 Hey everybody, today we're debating whether or not the police are systematically racist and we are starting right now with Alex's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us, Alex. The floor is all yours. It's such a pleasure as always. My name is prime time 99 Alexine. I am the king of the conspiracy castle. You can come on my channel and learn all about conspiracies. But speaking of my channel, the reason why this debate, when I do this debate tonight, this is a debate that is not just an objective debate. This to me is a personal debate. It's an emotional debate. And you ask yourself, why? You know, why is this a racist racism? Important to you, a white guy. They grew up in a middle class neighborhood that really hasn't been a victim of racism. Well, basically, from my experience as a bellbond and growing up in a bellbond office in the bellbond businesses, you get people out of jail. And through that experience, in my entire career as a bellbond, you know, I've heard over and over and over and over again that profiling in law enforcement is one of the most effective tools in arresting suspects. And I don't disagree. Because even if you say, and I want to say before, before I want to say this, people hate when I debate this topic, everybody that's watching on my channel, they say, oh, Alex, racism doesn't exist. Racism isn't real. And to you, I say that is poo poo. That is dog grab. We know racism exists. Sadly, we have preconceived notions through cultural stereotypes that we use. And so that's why in law enforcement, they use those tactics. But how it works, you can't just look at the police system because the police system is influenced by the district attorneys, the DA's office. Why the DA's office is so important because they are the ones that prosecute the cases that the police arrest the people for. So when these district attorneys talk to these police chiefs, what they do is they encourage them to go to the police and arrest people that are more vulnerable and don't have the funds to pay for an attorney so that they're forced to use a public defender. And that helps the district attorney because what it does is it gives them more prosecutions. It helps their criminal record, their court record greatly. So when you see that we have a system with district attorneys and judges that we know that are on record, I can pull up instances of judges putting kids in correctional facilities in for-profit prisons and getting kickbacks. And I can pull up all these, I have a bunch of examples and I can't pull them up throughout the debate. I'll pull them up in the question and answer form because I just want to talk. I want to be able to say these statements. I know it is cringe to say racism exists too. Why are guys debating it? Like I get that more than anything. I can't agree with that anymore. But sadly, what I see when I watch TV shows like Bait Car. Now Bait Car is a TV show where they put a car with the keys in it and they put it in a neighborhood and they surveil it and they watch it until somebody steals it. Now in this show, they don't ever put the bait car in nice neighborhoods. They put the bait car in most of the time in people of color neighborhoods and urban neighborhoods. Why do they do this? Because they know that it's going to more than likely get stolen there. So what does that mean? Does that mean that there's more crime or does that mean that the cops are racist? For me, I think it means both and they're not mutually exclusive. So I, a lot of times in this argument, people are going to say, oh, well, the reason why more black people are imprisoned for nonviolent offenses is because black people commit more crime. Well, I'll give you that. I'll even admit, let's say black people commit more crime. But that doesn't mean that's not mutually exclusive with cops being racist. Because what happens is we go after the easy kill. It's just how hunters hunt. It's going to be their mentality. So when you have a law enforcement, their job is to go after crime. They're not going to go after the hard to get crime. They're going to go after it's like the weakest duckling is the one that gets caught by the eagle. Whatever the most vulnerable class of people. So basically, you could also say that it's not just racism to a color. We have a system that's racist to a class. We have a class problem. It's called class racism. Because why they want to go after poor people is because once they can get them in the judicial system, they know that the recidivism rate, recidivism rate, I can't even say that word is hard to say, is exponentially increases just by going to jail one time, then going to jail two times, it exponentially increases. So the more times I go to jail, the more times they are going to stay in the system. Now, what does that do? In America, we have a for profit prison industry. That's right. Prisons can get funding state and local funding and they can charge state and federal municipalities for holding prisoners and they can actually charge more than it costs because it's a private business. And so what they can do is with the money that is made in the private prison industries, they can go and they can pay lobbyists and they can pay, they can pay all kinds of politicians and they can get legislation that continues to put people in jail. When you look at a system that marijuana is a it's totally legal, you know, in multiple states, federally, it's still a scheduled one drug. So just the police forces that are going after that and the ones that are not going after that just shows you that there is not a complete cohesion with our police force, with our laws, with our rules. So what I'm trying to say, I know that's a roundabout way is the discompobulation of our criminal justice system and the laws that they enforce is so messed up that it causes the system to be racist because the system is so broken because you have a system where people can benefit by putting arresting people for nonviolent drug offenses, where in some states it's totally legal. In other states, you can go to jail for life and you're going to go to a for profit prison industry and who are the people that get arrested for these nonviolent drug offenses when you look at the prison population? It's black people. It's Mexican people. Maybe they do do more drugs. I'll even give you that. But I'm just saying we have a criminal justice system that doesn't work on rehabilitating people. It is a punitive system and because it is so punitive, because it's a beast that needs fuel and needs energy, it prays off the life force of people. That monster, that private prison industrial complex, just like the military industrial complex will send a drone strike and they'll kill seven children and three aid workers. You know, these industrial big machines like the prison industrial complex, they're evil. They're bad. So they're going to go after vulnerable people. That's why they killed aid workers and not actual terrorists. That's racist. You know what I mean? They killed them because they saw them having jokes of water. So what I'm saying is even our government is racist. We go over it and we just kill people because they look like they are terrorists. We terrorize. We profiled terrorists. So that same system of government, the poop rolls downhill. And unfortunately, not all cops are racist. No way. That would be insane to say all cops are racist. There are some cops that are good. But very recently, we had civil rights movement. So ever since then, and right after then, we had a federal laws that got rid of racial profiling. That was in my father's lifetime. Sadly, I wish we lived in the perfect world and racism didn't exist. I wish that. But that's not the case. And I want to say this. Andrew and I had a pleasant, you know, talk before this. Andrew and I actually line up ideologically on a lot of stuff. But for me, like I said at the beginning, this is something that I'm passionate about because I have seen, I've seen a lot of cool black people. They got arrested with 100 bars of Xanax stuff that got pulled over for driving while black. Just driving for no reason. And I know that's just a small example. And I have this stupid Washington Post with all these examples and all these stats that I don't want to pull up all these annoying stats. I just want to tell you, from my experience, from people that I know and talking to law enforcement, they go after vulnerable people, people of color, immigrants, people that don't have all their, their, you know, papers in order. That creates a criminal justice system where they can make money, they can find people. And that's what they want at the end of the day. That's why they want to give you traffic tickets. That's why they want to give you red light tickets because they want to be as punitive as possible because we live in a new world order technocratic state where they want to be able to nickel and dime you and keep you in this system as long as possible. And you look at the Tuskegee syphilis experiment in 1932 to 1972, where they gave people of color syphilis under the guise of free healthcare. And even after the fact that they got a cure, they still didn't give them the cure to see, you know, how the study would play out. So I'm just saying there's lots of examples of times in our modern times where racism, systemic racism exists. And I'm not like this guy where I want to count out and because I know a lot of black people doing to jail, turning their life around and become great people. There's always an exception to the rule. I'm just talking about the majority. It is sadly nature versus nurture. If you have a bad nature, if you're surrounded by crime, if you're surrounded by, you know, having no father around, once you get arrested one time, you can't go to McDonald's. You can't get a normal job because you have a criminal record. So it forces you in a life of crime. So I'm just telling you a lot of the, the, a lot of the problems of the system enslaves people and they want to enslave the weakest, slowest ones. And with that, that's about it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Alex, for that opening statement and want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at modern day debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. And we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from. And we've got to tell you, folks, if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button for more juicy debates such as the one tomorrow morning at the bottom right of your screen, Sharia law versus human rights. It's going to be a juicy one. You don't want to miss it. So hit that subscribe button and that bell notification as well. And with that, we're going to kick it over to big pop of fascists. The floor is all yours. Thanks for being with us. Thank you. So kind of just went through this kind of long-winded babbling incoherent opening statement. That's how they always are. We kind of, kind of went through everything from, you know, government technocracy to, well, I don't know. It was, it was just kind of, kind of all over the place. So I'll try to be a little bit more concise. Systemic racism, it's essentially an unprovable position. Here's how this debate will go because this is how all of them go. Let's start with our premise. There is systemic racism. Okay, can you prove that logically? The answer is no. Why? Because it's a behavior. We use a construct to describe that behavior. So we're always left inevitably with metadata. And let's not forget my studies. Now, I'd like to point out that I recently saw a tweet. I believe it was from a Twitch streamer named Wicked Supreme who needs desperately to take a shower, which said, studies aren't Yu-Gi-Oh cards to be played during a debate. Well, that's what they have become. Since Alex won't have any way to actually make a case without using data, most of it sociological in nature, I feel compelled to point out that most sociological studies have never been replicated. And the ones that have, there has been a massive failure rate to the tune of 60% or higher. Now that number is highly contested, but who cares if it is? If they do a study on how many studies fail to replicate and replicate that study, they'll probably be wrong two times in a row. Alex didn't send me any studies, though how could I possibly go through them during a live debate to check the methodology in a competent way? Anyhow, it can't be done. There can't be any reasonable expectation I've read any of the studies he produces, as there are far too many on this issue to even begin to memorize all of them or familiarize myself with them, unless this was some kind of specialty. The good news, Alex couldn't have done so either. So I can be bad faith and I can hope that I can produce studies and data that are better than his studies and data, but that won't actually get us anywhere at all. So here's how this goes. Step one, he busts out the studies. Step two, I dismiss them with no penalty if they are sociological due to the replication crisis. Step three, Alex has no logical argument. And then step four, I win. Why do I win? The burden is on Alex to prove systemic racism, be it in an institutional form like the police or in some other form that he comes up with, and it's essentially impossible to do, which is exactly why we should stay away from making policy about it, considering nobody ever seems to be able to make a good case for it. Individual racism, like you said, yes. Systemic, societal or institutional racism, no. Even if you grant that the premise is real, they can never give you any solution for it either, ever. Just things like more training or more body cams, throw money at it, that will solve it. So I don't really know where Alex is going to go with this, but I find it doubtful. He'll make a compelling argument for it. Also, Alex, I really like your show just so you know. Thank you. And like I said, Andrew, I think we agree on a lot of stuff. And I'll be honest, I think pulling up on these debates and I pulled up a bunch of studies is boring and it's lame. And it's like, you know, you're just annoying because you can make, you can use the data to form any sort of bias, I believe, you know, they can agree. So, but this is my question. So Andrew, I'm just, pardon my introduction, but just before we jump into open conversation, do want to remind everybody our guests are linked in the description. So if you want to hear more from either of our guests, their links are waiting for you down below and that includes on the podcast. We put all of our guest links in the podcast as well. So what are you waiting for? You can click on those right now, whether you're listening via YouTube or podcast. Thanks so much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. Okay, so this is like, you know, I don't want to pull up a bunch of studies. I have this Washington Post thing with like 25 studies. And like I said, that's pointless, but I want to ask you this. Okay, let's just do one, an example. After 9 11, stop and frisk in New York, was stopping frisk racist or not racist in your opinion, Andrew? No. Well, I mean, that's okay. But why is stopping frisk not racist to you, even though that they would stop more than often, they would stop. So, so I don't see the things as being intertwined, right? Same thing with stopping frisk when it comes to black communities. I understand that people in lower socioeconomic conditions are generally a lot poorer because of this, they are more prone to crime. This often is going to include black Americans. So if you're a police officer, where are you going to go to stop crime? Alex, are you going to go where people are committing it or are you going to go where they're not committing it? Well, I agree. I'm not saying that people of color don't even commit more crime. I don't even like that argument. But what I'm saying is I'll even agree with you. I'll give you that and I'll say that that still means the cops are racist because they know where to go for the crime. Why would that make them racist to know which communities? Because not every single black person is a criminal. So they're going to end up doing stopping and frisking people that aren't a criminal. I agree. So what I'm saying is I don't believe one apple should spoil the bunch in my opinion. So that's what it is. That's what racism is. Because there's more people there, you're lumping everybody is a criminal because there's more criminals. But did the law say that they have to only stop and frisk black people? No, but you know, hang on, Alex. So if the law didn't say that they only have to stop and frisk black people, and we know that black communities have a much higher crime rate because they're socioeconomic situation, then why is it that you think that more black people wouldn't get frisked, Alex? Well, Andrew, I'm just saying you can read between the lines and you know what happens behind closed doors just like you and I mean, you know about probably Freemasonry and fraternal organizations, and you know that these people, you know, can have some sort of camaraderie ship. And if you don't think that they would help their own, if you don't believe that that do you not think that do you not think racism exists at all? Of course it does. So do you think there are any police that are racist in the world? Of course there are. Yeah. Okay, but in your experience, though, you just don't think there's enough to make it a system wide problem is your argument. I'm saying that you can't say that an institution systemically is racist. That's the problem. So the burden of proof that you have on your shoulders is to say, look, I have these anecdotal, these anecdotal pieces of evidence and these anecdotal pieces of evidence are saying, hey, according to my experience and some of these other experiences of people that I've talked to, there's definitely racism going on in these departments. Nobody's going to disagree with you. Nobody's going to disagree with that at all. What they will disagree with is whether or not the institution itself has some type of racist policies or practice from the top down that are intentional. That's my contention with this. And that is a hell of a burden of proof on your shoulders to present, to be perfectly honest with you. Yeah, but in your opinion, do you not think district attorneys encourage police officers to arrest people that are more vulnerable? Or do you think they tell them to go after high-profile people that are going to have great attorneys that are going to make their dockets of pain? I mean, I'm just saying, who would a district attorney? Do I think that the district attorney wants to have a high prosecution success rate, sometimes to the tune of 90, 95 percent, right? Of course, I think that, which is why most cases, as you might know, do they ever go to trial, Alex? Well, no, a lot of them have plea bargains. Almost all of them have plea bargains, right? So do I think that police officers go into communities that are low income to stop criminals? Yeah, why? Because I think there's a hell of a lot more crime in low income communities. So they arrest them. They take them to court. They end up with a plea bargain. Most of the time on a first offense, it's a slap on the wrist, depending on, you know, how brutal the crime is. It's usually only repeat offenders that really, really get punt. Now you were a bail bondsman, right? Mm-hmm, I still have. Yeah, well, when did they send you out to pick up a guy who skipped bail on a chewing gum, you know, a chewing gum conviction? Never. These are some bad mofos, right? They would have to have a felony conviction. But this is the problem though, is what I'm saying. All that can be right, but there are people that are totally innocent Black people that because of that get unfairly profiled. And I mean, okay, do you believe in the thing called driving while Black? Do you believe that's a real thing? Yeah, I do in some areas. I think it's true, yeah. So I mean, on the other hand, if you know the division where the lowest in on the socioeconomic scale is and you know who's most likely to commit crime, why wouldn't you target those people? I mean, logically. I know, but logically, because you're targeting those people, you're going to have some collateral damage and you're going to go after some innocent people. I'm not saying our... Okay, so let's... Okay, hang on. I got it. I got it. I know how I can do this with you. Okay, let's pretend that all of them are white. All of what? The cops. Everybody, that everybody in the United States. Well, real quick. Black cops can be some of the most racist for whatever reason. Okay, yeah. But let's just pretend for a second that all the whole country was white, right, or Hispanic or whatever. They're all the same race. Would you direct your police force to go into the low-income areas to stop crime? I mean, yeah. I'm more than likely to... Wouldn't that be profiling? Well, I mean, I guess I would go with the most crime. And would it be racist then? I mean, yeah. I think it is a little bit of racism. It would be still racist even if... How could it be racist then? Well, I'm just saying because you're going to a neighborhood expecting something to happen. So you're having these preconceived notions. I think that's the idea of racism. Well, that would maybe be bigoted, right? But it's not... That's what I'm saying. Bigoted. I think it's... That's... Do you see what I'm saying? Like, I'm not trying to... You're based in reality. I'm based in reality, too. I'm just saying I do think there's like racist, freemason cops sometimes. And I'm not saying they're all racist. And I'm not saying they're all freemasons. I'm just saying... Which lodges do you think the racist, freemason cops come from? I don't know. I have no idea. I'm just saying... There are some awesome cops and there are some awesome criminals. But look at this. How about this? For a criminal... I can say that this is another argument that's very important that we have to make because this time I didn't say this to the end and I don't think you can debate this. What if I was to tell you that I can prove that our criminal justice system, the FBI, is racist towards white people and that they're creating entrapment in order to create a narrative of domestic terrorists to make the future that white people, the enemy. What if I told you that we had an alphabet agency, criminal justice system that's racist to white people? Would you disagree with that, Andrew? If you told me that there was divisions of what we would modernly consider the deep state that want to create racial divisions inside of our country as part of probably some type of Bolshevik communist color revolution, what would I say to that? You're probably absolutely right. That's what I would say to that. So you agree with that? So you'd say that the alphabet agencies probably do want to create some sort of division. But okay, on January 6th, do you think the criminal justice system, the FBI cops, that, okay, let's do this example, because I'm sure you're familiar with this, the kidnapping plot for Gretchen Whitmer. What they did is I think they found out that like half of the people they got arrested for were FBI informants. And so don't you think that that was a little racist to go after white country folk, Trumpers, in order to create a narrative or to create some sort of division against white versus black? I don't think that that was based, that the motivation behind that was based around race. No, I think that the motivation... You don't think they were trying to go after white people? You don't think that they purposely were trying to go after white? Come on, be honest with that. All the Black Lives Matter stuff. You, I'm not trying to yell on Instagram. I'm just saying you know that you're basing it out with all the stuff that was going on, all the racial tension in the world, you don't think that they purposely went after those guys? It was basically a trap and half of them were FBI agents. I agree. You don't think that, well, why didn't those FBI guys go and trap some black BLM people? Why didn't they go do that? I'm just saying, why didn't they... Because I think that the motivations, the motivations behind it are less in the tune of race and more in the tune of whatever the political expediency for the time is. The political expediency at that time was to say, hey, these guys, they hatched a plot. I think one of them was like half retarded, literally. He didn't have all the crayons in the box, you know what I mean? But I think that they would easily target Blacks or Hispanics the same way for political expediency. I don't think that they care about the race as much as they care about the political expediency of utilizing whatever people they need to and whatever scene they need to for political purposes. I think they're sadly that, you know, the government that we have right now probably used to be very racist towards... After September 11th, we had a government that was incredibly racist towards Muslim people, you know, oftentimes... Well, Muslim is not a race. Well, it's a religion. I mean, going after somebody for the religion, what is that? I would be bigoted. Okay, well, this is one thing. See, now we're gonna circumcise an ant because we're kind of arguing that racism and bigotry are that much different. But I get it. I'll say, yeah. Okay, I'll agree that they are different, but I'm saying they're cut from the same cloth. No, not really. Because like, okay, I'll give you an example, right? If you have a guy and he's like, I hate all Black people. You're like, holy shit, you're an evil bastard, right? But if you have like a Protestant Christian who says, I hate all Catholics, you're like, yeah, whatever, right? But that's a bigot, right? He's being a bigot, but you wouldn't judge that the same way. You'd be like, yeah, whatever. I don't care. I don't know. I mean, it's different, man. It's different in application. Okay, well, I'm just saying, I believe that they wanted white people that the FBI, especially on January 6th, are going... Because the FBI could have spent the resources going after the same destruction that Black Lives Matter caused, but instead... I agree. So why do you think they chose to go after... Why would the... In your opinion, if their system's not racist, why did the FBI decide to spend all their resources going after white Trump fans instead of Black Joe Biden fans, if it wasn't rigged? So in order to outline this for you, it's going to take me a second, okay? Go ahead. I think genuinely that race is a construction of the mind. There's some physiological differences between people. That's obvious, of course, but I think generally speaking, it's a construction of the brain. I think that these types of divisions happen all the time, and that the motivation behind them is often political and this kind of thing, but it's a divide and conquer tactic. And this is... You'll find old communist manifestos about using racial division as a tactic to split up the United States. It's worked extremely well, but I don't think realistically that your average individual is a particularly racist person, nor do I think that the institutions that they serve under are intended to be racist institutions because the institutions are a reflection of the people who work at them. So there may be from the top down in some of these institutions in this divide and conquer style way, there may be some racist people there, sure, but I don't think that the motivations are based around specifically targeting race for anything other than political expediency. Yeah, but do you think that for political expediency, they are using racial division to cause some sort of tension throughout the country? Yes. So wouldn't you say that that was a systemic manipulation? I mean, I would definitely call that a manipulation. I wouldn't say that that's systemic racism. I don't think institutions themselves are racist. I think there are some top level institutions that you would consider the deep state. We're talking about basically unelected officials who have been there for 100 years, 150, you know what I mean? In these various organizations. And I think that once a president appoints somebody for 30, 40 years, something like that, those people can get very entrenched. And when they get entrenched inside these different offices, yeah, they tend to cause all kinds of havoc. That's what's usually what's meant by the deep state. The deep state's not to say that there's some shadow government on top of our government, but more that there's tons of unelected officials who pull a whole lot of strings. Well, how about this? Let's not even do the deep state. James Comey, we know James Comey, right? Yeah. Do you think James Comey would tell people to go after the Black Lives Matter writers? Or do you think James Comey would tell the people to go? It's been the resources going after the white January 6th writers? I think he would probably say to go after the January 6th people. Yeah. That's from the top down. I'm just saying you could already probably tell what he would do just based on his ideological view. I think I can rationalize and concede some of this, and then I'm going to argue some other points of this. Here's the points that I'll concede. The points that I'll concede is that I do think that race is often used as a divisive lich pin between people inside the United States from the top down for various motivations. I'll concede that that's true, and if that's a form of systemic racism, which I think you could probably make an argument that it is, then I'll just concede that that's so. From that angle, I'll give that portion of the debate to you and say that that is systemic racism. That's very magnanimous of you, Andrew. But if we're talking, on the other hand, about what we're generally referencing when it comes to systemic racism, which is going to be your average police department, your average fast food joint, whatever it may be, I don't think that at an institutional level or at a top down level, that those places are inherently racist. No, I did. Then you don't go to Taco Bell on Inwood because their racist is fucked to me. I'm telling you, I did. They don't give me any sauces. At Taco Bell, I swear they do not like me because I'm white. So, okay, I'll agree. Maybe I'm the only one that's a... Okay, and I'll even give you that. I'll even concede that not every single... Especially this day and age, I think that our police force, they're probably going overhaul in trying to be anti-racist into being nicer to people of color. But I still believe from the top down, what happens is, because this is the one thing I'll concede, as you said, the bigotry and the racism, really it comes down to, of course, they go after people of color, but it's also a class war. It's also a vulnerable... They go after vulnerable people. So, they go after... For me, on the fact that I think that class division has always been a primary goal inside the United States, and it has been since Bolsheviks came here many, many, many years ago. I think that class division was much harder to implement when you had one working income. So, now it's much easier to implement class warfare. So, what they did was they used color instead, and that was an easier way to implement division. That's a whole long giant conversation to have, though. I'm sure that you're familiar with a lot of that. No, your general police department is not going... Is not acting in a way from the top down that it's systemically racist, but rather they're going into neighborhoods that are filled with crime, and they're enforcing the law. You're going to find the most crime by your own admission in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods. That's just what it is. I agree. I agree. I'm not saying... And you've already conceded, too, that if we replace all those people with white people instead and the police are still going in there and enforcing it, there's no way there would be a race motivation. So, we can kind of rule that out. But I'm just saying people get affected by it that aren't committing crime because of those preconceived notions. So, that's why I'm trying to say the overall racist point. But, gosh, I was about to make a point. What was I going to say? Oh, I was just going to ask you a question, and I just forgot about systemic race. No, it was a good point. But, no, listen, when you look at the breakdown of the police force and you look at every... Oh, this is my point. I know perfect examples. Excuse me. I want to make this clear because I do go on a tangent because I'm a diary of the mouth, is what my teachers used to say, and that's true. But this is what I said. There's multiple examples. I know of people that got arrested by black police officers. And this is from the horse's mouth. This is from black people that got arrested by black police officers. That they said were arrested them in front of other white officers in order to look like they were fitting in with the white officers. Now, I've heard of this happening. So, I'm just saying that would almost be a form of reverse racism. So, do you believe in... That's kind of my point of thinking. Do you believe in there is a thing like reverse racism? Like maybe a white person would be, like James Comey might be racist to white people because he has a, you know, agenda? If you're going to construct the race of black and you're going to construct the race of white and find that to be a divisionary tactic, then, yeah, there would have to be. You would have to be able to be racist towards either one, right? Yes. You would have to be. So, yes, of course, if you could be racist towards blacks and that's the division, then blacks could be racist back towards you, of course. Yeah, so I'm just saying... I don't know how that could really be argued. Yeah, but I mean, I know, like I said, and I'm sure, I don't know personal of this example. I'm just saying this anecdotally, but I'm sure there are white people that were racially profiled. You know what I mean? I don't know. I mean, we've all been profiled. I think all races have been profiled. I think the profile... Well, that kind of counts against you. Is it being systemic then, doesn't it? Well, no, I'm just saying there's, like a black person, maybe profiled the white guy because he thought he could, you know, maybe get after me. Maybe there was some sort of motivation to profile me because of some preconceived bigotry or racism. You know what I mean? Like, I don't know why. Sure, it's possible, but the case would fall in. You would have to make the case that they were from the top down targeting people in a systemic way rather than having isolated incidences or cliques of cops or this kind of thing. I don't think that that's that common. No. The reason why I think it comes from the top down is because I think it's based on the district attorneys. Like, they're really the ones that are driving the criminal justice system. And, you know, the judges, because what about the private prison industry? You don't think the private prison industry is inherently racist for, you know, having a lot of people that are nonviolent? What do you think about it? For profit prisons are an abomination and should be done with, it should be done away with as fast as possible. And I agree with you that we should center around rehabilitation rather than punishment. I don't think progressives would disagree with that either, right? For profit prisons, obviously there's going to be a motivation to make profit. There's no doubt that that's true. There have been several cases that you could probably point to for your case where you could say, hey, there have been corrupt officials that have been trying to lock people up in these for-profit prisons for kickbacks, right? We all know that that's... Hey, I want to pull it up. I want to, I have to say, this is the one article I want to have up. So, James, can I get a screen share? I just want to show this one because this is so, this is just outrageous. Now, this isn't them, this is like a national case. It got, you know, a ton of news. But you look at this, this is called, let me put you guys over here, this is called Kids for Cash. Judge released from prison over virus concerns. So now they end up letting this judge out. Now he got to get out. What a bummer. But listen how evil this judge was. A former Pennsylvania judge involved in a scheme to send children to a for-profit jail in exchange for kickbacks was released from federal prison with six years left on his sentence because of coronavirus concerns. Wow, what a lucky guy. A former Pennsylvania judge involved in a scheme to send children to a for-profit jail in exchange for kickbacks was released from federal prison with six years left on his sentence because of coronavirus concerns. Two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the matter told the Associated Press. Michael Conahan, 68, was sent to, sent home from a low-level security federal correctional institute. Federal correctional institute in Miami. I'm actually very familiar with this case. Yeah, I'm just saying, and every, and a lot of people are this, you know, this is huge and I don't even need to share it that much, but this, this case, this guy ruined children's lives. I mean, he put kids in jail that weren't even necessarily guilty I mean, instead of rehabilitating, he was getting kickbacks. And can you imagine as a kid because of the system? And when that was, and then when that was discovered, he was prosecuted and he was thrown in prison, right? And that's exactly the way that's supposed to be. Saying that there's corruption within the system, within any system, is going to be obvious to everybody. Of course there's going to be, but that doesn't mean that it's systemic. These are isolated cases that you're pointing to. And that's really all you can point to is anecdotes and then isolated cases. What I'm saying to you is I'm willing to concede that there may be some forms of top-down systemic racism or even reverse racism at the highest levels for various reasons maybe, right? I'm willing to entertain the possibility. But so far I don't think you've presented a very good case that your local institutions or even most federal institutions are systemically racist at all. Well, I think I could point a case why didn't these police forces go after the Black Lives Matter protesters in place like Oregon? Well, the reason that that happened was because you had Democrat elects inside these various states who were governors and they told their local police forces to stand down. That's why that happened. But anything that's kind of reverse racism by letting them run amok, but if you and I were to do that we wouldn't be able to do that? Do I think that the Democrats that allowed that to happen, the Democratic governors were exercising racism? Yeah, probably. Probably. Do I think that that shows that the institution of those governorships are racist? Though no, I don't. I think that Yeah, okay. So I think that party has most certainly had an agenda and they enforced that agenda and that agenda was an awful agenda. But no, I still wouldn't say that that would be a case for systemic racism. It'd be a great case to take those Democrat governors and throw their asses in jail for having done that. But it wouldn't be a great case for systemic racism. No. Wow. That's where I would disagree because I would say that there if I was in Portland, Oregon and I did something wrong and then, you know, like and I had money, they I would be subject to a bail bond or anything. But if you're actually a poor black person in Portland, you don't have that. They can give in New York. It's called an ROR bond released on own recognizant. And that's why the crime rate is going skyrocketing in New York. So what I'm saying is they're reverse racist in those places in the ultra liberal places. They're actually reverse races to white people. So I believe that is that is but as but as more more minorities, especially blacks, are raised up above the poverty line, you've seen that crime has been decreasing drastically. You wouldn't disagree that that's true, right? I don't know. I think crime is exponential. Like I think in Chicago, they could shut down a lot of that crime, but they let it go on because they don't want to, you know, jam up their criminal justice system and they want as much chaos. I think that's kind of reverse race. Yeah, I know. But back up with me, back up with me as more people get above the poverty line, crime, crime rates decrease. That's just, but that that also could be because they can afford proper. So, but that's great representation. Really, really good evidence, though, that if you're in, you know, areas that are economically poor, that the crime rates going to be much higher and that that's why you would send the police in there to stop the crime. And it would be good proof of that because as they get out of the poor house, as it were, they suddenly stop getting arrested. Right. So, to me, I don't know if that's necessarily true. I think it's because they better they have better representation. There's actually studies that say they have better representation. They can't be poor, can they? Exactly. Well, that's why that's why that's what I'm saying to you, is that if you're bringing, yeah, but more black people are poorer. If you bring people up out of poverty, the crime rate necessarily decreases. That's what I'm saying to you. And your response to that was basically, yes. I know. I mean, I don't necessarily agree with that because I think that a lot of times a wealthier person will get arrested for the same drug offense, but might not get arrested because they'll get a better plea bargain from their better attorney and they'll plea bargain to some, you know, misdemeanor, you know, whatever. I don't even know what the charge would be. But oftentimes, they don't have that same luxury for a black person if they have the same amount of marijuana. It's like the crack laws. What about the crack laws during the, you know, the cocaine epidemic when they said, during the crack epidemic, when they said that, you know, 15 grams of crack is equal to 15 ounces of powder cocaine. Do you not think those laws are racist? I think that they were trying to stop a horrific epidemic. And they, I think Trump actually proposed something that was fairly similar with fentanyl, right? So different drugs do different things to people. There wasn't an epidemic of people having cocaine overdoses like there was people having crack overdoses or now with fentanyl overdoses. So would you say that people should be able to carry around the same amount of fentanyl as they would cocaine and get the same charge? Probably not, because fentanyl is just so much more dangerous to you than what cocaine would be. So do I think that those were targeted policies to get rid of the drugs? Yes. Were the drugs in the lower socioeconomic areas? Yes. And so necessarily you send the police in to do what? To put the crack down on the drugs. Now, I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that that was a CIA op, right? You're going to say that was a CIA op. We know Freeway, Ricky Ross, we know that. And they gave those drugs to black people. The United States, we have this guy named Barry Seal. You can see a movie called American Made. They gave those drugs to black people. And then they made the crack laws, the drugs they gave to black people to put the black people in jail for selling it. So that's all declassified. You can put that up. Let's just grant all of it. But let me just ask you this question. Do you think that a person having one ounce of marijuana on them is the same as having one ounce of fentanyl on them? No, no way. That should be treated the same by law? No, but this is the thing. I mean, I guess you could say it's the difference of marijuana and wax. Marijuana, you know, concentrated marijuana and concentrated marijuana does hold a higher penalty. But for anybody that's used cocaine, and I'll be honest in college, I've done this and that, there's not that big of a difference between crack and powder cocaine. You can say that powder cocaine is the least difference. So does that mean that you've done crack, too? I guess, kind of, yeah. I mean, I mean, I haven't smoked crack cocaine. I haven't smoked crack, but I'm very familiar with this, with how crack works and doing coke. You know, I've tried it. I've done it before. There wasn't the same type of epidemic with cocaine as there was with crack. I agree. I agree, because you can, I think the method of taking it to you get higher from smoking. And just like now with fentanyl, right? If you were going to try to crack down on fentanyl, you'd want to have some type of zero, you know, zero-sum policy with it. If you're caught with one pill, it's one pill too many. This is generally the way that it's incentivized away from people, right? But, Andrew, I'll go one up. You know, I'll say the war on drugs is racist. I mean, the war on drugs is ridiculous. We shouldn't have a war on drugs. We shouldn't be rehabilitating people, because a lot of people have had, you know, this is the sad thing. A lot of people get, and I hate to do this, you guys are making funny, people get abused as kids. People have, you know, traumatic. They lose, you know, they lose a loved one or they lose their parents at a young age. They're born out of their so a coping mechanism that we all have is people use drugs. That's like a normal thing. That's in a human response. People like to medicate their pain. That's almost everybody I know if they're not on a prescription pill, they're probably on some sort of drug. So I would want to encourage that. What I'm saying is we need to mitigate that. We need to You're going to mitigate it by making it legal. That sounds contradictory. Well, see, that's what I'm saying. It'd be decriminalized. So what you could do is you could put that funding. Well, the decriminalization is basically the same as legalization. I mean, you can fit a you can fit a piece of paper between the two. Like if I were to ask you, what's the difference between decriminalizing it and legalizing it? You would be like, let me Google it real quick, right? No, but I'm saying when you decriminalize the drugs in places that have done it like Portugal and there's countries other countries in Europe that done it, they've seen a lot of success rates because people you're able to use that funding for help. So people are able to go to rehab. They realize they don't want these drugs. But the problem is you know this when a person gets arrested for drugs multiple times their life is over. I mean, yeah. And some of those countries maybe they've had some success with that. But you can also point to like what El Derte, what's his success rate like and what is his policy? If you do something wrong, what happens in his country? You get the bullet, right? Yeah. And in the Philippines and that's also that's also very effective, isn't it? I don't know because the thing with the Philippines and stuff I see I always watch those shows what is like locked up abroad and stuff. I mean, so I know there are still drugs in those countries. So I don't know if it necessarily gets rid of drugs by killing people for having them. Well, you know what else doesn't get rid of drugs? De-criminalizing them. Definitely doesn't get rid of. Well, I know, but I'm saying I'm based in reality. We have to figure out a way where instead of this is this is why I don't want to lock. So why don't you want to lock down the southern border, which is where the drugs come? Oh, I 100% would want to lock down. So I'm not why would you want to lock down the southern border if you just decriminalize all the drugs? Wouldn't you know this is why? This is why Andrew. No, that's not it. That's not exactly. I would hate that. But the thing is I thought people needed to like self-medicate and stuff, man. No, you would want some sort of government intervention. Like, listen, I hate the government, but you'd have to have the government for some sort of conflict resolution. But this is why, because I know a guy that was a big time heavy drug user. You can look this guy up. His name is Clark Gable. He was the host of this TV show called Cheaters. And he took a Vicodin, not knowing what it was, and it was a fentanyl. It was a pressed fentanyl pill. So he ended up dying. So what I'm saying is you get some street bath, ecstasy stuff. You can take a pill in this day and age and die. If there's some sort of way where people, if they really wanted to do drugs, they could at least go to a safe place and use that drug. And if people were going to overdose on fentanyl, you could have Narcan there. Yeah, I think that's smarter than people being in Alice or being in cars. Like that old boomer policy of, like, you guys can drink as long as you stay home tonight. It would be in a red light district, Andrew. Andrew, it wouldn't be decriminalized everywhere. There would be how it would work is the decriminalization of drugs is you would have red light districts like in Europe. And in those districts, you would be able to use drugs. I know it sounds crazy. I know it sounds crazy, but I don't think it's as crazy as the war on drugs that were currently happening that's not working. Do you, do you, do people use drugs in excess in the United States? Yes. Of course it doesn't work. You won't cut, they won't cut off the source. If you cut off the source, it'll work. You know where the source is. Andrew, the fentanyl, the China, the Chinese fentanyl, Andrew, is never going to stop because they have all the shipping containers. For one, for every shipping container of fentanyl that they catch, there's a hundred that make it through. So the fact that we're dealing with China, they are the biggest producers. And this is a conspiracy for the people. The reason why Biden got rid of Afghanistan, he basically gave it to China is because China doesn't want us to have any of that Afghani opium, any of that poppy. So that's going to force us to use their crappy fentanyl. And in China, they can actually add a chemical to the fentanyl structure and they can legally make it. They can make synthetic drugs there. They can make K2. They can make THC and add some sort of chemical. And then let me ask you a question. Okay. So you're worried about racial profiling, but you want to lock down the southern border. What do you call that? I didn't say that. I don't believe in, I mean, I don't want these people just coming in here all the time. What would you, what would you call it if you were going to lock down a border so that one specific type of people couldn't come across it? What would you? Well, that, that specific type, that specific type of person would be an immigrant. And I'm just saying, I don't think it's fair. But would, would you call that maybe profiling? Do we profile at the border? I think you profile at all borders. I mean, that's, I mean, that's not a gotcha statement. I don't, I don't, we have 8,000 people pouring to our border. I don't think that's good. I get it. But people are saying that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, if you say, you know, profiling is really bad to target people for crime. I didn't say it's bad. I didn't say it's bad. I just said it exists. I said it exists. Well, you're saying that that was part of your case for why, why it's systemically racism was pro. It affects some people badly. And for some people it's beneficial. I've got to ask you though, if you're, if you're like, hey, we can profile these people over here who are committing a crime and that's not okay because it's profiling, but we can't target these people over here at the southern border who are committing a crime, even though that would also be profiling. I didn't say, I'm saying that's reverse racism we're doing at the border. Normally, you know, by just letting it. How is that reverse racism? Are there borders boring across the border? I'm saying it's like a white guilt or something. That's why Biden's letting all these immigrants in because they want to, they want all these voters. They want all these people to go to the left of cities to pump up the, I believe, that's why I believe Biden wants all these immigrants here because they think there's people who are going to be democratic voters. That's why I believe they're going to bring them in. And so they're not bringing white people. You can make a great case for why they're coming in for shifting demographics. I get all that. I've made such a, So that's a race. That's a racial thing. But it still doesn't absolve you of the contradiction of saying that profiling is racist if you're willing to shut down the southern border, you're going to have to profile. I don't, profiling a border? No, because there's people from Haiti. There's people from Guadalajara, there's Mexicans, Blacks. I mean, no, I'm just saying the whole entire border. Any race. I don't care if they're white. I don't care because listen, there's guys from Afghanistan coming through the border. There's pedophiles from Europe that try to go through the border. There's white, there's all kinds of blue. All everybody at the border trying to come in illegally. No, dog, you need to come in the right way. There's poor people and who are white who are white in poor demographic areas. There's poor people who are Hispanic in poor demographic areas. There's poor people who are Black in poor demographic areas. And you say you can't profile any of them, though, because that would be racist. I'm saying when you profile- You could do it at the southern border. That's cool. I don't know how that's profiling itself. I mean, I'm being totally genuine. How is that profiling at the border saying that I don't want massive immigration? Who would you say, if you just had to guess, I'll top your head, what race would you say that you would mostly be targeting at the southern border? If you just had to guess. Well, are Haitians and Guatemalans the same race? So who would you say? I'm saying right now, there's 8,000 Haitians. So I mean, I'm saying- And how many Mexicans? I have no idea. I have no idea. I just know the majority are Haitians. So I think that the majority of the people who might be coming across the southern border who are closest to the southern border who happen to be Mexican, you don't think that we would be profiling specifically for them though, right? It would just be for everybody. It would be some type of loose track net. You don't think that they would be primarily targeted at the southern border? Dude, I'm confused. Targeted by who? The immigration customs? Yeah, yeah, law enforcement. But what do you mean? Like they don't arrest anybody at the southern border. So they don't arrest anybody there. They arrest people at the southern border all the time. For what? Bringing like drugs or something? Yes, for bringing in drugs, for bringing narcotics, for bringing drugs and smuggling for all kinds of different reasons. But I'm talking about more of the refugees, but yeah, so you're telling me that's not racist, how they profile people there at the border? No, you would be having to be the one that makes that case, because you're saying- They profile people at the border all the time. If a white person going through a thing and I'm Mexican, so that's how it exists. So you have to admit that it exists. But you want to lock the southern border down, right? No, I don't want to- Oh, then your force is standing? So then your force is standing? No, I don't want to totally- No, I want people to come in legally. I want them to legally migrate here. I don't want to totally shut it down. I'm just saying that by your logic, by your logic on the one hand, you have to apply it over here too. So if you apply it over here- They're not mutually exclusive now. And what you end up with is you saying it is okay indeed to profile people, even based on race, if you think that it's in some way going to benefit the crime rates or it's going to lock down- I don't think that's good at all, but I don't think that's good at all. I'm just saying it exists. I mean, it's a thing that exists. I don't think that's good. Well, I don't know why I said that's good. Because you said you wanted to lock the southern border down. There's like 8,000 Haitians coming to the border. I don't think that is good. I don't think all the illegal immigration is necessarily good. I think they should do it legally, but that doesn't mean that I'm targeting a particular race. Well, I think I've hammered this home enough that we- I know, but we got to move on. I don't understand this point at the southern border. And I don't think profiling is good. I think they've been using profiling since before September 11th. We have like the FBI profiled Muslim, not just Muslim people, Afghanistan people. But you don't think that they use profiling at the southern border though? I said they do use profiling. They do. Right, they do. I know, I admit that. You want to lock the southern border down. How would you propose that we do that without using profiling? It's no. You don't use profiling. You check people's passport the same way they do when you fly to Europe. They check my passport. When I go to Canada- 100 people who just jumped over a fence, you're going to run them down and check their passports, huh? Well, because they don't have a passport, you would deport them. That's how you do it. Right. So if you were in charge of the southern border, let's say you specifically, and you had a squad of law enforcement with you. And you saw that there was a bunch of white dudes who were walking. They looked pretty blue-collar and they were walking on one side of that border and it was on the U.S. side, right? Do you think that your officers would be more suspicious of them or do you think that they'd be more suspicious if they came across 100 Hispanics who were kind of dirty-looking, dirty-ish-looking, who maybe looked like they just crossed a desert? So you're arguing my point. And then they might be far more likely to get them. Which ones do you think- President, I'm saying, so you admit that they're racially profiling. But how would you do it other than that? What do you mean? How would I do it? I would have everybody. I would stop my- If I was running the border and I saw white people, I would stop them. If they're at the border, they could be pedophiles. They could be creeps. Just I would stop everybody at the border that I thought was doing something illegal is how I would run it. I don't care what their color is, but you were admitting that they were profiling Mexicans. So you know. So I'm just saying, Andrew, you're admitting that systemic racism exists right there. It's not systemic racism. It's profiling. You use profiling as proof for systemic racism. Yeah, so when you profiled- I don't think profiling is systemically racist. Oh, come on. Oh my gosh. Profiling something is that is racist. That is racism. Yeah, one of the profiles is the race. That's one of the main profiles. What do you mean? Oh, black, whatever. Latino. That is- What are you talking about, dude? You would have to be doing something for the purposes of their race only for it to be racist. You understand? Oh, dude, give me a break. That's- I mean, you're- See, that's where- You're in the loony tunes. You're trying to say that that's different. That's the exact same thing. It's completely different. Oh, we just have to agree to disagree. I don't know- I don't even know how you can make a case that it's not. So what's going on here is that I showed you how your logic is flawed. If you want to have- My logic's not flawed. You'd admit that they- If you want to have the southern- You don't think- The main boy you profiled people is based on race, dude. That's how you profile. So I don't understand how you're saying profiling is not racist. That- You were going to tell me- Because racist- You're having preconceived notions. Racist is an intent, is an intent to do harm based on the race, or there's some reason that you're doing this specifically to harm the person based on the race. So for instance, if a cop is pulling over a black person just because they're black, do they have like good intentions for that person? I think a cop is probably always trying to look to arrest somebody. I don't know. I don't know- I mean, they're always looking for a crime, I believe, no matter what. That's what I- If they're pulling them over just because they're black, do you think that they have- If they're pulling them over- No, but I'm saying when a cop pulls somebody over, I don't think any cop necessarily has good intentions. I think they're always pulling you over to either write you a ticket- Yeah, no, I get it, but if they're pulling- So I don't know. They're pulling- So I don't think cops pull people over to be like, Hey, what's up buddy? You want to hang out? Oh, I'm just pulling you over for fun. I'm just pulling you over because I don't want to- They're pulling the cops over specifically because they're black. Just to be sure that we get to hear both of you, as people do want to get to hear each of you, and so just to be sure there's not too much interrupting. Okay, but if they're pulling a person over just because they're black, they instantly have bad intentions for that person. Okay? Instantly, if they're pulling them over for racist intentions, then they have bad intent. You can profile based on race without having any bad intent at all. Okay, so how would that exist? But I'm saying the majority of the time that people profile, and they profile based on color, so that is racist because- Oh, it's not. Just profile based on color- Pulling somebody over because they're black is racist in my opinion. You can say that's not racist, but for me- I didn't say that it's not. This is why they think- They say more black people commit crimes. So I see a black person driving down the street. They want to pull him over. He's not even doing it. They don't even see him doing a crime. They only pull him over because of past crime committed by same people of the same color as him. That, in my opinion, is racist, judging somebody over the past experience. And that happens in every instance for me when they profile somebody by race. They're judging that person- Okay, got it. Either race by the past history of them dealing with that race. I got it. That's racism. In that case, that would be a racist action. Yes, but that doesn't mean that profiling necessarily indicates that anybody is racist at all. If you're only pulling a person over based on your former interactions with that race from whatever nefarious interactions that you had for racist intent, that would be racist. Profiling in and of itself isn't racist. That's insane. Nobody would- I don't think it even- Well, I think you can use profiling- I think- So you're telling me that anytime you profile- Of course you could profile somebody and not be racist in using it. But I would say the majority of time that you profile somebody- Okay, when you profile somebody, can it be done in a racist way? Sure. Of course. So that's what I believe. I believe that's where we'll just agree to disagree. I believe when they use profiling, they're basing that off racist connotations because they're judging somebody based on the past experiences of that race. So I believe that's racism. I mean, we can agree to disagree, but I think profiling is- And that's why they made profiling legal. Then if profiling is not racist, then why did they make profiling illegal? If you're going to racially profile for criminal activity, that would probably be very bad. Generally, yes. However, if you were to have a law, and I think that this is where your conflation comes in, if you're going to have a law like stop and frisk, and you send people where basically you have a large poor demographic, most of them happen to be black or happen to be Hispanic or happen to be minority of some type, I don't think that that's inherently racist. It's just the demographic that you're dealing with that has more propensity towards crime because they're at the lower socioeconomic scale. Well, there's stats. I don't even have to pull it up, but on the subway, on the public transportation to stop and frisk, overwhelmingly stop and frisk people of color over white people. So I mean, they're in the same place, same socioeconomical train. Why is that? Why would they stop and frisk more black people instead of white people if they weren't judging them off their race because of stuff that happened in the past done by people of that same color? Is that based on my study and my data? Well, I'll pull it up. Let me pull up the stop and frisk data. Hold on. Let me pull it up because I know you're going to be in a stop and frisk data again of color breakdown. I don't hear of color breakdown, but yes. So you don't think stop and frisk was racist? I don't think it's an inherently racist policy. No. Okay. Okay here. Let's see here. We'll do it right now. Let me let me do a share screen. So this is just some stop and frisk numbers. An analysis by the New York City, what is the legal union on NCLU, revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than five million times since 2002 and that black and Latinx communities continue to be overwhelming. Targets of these taxis at the height of stop and frisk in 2011 under Bloomberg administration, over 685,000 people were stopped. Nearly nine out of 10 stops first New Yorkers have been completely innocent. And why do I why do I have this gut feeling that these are in largely black and Hispanic areas, not affluent areas? Well, I think you could argue that New York, a lot of these where the stop and frisk was happening was happening was a lot of times like in on the train or in on public transportation. That was a lot of this because they were going after and who takes they were looking for bombs. It takes public transportation. See, that's where I would that's no, that's where I argue in New York City, there's actually wealthy people that take public transportation. It's the one place in the world where you'd actually have a millionaire would be riding next to homeless person on the subway. I can't report with you live, but what I can tell you is likely, right? I'll go through it when we're done with the broadcast, I guess. Well, here, let's just let's just go. Let's just look at the stat. I'll get a break now. 59% were black of the stop and frisk people. 9% were white. Where was this? This is in New York City. Yeah, where? Oh, in Manhattan is the borough, I believe. Okay, one of the most affluent. It's one of the most. This is that she was in the most affluent city, you could argue in America. Okay, got you. I don't know, man. I can't go through. I'm just saying New York City has the most extensive real estate. I think maybe it's second to San Francisco. So this is the second. Let's just yield it just for the purposes of moving on. Let's just yield it to you that this was enforced in a very, very, very racist way. Would that make the policy itself racist? Yes, because it was done systemically to go. Let's just say that all of these numbers were totally equal. It was like 2020, 2020, right? Then would it be a racist? Not even. It's not if it was equal now, but it's okay. The policy itself isn't racist then. No, they put the policy in knowing that they could enforce it racially. That's why they put the policy in. It's a blanket policy. They put it so they're going to say, oh, you have to wipe it. Okay, but you could have a stop and frisk policy and it would not be racist, right? You could have the policy, but the policy would have to be that you would stop and frisk the same amount of colored people equally, but that's not it. What if it was like 1% more black people? Would that make it a racist policy then? Yeah, but it's so different. The disparity from 9% compared to 60% is not 1%. No, that's not what I asked. But you're talking about a hypothetical and I'm talking about actual stuff. Do you see the different, Andrew? Do you see, I mean, I'm just saying you know stop and frisk, they stop and frisk more. I'm granting it to you. I'm just granting the argument to you and saying, okay, I'm granting you the argument and that this was enforced and maybe the most racist way could possibly be enforced. Who cares? It doesn't mean the stop and frisk as a policy is racist. So if you ask me, do you support a stop and frisk policy? Yes. Are you saying, well, then you must support racism? Well, that's just fundamentally not true because I don't think that, right. I just think the cops that are enforcing it though are racist. And we have- Well, maybe in these demographic areas that you're talking about, they are. I haven't gone through the data to know if that's true or it's not true, but I am telling you that there's no way a policy in and of itself of stop and frisk is going to be racist. Only how it's enforced is going to be racist, right? Then the enforcement of it was racist. So the system was racist. Okay. So in that case, I guess in New York, if what you're saying is true, fine. They got rid of the stop and frisk policy because it was being enforced in a way that was racist, right? But if you were to have a stop and frisk policy in Tennessee, right? And it was like, let's say 90% white, okay? Would that be racist then? Yeah, definitely they could do it because it could be in a predominately white people and they just stop and frisk black people still. And that doesn't matter. I mean, it could be disproportionate, just like it was disproportionate in New York City. Okay. So let's assume that you have a 10% minority population there. 90% white, 10% of them get it. Then it's fair. And then you would say in your estimation that stop and frisk was being enforced fairly. I would say the only way to enforce it fairly would be to erasure your profile and stop and frisk. I see. The same amount of race is equal. The reason I'm asking you... That's not basing reality, but we're talking about... No, it is basing reality. Let me explain to you how, right? This is my whole problem with this. It's like, I'm trying to figure this out in my head. You would go into a place where you would have cops, what? They would have like a... Well, we've already stopped and frisk three white guys, right? And I think that that fourth one is really up to no good. Right there, right? And I'd really like to stop and frisk him, but I'm not going to because I'm over my quota. That's like, in your world, that would be the only fair policy. If that was the rule, I would have... You think that's the policy that's in reality? No, but I don't think they do that in reality. I'm saying that would be too hard to enforce, that you couldn't do that. That no police officer would actually... Right, it would be too hard to enforce, right? It wouldn't be feasible to enforce. So it wouldn't necessarily mean then, by that logic, that by you having one demographic over another, that you stop and frisk more, that that's inherently a racist policy even still, right? But you're talking about a hypothetical thing in Tennessee. I'm talking about what actually happened and when... It doesn't... Okay, but we've already granted all that. So we can still grant you that what you're saying is true. Well, it profile... It will make an argument that the policy in and of itself is not a racist policy. It depends on... I haven't looked at how the legislation says, I don't know every word of the verbiage of it, you know? So maybe it is fair, but I think a lot of times like those crack laws, you can write something, so it sounds like it's going to go after people equally, but it's meant in a subversion tactic to go after more vulnerable people. They make it look like it's not, but then they use it to go... It's like the January 6th thing. I mean, the look... But the more vulnerable people are going to be taking the crack. Okay, but okay, but let's not even... I don't understand. I don't understand what your solution here is. Well, this is my solution. This is the problem. We have the FBI that is going after white people because they want to create white people as the new domestic terrorists. And I believe you can say, I'm a conspiracy tenfold person as much as you want, but they literally say that white supremacy is the biggest threat to America. I disagree with that. I'm saying they're trying to pump that up, but I do concede that white supremacy exists. And you can't... You say that it doesn't exist, I guess, but I am just saying it's not the biggest threat. It's a very small thing. It's not even a threat to our nation, but it still exists. And sadly, it still affects innocent people of color because they're racist people that are calling the shots, like judges that are taking kickbacks. And I believe that the racism can go both ways. It can go against blacks people. It can go against white people. So I'm trying to put this together. So why is it then if you think that from the top down, we have a bunch of racist policies, but the government shouldn't be going after white supremacists? What do you mean? I don't think the January 6th people are white supremacists. I'm just saying those aren't necessarily the same thing. They're trying to paint all the January 6th people as white supremacists. I don't think they are. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah, no, I'm with you, but if you're saying that white supremacy is this massive problem... No, they say that. I don't think it is. Okay, so that's what Joe Biden says. Whites are disproportionately being racist to everybody then, man. Well, I'm saying it's an agenda. It's an agenda. So you're saying systemic racism doesn't exist. I believe there is an agenda written by people to divide us by race. So they're going after... Would you call those people white supremacists? Would you talk about Joe Biden in them? No, would you call the people who have an agenda to specifically target black people in the government white supremacists? No, I'd say they're racist. I don't know if they're necessarily white supremacists. Well, what would be their motivation to target them if it wasn't because they wanted to be white supremacists? Because they want to create division. They just want to... Right, because they want to create division. Got it. So back to where I was at, you can't say on the one side of your face, hey, these insane people over here are a bunch of white supremacists and then go, but I'm mad at the government for trying to target a bunch of white supremacists. It doesn't flow. Well, I don't understand. Because I got a donation from Micah Dink. Thank you so much. Wait, say that point again. What doesn't flow that the government can't have an agenda and go after certain races? You're saying... Yeah, go ahead. I'm saying, and they can change. Like, I think they believe the government, the FBI was racist towards... I guess you don't want to say Muslims because that considered a bigot, but I guess you'd say people of Middle Eastern descent. No Arabs. Arabs. And so whatever, Middle Eastern, I don't know. Because they're people from Iraq, people of Afghanistan, whatever. So that's... So I believe that they were racist towards them, that a lot of people got put in Guantanamo Bay. They weren't even, you know, they were brothers or cousins with somebody that actually maybe was bad. So I believe that our FBI, the weapons of mass destruction, all that was done, it was very racist, was all based on people's race. And so that's my proof that systemic racism exists. And so now that has just all changed. Now that direction, instead of going after the Black Lives Matter writers, they're going after the white writers in January 6th. And that's done on purpose because they want to create division between the races. They want to actually create a problem where it looks like white supremacy is the biggest problem in America. Then you're agreeing with me that it's a divide and conquer tactic rather than an actual systemic racist problem. Well, that's a racist problem when you're dividing them by race. Okay, but that's not systemic racism. Unless you're saying that you're using... That's not racism. That's not systemic racism, dividing the races. I didn't say it wasn't racism. I said it's not proof of systemic racism within our institutions. Unless you're saying that the worst thing that they should do, and I'm having trouble keeping up with everything you say by the way, but you're saying these white supremacists are going after people, but the government shouldn't be targeting white supremacists. That's the thing I'm still trying to rationalize this here. No, I'm saying that you can be supremacist. They're not white supremacists. Like their government... Their General Milley, James Comey, he's white, but he's not a white supremacist. He's anti-white. He's a globalist. But he's specifically targeting blacks. No, James Comey specifically would target white people. The January 6th writers instead of the Black Lives Matter writers when they could have targeted both writers. And you can argue that the BLM writers have way more damage than the January 6th writers. Okay, got it. So you don't think it's racist that they chose to go after all the January 6th writers, spend all the resources to go after the January 6th writers instead of doing anything to go after any Black Lives Matter writers? You don't think that was based on race, Andrew? Well, I think, yeah, that that was based slightly on race, absolutely. But I think that the purpose of it, again, was for political expediency that they wouldn't have cared what the race was. I don't care what the reason is. If they do it and the system is racist, that's all you got to say. I mean, we have a racist system. Well, I think we're ready for questions. Let's go, James. Let's get these questions. There's any questions. Let's get it going. You got it. And want to let you know, folks, our guests are linked in the description. If you don't see their links right now, go ahead and refresh the page, and you will for sure see them. Do want to mention as well, hey, folks, they're also linked in the podcast. So if you're like, hey, the podcast, I want to know, well, we're on virtually every podcast, and we put our guest links in the description there as well. We really do appreciate our guests. And so we're going to kick it into the Q&A session. Namely, I want to let you know, folks, if you're new here, for Q&A, we go through the super chats first, and then if we have time, given that we usually go about two hours, we'll go to the standard questions in chat as well. You can tag me with at-modern-day-debate, and kick it off with the first question. Contrarian says, or says, tip to the forum hosting these important discussions. Thanks so much for your support, Contrarian. And we're excited about the future. We've got a lot of juicy ones coming up that are in the works. And 1-888, I'm telling, says, Alex, do you happen to be Jewish? I think they're referring to your last name, Stein, because it's a common Jewish name. Everybody does think I'm Jewish. I was not raised. My dad never knew his grandfather. I think he was Jewish, but that was not. I was actually baptized in high school when I was 17, but now I'm, I mean, I think your mom has to be Jewish to be a Jew, but now I'm going to affect you. Is that true? I think so. Yeah, religiously, but then the conspiracy with that is like, it's really if your dad was Jewish, that's like the Talmudic one is if your dad was Jewish. So technically in like that vibe, because my grandfather was Jewish, but my grandfather deserted my dad and mom. And so he had, you know, he never talked to his dad. So it's actually kind of a sore subject. So yeah, we were not raised Jewish and no. You got it. And well, they said, I'm also a huge fan of your channel. So Alex, you got a fan out there is watching. Well, I got one. That's all I need. And I'm happy. Thank you. That's right. This also says no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is just racism. I think it's targeting because somebody said, I just, you don't usually pay attention to the chat. But they're like, well, Alex, you can't, systemic racism can't exist if they're racist to everybody. And I'm just saying, I believe their target changes. And usually the target is based off race because that is one of the ways they profile people. So that's why I believe systemic racism exists. You got it. This one coming in from best. Dijaf says, it's like calling all teachers a pedo. Three million kids reported to be abused by teachers and coaches and the majority of child abuses go to child care. So let's teach teachers and kids about teachers abusing kids. I don't know. Do you get that big, big papa? First time I've ever called another male on this channel, big papa. So big papa, do you understand what they mean by that? I have no idea. You got it in. So let us know in the chat, best Dijaf. And I'll try to make it more clear. And then Andrew Rouse says, on one hand, I like Alex. And on the other, Andrew shares my name. So I'm split. I think James wins. That's funny. Appreciate that. That's good. Go with Andrew. Go with Andrew. Both of our guests, Andrew and Alex, are linked in the description, folks. Yeah, the links are still there. Poofy says, Alex and big papa need to agree on a more structured definition of systemic racism in order to tunnel into the data. Alex argues that the instances of racism prove systematic racism and big papa doesn't agree. I think that's kind of fair. I mean, I guess we, and we disagree on, you know, I guess the definition of profiling. And I think profiling can be done in a non-racist way. But I think the majority of the times it is done in a racist way. And that's why they had to outlaw profiling. You got it, Anne. Thanks very much for this question. Coming in from Junebug says, socioeconomic status does not affect likelihood of criminality. Low impulse control and high testosterone do affect criminality. Professor Edward Dutton explains this in detail, r slash k strategy. What's r k slash r slash k strategy mean? No idea. Is that like the fast-paced, slow-paced strategy? Like fast-paced living where you're just kind of living for the moment and trying to spread your seed as much as you can versus the, I don't know. But anyway, what are your thoughts on that? Hey, I'm trying to spread my seed a little bit, but I started to use a condom when I spread it. What? What were you saying? They said socioeconomic status does not affect likelihood of criminality. Low impulse control and high testosterone do affect criminality. So people that have more testosterone can make more crime? I suspect. This is a kind of argument you'll hear a lot from ethno-nationalists. They say that because blacks have 15% more testosterone on average and this type of thing, that they're more prone to commit crime. So they argue that it has nothing to do with socioeconomic conditions, but rather it has to do with testosterone, IQ, these types of things. I'll even agree. I think the IQ or brain, I think there's something in your brain that kind of makes you a criminal. And I think that there's almost the same amount of criminals. A white person will, I think a white person will commit a crime just as much as a black person, just depends on the crime, in my opinion. Slings and Arrow says he loves it when you call him big papa. This is where the next up coming from, nasty guy. This one coming from Poofy. Did we get this one? Oh, we got that one. Best to Jaff. Best to Jaff. Appreciate it. It says if you think crack and coke the same, then you haven't tried it. Yeah. I mean, you smoke crack, but I think in general, you can smoke from, this is what I understand. This is why I could make this more clear. I believe in the 80s, they would free base cocaine too. So they would smoke powder cocaine and crack. I think you could smoke both from my understanding. So that's why the law is racist. Shut up, Red Hook and Eddie. I'm just saying that's why. I'm not going to lie. I did a little bit of this. I went skiing in college a few times, but people always say that I'm on cocaine now. I actually don't even drink. I don't do, I like to puff a little of the devil's lettuce, but no, I think those crack laws were inherently racist because it goes back to the Iran Contra. When we were flying in the drugs, you guys can watch this movie starring Tom Cruise. It's called American Mate. And they were bringing in from Nicaragua. We were bringing in cocaine and we were giving them guns to create some sort of, because they were basically trying to create socialism there. They're trying to overthrow the government in Nicaragua. So we were giving these people guns and they were giving us cocaine. So when the government would get this cocaine and very soon it would fly in, they wouldn't go drop it off at me and Andrew's neighborhood. What they would do, this is all declassified. They would go into- I think I wouldn't have been in my neighborhood. Because they go, they would, this is, they talked about it. I figured they, I can't think of the guy's name. Judge Menel Prick. How do you know what neighborhood I was in? Well, I don't know. You know what I mean? Maybe, maybe your neighborhood, maybe you're in Harlem, New York. But that's what it'd be. Basically, a U-Haul truck would be dropped off in Compton, California. You look this up. Look up a guy named Freeway Ricky Ross. That's what he said. He would get a message from some clandestine guy to, oh, the pickup. He didn't even know who he's giving the money to because that's how the drug trade works. You know, these people are like, oh, here, come meet my family. I'm Gary. Here's my social security number. I'm the big boss dope dealer. You know what I'm gonna do? These guys are just giving money to people they don't know. So at the end of the day, it was actually CIA agents that were giving these people color the drugs and then it was mainly cocaine. And then they created laws that disproportionately arrested black people for the same drugs that America was flying into the country that the CIA was bringing in and they were using that money to fund black operations and all of this is public knowledge. Do you think local law enforcement knew anything about that? In Mina, Arkansas, 100%. Yeah. And in Baton Rouge, I believe where he started, yeah, I believe those guys were paid off. If you're an officer. I mean, you believe that. Andrew, do you know? What's your evidence? Andrew, let me ask you this question. Just let me ask you this question. Do you think a cop would commit a crime if their captain told them to do it? I think in some cases, sure. I'm telling you, no, I'm just saying, if your boss tells you, I think a cop would do anything. If cops knew, like, let's say there's a riot and the cop said, oh, you can use lethal force. I believe the cops would use lethal force. So I'm just saying, a cop, even if they know that it's wrong, a cop will do whatever they're superior. It tells them because they're order followers. So that's the reason why the system is racist because if the person that's calling the orders is racist, all the people that follow it, maybe they're not racist, but they're enforcing the orders of a racist person. You can't say, I mean, all local law enforcement could not have been paid off, man. There's no way. Just no way. All law enforcement needs to be paid off. Only a few people would need to be paid off. You don't pay them all off. That's not how it works. I mean, it would only take one police chief. It would only take one police captain. I mean, you wouldn't have to pay everybody off. That's not, it's called. It's called for everywhere. Andrew, it's called compartmentalization. You know this. You don't think that there's, you're telling me in these, you don't think there's any sort of, I don't even know how to describe it. What is it called when a cop is dirty? You don't think there's any dirty cops? You don't think dirty cops exist? Didn't say that there wasn't dirty cops. I'm just saying there's a lot. I believe there's a lot of dirty cops. I believe a cop would even go dirty if his boss told them to do it. You know, if his cops said, hey, go what I want you to do a lot of times in those drug scenes with it, the cops would do is they would have cars full of drugs. When you were a bail bondsman, if your boss told you to go dirty, would you have? Well, no, bail bonds are different. How, how bail bonds work? I can arrest you. I have a, I have a private investigators license. So if you have a felony warrant, I can technically put handcuffs on you and bring you to the nearest police station. That's what a private investigators license gives you. Yeah, but there's rules, right? Well, there's rules. Like I'm saying, it has to be a felony. They have to have a felony. Boss told you to break the rules? Would you? I don't have a boss. I own it. I mean, it's a family business. But no, my dad, I wouldn't, my dad, it's my dad's business now. I wouldn't, we would never use the bail bonds when you're on the street. Right. So why do you assume that every, that just almost all cops will? No, because cops will follow an order, even if the order is legal. That's different than me. I won't do something illegal, but a cop, if their superior tells a cop to do something illegal, they will do it. And that was experienced over and over during Black Lives Matter, all the stuff that cops did, all kinds of legal stuff. Because their, because their superior told them it was okay. In these localized areas, yeah. We must move on to the next one. Best Dijaf says they're turning the frogs gay. It means systematic oppression. Alex, you think they're talking about your dad? Everybody, I know they're making fun of my dad, Alex Jones Sr. And I'll tell you what, if you look at that data, the stuff was turning the frogs asexual and they were, they, the, the, whatever, the fluoride or whatever the stuff in the water did turn those frogs gay. So look into it. Wow, juicy. And the legend rift says police have to follow new legislation passed enforcing unconstitutional laws on the lower class has always been the fault of the government. Thoughts? I mean, yeah, I mean, kind of the government is, this is what I believe the government is a people management system, whatever you want to call it. So however they can manage us, you know, more. So arresting us, penalizing us as much as possible. Well, this is my whole, my whole problem with a worldview like Alex's. He's on the one hand, they'll say the government's bad. And then on the other hand, they'll say, but we need the government to enforce these different policies that I want enforced. All right. Well, let me tell you what, I believe the only new government for conflict resolution, like, like, I, you know, if I want to own this house, I don't want my neighbor to be able to take my house. So I'm based in reality that listen, every time the government messes something up, it fucks it up. But this is also another thing. Why does insulin cost $200 in America, but $2 in Mexico? The government should really do something about that, shouldn't they? I believe the government should, in that case, you know, do something about it. Oh, what conflict would they be resolving? They would be saving lives. They would be saving lives. You said they only need them for resolving conflicts. Like buying themselves. No, I'm saying, I think that is a conflict that you can get that same medicine cheaper in other places. That's the conflict. Then everything would be considered a conflict. Oh, I mean, I do believe some sort of government should exist, but I don't think we should. But you only think that they should be there for conflict resolution, which would basically. Everything. That would basically be everything. So then the scope of government within the libertarian mindset. Well, I'm not really necessary some libertarian. That's why I'm not even saying that. I just think less government is better. But I think we do need some government because we need some government intervention or else people will take advantage of us. But the government takes advantage of us just as much so is what I believe. And that's why you say big public fascist. What is the definition of fascism? Is the merger of corporation and state? And that's basically what we have now. When you have all these lobbyists, when you have the pharmaceutical company basically controlling the entire narrative, that is already the merger of a corporation and state. You can get a free vaccine, but I can't get free healthcare. That doesn't make sense. Well, I mean, and who benefits from that? I think your definition is highly flawed of that. But that aside, right, you can't argue at one side of your face that you wish that the government would be held more accountable and then argue at the other side of your face. You wish that the government would do more of these other things that you want them to do because it's gonna necessarily expand it and then you're gonna have a lot more of them to hold accountable, right? No, no, I think we could redistribute. Like we could use all the money that we use in the military industrial complex. We could use that for drug rehabilitation. We could use, we could redistribute our funds and be a lot better instead of constantly being like a country where we're going to all, instead of having an air force base in all these other countries, we need to bring and protect our borders. We need to protect America. I think what we could do, we could have a great government. We just don't. Our system's broken. But I do believe that it is possible a governmental system can exist. This one coming in from Best Deja Vu strikes again says, I know we have issues with black and white people and brown, et cetera, namely like everybody. And they say, but what about green people? They're turning the frogs gay again. Who are the green people? Is this actually like a reference to something that I don't know about? No, I had no idea. Okay. Plummy 005. Thanks for your super chat. That's a great show tonight. James and crew. And as mentioned, our guests are linked in the description. They say for both besides all police becoming angels, what realistic policy would you want implemented for your city's police department? Well, I'm not a guy that we should defund the police. But I mean, I think like ramp it pulling people over constantly. I think we should pull people over less. That's one thing. I mean, I think we go into more. But that's one thing I think that would help because a lot of people get in trouble from getting pulled over. So I just think that would help a lot of people's lives if we pulled over people less. So I would do first and foremost, put more of an emphasis on localized policing. I think that that's a very good way forward. As far as criminal justice reform goes, one of the main focuses probably me and Alex can agree on is prison reform. That needs to happen as fast as we can possibly make it happen. And then the third thing that I would want to do is bring as many people up out of poverty as I possibly could with good paying jobs, which is one of the reasons that I would try to lock the border down as fast as I could. It would necessarily raise wages because we would have what we have right now which is a worker shortage creates a hell of an opportunity for you to go in and negotiate your wages. So all three of those things together, hopefully we could make the police render them somewhat useless if we could give people good standard of living. You guys agree? Want to let you know folks, really cool news as Let's Farm has done a fantastic job with the Modern Databate Discord. Want to let you know this is a post from him currently pinned at the top of the chat which says we are having an after show at the official Modern Databate Discord tonight and our open mic after show stage channel. We would love to have you join and that's linked there in that pinned chat. Highly encourage you Let's Farm and other moderators who have done a fantastic job. Want to say thank you so much to them for making it a fun place. And so highly encourage you to check that out. This next question coming in from Plummy or question the answer says, did racist cops work during stop and frisk? Yes, is stop and frisk racist? No, as soon as someone brings up race, all real justice ends. That sounds like that was an opinion more than a question. What are your thoughts? Do you agree? Disagree? I think that there's a lot of truth to that that just because you have a policy of stop and frisk and even if you have racist people who enforce the policy of stop and frisk doesn't make the policy racist, of course not. And oftentimes race is used as a divisionary litchpin in order to stop justice. Absolutely. There's no no doubt about that. Alex would actually be forced to agree with that unless he thinks that what happened with George Floyd was actual justice. This is the most just as thing Derek Chauvin deserves his life in prison. Now I'm kidding about that. I don't I don't like that. What was the question again? Because I had an answer. Say the question one more time. I just forgot it when you said that George Floyd thing that threw me off. What was the question one more time? Because I did have an answer. Say it real quick James. The original question was, did racist cops work during stop and frisk? Yes. Oh, I got my answer. This is why this is why stop and frisk was racist. The reason why they implemented stop and frisk was because of terrorism, because of bomb threats. They didn't want bombs. And then they use that to mainly stop and frisk black people and Latinos. So yeah, I think it was based out of racism to go after Arabs, Middle Eastern. And then when it was enforced, it was enforced against black people in a racist way. So I think stop and frisk is double racist. And if that's not the case, then why isn't it still in effect? Triple, triple racist maybe. Quadruple racist even. I mean, they're going after all the races. Why not? How many different tiers of racism going on? This one coming in from question. The answer says, what you like versus what you dislike is a disease of the mind. Yeah. So I think what he was alluding to there is what I was talking about earlier when I was explaining how race is a construction of the mind rather than an objective reality other than slight physiological differences maybe. Yeah, but then when you say all that word salad about how to define racism, for me, I'm just a simple racism exists. It's people that don't like somebody because of the color of the skin because of preconceived experiences they had with that race in the past. Juicy, this one coming in from JC93013 says, Big Papa, although I disagree with you, I think you're a decent debater, unlike Lil Myo who keeps getting bullied in debates. There's someone else that asked you for it. They said they want a debate between you and is it Myo or Mio? Yeah, it'll never happen. He has this bed in his house and he fluffs the pillows every day and then he doesn't sleep and he hides underneath it every night. So it's just not going to happen. Just since he's not here to defend himself, we'll jump to the next one. But Myoos NCO says, Alex, can you explain the difference between racial profiling and quote unquote profiling? Oh, I don't. I mean, I think they're pretty similar. I mean, I guess you could profile somebody like the way they're dressed, because you could say two black people are next to each other and you could profile somebody because he's like in some sort of baggy clothes and he might look like that he have a gun then a black guy in a suit. So there's different ways you can profile somebody but the main way profiling is done is through racial profiling. This one coming in from 188, I'm telling, says I would call them Zionists. I don't know who he's referring to. I know who he's referring to. He's saying, he's pointing it on. Yeah, you probably want to move on from that question. This one coming in from based home school mom says, please ask Alex to explain how domestic police are systematically racist, but border police apparently are not. Did I say border police aren't racist? I said that they race to the profile on the border. I didn't say that. And I don't think all I don't think you want them to though. That's what she's saying. You said you want them to do that at the border. You just don't want them to do it. You're misunderstanding what I want done at the border. What I want done at the border is the opposite of what's happening now. It's an absolute nightmare. I don't want them to unfairly profile people and think they're drug runners or something. That's not what I want, but I want a border that is not an absolute nightmare. That doesn't mean I want them to racially profile people. So you understand my pointing correctly. This one coming in, do appreciate. Oh, by the way, folks, we just did a poll. We always like doing this to kind of gauge the composition of the viewers at modern day debate. We had, I asked, where do you lean most politically? Right, left, middle, or none of those? And 44% lean to the right, 23% to the left, 17% in the middle, and 15% none of those, all of Alex's fans. So want to let you know though, very interesting we enjoy doing that just because it is fun to have an eclectic mix here as we always strive to have people from different walks of life. We hope you feel welcome, whether you be politically left, right, you name it. We're glad you're here. So with that, we'll jump to this next one. Coming in from Junebug says, Alex's points in regard to Iran, Contra, or Middle Eastern policies are a result of, let's see, Jewish influence over politics. Oh gosh, don't even kidding. That's another thing that they're saying. That's anti-Semitic, kind of. Is that what they're getting at? They're saying, yeah, it's the old, it's, see, that's what people get mad about, but that's like, everything goes back to the Jewish Illuminati. And that's what they're saying. Dual citizens in the U.S. government, only Israel has benefited from the war on terror or drugs. Big pop of fascist, is this what Alex claims it is? No, this person who's talking to you is absolutely right. The amount of dual citizenship within our Congress is insane, and it should be stopped. And the amount of them that have dual citizenship with Israel is outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous, and it should be stopped tomorrow. And if you think that that doesn't influence domestic policy, you're absolutely wrong. So, yes, there has been massive influence from Israel on a lot of these different things. There's no two ways about that. Yeah, and Trump just said that Jared Kushner is more loyal to Israel than America. He just said that yesterday. Donald Trump didn't. Next up, it got released in Bob Woodward's book yesterday. We have to get away from this bizarre idea that just talking about the fact that there's dual citizenship between so many of our own politicians in Israel is somehow anti-Semitic. That's not anti-Semitic. I agree, but people are not gonna, the ADLU would not agree with you, Andrew. This one coming in from Crucible Clips says, can each person do a straw man of the other person? Racial profiling is not bad. It's meant to happen. It's just systemic racism. Domestic cops aren't racist. They don't pull people over based on their race ever. They just pull people over because they commit more crime. Okay. Well, what's happening is, is that we started in the Middle East and then a bunch of stuff over there happened and they started shipping in crack. And then when they got the crack here and they dropped it out of the airplanes and then it went to society, then it went into the black neighborhoods and then you had a bunch of stuff happen with a bunch of the localized police forces and they got bribed. And then after they got bribed, systemic racism. Just like that. I ran conscious. Look it up. I like that argument. Juicy. And I think that is it. Want to let you know, though, folks, as mentioned, this is pinned at the top of the chat. In case you didn't hear, there is a modern database discord and there's an aftershow happening at that discord starting up shortly. So highly encourage you to check it out. That's pinned at the top of the chat. I'm going to be back for just a few minutes to let you know here on this live stream about upcoming debates that we have, as we have, as I mentioned, folks, this one, there's going to be a lot of triggering tomorrow. It's going to be a juicy one on the bottom right of your screen. Human rights versus Sharia law. Muslim versus atheist. It is going to be a juicy one tomorrow morning. I'm going to be here bright and early. It's 9 30 in the morning, my time when we'll be starting. And it is going to be worth it, though. I'm excited for it. And I'll tell you guys, it is going to be a fun and controversial one. So I'm pro Sharia law. I hope they bring Sharia law to Texas sooner than later because I get too sexually aroused from the women, so I prefer them to be covered up. Can when I when I sign off, can I use my best James impressions? Yes. And so I'm going to be in just a moment back with other updates on juicy upcoming debates. I want to let you know about folks as you want to hit that subscribe button and that bell notification if you haven't because we've got a lot of them and you don't want to miss them. So want to say huge thank you, though, to Andrew and Alex for being with us tonight. They are linked in the description, folks. And one last thank you, Alex and Andrew. It's been a true pleasure.