 Everybody tonight we are debating whether or not there was voter fraud and we are starting right now. Your epic debate. We are very excited for this one folks and want to let you know if it's your first time here and you love juicy controversial debates, want to let you know this is the first of or the 500th of many more and we are very excited to have you here no matter what walk of life you are from. And so if you do love juicy debates, if you're sick in the head like us, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have plenty more to come. With that, want to get into the details for tonight's debate, it's going to be a lot of fun folks. First we are going to have a semi-structure debate, namely each speaker will have ten minutes for their opening statement, that'll start with John Maddox, then we will have eight minute rebuttals and then we'll have about 40 minutes of open conversation and then 30 minutes or so of Q&A. So feel free if you have a question to fire into the old live chat and tag me with at modern day debate, that'll be your way of making sure that I see every question in the live chat so I can get that into the Q&A list. Super Chat is also an option in which case you can not only ask a question but if you want you can make a comment toward one of the speakers that they of course would get a chance to respond to and it will push your question or comment to the top of the list for the Q&A. With that, very excited to have our guests here. We really do appreciate these guys, they're busy guys and so want to say they're linked in the description. If you guys want to hear more from either Maddox or Hey It's Vadim, want to let you know you can find those links in the description and we really do appreciate these guys being with us tonight. So I do want to say first, thank you so much both John and Vadim for being here. You're very welcome, it's a pleasure and a sheer sensation, I want to thank everyone who's tuned in, I want to thank Mr. Maddox here and you too. So thanks James. My pleasure. Thanks. It's always a pleasure to have this interesting conversation and hopefully we'll be able to have good dialogue and see who wins. Absolutely. So this should be exciting though as we never had this topic before of course and so we're going to get the ball rolling with John Maddox and the speakers have roughly, it's always a flexible 10 minutes so this may be as long as 12 minutes for his opening statement and each speaker has that equal amount of time available to them if they'd like to use it. So John the floor is all yours. All right well tonight ladies and gentlemen we are going to be discussing what I think is going to go down in history as perhaps the most incredible attempt at a bloodless coup in the history of humanity along with the most obvious propaganda and information control operation of all time. Now while my opponent will do nothing but spew standard leftist talking points, this blatant attempt to give Joe Biden the presidency through voter fraud and irregularity is not a conspiracy theory. 1984 has arrived ladies and gentlemen and if you still retain the mental capacity to think for yourself, it is the only logical conclusion based on the evidence. Now before outlining timelines and evidence to support my position, we must first consider what this voter fraud that this voter fraud was predicted well prior to the election and all the way to the extent of legal attempts were made in a variety of states with the express purpose of minimizing voter fraud which was expected to occur due to the demand for mail in ballots. However, in mostly Democrat controlled states, many of these attempts were blocked by liberal judges and in states such as Pennsylvania, they actually aggressively pushed to allow ballots to arrive up to three days after the election. As if this shouldn't raise suspicion in September of this year, so 2020 ladies and gentlemen, the PA Supreme Court changed Act 77 of 2019 by allowing votes to arrive three days after the election day and to permit drop boxes, both of which had been specifically precluded in Act 77. Even NPR wrote in its article that the quote Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down several vote-related decisions Thursday that are likely to help Democrats this fall. The court extended the deadline for accepting mail ballots will allow voters to submit their ballots through drop boxes and remove the Green Party's candidate for president from the ballot. Now, going a step further, these decisions were exacerbated when the court ruled just prior to the election that even signatures on mail-in ballots could not be verified as basis for disqualification of a vote. Wow. How does that make any sense whatsoever? Until this year, unless you got your ballot notarized, had witnesses and special circumstances, you weren't even allowed to vote by mail at all, except in a few very limited locations. Yet in 2020, suddenly all of this goes out the window and you don't even need to get your vote-in on time, let alone even verify the signature in order for it to be counted. But wait, there's more. Let's head over to Wisconsin, a state that wasn't able to get as many insane court rulings in their favor. And instead of dealing with witness signatures and address state law requirements, the Wisconsin Election Commission literally told poll workers they were authorized to, quote, fix it rather than invalidate the ballots, which had not had the correct information. This instruction was actually sent out by the WEC to the voting districts and, quote, this was the instruction. Note that the clerk should attempt to resolve any missing witness address information prior to election day if possible. And it's going to be done through reliable information, personal knowledge, voter registration, phone call with the voter or witness. The witness does not need to appear to add a missing address. Hang on. So the law specifically states that it must be considered invalid. The ballot instruction sent out to the voter specifically stated they had to do this before it would be invalid. But in terms of the people who are giving the responsibility to, given the responsibility to provide fair elections, nah, just ignore that law. The person who is voting doesn't actually have to validate their vote. I mean, think about that for just a second. Now, let's do a quick jump over to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a Democrat controlled city in a swing state where on election night, Trump was leading statewide, but then a rather amazing miracle began to happen. Magically, these wards all stopped counting their ballots or reporting the count. However, when they did resume reporting votes, the most striking feature of the data received is a fact that cries out for clarification. So in seven wards, voter turnout appears to have exceeded 100%. In two of those wards, turnout exceeded 200%. In other 15 wards, voter turnout exceeded 95%. Joe Biden carried 21 of 22 wards of the 95 plus precinct wards, percent wards, but then again, he carried all but one of the 67 additional wards in which the turnout was above 90% and 180% of the vote city wide. In 25 of them, Biden received 97% or more of the vote. Not only that, but Joe Biden was getting 30, 40, and in one word, 56% greater number of votes than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I'm pretty sure that nobody thinks that Joe Biden is the kind of person who turns out the vote like Hillary Clinton, let alone Barack Obama. Similar stunning differences in voter turnout and percentage of votes occurred in other swing counties in swing states. Not nationally, not in counties that weren't pivotal, only in very specific ones. Heading back, let's head back to Montgomery County just outside of Philadelphia. Barack Obama got 233,000 votes. Joe Biden got 313,000. But the total county population increase has only been 22,000 people, and he also doubled the margin. Now let's briefly look at Biden only ballots. Right now, there's only about 450,000 of these ballots across the entire United States. This is amazing when you look at how it seems these only favor Biden. And almost all of them are cast in swing states and most of them are in strong Democrat-controlled districts. Case in point, Georgia, there were 95,801 Biden-only ballots. So literally the only thing marked was for him, nothing for senators. And by the way, both Georgia senators are up for election. However, let's look at what happened in that context for Trump. There were a grand total in the entire state of 800 and 18 ballots in the entire state of Georgia that were only marked for Trump and didn't also cast ballots for other candidates on down ticket positions. 818 Trump only votes 95,000 Biden-only. And that's just in Georgia. That's 21% of all this type of ballots across the entire United States in Georgia. Just happened to be in Georgia. Now what other signals for red flags in Georgia? Well, first off, let's talk about the 132,000 ballots that have been identified so far. They're supposedly from people who it has been documented have moved from the county, yet somehow ballots from them were cast. They just don't live where the ballot was sent anymore. Interesting, isn't it? That's a lot of votes people. And remember, that's in Fulton County, 132,000 ballots in one county. Then how probable is it continuing on in Georgia that the water pipe, a water pipe bursts in the exact room that is holding a huge number of ballots in the state farm arena, not just in the same room, right at the time they were supposed to be posting the vote count after the polls close? I mean, come on. One of the only Democrat-controlled areas in the entire state in the most populated county, and they managed to have such a random plumbing problem in the exact room that needed to not have one. Come on. Are you really this gullible? This is just like the Democrat-controlled areas in North Carolina, the technical issues that stopped reporting. Same thing in Wisconsin, same thing in Detroit, same thing in Pennsylvania. And just to remind everybody, before these areas all had simultaneous outlier random problems, Trump had very comfortable leads. We all go to sleep. We wake up the next day, and we're all being told that somehow these votes had been found in every single one of these areas that suddenly put Biden in the lead in every state. Then you've got Nevada, which interestingly enough, even though they didn't claim to have any technical issues, the Democrats decided to stop counting at 10.30 p.m., not 3 a.m., 10.30 p.m. They just said, hey, we're going to stop counting. Well, we might start again tomorrow. What? We've been preparing for this election for how long? And they just decided to call it a night. I mean, think about this, people, in any other election, if a single swing state was all, if just one was having these types of emergency issues, and all resulted in the same outcome, wouldn't you think something didn't feel quite right? I mean, this stuff is so mind-blowing, it's like they, I feel like they realize, wow, this is so over the top that people won't actually think any of this could actually be true. Now we have to look at the fact that the supposed blue wave never actually happened and has this correlate with votes for Biden versus Trump. So Democrats were supposed to take the Senate, they were supposed to expand their lead in the House, and they were supposed to absolutely crush Trump. So they didn't take the Senate, they lost seats in the House, and until all these voter irregularities popped up all over the swing states, Trump was on a clear path for victory. In fact, data shows he was getting more votes in many counties he flipped in 2016. So you're telling me that across the United States and all over swing states, except those in heavily Democrat-controlled cities, he's getting more votes than he did in 2016, but we're not supposed to at least do a basic audit before the media tells the entire planet that Biden is the president-elect. Now of course, people have been doing audits based on the data, and when the Bedford Law, which is the standard auditing concept which is used for all sorts of audits, but is recognized as like the way that you identify voter irregularities, well it turns out that this established principle is indicating that a more detailed investigation should be pursued in different areas, but in spite of this, we've got the media claiming this has been debunked and the process and the principles that are used in any other context shouldn't apply in this context. Amazing. Now let's take a quick look at the Dominion voting system glitches that also magically happened in a wide variety of states, but somehow on massive levels only in swing states. For example, in Pennsylvania 220,000 votes were switched and 941,000 votes were quote lost. Wow, that's amazing. Michigan 20,000 switched votes and almost 22,000 lost votes, which surprise, surprise just happens to be the margin needed to give Biden the lead. Come on people, how can the math be this nuts? If you think I'm making this up, the system was flagged as error prone and insecure in 2019 and multiple secretaries of state refused to use it because of the 184 documented problems with it, but all that aside, if you look at the comparison between all the states that used it, most either had zero switched or lost votes due to the system errors, or maybe a few switched, but zero lost or zero switched and a few votes lost, but in swing states and states with major swing counties, somehow they either had massive amounts of both or a balance between the two of the exact amount that accounts for the margin. And just for fun, why did the media call Arizona for Biden? As of right now, he's only down 12,000 votes and there's 46,000 votes left to count, but Arizona was called for Biden before Texas, before Florida, before many other states. This makes absolutely no sense and it's yet another example of very strange things to all happen at the same time to make it seem like Joe Biden was guaranteed to win when before all the magic shutdowns on reporting the night of the election, mathematically Trump was ahead in both electoral college votes and ahead in the swing states, even though on all the media outlets, they actually did the flip flop of that. Even, I got about a minute ago, even Las Vegas odds had switched to give Trump 60% chance of winning. Then it all stops, we go to sleep, we wake up and everything required for 180-degree pivot has happened. Now I have purposely not used anecdotal evidence, although at this point there are hundreds of sworn affidavits by people who were working at the polls claiming to have witnessed ballot modifications. There's video of people in Philadelphia literally filling out dozens of ballots by hand, all while police officers staying next to them inside of polling stations. It's gone to the extreme of the state Supreme Court of PA ordering different counties to comply with state law and sheriffs refusing to comply and trying to arrest people who attempt to fulfill and follow actions. We'll switch it over, thanks so much. We are going to kick it over to Hey It's Vadim and, as mentioned, our guests are linked in the description folks, so if you'd like to hear more from them, you certainly can and with that the floor is all yours Vadim. Hey guys, what's going on? It's Hey It's Vadim and yeah, President-elect Joe Biden has indeed won the election. Mr, we hold these truths to be self-elevident and all men were created equal by the go-no-oh-no youth thing. He has defeated the great whining, glowing, spray-tan orange oompa-loompa from hell. And yet we have all these claims of election fraud coming from a president who made the ludicrous and thoroughly debunked claim that three million illegals were bussed in rather to vote in 2016 and made a headspinning amount of totally unsubstantiated, unsupported, and in fact thoroughly debunked claims that the mail-in voting system was easily susceptible to fraud. And we have a deluge of highly dubious claims that just keep coming in for a voter fraud from the general public. I mean, who could have seen this coming with all that Trump was saying in the lead-up to the election? I just, I don't know, it just boggles the mind. But guys, these claims are in fact overwhelmingly either based on hearsay speculation claims that lack foundation and conspiracy theory. They all lack genuinely credible evidence or have been explained at this point abundantly, which is why these claims are not being pursued by law enforcement agencies who are mostly right leaning, by the way. These things are taken very seriously when there's anything remotely credible. And yet they're not being pursued. And all the cases that Trump has tried to bring up in frivolous lawsuits have basically been laughed out of the court. I'll get to a few of the claims that have been made in a moment. But first, I want to say that I do have a document containing links to literally 80 studies conducted within the last 20 years that show that voter fraud is both excessively difficult and the actual number of cases is pretty fucking microscopic. For instance, a study published by, oh, and by the way, I'd be happy to share that with Maddox if he wants me to send it to him. I realize it'd be kind of hard for him to look over 80 documents, but I'm willing to share it with him. A study published by New York law found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices and reviewed elections have found incident rates between 0.003% and 0025%. So just, like I said, absolutely freaking microscopic. Two studies done at Arizona State University in 2012 and 2016 found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000 to 2012 and later found zero successful prosecutions for impersonation fraud in five states from 2012 to 2016 where politicians have argued that fraud is a rather pernicious problem. Also, the Heritage Foundation, which if you don't know is a deeply right-wing think tank, they say that 0.00000, that's six zeros people, seven percent, six zeros, seven percent earlier, oh, I'm sorry, they found that much of a percent of voter fraud cases over a 36-year period from 1982 to 2018. They could only find 1,285 cases of proven voter fraud out of more than 1.8 billion ballots cast, which amounts to the rate of all those zeros in the seven percent, I told you. I could go on. I have, like I said, 80 of them to share and you know, I will make that available to both Maddox and modern-day debates if they'd like to post it. But these studies come from all sorts of highly respected places, Dartmouth, government accountability offices, the Republican Lawyers Association, Columbia University, Harvard. So, you know, this runs the gamut of both right and left sources. Now, let's just hit a few of these dubious debunked claims that just have been, you know, coming out like, you know, usually when you have an event like this, you have lots of people making unsubstantiated claims. I'm just going to name a few. A viral video purporting to show Delaware county election staff fraudulently filling in blank ballots was later shown to be insanely misleading because they had zoomed in to crop out the bipartisan observers who were not more than six feet away. So, yep, totally debunked. Viral ballot burning video shared by Eric Trump, of course, was a total fake. The city of Virginia Beach said that the papers were clearly sample ballots and they showed the video and in the video, or rather the article, they they show what the official ballots look like. And you can see clearly in the viral video that there is no barcode on these things that are supposedly ballots. So, then also just very recently, a postal worker, Republicans pushed claiming that he had evidence of voter tampering. He recanted his claims and he since said that he made it up that it was all bullshit. And of course, that was after Project Veritas, who have also made debunked claims, called him a hero and raised $136,000 for him through a GoFundMe. You know, I could go on, but this stuff gets to be like whack-a-bowl, you know, it's like any event in which conspiracy theory-like claims emerge, you have an unending cavalcade of them, you hit one, another just pops up, but believe me, way more than what I've mentioned have been thoroughly debunked. And I want to reiterate the literature showcasing how rare and extremely difficult voter fraud is extraordinarily robust. There's also legal precedent from the Fifth Circuit courts, which, if you don't know, are basically second to SCOTUS in their respect or authority of legal analysis. And their findings correspond to what we see in the literature. I'll get into those findings more later if we like, but till here, they don't find it an issue. And these precedents would probably make it pretty difficult for Trump to mount a successful case. I'm not a lawyer, but that's what the word on the street is. We have quotes from diehard Republicans like former George Bush chief of staff Carl Rove saying in response to all this that stealing hundreds of thousands of votes would require conspiracy on the scale of a James Bond movie that isn't going to happen. I can't believe I'm saying this, but yeah, I agree with Carl Rove. Chris Wallace of Fox News likened folks like Ted Cruz to Japanese soldiers who came out of the cage 30 years after the war, believing the war is still going on. In other words, they're desperately out of touch and clinging to a fantasy. Republican representative Will Hurd of Texas said a sitting president undermining our political process and questioning the legality of the voices of countless Americans without evidence is not only dangerous and wrong, it undermines the very foundation this nation was built upon. And he's right. It is those pushing these factually bankrupt claims. Well, you know, it's funny because they usually claim to be on the side of truth, justice, liberty, American exceptionalism, yada, yada, yada, America, fuck yeah. But, you know, they are helping, I think, in hopeless vein to essentially stage an authoritarian soft coup. Mr. Maddox claimed that the opposite was true, but don't be fooled. That's what's happening currently on the right who are spewing this nonsense. And finally, sure, you know, I'm going to go into a bit of speculation mode here, but I really think that it stands to reason that it's kind of crazy balls to think that with all the literature we have on the nature of voter fraud, that somehow I don't know who the deep state or as Newt Gingrich put it, people like George Soros. Did you guys hear that, everybody? That's a dog whistle from Newt Gingrich there for you. Somehow, in this election, they pulled off this grand conspiracy. They did it in a very narrow margin, which would only give time for more of these conspiracies to take root. They didn't bother doing it in 2016, but yet they had the ability to do so apparently back then because they can do it now. And they didn't fucking flip just two or three more Senate races to give Democrats control of the Senate because that's important because the lack of having the majority will make Biden's job far harder. And also in many of these states that Biden won, that were supposedly tampered with, down ballot Republicans, they did very well. Presumably, if these states were subject to widespread election fraud, we wouldn't see any of these things. I mean, that's just not the way that you would do it. You would do it in a way that provokes less speculation of fraud, and you'd ensure that he has control of the Senate as well, or rather that Democrats have it. There were a few races that were incredibly close. So they easily could have done that if all of this tampering occurred. And yet they didn't. I mean, it reminds me of 9-11 conspiracies, because at once we're supposed to believe that this extraordinarily difficult thing to pull off occurred. And yet they, at the same time, they had a masterful execution of this fraud, supposedly. And yet at the same time, they made all these juvenile, well not juvenile, just like amateur dumbass mistakes. So it just stretches credulity to the point of it just snapping in half. It does not, it just does not really make sense if you think about it. And I just, I am surprised that people expect us to believe this colossal hunk of horseshit. It's time for people to face the facts, collectively get their head out of Daddy Trump's ass, and cope. Thanks so much. We will kick it into the first and only rebuttal sections for this debate. So we will have that open conversation. However, we're going to have a strict eight-minute limit on these rebuttals. And so with that, we'll kick it over to John. The floor is all yours. Well, that was interesting, ladies and gentlemen. Look at the way this guy, with his sunglasses on and everything, just spewed leftist talking points, didn't actually do much of substance other than spew talking points. And claims have, oh, I've seen a lot of the quote-unquote debunks and such from Snopes and Reuters and all that stuff. But if you go and look beyond the first layer of those talking points, oftentimes you find that they're semantic dependent debunks or counters. But one that's more direct, and I'll just ask you this question directly because you stated that the postal worker recanted, correct? That is what I read. Okay, so you don't actually go and research anything beyond headlines, do you? This isn't actually a cross-exam. So this is eight minutes yet. Okay, cool. Well, this is from tonight. I'll just go ahead and share my screen real quick. So this is the guy in question. Let me hold. Can you wait one second? I can't. I just want to make sure that, okay, all right, all right, go for it. And James, please confirm that audio comes through when I do this. I am right at this very moment looking at an article written by Washington Post says that I fabricated the allegations of ballot tampering. I'm here to say that I did not recant my statements. That did not happen. That's not what happened. And you will find out tomorrow. Oh man. So I guess you bought into some media talking points like I predicted. Given the fact that that directly contradicts from the person in question directly contradicts a position you took. So that's just one example. Then you've got things like the literally this point hundreds of sworn affidavits from people who are workers either in postal systems, polls, election commissions in a variety of states. They have sworn affidavits regarding to their witnessing difference irregularities. And the point that I made, which perhaps went over your head in the beginning of my opening statement, which was we're jumping to conclusions and stating, hey, he's voted or elect. We haven't even certified the election results yet. There's votes that are still being counted. And yet people such as yourself and the media and everybody else are running around with this like 100% adamant position that it's all over and done. Anybody who's questioned this must be in a state of denial and conspiracy theory, which is ironic given the fact that 20 years ago, just with one state, Florida in this context and Bush v. Gore, it was 37 days from the election day to when that state was decided in that time. Nobody was declared the president elect. So you got to really think about this from a like what is happening perspective. Why are we accelerating this so quickly when not that long ago, everybody is saying, hey, don't worry about it. Don't worry about any, there's not going to be any confusion. There's not going to be any discrepancies. And now we have discrepancies all over the place. And they're in court. Yeah, have some have some been dismissed? Yes, but not all. There's significant ones that have not been. And the there's also been a new wall since it had been filed recently. So again, we're a week out from the election. And I mean, they haven't finished counting everything in Arizona yet. As I mentioned also in opening statement, they still got 46,000 votes to counties down by 12,000. That state was called. It was one of the earliest states called actually from the West. And everybody was questioning like, why is this one being called? And all the media types claimed that all the guys doing the math. Oh, we're sure it's 100% going his way. But they wouldn't call Texas. Texas ended up being decided by a large margin. So did Florida, they wouldn't call those, but they were going to call Arizona the one that's now coming down to 12,000 votes as we speak. So these sorts of things go on and on. And people such as my opponents like to act like all this stuff is just accounted for. Because all I do is listen to CNN. They don't actually go and read for anything bigger for themselves and check on the talking points, obviously. As I rely on, oh, there was this study done that was done in 2010 or whatever, different years. Yeah. So in those contexts in which those studies are referencing, was there anything like COVID-19 pandemic in the country in question, had the entire process of the way votes were conducted undergone a 100% paradigm shift as being litigated in court? Oh, wait, I don't think so. So to try and apply those standards to an election that completely, as a complete 180-degree paradigm shift, I don't understand why you would even try and rely on that kind of information. That just either indicates that you don't comprehend the lunacy of that argument. Or you're trying to gamble that the average person listening to this won't comprehend how stupid that argument is. It blows the mind. Accused people such as myself as being caught up in conspiracy when the evidence is actually leaning in my favor as more and more comes out. And you can rely all day long on snopes if you want, but there's now fact checkers for snopes and entities of that nature. So if they keep getting called out for being wrong, I don't understand why you would rely on them. Something else I was going to touch on. Oh, you talked about Republicans doing okay in down ballots. Okay, did the whole premise of the ballots that only named Biden not have any significance, did you not comprehend the whole point of that? Of course, if they're not impacting the down ballots, then the votes that do affect the down ballots are still going to be in play and they're not going to be modified by the ones that are being counted and only have Joe Biden's name on them. Like this is not exactly rocket science, dude. You should be able to comprehend that. So why are you even offering that as a somehow counterpoint to my argument? I don't really understand where you're coming from on that. Where am I at, James? Okay, I'm done. Okay. Go ahead, Vadim. Okay, so that's interesting. I hadn't seen that project Veritas footage of the mailbox guy to tell you the truth. That was not Veritas. No, no, but it's Project Veritas that released it in New York Post, then talked about it. I actually, the source, you said that I just go to CNN and whatnot. I specifically for the purposes of this went to some right wing outlets because I just knew that that would be a bone of contention. I did get that from Forbes, which is pretty right-leaning. I guess you could say a little center right-leaning, but it is more than definitely right-leaning. I did not see that and what you have on your hands, like you have with the overwhelming majority of these cases is just hearsay. It's just, you know, first-hand. No, no, it is literally contradicting. We do have eight minutes, so we do have to let them finish Medox. If he's going to lie, we can call him. You're already muted. They can't hear you. So here's the thing. Hold on. They can't hear either of you. So we're going to go back to, I'll give you maybe like 20 seconds back, Vadim. So you've got about seven minutes left and the floor is all yours. Okay. Well, I'm starting to think right now that maybe we should just turbidate this discussion, because although I want to continue it, I'm very concerned for Maddox. I think that he is showing all the signs of a terminal OD on copium. And I think he probably should be rushed to an ER room at once. So if I don't know, modern-day debates, James, if you're willing to gamble with his life and Maddox, if you are as well, then I'm cool with that. You know, I'm just here kind of chilling in my sunglasses, as as Maddox said, while he's chilling in his fourth-graders flash baseball hat. So anyhow, yeah, that is indeed the very definition of, here say, the gentleman does not have any proof. You'd think that he would have other people to substantiate what he said. You know, other fellow male men who substantiate exactly what he said, that exactly what he said took place. Hey, maybe there's one or two of them that I don't know about. We'll see. But you say that I'm just spewing leftist talking points. I mentioned that I have 80 studies on the nature of fucking voter tampering and voter fraud conducted by a myriad of incredibly well-respected sources, government agencies or rather government state governments, and these are both right and left leading sources, and they all come to the same conclusion. It is pig-ass ignorant to say that these things are leftist talking points. They're just, you know, they are the academic authority when it comes to both the incidents and the likelihood of voter fraud and the impact that it has on our system. And saying that COVID is going to, I mean, that's irrelevant. It's not going to have any bearing on the, sorry, the susceptibility of our system to voter fraud through mail-in ballots. You talked a lot about how it was just very curious that all these states started going for Biden when it's not at all. I mean, a lot of these states, you know, it took a while for them to start counting the mail-in ballots and the mail-in ballots were, you know, already known to mostly be from left-leaning people because they take COVID more seriously. What else do I have to say in response? I mean, I guess I could go ahead, since I mentioned it before, since, you know, you were talking about just relying on leftist talking points and all. Let's go to some legal findings, okay? These are all pretty much findings from Fifth Circuit courts, which, if you guys don't know, are generally going to be some of the most trustworthy places you can look for strong presidential hardware to say value for legal analysis in the country. They're more or less on the same level of state supreme courts. They're really just below the Supreme Court. And they're generally thought to be a persuasive authority when it comes to legal analysis. There are handful cases, and a few are, let's see, basically only, let's say, like looking through these notes. Okay, so in one case, in Texas, a photo ID case, they noted that there were only two convictions for voter fraud cases out of 20 million votes cast within the decade. A North Carolina omnibus restrictive election law was struck down because it failed to identify even a single individual who had ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina. And even the Supreme Court, in its opinion, in Crawford, Indiana, found voter fraud to basically be a non-issue. There's other cases, but the bottom line is it would be very, very difficult for this conspiracy that Mr. Maddox is alleging to occur. And also, I think I said this before, but it would probably be pretty difficult for Trump to mount any sort of successful legal claim. Again, not a lawyer, so it's what I've heard on the street. And yeah, you know, these are not leftist talking points. These are, again, legal precedents. These are scholarly articles that I am referring to. They are the academic consensus. So, you know, I mean, Maddox, you talk about me kind of, I don't know, just clinging to leftist talking points and whatnot. And I think that you're just kind of ignoring absolute facts in favor of defending your, you know, supreme daddy-oo-woo Trump. And it's kind of, I have to admit, you know, I can't mince words here. I think it's really, pathetic isn't the right word. I think it's kind of disgusting. I just, I know that's a strong statement. But seriously, all of this is really undermining the very fabric of what our nation is based on. And it's an affront to our democracy. And I just, I cannot imagine a world in which the left would ever mount this, you know, with unsubstantiated bogus evidence would freak out this much and make all these like, I mean, it's just, you know, the left doesn't have an equivalent of QAnon. So, that's why that's going on. 30 seconds, it's fine. You know what? I'm done. You got it. Thanks so much. Now, we will try going into open conversation. Who knows how this is going to go. But I do have to, I have to let you know, both John and Dedeem work with me here, guys. Basically, what we do is if it gets too rowdy, what we've done before in a special thanks, it started on the day that Sargon and Vosh debated, where if it gets too rowdy, what we do is we cut it into three-minute intervals, which basically means it's dialogue kind of, but it's also kind of timed sections of three minutes back and forth for about maybe 30, 40 minutes. So, we'll give this a shot. The floor is all yours. You know, bro, I think I find it very entertaining that you make fun of my flash hat when I think you've got, is that a, in your back seat back there in your room, is that a teddy bear dressed up as Captain America? That's actually a Trumpy bear. Is that a bunny on top of your... That's a little bunny. Cool, man. So, and then we have some little like dinosaurs on the picture. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, you're making fun of my flash hat when you... No, no, no, no. Actually, to tell you the truth, I think I... No, no, no, no, no. I threw that back at you because you were making fun of my sunglasses. So, I just returned and kind of, I see that right there. That's a wall of comic books right there. I think you're... Well, no, no, I'm surprised you're taking a stab at a fellow comic book fan, but... Well, no, no, no, no, no. I'm just letting you know. I'm just making fun of each other's memorabilia. In the context of your rebuttal, I'm going to address your rebuttal. All right, all right. Okay, go ahead. Question. You, again, even though I already annihilated your premise of those studies somehow having relevance in the context of 2020 elections, you fell back on them again. And let's address this. So, did you vote this year? Yes, of course. Okay, did you have to wear a mask when you went in to cast your vote or did you do it by mail-in? I did not have to wear a mask, but I did wear a mask. I did it in person because I was just, honestly, I had heard that there were possibly some problems with the mailing system. So, I just wanted to make 100% sure. I voted in Florida and I voted in a pretty red district. So, pretty sure, yeah, no, my district went to Trump, but I did not vote for it. The question I'm putting forth to you is, are you against voter ID? Yes, yes, I agree with the legal precedent that the, which is it? Because I even argued about it. I don't care, but I know about the precedent in what's being discussed, but I'm asking you why you are against it. Well, from what I understand, it keeps a lot of people from voting because of the fact that they can't afford IDs and that adversely affects low-income voters. And also, I guess, overwhelmingly, a lot of people of color. I mean, that's you know, it's very interesting that again, you're spewing the standard talking point. So, number one, you do know that every state has a zero cost ID that can be acquired. It's not a driver's license. It's just a voter ID, picture ID. So, I'm not completely negated your entire point. No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. No, no, no. I'm not done with my point, all right. All right, go for it. I'll give you like 30 seconds, but we do have to go back to the video. But second, the reason I'm asking if you're against voter ID in principle, the countries around the world, almost all of them, require voter ID. Third-world countries use biometric markers in order for people to vote. So, I'm not really sure how when you look across the globe, basically everybody has voter ID and everybody's fine with it, except for certain components of the left in the United States. How does that make any sense? So, are you claiming that somehow all these other countries are against poor people? I want to give Vadim time to answer this question as well as the one I know that he wanted to give a response earlier. So, we want to give him extra time here, maybe like three minutes. Okay, well, this is absolutely off topic. I didn't come here to discuss voter ID, if I had, I would have researched it more and I would have a more robust response than this. But give me one second. Okay, so again, I agree with the Fifth Circuit North Carolina Fifth Circuit finding, which found that this was about ID requirements. They found it as purposefully, racially discriminatory, even a single individual who has, oh, wait, wait, sorry, and the Fourth Circuit noted that the state failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina. A federal trial court in Wisconsin reviewing the first state strict photo ID law found that impersonation fraud and the type of fraud that voter ID is designed to prevent is extremely rare and a truly isolated phenomenon that has not posed a significant threat to the integrity of Wisconsin's elections. So, see, look, I have a few other cases that I can kind of mention, including a Supreme Court precedent on this, but I refer to usually to, you know, to the findings of people who have more legal, you know, more of a foundation in legal authority than I do. So, yeah, the fact that I can't discuss this further, it's just because, you know, I didn't come here to discuss voter ID laws. If I had, I would have researched that a little bit more and I'd have a little bit more to say. Well, so I'm assuming based on your ignorance of this topic, you're unaware of the different districts around the United States and even cities around the United States that have been authorizing non-citizens to partake in local votes, and it's been documented that they are being added to and given ballots that are not non-citizens, non-citizens, I want to see evidence for that. But is this is this a round table thing where where one person because because now he's he's just I'm getting I'm getting to a point. No, no, no. What you're doing is that you've had two questions and I thought that this was going to be like a you ask a question to me, I ask a question to you sort of thing that seems to me to be equitable and fair, don't you think? Well, sure, go ahead and ask me a question after you answer if you know what. Well, go ahead. Okay. Well, do you concede that the 80, I mean, more or less, you know, you haven't seen them, but do you think that these 80 papers that I mentioned that I mean, not papers, academic studies on the nature of voting fraud, do you think that they are truthful? Do you think that they're just that they should be ignored? No. And I guess before and before. All right. I hate to move you guys on mute, but they can't hear you. So if you want to just quickly finish up that point, Vadim, and then we'll give John a chance to answer. I just want to say very quickly, you said that you like destroyed my point about the election fraud because of COVID, you did nothing of the sort. You showed no reason why because of the fact that we have the COVID pandemic right now that we are therefore more susceptible to mail in voter fraud. Okay. You didn't do it. Yes, I did. Okay. So apparently you didn't either you didn't grasp or you are completely just dismissing the permit was mail in voting like we've experienced this year because of COVID. Did it exist prior to 2020? A lot of things didn't exist before 2020, but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that they had anything. Did the fact that we now have it used to be you had to get absentee ballots if you're going to mail a vote by mail. You had to get things notarized and you had to fall into specific categories of things like out of country, things of that nature in order to qualify for mail in voting other than a few very few states and even that was limited on like the different types of ballots. So that that was the standard up until this year and then we do a complete 180 and make mail in as common as voting in person. So you're talking about a literal paradigm shift and you're going to rely on you're claiming we should rely on studies that were done on an entirely different data set than what we dealt with here. We also have show me the evidence, show me the evidence that mail in voting is more susceptible to tampering and voter fraud due to COVID. Show it to me. Okay. So you're still having grasped what I'm saying? No, I don't grasp it because you haven't provided any evidence and you're not going to have any. So the number of ballots that were supposedly mailed in that are found quote unquote after the 8 p.m. on election day and then they get counted and then they magically equal the margins. You don't recognize the significance of this. Okay. You have to give me, you're making claims. You keep making claims without evidence. I literally gave data at numbers in my opening statement. Again, were you not paying attention? Look, a lot. Yes. Did I give specific? I'm sorry. Sorry. Don't have a photographic memory, but that just because you don't claim that I didn't give any evidence when you were paying attention. Well, no, you can say certain things, but that's not necessarily actual concrete evidence until if you could give me a link right now, that would be great. Can I share my screen, please, James? Yep. Okay. So here's one of many examples of this. Looking at voter data in Pennsylvania for voting anomalies and they go in great detail showing the anomalies throughout different counties. You direct comparisons. They'd compare it to Obama, Hillary, the margin differences and holy crap, look here. Magically, here's the counties that made the difference in PA and they look at these stunning differences. Okay. And when you follow a bit of law of, from an audit standpoint, they flag out the freaking yin yang, same thing in Milwaukee. They flag out the yin yang. And so people are saying, hey, if this is the exact same data that we would do an audit on and we're applying the exact same logic and exact same process for that audit that we would do in any other context and always do to see if we identify outliers and irregularities and then we identify the irregularities and then everybody such as yourself runs around claiming that there is nothing to look at when the data clearly shows that there is. It's, which are you, are you in denial or are you just refusing to even accept that there may be something we should look into or we should just, hey, let's just bend over and accept that Biden is president. Okay. I'm absolutely like if there is any genuine voter fraud, I want it to be looked into. So 132,000 votes in Fulton County. 132,000 in one chance. We do have to give him a chance to respond now. He doesn't know a thing, James. Maddox, you know, I realized that in the bad backs universe, there is a shortage of water. But in reality in America, it's free. So you might want to drink a little bit because I think you're showing signs of water deprivation on the brain. What you're showing right now, I mean, I don't know what source that's from. It's it's it's from a Google document. Maybe maybe it's actually was described. That's directly from a news outlet, actually. Okay. All right. All right. All right. That's fine. That's publicized by a Pennsylvania news outlet. It's very difficult to to kind of, you know, to look at something that quickly and assimilate all the information properly. I basically, I, you know, you could call me a sheeple here, but I do trust that legal authorities, if there was some massive reason to believe that there was widespread voter fraud, that the again, mostly very right-wing, leaning legal authorities would look into these things that that they would, you know, that they would assess them. Again, there's a reason why all the claims that Trump brought and you would think that he would bring his strongest claims to certain courts have just basically been laughed out of them. So, you know, you can point to certain things, but I think what you're doing with without being able to assess the evidence very closely, really look at the look at them and, you know, research them. I think that you're just showing kind of weird irregularities or not irregularities, but just just weird anomalies or things that just seem strange. But if one was to truly look it over, there would be a very obvious or, you know, like understandable explanation for them. Oh, interesting. So, I'm going to share my screen again, James. The interesting thing you talk about that when obviously I'm trying to look at things from a big picture, not from just one individual item that could potentially be debunked, I'm looking at things from the big picture, but in case you forgot about what I mentioned in relation to the Dominion voting systems, which by the way, do you know who is a major investor in that company? Oh, I hope you're not going to say George Soros. No, it's actually Senator Diane Feinstein's husband is a major partner in it. And it's actually run by the former chief of staff of Nancy Pelosi. But their system is used in 29 states and over 1200. How long have they been using this? How long have they been using this? Different states and different counties switched different things. But in 2019, there was a major report that issued all sorts of glaring errors. But here's the data from this year. So Dominion voting systems, these are states that had them. They had votes that are recognized from glitches from being switched or just lost. So, Pennsylvania, somehow 22, 220,883 were switched and 941,248 were lost in PA. 20 votes were lost in New Jersey. That's crazy. That's it. Michigan, 20,213 switched, 21,882. I should say the exact margin. Now you got them in Georgia. Look at all these in Georgia right here. But then you scroll down to like less significant states, 0, 0, 0. And you look at ones, here's Texas. Wow, there's a whole bunch in Texas. But then other states that are using different systems, hardly any. It's like using different companies, 0, 0, 0, 0. There's nothing to see here, folks. There's major documented problems in the states and even that are using this system that is owned and run by Democrats. And in their areas, we're seeing, even just inside, not even in all the areas of a state, but in the specific ones that are heavily dominated by Democrats, because what do you have to do here? You have to be able to take advantage of the ability to modify the, swap out the flash drives, which is not that hard. What's up? I just want to say, I just, you know, I want this just to kind of be equal and it feels, maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like he's getting the floor a lot more than I am. So, you know, in terms of what you've been saying, I'd have to, it's very difficult to kind of like see that on the spot. One second. Pardon my interruption, but just to be sure that Vadim, that you do get enough time, let's, I'm guessing how long that last one response was from John was maybe like four minutes. Well, I wanted to respond to my point. Like, what does he not see? Well, a lot of second. Well, that's not what I asked. So, we'll give, I was probably going to play two minutes. Yeah, I'm saying, so go ahead, Vadim, we'll give you a full three minutes. Okay. I sort of, what was I going to say? First of all, it's difficult to see these things on the spot and kind of just accurately assess exactly what I'm seeing. You know, I would have to kind of run some like, like searches on these claims and whatnot. There may be, you know, they may not be as strange as you think they are. But I really want to highlight once again that if indeed Joe Biden won because there are these democratically owned voting systems, well, then isn't it really strange that the Senate could not flip a few Senate seats, which in very like razor thin elections that needed like runoff, you know, like that needed runoff elections or I forget what the term is, sorry. It's just, it's, that's not the way that it would go because again, Biden in order to really kind of do his, his like platform to get it enacted, he would have to have a Senate that is Democratic. And so you're both alleging that this Democratic run voting system caused Biden to win and yet simultaneously something that they could easily do make the Senate Democratic that they didn't decide to do that, that they didn't decide to have lots of other down ballad positions be won by Democrats when they easily could have according to you. Yeah, you're laughing. You literally aren't recognizing why what you're saying is dumb. No, it's just not dumb. No, I really, I'd really rather not interrupt me. You know, you had you have your own time to talk and I don't interrupt you, my man. So that's that's what I would be another 30 seconds. Um, my dude, you got like a like seriously, the the copium is just you're huffing this shit like Dennis Hopper in blue velvet here. Like, like, like honestly, like, there's the guy drinking beer during the live stream. Yeah. Yeah, I am having a beer. Once again, he's he's interrupting me. You're 30 seconds or so. Bro, all right, we're going to let's let's go back to Vadim, whatever you had. Okay, look, I haven't, dude, I haven't been interrupting you the way that you have me. I like to me that just that just shows that you are impatient, petulant, and just very like just again just so hurt and and high on copium off of the loss of daddy will Trump. I really I don't have much else to say than that. That's really what I wanted to throw in. But yeah, let's let's go to the next section. I'm fine with that. Okay, cool. So your whole why didn't they take the Senate? Did you do you actually know where the which states had the seats up for election? Oh, wait, a lot of them were in Democrat controlled states. Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Or they weren't able to it's like, hello, if they're not on the ballot in an area which you can control in which is using systems or has that you have the elements to be able to influence the election, then why would you think that they would be able to take advantage of it if they don't have control in the markets in question? Okay, dog. Dude, I've already said that there were some very close races that were called for for Republicans that were like razor thin in terms of the victories that the Republicans had. So you're telling me that they couldn't flip those those those those specific ones? I mean, so what you just said is irrelevant. Okay, did you comprehend the point and I just made which I comprehended it. You have to control things. I need to do this, but they can't hear you one second. So let's just be sure that Vadim, did you feel like you got to it had enough time to answer that question? Yeah, I guess so. I think I've made my point clear there there were states that could have been one if we have this widespread election tampering that people are saying. And the fact of the matter is whether or not I mean, I don't know if you're making the point that there is, you know, that the election system that the voting system that is not used in the particular states that correspond with the senators who won. But still, there are all these other states that that that have like a whole number of allegations of voter fraud. And what dude, I know you're okay, do you realize that the entire thing to do? Okay, how is the Senate go for it? How many? How many seats? It's fair. I think we did give you a chance to answer that question, Vadim. And then so we'll go back to John. What do you got, John? Election, each cycle. How many seats are up for election? I in the Senate, I'm I forget offhand. Is it all you think it's all big deal? No, no, it's not all of them. Okay, so if it's not all of them, and it's only a third of them, and you different races are not in Democrat controlled states, or they don't have the ability to manipulate votes, because the ones that are up aren't in the state as you also obviously missed the entire point I made in my opening statement, I've made multiple times is that the fraud I shared again with Dominion data is that the fraud is clearly contained in Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, some in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. It's obvious when you look at the dramatic disparities in the data. I'm not suggesting this is happening across the entire United States. That's the entire point is it didn't have to be pulled off the entire United States. Yes, specific areas and the data shows that they pulled it off in those specific areas. So can you comprehend and recognize that we are not talking about this happening on a national scale, we're talking about happening in a very targeted manner, which is what you would do in the modern era, right? It's called technology. Okay, first of all, I mean, maybe that that's exactly what you are alleging, but that's not what many people who believe this stuff are alleging. There's all sorts of claims. So absolutely, that that that is relevant, because we're kind of, I'm not just speaking to your claims, I'm speaking to the claims that are being made by by many of voter fraud. Second of all, again, you know, the I refer to the robust amount of literature showing that, you know, like, I know, like, seriously, go back to your talking points, just fulfill exactly what we need to let's give it a chance to finish this. And, you know, like, like, honestly, like, he knows what he's doing, just just just laughing like that kind of like derails someone. And, like, you know, like, whatever, dude, like, I, it's that this is entirely in line with I had several people writing me saying, like, Oh, this dude Maddox, he does not fight fair. And yeah, you've, you've lived up to that whole thing. I know I'm so mean, bro. I love the conversation you're not, it's not that you're mean, it's that you're dishonest and you're deliberately disrailing. So you literally don't comprehend half the words that are coming up. I'm going to start reading the questions from the Q&A. Thanks so much, Mike Bill ours for your question said, obviously, there was voter fraud. How else do you explain how any politician was elected? Gotcha. I think that was more rhetorical. Then Mike Bill ours also said Maddox regarding the claims in your intro, do you think Trump lawyers will bring them up during court? If so, will they succeed? Why or why not? I mean, I know actually quite a few of the points I made, actually, they're in their in the lawsuits because I've read them. Gotcha. Next. Thanks for your question. Andrew Handelsman says, hi James. Hi, Andrew. Glad to see you. Josiah Hansen makes your question said, John, how much tinfoil is crunched up in that hat? We like the troll issue. Well, as I've said, as I got my hair cut short, there's none. I'm guessing it's a ball approximately the size of his flash symbol. Next up, Larry Letts. Thanks for your question said, I am an actual election worker from Pennsylvania. Maddox, how did the down ballot Republicans do so well in my state? You know, what's really concerning is the fact that somebody claiming to be a poll worker just like my opponent didn't comprehend the entire point and the basic math and you're somebody that is handling ballots and we think that voter fraud can't happen. Wow. Next. Thanks. Let's see. So I think you're saying that you've already answered their question within the debate. I did. You must ask an exact same stupid question. Do you want to do just in case they maybe arrived late? That may be why he's asking. Do you want to answer him in case he arrived late? Just a short two or three seconds. A ballot is the only thing marked on a ballot is Biden. It does not alter the down ballot tickets at all. It's not counted towards it. It's not like a negative. It's just nothing. Gotcha. And Mike Billers, thanks for your question said, for Vadim, do your 80 documents have pictures? Otherwise, how do you expect Maddox to read it? Oh, that's a very good question. Yeah. I unfortunately, there's no pictures. It's not a coloring book. So it might be a little difficult for him to wrap his head around it. I didn't realize. I thought they were being sincere in terms of whether or not it had figures or diagrams or graphs. Stephen, thanks for your question says, James and G-Man for 2024, Maga. Thank you for that. We haven't heard from G-Man in a long time. I love myself some G-Man, I gotta say. You guys have probably crossed swords in the past before, right? Oh, we're actually friends, even though we're kind of unlikely buddies. We're cool. He said some weird fucked up things and he'd probably say the same thing about me, but somehow we're an odd couple. And I genuinely, God help me, joking, like that dude. Yeah, we miss G-Man if you're listening, if you hear this, we do miss you. We hope you're doing well. And Astro Hutchins said, Hey, it's Vadim wears a Run the Jewels shirt on the show and clearly sells mainstream media. Nonsense seems confused. I don't know what Run the Jewels, is that a band? Run the Jewels is a hip hop duo. I mean, that's kind of ridiculous. I mean, they're not incredibly popular. I just, I think this is just a really weird thing to say. I imagine the person who's listening maybe likes the Beatles, maybe likes Elvis Presley, maybe likes the Rolling Stones. I don't know. I'm sure that there's some mainstream rock and roll or country artists that they like. So right back at you, Moron. Next up, thanks so much for your super chat. This comes in from Chewie Debates, who says Maddox, your intro had no evidence, only conjecture. You sound like a flat earther. Quit trying to destroy our democracy, please. Wow, it's amazing how these people, I literally give numbers to support my arguments. And then they claim that I don't say anything. It's amazing. And then you repeat it again and again in the debates. And both the opponents and the people inside chat still don't ever notice the fact that you literally gave evidence multiple times. And then they accuse you of conjecture. It's hilarious. Next up, thanks. That being said, I just really quickly, I want to say, James, I think you really sell these questions. Like you're doing a fantastic job just acting this out. Like, you know, you deserve a, I don't know what the YouTube equivalent of an Academy award is, but anyhow, go on. I totally appreciate that. I take a lot of pleasure kind of restoring the sting to these. Gabrielle K says, we paid Dems four years to spew the Russian BS. Whoa. What do they mean when they say we paid the Dems? Or do they mean like we were willing to listen to the Dems spew the Russian stuff for four years? Is that what they mean by paid? I don't know. Let's move on. Next. Thanks for your question. Edward Strindon appreciate it said, Maddox, if state legislators elect Biden, will you accept the results? And they also have a question for Vadim, but we'll give Maddox a chance to answer this one. For those of you who aren't aware, what they're referring to is the fact that state legislators have the authority to basically invalidate an election and basically decide where their electoral college votes are going. I mean, if somehow that happens, and the state legislators do go for Biden, then I guess I'll have to accept it. But I would say pivot and say what's the exact opposite happens. Thanks so much. This one, they also asked for Vadim. They said, if fraud is proven and Trump wins, will you say he stole the election? If it's literally proven like if substantiated evidence is given, then yeah, but you know, I mean, it's difficult to say without seeing what that evidence happens to be. I would say overall, yes, because I don't think, even though that perhaps it's a possibility, I do not think that we would have a ruling based on specious bullshit. Gotcha. And thanks so much for your question from RT96 says Project Veritasu Juicy says postal worker guy completely recanted in all caps. His story when questioned by the feds, another MAGA cult fail. And I guess just like my opponents, they didn't realize that that's totally been debunked. And I literally played the video from the guy insisting he did not recant. Well, to be fair, it may be perhaps, I mean, you might be right. That video was posted three hours ago, by the way. I understand that. Let's just be clear here, okay? It might be true that it was false information that he recanted. And then maybe he's bullshitting. Maybe he wants to get that $136,000 that Project Veritasu raised for him. Maybe he has a horse in the game. And, you know, okay, so you do realize that if he was questioned by the FBI, and he, it's a literally a felony to lie to a federal officer. It's the whole thing that the Michael Flynn case is dependent upon. So if he's now out contradicting that testing or anything, he'd be putting himself up for a rest. So let's just debunk. Yeah, yeah, people. No, no, no. Let's just debunk that little position. No, no, no, no. I need to return it, bro. Just debunk that little position. I need to respond to that. People are, again, I already said that it's possible that what was originally stated was incorrect. But people are also idiots. People make idiotic decisions and lie at the time. And I'm guessing you also didn't, you didn't watch the whole video. I'm going to get, I'm going to get the last Let's go. Well, they can't hear you. I mean, they can't hear you. Okay. So they still can't hear you. Yeah. So I'm trying to give you a chance to respond, John. So given that this super chat is targeted at John, I do want to give him the last word, and then we got to move on to the next question. Go ahead, John. Okay, so obviously you haven't actually watched the interview video and the other information that came along with it, which was the literal recording of his interview with the FBI in which he categorically did not do so. And they tried to get him to do it, and he refused. So that's debunked. Shetty bear. Thanks for your question said many fraud cases are caught when ballots are checked against social security numbers. There is no proof of a large fraud effort. What is the evidence? Oh man, I assume that's right to me. There's, I guess people are just coming in for Q and A, not listening, or maybe they lack capacity, but there's also sworn testimony from many folks that the things that were coming in when they matched it to both the electronic and the paper poll books, they were not finding matches, and then they were receiving instructions to continue on and mark them anyway. And that's been their sworn effort, Davidson, and variety of lawsuits. Next up, thanks for your question from Reverend Arno, or Arrow, says, Fervidiem, what beer? Oh, I happen to be drinking, let's see, Elysian Spice Dust, IPA, it's a good beer, you know, and you remarked that I'm possibly drunk, I've had one and a half of these. So if you think that that's, I don't know, that's not really enough to get me sauced, but I recommend it, folks. Thank you. And this one comes in from mocracy, says the correct term is election fraud, and am left. I think they're saying, and I am left, I don't, I don't understand, like I'm not trying to be, not trying to be a jerk, but sometimes when I see like a typo or something where I don't understand a super chat, I'm like, if you're paying to send it, like you don't want to take an extra two seconds to be sure that it's all right. Anyway, next up, thanks for your question. This one comes in from dearest friend, Jamie Russell, says, what is the cause of Biden's voting being suspicious according to Benford's law and not Trump's being suspicious? I'm gonna get into the whole way the process works. I'll post a link to the paper in chat, people go look at it. Thank you. And then there's a whole process. They got the diagrams. I show how the data lines up. There's like variables based on first and second digits and the way that correlates into irregularities and such. Gotcha. And 1-888, I'm telling thanks for your super chat, insulting an entire people group. The dems are fascist. I don't even know how to pronounce this. Fascistic, their masks are off. Take it for what it is. All right, so go ahead with you. Oh, scandalous. So next up, thank you. Casual films for your question said Manox is only spewing claims and accusations. You have no real evidence. Of course, this election is different. It's a repudiation of the Trump virus. Next up, thank you for your question, John. John just chuckled, sorry. Glycerin, what is it? Glycine Max 2024. I am embarrassed that I must not know who these people are. Do you guys know who Glycine Max? Next, that's from Sunday Worship. Thanks for your question. And also thanks for your question. This one comes from Shetty Bear, who says the average family pays trillions of dollars of medical costs due to COVID. We pay the insurance or medical or pharma costs. The economy goes up, not us. Sorry, what read that question again? I don't know what that means either. They said the average family pays trillions of dollars of medical costs due to COVID. We pay the insurance, medical, pharma costs. The economy goes up, not us. They're talking about the stock market going up, not Main Street, I guess. That's what I would think they're probably saying. In 2020, so far, Congress has spent $6 trillion. I mean, when you think about that, $6 trillion, some mind-bending number. Got you. Thanks for your question. Mr. T says, Repubs run state governments in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia. Were they all in cahoots? There's a reason Republican appointed judges are throwing out all the suits. That wasn't directly at him, and he's answered nearly all of these questions. So can I answer this? I think it's an objection to him, though. We usually do give the question. Okay, all right. Go for it. Go for it. Can you read the question again? I forgot what it said. They said Republicans run state governments in Michigan. How about we do this? Why don't we because it's true. Vadim hasn't gotten a lot of questions. Why don't we let Vadim respond to it? And then John will give you the last word on it. Let me clarify something before you respond. Let me clarify one thing. Vadim, I'm going to save you from your ignorance. Okay, I hate to mute you guys. I hate to do this. Forgive me. You guys, I can't hear you. Okay, so just I hate to do that. It's just that it's sometimes we want to have a question directed at me. You guys, they still can't hear you. Honestly, you guys, I mean, okay, great. You can just talk to each other. Okay, so just we can give you a chance to respond. It's just that it's we're trying to have some quasi-controlled chaos. So we'll give Vadim, if you want to have a chance to respond. And John will give you the last word on this question and on Vadim's commentary on that super chat. No, what I was going to say is that I'm fine with him going first and I'd like to give him the floor. So go for it. If you're okay with that, John. So all of that to concede? Okay. So that's what I was trying to say. The legislatures, yes. The five of the six states in question have Democrat governors, Democrat secretaries of state, and they are the ones that actually control the election process unless the legislature passes laws specific to the, for article two of the Constitution which they're supposed to. But the whole point I was making in my opening statement and multiple times throughout this debate was that courts, and like in Pennsylvania, it was Democrats, not Republicans. So that person obviously know what I'm talking about, literally took action that's supposed to be restricted to the state legislature in terms of modifying a process for elections, and they took that story to themselves. Good. Okay. Well, the reason why I definitely wanted to give you the floor is because perhaps this, this is not a very important thing to say, but I just want to say I'm thrilled that Mr. T is watching modern day debates. I don't know if you remember when about 20 years ago, we met at a furniture store in Greensboro, North Carolina, and you signed my copy of Mr. T and the T-Force, and you misspelled my name. You spelled it V-E-D-E-E-M, but I just want you to know you're a tremendous influence on my childhood, and I love you, dude. It's cool that you misspelled my name. I didn't want to embarrass you at the time. So there you go. That's, that's all I have to say. Thank you very much, Ann. Thank you. For now, it's, technically it's Mr. T-E-E, so, but who knows? Maybe he changed the spelling. Lance plays, Lance plays LOL says, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina are red states, but blue states do fraud. Read that again, please. I'm assuming that's directed to me. Yeah, they said, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina are red states, but blue states do fraud. They didn't listen to a word I said. Governors, they all, all those except for Georgia, have Democrat governors. That's the whole point. Alec Stein, a.k.a. Conspiracy Castle, very controversial fellow will be on this Friday, says, I love you, Vadim, but rooting for Maddox, Trump 2020. Very interesting. Conspiracy Castle, I had a fun time. I'd like to do a follow-up on our 9-11 conspiracy debate. As much as he's a controversial fellow, I really appreciate that he's basically like 50 bottles of brain force without the brain. And I think he's a very entertaining gentleman. So thank you for that, that vote of confidence, Mr. Castle. Next up, thanks so much. Appreciate your question. This one comes in from Lily Arrow who says, Maddox, how could I get links to your data? PS, thanks so much for your support, Lily Arrow. Go ahead, John. Well, tomorrow I may put together a Google Drive folder and share it. Juicy. Jim Benton, thanks for your question, says, if ballots processing protocols are different in parentheses Bush versus Gore Supreme Court, does that lead to election fraud or require election going to the House? Say the question again. They said, if ballots processing ballot processing protocols are different in parentheses Bush versus Gore Supreme Court, does that lead to election fraud or require election going to the House? Well, it doesn't go to that. I'm not normally following their point on Bush v. Gore. In context of it going to the House, it would be if there is no electoral college, electoral college vote goes to a tie, then it goes to the House of Representatives, I think, and or if there is a no decision post inauguration date unless there's a provision by the Supreme Court, then the House would elect the president. It could potentially be like an anti Pelosi. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Mothra J says, S slash O Biden. What does that mean? S slash O. You guys are young. You know what the slaying nowadays. Vadim, you know what's hip. S slash O Biden for finding endless fuel in copium. Yeah, I'll just admit, I guess I'm a boomer because I don't know what that acronym means. Join the club. And Tioga, thanks for your question, says, Stan, MDD forever. Is Stan some other sort of a young person slang? Stan means to kind of just support or stand by or to be like a cheerleader of someone. Oh, bless your heart, Tioga. We appreciate you. That means a lot. James, I think I'm older than you, James. No, no, you're not. And thanks for your, let's see. Tioga thinks your other super chat says, I'm only doing this for Vadim. So glad you got a fan out there. Next, thanks for your question. This one comes in from Tioga once again, says, Blue turquoise, Ray Bands, solely funded voter fraud. Hey, quick, I want to address the other question. So Roy Cooper, North Carolina, governor, Democrat, Tom Wolf, Pennsylvania, Democrat, Gretchen Whitmire, Michigan, Democrat, Tony Evers, Democrat, Wisconsin, Steve Seal, I can't pronounce his last name, Democrat, Nevada, the only one as I stated before, five of the six or one of the six, Georgia, Brian Kemp, he is the governor, Republican, Georgia. Can I ask a question? This is one that I've been thinking about as I hear about all these stories. Well, I'll save mine for later. More importantly, Gabrielle Kaye, thanks for your question, said all politicians are paid by tax money. So we did pay Dems to push Russia BS, not doing their job. In other words, Russia ideas rather than their job. We live in a, hold on. I mean, I think that one more sentence that he said we live or they said we live in a republic. By the way, I just want a fair election. Go ahead, Vadim. Okay, we all want fair elections. We just disagree. I'm kind of what the, what, what, what's going on inside these elections. When it comes to Russia BS, I would definitely somewhat concur that some of that was kind of sensationalized more than it should have been, but it did result in, you know, certain convictions, people being, there were, there were several things. It's not as like, you know, so people like to paint it as it was a huge thing that, that, that like, you know, was just like one of the worst things ever. And other people like to paint it like it was nothing. And it's somewhere in between. The guys that got arrested, there was all that investigation where the crimes they went to jail for, were they for actions done as part of the campaign, or were they done years prior? Well, this conversation is not about that. So I just, I don't know. It's significant for the audience because it turns out that those people that were getting arrested and convicted of serious crimes, they were things that they did, like 2008-2009. So way before they had any relevance in relation to Trump. Yeah, but Comey did basically say that the reason why they could not in, you know, enforce or rather like prosecute Trump was because he was the sitting president. And he did eat. Well, what he said did basically say. So you haven't heard anything about the FISA court? Okay, we're really off course, but yeah, Comey, Comey. So do you know anything about the FISA court? John, we do have to let him finish. You're gonna ask him questions. He's literally talking points. You have to have a clue about what's going on. Yeah. Uh-huh. Okay, whatever. Let's just move on. Okay, let's go to the next question. Uh, Gavriel, I mean, thanks for your question, Gavriel. Nightmare, thanks for your question says. Good job, Maddox. Next time, instead of bringing facts, just whine about your feelings. Oh, LOL. Okay. Appreciate it. Nightmare. Next up, mock, mocracy. Thanks. Said, why is Vadim still Russia gating in 2020? But I think that they must not have heard that it sounds like you've got a more balanced view. You said that there was. I think there's something to the allegations. And then some people made it out to be more than it was. There were certain individuals who made some false claims and some things that were true. So yeah, I guess you could say that I have a more balanced view than some people, but I don't think it's a nothing burger. I wouldn't say that. So I have a question for you. Did you read the 384 pages of the report? We have a ton of questions, including one for you. We do have, Chio got, thanks for your question, comments that bring Conspiracy Castle on or don't come on at all. That's weird. I didn't know she likes Conspiracy Castle. Conspiracy Castle at the house. Dietrich says Maddox, are you familiar with John Alden's mass voter fraud leaks? Uh, not something I had known. Gotcha. All right. Thanks so much for your question. This one coming in from KO24 says it's amusing to argue who won the election when large corporations control policy in the US. It makes no difference who's in office. I would argue that that's not true at all. I mean, yes, there are a host of similarities between the two, but on the very first day of Joe Biden's presidency, he's going to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. He's going to reverse Trump's withdrawal from the World Health Organization. He's going to repeal Muslim majority country travel ban or the travel ban. He's going to reinstate the dreamers program, reinstate dozens of environmental and business regulations undone by Trump and repeal the military transgender ban. That's just on his first day. And he's also going to initiate a nationwide mask mandate. How do you feel about that? That's yet to be seen. They literally made that public announcement. Well, I'd have to see it. How do I feel about it? I'd have to think about it. How do you feel about that? Of him banning fracking? He isn't banning fracking. He's literally on video stating this. We do have to give him a chance to actually answer Maddox. If you're going to ask him a question, go ahead, Vadim. Hold on. I'm just looking up Biden fracking right now, fact checked up or I'm going to pull the video up. I mean, yeah, there may be some like I think what he did is that he discussed certain types of fracking, which are harmful, more harmful to the environment than other types of fracking. He very much does not. I mean, this is actually something that a lot of, you know, because I'm a Bernie guy, that a lot of Bernie voters had a problem with him on that, that he does support fracking. And actually, I don't know where I stand on the issue because I've heard kind of conflicting discussions on kind of how harmful fracking is. And I just, I can't really say where I stand on the issue until I've done more research into the discussion. But yeah, he did. He did say that there is a certain type of fracking that he's not for, but he is overall for fracking. And he's made that very clear. Man, there was a whole deal with like two weeks, literally two weeks before the election, he in while in Pennsylvania, Northern tier, he literally made the statement like, yeah, we're going to ban, I'm going to ban fracking. He doesn't like, he's so senile, he didn't realize that it's a huge portion of their economy. There was a whole big scandal. And he's been on, he's been on video in debates, going back to the primary, talking about drilling, banning, drilling, removing millions of cars from the road, all sorts of stuff. Apparently you don't do anything other than Google and read headlines, like I predicted. No, you know, it is another lot of questions. I give you a chance to respond, Vadim, to defend your honor. And then we got to go to the next one. It is true that at one point he did oppose fracking. And that I'm not two weeks before the election. I love how this guy, this guy's just irresistible urge to interrupt is, is just cannot be paralleled. Call that bullshit. Yep. Overall, if you look at the, at the like majority of his statements, the man is for fracking. It's, it's pretty, it's pretty obvious. And yeah, and he has contradicted himself on that. That's not cool. I'm not saying, I'm not here to say that Biden is 100% always awesome. I mean, he fucking said that, you know, the, you ain't black stuff. He says stupid shit. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. Anamorphic mind, two seconds. Said, question for Mad Ducks. Thank you. Said, despite proving to be intellectually dishonest, why didn't Trump's voter fraud commission find any voter fraud? I don't know. They're filing lawsuits all over the place with, have you ever, have you read any of the lawsuits from Wisconsin, Michigan and PA? I have and they are directly making the allegation. Gotcha. And, oh, and, and by the way, the attorney general of the United States has also initiated an investigation. Next. Oh, and, oh, and there's like 13, I think, attorneys general from different states that have filed amicus briefs in favor of lawsuits in PA, Wisconsin and Michigan. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. This one comes in from, you guessed it, our dearest friend, Teogut strikes again. She says, we would never misspell your name, Vadim, daddy. Next. Thanks for your question. Says, we got anamorphic mind saying, just wait. Oh, we got that. Igor Zantino. Thanks for your question. Says, the problem with Mad Ducks' evidence is it's on the bottom end of the evidence hierarchy. No intellectually honest person would base their opinion on it. Okay. Next. Thanks for your question. Lance plays LOL. Says, Dems in government equals fraud? An argument only clowns by. Next. Thanks for your question. Oh, my God. Next. Thanks for your question. And in one comment, my entire argument has been destroyed. I always, I thought this was like that they were saying, I thought that was an attack on John. I don't, well. Okay. Then I I apologize that I misunderstood. Fully agree. Next. Lily Arora, thanks for your question. Says, no citations in that document. Whose burden is it, John? Can you read it again? They said, no citations in that document. Whose burden is it? I think, like, whose burden is the evidence? Which document? I don't know. Next. Thanks for your question. James W, who just faced off against Mad Ducks the other day, said, the soy industry is trying to steal an election for Biden with the help of the king of soy, James Biden Coons. Mad Ducks fighting for the Trump truth. No more soy. Appreciate that. I had a soy. I'm, I'm sorry. I'm pretty high up on the soy hierarchy. I don't know if it's Biden is the king. You know, I mean, there, there may have been some tampering in that election. But go on. Yes, true. And speaking of soy, Brenton Langeau, thanks for your question says, wow, you mean to tell me a state that elected Democratic governors would wind up voting for Biden? Shocking. I, it's simply scandalous. I, I can't, who can explain it? Next up, thanks for your questions. This is from Tioga says, James's horn rims solely funded voter fraud. I wish you knew what horn rims are. Is that some sort of in you, some sort of sexual innuendo? Next, Jim Benton thinks nasty person. All right, Jim Benton, thanks for your question says, if states violate dis or discriminate in their election processes, is that grounds for contention? There is evidence for this in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. This violates Bush versus Gore because all votes must be treated equally. I don't know what to say to that. Thank you for your question. Josiah Hansen says, Al Schmidt, Philly's election commissioner is Republican. John, stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Yeah, I quit smoking long time ago. Weird, huh? Lily Aja says, hey, fellow lefties, I hear the sound of an abundance of rain. I hear the sound of victory. She must be referring to Republican tears. Next up, we love your Republicans. We love you Democrats. We love you all the strange creatures in between. We hope you feel welcome. Got a lot of, it's always a fight out there, but you know, you'll get used to it lack of Eunice. Thanks for your question said, Vadim, you lost the high ground with all the ad hominem attacks on Maddox and his stupid flash hat. I added that part. And making fart noises over him. Have some professionalism. You're a child. Oh yeah, right. I made fart noises long after he had interrupted with like crack ups and just straight up interrupting me. The shit talking started far before this discussion went live. He said to me, he asked me if I actually believed the shit that I was about to spew and said that four people that he had had discussions with on this channel, I think he said four, maybe three had explicitly told you that they did not believe what they thought. I'm going to call bullshit on that that someone would just say that to you in an opening. James, can you corroborate that? Because you should have been around during these discussions. Has anyone ever told Maddox that they don't believe what they say? Has anyone told Maddox they don't believe what he said? Don't make me name names. No, name them. Name them so that they can go ahead and name them. You can just corroborate. I'm not going to say people's names publicly on that content. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, because you're full of shit. So you're bringing up what we talked about before we went live and then you're going to call shit on me? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Did you literally fulfill the crap that I called you that on before we went on this, had this debate? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You actually researched this stuff beyond the talking points and headlines and I proved beyond all doubt that that's exactly the case just in context of the guy you claimed recanted. I let you go on like a three minute diatribe about that and then I completely annihilated. You would play in the video. Okay, yes, perhaps in your fantasy world here in reality, here in reality, you got destroyed, boy. Moving. Okay. Thank you very much for that. All right. Next up. Thank you for your question from Brandon Langle. Sometimes I call him Brandon. Just want to feel like we're too chummy just to kind of create some separation. So Brandon says Maddox is lying. Biden is not banning fracking. He said he would early in the campaign but then reversed his position. The left was really mad about it. Yep, I said so myself. Next, thanks for your question from BPOW said women have been mandated to wear a shirt and cover the naughty bump. So why is why is it such an issue for the government to ask people to cover their face holes? A question for the ages. Sorry, what was the question? I was pulling up a video that literally shows the contradiction of the fracking. Okay, so they're saying, hey, if the government can make laws about people wearing clothing, then Maddox, why is it so outrageous that the government would have people required to wear masks? Oh, now I understand what they're saying. Okay, go on. Maddox. Well, this has been rather well defined legally in the context of covering your sexual parts and what is considered normal standard. This is outside of that purview because you're going to go on that rabbit hole then you're going to say, oh, well, I guess we're going to grant the government the authority to tell us what kind of shirts we can wear, what kind of pants we can wear, what the shirts can account say, things of that nature. So it's a totally different context than trying to rely on a minutious semantic interpretation rather than basic common law. Can I ask Maddox? I mean, the common law has been rather well established on this since the dawn of time. Can I ask Maddox a follow up question? Sure. I'm just curious. Let's say that we had some sort of scenario where we had a far deadlier pandemic on our hands where, you know, contact, like, you know, where it was basically, let's say, like, 10 times 100 times what we have right now. I mean, is there some point where you would be cool with a mask mandate if it was, you know, demonstrated by science that not doing so would more than likely cause way more deaths than we currently have on our hands? I'm pretty sure the bull looks like a conversation. But however, in all precedents, the people in question that you're referring to that would need to be have some kind of action taken, they would be being the sick people that are sick being put into quarantine. And that has long established precedence. The people who are sick, given into quarantine, the other people do not. We did the literal reciprocal of that in relation to COVID. So no, but people, but probably you actually go and research any of this stuff because this legal conversation has been had quite a bit from a legal perspective. You are discounting the lawsuits that are being filed and everything else. Now, in the context of COVID, what is the currently recognized under the age of 60 death rate? I don't know offhand. Don't know. So you're making, you're going to bring up and make it a whole point. I gave you a hypothetical based on something different and we're not having a conversation. Shocking. You don't have a freaking clue, but you're claiming that COVID kind of no bearing and the reactions to it have no bearing on the election. I'm going to give the last word on this one. Well, I get the last, I get the last you talk for a while. So I just want to say, good sir, you're acting as if, when you say that, that we need to, you know, quarantine those who are sick, you're, it's a standard. Let's give him a chance. He hasn't gotten a lot of questions. It seems like you are just discounting the very basic fact that wearing masks prevents other people from picking it up and spreading it. So who may not know that they have it. So, yeah, it seems like a pretty basic thing to recognize, but, you know, I, you've other, other things have flown over your flash. Baseball hat. So you haven't read the reports of the next one. This one is from, we have Anamorphic Mind says, for dishonest mad ducks, voter fraud commission was disbanded in 2018 without finding anything. Please get an education for debating. Okay, are we at a rate, please? They said for dishonest mad duck. They said voter fraud commission was disbanded in 2018 without finding anything. Please get an education before debating. Categorically false statement, stopping a liar. They did find things. And there were things found in the last year and a half. Next. Mike Biller says, Vadim has a channel where he claimed a cat was zapped by God. I don't think calling him a child is insulting at all. Next. That's fine. I'm a kid at heart. It's true. Guilty. The next up, Gabriel K, thanks for your question. Said, Web sevedim goes super sevedim. He turns into S-T-A-L-I-N. There are some names we do not say here. Turn into Stalin. Hey, James, do you happen to know Brandon Kaplan? Well, this is, hey, this is aimed at me. This guy is just taking all, all, like clearly that was aimed at me, right? Oh, I see. So, so they said svedim. And now I'm realizing it's, they're saying web svedim goes super svedim. I don't know what this means. I honestly don't know what it means. I, I know that this guy usually is a conservative. So I know these, I think he's trying to assault you. All right. Well, all, all I have to say is all hail Stalin and all hail Satan. Oh, there we go. We're rolling the dice with our YouTube platform this week. Alex Gordon, thanks for your question, says Maddox. You've offered a sufficient argument. I'd, it would make sense if it were true. Can you determine necessity? Meaning, can you exclude other explanations for the points that you've raised? Isn't it, I'm guessing that's an atheist, right? I think so. Yeah, probably wants to go for a, oh, if there's any other possible explanation, the one that makes sense must be false. Next up, thanks for your question. This one comes in from D Tritch says Maddox. Do you understand the difference between evidence and lawsuits? Did you know the USPS guy recanted his story to the House Oversight Committee? I know that's what's reported. I know that the direct antithesis is what is he has stated publicly. What, what about this? I have to ask just because I'm wondering real quickly. I'm sorry. I'm, I'm so very sorry. Can you just ask Maddox a couple of questions while I hit the bathroom real quick? Yes. It's just a necessity. And one question I have Maddox is regarding this question from them is, could it, is there any possibility? And I am only saying this like out of a sincere, like, objective, you know, observer, because I don't know a lot about it. But I've obviously heard about this fellow who allegedly recanted. And I also saw the video from James O'Keefe this afternoon where he said, and then I saw your video, which I guess came out three hours ago, where I'm wondering, could it be the case that he did recant with the feds? But then after he went back to his original story, in which case, both outcomes would be true. Namely that, I was making the point about, that's why I brought up Michael Flynn. If he did recant to the FBI and to the House Oversight Committee, and then, and he goes and recants publicly, he is literally committing a felony. When you say recant publicly, you're like, you could say a double recant? No, because I mean, he lied to the investigators. That was the, what do you think Michael Flynn was charged with? They claimed that he lied to the FBI. Oh, I see what you're saying. So if he, if he did recant to the FBI, when they asked him about the investigation, when they're conducting a formal investigation, like he was contacted by the Inspector General of the United States Postal Service, and then it went to the Oversight Committee and such. But if he told them one thing, and then comes out publicly and recants it, he is literally committing the exact same crime as Michael Flynn. I see what you're saying. Okay, Igor Zentino, thanks for your question says, always love watching Maddux make a fool out of himself. I know, it's amazing how so many of these folks that talk trash literally don't understand the words that come out of my mouth. It's amazing. Next up, and Chalk it up to that. Next up, and sweet, sweet copium, hell of a drug. Coming from the dude who's clearly stoned. Next up, Andrew Handelman. Just drunk. Hey, you got a little, you have some like, like, I'm not here. He's like, Xanax, we have beer. I both have had too much soy. I hate, I hate to do this. You know, just a different kind of guy. You don't actually go and research things. We are, we will talk about. Yeah. That's it, that's the ticket. We have a question from Andrew Handelman who says, where did Michael Dresden go? Michael Dresden is one of our local trolls. Thanks for your, so I don't know, but I hadn't seen him tonight. So, or her, I don't know. But Mike Villars, thanks for your question said, literally take a drink. Yeah, I think, you know, I think you deserve it, Maddux. And like I said earlier, you know, perhaps some water would do you some good, you know, getting a little water to your brain. And I know some, if you have an abundance of it, it kind of fucks up your brain, but it would be a good thing. You know, it's just, just think about it. Have a few glasses of water. It's a nice way to tip off your, you know, heavy huffing of copium doses. So, go on. Amazing. Okay, next. Amazing. Thanks for your question. It's amazing how you project your own mental state. Yeah, totally. Next up. We, oh yeah, that's right. I had a lot of people were wondering if I was on drugs last week. I think it was on Friday. I was not, I mean, I was not on drugs any night, but on Friday, I had not slept Thursday night. Like no joke. So that's why I was like, I promise I'm okay. I'm not, I think, I don't remember. Well, James, in fairness to you on your action, you do know that deprivation below, I think it's four hours of sleep, you have the equivalent of like a 1.2 blood alcohol level. This, yeah, this came up in one of my classes, yeah. So it's, I mean, yeah, you guessed you could say I was in some way inebriated, but Gabriel Kay, thanks for your question, said, you don't know Dragon Ball and you don't know me, James. I said he was turning super Stalin. I am not a conservative, but I lean to the right. Well, thanks for setting me straight, Gabriel Kay. But Vadim, what have you got? He said that you're turning super Stalin. Is this true? I mean, I said, hail Stalin and Satan. What else, what else is there to say? Guess that settles it. Want to remind you folks, let's see, I think we've got a few more questions. Reminding you though that our guests are linked in the description, we appreciate them. This is gonna, it's been a wild one tonight. We appreciate that both of these guys have high energy. That's what we like for debates. That makes it fun. And then we have, oh, okay, here we go. Kango 24. Did I read this one? I feel like I didn't. The one about, they said, the government mandates you wear a seatbelt. Does that infringe on your freedoms? Mad ducks. Oh, good Lord. I guess you're gonna go down this rabbit hole. There's a privilege of driving. That's why the additional restrictions come into play versus a fundamental right, constitutional right. And seatbelts are not delineated in the Constitution. Voting rights are article two. Gotcha. Thanks for your question. This one comes from Igor Zantino. Says, we understand your words. We just don't understand how someone can be so stupid. Mad ox. No, they do not. That guy specifically does not comprehend the conceptual components that are being outlined. If he wants to have a debate with me, then we can, I'm happy to do so. Next up. And I have the best words. They're tremendous words. Dietrich, thanks for your question. Huge words. That's right. Vadim or Mad ox. They said, what's more likely that the USPS guy lied to the House Oversight Committee and risked committing a crime or lied to Project Veritas? I mean, I can't, on the spot, kind of do that sort of calculation. I think the idea that he lied is there's a very strong, strong possibility of such a thing. Gotcha. And it was directed to both of us. Yeah, go for it. So, well, I guess you had to go take a crap or whatever, so you might have missed this portion. So. I didn't take a crap. I took a pee. Okay, whatever. The, I figured you were more full of BS and just needed to release some. The. Out of my dick? Hey, man, you might have things really wired. Obviously, it's just going in your brain. But the, in the context of, I already explained this, if he did lie or to the whatever, regardless of what he said to the Oversight Committee, if he is now coming out and publicly stating the exact opposite publicly, he is committing the exact same crime as Michael Flynn and would be subject to a felony. So, unless you think he's committing a felony in a public setting, then there we're off to talk about a misinformation being released, which is the much more probable deal in this context. I don't know if that's more probable. I mean, Michael Flynn did it. He is someone who should know better. And I'm assuming you haven't followed up on the Michael Flynn case. Do you have to give him a chance to actually respond? He's got another case. I don't know. Do you have to give him a chance to respond? Yeah, I think the, you know what? Let's just move on. I don't care. Let's just get to the end of it so we can do our closing statements because I should probably, this has gone on for a while. And I'd like to get some work done this evening. You got it. Amazing. Next up, thanks for your question. This one comes in. Did you hear that? Yes. Next up, Alex Gordon. Thanks for your super chat. Alex, that was really generous of you. We do appreciate it. You know, they said Maddox, meeting sufficient and necessary. This is the last question folks. Do me a favor if this is going to be the last one just because we, we do, these guys have been here for a while. Said Maddox, meeting sufficient and necessary conditions is philosophy 101 causation. No atheism required. Demonstrate your argument meets these conditions or just admit you're a cynical, social, conservative, assertion machine. To have a probable cause to pursue legal action does not require a 100% proof burden. And then if you're going in from a civil perspective, you're now looking at even lower standard in terms of, than you would in terms of criminals. So yeah, the same thing in terms of like philosophical argument and logic proofs doesn't apply in relation to what we're talking about now in terms of whether that's reasonable to conclude there is a expectation of voter fraud, corruption, and if we should pursue lawsuits towards that end. Gotcha. And gut-sick Gibbon is in the house. Glad to see Erika. Always happy to have you here. And I think that is it. Let me just double check. Just prefer not to get those angry emails when I miss one. Okay. We want to say though, our guests are linked in the description. We really do appreciate all your support, folks. Seriously, thanks for your super chats. Thanks so much for your likes. That stuff really does help a lot. We're excited, folks. We want to let you know. Vadim, where are you located, by the way? I happen to be at the current moment somewhere in Florida. I don't want to dox myself. But I will be moving to LA in the not too distant future. And yeah, that's good. Juicy. Nice, I like it. The reason I ask is because we, one of the things we do want to do for real is that we do want to use these super chats, put your super chats to good use, folks, in that we do eventually, we're going to have to wait until COVID clears up some. But we do, especially we're anticipating, hopefully this summer, we do want to do a lot more kind of debates on tour in person. And so, John, I know where you live, so that's the only reason I hadn't asked. But we'd like to head out to both of your guys' locations for possible in person debates with fellows like yourselves. And so- I'm down, depending on the topic. It would be absolutely fun. And we do have in person debates, folks. If you haven't seen some of the ones we have done, we do have those in some of our best of modern day debate playlist on our normal homepage, if you want to see some of those. Some of the production quality is not great. That was my fault. But yeah, thanks so much, folks, for your questions and everything else. And so, thanks so much for your support. We hope you guys keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. We will be back both Friday and we do have one booked for Saturday. This Friday is going to be, this Friday is going to be, we're taking the plunge, guys. We're controversial. Are we not doing closing statements? I thought we were. Oh, I didn't actually have it in the format list. But if you want, we can. No, I mean, that's fine. If, you know, I'll leave it up to Maddox if he wants to do it. Don't bother me. If you guys want, I'm open to it. I mean, I thought that that was what we were doing. That works. We will then. Let's do it. Five minutes. Is that okay? I think so. Cool. All right. Then I have the timer. Let me just two seconds. All set. The floor is all yours Maddox. We'll start with you. No, I'm going last. Okay. That's fine. So first of all, I would very much like to challenge both Maddox and those who have had discussions with him online to come forward either Maddox with the names of people that he says have told him off the record that they don't believe the shit that they say. I think that this is a very specious, total bullshit lie that he has created. And I'd like to ask those who have had discussions with him here on this channel to chime in and say if they had. And also James, if you can think about it and if you can let anyone know of any times in which you've overheard that, that would be fantastic. Because I think it says a lot about kind of the nature of the person that we're dealing with right now. So folks, I've said it all, 80 papers from leading academic sources, sources from all political spectrums or from both political spectrums, the most respected learning institutions and the consensus is voter fraud is extremely rare to the point where it never affects the outcomes of an election. Contrary to what he says, COVID does not change that with mail-in ballots or any other type of voter fraud. Many government investigations are included. Many by states who are primarily read and the consensus is there is no, it is so rare that it should be of no concern. Also concerns about non-citizen voter fraud are insanely rare and not only are there countless safeguards to prevent that fraud and tampering with them. Oh, sorry, I had these notes lined out and I misspoke that. I meant to say, and not only that, there are countless safeguards to prevent fraud and tampering with them. We talked about the legal precedent and what they have to say about voter fraud till here. There's so little evidence for it that it's a non-issue. Recently, as soon as William Barr said that the Justice Department would get involved, Richard Pilger, the Trump appointee whose job it is to oversee instances of voter fraud resigned within hours. He said, having familiarized myself with the policy and its ramifications, I must regretfully resign from my role as Director of Elections Primes Branch. It's obvious, he thought this was all a bridge too far and couldn't be a party to it. If we were living in saner times, this would not be an issue, but it's 2020. Trump's alternative facts-based leadership and things like QAnon Bat Shittery, born of the bizarre brand of rampant dishonesty this president is known for, has straight up infected the brains of the masses and consequently we're having this conversation. I guess it's a fitting or at least understandable end to the toxic dumpster fire hell year that is 2020. Again, contrary to somewhat popular belief, allegations of voter fraud are taken very seriously. If any of the myriad of allegations at this point were not mostly debunked or were not fully debunked, they would have been pursued. And yeah, they just wouldn't be easily thrown out of bogus suits rather that Trump has levied, would not be easily thrown out of court. Mike Pompeo, I'm sorry, going a little fast here, I'm almost done, Mike Pompeo just the other day or maybe two days ago, basically announced plans of a soft coup when he said that Trump would not transition over to Biden presidency that they'd be transitioning into a second term. I never thought I'd say this in my lifetime but Carl Rove was right. What is being alleged here is quote, stealing hundreds of thousands of votes or rather stealing hundreds of thousands of votes would require a conspiracy on the scale of a James Bond movie that isn't going to happen. And I repeat, this is a dangerous authoritarian effort rooted in factless claims, a near religious like tribalism that has caused people who have just this faith in Big Daddy, Woo Woo Trump back these totally unverified claims. I can't mince words, it's disgusting and although some of you may have fooled yourself into thinking you're fighting for justice, you're indeed fighting against the very fabric of American democracy and the very ideals your party constantly and shallowly claims to strive for. And I guess that's it. Sorry that was pretty rushed but I wanted to make sure I could get everything in in the time allotted. So thank you James and thank you Senor Maddox. Thank you and we do appreciate your questions folks. We want to give, let's see, might be able to squeeze one in here because we just had another one come in. Thanks so much for your questions. We're going to read this one right before we give it to Jonathan for his closing statement and this one comes in from, oh I think this is one of your critics Jonathan. They say, Igor Zantino, your arch nemesis says, Vadim took Maddox down, well sloshed, LOL, easy work. I'm not sloshed, although I can definitely tell why you think I was. So that's cool. Next, Gabrielle Kay, thanks. They always think I'm high or something. Gabrielle Kay, thanks for your question said. LGBT for Trump 2020. Go Maddox, one won't cancel us. I don't fully understand it, but thanks for that Gabrielle Kay and we'll kick it over. John the floor is all yours. Oh well, I mean it's interesting even all the way to closing statement even after his standard talking points that I already showcased were stupid. My opponent decided to double down on those things yet again. He even went as far as to talking about the attorney who resigned, but I'm guessing like so many other talking points that he spewed, now he didn't actually go and look and see who that was. Ironically, that was the individual who was part of the Biden, Obama Biden administration. He was directly in charge at the time with targeting conservative groups such as the Tea Party and other non-profits through the IRS because he used to work over at the IRS and he was leveraged as a person to go after and audit those non-profits to well-known scandal, well-documented scandal and then in typical Washington bureaucracy style deep state. And we talk about yeah, he's got sloshed over into some instance they didn't think would ever have too much significance. But all that aside, I recommend go and do research for yourself. Don't stop on the first two and a half pages of Google. Even on DuckDuckGo, it's very interesting how so many of the things that were page one not long ago have been completely removed from the equation, but you go and look at them, you'll find the data and you'll be able to see actually what's going on and be able to see the direct correlaries. And for people like my opponent who obviously didn't watch the Mueller investigation report, didn't read it, didn't observe the evidence and all the impeachment inquiries, things of that nature, it is literally not conspiracy theory when you actually go and observe the attempts that have been made to take out this president, there is an all in moment for the left and just the bureaucracy in general. They know that if he wins again and does not have to worry about reelection that going after them, they are the enemy and they will be the ones that are taken down. So they can deal with all the politicians in the Senate and the House, they have been for decades. Taking on somebody like Trump is, it's the be all and all for them right now. They don't get them, then it's their asses on the line. Anyway, do some research for yourself. Think, use your brain, don't buy into talking points and actually try to use the brain that you've been given to come to rational conclusions. Gotcha. And so sorry, Brian Stevens, I accidentally, I accidentally hid you which that's why you lost your wrench and I just gave it back. I was trying to pin somebody else's comment. Andrew Handelsman thinks your comment said, let's close with 200 likes. Thanks for those likes, folks. We really do appreciate it. Want to let you know one more time. If you want to hear more of Vadim, if you want to hear more of John, they're linked in the description. What are you waiting for? So convenient. Okay, so thanks so much, folks. We hope you guys have a great night. Keep sifting out. Love ya. Keep sifting out. The reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care and we will hopefully see you this Friday night as we'll have another one. And I believe me, it's going to be controversial. It's going to be juicy. So thanks so much. Take care, folks. See you next time.