits give these people A faster magnet to further draw them into the united states of america and prolong the crisis I think the number one thing that a president needs to do is advocate for the citizens of this country These people are by definition not that and this is just one of the many reasons why trump is a better candidate than Joe Biden also trump is alive Joe biden we don't know i've seen weekend at bernie's i know you guys have seen it And you know symbolically destiny's drinking red bull to build up the energy to talk about joe biden Well, I have water because I don't need any hype Oh, right We're we're gonna kick it into an open discussion So, uh, uh, I like to put it over to the other side to respond to some of what you just heard and get us into it Yeah, I guess the most important determining factor for I guess trump's future health is I guess how effective the us health care system operates in federal prisons I'm not entirely sure what that looks like, but um, I guess we'll find out soon enough Um, I'm gonna be honest. I haven't even heard of the rob malley story with iran That might be one I guess particular person. Is this a person that was appointed appointed directly by by Yes, he was the person negotiating the new nuclear deal on behalf of america even though He works for iran and by the way, there's other people that also have iranian ties in that group Sure. Maybe iranian ties. Do these people rise to the level of donald trump when he was running for election Literally choosing people like paul maniforte Who was working as an unregistered foreign agent in ukraine or people like flin who were lying to the fbi in regards to Context that they had With people in russia does it rise to that level of making those types of personal choices? Do you think biden is choosing those people in particular or first of all flin is was allowed to speak to The russians. He was the incoming person who was going to be on national security Maniforte worked for the campaign Should he should he have registered as a foreign agent? Sure, and he was prosecuted for that But again, we're talking about the person negotiating with an enemy nation on this nuclear deal that you seem to want to praise But he works for the iranians So and it's been stripped of all security clearances sure. So if flin was allowed to negotiate with the incoming As an incoming part of the administration. I don't know why he lied to the fbi then about his conversations Uh, maybe you should talk to him about that It could be a perjury trap. Who knows? I I mean, I don't think anybody made him lie. If you actually read through any of the testimony related to that Is do you do we think that I'm curious on a broad macro perspective if we look at the approaches that the presidents have taken to foreign policy Do you think that donald trump was better at shoring up support for america? Internationally, or do you think joe biden has done a better job for that? Well, there's there's two things There's one there's like, oh, are you well liked by like angola merkel and all these european leaders? And the they're on the flip side You have something like the trump administration sending more weapons to the ukrainians than the biden administration And the biden administration not realizing that flatter me To the way he viewed obama during the Crimea annexation as somebody who wouldn't do anything Which likely is one of the factors that played into his decision to invade ukraine So like yeah, the trump obviously he talks like a goofball and all that But he tends to appoint people to do the policies and because he's not particularly interested in individual policies He's more interested in negotiating and like the whole process of being president. They tend to do a better job biden on the other hand is just not even a week What if um If if they thought that uh, trump would do a better job at negotiating these policies Why is it that almost every single person in his administration that talked about doing foreign policy ended up shit talking him? I'm pretty sure pence and the ag at the time had a lot of bad things to say about trump in regards to north korea For instance, do you think he handled north korea appropriately? I mean what what went wrong so much in north korea that we're even talking about the fact that we Validated him as a leader. We gave him photo opportunities and we had talks with him without securing any sort of concessions whatsoever While telling the rest of the world that we were doing a good job in negotiating something with him Whatever that was the question is as compared to what so as compared to not talking to him and continuing to I guess advertise on the world stage that until he's ready to come and have talks about cutting down their missiles program Cutting down their nuclear weapons program until they're ready to have those talks They're not going to be as validated as as i mean, but none of that worked on For i don't know how many years since the korean war with north korea Like we're on the third member of this freaking hereditary dynasty sure But i mean now in the region you've got biden who has better relations with japan and south korea having talks about What to do with north korea when donald trump was in charge we talked to kimmy we gave him some photos and then we I mean the south koreans wanted to do a joint olympics under the moon government when trump was president So like he was also like mirroring to a certain extent the policies of the moon government at the time Okay, so then to be clear you thought that trump Having photo opportunities and legitimizing kim as a leader without actually securing any concessions With them continuing to race towards a nuclear program and continuing to test They already have a nuclear program. So yeah, but now they also have like now they have us approval for what they're doing essentially now It seems like the they don't have actual us approval You're talking about like a perception of us approval, which i don't think is is granted the idea that north korea Is an ally of the united states or anybody legitimately believes that is ridiculous Remember the way that this started is that trump kept threatening kim jung-un Over and over and over again to the point where they wanted to ask for a meeting Because we tried this like posturing in the same way that we did for again since 1950 whenever the korean war had a ceasefire because it never technically ended and it didn't get us anywhere Like now we actually had an opportunity. We sent our best diplomat Dennis robman over there. He plays some like dope basketball and you know, like it is what it is Yeah, but i don't know why we think that We did anything when this was i'm pretty sure the first time in north korean leader is at a photo op a handshake And jesus christ a fucking salute from our president Um, i don't know why we just hand wave that and say he was trying something He didn't try anything all he wanted was and this is going to be a theme for all of trump's administration The only thing he wanted was a photo op. That was it There was no diplomatic plan there all we did was enrage or anger our allies in the region And you can say that who cares it's just a photo op, but he's the president of the united states Who's enraged about that again the moon government at the time was very friendly to north rhea He crossed the dmz zone During the olympics like remember they were hyping his sister. I understand we have the olympics dictator in the media We have the olympic story But tensions at the time were not good because shortly after our meetings with kim They literally go right back to testing. North rhea always does Yeah, except now they've done it after getting photos for the first time with the u.s president All right, I mean again, this is like This is like the most petty thing maybe because you want to talk about iranian spies and the biden administration I don't even know if that claim is true. I'm fortunate. I've never even heard it. Why did why did rob malley lose his security clearance? I don't know. Why did he lose his security clearance? So what is the he was recruited by iran well before he was in the biden administration along with other people Again, who are supposed to be negotiating for our side on this nuclear deal So you're saying it was working as an unregistered foreign agent or a spy I don't know which one that will well wait for the shakeouts of potential indictments in the future But how long how long ago did he this is how long ago did he lose his security? This is recent like I think news of this broke if I have the date right here somewhere I believe it was like last month or something like that And what was the what was the reason why he lost the security clearance because he was tied deeply to iran We have emails from him and contacts in the iranian government And the perception of those emails at least according to the reporting Is that he is still loyal to the iranian government Um, okay, uh, it's interesting that it's been charged with any crime if it sounds like what you're talking It's like a month like it takes so sometimes it takes a while. Yeah, but why is any of this information public? If there hasn't been a charge yet because we have media that like pursue stories and sometimes And get leaked to the government about potential espionage investigations that happens all the time What do you mean it doesn't happen? You're talking about the trump administration everything everything was leaked I don't have information about that story. I don't think any of that story is true But I guess all right if you say so I mean either either either he lost his security clearance or he didn't like this is enough for you Can lose your security clearance for a variety of reasons if you can lose the security clearance for not Declaring that your friends or in a relationship friends of somebody from a foreign country Or you could lose the security clearance for a whole host of different reasons that don't involve actual espionage of the united states Well, I didn't say first of all you brought up espionage. I didn't say he would be charged with espionage again That came out of your mouth. I just told you what happened and it's an ongoing developing story Okay, well, I think that the ongoing developing story of somebody losing a security clearance that was involved in Iranian nuclear Or some sort of Iranian negotiations I don't think it's quite as bad as donald trump exiting us from the nuclear Iranian deal that was allowing us to keep tabs on their nuclear program I mean that deal was crap and we had a very similar deal With the north korean since you brought them up back in the 90s under clinton And obviously that did not prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon I don't think we had a deal with the north koreans that allowed the united nations into their nuclear facilities to do constant I don't know the I don't know the specifics of the north korean deal But like these kind of deals don't tend to work You also had benrod. This deal was working for iran. It literally was working for iran. That's the problem It was working for the whole world because we were preventing iran from approaching a nuclear weapons program Totally disagree. Okay. The un disagrees with you, but okay. That's fine. What do they know also in terms of foreign policy I mean look at what is going on in the middle east right now Like president orange man, you could say whatever you want about him But he made it pretty clear that israel is our ally after i don't know 20 presidents That's an exaggeration after four presidents promised that they were going to recognize That jerusalem was the capital of israel trump actually did it and then weirdly enough even though we were told by the media for years That making peace between israel and palestine was the key to working out recognition and all these things with uh With the era of world it turns out that not doing that standing firm with your ally Actually made that clear that that was off the table and then we started to see deals from these nations of israel our ally during the trump administration And the wonder kid that everybody made fun of because he was put in charge of 25 million things Not my favorite person jerry kushner actually did negotiate pretty well on behalf of our ally Um, so i'm pretty sure donald trump moving the embassy to jerusalem has been lauded as a catastrophic decision Because he did it for literally no reason other than to antagonize the palestinians in the region Which as we can see hasn't moved this way can i ask you a question Where is the capital of the united states of america dc all right and like who decides that i'm just curious I Sometime in the founding of our country. What do you mean who decides the united states of america would decide where their own Capital is right? Yeah, so like if canada didn't recognize that our capital was dc and they said it was you know like uh Is canada currently occupied territory like cleveland or something like would it would it be weird if all of our All of our allies recognize what canada said or should they recognize what we declare our capital as because israel has declared their capital as jerusalem this is about recognition of your ally Yeah, does canada and like that seems like a basic thing that you should honor Does canada own any part of washington dc? I don't know do does palestine own anything? Is it even a country? Okay, so the yeah, so the whole point of that is that it's contested territory That's why recognizing jerusalem as the capital is probably not a good idea because who even owns jerusalem It's a great idea because if you're aligned with the country and they're telling you this is their capital You can either recognize it like you would for a country that you're aligned with or play this game where you're like, okay We're all gonna promise it and then not actually deliver on it Do you think it's weird that bill clinton? George herbert walker bush george w bush and barack obama all made this promise and never delivered No, because the whole point of the capital of jerusalem and moving the embassy to jerusalem is that jerusalem is partially Contested territory that there's a huge issue about who actually owns which parts of jerusalem that need to be resolved That the trump administration didn't move us any closer to resolving before just Spacking the embassy down in jerusalem is saying oh look we did a good thing But all it did was increase tensions in the area didn't help anything it didn't do anything good That is true the largest terrorist attack in israeli history happened under the trump administration Oh wait, that was last month under biden What did biden do to increase hostility? Well, we do have an intelligence base over there. Why did that fail? I don't know what any of those things have to do So part of the reasons why the people in the gazelstrip are so incensed at people in israel is partially because of you brought these up the abraham accords None of those bilateral peace agreements were impressive They were already with countries that had had relatively normal relationships with israel for Years, um, they didn't involve any of the actual countries that have a lot of issues With israel such as jordan such as syria such as iran and the only thing it did was continued to antagonize relations between israel And palestine because they were more peace treaties being signed in the middle east without any explicit statement on what would be done Because because it is a myth that this israel palestine thing is the key to recognition for the state of israel amongst these countries Once you take that off the table and then you start negotiating with these other nations directly You have all these places that are you are right They were working with israel like kind of under the table while pretending that they still didn't recognize them But getting at least a few of them to start the process of coming forward at recognizing the nation is progress And that did happen. Yeah, but it's progress in an area that doesn't matter and it's making regressions in areas But why would why would that not matter? It's like it's like the broader middle east because these countries were already Communicating with each other more or less and now all it's and by the way One of the foundations of this alliance is the fact that iran is a regional power that they're all trying to check in the area So again hostility towards iran trying to isolate them as a strategy Also ended up leading to this recognition. I'm sorry just to be clear You're telling me saudi arabia needed a bilateral peace agreement with israel to fight with iran No, i'm saying that using their shared enemy rather than this conflict between israel palestine As the entry point towards recognition is a better strategy Yeah, but the conflict between israel and palestine is like one of the defining conflicts in the region And trump didn't move any closer towards that and in a lot of ways hurt our ability to resolve it by aggressively Acknowledging a capital and moving an embassy to a place in contested territory And then in signing peace agreements without including the palestinians in any of the talks the same way that he's did the Doha agreements with the taliban without including the afghanistan government The same way that he agreed to pull out of syria without consulting any of the kurdish people They were about to be mowed down by an invading turkish force But why would again I need to negotiate with the palestinians to talk about this alliance that you're building against iran What because the because israel palestine is like the contested territory Yeah, that is a contested territory You realize that they're you can walk and chew gum at the same time They could have this issue this border issue that is over here But the main issue is that these countries are all natural enemies of iran and you're trying to build alliance to counterbalance that No, one has nothing to do with the other we're not trying to build an alliance to to counter iran in the middle east That's just not what are you talking about? Have you ever seen the map of like all the bases that we have surrounding iran? How long of this is this is a cold war? Do you think they're going to fight against iran against the soviet union? I'd say counterbalance Why are we trying to negotiate a nuclear deal even under the biden administration with iran if we're not trying to Keep them in check because nuclear like anti nuclear proliferation is one of like the stated goals of the entire world at the moment So we try to discourage essentially everybody from approaching nuclear weapons So your position is that we're not trying to keep the iranians in check as a foreign policy goal that transcends a bunch of different administrations My position is that if we wanted to prevent iran from approaching nuclear weapons The best way to do that was through that joint plan of action the iran nuclear deal that donald trump sold us out That's a nice way of not answering that's a nice way of not answering the question after you're saying that we're not trying to limit iran No, I don't think we're trying to build a coalition against iran in the middle east What are you talking? Of course we are we're trying to have a check on iranian expansion Of course we are where is iran expanding to well right now They're expanding their influence into iraq or do you deny that that they have a lot of Yeah, but the way to do that is to build military alliances. Yes Okay, I Let me just let me just ask you a question right Okay, so do you think as a strategy? I don't know against let me just make up a country that might like want to aggress as a strategy against like Russian aggression that we could have an alliance like like a north american like alliance like something like NATO and that would be a check against russian expansion in the future if you just align those countries militarily NATO was created to counter the second world Not one country world like multiverse like what do you mean in the cold war? You have the first world which are the western aligned powers and you have the second world that are the soviet aligned powers Sorry, I was watching a movie before the soviet union and the war saw packed is what nato was created to serve as a Yeah, but it still exists and we still admit new members as a counterbalance towards russian aggression Because russian expansion west predates the soviet union. It's the whole history of the nation The reason we have that alliance there is i mean the original reason was keep russia out and keep germany down Because we want to prevent conflict from breaking out on the european continent Because the last time that happened in a major way well the last two times were two world wars So, yeah, you do build military alliances in specific regions to check an expanding power Like I don't you seem like you're just arguing this to argue this I'm not arguing to argue it You're trying to make it sound like these random bilateral peace agreements with countries that are already incredibly friendly towards us and pretty friendly towards israel But they never they never work towards moving to normalizing relationships with iran instead of being intensely provocative towards them They never wouldn't they never formally like recognize israel. What are you talking about? They were already communicating in a bunch of these countries In a bunch of these countries even though they're allies with us and they're allies and we're allies with israel If you have an israeli passport in your uh in israeli passport stamp in your passport You couldn't even go like to both countries This is one of the reasons why with the state department you have to get three different passports Sometimes if you're traveling between this region But yeah, like of course obviously I think if the goal is to reduce tensions in the region Then the goal should be the normalization of relationships with iran That has been like the the key goal for foreign policy for probably the past 20 years before our 2030 years Before bush identified iran as the axis of evil. That was our goal. It was towards normalizing relationships with iran That was part of what the iranian nuclear deal was for Okay, sure Um, except except the iranian nuclear deal emboldened the iranians It put them into a position where their neighbors ended up fearing them and that and that ended up putting Setting up the impetus for this potential alliance All right, okay. Um, yeah, I just I think that um, I guess we won't get into the the syrians or the afghanistan Conflict or anything like that. But uh, yeah, I think that the afghanistan time again I think that um, donald trump pursued things that didn't matter. They gave him, uh, they gave him I guess photo ops. Um, we got this every conservative touts this peace in the middle east that didn't I didn't say peace in the middle east. I didn't say you did. I said that a lot of trumples and a lot of these people talk about Peace in the middle east or the historic, uh, importance of these peace agreements. Um, they aren't they aren't that really Obviously as we see today, they didn't get us any closer towards normalizing relations with the people that matter like iran Like syria like lebanon like figuring out what was going on in palestine Obviously the situation in afghanistan him again kicking the can down the road So we wouldn't have to deal with that in his administration with the tally band was deplorable Abandoning our kurdish allies in syria after they helped us Eliminate isis or at least in parts of syria and abandon them to the turkish army. That was deplorable Not doing anything about crimea and in somehow pretending like he would have stopped the karmia happened in 2014 Who was president was that trump? I'm sorry. Did russia pull all their troops out for the four years that donald trump was president No, but like that happened that didn't matter that happened in 2014 and the trump administration was heavily arming The ukrainians It's been a policy to southern weapons But yeah, he ramped that up even though people were saying that he ramped that he also got impeached for threatening to take it away Because they wouldn't do it Allegedly Listen, I heard that was a perfect phone call. I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah Yeah, I don't know what So you're a crime guy. How do we do a law and order president? Who's facing like four different sets of indictments in the country? Listen All i'm gonna say is that if you think that any other president if they had these alleged crimes Waged against them would be prosecuted in the same way I think I think you would definitely be lying the fact of the matter is they're prosecuting him because he's the orange man And that is the only reason Can you give me an example of which of the indictments are comparable to past crimes that you believe that presidents have committed that haven't been pursued? I mean you could prosecute. So one of the things that they used was a In in georgia. They try to use a riko statue against president trump Now you could have actually used that against all presidents ben Shapiro made this argument back in like 2010 As a way to deal with their administration as a group But like nobody ever wanted to do that because presumably opening that can of worms on past administrations Should set a precedent that you could do this to any successive administration But president joe biden even though he's asleep decided to have his attorney general his justice department break those norms anyway And now it's considered a potential standard going forward that when you leave office in the united states of america The next guy can come in and prosecute you even the obama administration didn't do that Even the obama administration didn't do that for the bush administration And by the way the crimes that he was accused of were actually torture related ordering it covering it up Detaining people in guantanamo bay in violation of their civil rights without charges And obama like you know you say what you want and whether you agree or disagree with this He seemed to set a precedent that the trump administration actually followed when they were in office Which was we don't look backward. We look forward, but biden's like nah never mind We're gonna look backward for this particular guy. And yeah, this is destructive to our entire process. So firstly, there's absolutely No evidence whatsoever that the doj is working underneath biden Um or that biden is ordering any of these investigations who appointed mary garland There's no who appoints the chair of the federal reserve. Do you think biden sets the interest rates? Who appointed mary garland? Why do you think the appointment is what the federal reserve the federal reserve is a unique like institution in the united states of america That does not directly serve under the executive branch. So this is why they're not analogous The department of justice is something that is directly under the auspices of the president So when bar was contradicting direct statements that donald trump made was bar working under the direct order of donald trump He was under the direct order of president trump I mean one of the things that you could actually ding trump for is that he didn't fire people enough Like for some reason he wouldn't For some reason he wouldn't fire he it's true Like a lot of these people just ended up quitting the administration like he didn't fire anthony fouchy He had every power to do so he had every power to fire his own attorney general Gotcha So just as a matter of like recent historical record the doj does not work under command of the president of the united states Of course, that is a fantastic claim I'd be curious if you could point to investigations where the president of the united states ordered the doj to begin Investigating enemies of the president You could a president can order the doj to examine it. We're not asking the president He could theoretically he could make that or he could theoretically but to do so would be an unbelievable breach of norms Which unfortunately became a bit accustomed to under donald trump But the idea that the doj works at the behest is the personal prosecutorial body of the president to go in to go after opponents of the president This is like that's an insane claim and and biden himself has made contradictory statements So garland has made contradictory statements saying as much that these things do not happen It does not happen. There was no communication. This is like saying that if p buda judge over at transportation says something that biden disagrees with that p buda judge is not working for the biden administration Sure, you can say specific things and maybe the trump administration as a whole Believed in a greater separation between the doj and the administration proper But it has been long it has been long precedent amongst especially democratic administrations That there is a close relationship with their office and and uh and the doj I mean robert f kennedy jr. Was appointed as the ag under john f kennedy Eric holder was called barack obama's wingman barack obama would speak about a particular case William bar was called donald trump's sword and shield and in the end he was one of his harshest critics I'm now you're now you're contradicting your point I'm not i'm not crit my point is literally that the the attorney general and that the department of justice Especially in politically charged investigations along with the rest of our intelligence community is supposed to work with some level of separation Otherwise, why would it have been a big deal for donald trump to pull in comey and have conversations? Couldn't he just order the fbi to stop an investigation? Couldn't he just order the cia christopher rey to to not look into things? Of course not the idea that these all of our intelligence and all of these executive orcs work for the personal pleasure of the president Especially in regards to politically sensitive topics Especially in regards to investigations of himself or political opponents is a fantastic idea You can try to talk around that all you want But it would be an unimaginable bridging of norms and anybody that understands any part of how the united states government works We instantly know that the idea that the executive prosecutorial body of the department of justice can work under the personal pleasure Of the president of the united states That's just an outrageous claim so like the trick that you're doing right now is you're saying personal pleasure When I said that they work under the office of the president like don't think I didn't notice that shift You're not saying they work under the office you say they take direction from you say they take direction from You can order you can order a member of the department of justice I believe scalia when they reviewed the special prosecutor statute was talking about how you cannot create through the executive branch A position that is superior to the executive branch like not only is what i'm saying the norm in america Yes, the president can fire his a g fbi director anybody you want to run down the list of executive offices He can't fire them for sure But on top of that it has been backed up by supreme court precedent like justice Justice scalia the late scalia his writings are clear You can't there is no office under the executive branch that is superior to the head of the executive branch Which is the president of the united states. Okay, this is like a basic like civic lesson right now Not only is it not a basic civic lesson as you are so dead wrong This would be such an unbelievable breach of norms that it would it would be the lead story probably internationally If it came out that the president of the united states was ordering the doji This happened under the obama administration He asked eric holder to look into the furgus in case he asked eric holder to review the tray von martin case Like what are you talking about looking? These are not like the politically sensitive Oh, they're not politically sensitive like furgus and riots of the investigation of political opponents But if any of that information comes out, I could be wrong So you're telling me then that of all the indictments that have been released with all the evidence detailing the numerous trump wrong Doings that all of these are are they fabrications of the biden doj? Are they not trustworthy? I didn't say that they're necessarily fabrications I just pointed out that these are cases that would not be brought against Somebody not named donald trump. Okay. Can you give me an example of somebody else that's held on to? Secret records that have been specifically requested by the federal government for over a year that haven't been returned I mean, there's a specific case on for bill clinton under the courts where he was arguing about whether or not his recordings were Were what you call were of a of a personal nature or a classified nature the court actually ruled with the clinton administration There are there are instances where do you think that's at all comparable to what we're talking about There are well that one has a supreme court case to back it up. I'm not asking. I'm asking if that's comparable You're saying a personal voice recording. He made that the argument No, no, there was more there was more that there was more to what the clinton's had But like the court ruled with them So it's not comparable because that's already been adjudicated right now No, it's not comparable because a personal recording is not something that the executive is declared to be secret top secret Listen, a lot of these classified documents exist in a weird gray area because no they don't they're very crystal clear Yeah, they do and I'll explain why because the president can declassify anything that he wants But he wasn't the president No, no, he was he was the president when he took them. This is why you end up with a weird problem It's not a weird problem at all He took him when it's he took him when he had the right to do it the what you call the secret service Set up more logo for these documents to be capable be a place where they could be stored waiting for they didn't Yeah, they did when he was the president. They were not set up to indefinitely store Classified I didn't say indefinitely. You're adding a qualifier But the indefinite part because he was no longer president That's the whole point My point is is that it's a weird situation where he's able to move these things because he's the president But then he stopped being president. So then it's like, okay now Like how do you adjudicate you adjudicate it incredibly the way that it always has been done for past presidents We've never had a case like that. It happened with obama where after you are leaving office The national archives will do a check to see if documents are missing if they if they need a may request for stuff And then afterwards they make a request to the person leaving the white house I'm pretty sure for obama. They there were a ton of boxes that were brought back They do their little checks and once they have everything they leave there's an official process for doing this They gave donald trump over a year to comply with these orders and he was explicitly moving things around Okay, like an old grandma trying to hide her fucking cookies from like the grandkids coming over He was like moving shit around in maro lago to try to avoid not only was he doing that He was also telling who's instructing his legal counsel to lie if donald trump felt like he had the authority to declassify Anything indefinitely into the future, which by the way one is so ridiculous I know even you don't believe that and two isn't even true because there are certain things like i'm pretty sure The um the department of energy has strict rules about the declassification of nuclear Nuclear there's a declassification process. The president cannot unilaterally by his own ways Declassify nuclear secrets. So even if we even if I did grant you an ounce, which I wouldn't because it's absurd He can't even declassify some of this if you didn't have the authority to do it I mean the department of energy first of all again works under the auspices of the president But again, I was not making the point that they were all declassified I meant that he can view and move classified documents But we're distracting off the policy issue because you don't want to talk about the biden administration policy Because you don't want to talk about who would be a better president instead. You're talking about these indictments Which again, we'll wait for them to be adjudicated innocent until proven guilty I think that the president has a natural right a god-given right to store classified documents in his bathroom And we'll see how the courts will let that play out. Okay, we can move on from this So just to be clear you think that the president of the united states can violate Every single agency that works under the executive branch at any point in time because they work underneath him So if there is a fda policy if he wants to shit in your food If there is a policy with the dea if he wants to shit in a nuclear reactor If there is a policy with with with the with literally anything he can do whatever he wants the da controls nuclear reactors The department of energy. Sorry for the dea. I guess shit in your joint. Okay, you're telling me that you're telling me that the president of the united states at any point in time Can can violate any executive agency rule because he's the president and they exist underneath him That's your stated. No, that's exactly what I didn't say any that's literally not that is literally what you said These agencies exist under him. So if he wants to violate these standards, you can do it He can fire people at these agencies like that is a fact. That's what I said. That's what we're talking about Then do you think he can also direct these agencies to the especially to the extent that he's covered by the wall But of course he is not able to be subordinated by the agencies that exist under his own office Congress can hold them accountable because we have a separation of powers The supreme court can hold them accountable because we have a separation of powers Okay, that it's just okay. So that's what so you believe that the president is unlimited authority I didn't say unlimited of sorry underneath any of the executives despite that because Donald Trump himself literally said I could have declassified these but I didn't that's he can still infinitely take any president should be able to take Whatever classified material they want and hold on to it into an I didn't necessarily say that I said Let's let the case be adjudicated and we'll see how it goes and obviously no other president would be prosecuted for this well, I mean, but you can't give me a single example of a president making anything this this flagrant of a of a Breach of norms or of a violation of maintaining an indefinite hold on classified information It's being like requested back by federal agencies. No other president has done anything like these things But you're just saying for some reason even though for instance We got a historic of a guy that's not even related to politics hunter biden I think got a federal charge because he had an old video of himself doing drugs and owning a firearm I don't I don't know if that's like in the history of the united states if anybody's caught a charge for something like that You don't think anybody's gotten a charge for lying on a firearms Form when they fill it out to buy a firearm that they're not using drugs when they actually were was that the claim that I just made But that's what he's actually charged with How do they know that he lied on that form because you have to fill out this form I understand how buying a firearm and he said that he wasn't using he was under the influence of any substance So you're going to tell me that no american has ever been charged for lying on that form The idea of finding videos that are five ten years old It was within the statute of limitation and using the video to say that uh, oh my god I think he lied on his on his atf form that is an that is an incredible charge That is an incredibly abnormal charge That is something you would very very rarely if I don't know if I've ever heard of a case like that And you can pretend that it's normal But if you talk to any gun owner the idea that the federal government is looking back on videos from 2012 to see if you lied on an atf form that is an incredibly political charge That just would not normally be I mean first of all he got a sweetheart plea deal number one Originally and then people noticed it so then they had to claw it back because it was so absurd Number one number two sweetheart plea deal about what he had to plea to like a misdemeanor And he was going to skate on that charge because he owed back taxes Yeah, but the firearm thing was attached to it But they were going to dismiss that as a part of the plea deal for the tax because most people don't have people Going through old videos to try to Determine if they lied on an atf form. That's just Listen, I don't have every case ever where people use video evidence to disprove something like this, but it's happened before I mean if you say so I go okay People will do video investigations to check if you're lying on your social security disability Like the idea that people haven't posted video evidence of their crimes and then later years later been indicted on something like that Is absurd and also we have a huge regulatory state Which by the way is being increased by the biden administration And people get dinged based on ticky-tack violations and end up serving federal time for that all the time in this country What are bad regulations that biden has passed you disagree with? Uh, there's a ton of them like first of all like he's not letting uh these permits go through for the oil drilling He repealed like I didn't bite an okay drilling on federal land. Wasn't that one of the You can you can say i'm okaying it on federal land and then make the claim like he does that there's 4 000 unused permits But then when you go through the details of it and you figure out that in order to drill for oil You need an exploration permit then by the way only one out of every 10 maybe find something like that It might even be a lower hit rate Then you need a permit in order to like Have your drilling plan and then you need additional permits in order to extract and transport and all that So he can say oh, I approved it on federal lands to sound good and and whatnot But in reality, but he didn't dismantle the entire regulatory body of drilling and transporting fossil fuel something that is pretty sensitive He ramped it up What I don't think he's made substantial. Are you telling me that before you didn't need a permit to trans Nobody said nobody said you didn't need a permit, but you he's slowing down the process of the permits with U.S. Oil production is at record highs right now We are more energy independent than we have in the history of the united states His approval of drilling on federal land has been historic because a lot of people in the left were mad at him for that If you want to claim that there are other permit things in the way I mean like yeah, there's a whole bunch of regulatory bullshit in the united states But biden didn't invent that and I think of anything he's tried to work a bit against it as we've been struggling for energy independence from other countries I completely disagree. He definitely has been limiting the drilling on He's definitely been limiting the drilling through this gumming up of the works of the permit system This is why there was so much pressure on him and this was specifically highlighted when gasoline prices were shooting up through the roof Uh, yeah, I don't think that was because of biden not allowing People to why were people even discussing and trying to defend the permits if this wasn't about that About about what about which thing like why were people even discussing the number of permits issued and the slow down And then bite the bite administration was trying to defend it by saying Oh, there's 4 000 unused permits, which by the way are for oil and natural gas like why was that whole conversation even happening? Probably because people that are trying I don't think there was a legitimate conversation about that happening I don't think people right now are having legitimate conversations about oil issues in the united states again I'm pretty sure u.s. Oil production is at historic highs at the moment The idea that this is an issue that we're running into that we're not making enough permits that Domestic drilling is down If anything, I'm pretty sure that the the complaints have actually been now that I remember pretty sure the complaints have actually been The exact opposite that a whole bunch of domestic oil firms have had the ability to increase their production of oil But because they were worried that we came off peak oil because they're worried we're going to hit another economic slump They've actually been intentionally holding back on supply and production because they're worried that if they overproduce They're going to drive themselves into lower profits than when the next Um economic disaster happens. They're going to be completely fucked like they just got over covid Those are the conversations that I remember hearing that people were upset that domestic Production was down intentionally despite the fact that firms had the ability to increase Does anybody else remember hearing these conversations? Am I crazy? Yeah, this sounds pretty made up especially when you brought in the whole Especially when you brought the whole peak oil thing in which was a nice little buzzword you toss in there But a nice little pivot to like something abstract that really can't be fact-checked and all that But the idea that when gas prices were through the roof that oil companies were intentionally not drilling to profit off those higher prices Basically flies in the face of any economic reality that you can fucking think of like it's kind of absurd that you would make that argument Now granted or there's some are the opaque literally themselves will raise and lower production depending upon What they want to do with oil price. How does that fly in the face of economic reality? They can do that But the thing is if you're a domestic oil producer in the united states of america not subject to what is going on in OPEC and you see those higher prices the idea that you wouldn't the way you profit is by increasing your production And selling at those higher prices like this is this is basic economics higher prices draw in more people To invest in that industry in order to produce it No, first of all you just gave the opposite take of basic economics, which is when prices are high if you increase production Prices will necessarily fall, which is what the oil companies were worried about They already had all of the major capital investment They were worried about another huge price lump because that's what happened and the way you profit off of higher prices Is to sell at those higher prices? Yeah, but if you sell your entire stock and prices plummet again, you're not going to be prepared I think we just have a factual disagreement on what the arguments were over. I mean people can go and look into it um I guess another anything to avoid talking about biden's failed record. I see your strategy Well, I mean if you call biden's failed record, I'm curious you to call trump's record A stunning success stunning success. We can talk about the big thing that uh trump ran on the wall Why was biden able to get a billion dollar concession from mexico for investment into border security? And donald trump got a zero dollar investment from mexico into border security listen At some point in time the the trump administration during the us mca deal Decided that he was going to threaten harsher Negotiations against mexico if they didn't send agents to their southern border in order to stop people from flowing into this country The almo government actually did do that. So even though they didn't say here's a billion dollars for whatever They still sent their people to guard their southern border because we all know what the strategy that they were doing And by the way almo ran on the right of people in latin america to immigrate to the united states Which is an interesting thing to run on But whatever it was to send his own soldiers down there. That was done by the trump administration That might not be this. Oh, here's a billion dollars for like vague investment and whatever That's actual substantive action right there and maybe substantive action something that trump never managed to do I mean just look at the border crossings like what does that billion dollars got us? We have seven million according to the cbb his own agency Saying that they cross into the united states under biden's watch that is way more than seven million. Hold on What is your number seven million border crossings under the biden over the biden administrations? The last estimates i've seen show that there's like 13 to 15 million illegal immigrants Perioding the united states you're telling me seven million came in in two years three years No, hold on. That's according to the cbd. So here's a fact check at home I guess I know that conservatives like to play fast and loose. Are they is it seven million border crossings? Or it's a seven million like catch and turn back or seven million confrontations at the border The number is seven million border crossings and as far as the getaways, it's about 1.5 million So you're telling me is it so to be clear you're saying it's seven million people have come from Mexico And then are now in the u.s. Or that it was seven million encounters by border patrol agents seven million at the border 1.5 million just got away. You did it. So seven million at the border was not border crossing It was encounters at the border to be clear. I mean I could look up the number specifically It was encounters. Sorry. I know it was encounters So in terms of when you talk about asylum seekers The biden administration is actually trying to do something about asylum seekers. They've worked with Latin-american countries We've already got two asylum welcome centers at Guatemala and Colombia so that we can start processing people We're having them stop off there That's a good backtrack to a trump administration policy called remain in mexico That's fine But the difference is biden is actually capable of working with other people to get things done Rather than trump trying to do everything on his own which he's unable to do so And he can't even get like his own administration on board with doing something Biden also has places in Ecuador and Costa Rica where they're also setting up these These actual like asylum areas where they can start to process people instead of having Biden also gave a whole billion dollars to every city in the united states of america to deal with their migrants A whole one billion dollars. That's pretty impressive Right. What is the point of that? He gave a whole one billion dollars to deal with the migrants that are in all these cities across the country Is that supposed to be a good point or a bad point? It's called like almost no money since new york has already spent five billion dollars on it A billion dollars to each state or cities overall. That's what he allocated to deal with the with the crisis When when he allocated one billion dollars of cities to to deal with this crisis Was that just one billion dollars just one billion spread over the city was it just one billion or was this part of like a massive multi like hundred billion package that was part of the Was it the american reinvestment plan where he gave billions and billions of dollars across every city across the united states To help short their budgets wasn't it pretty historic that almost every city and state was able to bring their budgets Even due to this is something different He allocated recently from like executive funding after pressure from all these asylum seekers showing up Which by the way are smartly being shipped by greg abbott to the cities that asked for these people that said that they were welcome He allocated a billion dollars from his executive funds the funds that he could actually move around For all the cities even though new york city alone is spending up to five billion dollars per year on these people How much money did trump allocate to the cities? We didn't have all these people flooding the border during the trump administration We had a genius policy called remain in mexico for the last year. We had a genius policy called covet 19 Okay, pretty sure that was curbing immigration more than anything else And that was used as that was used as a mechanism to block people from entering over the border kind of sounds a little bit like a Oh, it sounds a little bit like a great reset policy there, but um To block people from entering the border is a great use covet 19 as it means to enact new policy Well, this was the policy before um, if you think that adding new regulations are bad I'm curious one of trump's hailing achievements was you brought it up. Um, the us mexican, uh, the us mexico-canada trade agreement Um, do you recognize that this policy is basically just like nafta plus with a whole bunch of new regulations relating to Labor restrictions green energy stuff like that. Yeah, there are what you call it Of course, there are regulations and in a trade agreement for sure Okay, you acknowledge that the tariffs that trump put on china were one of the largest tax increases that Americans have seen it amounted to some 76 billion dollars of tax paid by Americans across the united states There is a cost to taking on a global threat and like sometimes you have to use economic policy as a backstop for national security policy So, yes, there are costs to things like tariffs like the economic voodoo that people promise like from all different Administrations that you're gonna do a tariff over here and that's gonna protect you over here and save your job That's nonsense, but there is a legitimate national security reason why you want to weaken china Well, there's a national security reason Don't you think that the approach that president biden took with the chips act in terms of encouraging Billions of dollars of domestic investment into semiconductor manufacturing the us is a better Step than just slapping tears now because a lot of these semiconductors were already going to be produced in the united states They were already setting up. They literally were not It was a giant subsidy to these companies that were already going to do this in the first place Okay, I mean the audience of the that's just wrong. Um, there were major companies that were that made huge announcement No, I don't think that semiconductor manufacturing is moving to the united states Sandy was ramping up in the united states. We had a giant chip shortage due to covet 19. Of course it was Uh, like this is already happening You think with the global demand for semiconductors like nobody was moving to produce some outside of china or taiwan No, it was economically feasible to do so. That was the whole issue That was the whole reason why we needed the chips act was to get that initial investment to jump start the production in the united states It wasn't happening in the united states Again, it was starting to come back to the united states And that had to do with the fact that we had freezes in production in china due to covet 19 So yeah, there was an economic impact of that and then after that the biden administration decided We're gonna throw some corporate welfare at these at these companies that are already building these facilities over here Okay, I mean, I just didn't happen, but I don't know what else to say I mean you can look up like companies investment usa chips act and see that these factories and these companies started to invest Yeah, I mean they took they took the money for sure Well, they needed the money because there's a high barrier of entry to some of the most sophisticated Uh, and state-of-the-art production that's existed in anything across the entire world Yeah, of course they needed the the head start money. Yeah, nonsense um Well, fuck what other what other areas do we think trump is Better than I'll give trump one thing. I think he tweets better than biden. I'll give him that That is a I'll give a point to trump in that category I even invented his own social media company. That's how productive of a president That everybody in here is on including me. I totally have an account there What do you got for us? Yeah, what do you got? Thanks to the thanks to the destiny sub reddit, which gave us these prompts Who is better on foreign policy particularly with regard to the current conflict in the middle east Who has had a better record in the middle east in the past? Oh, obviously the trump administration would be better on foreign policy in the middle east like again He was working to align our allies who had issues with non recognition of each other Against the common foe that is iran by contrast You have the biden administration having up to three potential spies On the team negotiating a nuclear deal with the iranians So like people who work for the iranians including bob malley who had a tab this security clearance polled That that that's the people he has advocating for us literal agents of foreign powers Um trump didn't improve any of our standing anywhere in the middle east. He hurt our relationship with the curds By abandoning them, uh, he hurt our relationship with afghanistan by not including them in the doha agreements when he had talks with the tally ban He drew down our us force in afghanistan and evacuated But biden completed the withdrawal on the same timeline. Yeah, actually accelerated it to happen out by 9 11 No, it was at the same timeline biden was essentially committed to it lest he risked more violence occurring in afghanistan afterwards biden had no choice But to basically stick to the timeline that trump put him on a collision course He had a choice. No, he didn't he could have left in the winter when it would have been easier and there would have been less fighting spirit He decided that he wanted to leave in in and around the anniversary of september 11 because he liked that symbol Making like making a foreign policy decision like that because you think it's like symbolically awesome was is stupid That's what the biden administration did. He gave speeches expressly saying that he wanted to be out before the 20 year anniversary of 9 11 Do you deny that that happened? He might have made those speeches But the timeline was on the timeline agreed with the tally ban on the doha agreements The idea that you would wait for that timeline to extend would have been catastrophic Because one of the parts of that agreement was that the tally ban wouldn't attack us as we were pulling out of afghanistan If you extend beyond that timeline And then you do that with the singular base and with the some 2000 troops that donald trump left because he withdrew like 90% of our military presence from afghanistan and he did it after having direct negotiations with the tally ban Completely excluding the afghanistan army from even being a part of those talks Yeah, donald trump in every way side shape and form set the next president up for failure because he knew This is a complete misnomer and what part of what i just said Well, first of all, you bring up the number of troops as if we don't do this trick in american foreign policy Which is have people who are private contractors who are former soldiers supplementing our forces now So we had people you're saying that when trump drew the troops down from 13 000 to 2000 that we brought in 10 000 Why the contractor people to work in the military? We had american military personnel. I'm sorry, uh, these private contractors that were working under the auspices Of the military to fill the gap. This is obvious We've been doing this since the start of the wars in the middle east because guess what those people don't get counted In statistics of american soldiers being killed. So yeah, we had tons of these contractors all across the middle east Okay, I just want to give you one more chance at that. So you're telling me that trump replaced all the us I'm saying we had a significant contractor's presence You you're giving a general response to a specific question I mean a specific question was because it wasn't a general drawdown of troops Donald trump specifically drew down our military presence It was on a withdrawal timeline that biden also wanted to know it wasn't on a withdrawal It was it was on a withdrawal timeline that he negotiated. Yes, there was a withdrawal timeline People wanted to leave wanted to leave afghanistan. This is true But he didn't he didn't include the afghanistan army in those talks at all Why because the afghanistan army is useless part of the reason why they were useless because they were completely cut out of Any of the negotiations part of the reason why they were useless is have you seen those people? It's full of addicts. Have you seen them do jumping jacks? They were never going to be a fit fighting force. Anybody can look up the videos It's not a joke aren't those videos that people doing jumping jacks weren't those literally the uh the Oncoming taliban fighters. No, wasn't it them going into the gym doing like the crazy this was the afghani fighting force But part of the problem with the with the what you call it with the afghanis Is that their military could not function without the support of american Uh, what you call these american contractors or military service personnel in order to operate certain equipment identify targets and all that They're essentially a force that needs to be supplemented by us and the biden administration not only withdrew The final uh round of troops, but he was also aggressively pulling back these intelligence personnel I knew people that were in afghanistan working in these intelligence roles They signed years-long contracts because they were expected to continue beyond the trump withdrawal But they were yanked out of the field by the biden administration Okay, uh, I mean it's a fantastic claim that donald trump was replacing all of the troops being drawn out with We already had these people there. No, we just didn't you're just wrong We are you coming. We didn't have private military. We did not have private. No, that's not how private military contractors work They don't replace a sitting army. We have them there large-scale combat operations. We have them there That's not how we have them. They're in supplement to our military Supplement our military force was drawn down to somewhat 1500 certain points We actually end up having more of these contractors than actual registered american military Even you don't believe this. This is a hundred percent. Even you don't believe this. This is a hundred percent here What are you talking about? You don't believe this at points in it You think you think that at any point in fighting in any middle eastern war We have more private military troops on the ground than actual Fighting the war a hundred not like people that are doing construction not people that are 100. Yes. Okay Like this has happened. This is the way that we supplement our our military supplement Hold on. Don't say supplement now. You're saying supplement before you're telling me these are our main fighting force The main fighting force of the u.s. Armies in the middle east are private military contractors This is the way that we supplement our military forces. You know, you don't believe again You're not letting me finish because you know, correct This is the way we supplement our military forces in the middle east. We use private contractors Sometimes they actually exceed the amount of military personnel that are there and part of the reason why Politicians are so quick to do this is not because they're cheaper Which is what your what your senators will tell you But it's because we don't count these people in our soldiers deaths Even though they've been in the u.s. Military their whole lives and they just happen to get a job with this But yes, there are different points in the iraqi conflict and the afghanistan conflict where we had More of these military intelligence that work for private companies than actual u.s. Military service personnel That is an absolute fact Okay, I encourage the audience to look that up if you want if you let during the surge in iraq during any major Occupation that our major fighting forces Pmcs and yeah, I mean you can you can read the book called the modern mercenary You could learn about how this system developed and like why this is very politically advantageous It's a hundred percent fact now by the way most of the time these are just people who were in the military So like it is close enough to the approximate to our soldiers So when you hear about American personnel dying over there, those are our troops. They just happen to be working for this Uh company that's being contracted out. Hold on when stories like this come out Usually, it's like black rock contractors killed in it would be black water. I don't know black rock You know, that's they're buying. I say black rock owns everything. So maybe they own me I mean you just said they own like half the military apparently apparently all the private troops that are over there Yeah, I guess yeah, they are over there Do you want me to look up the the american military a private uh contractors that are over there that are fighting force? Yeah, go for it. Um Yeah, I don't know what else james. What other questions you got Who is better for the economy given current inflation and americans current worry that The economy is headed for a recession soon Um I mean, I I mean, obviously i'm gonna say biden I think that biden has done a good job at trying to keep things under control, but economic policy is a bit harder I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Shut your face. Yeah, so there were 17 000 of these contractors as of april and the year that we Drought the biden administration dropped them to 7800 and then closer to the withdrawal. They were dropped down to 2700 this would be more than the contractors. I'm saying fighting this would be more than oh now you're changing the parameters Not people that are like they're for construction not people that are for close Because as you said before a lot of them are these are the people that we might actually contract out a company Do you like food for americans? But those aren't our fighting. I'm not talking about chefs or construction workers These are the people that were in there. They are working as private security contractors logisticians and mechanics Private security is not Yes, this is what they call so you're saying private security is doing incursions into taliban territory Nobody in the first of all Nobody was doing incursions at this point in time in the war in the first place I said that they we the afghanis standing military needs us To or which is us in terms of contractors and or in terms of military personnel To identify targets for them so that they would do the fighting the whole point of training the afghan military Was that they would do the fighting for us with the support from us? So these people were supposed to remain to keep them functioning some of these contractors not all of them I know you're gonna spaz out as soon as I say this were mechanics that actually kept the equipment that they used running There's a reason why they had all these helicopters and whatnot But none of them were being taken off in order to fight against the taliban because none of them can actually operate this equipment This is what we had contractors for this is what I was talking about the whole time And yes, there were more of them More destiny than active service personnel at that time In your face, I literally found the article that you're reading from and the article itself is back in my point The cuts are especially acute for private security contractors and for logistic Logisticians and mechanics including the critical staff necessary to keep afghanistan's fledgling aircraft aloft. These are not fighting private military Mechanics are I just said that the mechanic. I knew you were gonna say that I just said I know you're gonna spaz out when I say The article it does suggest the us is not substituting for troops with money for contractors Which is a claim you just made they were substituting for troops But again, but then the article you just wrote me contradicts that again the mechanics at this point in the war We're talking about earlier in the war where we used them as fighting force But at this point in the war, we were supplementing the afghani army, which is again what I just said Not an article that literally contradicts exactly what you just said Like you think they're fixing the freaking toyotas out there. They're fixing the weaponry so that they can operate Like you're trying to combine statements that I said about different points in the war in order to be like I got this w but yes, they were supporting them at this point because this is what we're doing This is what our soldiers were doing the afghani army because they were supposed to be the ongoing fighting force So then just to be clear then are you telling me that our main fighting force in countries are contractors? Or our military at certain points in time during the afghani and iraqi war We would use primarily or up to equal parts contractors and soldiers However, how did you save the fight for okay? Yeah, I got it. I got it at this point in time We were our soldiers and these contractors were working to supplement the afghani army Okay, I mean those people back to under the bite administration. What other questions you got james I don't know if we've if you have any more on the economy per se Oh, yeah, the economy is easy Inflation got out of control under the bite administration gas prices went up He did all these different like stimulus packages and whatnot that led to this by comparison in the trump administration The average american had five thousand dollars extra a year in their pocket Excuse me for a second and Biden actually recently announced an interesting thing of related to his inflation reduction act that didn't get a lot of attention So because they passed this law that it spent a bunch of money on the economy and a bunch of this money Was going into red states because of the lower labor costs Kamala Harris gave an announcement in philadelphia recently that they were going to try to use the regulatory power in order to amp up the wage Requirements for these red states now that might sound good If you're in these red states, you might be thinking oh, i'm going to get a raise due to these regulations But remember this was announced in philadelphia and the purpose of this being announced in philadelphia was to redirect this inflation reduction Ag funding to the midwest To pennsylvania to the states in order to secure his election win So not only was the economy better for the average american under the trump administration But the biden administration is openly manipulating these funds which were naturally going to the burgeoning economies in these red states to redirect them in order to secure his political support This is disgusting behavior. It's indefensible. Go ahead defend it I know you're so disgusting and indefensible behavior would be donald trump trying to put FICA tax cuts on employees and then sunsetting it So not only would it expire if he himself didn't extend them But so that retroactively all of those fico fica tax would be owed by workers as part of the uh When he was trying to do stimulus for people because he was hoping they could fuck over the next incoming administration If they didn't extend his particular economic tax cuts, that would be an example of disgusting behavior In terms of like more policy right there. You can call it smart policy for the rest of us. It's disgusting behavior I like anything donald trump does a smart policy. I didn't say anything he does a small policy But unfortunately the president of the united states does not control inflation around the world There's not much that we could do about that. If we look around at inflation around the world Every country is experiencing inflation as part of the g7 The united states inflation is lower than every other country that we have in the g7 number one number two in terms of gas prices There's only so much that biden can do how he released a lot of the The petroleum reserves in the united states that was a disaster that was for emergencies It was an emergency gas prices were really high Price increases are not an emergency more than emergency than the border crisis was that donald trump tried to Contribute congress on because it couldn't pass legislation to take troops down to the border to try to do immigration policy So it was absolutely enough an emergency for him to do it also Again domestic oil production domestic oil production is higher today in the united states than it has been in all of history I don't think that there's much more that biden can do unless we're expecting to solve international inflation Other than what he's already done and fortunately the president can only do so much with the economy In terms of americans having more money under trump than biden That's not surprising donald trump did insane deficit spending Donald trump gave a lot of money and a lot of tax cuts. He didn't pair it with spending cuts Donald trump enjoyed again historically unbelievably low interest rates that probably played into a lot of the inflation Especially in the housing market that we experienced today Yes, if you run an economy at zero percent interest rates with a federal reserve And you continue to just do that and then you spend a fuck ton and then you give a lot of tax cuts And then you give a lot of people stimulus and you don't reign in any of your spending Yeah, i'm sure people are going to have a lot of money in their wallet at the end of the day But as happened with obama and bush, what do we have? We get an economic catastrophe and then eventually the next democrat that comes in has to deal with it While the prior republican president that was spending like a madman even though republicans always talk about controlling spending Gets to claim somehow that they were doing good things for the economy while controlling spending even though he had no desire to do No, look the trump administration definitely could have done better on spending by a lot I agree with you. There's some covet stimulus that honestly just blew out the spending which carried over into the Biden administration although the emergency had already subsided when they passed their covet stimulus Even though i agree with you actually like both of these could have impaired down the ppp program totally disastrous 100 true But i will say interest rates were cut sharply after the o8 recession throughout the whole obama administration They had low interest rates that did not spur the economic growth that we saw under the trump administration things like regulatory Restrictions being removed and all these other factors definitely played into it as far as the fight attacks When you pass something through reconciliation Some of it has to be sunsetted after 10 years. That's the way that they got their tax Sunsetting is a lot different than retroactively owing what you had been missing your taxes That was a new thing that donald trump tried to do to punish an incoming administration Hmm kind of similar to that country in the middle east So again, so one interesting pattern to be so when when you end up passing something like this into law You can strategically if you want it to go through put the least I'm sorry the most popular things Up for vote. So congresses in the future have to act. This is why I called it good strategy Another good strategy in there was the salt cap Which basically said if you're one of these wealthy people who votes for Democrats who have high state income taxes and all these high taxes You can no longer deduct those taxes above $10,000 which was a cutoff for the super rich in those places Against your federal taxes because all these rich people would back these democrats and they vote for these higher taxes in these Left-leaning cities left-leaning states and then they would use that as a deduction against their federal taxes The trump administration said no if you're going to vote for taxes in your local In your local economies in your state economies Then you should actually pay the consequences of what you vote for rather than deduct that from the federal government state I'm sorry, do you think that people ended up paying more insult taxes that were earning more than It would have been enough income to what was the cutoff $10,000 in state and local tax liabilities Do you think that those people ended up paying more in taxes when you take into account the federal tax cuts that trump had? I think well, some of them did pay more in taxes for sure And a lot of them moved in order to avoid it because they didn't want to live under the policies that they had helped And advocated for this is why a lot of these people moved in there So I actually think that was a smart policy and again They have to you have to pay for your city's taxes if you're going to vote for your city and lobby and support politicians That have higher city taxes or higher state taxes So I think that was a good policy because if you have a no income tax state like the great state of texas Then you should enjoy the benefits of that and not have the federal government subsidize these blue cities and blue states That do the opposite. So I think that doesn't the federal government send more money Isn't there more subsidies going to red? I mean red areas by definition blue places just tend to be more economically Processed so the trick that a lot of people will use as they'll cite like the state of kentucky and say look at all the federal dollars going in there But the state of kentucky has fort nox and those federal dollars included for those military bases Count in the federal government spending in terms of the accounting fort nox has like something like 10,000 soldiers in it It's where we keep all our gold I'm sorry Do you think the majority of the disproportionate spending on red states is for military? A lot of it is related to military bases for sure. You never answer a question a lot of it Do you think there aren't military bases in blue states? It depends on the state Are there military spaces in blue states? Is there a base like fort nox in a state that is blue? That's comparable in size fort nox accounting for the disproportionate amount of money spent in every single red state in the united states It's a lot of red states are sparsely populated. So larger military bases in those states Yes, are going to be disproportionate in terms of spending when the sparse population of a state contributes to its lack of economic Distribution to federal funds. Isn't that the whole reason why red states tend to need more? Like all you're doing is making an argument Because it would based on the it would be what they're paying into taxes We would grade based on a per capita basis. Obviously. Would we not? Like we would account for their population in that measure people on military bases pay taxes Sure, but they're being but the federal spending in terms of raw dollar amount in a state with a smaller population Is going to represent a bigger portion of that state's gdp Like this is like basic mathematics. Well, you're using a phenomenal conspiracy theory It's not it's not a conspiracy theory. The the the ultra well understood economic theory is that cities not saying good or bad Cities are always more economically. I didn't say I didn't say that always generating what you're trying to make it sound like The lower amount of total citizens in a state is going to mean that a higher percentage of federal funds are spent on the military bases And that's going to account for the difference in subsidization of the state. That's exactly what you're arguing No, no, you're completely misunderstanding. What part of what did I just say that was wrong about your argument? If you're spending on a military base a fixed amount of the defense budget in a particular state that is sparsely populated Then that fixed amount is going to it's going to Represent a bigger percentage of their gdp as compared to their tax rates than it would in a larger state like california My point is basic math. You're just trying to go end around to argue just to argue I'm not the point isn't basic math because yes, it is basic. You don't even know how many military bases are in these states You're hedging this whole argument on the on the assumption. I don't know the number of military personnel in every state No, no, Kentucky is often used as an example. I'm not using Kentucky's example Well, that's great. Kentucky is often used not by you in this moment. Like I'm not saying you just said that I didn't hear that from you. Do I need to clarify that anymore? No, it's just It's just a classic like one-off argument like like I happen to know that millet like here's a question Do you think there are more no no no my point is that my point is that you actually don't know That's why you're making this point So kentucky is often used because people like to go after ram paul on this and it turns out the bulk of this federal welfare spending supposedly that's going to the state of kentucky goes to Exorbitantly large military bases which represent a larger portion of a small state like kentucky's budget as compared if you were to put Fort Knox into the state of california. Again, I'm not sure like what is so hard to understand about this You understand that 10 000 soldiers in small state of under a million population like in theory Would be a bigger percentage Of that state's economy than in the state of california, which has 38 million people like that that should be pretty straightforward um, yeah, I'll look up this but Uh, I just yeah, I don't know I'm looking up like the like the large kentucky's largest spending areas per capita where the number one is public welfare Number two is k through 12 education number three is health and hospitals number four is that from the kentucky state budget? Obviously the kentucky state budget is going to be there So, okay, so you're telling me that okay I'm going to try to find the the exact amount of money spent on military bases in kentucky I'm curious. Do you think that if we equalize for military spending? Do you think that's going to significantly change the amount of federal investment that if we adjust to that on a per capita That's going to significantly change the amount of federal investment between blue states and red states. Oh for sure. Yeah Okay, I don't think it's gonna it's a novel economic theory. I think I think you've never heard positive anybody in my entire life I think you'll probably I think you'll probably because there are definitely poorer red states I think you'll probably end up with more red states on on the top or the bottom of the list Depending on how you're counting it, but it won't be so glaring by comparison So yeah, it's definitely going to shake up the order significantly Gotcha, and the only reason I know this is because they I remember this being specifically argued against rand paul about the state of kentucky I'm sure rand paul has said it, but I don't know it was argued as a way to insult rand paul And then when people looked into the state of kentucky, this is what they found Interesting, okay Although kentucky. I mean technically I have a blue governor. So are they a red state? I would say yeah Anything else uh, james sure thing. I'm gonna ask this one. Who is better at preventing or reducing crime in the us? Um, this is actually an interesting question because I would say old senator joe biden crime bill joe biden The best joe biden of all time would be significantly better than the evil orange man who passed uh What's what's that stupid law called the first step act? But new joe biden? Nah Like he doesn't have it. He's all about diversity equity inclusion He's so obsessed with fighting evil white racism under every rock that he has p buda judge looking for racism in highways Like this guy is not a serious person. This is true. Go look at his speeches Uh, this this is not a serious person This is what the biden administration is focusing on and they're seeking to forward the the what you go forward The progression towards going softer on crime and the proof in the pudding is in the number of consent decrees That have been issued by the biden administration, which is dramatically up from the trump administration In fact, I think the trump administration might not have put a single police department under consent decree During his entire term it might have been one and there might have been some leftovers that screw up the account from the obama administration But joe biden, he's going absolutely wild with it He did it to the minneapolis pd who honestly if we're being perfectly honest have had no major scandal worthy of this Ever in their history and definitely not in their recent history If we're holding presidents accountable for I guess crime and stuff that happens in the country I'm pretty sure Donald trump loses because of the george floyd riots like and discussion if we're going to hold them accountable for Stuff like that. I mean those happen under trump. Um, also as a quick thing I did look up what shan said And I can see that the federal funds that were spent in kentucky Three is the department of agriculture at two billion Two is the department of veteran affairs at 2.5 billion and then one is the department of defense at 8.3 billion, so I'm out of here I'm just kidding actually department of defense was number three at 8.3 billion two was the social security administration at 19 billion And one was the department of health and human services at 116 billion dollars So the idea that military bases are what's playing into kentucky's like absorption of federal funds is bullshit And katucky was your go-to example, so i'm guessing this is probably the most extreme one you could fund So that's bullshit. No, this is nonsense We have a ton of spending on health care in the united states and social security But you're talking about welfare spending in particular. Are you counting social security and medicare as welfare? I'm saying that the federal funds that are absorbed by kentucky and spent on things like this are not primarily going to How much does health and human services go to these other places? I don't know, but I know that blue states pay more in federal tax receipts federal funds tax receipts or federal tax receipts Then they get back on average versus red states I'm gonna have to go into my google machine right now sparsely populated Red states don't have the same level of economic prosperity as like cities do not to any fault of rural people But they just tend to not produce. I'm gonna have to go into my google machine now, too Um Did you hear the other question? Are you like yeah about the crime thing? Um, I mean in terms of like what presidents can do on crime I'll give donald trump a little bit of credit for the first step back I think that reducing the amount of time people are spending spending in federal prison is in general a good thing to try to curb that down But our federal prison population is just not as important. And if anything, I think that the things that donald trump did there Sean would probably disagree with Like for instance, we I think the under donald trump as part of that first step back I think they tried to claw back or or take back like how harsh the sentencing disparity was between like crack cocaine and Powder cocaine and stuff like that. So I don't even know Sean would agree with the trump administration there But oh for the disparities between cocaine and crack cocaine I'm I'm if you want to get rid of that that's perfectly fine But I will say the crack sentences match the meth sentences perfectly Which you know those drugs are similar in terms of the violence that is associated with it But you know if you wanted to do that because you think that they're the same drug and that's a determining factor I wouldn't be against that The next question So I mean I would also say as a thing there. It's hard to have a president who talks about law and order When donald trump is facing like 90 some indictment. I think that also hurts his Um, I think that hurts his case as well Can I just ask you what year you were looking at for kentucky? Um Let's see. These are total state. This is on ballad. Opedia. And I think the most recent one was 20 was at 17. I'm not sure. Hold on But I doubt it's changed significantly since then Well, the year does matter but continue on with you're talking, you know, you can find that for me later Yeah, donald trump is uh hard to be the president of law and order when you're potentially running your next campaign from a jail cell All right So next prompt who is better to help resolve the war by by russia on the ukraine Um, I think when it comes to foreign affairs the most important thing you can do is coalition build And if there's anything that donald trump has shown time and time again that he is not capable of doing Both domestically and uh internationally is building coalitions donald trump cannot to save his life get a group of people to Be excited about joining the coalition with him supporting him and working on solving problems around the world It's just not his forte Um, obviously if you follow the plan that was set out in the middle east He's very good at coalition building He got nations like saudi arabia israel And all these islamic nations that have never been friendly with the jewish state to align with them, and I think that's pretty stellar All right, this one who is better for immigration Um, the honest reality is like right now americans just don't care about immigration that much It's not at the forefront of anybody's Agenda, um, I know that donald trump wanted to do a bunch of stuff with immigration But he didn't we obviously there's no comprehensive immigration reform Donald trump tried to lead through executive action, which any conservative should be against And then worse than executive action He tried to invoke like a state of emergency to fix immigration issues at the border Which again, even the the the old inner conservative nebraska part of me shudders a little bit in terror That a president that has such a majority in the house and said it can't bring his party together to actually do any Kind of actions on immigration and he has to rely on like War time powers as the president to try to get any of his policy down at the border Well, first and foremost the state of emergency happened, which was cobit 19 when he didn't have both chambers of congress So like that's why it was declared. Yeah, but he could have he ran on the wall and he did have both chambers I mean, there are things that he could have done to to pass things more legislatively Unfortunately immigration reform is something that many different administrations have failed to get through However on the executive level and the president does have power over law enforcement agencies The policies that he came up with and like some of them were creative reinterpretations of laws some Which which is sure like creative that trump is does have creative interpret well his legal team has that But again, the remain in mexico policy is probably the most Rational immigration policy that has come out of any administration and you would be in support of it If it came from somebody not named donald trump, which basically says you can't abuse our asylum system And biden ran on letting these people surge to the border They did surge to the border. We're dealing with unprecedented migrants coming into this country And now people are feeling the effects of it. So I completely disagree I think more people care about immigration Than ever before because they're being shipped all over the country This isn't just a problem that you could say oh well screw you to the southern border states You guys suck you guys deal with it. So I do think the trump administration is clearly better on immigration Just based on the facts and the numbers so no, um First of all when we say feeling the effects of it I'm pretty sure like unemployment in the united states is unbelievably low right now whatever shortages are massively Affecting like every single state the idea that we're feeling this like surge of illegal immigrants like destroying the country right everywhere I just I don't think that's true um Yeah, I just I don't think that's people and also I when I think about like biden and kamala Harris Isn't kamala Harris wasn't one of her most famous like me me quotes early on wasn't it her looking at the camera being like do not come Yeah, after the fact like wasn't that literally like their policy of like hey after we get overwhelmed They're like okay. Maybe maybe this is a little ridiculous like overwhelmed Just like just like after just like after the migrants started getting shipped to new york city and to chicago brendan johnson and eric adam suddenly visited mexico and the southern border so yeah Wait, were they Overwhelmed by migrants or were they upset because people were being shipped in buses by other governors with absolutely no place to stay Well, first of all, they passed a law saying that they wanted them there number one number two One of the big misnomers wait, they passed a law saying we want people to yes, thank you To our states not that specifically they said they were saying that they were welcoming to immigrants that they were not Going to work with federal law enforcement. They actually strengthened previous Sanctuary city laws under lorry life foot while trump was president as an owned to the orange man and under bill de blasio In order to make themselves seem like the most welcoming place then the migrants come New york city has to cut five percent from everything in the budget according to eric adam's and all of a sudden it's a problem All of a sudden it's a national problem. We want to be more welcoming to immigrants That means number two shipped up in buses from the border with no homes Number two the percentage Number two the percentage of the percentage of migrants that are actually being shipped from gregg abbott Is actually low in comparison to two things one the amount of migrants being shipped by the democratic mayor of el Paso And by the way, these migrants are being shipped They're asking to go to new york and the reason why they're asking to go to new york in chicago Is because they have policies that incentivize them to go there So in new york, we have a right to shelter law Which means if you go up to a new york city official and you say that i want to be housed Then they have to house you this is one of the reasons why Because they pass a ridiculous law without thinking of the consequences That they're spending so much money on this problem in chic under chicago law They don't verify your immigration status before they put you through these programs So it so yeah, gregg abbott's doing it. It is a political stunt The reason you're getting so upset and I can hear it in your tone is because it's working It's making people think about immigration in a way that they didn't when it was just the problem of southern states And now all of a sudden these super blue governors all the blue governors like huckle and blue mayors like eric adams And I give a credit to brandon johnson. He's still doubling down on migrants as of right now Are feeling the backlash from it and they're pressuring the biden administration to change policy So yes, for sure, it's more on the minds of people across the country than it was before Yeah, I just the idea that there are these massive migrant problems It's always a republican talking point to go to the border takes a picture It's a try to like act like this is a massive problem. You don't have to go to the border You could just go to time square now. I don't think um grand central terminal. They're coming in Uh, yeah, I pretty sure it was a time square like two months ago I must have missed all the illegal immigrants flooding the streets, but maybe I just go to the right place on Maybe I just yeah, I I've seen Scary homeless people there, but I don't think I saw a surge of spanish-speaking sombrero wearing immigrants that are like in the bus station They don't they don't but maybe I'm actually going to the wrong place in time square when you go there You can take pictures of it. They don't actually wear sombreros, bro. You just did a racism Yeah, I'm sure I just did a racism by shipping people up from the border with no place to say drop They want to they want to go to new york. I'm sure they do they want to go to new york Why why should it be texas and arizona's problem and not the problem of the people Why should it be why should be new york and who vote for the people at the national level that want to welcome in migrants Why should it just be based on your proximity to the border who has to spend the money and resources To deal with this different states deal with different problems new york had to deal disproportionately with covet And I never hear conservatives like they never stopped talking about how horrible the blue state new york was ravaged by covet Largely because that's one of the largest international Crossing points in the world in terms of traffic. They also put the elderly in nursing homes Yeah, that didn't happen and also I don't talk with such a failure in bringing these things together He cries every time he's doing Are you are you comparing are you comparing migrants to are you comparing migrants to a virus? No, you're pivoting. I'm not pivoting I'm asking you about your analogy. I'm saying that different states in the united states have different issues that they deal with I'm sure that border states, especially southern border states are going to have a different issue that they deal with for migration But the even the idea that border states are somehow united on their discontent for immigration Doesn't make sense because california is a blue state and they probably have more illegal immigrants than fucking any state of the united states I mean that's fine for california. They want to live up to their values They can but the thing the difference is is that immigration policy is expressly a federal issue So you're saying that the states have to pay the cost of this federal policy Based on their proximity to the border But also they can't really initiate any policy to change it But then you have these people in these blue states in these blue cities who on a national level vote for people Like president biden who said he wanted these people to flood to the border as soon as he got elected to office This was in the campaign biden said i want people to flood to the border asylum seekers welcome He's gonna open the gates flood asylum seekers Let me finish the quote. Okay. Yes. He said flood to the border. You can look it up Was he talking about illegal immigrants or asylum seekers? Well all these all well Some of these illegal immigrants are abusing the asylum system right now. Like that's their go-to move Gotcha. Okay. Hence the remaining Mexico policy But yes, they asked for these immigrants to come all the democrats and the democratic primary were competing on how open They can make the border. I remember uh, one of the twins the the latino twins One was the mayor and one was a member of congress. His name alludes me at this time He was talking about how he wanted to decriminalize border crossing. I just forget this guy's name. Um I think it was Juan Castro or huli on Castro. Those are the two twins But whichever one was running for president like that guy was like he wants to decriminalize it They were basically competing on who could be more open to immigration Well, I don't even know what that means like don't we want the border crossing to be like decriminalized Do we want to arrest people that come to the united states? Yes Yes, I wanted to you want to hold every single That's the most open border policy for my life I want to you want every single like Encounter at the border to take all these people and house them in federal prison No, you arrest them you charge them and then you eject them You arrest them, okay. I don't know that okay So so then you wouldn't want them put into jails. I want them. I want them sent back Okay, one of those rapid deportations that you can actually do at the border Which is why they why they claim asylum to avoid that. All right, we're gonna go into our q&a now everybody So uh, everybody who is here before you know what to do if you weren't here earlier Just make a line from here to the back. Please move to the left if anybody needs to get by you Thank you so much speakers And up your first question Thanks for the lively debate gentlemen. My question is for Sean. Yeah, are you familiar with the Country and the company that nearly all of our mobile silicon and the silicon used by a military comes from? Uh, I'm no, I'm not Taiwan and psmc is where all of it comes from and one of the large things that biden did with that chip pack Is bringing some of psmc manufacturing over to the country. So just point of clarification Yeah, I'm not saying that it's all 100 bad But a lot of these companies were going to ramp up production in the united states and this was just a subsidy on top of this Okay, I mean they might not be in particular that pack Brought psmc over I think intel wasn't wasn't there a similar by intel that they were waiting on whether that legislature passed before they started Before they said I think I think intel Yeah, I'm not surprised by that There's legislation being kicked around and you want to wait so you can get that because it's a huge subsidy to you Then you would probably do that Yeah, I'm not too informed on like a illegal immigration But uh, once this is like I did see is that a large portion of illegal immigrants that are actually overstayed visas So would you like Oh, yeah, a huge portion of them are overstayed visas like so do we just send them back? I mean, I would do case by case basis. It depends like you know that many people I I don't know what the number of people is but that's why I would try to do a case by case basis because if you try to eject However, many millions of overstays there are that could be a logistical nightmare All right, so you could give people a chance to Reapply become get legal status or whatever sometimes people go through the process They get a student visa they graduate and then they end up with an issue where they try to get a work permit That gets denied and then they kind of stay and they're in limbo I would let those people like reapplied try to get through something And just a quick for both of y'all lame question Uh, I know desi can answer it like two good things about trump, you know tax cuts and stuff Uh, shana, I want to ask you two good things about biden Two good things about biden. Um, I will say the The fact that he has continued to double down on arming the ukranians in this conflict Like we do have to have a check against russian aggression And like I think that that's a good thing even though a lot of people on the right don't think it's a good thing and Another thing about joe biden is I mean, I really really liked his speeches All right, thanks for your question next up My question is about civil asset forfeiture. So in 1984 biden was the one that put in for the Comprehensive control act which allowed for civil asset forfeiture When trump was asked about in the meeting with a bunch of I believe Believe police leaders about civil asset forfeiture what he thought about it once it was explained to it He says it's a wonderful great thing I believe is a violation of our fourth fifth and eighth amendment, right That they can take money without convicting you of a crime because he suspects is related to some type of Criminal activity and you cannot it's very hard to get those money and assets back because the government has immunity. So, um Between biden and trump are any of them making any progress to change that thing? I think they're both Can presidents do anything about isn't civil assets at forfeiture wouldn't that be like a police department by police department thing It was actually a bill that biden supported in 1984 that allowed for it to happen um, I would say so Unfortunately, there is some common law that backs up civil asset forfeiture But I do agree I think it's just a straight up violation of the takings clause of the fifth amendment If they take something of value of yours, they have to compensate you for it Or there has to be due process of law um, I The the department of justice can decide whether or not they're going to federally Do this on a federal level and my guess would be and this is based solely on the obama administration That biden might be more apt to do this because I believe obama did it But I don't know and I don't know if it continued through the trump administration or not Or if they reinstated the pop quick clarification There I believe the fifth Fifth circuit court just had a case where they used that the fifth amendment to recover to get around qualified immunity or Absolute immunity or like that. They try to say well, oh, it was it was uh, somebody came the police came in to spray my house the police have immunity And they were able to use that clause of the amendment to get recovered to just recently this year Yeah, I think it's a terrible policy It is a clear violation in my opinion of your fifth amendment rights If I had a guess I would say biden would probably be better for that specific policy at a federal level But that's completely based on the prioritization of it under obama's justice department assuming they're similar enough All right next question I'm more than a little confused on some of your positions and I don't think it's by fault So I'm going to see if I can sort that out Your capital is consider yourself capital, right? Sure and also would maintain that inflation is a bad thing Yeah inflation is a problem. There's a high inflation. There's a couple ways. This isn't like an exclusive list But there's in a couple a couple different ways that you can handle inflation You can either implement policy and you can try and use taxes to take those funds out of circulation to reduce the money Alternatively, you can increase the number of goods flying around the market the dollar to chase them or you can increase the overall number Given your positions on immigration I'm trying to sort out whether or not you don't understand the principles of the economic system that you claim to hold Or if you just don't like immigrants coming into the country for no particular good reason or don't really care about inflation So, I mean, this is an interesting proposition that immigrant like increasing immigration is a good solution To economic inflation So the government spending too much money injecting more money into the economy through stimulus Chasing the same amount of goods which actually during the pandemic was a decreasing amount of goods due to the Due to what you call supply change shortages that he accurately points out were occurring worldwide Cause inflation again worldwide now maybe the effects in the united states were lower in comparison to those countries Due to a number of reasons like having the reserve currency and all that but regardless the idea that We in order to deal with inflation. We should give up control over our borders I don't agree with i'm not going to support And there's nothing about me not liking immigrants to say that people in this country that are citizens of this country Have the right to determine their own immigration policy So you're just inconsistent with children It's not about being inconsistent There are other ways to address inflation like you just said increasing the number of goods available Well, we had a lot of lockdowns in the economy that restricted supply. I would be against those lockdowns That's a consistent position and I don't think we should give up control of our immigration policy in order to fight inflation But considering yourself capitalist, we don't have it in the bible of capitalism by adam speth We don't have it in the various teachings and books and speeches of the market economy the market economy is cool We don't have it from all of these capitalist sources over Literal centuries that immigration is chill And you even have it from Milton Friedman that illegal immigration is the best kind because it's the one that's easy Yeah, so like I said, I am a capitalist I I'm in favor of private property rights and people making economic decisions based on voluntary transactions I'm also an american and any citizen of any country in the world has the right to determine their borders Determine who comes in their country and even though this isn't like a capitalist utopia or whatever You can still hold these positions. My preferred economic system is one with minimal regulations People's private property rights protected My preferred nation state is one that actually has the people of the nation Dictating its policies, which are including immigration All right next question. All right. So I have a bit of a hypothetical question for both of you Um, who do you guys think would have handled? Covid better for better yet. Who do you think is better at handling crises and why? Between what are the options? Oh, uh, biden trump well, trump was president during covid and So like you can grade him on how he handled that. I mean, it's an unprecedented virus and all that But I do think even though I don't like the way that different local municipalities went that giving it to the local governments Was a better option because you could have different governments Experiment on what policies they wanted to implement. So florida had a relatively Excuse me florida had a relatively limited lockdown places like new york had a severe lockdown And you can see the consequences of that not just in terms of the virus But the post economic consequences of that people leaving certain cities like the city of new york that lost something like 400 000 residents Not to dying from the virus but due to people just wanting to move out California being a net population loser for the first time so we could see Each of these individual states in their laboratories of innovation at work And I feel like and that real options at the time we're going to be biden I'm not biden hillary or Or um, or biden, but I think biden with this new virus and that new opportunity Would have went for a more national top-down approach. So that being said Honestly, the governor's handled it better in my opinion than president trump did because there wasn't like a ton of national direction on it Yeah, I think we've seen a number of like emergencies internationally and domestically and I think that when it came time for biden to handle things I'm pleasantly surprised that I think biden has done an exceptionally good job at building coalition and consensus Um domestically it doesn't really count as emergencies But when we talk about legislation biden has passed more major legislation than anybody thought he'd be able to with a 50 50 congress um when it comes to it being an international leader I think that biden's efforts to shore up the Feelings of all of our nato countries to get them to contribute more than us to ukraine I think was amazing but I did a really good job at coalition building He did a really good job in decisions relating to the declassification of intelligence to keep track of russian moves And he's done a really good job at making sure that the ukraine project Learning from our mistakes in iraq and afghanistan was one that like the entire friendly us world was on board with and not something That was just a us led mission with no clear Defining factors or goals. I would say the same thing is happening in israel Where biden is walking an incredibly fine line of saying that we are going to be a strong ally to israel But biden has been a very strong check on the amount of destruction that's happening in the gaza strip right now because of his Check on israel. So for instance, uh israel delayed their invasion into gaza israel was encouraged to allow humanitarian aid in and Israel has been encouraged to with with severe pressure from the biden administration to Dramatically curtail or limit or be careful of the amount of so you civilian destruction with explicit warning from the united states that You are going to lose support if you continue if you act in a reckless manner so International that was fine domestically. I mean if we look at the differences in cove it It's hard to compare obviously because you had one before and one after but biden What did he promise in a hundred days he would have How many vaccines rolled out? He had it done in like 48 or 52 days biden worked to make sure that almost every american I think it was like 90 percent of americans in the country were then like one mile from a cova distribution vaccine distribution center Which was amazing. Um I think that when we looked at donald trump's response under covet. I think it was an unmitigated failure He wasn't a leader. He denied it was a problem for so long He had an inability to to get people to come together to create ppe He had fighting all over his administration. Uh, there was no coordinated National level response for how things should be handled instead. It was done state by state Which was a fucking disaster and we can even see when we look into the red districts The districts have voted for trump and the districts for the voter for biden the ones that have the higher fatality rate The ones that dealt with more cova cop The dealt with more covet issues all of them were states that voted for trump and the go-to excuse is always well Those people are older which by the way is more of a reason for them to be more stringent But also when you adjusted for age, they still had higher fatality rates because they weren't getting vaccinated And they weren't enacting any of the measures that would have kept them safe from any these these transactions So I think when and then look at the george floyd rides. I mean well, I mean, what was it? We had some federal police that were arresting people in some states. We had donald trump stoking the flames Look at january 6th, right? You had donald trump with the ability to shut that down at any point in time stewing on his fucking bed probably watching reruns of good morning america or whatever in his fucking bathrobe Donald trump has not been a leader on any of the crises that have occurred in the united states ever He hasn't been a leader in any International crises that's occurred ever He's just a fucking loser. I don't know what to say. Yeah So first of all trump, I'll have you know was in the beast reaching for the steering wheel according to the reports during january 6th All right, and you had a follow-up there Uh, no, uh, thank you for your answers. Thank you so much for your question. I mean he cheated. He gave answers off topic I'm just saying All right, your next question. Yeah So as the lone Republican Trump here in the entire room, which I'm sure there's some people that didn't raise their hands properly feel the same way But they're just not there yet. Fine um Interested in engaging a hypothetical plea so Somehow some way biden is ruled medically incompetent pre-election post-election whatever now That turns into Harris first I'm sure you got a million things to say about that. I would like to hear them But could you sell me on the idea of Harris if you had to? I would vote for a terry shyvo over Donald Trump Just because of the type of administration the democrats would back like the general policies of the two administrations The republican party even if you're a republican you have to admit the republican party is is lost out to see right now They don't know who they are Um, they don't know if it's a party that is fiercely Allegiant to Donald Trump. Uh, even if it means walking off a cliff They don't know if they'll support other republican leadership Like the republican party is is is just a collection of or not a collection of but it's essentially like a schizophrenic Like wandering blind person in a forest trying to figure out, you know, where to set up camp I I truly don't know and I'm being a little bit mean But I almost said that with a with the tiniest bit of compassion But not much because you chose Donald Trump So the deal with the devil that you made but um, yeah I wouldn't trust the republican party to do anything competently right now What they they can't even choose a uh, they how long did it take for them to get a fucking speaker in the house? Like this is an unprecedented failure in leadership even with the majority in the house I don't know how any republican can look to the current republican party and think that like these are the people that I want to Lead us. I just I can't imagine just to engage like really quickly at that hypothetical First of all, the republicans are so good at getting a speaker of the house. They actually got two In a single congressional session. That's pretty damn impressive. I don't like that. I'm very efficient right there Yeah, number number two honestly if I were if I were a republican I would rather have a Kamala Harris presidency than a joe biden presidency Because the one point that he made throughout this whole entire day that's dead on accurate Is biden is good at getting legislation done because he is a creature of the senate He has been there since it was formed. He watched the building get constructed And he knows how to legislate in a way that these younger politicians just don't So like I personally because Kamala Harris is more unlikable and worse at getting things done Because she just doesn't have the experience in the senate It would be similar to obama not being able to get that legislative achievement We would rather have Kamala uh in the white house as an enemy of the person in power That makes sense All right next question So you bought up new york city when you were talking about like Losing population but to my understanding The population drop was across cities in general across america and the three largest cities that lost population were actually cities in red states It was jacksonville, missouri St. Louis and then it was I think it was there's some city in utah So why do we only talk about like blue state cities losing population when it's in fact They trend that seems to have occurred across cities across america as opposed to just concentrated in blue state So I mean first of all I in terms of cities losing population I don't think that those are the top three, but I could be wrong. So I'll just Right sure because I've seen like I've done stories on this and I to be fair I remember like a san francisco a new york being in there But I don't remember where they were on population versus percentage. So like you could be right We can we can just concede that point like right off the bat. Um Certain cities that are losing population. They may be in red states, but they may also be blue cities Now, I don't know about the city in utah It could be salt lake city, which I would think is more reddish city or whatever But that's not the point So the reason people talk about cities in terms of their government In like the loss of population is because typically the cities enacted the policies that presumably drove people out Not the state like if you're leaving If you're leaving houston It's probably due to policies enacted by the city of houston, especially if the state of texas overall Is a gaining population now new york state also was losing population Because they were leaving not just the city, but they were leaving the state california as a whole was losing population because they weren't just leaving san francisco or los angeles They were leaving the state So like there may be like different cities that people were fleeing due to you know Like their jobs became remote and then they decided to want to live wherever they wanted sure But like overall when we talk about the impact of policy It seems to be disproportionate in blue cities or blue states, especially when it comes to covet policy How do we know that people were leaving the cities because of like bad liberal policy versus them leaving just because like housing is getting more expensive I mean they were already living there that whole time and then they just decided to up and leave when the lockdowns went down And i'm sure there's like exit surveys that you can look at that would like why are you leaving this place? And i'm sure it's a mix. It's a mix of different things. But yeah, but then Like are you so you're saying that the trend of people leaving cities was done solely because of covet lots of policies I didn't say so, but did I did I not just say that there would be a multiple reasons and like Also, when I ask why do you think people are leaving cities and you have covet policy You're saying that's the primary reason or the only reason. I think so i'm saying so i think it's a huge reason But like you always say huge reasons So the biggest reason but housing affordability would depend on the circumstances So a lot of people left silicon valley and they went to mexico city And that was specifically because it was cheaper. So probably for them it was housing So let's do a comparison. Do you think more people left cities because of covet policies or because of the cost of housing? I think it was because of covet policies overall Especially if you factor in the fact that they couldn't go into work. So they didn't have to be there They could work remote Okay, and if that trend is continued into today of people moving out of cities Do you think they're moving out of cities because they're traumatized by covet policies? Or do you think it's the cost of i mean they might have already moved on with their lives in their in their new state Like the people who left new york state aren't returning now that the policies are being reversed So they might have settled wherever they wanted. Well, you said new york state you meant new york city because you're thinking about city policies, right? New york city and new york state are losing population Okay Which would lead it to not be technically probably about housing prices because housing prices in overall new york state Are pretty low, but if they're moving all the way to florida it might be due to the policies of the state and or city All right, smile osian. You're on camera. There you go Your question I just want to correct something about the civil asset force Perfecture that destiny asked about it the law allowed the government to collect the federal government like Of the 80 percent of that money which creates the problems of recovering the losses But my question is I can foresee a scenario Where trump is in prison in georgia And georgia doesn't have to pardon him so he can go sit and I don't know what dalek rate some type of constitutional crisis there And biden becomes unable to run And then you got a third party candidate. You got rfk jr. That's declared and the race currently is pulling between 14 and 20 percent I don't personally support him. You should vote libertarian party, by the way Anyways, what do you think about this scenario? Is there a potential for rfk jr to become president? And if so, what do you think that would mean? Listen, I put rfk jr in the same camp that I put Andrew yang tulsi gabbert and all the candidates of that ilk They're running for president of the internet and our constitution actually bars them from being president in two offices at the same time So I don't consider them like legitimate candidates as for this idea that biden's going to be declared mentally incompetent to run for president It's not going to happen if he's alive He's running the guys wanted to be president since like 1848 when he first started running for president Like he's spent his whole career in politics in real terms. He's been in the senate since he was 30 This has always been a goal in his life And the fact of the matter is like I can joke amongst this like politically literate crowd about biden basically being a dead person But your average everyday american does not know that like they're not watching twitter videos of him Fumbling words or anything like that. So not only does is he going to run? But he's probably the democrat's best candidate as of right now to run All right next question. All right, uh shan I understand this is mostly biden or trump But is there another republican or conservative candidate you would probably put higher than trump? I know that he asked about rfk or and you mentioned tulsi gabbert But there's plenty of other republican canisters santas and so on even ted cruises tried running and mentioned it a few times So would you consider any of the other republican candidates higher than trump? And I'd also like to say thanks everyone for coming. Yeah, thanks for coming to dalis and last bit obama obama So this is a this is a good question if I had like first of all like trump's gonna win the primary like like i'm 98 percent sure If I had to pick somebody that I would prefer to be the president Based on most of their policies It would be somebody like governor ron disantis who's effective at governing So like one of the things that I was so impressed by Because we just don't do this in america is when whatever hurricane or whatever the hell hit florida There was a bridge that got torn down in the keys and that bridge got rebuilt in three days We don't build anything in the united states of america in three days We actually have to go through three years of environmental impact studies just to decide Whether or not it's going to hurt the turtles too much to build it So as a more effective governor like in terms of governing not just being a governor of florida I would think ron disantis is better at task at being a better task master But I don't think that um, I don't I don't think that he's a better candidate and honestly Him signing that six week abortion ban or whatever like he didn't have to do that And I think that sunk him on a national level even if he did win the primary so He kind of destroyed himself Nationally All right next question. Yeah, so I noticed that a lot of this debate Was about like the previous track records for each administration, which like fair, but I was curious about more or so the take of Looking forward to like 2024 and and beyond to like, I mean trump has announced Things that he wants to do part of his platform for 2024 product 2025, etc So, um, yeah, I'd just like to hear you make an argument for What you think trump would be doing that would be better for america and the world and then destiny Maybe if you could like shit on his answer. Thank you Well, I I think the reason we talked talked about past record is because past behavior is a good predictor of future results And like a lot of the stuff that the trump campaign is announcing like how we're going to re-examine birthright citizenship Under the 14th amendment is stuff that he announced during the last trump campaign And a year into his presidency And two years into his presidency and three years into his presidency And then in like the last couple months of his presidency before the election He was like i'm going to re-examine this so like whatever he's promising right now on the campaign trail Like I I would rather trust how he acted in office and the things that he did and Basically letting his the people that he appointed craft policy in those realms rather than what he says on the surface um yeah, I just um Donald trump, which is horrible and in almost every conceivable way and in some ways that are kind of like important to me like even as an american Even as somebody that used to be conservative, um I can't imagine electing a president that said that like he would consider suspending the constitution Because he's asked about about the last election results That's an unfathomable statement if any person even tangentially related to the conservative party Or i'm sorry to the democratic party would have made any state like if halloween clinton's like daughter-in-law would have made a statement like that I feel like conservatives would be screaming it from the rooftop for you know The next like 10 years um and the fact that donald trump himself said that on social media is insane Uh as much of a meme as it is I think in a way the president is kind of like the american international cheerleader and domestically supposed to be the guy that Brings us all together. There's never been um At least in my history like a president as divisive as trump somebody that's as embarrassing on the world stage to talk about Um, yeah, I just think in in every conceivable way like even independent his agendas which are horrible Um, yeah, I just I wouldn't want him leading my nation at all like it's it's an embarrassment I think through the united states and just to fact check you uh hillary clinton would have a son-in-law Her daughter's also not a lesbian Uh, okay. Oh, hillary clinton would have a son-in-law gosh Also as another minor fact trick I can't find literally anything that says that covet policies were a reason why people left the cities I know there's a big meme conservative said, but I don't think there's a single data point that shows that in any point whatsoever You know very next question You've mentioned biden's cognitive decline, which I mean, I guess fair enough. He's like a hundred and eight um, but I've seen Trump in action as have other folks here in the audience and I can't necessarily speak for everyone But I think there would probably be consensus that the guys a few fries short of a happy meal And I wanted to know how you felt about that whether or not Yeah, I'm great. I mean Yeah, you know, I mean trump does like fast food a lot. Um, but to go with Yeah to move off the analogy Yes, there is a slowing down of trump Like the benefit of these guys is you can watch them on tape There is a slowing down of trump from his younger years Like he talks up with a little bit faster pace and all that in his youth But more or less it's the same person There's a huge decline and I invite anybody to watch, uh, paul ryan versus joe biden in that debate Between joe biden then and joe biden now at least in terms of his ability to speak now whether that's because He's losing cognitive ability and thus his ability to manage his stutter Or there's legitimate like mental like decline that we should be concerned about is honestly Completely irrelevant because again, most of the american population Doesn't watch these clips of biden. So like like I said, it's noticeable. You notice it But I also added that this is not going to affect his electoral prospects at all in my opinion And in fact him not speaking so much because he doesn't want people to see this might help them Because trump's going to be on the campaign and put all the focus on him. It worked the last time anyway All right, we're going to close there So a big round of virtual applause for the people that are watching online and a big round of in-house applause for our fantastic speakers here We are going to close with the poll that we started at the beginning So i'm going to hand the boss the mic here and All the way we go Thanks ryan. Wow, that was I am so excited. That was fantastic. Thank you guys so If you would say that as we started before biden is better for america's future slip your hand up And if you're watching online want to let you know folks You can check out the manifold link in the description box right now. It's not too late You can still vote on who you think will be most persuasive in this debate Click on that manifold link in the description box right now Manifold is the play money prediction market Where you can bet on virtually anything so check it out as this debate or I should say the outcome of the debate As you can see with the live updated screen in the picture We will take our next vote, which is if you think that trump would be better for america's future Please slip your hand up That's a nice move when you name the categories and all that like I should have known it's always Healthcare at the top of it That should make more money than I really actually should have left at that point. Yeah, but yeah, it always is healthcare I'm I am telling you in all seriousness the military bases are disproportionate. No, it is true. I don't believe it Listen, there is obviously healthcare is the number one Also, if you're watching online, don't forget to hit subscribe as we'll have Future conferences including debate con 5 in 2024 Excellent Well, uh in the first poll we had 95 percent of the room in favor for biden at the end We had 90 percent in favor of biden So that is I won over the crowd in your face So an extra five percent in favor of trump in the room given our in-house poll Anything else you want to say there Thanks so much folks for coming and want to let you know We really do appreciate you being here. It means more than you know and Stick around love to get to meet you and if you got to go, it's okay drive safe You have to go But I want to say a couple of huge thank yous first, of course really do appreciate you guys again We appreciate the speakers for getting in the hot seat and doing these debates like it's been fantastic I'm So encouraged is the the high quality of these debates was just fantastic so enjoyable And also want to say though, there are so many people Volunteers like chris is in the back chris. Can you put your head up? Thank you chris like it's uh Guys that say hey, you know like we'd love to do this like we just think it's fun and so Uh ryan as well. Thanks so much ryan. He is from All right, all right but uh ryan He had to leave already, but we have so many people and also want to say a huge. Thank you to manifold steven Thanks so much for being with us. Thanks for your support of debate con four. Thank you very much And folks manifold is linked in the description box check out manifold and we'll let you guys go. Thanks so much I hope I get to meet you. Have a good night Purple