Speaker 1: Well life.
Speaker 2: Okay, guys, got another debate for y'all today. We got
Speaker 2: Brian Shapiro, Jay Dher both have been on the show.
Speaker 2: Thanks for coming guys in person. Let's make this thing happen.
Speaker 2: So we're going to talk about Trump today. I ran
Speaker 2: and Alex Jones. I know Brian wanted to talk about
Speaker 2: Alex Jones, but absolutely you want to lead this thing
Speaker 2: off with Alex Brian.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, first of all, thanks for being here. Man,
Speaker 1: nice to meet you. I've seen I've seen some of
Speaker 1: your stuff on social media. I'll be honest with you.
Speaker 1: What we do is probably a little different. Right, as
Speaker 1: we were talking off the air, you debate, you've been
Speaker 1: doing this for like what twenty five years, right, long time.
Speaker 1: I've been doing radio for almost that long. But my
Speaker 1: show is more of like the last twenty four hours,
Speaker 1: you know, talking about news of the day and that
Speaker 1: sort of stuff. But all right, let's start. I wanted
Speaker 1: to start off by asking you about something because I
Speaker 1: know you're friends with Alex Jones, right, and I know
Speaker 1: this is probably something more. We'll get into it a
Speaker 1: little bit, but bull well, you know, I come from Connecticut.
Speaker 1: I was raised in Connecticut, and obviously where the Sandy
Speaker 1: Hook shooting was. And I say to myself, and I've listened,
Speaker 1: I've reviewed his ex wife. That's kind of irrelevant to
Speaker 1: this conversation that I've had private conversations with her, But
Speaker 1: I've also interviewed some of the parents who have lost
Speaker 1: their children, eight and nine year olds that were decapitated,
Speaker 1: and Alex Jones made their pain worse. And I thought
Speaker 1: what he did was reprehensible. And then he used the
Speaker 1: excuse of psychosis, which I think is utter bullshit. He
Speaker 1: knew that that shooting happened. He's not a stupid guy,
Speaker 1: and he only lied about it on the air with
Speaker 1: his huge platform and said that they were actors, you
Speaker 1: know what he said. And he only did that for
Speaker 1: clicks and money. And you're making the pain of parents,
Speaker 1: like I said, some of them who I had to
Speaker 1: talk to an interview, and my heart goes out to them,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure yours does as well. And he called
Speaker 1: them actors, and he made their pain worse. And I
Speaker 1: find only a reprehensible, despicable human being would do what
Speaker 1: Alex Jones does. Now, he is a conspiracy theorist, and
Speaker 1: I understand he says a lot of batshit crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: But if you don't hurt somebody by doing that, then
Speaker 1: I don't have a problem with it. You could think
Speaker 1: nine eleven was an inside job and you can find
Speaker 1: if you're not hurting anybody. But he hurt those people
Speaker 1: who are already grieving the loss of their children. And
Speaker 1: I'm wondering how you could be friends with somebody who
Speaker 1: does that. I just I don't It's unbelievable to me
Speaker 1: that he would even do something like that and then
Speaker 1: blame it on psychosis, Like, how could you square up
Speaker 1: and be friends with somebody like that? Because I don't
Speaker 1: know you. I don't know you, I've never hung out
Speaker 1: with you. I'm just asking, like, how how can you
Speaker 1: be friends with somebody who did that? And are you
Speaker 1: willing to call that out?
Speaker 3: Well, I think Alex himself has called that out. Alex
Speaker 3: has admitted that he made a huge mistake. I remember
Speaker 3: at the time when the trials were happening, one thing
Speaker 3: that I noticed in a lot of the you know,
Speaker 3: examinations and the prosecution questioning, was that there seemed to
Speaker 3: be quite a bit of laxity when it came to
Speaker 3: vetting the guests, and that was hammer Home with multiple
Speaker 3: people that produced the show, and the way that I'm
Speaker 3: sure you know, the way that media works, especially for
Speaker 3: high profile people, is that a lot of that is
Speaker 3: farmed out to people that work for you to vet
Speaker 3: the guests and whatnot. So I think there was some
Speaker 3: significant failures, mainly with vetting people like Wolfgang. How big
Speaker 3: people that ended up being I think probably con men,
Speaker 3: and Alex was lax in that. I think that was
Speaker 3: a huge mistake. I think that there is precedent not
Speaker 3: for what happened at Sandy Hook, but for the idea
Speaker 3: of government being involved in types of things like that,
Speaker 3: like the Operation Gladio for example. That's a publicly declassified
Speaker 3: document to.
Speaker 1: I get that, But the government, as you know, wasn't involved.
Speaker 3: In I'm just saying, I said, there's precedent for the
Speaker 3: understand which is why Alex would have had in his
Speaker 3: mind legitimacy, legitimacy to question certain topics.
Speaker 1: So why would you question that? Though? Why would you
Speaker 1: question a school shooting hours after the children are killed?
Speaker 3: Because if Operation Gladia includes public shootings at places, light
Speaker 3: malls or perhaps even schools, there's no reason why you
Speaker 3: couldn't quit.
Speaker 1: But wouldn't you question it if there was some sort
Speaker 1: of evidence to prove, like the twenty twenty election. I mean,
Speaker 1: Trump still says I'm sure we can get into that.
Speaker 1: But it's like when listen, if people have ideas or opinions,
Speaker 1: they're entitled to that. That's fine. But like I said,
Speaker 1: I'm not someone who's trying to censor free speech. But
Speaker 1: at the same time, when you say things that can
Speaker 1: hurt people, I know you're not a fan of Candace Owans.
Speaker 1: Neither of mine. Okay, we both would agree on that.
Speaker 1: I'm friends with Tim Poole. He said some things about
Speaker 1: it that I actually agree with. But to me, Alex
Speaker 1: Jones does what Candace Owens does, which is say things
Speaker 1: that you know are not true. You know are not true.
Speaker 1: Alex Jones knew that innocent children were murdered. He knew
Speaker 1: that those weren't actors. They're dead, and yet he went
Speaker 1: on the air and called them actors. Those family members,
Speaker 1: as you know, were threatened, they had threats to their life.
Speaker 1: He knew that those children were dead, he knew that
Speaker 1: those families were grieving. I have an issue not necessarily
Speaker 1: with conspiracy theorists, but conspiracy theorists like Candace Owns and
Speaker 1: like Calex Jones that say things knowing they're not true
Speaker 1: and knowing that they will hurt people. Alex Jones' comments
Speaker 1: at times, not just the Sandy Hook shooting, hurt people,
Speaker 1: and I find that only a despicable human being would
Speaker 1: profit off of something like that. I'm glad that he
Speaker 1: has to pay out that money. Like I said, I've
Speaker 1: had private conversations with his ex wife. I don't know
Speaker 1: what's true. I don't know what's not true. That's why
Speaker 1: I'm not going to share the conversations I had with her.
Speaker 1: But what I do know is I could never associate
Speaker 1: myself with somebody like that. Who it's good to have
Speaker 1: difference as of opinions. We probably have a lot of
Speaker 1: different opinions on a lot. I think that's great, that's
Speaker 1: what makes America great. But I think Alex Jones is
Speaker 1: a scumbag. And by the way I met Alex Jones,
Speaker 1: he is a different person off the camera. He doesn't
Speaker 1: have in my opinion, that persona or Hey, was that good?
Speaker 1: Was this good? I mean, I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: think he's a good person. And I'm not saying guilty
Speaker 1: by association. I'm not trying to make a bad argument,
Speaker 1: but I just can't fathom or understand how anybody could
Speaker 1: hang out with a guy like that who literally made well,
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to understand how anybody, not just you,
Speaker 1: but anybody would would be okay associated and you host
Speaker 1: on the on that network, Like, I just don't understand. Well.
Speaker 3: Again, so that'd be like saying anybody involved in media,
Speaker 3: who's involved with anybody that's made a mistake in media,
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 1: Think that's a mistake. You know what I think a
Speaker 1: mistake is. But how do you prove that it's not
Speaker 1: a mistake? Is locking your keys in your car? You
Speaker 1: mean to tell me that after this shooting happened where
Speaker 1: body bags were taken out of that school, that Alex
Speaker 1: Jones legitimately believed that those eight nine year olds were actors.
Speaker 1: That's bullshit. I don't believe that.
Speaker 3: I think that Alex legitimately believed that there was a
Speaker 3: variety of options that you could have and.
Speaker 1: He called them actors.
Speaker 3: Jay understand that, but that's after having people on who
Speaker 3: were not probably Vetter like Wolf.
Speaker 1: He has a lot of people on wars that have
Speaker 1: zero credibility.
Speaker 3: I actually agree that everybody who does media, for the
Speaker 3: most part, I'm not talking about you. Everybody in media
Speaker 3: has people on because it's media. Media is kind of
Speaker 3: like you know, it's about.
Speaker 1: But it's our responsibility to push back at those people.
Speaker 3: I agree that, and I think that my main criticism
Speaker 3: about would have been and still has been, there should
Speaker 3: have been a better vetting of the sources of these
Speaker 3: so called events, because the main source at that time,
Speaker 3: because I was listening through that whole period, was Wolf
Speaker 3: kank Kalbek, who said, I've worked in government, I worked
Speaker 3: in education, I was there. I know that this was
Speaker 3: a fraud. I went investigated and all that was not true.
Speaker 3: So he did not properly about this. He blamed it
Speaker 3: on psychosis. There is no medical information to prove that.
Speaker 1: Okay, that could be. I mean his yeah, that could
Speaker 1: have been, didn't provide any medical information that he had psychosis.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know. I don't know Alex's legal teams.
Speaker 3: You know well that they use psychosis.
Speaker 1: You know that. Come on again, I don't know what
Speaker 1: the legal team advice. They didn't show. Well, the legal
Speaker 1: team if they're going to say he suffered from psychosis.
Speaker 1: There would have to be some evidence to prove that,
Speaker 1: which clearly they didn't show it wasn't psychosis. And I
Speaker 1: guess this is maybe where we disagree. People like Alex
Speaker 1: Jones and Candae Owns and many others, Laura Lumer I
Speaker 1: could name you a lot. They say things knowing that
Speaker 1: it will hurt people, and they don't fucking care. They
Speaker 1: say things knowing that it will hurt people, knowing that
Speaker 1: it's probably not true. By the way, I don't buy
Speaker 1: the fact that Alex didn't think it was a real shooting.
Speaker 1: He knew it was. Like I said, Alex is not
Speaker 1: a stupid guy. He knew that there were innocent young
Speaker 1: children that died, and he called them actors now regardless
Speaker 1: of what all their stuff might have been going on
Speaker 1: in his mind. He made a lot of money off that.
Speaker 1: Now in the end it's going to cost him money.
Speaker 1: I don't think we should be allowed to say things
Speaker 1: like that with no justification, and it hurts people. Those
Speaker 1: families had death threats, They had death threats, Jay, and
Speaker 1: they hadn't even buried their kids yet, eight nine year olds.
Speaker 1: And as you can see, I get visibly angry talking
Speaker 1: about this guy because I think he's a horrible human being,
Speaker 1: and I think his entire network is a fucking joke.
Speaker 1: It's a bunch of tinfoil hat morons who spread conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories about COVID, They spread conspiracy theories about the deep state,
Speaker 1: they spread conspiracy theories about the twenty twenty election, and
Speaker 1: the guy who runs the whole thing spread conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: about a shooting where a bunch of eight and nine
Speaker 1: year old kids were murdered were kept in. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't even think the I should be allowed to
Speaker 1: even have a show. That's my personal thing.
Speaker 3: Could you name another crazy temple hat that the position
Speaker 3: that you think me or Alex or anybody has positive.
Speaker 1: I can't speak to you because I'll be honest with you,
Speaker 1: and I don't mean this way like a whole network
Speaker 1: is all crazy. Well, I mean the regulars. I would
Speaker 1: assume you're a guest on there a lot, and sometimes
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the regulars who do shows, you know,
Speaker 1: five days a week. They spread conspiracy theories about me.
Speaker 1: Harrison talked about me. Didn't even and we talked about
Speaker 1: this off the air a couple of minutes ago. Didn't
Speaker 1: even know my position on vaccines, and I don't want
Speaker 1: to get too deep into the vaccine stuff because you know,
Speaker 1: some platforms don't allow it. Didn't even know my position
Speaker 1: on the vaccines, and just assume that I want everyone
Speaker 1: to get ten boosters. They say things about people not
Speaker 1: doing their homework, not under even and by the way,
Speaker 1: I said I would go on their show. I was
Speaker 1: talking to somebody from their network. I said, listen, I
Speaker 1: will go on that show and I will defend my positions.
Speaker 1: Harrison didn't want me on. I call that a coward.
Speaker 1: If you're willing to talk shit about somebody, which is fine.
Speaker 1: I'm a big boy. I can handle it, but then
Speaker 1: you don't want that person to come on. I invite
Speaker 1: anybody on my show. Nick Fuentes can do my show
Speaker 1: if he wants to. I think he's an awful human being.
Speaker 1: But I would have had oj Simpson do my show.
Speaker 1: It's not the criticism. He's no longer with us unfortunatelyfortunately
Speaker 1: whichever way you look at it. But I'm willing to
Speaker 1: have anybody on my show that I disagree with, even
Speaker 1: if they're despicable people. If Alex Jones wanted to do
Speaker 1: my show, I would probably be a little bit more
Speaker 1: heated with him than am you, because I'm not blaming
Speaker 1: you for the stuff that that Alex Jones said. Make it.
Speaker 1: What's another topic that you think of COVID spread COVID?
Speaker 1: I think he's spread lies about the vaccines. He sells
Speaker 1: his stupid pills on his website to make money that
Speaker 1: there's no evidence that any of those pills actually help
Speaker 1: you if you had COVID, I would talk about nine
Speaker 1: to eleven a little bit more, because I know he's
Speaker 1: talked about nine to eleven a lot. What about nine eleven, Well,
Speaker 1: he thinks it was an inside john right right, Okay,
Speaker 1: Well we can get into that. We can get into that.
Speaker 1: So what's the crazy talks about the deep state all
Speaker 1: the time with no evidence to back up his claims
Speaker 1: about the deep state? What is the deep state?
Speaker 3: Tell it's the breakaway national security apparatus in the background
Speaker 3: that has a tremendous amount of influence installed at the
Speaker 3: time of.
Speaker 1: World War two, particularly from right now yah formulations. It's
Speaker 1: the same structure. Okay, so right now who is running
Speaker 1: the deep state?
Speaker 3: CFR and Trilateral Commission of a huge amount of influence.
Speaker 3: This is a CFR historian's own background accounts for in Hurst's.
Speaker 1: But there's over election through on my channel right now.
Speaker 3: So, yeah, I've heard Alex Corporation, Military Industrial Complex, that's.
Speaker 1: What you say. So I've heard Alex say that Barack
Speaker 1: Obama was really running the country when Joe Biden was president.
Speaker 1: There's no evidence to back that up. You meant to
Speaker 1: stay behind situation that Obama had set up. And he
Speaker 1: said the Obamas had gay relationships and that Barack Obama
Speaker 1: was gay. This is not a serious talk radio. You
Speaker 1: make jokes, you make you do sat there outsis satare
Speaker 1: all the time. Okay, Well, when I hear Alex Jones
Speaker 1: say that he believed, first of all, I don't think
Speaker 1: that's funny. That's ten year old humor. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's anything funny in saying a president is gay. I
Speaker 1: don't think that. I mean, unless we're ten years old.
Speaker 1: What about faking gay? You? I mean, okay, but you
Speaker 1: get what I'm saying, right, Well, you just laugh, So
Speaker 1: you do think it's first right, Well, here's the problem, right,
Speaker 1: Alex Jones has a huge platform, and I think it's
Speaker 1: important for people to choose their words wisely and to
Speaker 1: be responsible. We agree. I think that Alex Jones should
Speaker 1: not have done what he did when it came to
Speaker 1: the Sandy Hook shooting. It hurt people. Now, if you
Speaker 1: make a joke that doesn't hurt somebody, Okay, fine, if
Speaker 1: you have a conspiracy theory that doesn't necessarily hurt somebody,
Speaker 1: then that's one thing, right. But when you have the
Speaker 1: platform that Alex Jones has and you say things that
Speaker 1: are unproven, stuff that is just blatantly ridiculous. They said
Speaker 1: things about me that aren't true. I have a problem
Speaker 1: with that, and I don't think that network is a
Speaker 1: serious network. I don't think that is a serious news network.
Speaker 1: Give It's one thing. If you give Kanye West a platform, heck,
Speaker 1: I would interview Kanye West and ask him about his
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. But Alex Jones, he was praising Adolf Hitler,
Speaker 1: and Alex Jones is sitting there with his thumb up
Speaker 1: his ass. I watched that specifically disagree with him and
Speaker 1: said that he didn't believe Hitler was a good guy.
Speaker 1: And but the very next day, Richard Grove and I
Speaker 1: hosted that next day, yeah talked about that. We did
Speaker 1: not agree with. Okay, It's one thing to say you
Speaker 1: don't agree with it, and I'm glad you did that,
Speaker 1: But if someone sitting next to me is praising Adolf Hitler,
Speaker 1: I would call them for what they are. You are
Speaker 1: an anti Semite, and you are a moron if you
Speaker 1: if you, if you praise a man who's responsible for
Speaker 1: murdering anybody, let alone millions of people, there's something wrong
Speaker 1: with you. And I would say that to Kanye. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't sit here and say, well, you know, Kanye, I
Speaker 1: really disagree with you on that. I saw that. I
Speaker 1: don't respect people who praise evil, murderous dictators. That's what
Speaker 1: Alex Jones did in that interview. Okay, he coddled Kanye. Well, well,
Speaker 1: he praised He praised Kanye West in some ways, and
Speaker 1: he was very sad. He coddled him, He coddled him.
Speaker 1: It was a fluffer interview. And I think we also
Speaker 1: have a responsibility to question people and to be tough
Speaker 1: on people that praise murderous dictators. Alex Jones did not
Speaker 1: do that. So on one side of the coin, Kanye West
Speaker 1: will sit there and praise Adolf Hitler and he'll say, well,
Speaker 1: I disagree with that. But on the other side of
Speaker 1: the coin, he'll just bash Democrats and left wingers and
Speaker 1: aoc an attacker for being a bartender. He's more tough
Speaker 1: on somebody like AOC than somebody like Kanye West, who
Speaker 1: praises Adolf Hitler and is a Jew hater. Make no
Speaker 1: mistake about it, Kanye is a jew hater, anti Semitic,
Speaker 1: piece of scum. I don't care whether he's mentally ill
Speaker 1: or not. And these gripers that go around, I just
Speaker 1: think they're really bad people. Right.
Speaker 3: But so a lot of this debate so far has
Speaker 3: been about the character of people.
Speaker 1: So and I'm not well believing that.
Speaker 3: Okay, but I mean, you just said at the beginning
Speaker 3: that you weren't interested in GOI by association, but.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to understand why you would be friends with
Speaker 1: some of the guy who I think has no more.
Speaker 3: But what I'm illustrating is that nobody consistently can apply
Speaker 3: that in media, because I'm sure you have friends that
Speaker 3: you disagree with that you might find reprehensible that you've
Speaker 3: gone on shows that you don't I don't have you,
Speaker 3: so you don't have any I don't have any friends.
Speaker 1: Here's Morgan you go on Here's Morgan show. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't hang out with Pierce Morgan. He's not one of
Speaker 1: my friends. I do his show. There's a difference. So
Speaker 1: I don't have any So I don't have so it
Speaker 1: is guilt. Well, you're friends with him, So about friends
Speaker 1: with that is guilt by association with you said, you're
Speaker 1: not trying to trying to understand why you would be,
Speaker 1: so you are doing guilt by association. I'm asking you,
Speaker 1: I'm asking a question, implying, implying that it's morally wrong.
Speaker 1: I mind understand how morally you could associate yourself and
Speaker 1: I'm trying to understand that as a friend, not just
Speaker 1: for doing a show.
Speaker 3: The morals are, which are what like what's the beau?
Speaker 3: I don't think it's consistently apply.
Speaker 1: I think people that associate themselves with people like Alice
Speaker 1: Jones are the same people that associate themselves with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I think it's I think it's the same. Well, the
Speaker 1: whole chorus has been guilt by social what you said
Speaker 1: at the beginning of your not going to do well, What
Speaker 1: I was hoping to do is try to get an
Speaker 1: explanation from you on how you could be friends with
Speaker 1: somebody like that. I find that in general, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to make a general statement now, people that are
Speaker 1: big fans of Alex Jones or friends of Alex Jones
Speaker 1: tend to also be big fans of Donald Trump, and
Speaker 1: they throw they're willing to push aside the Epstein stuff.
Speaker 1: They're willing to push aside his behaviors, the way he
Speaker 1: talks about women in gold Star families and POW's and
Speaker 1: the fact that he's named thousands of times in the
Speaker 1: Epstein Falls. I think the same kinds of people who
Speaker 1: support Donald Trump are gravitated towards Alex Jones. And yes,
Speaker 1: I'll say it again, I think Donald Trump and Alex
Speaker 1: Jones are similar. I think they're both horrible human beings.
Speaker 1: They're horrible human beings who probably only care about themselves.
Speaker 3: And you know, but again, I think this is what
Speaker 3: usually ends up being something not worth debating. I'm not
Speaker 3: saying you can't bring interview, debate whatever you want, but
Speaker 3: the idea of only focusing on the morals or some
Speaker 3: individual in media or in politics, to me just seems absurd.
Speaker 3: That's why I'm always an issues guy, because I'm sure
Speaker 3: that I'm sure that everybody has some moral flaw or
Speaker 3: some problem in their their ethos.
Speaker 1: I would never deny that. I would never deny what
Speaker 1: you're saying. So then so then it's not consistently applied.
Speaker 1: So it would seem there are different levels of the levels.
Speaker 1: It seems like you're doing the very thing that you're
Speaker 1: saying shouldn't be done. No, so there are different levels
Speaker 1: of mistakes that are made. Whether you cheat on your
Speaker 1: wife for who determines that? Okay, well, I'm just giving
Speaker 1: you my opinions. There's no book on determining. I'm just
Speaker 1: telling you, Uh, simply put, if you're a person who
Speaker 1: intentionally lies about a school shooting when children are murdered
Speaker 1: to make money and clicks, you're a fucking disgusting human being.
Speaker 1: But how do you know a person's motives? Maybe you
Speaker 1: because Alex Jones does it all the time. He says things,
Speaker 1: he's over the top and he says things. How do
Speaker 1: you know the motives? So you think Alex Jones didn't
Speaker 1: have what do you think his motive saying?
Speaker 3: I'm saying that when you debate and again, you can
Speaker 3: obey whatever you want. But my critique of this type
Speaker 3: of debate is that when you debate people's motives is
Speaker 3: something that you can never really explicitly prove.
Speaker 1: Why does that Why did you think Alex Jones? Give
Speaker 1: me an educated guest, h Jay, if you can, why
Speaker 1: do you think Alex Jones said those things?
Speaker 3: I believe that Alex has always, for the most part,
Speaker 3: been sincere. That's why he has been willing to change
Speaker 3: his mind at me he was wrong. For example, he
Speaker 3: recently admitted he was wrong that he thought Trump might
Speaker 3: reverse the course on a ramp.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about he admits that he was completely right.
Speaker 1: I do want to talk to you about that. Agree
Speaker 1: on that.
Speaker 3: That's a recent admission that Alex said I was wrong
Speaker 3: about this.
Speaker 1: Okay, good, So so let me ask you something about
Speaker 1: that because I disagree with you, respectfully. If Alex Jones
Speaker 1: wasn't sued, I think Alex Jones would have apologized. Well.
Speaker 3: The Again, the lawsuit, as I said, highlighted the bad betting.
Speaker 3: If you look, for example, at the prosecute where they
Speaker 3: were ja I understand me question, let me finish anything.
Speaker 3: The when they were interrogating Owen, Schweyer and Owen was
Speaker 3: responsible for bringing on a couple people that not just Wolfgang,
Speaker 3: but also the zero Hygi article that they highlighted.
Speaker 1: It that was misinformation. So that was not properly about it.
Speaker 3: And I'm saying that if you've got a network that
Speaker 3: has multiple people doing multiple cogs of the operation, you can't.
Speaker 3: I understand that the head of the operation is going
Speaker 3: to receive the brunt of the criticism, but it's not
Speaker 3: like Alex was just doing all of this without sincere investigation.
Speaker 1: I believe he's sincere okay. So that's where we disagree.
Speaker 1: And I would go as far as to say this,
Speaker 1: I believe that if Alex Jones wasn't sued and he
Speaker 1: didn't have to face consequences for his first things, he
Speaker 1: would never have apologized or retracted anything, because he never
Speaker 1: has in the past to my knowledge, for anything else.
Speaker 1: The reason why he apologized and says I shouldn't have
Speaker 1: said that, which, by the way, he said in a courtroom,
Speaker 1: and then he said it was a kangaroo court, and
Speaker 1: he attacked the judge and he attacked the prosecutors instead
Speaker 1: of just being a man and saying, you know what,
Speaker 1: I really fucked up. I really shouldn't have said that stuff.
Speaker 1: What happened to those families was awful. Instead, he does
Speaker 1: what Donald Trump does. It's a kangaroo court. I didn't
Speaker 1: do anything wrong, So no, I disagree with you, Jay.
Speaker 1: I don't think Alex Jones would have ever retracted what
Speaker 1: he said, and I don't think Alex Jones would have
Speaker 1: ever apologized if, in fact, he was never facing a
Speaker 1: civil lawsuit, which he lost. That's my personal opinions. We
Speaker 1: can move on to a rock because it's way to
Speaker 1: prove it. We can do that. Well, that's just my
Speaker 1: personal opinion. Obviously, there's no way to one hundred percent
Speaker 1: proven other than the fact that to my knowledge, I
Speaker 1: don't think Alex has ever apologized for anything else on
Speaker 1: the air in the past. The only thing I could
Speaker 1: ever recall that he's ever apologized for or retracted was
Speaker 1: the comments he made about the school shooting and those
Speaker 1: kids being acted. And he recently retracted his position on Iran.
Speaker 3: He thought Trump would have a better course and a
Speaker 3: course correction, and he was wrong about that. He was
Speaker 3: wrong about the thing that was going around where Pam
Speaker 3: Bondy was saying that they were going to release the files.
Speaker 1: He thought that that was as he has been open
Speaker 1: about criticism for the Epstein files because he's been talking
Speaker 1: about the Epstein files for years, and I think Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has made a lot of people like the Alex
Speaker 1: Jones that look really add because Donald Trump has protected
Speaker 1: pedophiles in my opinion, I know that. That's what I
Speaker 1: just said. Yeah, I'm happy I agree with you on that.
Speaker 1: He's angry. Well, he's he's upset at Donald Trump. It's
Speaker 1: not really that he was wrong about something. He he
Speaker 1: he's upset about what Pam Bondi said like two months ago. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: he's criticized at times the Trump administration. He gives the
Speaker 1: apology that you want. Basically, it's not really the apology
Speaker 1: that I want. It's it's basically it wasn't really an apology.
Speaker 1: He just basically when it comes to the Epstein stuff,
Speaker 1: he's talked about how disappointed he was. He was wrong
Speaker 1: about Pam Bondi. He was wrong about Pam Bondy, and
Speaker 1: he thought Pam Bondi no.
Speaker 3: He said specifically that the claim that they were going
Speaker 3: to release more of the files, that when Pam Bondi
Speaker 3: claimed this, he shared that and then a bunch of
Speaker 3: people on soldial media called him out.
Speaker 1: He said, you know what, You're right, I was wrong,
Speaker 1: so he will Admitkay, well, I'm glad he did that.
Speaker 1: I was unaware of that, and I'm and I'm glad
Speaker 1: he did that, and we could we can end the
Speaker 1: Alex Jones conversation. But but in closing, I'll just say this,
Speaker 1: and and you know, it's not nothing that I've I've
Speaker 1: never said that's fair. Of course, I think Alex Jones
Speaker 1: is what's horrible with society. I think there are grifters,
Speaker 1: the Candace Owens types. I put Alex Jones in that category.
Speaker 1: I think he only says things as an act to
Speaker 1: get clicks and to make money. What he did was disgusting.
Speaker 1: And then the reason why this topic is so it
Speaker 1: should be personal to anybody, but it's even more personally
Speaker 1: because I grew up about twenty minutes away from Sandy
Speaker 1: Hook number one, number two. I've interviewed some of those
Speaker 1: families who have to wake up every day without seeing
Speaker 1: their kids. It's reprehensible and the fact that somebody like
Speaker 1: Alex Jones, and this is irrefutable, made their grief even worse.
Speaker 1: With what Alex Jones put those families through is reprehensible,
Speaker 1: and I think only a reprehensible and repugnant human being
Speaker 1: would do what Alex Jones did. I have zero respect
Speaker 1: for him. I don't care how many followers he has.
Speaker 1: I have no more respect for him than I do
Speaker 1: like a Candace Owens type, and I know we'll probably
Speaker 1: agree on gandis owns. There is a way to have
Speaker 1: differences of opinions, and there is a way to have
Speaker 1: a conversation without hurting people. And there are too many people,
Speaker 1: particularly in right wing media today, that do that. They
Speaker 1: make claims that hurt people. They lie, They attack undocumented
Speaker 1: immigrants in brown people every single day, making it seem
Speaker 1: like all these undocumented immigrants are going to rape your kids.
Speaker 1: They're wrong. They lied about the terrorist attack in New Orleans.
Speaker 1: They said it was undocumented immigrant. They said it was
Speaker 1: because of Joe Biden's open border policies. They lie. They
Speaker 1: lied in conspiracy theories about what happened to Paul Pelosi
Speaker 1: when Paul Pelosi was attacked with a hammer, and Alex
Speaker 1: Jones was one of those guys that spread the conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory that Paul Pelosi had some sort of gay relationship
Speaker 1: with the guy that almost killed him with a hammer.
Speaker 1: Did Alex Jones ever apologize for that when the police
Speaker 1: report came out? And Matt Gates when he was in
Speaker 1: office another repugnant piece of garbage, and Ted Cruz spread
Speaker 1: those conspiracy theories. These right wingers don't apologize. Usually. I'm
Speaker 1: glad that Alex Jones has done that, but there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people on the right that don't. They don't retract,
Speaker 1: they don't apologize. When you get something wrong, why don't
Speaker 1: you wait until the information comes out first before you
Speaker 1: you spread conspiracy? There is I'm not talking about you,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying in general terms people on the right,
Speaker 1: and that's my one of my biggest criticisms is with
Speaker 1: the lower lumers of the world and so many others.
Speaker 1: It's all about clicks, Jay, It's about money and clicks.
Speaker 1: They don't care whether they get it right or not.
Speaker 1: They I'm generalizing. There's a lot of people on the
Speaker 1: right on X they want to be the first one
Speaker 1: to say it was an undocumented immigrant, it was a
Speaker 1: black person, it was this without knowing, and then when
Speaker 1: they get it wrong, they don't retract and they don't apologize.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry if I'm going on a rant here,
Speaker 1: but on X when you look at when they're fact checked,
Speaker 1: what is that called on the bottom? Checking community notes? Yeah?
Speaker 1: What is the point of a community note if somebody
Speaker 1: is getting a community note like two hundred times. There
Speaker 1: are right wingers out there that have been community noted
Speaker 1: two hundred times. They're not suspended, their accounts don't get
Speaker 1: taken down. Why are we community noting people when they
Speaker 1: literally it happens to them every day. So anyway, I digress,
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah again, I think you know, so much of media
Speaker 3: ends up being a lott of low tier slop and
Speaker 3: debating about things that are not really that substantial, such
Speaker 3: as people's motives or intentionality, which is unless you have
Speaker 3: you know, somebody's actual DMS or something like that, it's
Speaker 3: really difficult, I think, to know the motives, and so
Speaker 3: in philosophy and debate we don't typically focus on that.
Speaker 3: Understand that in media and in news it probably is
Speaker 3: the best. But I would assume that maybe you engage
Speaker 3: in debating about who's good and who's bad because that's
Speaker 3: the easy, low tier route to go to get attention,
Speaker 3: to get clicks.
Speaker 1: I mean, aren't.
Speaker 3: You think it's low tier to today what it is
Speaker 3: to debate people's motives because its call that homine.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's low tier to talk about our
Speaker 1: president and his behavior about Alex.
Speaker 3: Jones, right, you're saying as bad motives, and I'm saying
Speaker 3: that that that works in low tier political debate. But
Speaker 3: like if you get into a philosophical debate you debate
Speaker 3: people's motives, that's called that hominism because unless you have
Speaker 3: proof that there's some motives, you don't know people's motives
Speaker 3: other than to say that.
Speaker 1: Well he's a bad person. Okay, that's so he's a
Speaker 1: bad person. What is that proof. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: low tier to criticize al Jones for what he did.
Speaker 1: But you said that you motives, and I'm just trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how you know that. Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: I think most people would say the reason why Alex
Speaker 1: Jones says these things is because he wants to That
Speaker 1: would be money and get more attention. The fact that
Speaker 1: most people think that really has nothing to do, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: that's I think I would like to think that a
Speaker 1: logical opinion would be that the reason why fallacies. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: if you think that Alex Jones does this stuff. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think appeal to masses is a fallacy? No,
Speaker 1: but I would say I would say, you don't think
Speaker 1: it's perhaps. But the point that I was trying to
Speaker 1: get at is that just just Alex Jones says these things,
Speaker 1: not because he needs to get this off his chest
Speaker 1: or he wants to be an inn. So you're just
Speaker 1: saying what his motives are. Okay, Well, well what do
Speaker 1: you think his motives are? Help me understand Alex Jones.
Speaker 1: You're friends with them. I've listened to Alex in two
Speaker 1: thousand and three.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I've noticed him consistently over the years reference
Speaker 3: many tax that we lecture through on my channel. So
Speaker 3: it's become a mainstep what I do is to kind
Speaker 3: of take all those books that he references over the
Speaker 3: years to to see if he's legit and if you're
Speaker 3: saying the right things. And most of what he says,
Speaker 3: I would say ninety percent of what Alex has said
Speaker 3: over the years has been accurate in terms of the
Speaker 3: big geopolitical perspective. There are minutia areas where I would
Speaker 3: disagree particularly with wh who he brought on during that
Speaker 3: time period of Sandy Hook that was not properly vetted.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: But when it comes to the big geopolitical stuff, most
Speaker 3: of the time I disagree. But there's been areas where
Speaker 3: I disagree with Alex over Trump. So I don't have
Speaker 3: a problem disagree with Alex. But I don't think that
Speaker 3: Alex is ultimately overall about person. I've met him, known him,
Speaker 3: you know, personally, for many years.
Speaker 1: So okay, I mean I based that on some other
Speaker 1: things that I'm not going to talk about here on
Speaker 1: the show, but people that have known him very close,
Speaker 1: closer than you even. But we can leave it at that.
Speaker 1: I know this entire debate isn't isn't this movie, But
Speaker 1: if you want to talk about Iron, I'm happy to
Speaker 1: stave to Iran. Yeah, even though you both agree, maybe
Speaker 1: there's some slight I won't be taking Alex Jones out
Speaker 1: to dinner tonight. I guess I was trying to say,
Speaker 1: go ahead, shan.
Speaker 2: Jay, you want to start off with Iran and how
Speaker 2: you feel about the US getting involved, how you feel
Speaker 2: like Trump's done with that relationship.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So this is an issue that I've dealt with for
Speaker 3: many years. I've had a lot of debates publicly with
Speaker 3: muslim for about eight years straight.
Speaker 1: Some of them. We've debated most of the top Muslims.
Speaker 1: I think maybe Junior the future of Muslim debate they're
Speaker 1: going to do.
Speaker 3: So I'm very familiar with like the background of you know,
Speaker 3: Sunni versus Shia Islam. I'm decently educated on the history
Speaker 3: of Iran, and I think the big issue with Iran
Speaker 3: is that this is really just a repeat of nineteen
Speaker 3: fifty three with the CIA Q where they took out
Speaker 3: you know, Mozedic to put the SHAW in. Then you
Speaker 3: had the SHAW failing, and you had Istola Kashani being
Speaker 3: brought in with British intelligence and CIA assistance, all ultimately
Speaker 3: for Anglo Iranian Oil Company which would become VP. So
Speaker 3: I think that from the very beginning, this was a destabilization,
Speaker 3: a regime change that was brought about for the purpose
Speaker 3: of a big corporate interest in Iran. I think it's
Speaker 3: really not that different today if we fast forward to
Speaker 3: where we are now, it's a lot of repeat of
Speaker 3: what we saw with Iraq, which was you know, false intel,
Speaker 3: weapons of mass destruction, which is not true. Saddam was
Speaker 3: brought into power by the CIA, trained by the stay
Speaker 3: of that, he's given weapons of mass destruction, usually by
Speaker 3: the CIA, to fight the Iran Iraq war. And then
Speaker 3: when we decided that he had to spoiled like spoiled milk,
Speaker 3: then we didn't need a Sodomini Moore. And I've never
Speaker 3: been pro war all the way back to nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: I've been anti war pretty much because I think most
Speaker 3: of the wars are fought for interest, not in the
Speaker 3: best preview of American people. Their fought for corporate and
Speaker 3: banking interest. For the most part. I'm not a past fist.
Speaker 3: I believe in self defense. But so the same situation
Speaker 3: with Iran, I think that we've seen the administration all
Speaker 3: the way back to Obama with the Green Revolution. They
Speaker 3: were pushing for a kind of a more democratic any
Speaker 3: D style Color revolution back in twenty nine, ten eleven.
Speaker 3: But now what we have a situation where Trump has
Speaker 3: just greenlit under I think probably influence from BB Yahoo
Speaker 3: to go for a full on just you know, you know, taking.
Speaker 1: Them out and go back thirty years.
Speaker 3: They were playing the cliffs yesterday on Hodge Twins, where
Speaker 3: BB is like saying a little two weeks away from
Speaker 3: the nuclear Bob and then like every few years it's
Speaker 3: the same two weeks and it's like, so it's like
Speaker 3: two weeks to fly in the Iran was my joke
Speaker 3: on Twitter, not making jokes about Yeah, but I mean
Speaker 3: the same situation where oh it's two week flatten the
Speaker 3: curb and then it's going to turn into protracted war.
Speaker 1: This is different than Syria.
Speaker 3: Syria, it took fifteen years to take down a SAWD
Speaker 3: to install by CAA in Western support a very radical
Speaker 3: Sunni regime under Joulawi. That's something that was mentioned in
Speaker 3: the Clean Break memo. It's something that goes back to Ed,
Speaker 3: you know, on strategy. So I think that all of
Speaker 3: those are a disaster for the West and for America.
Speaker 3: They basically only benefit the Greater Israel project. And I
Speaker 3: disagree with all that.
Speaker 1: It pays me to say I agree with a lot
Speaker 1: of what you just said. Not much of a debate there,
Speaker 1: but I will say this. When Donald Trump was running
Speaker 1: for office again, said he was going to be the
Speaker 1: peace president, the peace candidate.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, You'll never have war again, nothing to worry about. Yeah,
Speaker 4: probably the best that's true. He said that, and uh,
Speaker 4: he said there were you know, he's going to be
Speaker 4: a known regime, new regime president and all that. Tulsi
Speaker 4: Gabbert testified ten months ago under Oh that there was
Speaker 4: no reasonablieve, based on our own intelligence, that they were
Speaker 4: furthering their nuclear capabilities.
Speaker 1: We were told eight months ago obliviated, I believe is
Speaker 1: the word obliterated. I'm sorry, obliterated. I always get that
Speaker 1: mixed up. Obliterated their nuclear capabilities. Then we heard it
Speaker 1: was regime change. And then when they figured it out, well, wait,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to have boots on the ground if
Speaker 1: there's regime change. Then they said, well, these civilians need
Speaker 1: to rise up. The hell does that mean? Then Marco Rubio,
Speaker 1: in some terminology, was blaming Israel. And I agree, by
Speaker 1: the way, with a lot of the stuff you said
Speaker 1: about Benjamin and I am listen, I'm a Jewish guy.
Speaker 1: It's not anti Semitic to be critical of the Israeli government.
Speaker 1: I've maintained that position. I am very anti Israeli government.
Speaker 1: I am very pro Israeli people. I think they're great people,
Speaker 1: but I'm anti Benjamin Uttaw who plays Donald Trump like
Speaker 1: a fiddle. Then we were told by Marco Rubio that Israel,
Speaker 1: you know forced our hand. Then we have this school
Speaker 1: bombing and Donald Trump it was a tomahawk missile. Iran
Speaker 1: doesn't have tomahawk missiles. Everybody knows that, and he blames Iran.
Speaker 1: Does he even know that they don't have tomahawk missiles.
Speaker 1: It's this guy is such a madman, and he's such
Speaker 1: an imbecile and Pete hegsett this. They don't take responsibility.
Speaker 1: We're told this is the party of protecting children, and
Speaker 1: now we're told, well, this was about the Marines and
Speaker 1: this was about attacking the ships. I agree with what
Speaker 1: you said about Iraq. That was an ill advised war.
Speaker 1: Thousands of American soldiers died, hundreds of thousands of innocent
Speaker 1: Iraqis died, trillions of dollars that were still paying off.
Speaker 1: How is this any different? Are you disappointed you voted
Speaker 1: for Trump. I know you're not defending this war, which
Speaker 1: I appreciate. Are you disappointed in your vote? Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: would not have start You could have your criticisms of
Speaker 1: Kamala and that's fine, and we can get into that.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying she was perfect. She would not have
Speaker 1: started a war in iron I do not believe this
Speaker 1: war would have happened.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, it's similar to you know, a lot
Speaker 3: of what Obama campaigned upon. We saw Obama campaigning as
Speaker 3: a peace candidate back in the day. We saw him
Speaker 3: then reversing with the drone strikes that he was involved in.
Speaker 3: So I didn't have high hopes for politics to be
Speaker 3: anything other than what the one it usually is.
Speaker 1: I was involved in promoting Ron Paul back in two
Speaker 1: thousand and seven and.
Speaker 3: Eight ran Paul campaign, and I saw back then the
Speaker 3: way that Ron Paul was sort of sidelined and kind
Speaker 3: of kept out of the political discourse. And so my
Speaker 3: vote for Trump was mainly based on a lot of
Speaker 3: the policies that he supported, which are kind of older
Speaker 3: nineties centrist Democrat type of America.
Speaker 1: First, sure, are you think as some of some of
Speaker 1: these policies are America. I'm saying what he campaigned on, okay,
Speaker 1: And I'm so many campaigns on a lot of things
Speaker 1: that he lies about. We're going to build a wall
Speaker 1: in Mexico's going to pay for it.
Speaker 3: I'm saying that I disagree with the main areas that
Speaker 3: my main issues are that I can think of with Trump.
Speaker 1: I think worksheet was a huge failure. I think that
Speaker 1: was a mistake.
Speaker 3: I think he did that probably at the behest of
Speaker 3: a lot of pharmaceutical and corporate interests. That's my opinion
Speaker 3: on that. I think that it was a mistake to
Speaker 3: talk a lot about the Federal Reserve, but not really
Speaker 3: to go after the federal reserve. I think that's a
Speaker 3: huge problem for the country, for the economics, and then
Speaker 3: also to promote the war for Israel's benefit. Really, that's
Speaker 3: I mean, those are the main things off the top
Speaker 3: of my head that I can think of.
Speaker 1: It. Those are big things. Well, I mean those are
Speaker 1: my main those are my mains. It's pretty important things,
Speaker 1: don't you. Again.
Speaker 3: I'm not a Trump apologist, but I'm an issues person.
Speaker 3: What I'm saying is that since two thousand and seven,
Speaker 3: I was really disaffected with mainline party politics.
Speaker 1: What about rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: in Alaska? What about no concessions? What about the fact
Speaker 1: that Russia is giving intel to Iran right now? And
Speaker 1: Trump they just don't seem to want to talk about that.
Speaker 1: They've had pleasant conversations in the last week. Rolling out
Speaker 1: the red carp He blamed Vladimir Zelenski called him a dictator,
Speaker 1: and he blamed Ukraine for the war. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you something, if Iran had invaded Israel, I might feel
Speaker 1: a little differently about this war. Well, here's where we
Speaker 1: disagree right now. I would be intol Ukraine for sure.
Speaker 1: Who started the war in Ukraine? Uh, NATO, That's not true.
Speaker 3: It is true Vladimir who invaded twelve NATO was provoking
Speaker 3: Russia and they did not keep to the agreements during
Speaker 3: the Cold War about not banding.
Speaker 1: Who invaded Ukraine? Again? Who started violence vod Russia to invade? Okay,
Speaker 1: I didn't ask you who provoked? Who invade? Who invaded Ukraine?
Speaker 1: Russia devoked? Started the violence? Who put the the I
Speaker 1: could provoke the biolabs. I could provoke somebody the biolabs.
Speaker 1: I could provoke somebody politics. Okay, I can provoke somebody
Speaker 1: to murder somebody. But I'm not asking you who provoked.
Speaker 1: I'm asking you who committed put the bio labs all
Speaker 1: around Russia as a offensive Probaly, nobody forced Vladimir Putin?
Speaker 1: Who invade Ukraine? It is a forcing I disagree with you.
Speaker 3: Well again that Ukraine is actually historically Russia anyway, and
Speaker 3: it was only Ukraine after Lenin and after World War One.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's not even a real country. Ukraine didn't
Speaker 1: start this war.
Speaker 3: It's a country that was created by the West and
Speaker 3: by Communists to sever that center of power.
Speaker 1: I understand. I understand your history. I understand. But Ukraine
Speaker 1: did not start the war. They did not start to disagree. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: I think that NATO and the West provoked the war,
Speaker 1: so that then they could You think Zelenski is a
Speaker 1: dictator in many ways, he acts like a dictator with
Speaker 1: per and shuts it down. So Zelensky started the war
Speaker 1: and he's a dictator. You agree with Donald Trump start
Speaker 1: the war? Well, Donald Trump said that was he lying?
Speaker 3: Uh, he may be speaking about for for political reasons.
Speaker 3: He didn't start the war. I think NATO started the
Speaker 3: war again, don't you think.
Speaker 1: It's kind of important if you're the president of the
Speaker 1: United States, do not lie about problem criticizing Trump.
Speaker 3: But I will defend the fact that I don't think
Speaker 3: that Russia started the NATO provoked the war.
Speaker 1: I can tell you this NATO expanded sense the Cold War. Well, no,
Speaker 1: but I can tell you that, well, Hold on a second.
Speaker 1: Let me just go back. They've been putting bases and
Speaker 1: bio labs that that came out dependagon on medies. There's
Speaker 1: biolabs in Ukraine, but that still doesn't defend It's not
Speaker 1: a defense for Vladimir's Ukraine problem. Okay, So do you
Speaker 1: think we let's say, people if they started coming into
Speaker 1: your property and they were saying, oh, well, you don't
Speaker 1: have a right to you know, react because you know
Speaker 1: we're not actually causing you to react, We're just coming
Speaker 1: on your property. So do you think it's appropriate for
Speaker 1: an evil murderer's dictator, which is who Vladimir Putin is.
Speaker 1: I would hope that we could at least, even though
Speaker 1: we disagree on this, you would agree with me that
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin doesn't have a regard for human life. He
Speaker 1: kills journalists in his own country that disagree with him.
Speaker 1: If you talk about Vladimir Putin on the phone, there
Speaker 1: have been instances where you're massacred, he kills. He's an
Speaker 1: evil dictator. Can we at least agree on that? I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 3: I mean all heads of state operate in a similar way.
Speaker 3: The US assassinates people all the time. So can you
Speaker 3: tell me where the US assassination?
Speaker 1: Yeah, all the time.
Speaker 3: Is the famous I'm familiar, famous journalist who was assassinated
Speaker 3: in Germany. We're talking about the CIA infiltrating and using
Speaker 3: German media for Western purposes. So whether or not Putin
Speaker 3: himself had the journalist assassinated, I don't know, but I
Speaker 3: wouldn't be surprised because a lot.
Speaker 1: Of journalists are actually also undercover as pies. If anybody
Speaker 1: listened to my show for thirty if I was talking
Speaker 1: about Vladimir Putin that way in Russia, I would be murdered.
Speaker 1: In the United States of America, even though Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is trying to take away our First Amendment rights to
Speaker 1: criticize him, he does it all the time. He calls
Speaker 1: people like me vermin and the enemy within. We still
Speaker 1: have the right in this country to our First Amendment
Speaker 1: to criticize politicians and the president. In Russia, you will
Speaker 1: be murdered if you do that. That's what makes him
Speaker 1: a dictator. That's part of what makes him a dictator.
Speaker 1: And the point I was trying to make was was
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump has right. And I'm not saying you're
Speaker 1: a Trump apologist, but Donald Trump has rolled out the
Speaker 1: red carpet for an evil dictator on American soil. To
Speaker 1: this day, no Russian sanctions. In fact, they've blamed Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Now I know, I guess we disagree on what's going
Speaker 1: on in Ukraine. But Donald Trump's foreign policy is a joke.
Speaker 1: The world is laughing at us right now when it
Speaker 1: comes to tariffs, the one hundred and seventy five billion
Speaker 1: dollars that he stole from the American people, and now
Speaker 1: we were told we were going to get tariff checks
Speaker 1: and now it's turned into well, you can sue us
Speaker 1: if you'd like to. I can go policy by policy
Speaker 1: with you. Ice. I agree that because I'm sure this
Speaker 1: is a topic that you talk about a lot, which
Speaker 1: is immigration. I am pro border security. I want people
Speaker 1: to come to this country legally. However, I don't want
Speaker 1: people that have been in this country for decades, that
Speaker 1: pay taxes, that have families here sent to an L
Speaker 1: Salvador prison. That's happened. Not everybody was nonviolent, but the
Speaker 1: majority of those people, I think it was over sixty
Speaker 1: percent of the people that they sent to an El
Speaker 1: Salvador prison were non violent criminals. I don't want people
Speaker 1: murdered in the streets. What happened in Minneapolis is a travesty.
Speaker 1: What happened to Renee Good and Alex Pretty is repugnant.
Speaker 1: It's terrible. And then you had christinoam who is no
Speaker 1: longer there now, who called them domestic terrorists hours after
Speaker 1: these shootings without a full investigation, and by the way,
Speaker 1: the evidence proves it. That's why they took that Boveno
Speaker 1: asshole out of Minneapolis, and they took out two or
Speaker 1: three thousand troops. Listen, violent criminals ninety percent of the country.
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans agree if you're a violent criminal and
Speaker 1: you're undocumented, deported, absolutely, I'm on board with that. But
Speaker 1: I have a serious problem with a party that says,
Speaker 1: come on into our country, just do it the right way,
Speaker 1: do it legally. We don't care what the color of
Speaker 1: your skin is. Which is the party that has made
Speaker 1: it more difficult for people to become legal citizens. In
Speaker 1: some cases it takes ten or fifteen years for people
Speaker 1: to be naturalized. The Democrat party has tried to come
Speaker 1: up with a way to make it easier for people
Speaker 1: to get a pathway to citizenship, and meanwhile, Republicans make
Speaker 1: it more difficult. Let's make it easier for people. I
Speaker 1: want them to be vetted, but let's make it a
Speaker 1: little bit easier for people to become citizens, and let's
Speaker 1: give them some more incentives. And if you happen to
Speaker 1: be undocumented and your nonviolent criminal, which I think is important,
Speaker 1: then you have to pay a penalty. But let's come
Speaker 1: up with something that works for the American people. I
Speaker 1: don't think separating families and murdering people on the streets
Speaker 1: is good policy, and that's what the Trump administration has done.
Speaker 1: I would actually just say we don't need immigration really
Speaker 1: at all.
Speaker 3: I think we have enough human resource and capital here
Speaker 3: in the West in America that we don't actually need
Speaker 3: the replace of the indigenous people.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of a war crime in my view.
Speaker 1: This is a known strategy.
Speaker 3: You can read Kelly Greenhill's book, She's Like, she writes
Speaker 3: for Cornell University. I think weapons of mass migration. So
Speaker 3: this is a known geopolitical strategy technique to change the
Speaker 3: people groups. Specifically with Europe, you have the Colergy plan.
Speaker 3: I've read Kudnov Clergy It's real. His book Practical Idealism
Speaker 3: discusses this explicitly that plan was adopted by the Royal
Speaker 3: Society to change the demographics of the European Union, and
Speaker 3: then we have the same situation I think in America
Speaker 3: where you have the flooding of the country with all
Speaker 3: kinds of third world people, to change the demographics, not
Speaker 3: just for political reasons, but I think ultimately for long
Speaker 3: term socialist international reasons.
Speaker 1: So we can give a history lesson on immigration, and
Speaker 1: we can talk about the past, but what I'm talking
Speaker 1: about right now is the future and where this country
Speaker 1: is at right now. Will you agree with me that
Speaker 1: the shootings of Rene Good and Alex Pretty were horrible.
Speaker 1: They weren't handled properly, and we had a woman in
Speaker 1: Chicago who was shot five times, almost died, and everybody
Speaker 1: in Ice, including Donald Trump, Christy Noams, Stephen Miller, everybody,
Speaker 1: based on text messages, were praising this guy for shooting
Speaker 1: this woman five times. They claimed that Ms. Martinez was
Speaker 1: trying to impeding an investigation, and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: when the body camera footage came out, it said the
Speaker 1: total opposite and they were tracted the charges. Did anybody apologize?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: Are those officers still out there? Yes, that's wrong. Can
Speaker 1: we agree that that's wrong?
Speaker 3: I mean, and I don't doubt that in some of
Speaker 3: these situations, you have absolutely horrible mistakes like that. I
Speaker 3: would probably agree with that, But and I don't know
Speaker 3: the specific of those cases because I'm more focused on
Speaker 3: the bigger you'll pay you watch.
Speaker 1: You're saying, oh, we don't need a history lesson.
Speaker 3: I actually do need a history lesson because if what
Speaker 3: I'm talking about is true, then there's a longer, broader strategy.
Speaker 1: You don't want immigrants in here at all, there's a
Speaker 1: long we don't need any more. No, so you want
Speaker 1: to just close the borders for everybody? Yeah, sure, okay,
Speaker 1: Well obviously I disagree with you one.
Speaker 3: Okay, but that's fine. But Uh, the the reason that
Speaker 3: I'm saying that is because there is a real long
Speaker 3: term socialist strategy to change the demographics of the entire West,
Speaker 3: and these documents point to that.
Speaker 1: It cell goes oct what does it matter to you
Speaker 1: where where someone comes from?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: What does it matter?
Speaker 3: You know, the people's heritage and tradition makes sense. All
Speaker 3: the people who come here, all the people that come
Speaker 3: here certainly believe that what is it? What does it
Speaker 3: matter where somebody was from. So long as the example,
Speaker 3: as long as if they have Sunni ISLAMI believes it
Speaker 3: matters quite a bit.
Speaker 1: Okay, But if they're not breaking the law and they're
Speaker 1: decent people and their family people, why is it.
Speaker 3: It's way more complex than that, because, for example, in Islam,
Speaker 3: they have the idea and belief that you pretend to
Speaker 3: be a minimal and affable to the society that you're
Speaker 3: going into, and then over time, when you gain power,
Speaker 3: then you overthrow them.
Speaker 1: That's in the Quran. Okay, Well, so that's one example.
Speaker 1: Do you have any friends, to have any friends? No,
Speaker 1: that's not what I know you. I didn't mean interact,
Speaker 1: But do you do you? Interaction is one thing, but like,
Speaker 1: do you do you spend time with people of Muslim? Okay,
Speaker 1: so I have and I didn't. I didn't say you
Speaker 1: didn't have friends. That I misspoke. That's fine. But I
Speaker 1: can tell you that I know a lot of people
Speaker 1: that are Muslim that live in this country, maybe a
Speaker 1: couple dozen, and they're good people. They're nice people, they're
Speaker 1: family people. Not every Muslim wants harm on America. Not
Speaker 1: every Muslim it is a terrorist. But there are people
Speaker 1: on the right that do. Laura Lumer thinks that all
Speaker 1: Muslims should be deported. She is despicable. She is a racist. Now,
Speaker 1: I disagree with you on the fact that you don't
Speaker 1: want any immigrants in this country at all. But I
Speaker 1: will say this, every single time Donald Trump says make
Speaker 1: America great again, it always meant to me, make America
Speaker 1: white again. That's what I believe many in his base
Speaker 1: beliefs would racist. Yes, yes, but you're saying race isn't wrong.
Speaker 1: Absolutely it's wrong. And I'm saying his slogan, and a
Speaker 1: lot of people that abide by his slogan want America
Speaker 1: to be white. And and I and I I don't
Speaker 1: know about you just said, what's wrong with the people
Speaker 1: coming here? I don't see anything wrong with people from
Speaker 1: what's wrong with them having their heritage and their tradition.
Speaker 1: It depends specifically what you're talking about. But if they're
Speaker 1: not breaking the law, then let them believe in what they're.
Speaker 3: What's wrong with people who are white having their heritage
Speaker 3: in their tradition, if they're not breaking the law.
Speaker 1: Okay, I don't have a problem with that either. But
Speaker 1: what you're saying to me is you don't want any
Speaker 1: immigrants country. Okay, but I think that's wrong. Does Japan
Speaker 1: have to take in third world people? First of all?
Speaker 1: That makes do they have to That's that's a different country.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the United States. What makes is this
Speaker 1: a universal principle? No? I believe the United States, the
Speaker 1: United States of America was particular just to America. We
Speaker 1: live in the United States. So I'm going to speak
Speaker 1: on what I want here in the country applies to
Speaker 1: people in America, doesn't apply to our country. In a
Speaker 1: perse relative in a perfect world, it's arbitrary. In a
Speaker 1: perfect arbitrary, I'm answering you. In a perfect world, I
Speaker 1: would love the entire world to operate in a state
Speaker 1: of live where you want to live, have the religion
Speaker 1: that you want. And I don't want people to be
Speaker 1: judged based on religion ors sing j in a perfect world?
Speaker 1: Should they in a perfect world? I want want every
Speaker 1: You talk about this world, so should they in this world? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think everybody of every country should take in immigrants.
Speaker 1: I think untold infinity as long as you're vetted properly. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, listen, I come from a different cloth,
Speaker 1: I guess and in my personal opinion, I don't care
Speaker 1: what you look like. I don't care what the color
Speaker 1: of your skin is unless I don't care. No, you're
Speaker 1: not letting me finished. No, it has something to do
Speaker 1: with that I want. It's a double center. No, it's
Speaker 1: not a double standard. You're not hearing me out. I
Speaker 1: don't care where you're from. You could be white, you
Speaker 1: could be black. I don't care. You could be as
Speaker 1: one hundred percent white like me. I want everyone to
Speaker 1: have the same opportunities as long as you're vetted properly. Yes,
Speaker 1: I do want border secure. I want people to be vetted.
Speaker 1: But the difference, to the fundamental difference here is I
Speaker 1: don't care where you're from as long as you don't
Speaker 1: have bad intention. It's crazy you don't care about that.
Speaker 1: But that wasn't the question.
Speaker 3: The questions about the ethics of an entire country taking
Speaker 3: in massive amounts of other third world migrants, that was
Speaker 3: the question.
Speaker 1: First of all, it's dependent upon are they coming in
Speaker 1: the right way. It's dependent upon are they properly vetted.
Speaker 1: It's dependent upon where are they going to go? Are
Speaker 1: they going to be able to provide something to the
Speaker 1: United States? Tools and skills that they have. That's part
Speaker 1: of the vetting process. So as long as you're doing
Speaker 1: that properly, and we don't have bad people, which I
Speaker 1: don't want. I don't want bad people coming here. I
Speaker 1: don't want people that want to do harm to America.
Speaker 1: I don't want rapists or child molesters, or quite frankly,
Speaker 1: people that you support like Donald Trump. I don't want
Speaker 1: people like that in this country. And if they're properly,
Speaker 1: I'm being serious that. I know it's funny, but I'm
Speaker 1: being serious. I don't want people like Donald Trump, your
Speaker 1: orange people like Donald Trump, who are thirty four count
Speaker 1: fellow liable sexual abusers, people that you support like Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: who's named thousands of times in the Epstein files. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't want people like that in this country. I
Speaker 1: don't care what the color of their skin is, like you,
Speaker 1: I don't care where what country they're from. I don't
Speaker 1: want people in this country like Donald Trump. And I
Speaker 1: can give you multiple reasons why you voted for a
Speaker 1: thirty four count villain. You voted for a liable sexual abuser.
Speaker 1: Why are you so worried about people from other countries
Speaker 1: coming here? When the guy who you support the president
Speaker 1: of the United States is like a fallacy machine. No,
Speaker 1: it's not a fallacy machine, it's logic.
Speaker 3: Don't Well, you don't actually know what fallacies are because
Speaker 3: you demonstrated that earlier. You don't know what appealed to
Speaker 3: masses was I know.
Speaker 1: I know what someone who is a threat to this
Speaker 1: country looks like, and I know what's someone who is
Speaker 1: not an immigrant.
Speaker 3: You think that massive amounts of people should be able
Speaker 3: to come into the country. So I don't think you
Speaker 3: actually have a good assessment of what threats are. I
Speaker 3: don't think you have a good assure your situation would
Speaker 3: allow for the complete disintegration.
Speaker 1: I don't think you have a good assessment of what's
Speaker 1: good for this country and what's not. You want you
Speaker 1: you want our border. Your assessment was based on he
Speaker 1: was purely subjective. What you want. You want our borders
Speaker 1: to be closed. You don't want any good for the country. Okay,
Speaker 1: so countries that have voting for Donald Trump, but voting
Speaker 1: tru is good for the country. That's good for the country.
Speaker 1: Give it what he can starting. Yeah, so yeah, but
Speaker 1: he's not doing that. He's who cares what this guy? Actually?
Speaker 1: Were you calling me out for voting for what he campaign.
Speaker 1: You want good people? Trying to associate me with a
Speaker 1: bad guy again, which, well, yeah, because you support him
Speaker 1: and you voted for him, you have no problem supporting
Speaker 1: up going with his policies already. What about his behavior?
Speaker 1: You want good people in this country, You don't want migrants.
Speaker 1: Politicians have crazy behavior. Right, gave me another politician that's
Speaker 1: ever been the president that's a thirty four count felon,
Speaker 1: that's a liable sexual abuser. Please give me one example.
Speaker 1: Jay Uh, Well, I don't know the number of because
Speaker 1: because you couldn't find that. Because you couldn't find that,
Speaker 1: I don't defend Bill Clinton. You can try the what about?
Speaker 1: I mean what about? You asked me how would that be?
Speaker 1: What about? To answer your question, it was Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: a thirty four count film. I didn't say he was.
Speaker 1: I said there is probably nobody with thirty four counts
Speaker 1: or whatever. Yeah, you voted for that guy. Well, you
Speaker 1: asked him that.
Speaker 3: Absurd question to give a specific person who has thirty
Speaker 3: four felons, which obviously there's not a person.
Speaker 1: Well admit that with respect. I think it's a absurd
Speaker 1: when you say you want our borders closed and you
Speaker 1: don't want but it's coming here. Why because the other
Speaker 1: countries we founded, I'm telling you we were founded by immigrants.
Speaker 1: But about this found I'm giving you my full explanation.
Speaker 1: We were My my personal opinion is that I want
Speaker 1: it's the land of opportunity, and I believe that if
Speaker 1: you're vetted and you're you know, you're not a criminal,
Speaker 1: we should give everybody the opportunities to succeed in this country.
Speaker 1: You go through the process of becoming a legal citizen.
Speaker 1: There are a ton of immigrants that have come to
Speaker 1: this country that have done so many great things for
Speaker 1: this What I was arguing, well, I mean, you just
Speaker 1: want the borders to be completely closed, which I think
Speaker 1: is absurd. Okay, I'm sorry. I just for the countries
Speaker 1: that do that seem to do I just disagree with you.
Speaker 1: I just I just think that And again, you might
Speaker 1: not like the comparison I'm making here, but I think
Speaker 1: it's important. You seem to have a concern and you
Speaker 1: think it's bad for the country to have immigrants coming
Speaker 1: here no infinity immigrant. Yeah, Well again, you know, I
Speaker 1: think maybe there needs to be something put in place.
Speaker 1: But you've made the case that you don't want immigrants
Speaker 1: here at all. You want to close the borders completely, right,
Speaker 1: it's not needed? Yeah, well, I mean there's a lot
Speaker 1: of things that you might think is not needed. But
Speaker 1: how does that affect you negatively if immigrants are coming up.
Speaker 1: I'm not arguing for what effects mean personally. I'm just
Speaker 1: for America country in general.
Speaker 3: Countries that have homogeneous populations that keep to their traditions
Speaker 3: and their heritage seem to flourish and function better than
Speaker 3: those that are demographically changed. Hence why I was referring
Speaker 3: back to the older strategies of the War College and
Speaker 3: others that are written about how to do demographic replacement,
Speaker 3: which is a form of warfare.
Speaker 1: Do you think immigrants, all undocumented immigrants that are in
Speaker 1: this country now should all be deported? Yes? So people
Speaker 1: that have lived in this country for decades that have
Speaker 1: children here. How about anchor babies? Do you think they
Speaker 1: should be deported as well? I would want the law
Speaker 1: to be changed on that. Yes, So you think that
Speaker 1: if you're a three or a four year old child
Speaker 1: that was born in this country, they should be deported?
Speaker 1: Unfortunately you do? Okay, Well, I think that's extremely harsh,
Speaker 1: and I disagree with you. By the way, if you're
Speaker 1: seeking asylum from a country, you know, from Mexico for example,
Speaker 1: and you're going about it the right way and you
Speaker 1: filled out the right paperwork, it is illegal for the
Speaker 1: Trump administration to deport you. Do you understand that they're
Speaker 1: doing that right now? It is against the law. And
Speaker 1: there they are going against what our constitution says. It's
Speaker 1: happening right now as we speak. You have ICE agents
Speaker 1: outside of courtrooms when they have filled out the proper paperwork.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I think these are your focusing on
Speaker 3: minutia of bad situations that happened the individuals in masses
Speaker 3: of tens of millions of people, when the overall net
Speaker 3: negative for the country is more important than the minutia.
Speaker 3: And you know, one person is a you know, a
Speaker 3: news story, but the statistics of millions of people get forgotten.
Speaker 3: So it's more important for the long term benefit of
Speaker 3: the country in general than to highlight as the left
Speaker 3: off and does I'm not saying you're a leftist, but
Speaker 3: they highlight specific cases to do emotional peals and so
Speaker 3: like you've done in this debates, a lot of emotional PILs,
Speaker 3: which also fallacy.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's emotional to say that the president
Speaker 1: is ripping up parts of the constitution and breaking the law.
Speaker 1: Those are breaking the laws emotions, Those are emotional appeals.
Speaker 1: Does it say that we all have What does it
Speaker 1: say in our constitutions say every citizen has the right
Speaker 1: to do process? Or or any every person? What does
Speaker 1: it say? Uh?
Speaker 3: Off the top of my head, I don't recall, but
Speaker 3: I kind of important. I would assume its citizens.
Speaker 1: No, you're wrong. In our constitution it says any person
Speaker 1: has the right to do process. This is really fundamentally important. Okay,
Speaker 1: but they also didn't have the idea of infinity open borders.
Speaker 1: Okay at the time, again you use the term infinity,
Speaker 1: but you said you don't want any immigrants coming into
Speaker 1: the country, So that's different than infinity. My solution to
Speaker 1: infinity is the closing of the borders, Right, you want
Speaker 1: the borders closed and you don't want any immigrants coming in.
Speaker 1: And the point that I was trying to make is
Speaker 1: if you care about our constitution, which I hope you do.
Speaker 1: I do as well, it says in our Constitution our forefathers,
Speaker 1: it says not any citizen has the right to do process.
Speaker 1: It says any person and as much as your person
Speaker 1: also can be a lawbreaker and people that are here
Speaker 1: absolutely absolutely, but that doesn't mean they don't have the
Speaker 1: right to do process.
Speaker 3: That's what it says in our constitution. Well, yeah, I
Speaker 3: wouldn't have a problem trying to that and do uh
Speaker 3: do process.
Speaker 1: But they're not doing that. Jay, Well, that's I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I mean, I didn't. I didn't. I didn't defend that specifically,
Speaker 1: but just now asked me about that. Okay, but you're
Speaker 1: saying that any child that is.
Speaker 3: Born, I said specifically, highlighting certain emotionally charged cases is
Speaker 3: neglecting the bigger problem. And that's what the left tends
Speaker 3: to do in this topic is highlight the emotional appeal
Speaker 3: topics about this child or that child, which is unfortunate,
Speaker 3: but it's.
Speaker 1: Not the big issue.
Speaker 3: The big issue is I'm sorry going Well, I'm saying
Speaker 3: in philosophy and emotional appeal is where you cite a
Speaker 3: specific example and then you expand that to the to
Speaker 3: the totality and say that on the basis of how
Speaker 3: you feel about this specific example, you should sway your opinion.
Speaker 3: So the reason it's the fallacies that's not actually based
Speaker 3: on the logic of the situation. It's based on what
Speaker 3: what you feel the war propaganda does.
Speaker 1: That's where they say, look at this child, he was
Speaker 1: killed in the war, therefore be against the war. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm just talking about our constitution in the lawn. No,
Speaker 1: you weren't. You were talking about I wasecific emotionally charge case. Now,
Speaker 1: I was specifically talking about what it says in the constitution.
Speaker 1: You talked about mostly charge cases. Then you ask me
Speaker 1: about that I'm asking you about and I was responding
Speaker 1: to the law which states if you are from certain
Speaker 1: countries like Mexico and you're seeking asylum, and you come
Speaker 1: to this country and you fill out the proper paperwork,
Speaker 1: and you're in the middle of that process, and you
Speaker 1: show up in front of a judge, it is illegal
Speaker 1: for the Trump administration to deport you. And the point
Speaker 1: that I was trying to make is this isn't a
Speaker 1: one off for a couple of cases. Thousands of people
Speaker 1: have been deported in the middle of the paperwork process,
Speaker 1: where in our own constitution it says they cannot deport
Speaker 1: you if you're seeking asylum from certain countries. It's against
Speaker 1: the law. That's not an emotional argument, but it's a
Speaker 1: law that's being.
Speaker 3: Broke thousands of cases versus ten twenty thirty million people
Speaker 3: that are here illegally in the last few decades. Again,
Speaker 3: it's that's highlighting something that's not the main issue. So
Speaker 3: it's more important to save the country than to be
Speaker 3: an overly concerned I don't think these people.
Speaker 1: Are ruining the country and our country needs to be saved.
Speaker 1: In fact, per case, I disagree. Okay, well, do you
Speaker 1: have a better chance of being the victim of a
Speaker 1: crime from an undocumented immigrant or American citizen depends on
Speaker 1: where you are. Okay, now, you know to certain places
Speaker 1: where there are no there's going to be more crime
Speaker 1: in certain cities. But as a whole, and you could
Speaker 1: look this up FBI statistics, you have a better chance
Speaker 1: of being the victim of a crime from an American
Speaker 1: citizen than you do an undocumented immigrant. I think that's
Speaker 1: very important to note because a lot of people think
Speaker 1: that brown people and undocumented emigrant's coming into this country
Speaker 1: are going to rape your kids and they're going to
Speaker 1: kidnap your wife. It's just not the case. There are
Speaker 1: examples there are examples of undocumented immigrants that do horrible things.
Speaker 1: I want those people to ported. I don't want them here.
Speaker 1: But the overwhelming majority of these people that are coming
Speaker 1: into this country, that are here already, many of them
Speaker 1: you know, that are undocumented, are not bad people with
Speaker 1: bad intentions. I want bad people, uh thrown out of
Speaker 1: the true But it's still illegal. Yeah, okay, okay, so
Speaker 1: it's against the law. Yeah so you think so. Your
Speaker 1: your opinion is if you break the law, there should
Speaker 1: be consequences. Is that a fair assessment? Sure? What are
Speaker 1: the consequences for Donald Trump, the man who you support.
Speaker 1: You're laughing, but it's I mean.
Speaker 3: Because you're trying to pay me as if I'm some
Speaker 3: sort of like, well, no, every single policy.
Speaker 1: This isn't about policy. This is about concept. Now you're
Speaker 1: changing between when I told you I was an issues person.
Speaker 1: You say I'm a Trump apologist. I did not say
Speaker 1: you're a trumpopolicy said the man that you support, And
Speaker 1: I'm like, yeah, no on specific issues issue person. Okay,
Speaker 1: so let's talk about this. And I already agreed that
Speaker 1: let's forget about the fact that you've because it's hypocrisy.
Speaker 1: You want people held to the highest hold on I'll
Speaker 1: explain to you what I mean, and I'm not. I
Speaker 1: don't think you're a Trump apologist. I don't think you are.
Speaker 1: Based on the twenty minutes i've known you, I don't
Speaker 1: think you are. But you want people to be held
Speaker 1: to account. If it's somebody, by the way, it's a misdemeanor.
Speaker 1: If you come into this country legally, it's not even
Speaker 1: a felony. But but you want people to held to
Speaker 1: the highest extent of the law in this case of misdemeanor. Okay, fine.
Speaker 3: I believe for the for the maintenance and safety and
Speaker 3: health of the country, because I think the country will collapse.
Speaker 1: Do you do you agree with me? I disagree with that,
Speaker 1: But do you agree with me that we should have
Speaker 1: that same standard held to the highest people in power,
Speaker 1: including Donald Trump? Yeah? I think everybody, nobody should be
Speaker 1: immune to to or above the wall. Sure do you
Speaker 1: think that standard has held up when it comes to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump in the thirty four count felony felonies that
Speaker 1: he was found guilty of or the Jack Smith case?
Speaker 1: Uh January sixth, Let me ask you another question. Since
Speaker 1: we're talking about the law, do you do you think
Speaker 1: January sixth happens. If Donald Trump doesn't lie about the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election, would January six have happened? Yeah? If
Speaker 1: Donald Trump didn't lie, which clearly it was a lie,
Speaker 1: I don't care what Alex Jones says. If Donald Trump
Speaker 1: didn't lie about the twenty twenty election because he didn't win,
Speaker 1: does January sixth happen? I have no idea. You have
Speaker 1: no idea, all right, Hypothetically speaking to you, asked me
Speaker 1: a lot of questions I want to ask. Can I
Speaker 1: just touch on this? But I want to use some
Speaker 1: interrogation as well. Fair enough you can, as you can
Speaker 1: ask me anything you like. Last question, well, to this issue.
Speaker 1: You're telling me that if Donald Trump did what every
Speaker 1: other president did in American history, which was concede, which
Speaker 1: he didn't do, you think January sixth still happens and
Speaker 1: people are trying to overthrow a free and fair election.
Speaker 1: You can't add answer that question. You don't know.
Speaker 3: It's just an argument from silence. I don't know what
Speaker 3: would have happened had this major event not occurred.
Speaker 1: So if he conceded and did what every other president did,
Speaker 1: you still think January sixth happens, and they stormed the
Speaker 1: capin on their saying, I don't know what would have happened. Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe it does, it happen, Maybe it's less likely. Who
Speaker 1: won the twenty twenty election free and fair? I believe
Speaker 1: there's manipulation. I think most elections are manipulation. Okay, who
Speaker 1: won the election? Free and fair? Did Joe Biden win
Speaker 1: a free and fair election? No? Is there any evidence
Speaker 1: of widespread voter front that you can share with us today?
Speaker 1: This is my opinion. I don't spend a whole lot
Speaker 1: of time focusing on voter fraud or voter election issues
Speaker 1: because I'm not really into day to day politics, but
Speaker 1: studying the history of the CIA the way it works,
Speaker 1: I think that they can easily tap into their techniques
Speaker 1: for regime change and throwing elections. Donald Trump win the
Speaker 1: Donald Trump win the twenty twenty four election free and fair? Then?
Speaker 1: Or would you hold that same standard and maybekommonalt No.
Speaker 1: I think that Trump had overwhelming popular so so it's
Speaker 1: only free and fair if Donald Trump wins. But I
Speaker 1: just gave you my opinion based on what though there's
Speaker 1: no evidence of widespread voter for he had chances my
Speaker 1: opinion on how the CIA riggs elections. But go ahead,
Speaker 1: So a lot of what you've argued, you keep saying
Speaker 1: my opinion, my opinion, my opinion. I'm just curious, like
Speaker 1: where on what basis ought we go with your opinion
Speaker 1: on what which opinion? Every topic tonight has come back
Speaker 1: to your specific specific on what what what topics in general?
Speaker 1: On the on what basis ought we to choose your opinions? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, it's not an opinion, but you said
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration is breaking the law.
Speaker 3: I've already clearly why we know, why ought we do
Speaker 3: this or that for the country. For example, you said
Speaker 3: that we ought to have certain types of immigration that's legal,
Speaker 3: and this and that, And I'm saying you said this
Speaker 3: was my opinion, my opinion, my opinion, And I'm saying,
Speaker 3: why ought we do that? Because you didn't apply those
Speaker 3: things to other places like Japan? So why ought we
Speaker 3: only go with your assessments?
Speaker 1: America is not Japan? Number two? So why ought we
Speaker 1: care about here? Well, because I care about the country
Speaker 1: that I live. I'm more concerned about the country that
Speaker 1: are the ethics relative or are the universal? It's a question.
Speaker 1: As I've said, I wish that every government across the
Speaker 1: world shared the belief of we are going to vet
Speaker 1: you properly ought to because you wish it was the case. No,
Speaker 1: I just don't care what the color of your skin
Speaker 1: is or where you're from. If you're a decent person,
Speaker 1: I welcome you in my country. So what's a pretty
Speaker 1: fair logical We follow your position? Because it's logical? Why
Speaker 1: ought we follow not being a racist? Because that's kind
Speaker 1: of when I'm I think if you don't want anybody
Speaker 1: from any other country, which is what you have said,
Speaker 1: you want our borders completely shut down. I believe that
Speaker 1: is Unamerican. Okay. The beauty of this country is that
Speaker 1: we have the freedom and others have the freedom to
Speaker 1: make something of themselves so wherever they come from. And
Speaker 1: I think that's a beautiful thing about the United So
Speaker 1: I can't speak for Japan. Why ought we follow that though?
Speaker 1: Because you because you like it, you think it's beautiful.
Speaker 1: Why this country was founded on that our freedom? Many
Speaker 1: countries have founded on all kinds of things that are stupid.
Speaker 1: So your reasoning is the country is going to go
Speaker 1: down the crapper if we that's that's your reasoning behind it,
Speaker 1: and I okay, so fine, my reasoning is dumb, but
Speaker 1: I want to know why we have to follows dumb.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, why are we follow yours? Because we
Speaker 1: have been following it for decades and I think we're
Speaker 1: the best country in the world for for a very
Speaker 1: very long time. Circular argument following, because I do believe
Speaker 1: the immigrants have a lot of benefits to the United
Speaker 1: States of America. You're not telling me why we ought
Speaker 1: to follow that. Well, produce jobs that immigrants take, that
Speaker 1: most Americans are not willing to take, working for wages
Speaker 1: that and Americans they help the economy. There's no question
Speaker 1: that it helps the Why are those things? So? In
Speaker 1: other words, you're assuming that there's this good that you
Speaker 1: have access to the different cultures I think is good.
Speaker 1: I think I think learning different cultures and uh, I
Speaker 1: think what's made America great is being uh for, for
Speaker 1: lack of a better term, I'm a mixt of different
Speaker 1: colors in the crayon box and being diverse. I think
Speaker 1: diversity is a good thing, and I don't.
Speaker 3: I said, so there's a standard of the good, which
Speaker 3: originally was what you said was your opinion and you
Speaker 3: think that it works, and this and that's the standard.
Speaker 1: Brown people scary. So now you're asking questions when I well, yeah,
Speaker 1: because I don't understand your logic to this. You said
Speaker 1: America is going to go down. You're deflecting away from
Speaker 1: the fact that your position objective. I'm not deflecting. Are
Speaker 1: they relative? Are they subjective opinions not based on on
Speaker 1: crime and statistics and and the benefits that the economy
Speaker 1: UH has toward ethics? Are they subjective? Yah? But I
Speaker 1: was talking about the economy of numbers ethics. What about
Speaker 1: the ethics? Is your ethics subjective and relative or is
Speaker 1: it objective? Yeah? I think there are people out there
Speaker 1: that could disagree with me that are maybe don't like
Speaker 1: brown people. I think there are people out there that
Speaker 1: have different opinions that think that brown people are I
Speaker 1: guess I guess you could make the case. I guess
Speaker 1: you could make the case it's subjective. I guess you
Speaker 1: can make that case. I mean, some people could say
Speaker 1: the Klan isn't racist. I guess that's subjective to you
Speaker 1: could make the case. You could make the case. I
Speaker 1: know what's subjective means? What does it mean, I know
Speaker 1: what it means. I understand what it means. And this
Speaker 1: is see, this is sean. I'm not sure that they
Speaker 1: do so in terms of relativism and what is that?
Speaker 1: What do you think that this is? Okay, I'll answer
Speaker 1: your question, but this is this is the Andrew Wilson approach. Well,
Speaker 1: I've been doing this debate for twenty five years, I know,
Speaker 1: and you can be doing it for one hundred years.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean anything to me, means dick. Okay, so
Speaker 1: let's continue the conversation. I don't have to have as
Speaker 1: no no, no, no no. This is a word game
Speaker 1: that you're trying to play with me. So I do
Speaker 1: and ethics games. You can say all racism is word games.
Speaker 1: To the point that I'm trying to say for the
Speaker 1: good and you're saying it's a word game. So your
Speaker 1: position is based on I've told you you're not listening.
Speaker 1: First of all, it's a benefit to the economy. Why
Speaker 1: is that a show you in the question what's the good?
Speaker 1: Why is it a benefit that it people help our economy?
Speaker 3: You have a reference to the good in all of
Speaker 3: these assertions, and I'm asking you what is this good?
Speaker 3: Because you just keep saying. Then you said admitted that
Speaker 3: it's objective and it's relative. Well, and that case, then
Speaker 3: there's no reason to prefer to offer that on anyone else.
Speaker 1: Well, I would ask you the same question, why is
Speaker 1: it bad? I don't believe in subjective ethics? Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: why is it bad for the country? Why are immigrants
Speaker 1: bad for the United States of America?
Speaker 3: Why do you want to close I already argued that
Speaker 3: because a massive influx of other people that are not
Speaker 3: indigenous to this population replaces the it's demographic.
Speaker 1: Don't we have a First Amendment right to believe? We
Speaker 1: believe that. So you want to take the first Amendment?
Speaker 1: I want to say that your ethics comes from the Constitution.
Speaker 1: That's fine, you want to take. I'm asking you, though,
Speaker 1: people that are in this country that are not from America,
Speaker 1: you don't believe they should have a First Amendment right
Speaker 1: to believe something differently than you when it comes to
Speaker 1: religion or beliefs. Certainly you misunderstood the question. So the
Speaker 1: question wasn't are there people who have different positions or
Speaker 1: do they have a right to different position? The question was,
Speaker 1: what's the epstemic basis you have for your ethics, which
Speaker 1: was purely subjective. Yeah, do you know? Well then I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, if it's purely subjective, then in debate,
Speaker 1: then you But no, I've not conceded anything. What I'm
Speaker 1: trying to tell you is that when it comes to
Speaker 1: immigrants that are in this country relative I'm talking about
Speaker 1: legal immigrants. I can give you statistics that show you
Speaker 1: that it benefit follow your position. I'm telling you because
Speaker 1: you don't want our economy to be boosted.
Speaker 3: You know you don't understand that question is about why
Speaker 3: ought we follow it? Not just to restate what the
Speaker 3: position is.
Speaker 1: Why ought we follow it? Because it's why should we
Speaker 1: because you've already said it's relative and subjectives? Why should
Speaker 1: we not close our borders? And why does Brian believe
Speaker 1: that we should allow people from other countries in? As
Speaker 1: I've told you before and I'll tell you again.
Speaker 3: So again, it's a higher level order of questioning. That's
Speaker 3: about the basis for the ethics, not to restate your
Speaker 3: position again, but why ought we follow your position? When
Speaker 3: you then admitted that your position is relative and suspective.
Speaker 1: I've told you that I don't think immigrants coming into
Speaker 1: this country as a whole are bad for the United
Speaker 1: States of America. I've stated my position there, which is
Speaker 1: based on the good, but you don't know what the
Speaker 1: good is. Well, I've told you already, which is benefit
Speaker 1: to our economy. I believe diversity position. So you're saying,
Speaker 1: what is the case, this is the case, this is
Speaker 1: the case.
Speaker 3: But why ought we follow your subjective, relativistic argument, Because
Speaker 3: when you come to debate and you admit that it's relative, ye,
Speaker 3: then well then there's no reason to follow it.
Speaker 1: Well, listen, you come from the cloth of you want
Speaker 1: our borders to be completely closed and we can play
Speaker 1: word games. You are, and the reason why is the
Speaker 1: reason why I disagree with you. Instead of getting into
Speaker 1: a philosophical debate, which I'm not here to do, I'm
Speaker 1: telling you that in my personal opinion, it's my opinion.
Speaker 1: I don't have a problem with anybody from other parts
Speaker 1: of the world, from different cultures and different backgrounds and
Speaker 1: different religions coming into this country, so long as they're
Speaker 1: properly vetted and we know they're not criminals and they
Speaker 1: have good intentions. I don't think that's a threat to
Speaker 1: the United States of America. Now you do you think
Speaker 1: it's bad for America. You think it's a threat to America.
Speaker 1: I disagree with you. I've given you multiple reasons why.
Speaker 1: First of all, a lot of these people are good
Speaker 1: for our economy. They're hard workers, they want a better
Speaker 1: life for it themselves. I think diversity is a good thing.
Speaker 1: I don't want everybody to look like you and me.
Speaker 1: I think diversity is good for the country. Now you
Speaker 1: can say, well, you know that's just your opinion and
Speaker 1: you're you're not basing it on anything. Well, you can
Speaker 1: base it on the crime rates. You could base it
Speaker 1: on how it benefits our economy, the financial numbers. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of different ways. You know, why should
Speaker 1: we follow All those things are assertions about what are
Speaker 1: the cases? Well, tell me why should we follow you?
Speaker 1: Why should we follow you? I've answered your question. You
Speaker 1: might not like my answer. Why should we follow you?
Speaker 1: And why should we close the orders completely? If the
Speaker 1: ethics that you prefer are relative and subjective, then in
Speaker 1: a debate, that means that anyone can just state the
Speaker 1: exact opposite and it's just as legitimate as your position.
Speaker 1: To me, this isn't about winning a debate. This isn't
Speaker 1: about to me when I come to a conversation. It's
Speaker 1: not about playing word games. It's not about talking about philosophy.
Speaker 1: Would you think it's because that's what we're doing now.
Speaker 1: I want you to explain to me why it's so bad,
Speaker 1: so you just don't want to get drilled into your
Speaker 1: position to give the basis. It's not about me being
Speaker 1: afraid of anything. I want to know. I want to
Speaker 1: know why position based on good I gave you. I
Speaker 1: gave you my ma I gave you, I gave you
Speaker 1: my reasons. Why I think immigrants coming into this country
Speaker 1: as a whole. That's just like I'm telling you, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what this entire thing is about. It's about opinion.
Speaker 1: I'm okay, Well, you can have a different way of
Speaker 1: talking to people, and you have that right to do that,
Speaker 1: but I don't play that game. So I'm asking you
Speaker 1: why why do you want the borders closed? And why
Speaker 1: do you think immigrants all over the world are so
Speaker 1: bad for America? Tell me why.
Speaker 3: I argue and explained that earlier that the demographic replacement
Speaker 3: of a people group is a form of genocide and warfare.
Speaker 1: So just igrants, I would just know, I said, mass
Speaker 1: amounts of infinity immorants, not legalized immigrants, and not reasonable
Speaker 1: sensible numbers of people. Sure that makes sense, that's not
Speaker 1: what you said earlier. You want the borders closed, you
Speaker 1: don't want any immigrants. That's the case right now, decision.
Speaker 1: So right now, you think would be a wise decision
Speaker 1: to not allow anybody from other countries I come into
Speaker 1: this country legally because you think there would be genocide.
Speaker 3: No, I said that bringing in infinity amounts of people
Speaker 3: is a form of genocide, is demographic replacement, and that's
Speaker 3: what I disagree with. So that's why I would say
Speaker 3: that the present policy would be wise to completely in
Speaker 3: immigration at this stage.
Speaker 1: So people that are on student pieces or you would
Speaker 1: you be against that as well. People, it's I'm talking
Speaker 1: about the masses of people, and so yes, all of it.
Speaker 3: I mean a lot of the for example, Chinese foreign
Speaker 3: change students, A lot of those people are spies anyway,
Speaker 3: So yeah.
Speaker 2: So of it.
Speaker 1: Didn't Trump say he wanted to bring in six hundred
Speaker 1: thousand Chinese because that was a mistake because in his
Speaker 1: first administration he said I want to cut off.
Speaker 4: These Chinese students. A lot of these people are Chinese spies,
Speaker 4: probably not wise to do so.
Speaker 3: Again, I disagree with Trump rehearsing on that. That's by
Speaker 3: the way. That's another one I disagree with. Okay, up, immigration, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 3: I really don't know what else to say. Obviously, I
Speaker 3: disagree with him, Obviously. I want people to be vetted properly.
Speaker 3: I think there's a lot of good people all over
Speaker 3: the world that make America great. I have a lot
Speaker 3: of friends that come from other countries, wonderful people. I
Speaker 3: have friends that are from the faith of Islam. I
Speaker 3: don't come from the cloth of judging somebody by where
Speaker 3: they're from. I judge them on their character. I think
Speaker 3: Alex Jones is just as much of a threat to
Speaker 3: the United States of America. I think Donald Trump is
Speaker 3: just as much of a threat to the United States
Speaker 3: of America than the overwhelming majority of immigrants that come
Speaker 3: to this country.
Speaker 1: You ask me, I think we should deport Alex Jones.
Speaker 1: I think we should support your buddy to Gaza. I
Speaker 1: think Alex Jones is a piece of shit. I think
Speaker 1: we should deport Donald Trump to Gaza. I think he's
Speaker 1: a piece of shit. These are people that you surround
Speaker 1: yourself with. This is people that you vote for. I
Speaker 1: think those people are far more dangerous to the United
Speaker 1: States of America than a lot of the people that
Speaker 1: you're talking about that you don't want here. That's my
Speaker 1: personal opinion. I think there are bigger threats in the
Speaker 1: United States of America people that look like you than
Speaker 1: anybody that looks brown that comes into this country. You know,
Speaker 1: hopefully what's up. Racism is wrong? Right? Yeah, how am
Speaker 1: I being racist? Well you just divided up your assessments
Speaker 1: on the basis of yeah, because you are very concerned
Speaker 1: with people is wrong. Yeah, absolutely, racism is wrong. I
Speaker 1: have no problem with white people racism right now. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not. I'm doing orange people. I don't care what
Speaker 1: the color of skin Donald Trump is. Yeah, because you
Speaker 1: seem to be having a problem with people that come
Speaker 1: from other backgrounds differently than you. I think that there
Speaker 1: are people all sorts of people, different colors. But racism
Speaker 1: is also subjective or is it morally wrong? In general?
Speaker 1: Racism is terrible, it's wrong. It's horrible. Everybody anybody who's
Speaker 1: a racist. So now you're not a relativists subjectivist. When
Speaker 1: did I ever say that it's okay to be racist?
Speaker 1: It's another word game. No, you either, so either something
Speaker 1: is relative or it's objective. And now racism is objectively
Speaker 1: morally wrong everywhere. But your ethics was relativists and subjectivists.
Speaker 1: So you just I've been very very clear, and I'll
Speaker 1: make it very very simple for you. Racism is wrong
Speaker 1: on what base? This and that was subjective on any basis? No,
Speaker 1: what is your base? When you judge people based on
Speaker 1: your skin color? When you judge people and treat them,
Speaker 1: is that universally morally wrong? I believe so yet Okay,
Speaker 1: but now you're not a relativist or subjectivist.
Speaker 3: Now you're believing in moral universal claims, which you said
Speaker 3: isn't really possible.
Speaker 1: Point that I was trying to make, Jay, So it's
Speaker 1: a contradiction. No, it's not a contradiction the point that
Speaker 1: I was, is it subjective or is it objective? I'm
Speaker 1: going to give you the easy background. Is it subjective?
Speaker 1: I'm going to answer you, but I'm going to give
Speaker 1: it to you. You're going to get around the question
Speaker 1: because because earlier your ethics were subjective and now they're universal,
Speaker 1: so it can't have both. My opinion that when you
Speaker 1: so it's not universal. So it's not universal. So you
Speaker 1: just contradicted So it's not a contradiction what I'm about
Speaker 1: to say it's universal. It's not universal. That's a contradiction.
Speaker 1: What's your definition of what racism is? What about do
Speaker 1: you think it's universal? Is it universal? Right? I don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know even what racism is technically,
Speaker 1: don't know what racism is. Is that a serious statements
Speaker 1: you expect because when people define it, it gets defined
Speaker 1: in a million different ways. And your situation, you just
Speaker 1: did a racist on to me. I'm a bipop person.
Speaker 1: I see that black indigenous personal. I'm sure you are,
Speaker 1: and how there you? So you should be so you
Speaker 1: would want you to be deported them? So let me
Speaker 1: be clear on this, Okay, The reason why I said
Speaker 1: people who look like you is not an attack on
Speaker 1: all white people. The reason why I said that is
Speaker 1: because the reason why I said that, which I think
Speaker 1: you're struggling to understand respect. I don't. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't think there's anything funny when it comes to racism.
Speaker 1: But racism is subjective. But also can call you word
Speaker 1: games are So if I say A and non a,
Speaker 1: is that a word game or is that a contradiction.
Speaker 1: So here's the point that a contradiction, not a second.
Speaker 1: Calm down for a second, don't so logic is relaxed.
Speaker 1: Second is logical. Point that I was trying to make
Speaker 1: was that you seem to think that if we'll allow
Speaker 1: a lot of immigrants coming into this country, yes, it's
Speaker 1: bad for America. The right that I was traveling. The
Speaker 1: point that I was trying to make is people like
Speaker 1: your good friend Alex Jones and people who you voted for,
Speaker 1: like Donald Trump, to me, are probably more of a
Speaker 1: danger to this country than most immigrants that are coming
Speaker 1: into this country. But yet you want to be concerned
Speaker 1: about all these people over the world that you claim
Speaker 1: are got to cause a genocide.
Speaker 3: You assumed that I had no other I mean, I mean,
Speaker 3: but why is Donald Trump or Alex Jones more of
Speaker 3: a threat to the country than millions of.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, first Amendment, first amendment, free speech.
Speaker 1: He attacks people like me on a daily basis with lawsuits,
Speaker 1: civil suits. Yeah, towards people in the media in general,
Speaker 1: media members in general. When you look at the Pentagon
Speaker 1: press briefings, I can give you an example there. I
Speaker 1: know people that are way on the right. Uh, they
Speaker 1: don't allow people like me at these press briefings, and
Speaker 1: they don't allow people in Pentagon press briefings unless right
Speaker 1: wing idiots. And if someone gets in there that is
Speaker 1: on the left or in the middle, Pete Hexth does
Speaker 1: not call on them, that is against our democracy to
Speaker 1: begin with. Anyway, I think that's a joke when you
Speaker 1: look at the White House press briefings and we're just
Speaker 1: talking about the media right now. You ask me about
Speaker 1: the media when you have idiots like Jack pisobic and listen,
Speaker 1: I think Tim Poole, I don't think Timpole's an idiot,
Speaker 1: but I think Tim Poole would agree. He's not a journalist.
Speaker 1: He's a talk show host, just like me. Talk show
Speaker 1: hosts and opinionated people should not be in that room.
Speaker 1: That's not about opinionated people. That should be about strictly
Speaker 1: journalists doing their job. And I find that an attack
Speaker 1: on democracy as well. I think that is a threat
Speaker 1: to democracy. It's a threat to this country. It's a
Speaker 1: threat what happened on January sixth. It's a threat that
Speaker 1: he still has yet to concede an election that was
Speaker 1: not stolen, by the way, there's no evidence of widespread
Speaker 1: voter fraud. You cannot you couldn't articulate that whatever you
Speaker 1: said about the CIA or the FBI or whatever you said. Okay,
Speaker 1: well act so all of a sudden. Now it's okay
Speaker 1: for you to have an opinion, But if I have
Speaker 1: an opinion on that, you're playing word as the justification
Speaker 1: for your what's your justice? I asked for the justicers
Speaker 1: for your morals, which you're not to our opinion. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's fair enough. What's your justification that the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: election was stolen? Let's use your same have a hard
Speaker 1: position on that? Because I said, now you don't have
Speaker 1: a hard position. It's my opinion based on the my
Speaker 1: what's your justification? Why do you keep interrupted me when
Speaker 1: you asked me? But because I don't need a justification
Speaker 1: for my assessment. That's an opinion I don't need. It's
Speaker 1: a different type of question than what's the grounding for
Speaker 1: your ethics? I don't need my justification for an opinion.
Speaker 1: I guess, I guess I could use the same logic
Speaker 1: that you just know for ethics. Okay, not your opinion again,
Speaker 1: what about our justic case where ethics can't be a
Speaker 1: mere opinion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was the argument. Now you're conflating two different
Speaker 3: two different questions. By the way, not to believe in
Speaker 3: democracy much is retarded.
Speaker 1: So you don't think we should have elections.
Speaker 3: I think that elections have been kind of a joke
Speaker 3: for a long time, so I just don't really care
Speaker 3: about them. So it doesn't matter to me whether there's a.
Speaker 1: I don't think we should have elections in this country.
Speaker 1: I'm more I'm more of a monarchist to believe in monarchy. Okay, wow,
Speaker 1: I didn't expect that you don't care about democracy. I
Speaker 1: think democracy, like Plato SAIDs retorted, So democracies, what do
Speaker 1: you mean it's gay baking gay? Can you help me
Speaker 1: understand something I guess we could have. I feel like
Speaker 1: words of Magas supporters, they use homophobic slurs. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying you did that on X to attack people. I
Speaker 1: don't understand that. It's like the way an eight year
Speaker 1: old but Brian democracy ethic, it's just a jug. If
Speaker 1: ethics are relative, I don't understand then I just have
Speaker 1: a different ethic. But okay, so democracy is gang can
Speaker 1: that should be the title. So people on social media,
Speaker 1: some are saying you're a fascist. I didn't say that,
Speaker 1: but some people on social media are saying that, what
Speaker 1: would you What would be your response to that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've done a lot of critiques of fascism on
Speaker 3: my channel. Again, christian or the ox Christianity is not fascist.
Speaker 3: It's out a history of being monarchists. So if you
Speaker 3: think that fascism is monarchy, that would be a big
Speaker 3: historical mistake. Fascism is the joining of the corporate interests
Speaker 3: together with the state interests.
Speaker 1: That was Mussolini's definition.
Speaker 3: Mussolini was originally a socialist leftist who became a fascist,
Speaker 3: and so I do think that the history of fascism is.
Speaker 1: Bound up with.
Speaker 3: Corporatism, and I'm opposed to corporatism. So I would actually
Speaker 3: favor a minimalist government that is a form of hierarchy.
Speaker 1: I haven't said this, but there are people that have
Speaker 1: accused you of being anti Semitic. I have not heard
Speaker 1: anything that you've said in this conversation that would lead
Speaker 1: me to believe that. Why do you think people say
Speaker 1: that about you? And what are your thoughts on Jewish
Speaker 1: people in general?
Speaker 3: Well, again, I think guilt by association if you go
Speaker 3: on a podcast of somebody who's critical of Israel, you'll
Speaker 3: get immediately be called it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think that's anti Semitis.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying that you're I'm answering the question as
Speaker 3: to why might somebody say that. I do believe that
Speaker 3: the Talmud is not good. I don't think it teaches
Speaker 3: good things.
Speaker 1: You're a religious person, Okay, So.
Speaker 3: I'm giving the answers about I think that Zionism was
Speaker 3: originally a socialist quasi religious movement from Heimweitzmann, Theodore Herzel,
Speaker 3: Moses has Uh, and I disagree with Zionism, but I
Speaker 3: think that as an Orthodox Christian, we have a duty
Speaker 3: to love all people, and so we can't hate anybody
Speaker 3: or specifically pick out certain people. But I do think
Speaker 3: organized crime syndicates like BB or Jeffrey Epstein should be opposed.
Speaker 1: But I don't make sin Jeffyin's religion, though I don't
Speaker 1: make sin genetic. Was what I was about to say. Okay,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on Jewish people in general?
Speaker 3: I think that again, we have a duty, as Paul
Speaker 3: says in Romans eleven, to love and to pray for
Speaker 3: the conversion of Jewish people.
Speaker 1: I think religion is bad for people, by the way
Speaker 1: I think. I think in general terms, billions and billions
Speaker 1: of people have died because of their religion, because of
Speaker 1: their religious beliefs. What's wrong? I have a song with that.
Speaker 1: What's wrong with death? Murdering people's kind of if morals
Speaker 1: are subjective, is nothing actually wrong? I think murdering people
Speaker 1: and killing it's not. Actually it's not a universal moral wrong.
Speaker 1: It's just a personal subjective Yeah, well, I think most
Speaker 1: people would agree. Do you think it Okay? Probably killing,
Speaker 1: that's a fallacy because appeal to masses. Well, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to debate that, because you know you want to
Speaker 1: give using fallacy that's going to listen appeal if you
Speaker 1: try to call it what you want. All I'm saying
Speaker 1: is a lot of people have died innocent people and
Speaker 1: their faith and religion. So that's all I'm saying. You're
Speaker 1: saying what is First of all, it's a genetic fallacy,
Speaker 1: So because people have died because of their fallacy, Yes,
Speaker 1: I do, But answer my question. Answer my question. I
Speaker 1: asked you first. You keep you keep asking to try
Speaker 1: to making bad arguments.
Speaker 3: I have a duty if we're playing chess, and you
Speaker 3: kept violating the rules like I would have to say,
Speaker 3: you can't move the pawn.
Speaker 1: Like, no, you're right, listen, Jay, You're right. Calling democracy
Speaker 1: gay is a great argument. You're very okay, Well, it
Speaker 1: wasn't very funny, you have I'm serious, though, Do you
Speaker 1: care about our democracy? Do you care? Again?
Speaker 3: I I would like to see American flourish and do well.
Speaker 3: I don't have any hopes for democracy. I think democracy
Speaker 3: is a term that so weaponized and used. The CIA
Speaker 3: kind of used this in the Cold War. I don't
Speaker 3: care what about history. I'm asking you about your opinions.
Speaker 3: I do care about history, but I'm asking about your
Speaker 3: opinions right now.
Speaker 1: My opinions come from history and the books that I read.
Speaker 1: So we shouldn't have elections? What book? What book did
Speaker 1: you read that should I just said that I don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of faith in elections. I didn't say
Speaker 1: we should have. And where's your evidence that our elections
Speaker 1: are being rigged or stolen? I said that the CIA
Speaker 1: has a long history of rigging elections of foreign countries.
Speaker 1: It's a very general state.
Speaker 3: So that's why I don't have a lot of faith
Speaker 3: in elections. In general, I think that at the local level,
Speaker 3: people can do a lot more effect. They can be
Speaker 3: a lot more effective in terms of politics than national elections.
Speaker 3: I mean, unless you're a lobbyist, unless you're part of
Speaker 3: a pack, unless you.
Speaker 1: Have billions of dollars. Really, I don't see that's that's
Speaker 1: national polity. I understand what you're saying. I would have
Speaker 1: a problem with that. I understand what you're saying, Jay,
Speaker 1: But I'm an evidence. I'd like to think of myself
Speaker 1: as an all I said. But everything I said is
Speaker 1: not even controversial. Okay, But but Jay, you are not
Speaker 1: willing to say that Joe Biden won a free and
Speaker 1: fair election, and my question an opinion on it? Right?
Speaker 1: You said you have an opinion, and most people that
Speaker 1: have an opinion based that on actual and I gave you.
Speaker 1: You didn't give me any species.
Speaker 3: I think you'd understand the difference between when people have
Speaker 3: an opinion that they have as a theory or an
Speaker 3: assessment that they don't have a hard heart position on,
Speaker 3: versus when they have a heart position.
Speaker 1: So I have some things that I have heard positions. Okay,
Speaker 1: but when somebody tells me that they believe that the
Speaker 1: election might happen. I said, it's an opinion based on
Speaker 1: the way that I know about how the CIA works.
Speaker 1: That's my opinion. So your opinion is the election might
Speaker 1: have been stolen because you're based on the way the
Speaker 1: CIA works. If you presented in dozens of other countries
Speaker 1: the elections in Iran, thinking about other countries, that's different. Well,
Speaker 1: that's the precedence for why it would happen here. We're
Speaker 1: not Iran, Okay, we actually because the way the deep
Speaker 1: state that you asked them about the beginning, the way
Speaker 1: they operate in other countries, is the same way that
Speaker 1: they object. Let's try that one. Let me try this
Speaker 1: different way. If I'm a judge right now, and your
Speaker 1: case that you're making that you believe opinion that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden didn't win a free and fair, aaloh election, what
Speaker 1: evidence would you be able to present to me other
Speaker 1: than I know how the CIA works, which is not evidence,
Speaker 1: by the way, well it is of it. Okay, Then
Speaker 1: where is your You have to have something called residence. Okay,
Speaker 1: you have to have something presented to a judge called widespread.
Speaker 1: But I didn't come here with a hard opinion. Again,
Speaker 1: on the twenty twenty election, So you can have an
Speaker 1: opinion based on no fact at all. I didn't say.
Speaker 1: Note again, you're lying about whether I had so tell me.
Speaker 1: Give me something that makes you believe that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: because I believe that there's a breakaway security establishment that
Speaker 1: is the quote deep state, and the same way that
Speaker 1: they re elections. And I don't care what it sounds like.
Speaker 1: That's again a fallacy of association, which you said you're
Speaker 1: not going to do what Well, you sound like you're
Speaker 1: saying that I'm sorry that you can't do the nuance,
Speaker 1: But that's a fallacy. You're making a claim that the
Speaker 1: election opinion, okay, an opinion. Are there things that you
Speaker 1: have opinions on that you're not hard set on based
Speaker 1: on some cherry or gut? Sure, So if I told
Speaker 1: you that, why are you trying to grill me on
Speaker 1: something that If I told you that I have an
Speaker 1: opinion that Donald Trump is a criminal, I would give
Speaker 1: you actual cases and evidence to prove that he is
Speaker 1: a criminal. My argument was actual cases of dozens of
Speaker 1: countries where the CIA rigs elections. But other countries are
Speaker 1: the United States. Yeah, I know, but I'm saying that
Speaker 1: that's how it was here. Okay, So you not get that,
Speaker 1: So you believe the way the CIA has allegedly rigged
Speaker 1: other elections they do this. You don't know that you believe,
Speaker 1: you believe it probably was. How did they do that here?
Speaker 1: How did they rig it again the same way that
Speaker 1: they do it in other countries. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: different techniques. How did they rig it here? Help me
Speaker 1: understand again? It's my opinion that they rigged it probably
Speaker 1: with Holli stuffing. They can bring the evidence of boutant stuffing, though,
Speaker 1: wouldn't you have cameras. I don't have a hard opinion
Speaker 1: on this, so I don't know why you're trying to
Speaker 1: debate me on Like if I had a hard opinion,
Speaker 1: I would say, I'll be honest with you. I'll tell
Speaker 1: you why. It's a theory. I'll tell you why. The
Speaker 1: reason why I'm grilling you on this, for lack of
Speaker 1: a better term, is because there is zero, let me
Speaker 1: repeat zero evidence of widespread voter fraud. Does this idea
Speaker 1: that in that do they any hold on? Let me
Speaker 1: just produce thought and then you have the floor. Do
Speaker 1: they there is zero evidence of widespread arter the same
Speaker 1: a position. It's not a position, it's a fact. But
Speaker 1: birth is not that and Donald Trump did not win
Speaker 1: the associated Well, no, I'm just showing how ridiculous you're
Speaker 1: argument ridiculous. No, it's not because I'm saying because you
Speaker 1: know how they do they do in other countries. I'm
Speaker 1: sure it's happened in the past, but that has nothing
Speaker 1: to do that is. That's the precedent for why I
Speaker 1: have the suspicion of twenty twenty So you know so
Speaker 1: by your standard, you don't believe any elections. Do you
Speaker 1: think any election is election? We're giving a a straw man.
Speaker 1: I didn't say every election is, but twenty twenty four wasn't.
Speaker 1: That's a strong man? Okay, yes, I do twenty twenty
Speaker 1: I argue that all elections are. Do you know what
Speaker 1: evidence is? I can your Yeah, do you know what
Speaker 1: evidence is?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Do you okay?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: I don't okay. I can play your stupid word games too,
Speaker 1: the two thousand game, the twenty twenty four, the twenty
Speaker 1: and twenty four elections. You want to you keep saying game.
Speaker 1: So I want to know if the law of non
Speaker 1: contradiction is the word game. I'm asking you a question. Okay,
Speaker 1: I've answered all your questions. Is the law the world
Speaker 1: hold on you just say everything's a word game. The
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four election was not I have a suspicion, okay,
Speaker 1: but the two thousand suspicion. So the twenty and sixteen
Speaker 1: election where Donald Trump won, I admitted the he does
Speaker 1: this the country. So why are you growing I don't
Speaker 1: have the knowledge of that. So in two you said
Speaker 1: it probably did. Maybe I don't know. So that's why
Speaker 1: that's my question. I'm not making that claim. All I'm
Speaker 1: simply saying is in twenty and sixteen, you believe Trump won.
Speaker 1: In twenty and twenty four, you believe Trump one. But
Speaker 1: it's very interesting that you retort back to the CIA
Speaker 1: as the reason why you think Joe Biden's suspicion right,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden didn't win because you have a suspicion. Mhm, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll let the less on something that you said is possible.
Speaker 1: I'll let the list. I want to ask, so if
Speaker 1: if I say A is the same thing as not a,
Speaker 1: do you think that's a word game or is that
Speaker 1: the law of non contradiction? No, I think you're a hypocrite.
Speaker 1: I think when you use these words and you have
Speaker 1: these opinions, No, I think you're a hypocrite. That's an
Speaker 1: out homonym. Okay, No, I wouldn't. I'm not name calling you.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say that. But I think, okay, well, because
Speaker 1: you say certain things like, for example, okay, fine, you think,
Speaker 1: let's say, for the sake of argument, standard in every election,
Speaker 1: is a the same thing as non a? Is that
Speaker 1: a word game? Is the law? It depends? What we're
Speaker 1: talking is the law? I'm asking you about the law
Speaker 1: of non contradiction. That's what we're talking about, is that
Speaker 1: it depends on the topic that we are referring. Is
Speaker 1: the law itself a word game? Like I said, I'll
Speaker 1: answer the law. Do you know that there in logic?
Speaker 1: You study laws? Right? What do you think those law
Speaker 1: word games? Do? I think laws are the laws of logic?
Speaker 1: Depends specifically what you are refering to. One called the
Speaker 1: law of non contradiction? Is that a word? What about it? No?
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say that. Okay, thank you, not necessarily so,
Speaker 1: I'm not playing word games. But you are a hypocrite.
Speaker 1: You use a different standard for that. You do actually
Speaker 1: didn't argue that Donald Trump was had a different center.
Speaker 1: I actually specifically said that he should be held to
Speaker 1: the same standard. I don't think that she hasn't. Well,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that that's again, had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with it what I argued, No, I think I think
Speaker 1: it is a little bit to do it. But I
Speaker 1: do find it interesting. When Trump wins, everything must have
Speaker 1: gone fine in the election. But if Trump loses, the
Speaker 1: CIA must have been involved. That's an Alex Jones conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: That's not what I argue. That is a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: I know what's going on in the CIA, and I
Speaker 1: don't think Joe Biden. I know I had a suspicion.
Speaker 1: You have a suspicion past evidence and examples that you admitted.
Speaker 1: So if I said I have a suspicion possible if
Speaker 1: I said no, if I said that, you said the CIA,
Speaker 1: you said the CIA could elections and others. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't have and he knows possible. What I do
Speaker 1: know is that said earlier as possible. What I do.
Speaker 1: Just because I say something is possible that I didn't
Speaker 1: say that you did, that's my suspicion. So you just
Speaker 1: have a suspicion with no evidence. You in a position.
Speaker 1: I just think it's it's it's okay. There's nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with being a hypocrite, because ethics a relative anyway. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you got to fend off with the files and the
Speaker 1: deep state or sure we could talk about that. Sure, absolutely, absolutely,
Speaker 1: you want to go first this time? Go ahead, I'll
Speaker 1: be a gentleman. You let him go, I'll let him
Speaker 1: go first. What's the prompt? Are they are they real?
Speaker 1: Are they good? Or they like? Yeah? Well, would you
Speaker 1: want to?
Speaker 2: I guess you mentioned Trump's in there a lot, But
Speaker 2: do you have a heart take on that, Brian? I've
Speaker 2: seen files with Trump.
Speaker 1: Sure, I have some very strong opinions on it. First
Speaker 1: of all, a lot of maga Republicans and even members
Speaker 1: of Trump Trump's well, not before his administration. A lot
Speaker 1: of people that were around Trump campaigned on this, the
Speaker 1: deep state in Hollywood, pedophiles, and then they had those binders.
Speaker 1: As you know, Jay Jack Bisobek was one of them.
Speaker 1: I called him out for this and Pam BONDI made
Speaker 1: them all look like clowns. I agree. As you know,
Speaker 1: there's still see we might agree on this one. There's
Speaker 1: still three million well, let me just start with this foundation.
Speaker 1: You agree with me that what happened to these kids
Speaker 1: is horrible, sure, and people should be held to account. Right,
Speaker 1: but to this day the only two people, I think
Speaker 1: there were a few more arrests right overseas, but Gislaine
Speaker 1: Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein are really the only two people
Speaker 1: in this country that have been held to account. Correct.
Speaker 1: What does Donald Trump do well? The first thing he
Speaker 1: does is, says his former personal attorney Todd Blanche to
Speaker 1: interview Maxwell. A couple of days later, she sent to
Speaker 1: a club med facility. Jeez, I wonder why she's still there,
Speaker 1: by the way. And when she was asked, as you know,
Speaker 1: I think it was like a month or two ago,
Speaker 1: she pled the fifth and she said she only answered
Speaker 1: the questions if Trump basically gives her a pardon. Trump
Speaker 1: had nothing to say about that, and he hasn't ruled
Speaker 1: out a pardon for her. Donald Trump is mentioned in
Speaker 1: the files that we've already seen partially thousands of times.
Speaker 1: In fact, Donald Trump is mentioned more in the Epstein
Speaker 1: falls than Jesus Christ is mentioned in the Bible. He
Speaker 1: doesn't want us talking about it. Jay. He calls people
Speaker 1: like you and me stupid for even talking about the
Speaker 1: Epstein fau even talking about it. I've been very consistent,
Speaker 1: whether you're a left or a righty, whether you're a
Speaker 1: Democrat or a Republican, I want everyone held to account.
Speaker 1: If you're in those files, release everything, redact the names
Speaker 1: of the victims. If Bill Clinton did some horrible things, fine,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton testified, Bill Clinton testified. Why isn't Howard Lutnick testified.
Speaker 1: This is a guy. This is a guy, as you
Speaker 1: know a month ago, who said he was never on
Speaker 1: the Epstein island and then right of course, and then
Speaker 1: he led about it. Trump doesn't want him to testify.
Speaker 1: Why isn't Donald Trump testifying? If Hillary Clinton? You know
Speaker 1: what the Republicans did, They set a precedent. Now Milania
Speaker 1: should have to testify. She was closer to JESSELEYN. Maxwell
Speaker 1: and Jeffrey Epstein than Hillary ever was. So do I
Speaker 1: know for sure, one hundred percent if Donald Trump committed
Speaker 1: any crimes in there, No, I don't. I know there
Speaker 1: are accusations. But what I do know is that this
Speaker 1: is a huge cover up, huge cover up. I want
Speaker 1: people held to account. This is a huge cover up.
Speaker 1: And then I do believe a portion of the war
Speaker 1: and Iran a portion of it is a distraction.
Speaker 3: I agree, So that's kind of like my Yeah, I
Speaker 3: covered this pretty extensively on my channel. We live streamed,
Speaker 3: I think every day as these were beginning to sort
Speaker 3: of drip out. We did about thirty hours of live stream.
Speaker 3: People can go check all that out where we sort
Speaker 3: of archived everything. I thought that was pretty substantial that
Speaker 3: came out. I do think absolutely that the rest of
Speaker 3: the of the file should be released. There should be
Speaker 3: total you know, they should redact everybody but victims absolutely
Speaker 3: agree with all that. I do think it was a huge,
Speaker 3: huge mistake to cover this up and to not allow
Speaker 3: not to push for this to be released when this
Speaker 3: was a campaign promise. So I'm having a hard time
Speaker 3: to figuring it out where we could disagree on this one.
Speaker 3: Totally agree, huge bleunder, as big as any of the
Speaker 3: other Trump blunders.
Speaker 1: What would it take for you to regret your vote
Speaker 1: if something came out in the episte? To be honest
Speaker 1: with my vote was just kind of anti Yeah, you
Speaker 1: could say that, what was it about Kamala? I know
Speaker 1: we're kind of because we're gonnae on the Epstein stuff.
Speaker 1: We're not going to argue about that only because only
Speaker 1: because I only because I agreed with what were the
Speaker 1: majority of Trump's campaign promises. Okay, I get that part.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Coamala from moment. I don't really is
Speaker 1: there anything about her like you just said, I just
Speaker 1: can't vote for the because of what do you in
Speaker 1: what sense? Like what do you mean she's a goober?
Speaker 1: Just in that sense? I just I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: take political seriously anyway, So, but there's there something about
Speaker 1: her that said I can't, I can't vote for her,
Speaker 1: like what you wanted me to say, that she's a
Speaker 1: brown person. Jay, That's not why I That's not why
Speaker 1: I messing. I'm asking the question policies you didn't like
Speaker 1: obviously again the positions as I said that Trump campaigned upon, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, no new wars reigning in Uh. It was
Speaker 1: more about his promises more than a I'm always an
Speaker 1: issue person, but I definitely think that even if Donald
Speaker 1: Trump went full Neocon, which I always had the suspicion
Speaker 1: that he could turn neok on, I felt like that
Speaker 1: it would still be a better bet than Kamala. But
Speaker 1: I don't even think that that. What I'm getting from
Speaker 1: you is it was more of Trump's promises that you
Speaker 1: thought he would keep, which I don't.
Speaker 4: Know what it was.
Speaker 1: Like.
Speaker 3: If I'm going to have to choose between these two,
Speaker 3: then I'm gonna at least agree with these campaign promises.
Speaker 3: But I also don't believe politicians actually ever, even if
Speaker 3: they keep half of their promises.
Speaker 1: That would be Jay Jay. He ran them basically on
Speaker 1: two things. In twenty sixteen, he ran and We're going
Speaker 1: to build a wall in Mexico's going to pay for it.
Speaker 1: Obviously that didn't happen. And every campaign stop he talked
Speaker 1: about locking up Hillary Clinton and he was going to
Speaker 1: hire a special prosecutor. So what would make you think
Speaker 1: that he was going to keep his promises this time around?
Speaker 1: Perhaps the potentiality that he had a lot of.
Speaker 3: Ignorance and naivety about who he's staffed as his as
Speaker 3: his as his people. So there was a lot of
Speaker 3: neo cons a lot of people that betrayed him. And
Speaker 3: so my hope was that if he saw that Bolton
Speaker 3: and these kinds of characters were sort of duplicitous, that
Speaker 3: he might actually take actions. To quote durin the swamp
Speaker 3: and actually not have a bunch of lobbyists and you know,
Speaker 3: pack type people.
Speaker 1: If they can remind it, let me finish it.
Speaker 3: The last thing I would say is that also I
Speaker 3: think it had to do with he campaigned originally on
Speaker 3: not taking GOP money, and then I suspect that there
Speaker 3: was that he did take GOP money in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 3: and that's why you had so many neo con appointments
Speaker 3: to his staff. And then I had hoped that in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty that he would learn from the first mistakes
Speaker 3: and perhaps at least attempt to not.
Speaker 1: Based on his age and where he's from, he hasn't
Speaker 1: learned from any of his mistakes. I would also say,
Speaker 1: unfortunately it seems that way.
Speaker 2: Know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Jared Kushner when he took two point one billion
Speaker 1: dollars from the Saudis, Donald Trump with his crypto scheme scandal,
Speaker 1: I disagree with all those Yeah, eight times more wealth
Speaker 1: now than he had when he first got into office.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know, man, my whole take on
Speaker 1: this whole thing. And like I said, we're not going
Speaker 1: to disagree on the Epstein stuff. I'm glad we that's
Speaker 1: a really important thing. I'm glad we agree on that
Speaker 1: is that I went to Trump rallies and I was
Speaker 1: criticized nationally for saying it felt like a clan rally. Now,
Speaker 1: that might be extreme language. I don't believe everybody that
Speaker 1: goes to a Trump rallies racist. I don't believe everybody
Speaker 1: that goes to a Trump rally as a clansman. But
Speaker 1: in a way, the way you talk sometimes in a
Speaker 1: joking fashion, right, ninety nine percent of the people were white.
Speaker 1: I went to a Kamala rally and it felt like America.
Speaker 1: It was very diverse. I saw Confederate flags at Trump rallies.
Speaker 1: I saw a lot of hatred. Fuck Joe and the
Speaker 1: Hoe shirts.
Speaker 2: It was just like.
Speaker 1: Just a lot of hatred. Man. And I've never said,
Speaker 1: and I've never grouped all Trump supporters as one. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't put you in one. I wouldn't. I've never done
Speaker 1: that ever, and I never will. But I will say this,
Speaker 1: I don't think, uh, everybody who voted for Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is a racist. But I do believe everybody who is
Speaker 1: a racist voted for Donald Trump. I strongly believe that.
Speaker 1: And I could go with policy. Listen, you haven't done
Speaker 1: this but a lot of people in the right call Kamala.
Speaker 1: They've called her a whore, she slept her way to
Speaker 1: the top. I haven't heard you say that. I'm not
Speaker 1: accusing you. I didn't even remember that. I remember people saying, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not accusing you of that. I want to be clear.
Speaker 1: But well, I'm trying to sleep my way at the top,
Speaker 1: so I could be hire for me to call out.
Speaker 1: That's funny. Actually, see you made me laugh. You're funny.
Speaker 1: But you know I hated that rhetoric. You know what
Speaker 1: I mean. Here's a woman who she became the attorney
Speaker 1: general duly elected twice. Even if you disagree with their politics,
Speaker 1: that's fine. Yeah, this is a woman who became a
Speaker 1: senator and then a vice president. Uh wasn't wasn't my first,
Speaker 1: second or third? Let me be very clear, how about this?
Speaker 1: She's a woman? That's that would be an area where
Speaker 1: I don't want her in politics? Why tell me why? Seriously,
Speaker 1: you don't want women? Why tell me why? Oh, less
Speaker 1: women in politics, just like I would want less immigration. Well,
Speaker 1: let's go. I don't think women are fitted for that.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're made for that. Why tell me
Speaker 1: what's why would you say women A woman can't be
Speaker 1: a politician. I don't think they're made for that. What
Speaker 1: they can do? What are their characteristics that would lead
Speaker 1: you to believe.
Speaker 3: That women tend to be more emotional, They tend to
Speaker 3: not make their decisions based on facts, reasoning, and logic.
Speaker 3: Typically doesn't mean that all.
Speaker 1: I don't know. That's funny married, because if you have
Speaker 1: a wife, I'm laughing. Because the guy who you voted
Speaker 1: for has nicknames for people he disagrees with. You couldn't
Speaker 1: find a more insecure emotional guys that have to do
Speaker 1: with the question of whether you don't I'll tell you what,
Speaker 1: because you're making the case, which I disagree with, that
Speaker 1: women are more emotional. Uh, when the man who is
Speaker 1: probably more emotional ten times more emotional, I would imagine
Speaker 1: than most women that are in office right now, who
Speaker 1: has nicknames for people he disagrees with, he puts on
Speaker 1: eight layers of orange makeup. When you have a.
Speaker 3: Comedy, I mean it comes to Trump's a comedian. So
Speaker 3: the stuff you're talking about there, you.
Speaker 1: Want a comedian to be president, A serious person who
Speaker 1: happens to be serious person. So you don't think you
Speaker 1: don't think Kama is a s Why do you say that? Again,
Speaker 1: I don't think most politicians are serious people politicians in general.
Speaker 1: He's got a law degree, she's a good mother. She's
Speaker 1: got to see politicians as like, well, what's the old
Speaker 1: is that?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: Politics is Hollywood for ugly? Okay, So you don't think
Speaker 1: you don't think women should be an elected office? What
Speaker 1: other jobs do you What other jobs do you do
Speaker 1: you think are not front lines? What if they pass
Speaker 1: a physical the same physical that a man passes, well,
Speaker 1: none of them have passed the Navy Seal physical. I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about Navy seals, just in general serving. You
Speaker 1: don't have to be just a pass. It would then
Speaker 1: suggest that they're physically different. I believe that if a
Speaker 1: woman is able to and by the way, there are
Speaker 1: some women that are that are able to pass the
Speaker 1: same physical standards that a man. Okay, so why would
Speaker 1: you have a problem with them because the exceptions don't
Speaker 1: make the norm?
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that's kind of common sense that
Speaker 3: just because of our exceptions, we wouldn't want that to
Speaker 3: be the norm.
Speaker 1: Why not the norm be just passed this one generic
Speaker 1: uh test that all genders have to pass. Why wouldn't
Speaker 1: that be Why wouldn't that be a good norm?
Speaker 3: But the test and most women not passing that test
Speaker 3: would make my point that men and women are fitted
Speaker 3: and made different, they have different.
Speaker 1: It's a case by case basis as far as physical ability.
Speaker 1: I think you would again, I agree that you know
Speaker 1: there have been for example, frontline soldiers typically have not
Speaker 1: been women, and there's a reason for that. So you
Speaker 1: don't think women should be elected officials because they're quote
Speaker 1: unquote emotional, They're too emotional not be the norm. You
Speaker 1: don't that women even if they pass the basic physical
Speaker 1: that a man has to pass, they shouldn't be able
Speaker 1: to risk their license or the norm. I said, I
Speaker 1: know that you're not listening unless they the norm, But
Speaker 1: why can't the Norman will be one basic standard physical
Speaker 1: because that's not all that it is.
Speaker 3: There's also a push, there's a social engineering push to
Speaker 3: get for example, all women in America to go to
Speaker 3: college to become career women.
Speaker 1: I think that's a bad idea. I think women are
Speaker 1: made to be at home, So women are made to
Speaker 1: be at home. A lot of people would call that
Speaker 1: a massogynist statement. Women are made to be at home?
Speaker 1: Should women be allowed to vote? Again? I don't think voting.
Speaker 1: I think voting is dumb, so okay, but but what
Speaker 1: ought to be I didn't ask you what your opinion
Speaker 1: on voting was. I'm just saying right now we're we
Speaker 1: out of the do you think women should be allowed
Speaker 1: to vote? I don't think voting makes sense in general.
Speaker 1: So you don't like you don't like voting? I don't
Speaker 1: think women?
Speaker 3: Answer, Women shouldn't be involved in politics or geopolitics or
Speaker 3: any of that.
Speaker 1: What, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. So they're made
Speaker 1: for being at home. They're just made for being at home.
Speaker 1: So women shouldn't be out there in society in the
Speaker 1: office place. They shouldn't be able to have their own careers.
Speaker 1: They shouldn't be allowed to be teachers and dies. When
Speaker 1: when you make that attempt to make that a norm
Speaker 1: for society, it undoes society. So without getting personal here,
Speaker 1: and I don't mean to be personal, you're married. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to go there with you. That's why
Speaker 1: I'm asking you. First. You're a married man, right, so
Speaker 1: you tell your wife. If your wife wants to have
Speaker 1: a career, she wants a job. Maybe she wants to
Speaker 1: do what you do. She wants to be a podcast
Speaker 1: or you would tell her, no, your your job is
Speaker 1: to be We do that together, so we have a dynamic.
Speaker 1: If she said, that's great, I'm happy to hear that.
Speaker 1: But if your wife said to you, for example, you know, Jay,
Speaker 1: I've been thinking I really want to be a teacher
Speaker 1: or a doctor, you would tell her no, typically careerism, no,
Speaker 1: it is not good for one. So women shouldn't have
Speaker 1: the choice to.
Speaker 3: I also recognize that we live in a world that's
Speaker 3: not that's not that way, So people are forced into situation.
Speaker 3: So I don't blame them for what they were taught,
Speaker 3: what they were indoctrinate with growing up. But I don't
Speaker 3: think that that's the best way for women to live.
Speaker 1: No, but that's your opinion. Why not let that is
Speaker 1: not my opinion. Why shouldn't a woman be able to
Speaker 1: decide for herself what's good for you? Why should do
Speaker 1: for them?
Speaker 3: They can do that in this society, and I think,
Speaker 3: but if you observe the negative effects of doing that.
Speaker 3: My view is based on traditional Christian morals, so that's
Speaker 3: why that's the aught.
Speaker 1: So Christian morals say that women shouldn't be allowed to
Speaker 1: have careers. Generally, Jesus Christ would have said that women
Speaker 1: shouldn't be allowed to have careers, right proverb thirty one? Okay,
Speaker 1: well again, I'm unaware of Jesus's teachings of saying that
Speaker 1: women shouldn't be allowed to live their life. Jesus what
Speaker 1: men tell? Did? St? Paul?
Speaker 3: And Paul says that women are made to be a
Speaker 3: subject to the husband and to have children and to
Speaker 3: be at home.
Speaker 1: So Jesus appointed politican, what if a woman doesn't want
Speaker 1: to have a child, they don't want to have a child. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if they don't want to be a mother and they
Speaker 1: just want to they want to be a career person.
Speaker 1: Is that wrong? I mean, again, you have the ability
Speaker 1: to do that. But again I'm saying that I don't
Speaker 1: think that. But in your world you don't think they
Speaker 1: should have that ability.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't have the I don't think that we
Speaker 3: have the ability to enforce some sort of like handmaiden's
Speaker 3: tales that you don't.
Speaker 1: But in your world you would want women. But I
Speaker 1: also believe not have careers. I believe in a degree
Speaker 1: of freedom in society. What about all the women that
Speaker 1: are teachers, professors, very successful doctors, surgeons, brain surgeons. What
Speaker 1: about all the women in this country? That is to
Speaker 1: do with what that's like saying that because people do
Speaker 1: things in the case that these women are not qualified
Speaker 1: because they're too emotional. I said that it shouldn't be
Speaker 1: the norm. It shouldn't be the norm. Right, So, for example, I.
Speaker 3: Know one woman who is extremely uh proficient in history,
Speaker 3: she knows geopolitics very well. She's an outlier. So it's
Speaker 3: not the norm for that domain for women to be
Speaker 3: in that. The fact that we have that in modernity
Speaker 3: and that it's common doesn't mean that it ought to
Speaker 3: be the case.
Speaker 1: This is why I don't live my life based on religion.
Speaker 1: I don't live but you live it based on subjective
Speaker 1: I don't live my life based on what something is
Speaker 1: said in a book. I'm not a Bible thumper, but
Speaker 1: it's just based on what Brian says. No, it's you're
Speaker 1: just based on what Jesus Christ says. Well, that's a
Speaker 1: better basis than just what Brian says. I would I would,
Speaker 1: first of all, I would respectfully disagree with you with
Speaker 1: Jesus that Jesus Christ doesn't wouldn't want any woman to
Speaker 1: have a career and be forced to stay home. I
Speaker 1: think that's a misogynistic opinion in my.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, and you've given it a place in
Speaker 3: the Bible. Jesus implies that that's I don't live my life.
Speaker 1: I don't live my life. But you said she wouldn't
Speaker 1: say that. I'd like to think Jesus say that. So,
Speaker 1: so you're telling me in the Bible, Jesus, so women
Speaker 1: should stay at home and they shouldn't. You made the.
Speaker 3: Argument that Jesus wouldn't say that. So I'm asking you where. Well,
Speaker 3: I'm asking you where does it asking me when you
Speaker 3: made the assertion, Well, tell me what's where? Where does
Speaker 3: it say in Jesus he says to Timothy that women
Speaker 3: should not be teachers and that they should not be
Speaker 3: outside of the home.
Speaker 1: They should be at home. Okay, So and if you
Speaker 1: would have to take a look at that. But you
Speaker 1: said Jesus wouldn't say that, And I'm saying, but he
Speaker 1: does say that. Well, I'll tell you what I think
Speaker 1: about the Bible, and I'll tell you what I think
Speaker 1: about religion in general. You can believe in the tooth fairy.
Speaker 1: You don't know if there's heaven and hell. You have
Speaker 1: no idea. If there's a god, you can believe it.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's anything wrong with you believing it.
Speaker 1: I actually am not an atheist. I'd like to believe
Speaker 1: that there's something out there, a higher power, but we
Speaker 1: don't know. You know, you don't know if there's hell
Speaker 1: or life after death. You don't know any more than
Speaker 1: I know. And guess what, we won't know until we're dead.
Speaker 1: But what I don't like about religion is people that
Speaker 1: push their beliefs on other people. And I believe that's
Speaker 1: what you're doing. But you push your beliefs right now. No,
Speaker 1: I want women to do whatever the hell they want
Speaker 1: to do, but you're pushing that belief. Give me an example.
Speaker 1: Are you give me an example of me pushing a
Speaker 1: belief and forcing other people or treating it.
Speaker 3: It does not equate the forcing people to do it
Speaker 3: because you've been arguing your positions the whole time.
Speaker 1: My whole position is I want people to live their
Speaker 1: lives and I want people to do what they want.
Speaker 1: A position that you're pushing on people. I want people
Speaker 1: to have the freedoms to have a career regardless of
Speaker 1: what's between their legs. But I don't give a fuck
Speaker 1: what's in the Bible. But you say, oh, I have
Speaker 1: all these Muslim friends. They don't believe that. I'm going
Speaker 1: to ask Sean a question. Okay, so you're not going
Speaker 1: to answer this? No, no, no, this is important. This
Speaker 1: is important, Sean. I hate to bring you into this.
Speaker 1: Is it ridiculous for somebody to think? Do you disagree
Speaker 1: that what a man says that a woman should have
Speaker 1: replaced not having a career but should be at home?
Speaker 1: Is that a misogynistic you? Am I wrong? And I
Speaker 1: want to know what is I trust him. He is
Speaker 1: referencing a Bible verse, so I think he's approaching it
Speaker 1: from that point. But would you say that's massogynists? And
Speaker 1: a lot of people say that ethics are relative, So
Speaker 1: another wrong with racism, more misogyny. You're telling an entire
Speaker 1: group of people what to do, what you think they
Speaker 1: should do, like you've done this whole debate where you
Speaker 1: said that every white man in America must accept your
Speaker 1: form of liberals. I never said that, and I'm not
Speaker 1: a liberal and I never said that. When did I
Speaker 1: say you're a liberal you're a classical I'm a classical liberal. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's go with that. Uh. And we had this conversation before,
Speaker 1: and this is what happens when we have these conversations.
Speaker 3: But you've been arguing that the people in America should
Speaker 3: accept your positions, So you're doing the same thing.
Speaker 1: You're I'm not asking you to accept any of my positions.
Speaker 1: I'm just disagreeing. Debates are about trying to convince people
Speaker 1: in your position. Teople, I know that I will never
Speaker 1: convince somebody like you about anything. You are stuck in
Speaker 1: your views and your christianda, oh, fine, I'm bad, But
Speaker 1: what about I didn't say you were bad. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying whatever. Let me be very clear, when I wake
Speaker 1: up in the morning and I do my radio show,
Speaker 1: I'm never trying to convince anybody. What you're going to
Speaker 1: get is my beliefs and my opinions. I don't show
Speaker 1: up somewhere and say, boy, you know, I saw that
Speaker 1: Jay Dier guy, and he thinks all women should be
Speaker 1: in the kitchen. So I'm going to show up to
Speaker 1: that debate and I'm going to try to convince him
Speaker 1: that women should have their own careers. The audience. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm never I'm never going to convince you because this
Speaker 1: is the way you believe the audience. Okay, well listen,
Speaker 1: anybody who's watching this, chances are if they're a fan
Speaker 1: of yours, they're going to agree with you. If they're
Speaker 1: a fan of mine, they're going to agree with me.
Speaker 1: I'm not obsessed with audience. I'm not obsessed with changing
Speaker 1: people's minds because in most cases, I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people that are on the right, that are Trump supporters,
Speaker 1: it is impossible to convince them virtually about anything. Occasionally
Speaker 1: I get a caller who calls in and says, you
Speaker 1: know what, Brian, I made a mistake. I regret voting
Speaker 1: for Trump. It could be the Iran War, the Epstein falls, whatever.
Speaker 1: But I'm not trying jay to convince anybody. That's why
Speaker 1: we are fundamentally different. Well, on debate, I am trying
Speaker 1: to do that, well, debate to convince people. Okay, well
Speaker 1: you haven't done that. Okay, Well again, when you make
Speaker 1: a statement that you believe all women, in your opinion,
Speaker 1: should be in the kitchen, most people would them Okay,
Speaker 1: most people would define that as extremely misogynistic. And let
Speaker 1: me tell you something. I don't have a problem either,
Speaker 1: do I. But I can tell you that if a
Speaker 1: woman is capable and she's smart, then I have no
Speaker 1: problem with her being a politician. I think there are
Speaker 1: people in DC that are women that are very good
Speaker 1: at what they do. I have no problem with them.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people like you didn't vote
Speaker 1: for Kamala because they're women, and I think that's wrong,
Speaker 1: and I think that's wrong, and I think it should
Speaker 1: be about your intelligence and your merit and what you've
Speaker 1: done in your life. And Hillary Clinton, listen, I didn't
Speaker 1: even vote for Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen, but I'll
Speaker 1: be the first one to admit she was overqualified for
Speaker 1: the position based on what she's done in her life.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is a fucking reality TV show host. You
Speaker 1: voted for a reality TV show host guy with no
Speaker 1: experience on campaign policy. He was given a half a
Speaker 1: billion dollar company from his dad when he was like
Speaker 1: a teenager. This is a guy that was a TV
Speaker 1: reality star. So if you want to talk about people
Speaker 1: that are not qualified, I would say maybe we shouldn't
Speaker 1: put reality TV stars as the leader of the free
Speaker 1: world more than what's between their legs. Which it sounds
Speaker 1: like you're a little bit obsessed with I'm sorry it
Speaker 1: does sound that way. You would never vote for a woman,
Speaker 1: It's clear, right, you would never vote for a woman ever,
Speaker 1: right ever, because they're a woman. Mean, there could be
Speaker 1: some insinuating circumstances where there's a you know, lesser of
Speaker 1: two evils, okay, good, Like for example, if there was
Speaker 1: a woman running in a local election that I thought
Speaker 1: in my vote would have some effect on so you
Speaker 1: would be okay with the woman being.
Speaker 3: Brian, I said the whole time the norm, and you
Speaker 3: wanted to make it like expansive universal claims.
Speaker 1: It was just what well you made the case and
Speaker 1: we could rewind the tape that women are not shouldn't
Speaker 1: be programmed, women shouldn't be politicians. That's a generalization, but.
Speaker 3: A generalization can include exceptions, which I said, for example,
Speaker 3: because they're emotional. For example, the case of as a
Speaker 3: friend of mine, she's a PhD in history, feopolitics translates
Speaker 3: foreign languages. I mean, she's an outlier in terms of
Speaker 3: a domain that's typically male dominated. I think there's a
Speaker 3: reason why STEM courses and things like that are dominated
Speaker 3: by men. Geo politics because that's the domain that men
Speaker 3: are better fitted for. I think, in general, every human
Speaker 3: being is different. Some are more emotional than others. In general,
Speaker 3: doesn't matter what's between your legs and my opinion. Some
Speaker 3: people are smarter than others, Some people are more capable
Speaker 3: of some people are stronger than There's plenty of women
Speaker 3: that would kick my ass. And I said that to
Speaker 3: Myron Gaines, who was assas. Those are all exceptions, bro Okay,
Speaker 3: but you're making a generalization. You don't be any women
Speaker 3: should be politicians, but you're trying to make it they
Speaker 3: should be in the kitchen on the exceptions, and I'm
Speaker 3: doing the opposite. Okay, but they're Every single human being
Speaker 3: is different, and I don't speak for women, but some
Speaker 3: women choose They're still generalizations. But some women don't want
Speaker 3: to have kids, some women don't want to be moms.
Speaker 3: Some women put their career.
Speaker 1: None of those were relevant to what you asked me
Speaker 1: was the best fit generally speaking. I mean, listen, going
Speaker 1: back to my original statements earlier, I don't like government
Speaker 1: involvement in our lives. I don't. That's my biggest criticisms
Speaker 1: of religion is that too many people tell other people,
Speaker 1: I'm right and you're wrong. No, my religion is right
Speaker 1: and your religion is wrong. But don't you think in
Speaker 1: this debate you think you're right when it comes to
Speaker 1: what religion? I think anybody positions. Okay, well, well let's
Speaker 1: talk about religion. I'm just saying, like, you don't believe
Speaker 1: that about yourself. What do you mean?
Speaker 3: Don't you believe that all your positions are correct? You're
Speaker 3: doing the very thing that when it comes to I believe.
Speaker 3: Let me hear this way. I believe everybody is religious,
Speaker 3: even you. You have a religious commitment to your positions.
Speaker 3: You just don't believe that it's a god. You're basically
Speaker 3: just your own god. And you're saying that all my
Speaker 3: positions are what I say, and that's my opinion, and.
Speaker 1: I'm not forcing it down your throat. I'm not making law.
Speaker 1: I don't. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm telling
Speaker 1: you my opinions of how I feel. You're telling you're
Speaker 1: telling half the I'm not trying to convince anybody. You're
Speaker 1: telling No, I'm not so when you're coming to it,
Speaker 1: that you're coming to a debate and not to debate,
Speaker 1: I'm okay, I'm coming to a debate or discussion to
Speaker 1: tell you how I feel about different topics or just
Speaker 1: how do you feel about It's a very feminine. Okay,
Speaker 1: well that's fine, you can call me. I guess I
Speaker 1: guess Jay thinks I'm in the kitchen. Then I guess
Speaker 1: I'm not Jay. I got bad news for I'm not
Speaker 1: cooking you dinner tonight. But you're not gonna make a
Speaker 1: sund Everybody. Everybody is different, every human being is different,
Speaker 1: everybody has different skills. Because you're making a generalization about
Speaker 1: women how they should all be in the kitchen, and
Speaker 1: I find that to be extremely misogynistic. Generalizations are not
Speaker 1: again on your wrong, it's on your basis women in
Speaker 1: your life, and I'm just making if you tell them
Speaker 1: I think you you all belong in the kitchen. What
Speaker 1: would they say to you if you said that? How
Speaker 1: is that relevant too? Because because I'm curious, this is
Speaker 1: an emotional appeal again, Okay, but but I want to
Speaker 1: know the people in your life, your mom or sister, whoever,
Speaker 1: when you say, hey, you guys shouldn't be mom. My
Speaker 1: mom was an outlier. Actually she was a very qualified
Speaker 1: editor assigned journals. I think that's great. I think that's great.
Speaker 1: So why can't other people like your mom? Well, I'm
Speaker 1: sure in this society they can, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that it's the best for society. So the question was
Speaker 1: what's the best for society, not can they actually physically
Speaker 1: do it? So that's two different You think it's best
Speaker 1: for society to get all the brain surgeons and the
Speaker 1: teachers and the politicians and every woman, say oh, I
Speaker 1: said generalizations.
Speaker 3: Typically, it's not the best for society for women to
Speaker 3: have what are classically male oriented positions and jobs.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't that be a case by case basis based on
Speaker 1: the person. No, if you're asking me about what's generally
Speaker 1: better for society, what about the individual? Does that matter too?
Speaker 1: What's best for the individual? Well?
Speaker 3: I have a Christian ethic and belief so I think
Speaker 3: that that's the best for society and for individuals.
Speaker 1: So I would assume you think that gay people are
Speaker 1: all sinners, you're against gay marriage because of your religion.
Speaker 1: I believe that those are actions, not a state of
Speaker 1: being or an identity. So you think everybody chooses to
Speaker 1: be gay? You think Richard Simmons was born because I
Speaker 1: think that's ridiculous. Are you saying he was gay? So
Speaker 1: there are many people when they're four or five, when
Speaker 1: they're four or five years I actually had a conversation.
Speaker 1: I actually had a conversation with George Santos about this
Speaker 1: the other day. We're actually friends, believe it or not,
Speaker 1: and George told me he knew he was gay and
Speaker 1: he was like four or five years old, and it's
Speaker 1: not a choice. And I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are because I talk to these people and they
Speaker 1: tell me, and they're honestly, that's still that's not how
Speaker 1: you would know that. So Richard Simmons was born straight.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that, I'm saying that what you answered
Speaker 1: with would not prove the way that you know. Do
Speaker 1: you think being gay is a choice?
Speaker 3: Yes, there can be a society apigenetics, So you think sometimes,
Speaker 3: let me finish, there can be an epigenetic or a
Speaker 3: societal factors that can influence people's proclivity. Sure, but I
Speaker 3: think there's still a degree of human volition, and so
Speaker 3: let's go with that logic for a second. You think
Speaker 3: men in society who are once straight wake up one
Speaker 3: day and say, hey, I think I like penis now
Speaker 3: that's the way you think it works.
Speaker 1: You think it's a choice like that. That's probably, in
Speaker 1: most cases a continual progression of moving in a certain direction.
Speaker 1: I don't think it happens overnight. Again, I'm gonna strong men. Well,
Speaker 1: here's another one for you. I believe that sometimes in
Speaker 1: society people hide behind their religion to hide their bigotry.
Speaker 1: And when people judge somebody based on sexuality or in
Speaker 1: this case, what's between their legs, I believe it's a
Speaker 1: form of bigotry. And you say, well, this is what
Speaker 1: my religion tells me. No, No, this is who you are.
Speaker 1: You decide to think that way. You decide to think
Speaker 1: that if somebody is different than you, I assume you're straight.
Speaker 1: If somebody is different, If somebody is different.
Speaker 3: People don't What do you mean? I mean if I
Speaker 3: just told you they're agnostic. Couldn't everything be conditioned? Then
Speaker 3: there are people who are good conditioned to believe? There
Speaker 3: are people who are Could I be conditioned to my religion?
Speaker 1: Could you be? I don't. I don't know. I have
Speaker 1: no idea. So why would I be held guilty or
Speaker 1: accountable on your Because when I talk to people about holmosexuality,
Speaker 1: you don't even understand the argument I make. And if
Speaker 1: it's people, and if my religion is genetic, then why
Speaker 1: am I guilty and gays aren't? And you think religion
Speaker 1: is genetic, I'm saying, if that's the case in your view,
Speaker 1: religion is genetic, religion is not understand that word I do.
Speaker 1: Religion is a choice. Why can't I be conditioned to
Speaker 1: my religion? Because sexuality is different than religion? You see
Speaker 1: for example, why can't I be conditioned? You're an atheist, right,
Speaker 1: You're an agnostic? Right? I believe that there's a higher poety. Okay,
Speaker 1: but it goes back to what I said.
Speaker 3: But if I'm raised in religion from my earliest days,
Speaker 3: being taught about same, baptized as an infant, let's sam,
Speaker 3: brought up in Sunday school from the age four, whatever,
Speaker 3: why would I not be conditioned in the same way.
Speaker 1: First of all, I believe that's wrong my worldview on that.
Speaker 1: That's not the question. Here's why. Here's why, because I
Speaker 1: think most people who are gay would tell you. And
Speaker 1: by the way, I am a straight man. I don't
Speaker 1: speak for gay people, but I think most people would
Speaker 1: tell you. It's a little bit different the fact. Hold on,
Speaker 1: it's a little bit different to switch a religion or say,
Speaker 1: by the way, I know people in my life one
Speaker 1: woman who is a pastor, she's now an OnlyFans model.
Speaker 1: She's a great person. Of this is answering all question.
Speaker 1: She made a choice to get out of that lifestyle
Speaker 1: and that religion and go live her life. Okay, most
Speaker 1: people who are gay would tell you it's not just
Speaker 1: a snap of the finger. If you're born I believe
Speaker 1: gay and you want to turn straight. So those choices
Speaker 1: are conditioned and they're not actual free will choices. Do
Speaker 1: You're not believe in biology? You're not even letting me
Speaker 1: finish it, because this is a killer for your argument
Speaker 1: and I never even noticed, as it's literally in this debate.
Speaker 1: So you can be conditioned to believe or to have
Speaker 1: those proclivities. But even though I go through the exact
Speaker 1: same situation, I'm guilty for the choice that I made
Speaker 1: for the religion, which is identical to the conditioning according
Speaker 1: to you, No, well, I why is one of them
Speaker 1: free will and the other one on I'm going to
Speaker 1: be very clear again, here's where I think you're guilty of.
Speaker 1: And this goes for any religion in anybody. When you judge,
Speaker 1: somebody's wrong with judgment. I think it's wrong to judge. Well,
Speaker 1: that's great, but you're are relevant. Okay, So when you
Speaker 1: judge an entire group of people because they are different
Speaker 1: than you because of what the way they look or
Speaker 1: their sexuality, that is what bigotry is. What's wrong with
Speaker 1: being a biggot? Oh, I think that makes you an
Speaker 1: asshole if you're thinking, well, but I mean, those are
Speaker 1: just your own prosper Well, you're right, biggots are great people. Argument.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, No, you're right, biggots are wonderful people.
Speaker 1: I shouldn't judge. Biggest why philosophy is good because if
Speaker 1: you learn philosophy, this is why religion is bad. Because
Speaker 1: he's trying to defend religion. Never made a religious argument.
Speaker 1: All I said was that when you judge, why is
Speaker 1: it so hard for you admit my judgments are my
Speaker 1: conditioning that I'm not morally accountable on your world view?
Speaker 1: Doesn't the Bible say not to judge if but if
Speaker 1: your worldview is correct? Does the Bible say your world
Speaker 1: view is correct? My choices are my conditioning, so I'm
Speaker 1: not liable or accountable. Does the Bible say not to judge?
Speaker 1: It says judge with righteous judge Yeah exactly, So you
Speaker 1: think this is righteous taking all groups of people because
Speaker 1: I have a consistent basis to judge actions, not the people.
Speaker 1: I believe you. I believe God can judge people. I
Speaker 1: don't know what God, whatever, God, you would How would
Speaker 1: you know? Then? How would you know he judges people? Okay,
Speaker 1: well it's a saying okay, but I will tell you
Speaker 1: I don't even know if God exists. I don't know,
Speaker 1: and you need to judges to you? How do you
Speaker 1: know this audio? I made a statement, as you would say,
Speaker 1: a joke. How do you know that nobody knows that
Speaker 1: God exists? How do you know that we don't know
Speaker 1: for sure? Nobody knows? Now it's a universal claim. How
Speaker 1: do you know that no one knows? Who's your evidence
Speaker 1: that God exists? How do you know that No, I
Speaker 1: didn't make a universal claim? You did. How do you
Speaker 1: know that no one knows? There is no direct evidence
Speaker 1: that there is a God. But how do you know
Speaker 1: that no one? No one's presented it. So do you
Speaker 1: know what a universal claim is? Yes, nobody's presented it.
Speaker 1: What's a universal claim? Universal claim is what I just said,
Speaker 1: which is what nobody has direct evidence that God is?
Speaker 3: And what about all states, all people at all times
Speaker 3: a universal claim? Sure, do you have access to universal
Speaker 3: states of affairs?
Speaker 1: If you disagree with me, then tell me your evidence.
Speaker 1: Do not have access to university affairs? Give me your
Speaker 1: evidence that God exists?
Speaker 2: Do you?
Speaker 1: You could make me so philosophical question or word games?
Speaker 1: Even though you admitted that the non contradictions God exists,
Speaker 1: your Christianity has got God exists? Right of course, where's
Speaker 1: your evidence that the transit argument? Oh? I see, okay,
Speaker 1: so so that's direct evidence. Uh yeah, it's a logical argument.
Speaker 1: And hell and heaven exists, right, yes, yeah, where's your
Speaker 1: evidence of that? Because it's part of the worldview? Got you?
Speaker 1: So your worldview? You know for sure? And if I
Speaker 1: have the high okay, you can have the highest degree,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make it true. But we don't know if
Speaker 1: heaven or Hell exists. But you don't know. But you
Speaker 1: for you to make that you I think is insane.
Speaker 1: But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge
Speaker 1: that no one knows that and you can't know that
Speaker 1: either on your own position so you're going out on
Speaker 1: the bounds of what you can e do on your world.
Speaker 1: There is no more evidence that God exists. Keep saying that,
Speaker 1: but sorry, you don't have the evidence. No, but I
Speaker 1: didn't make the claim that no one knows you did
Speaker 1: your entirely religion. Did you say no one knows your
Speaker 1: entire life is based in region? I think it's a
Speaker 1: fairy tale. Correctly, that's great, but you haven't given an
Speaker 1: argument for they have actually the fairy chill that you
Speaker 1: believe in, like free will I have? Actually you have?
Speaker 1: How do you have the freedom to believe in what
Speaker 1: you want to believe in. I'm not denying, but if
Speaker 1: I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dinnitt, maybe I'm
Speaker 1: just conditioned to think I have free will and all
Speaker 1: choices are determinists. Again, you have how do you know
Speaker 1: that free will exists? Okay, what do you mean you have?
Speaker 1: How do you know that exists? Right? Because you believe
Speaker 1: it metaphysical things that you can't justify you want me
Speaker 1: to justify. Listen, there's a there's the problem with saying
Speaker 1: to a theist that you have to justify it. You
Speaker 1: believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like
Speaker 1: free will. So, Jay, so you don't you're not going
Speaker 1: to answer that. I'm going to answer, do you believe
Speaker 1: in free will? I'm going to answer it the way
Speaker 1: I want to Okay, Okay, you have the freedom well
Speaker 1: in your estimation, in anybody's that's it works. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: if you want to use fallacies, you can understand. I
Speaker 1: understand how a debate. A debate works, j Just because
Speaker 1: you've been doing it for twenty five years doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you have to be condescened. What's free will? I understand
Speaker 1: that there's a lot of people on the left that
Speaker 1: are very nice to you when you debate them, and
Speaker 1: you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me, So you
Speaker 1: don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to
Speaker 1: you considering the circumstance. I'm just all and I'm asking
Speaker 1: you to let me answer in the way I want
Speaker 1: to answer it respectfully. You have the free will, I'll
Speaker 1: use your terminology to believe in what you want to
Speaker 1: believe in. You have the free will to believe in
Speaker 1: your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very
Speaker 1: well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in
Speaker 1: common with some of these people. I think it's a
Speaker 1: mental illness. That's my opinion. Now, if you form and
Speaker 1: live your life based on your religion, you have the
Speaker 1: right to do that. But nobody knows if there's heaven
Speaker 1: or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're
Speaker 1: making the case that there's a heaven or hell. I'm
Speaker 1: not making that case. What I'm saying, Jesus there might
Speaker 1: be Jay, I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell.
Speaker 1: I don't know. That's no no, no. You said no
Speaker 1: one knows. Those are tis. I don't know. That's the
Speaker 1: way I answer. You said, no one knows, and now
Speaker 1: you're saying I don't know. Those are two different Nobody knows,
Speaker 1: nobody knows. There might be heaven in Hell?
Speaker 4: Is it?
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't neither know. You is it I
Speaker 1: don't know? Or nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide
Speaker 1: me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can.
Speaker 1: In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one
Speaker 1: is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being,
Speaker 1: how do you know that? Nobody? Nobody's presented direct evidence.
Speaker 1: That's what that doesn't. That does.
Speaker 3: That's not a proof that no one knows. That just
Speaker 3: means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that.
Speaker 1: So you don't actually know. No one if you know
Speaker 1: for sure that, So you're assertain things that you don't know.
Speaker 1: Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But
Speaker 1: the fact that they have exists. But the fact that
Speaker 1: they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know
Speaker 1: that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which
Speaker 1: means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because
Speaker 1: you can't help me, help me understand them. You believe
Speaker 1: that heaven and Hell exists. When you provide me I'm
Speaker 1: waiting for you to give a good argumenty. I just didn't,
Speaker 1: So I'm asking for right now, Jay, prove me wrong
Speaker 1: right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and
Speaker 1: Hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your
Speaker 1: belief that heaven and Hell exists.
Speaker 3: Please, the argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your
Speaker 3: worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. That question wasn't about worldviewing.
Speaker 3: Hold on, Jay, the argument is a world of the argument.
Speaker 3: My question was argument is a world argument. My question
Speaker 3: wasn't about world views. I'll ask it again.
Speaker 1: My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask
Speaker 1: me the questions from religion based on religion, so based
Speaker 1: on your worldview, is that logic is based on religion. Okay,
Speaker 1: so give me that logic. What is your evidence that
Speaker 1: would lead you to believe from your world is a
Speaker 1: logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's just a belief. I believe in the t's a
Speaker 1: logical My worldview tells me the tooth very exists, But
Speaker 1: you don't have a basis word my religion tell my
Speaker 1: religion tells my religion tells me that when I lose
Speaker 1: a tooth, I'm going to get a hundred. If you
Speaker 1: if you took a philosophy class, you would learn that
Speaker 1: free will is a metaphysical position that a lot of
Speaker 1: philosophers an atheists. I'm not saying an atheists, but people
Speaker 1: like Daniel Dinnet or Sam Harris, they don't believe in
Speaker 1: free will. So I'm just trying to say that you're
Speaker 1: asserting things like free will that you don't have a
Speaker 1: basis for us. So hold on, be thirty seconds here.
Speaker 1: You are making the case, in your opinion, based on
Speaker 1: your lie, I did not opinion hold on worldview that
Speaker 1: heaven and Hell exists. My opinion is I don't know.
Speaker 1: But that's not what you said. Ok You said no
Speaker 1: one knows, which is not an opinion that's a universal No,
Speaker 1: I knows for sure whether that's a universal client. Okay,
Speaker 1: So tell me where you're getting this from your worldview.
Speaker 1: Give me some evidence that heaven and Hell exists. The
Speaker 1: evidence is the logical argument called the transcendental argument, which
Speaker 1: there's not all. So evidence is not just like a
Speaker 1: physical object. There are logical arguments that are non physical
Speaker 1: but are also evidences. That's what you're missing in what
Speaker 1: I'm arguing. So uh again again, I go back to
Speaker 1: what I said earlier. And this is my issue with
Speaker 1: religion in general. Every religion. You're a religious person, you're religious.
Speaker 1: I never said I was a religious person. No, you're
Speaker 1: rapidly religious about things like free will. What you have
Speaker 1: no basis for. I'm not a religious person and I
Speaker 1: don't believe in the tooth fairy, and I live my
Speaker 1: life based on a religion. Free will is like free
Speaker 1: will is this is the same thing as the tooth theory,
Speaker 1: the to and the free will are the same. I
Speaker 1: live my life based on the way I was raised,
Speaker 1: the way my parents raised me, but none of that,
Speaker 1: And I don't religion. I don't hide. I don't hide
Speaker 1: behind a religion attacking all gay people, which I believe
Speaker 1: that are attacking. Yeah, you're right, it's emotional, just judging
Speaker 1: entire groups of people, which it says don't to do
Speaker 1: in the Bible. You're judging all women are more emotional,
Speaker 1: or gay people are sinners. No, these are judgments on
Speaker 1: large groups of people. Your argument right now is an
Speaker 1: emotional appeal, not the statements you are making judgments. Don't
Speaker 1: like it. No, I just think you hide behind your
Speaker 1: religion to defend your biginning. It's not I think. I
Speaker 1: think people like fact that you think that I'm doing
Speaker 1: something for bad motives. Yes, I do motive argument which
Speaker 1: is not relevant to why when you judge an entire
Speaker 1: group of people, it's called bigotry and you don't like
Speaker 1: so what in your view? There you go in? Your
Speaker 1: words are all subjective. If it's in your view, it's
Speaker 1: subject in your view. It's okay to be a bigot
Speaker 1: in your view, it's okay to judge inconsistent in my view. No,
Speaker 1: you're right, you're you're consistently a bigot. That's what you are.
Speaker 1: Inconsistent in my view. For the used word games, your
Speaker 1: position is inconsistent because you have very consistent You're very consistent.
Speaker 1: I'll explain once again, No, I'm I'm extremely consistent. I
Speaker 1: don't judge people based on sexual orientation. I don't hold on.
Speaker 1: I don't judge people based on color of skin, sexual orientation,
Speaker 1: or gender. I would never tell somebody that doesn't logic.
Speaker 1: I would never tell somebody that doesn't look like me
Speaker 1: that you belong in the kitchen. It's a big for
Speaker 1: your position is what's inconsistent, Not the having a moral
Speaker 1: compass and caring about all people. Yeah, not telling other
Speaker 1: people what to do with their lives. Because you're a bigot.
Speaker 1: You tell other people, You make assumptions about people because
Speaker 1: they're not like you and they don't look like I
Speaker 1: know that you don't like. I understand that it's not
Speaker 1: probably most people don't. Most don't like. It's a fallacy.
Speaker 1: All women belong in the kitchen, All gay people are sinners,
Speaker 1: they're all bad. Because it's my world view, I hide
Speaker 1: behind my Christianity. I know that heaven and Hell are
Speaker 1: I've given a very simple basis you judged on. I
Speaker 1: don't care whether you think it's full. You're judging me.
Speaker 1: You you're judging. You're judging me right now. I'm judging
Speaker 1: you right now. You have the right thing you judge,
Speaker 1: you think you judge. That is wrong to be when
Speaker 1: you judge a group of people based on their sex
Speaker 1: orient No, I don't, because not all Christians think like you. Okay,
Speaker 1: but what's wrong with being a biggot and judge people
Speaker 1: to be a bigot when you don't have a basis
Speaker 1: for your understand that therapy, You don't have a basis ethic.
Speaker 1: It's subjective. That's the kills There is no kill shot here.
Speaker 1: That's your ethics is admittedly subjective and relativists, and then
Speaker 1: you make it universal. That's a contradiction. You are just
Speaker 1: you did. You said, no one knows I'm painting all
Speaker 1: Christians as this. I never said that. There are plenty
Speaker 1: of that universally wrong to be racist and a bigot? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think so. Yeah, but your ethics is subjective and relative.
Speaker 1: That's a contradiction. I don't think it's subjective at all.
Speaker 1: You already argue for the first hour its subjective. I
Speaker 1: think I think it comes you argued that, well, you'll
Speaker 1: disagree with this, but I think it comes down yourself.
Speaker 1: I think no one, not you said you're making yourself.
Speaker 1: I think you did. You not say your ethics was
Speaker 1: in this, in this, in this, in this conversation, multiple times,
Speaker 1: your ethics is not everybody thinks murder is bad, not
Speaker 1: everybody thinks rape is bad. That's subjective to okay, thank you.
Speaker 1: So it's objective. So if somebody says that it's not
Speaker 1: universally if you said that it's not universally wrong to
Speaker 1: be racist, big If you said to me, no, there
Speaker 1: are people out there that think racism is okay, I
Speaker 1: don't deny that. Okay, but universal doesn't mean are there
Speaker 1: people who do otherwise? I said, this is I means stupid.
Speaker 1: This is how stupid this argument is. If I said
Speaker 1: to you right now now, I think it's stupid. If
Speaker 1: I said to you right we don't, I think it's
Speaker 1: very stupid. If I said to you that racism have
Speaker 1: a basis. If I said to you that rape rape
Speaker 1: is bad, you have a basis. For why it's bad.
Speaker 1: You don't. I don't have a basis to why, big,
Speaker 1: consistent basis. No, have you seen slavery? You know what
Speaker 1: that was? That bad? When people judged others based on
Speaker 1: their skin color and owned humans. It's not relevant to
Speaker 1: the ethics of well. First of all, I'm just giving
Speaker 1: you a general term. You just saying things are bad
Speaker 1: because these things happened, and that doesn't get you to
Speaker 1: an ought. That's why philosophy matters. You need a better
Speaker 1: argument or a basis for why something. So, you need
Speaker 1: a better argument. But yet you're the guy who says
Speaker 1: Trump won the twenty twenty election. You need a better argument.
Speaker 1: Jay says, but yet all would be in the kitchen suspicion.
Speaker 1: For me, it's just a suspicion. I just have a suspicion.
Speaker 1: If you want to argue that your ethics is based
Speaker 1: on suspicions, I'll use your stupid I'll use your stupid
Speaker 1: defense and arguments, and I'll turn it right back on you.
Speaker 1: But I don't have to have the same justification for
Speaker 1: every position you're justifying. The religion you're justifying. All women
Speaker 1: is a philosophy domain. Politics is something I don't really care. Again,
Speaker 1: you're taking entire groups of people and all women and this, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it makes you there's nothing universe. I think
Speaker 1: it's very wrong. That's great that you think that very
Speaker 1: universally wrong. And also, by the way, I'm just conditioned
Speaker 1: by determinism to believe it. So what's wrong with that?
Speaker 1: I think you hide behind your religion to hide you.
Speaker 1: I'm actually giving you atheist lines of argumentation, though you're
Speaker 1: not an a saying that all women belong in the kitchen.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about determinism and the idea that there's free will.
Speaker 1: You believe in a metaphysical fiction that you can't justify
Speaker 1: if your agnostic world is true, called free will? So
Speaker 1: other and using your word games, would you agree that Danield,
Speaker 1: Denna and Sam Harris believe that there's no free will?
Speaker 1: I haven't talked to them, but they do believe. I
Speaker 1: don't know that. I haven't talked to them. Many philologists,
Speaker 1: many philosophers, do not believe in free will. They think
Speaker 1: it's a metaphysical fiction. Fine, So it's like the too
Speaker 1: many bigots don't think that when in the kitchen to theory.
Speaker 1: So I want to know why should I believe in
Speaker 1: free will but not God? In your view? You can
Speaker 1: believe whatever you want in your view. In my view,
Speaker 1: when you judge an entire I've said this like ten times.
Speaker 1: I was that an answer to the question I just asked.
Speaker 1: You're not even listening to the question. I'm listening to you,
Speaker 1: and I'm amazed free will is equated to the tooth
Speaker 1: theory and most modern philosophy. Then I want to know
Speaker 1: why is it free will any different than believing in God?
Speaker 1: It's a metaphysical claim. You can I'm not. I'm not
Speaker 1: making that argument. You can believe what you want to believe.
Speaker 1: You argue that free will makes me liable to belie
Speaker 1: and choosing religion versus gaze and not have a choice. Jay,
Speaker 1: you made the argue. Here's my argument. You're not your religion.
Speaker 1: Your argument as I am when you take your religion
Speaker 1: and you treat people differently in you're not listening to me.
Speaker 1: Why do you believe we can keep talking about free will?
Speaker 1: You could listen to my questions for my religious dame. Jay,
Speaker 1: just let me get this out. When you when you
Speaker 1: use your religion and treat people in a negative fashion
Speaker 1: because of it, Okay, it's bad for society. Now, in
Speaker 1: this debate, you've talked about what you think is bad
Speaker 1: for society. Believe in two three things. I was making
Speaker 1: a joke about that. Now ridiculous are saying that it's
Speaker 1: Totti monster. I don't understand what you're saying, Jay, But
Speaker 1: in my society that I would, Jay, you can believe
Speaker 1: whatever you want. Know why should I believe in your
Speaker 1: worldview and free will? I think if you're a decent
Speaker 1: human being, you probably should treat people with respect and dignity,
Speaker 1: regardless of whether there's whether the ocation for free will. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you right now, I want, I want. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm going to give you my justice. Okay, but that's fine,
Speaker 1: that's not going to give you subjective in your opinion,
Speaker 1: it's not a good argument. But a lot I think
Speaker 1: in logic, if you make a subjective argument, it's not
Speaker 1: a good argument. In your opinion, it's not a good art. Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: But in your opinion that everything's opinion? Excuse me? Is
Speaker 1: it your opinion that everything is an opinion? I don't
Speaker 1: think everything is opinion. There's fact and there's fiction that
Speaker 1: goes along with it. Like Trump didn't win the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty election. That's a fact. That's not an opinion, Jay,
Speaker 1: that's a fact. Trump did not win in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: So I think you're the one who can't spell the
Speaker 1: word fact. With that being said, when you take an
Speaker 1: entire yeah, yeah, I know you're shaking your head. It
Speaker 1: makes sense. No, it actually makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1: The Earth is not flat, Jay, And Donald Trump did
Speaker 1: not win the two thousand No, you were. You were
Speaker 1: arguing that Trump Trump, but you think Trump won the
Speaker 1: two thousand election. So if you're going to talk to
Speaker 1: me about fact and total whatsoever, it's actually completely wrong.
Speaker 1: I never argued anything about the physics of the Earth.
Speaker 1: I asked you about free will, and you've had no answer. Yeah.
Speaker 1: That is again you're you're missing the entire you believe
Speaker 1: in fairy tale things. I'm just trying to figure out
Speaker 1: why I believe. Why what do I believe that's very
Speaker 1: free will? Tell me what you think free will is, Jay, I.
Speaker 3: Believe that we're made in God's image and we have
Speaker 3: the ability to choose to is freely morally good or
Speaker 3: evil or this thing or that thing.
Speaker 1: That's what free will is. Now I'm just trying to
Speaker 1: figure out if you don't believe in fairy tale things
Speaker 1: like God, why is free will any different than a
Speaker 1: thing like God. I never said I don't believe in God.
Speaker 1: What I said was but you said, I don't know
Speaker 1: if there is I don't know what it is. I
Speaker 1: don't know whether there's a God. But you said my
Speaker 1: belief is what you said. What I never said, that
Speaker 1: there's no God, But then you said my position was
Speaker 1: fairy tale. Well, what I'm saying is when you make
Speaker 1: cases and you talk about homosuality and you know, listen
Speaker 1: to me, when those are mutually exclusive claims, when you
Speaker 1: make generalizations about people were digated positions, Well, I think
Speaker 1: there's something wrong with Well that's great, but you haven't
Speaker 1: given a moral basis for White's University. Wrong. Are we
Speaker 1: not all created as equals? Or is that not? No,
Speaker 1: we're not all created. I mean, am I equal to
Speaker 1: Kobe Bryant when it comes to physical ability? That that's
Speaker 1: athletic ability. That would have to do with creation of
Speaker 1: my reld view. So okay, Well, I thought we were
Speaker 1: all created as equals, but maybe law but not in
Speaker 1: physical cysical abilities. Again, going back to what we said earlier.
Speaker 1: Let's wrap this up somewhere going to the final points.
Speaker 1: Final points matter. It's just it's just going on. We
Speaker 1: are going. We are going a little bit in sort of.
Speaker 1: I would agree with closing off. Sure, I'm glad we
Speaker 1: agree on the Epstein funnels. I think that's extremely important. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I would never vote for the orange turret. I disagree
Speaker 1: with you on you haven't give me really any reasons
Speaker 1: why other than you thought Donald Trump what he did,
Speaker 1: what he what he said he was going to do here, here,
Speaker 1: and here, and obviously he didn't do a lot of
Speaker 1: those things, which clearly are frustrated on. You didn't really
Speaker 1: give me many reasons other than Kamala Harris as a woman,
Speaker 1: and clearly you don't want to vote for general Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you know, you didn't really give
Speaker 1: me any reasons for that. The reason why I'm not
Speaker 1: an extremely religious person is because of this conversation today.
Speaker 1: I believe, especially in Christianity, people make judgments on other
Speaker 1: people based on their religion because people don't look like them,
Speaker 1: or they don't have the sexuality that they have, or
Speaker 1: they're a woman. I also don't like the fact that
Speaker 1: women and men are separated in synagogue. I don't like
Speaker 1: that either. I don't like it in any religion. That's
Speaker 1: why I'm not an extremely religious person. It comes down
Speaker 1: to me wanting to just treat people the same and
Speaker 1: with respect, regardless of what religion they are. I don't
Speaker 1: like to judge people, even if you're wearing a maga hat. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to immediately assume that you're a racist
Speaker 1: or atrocious human being. And I think it's important in society.
Speaker 1: If you want to talk about society falling, I'm less
Speaker 1: concerned about immigrants in this country documented and not more
Speaker 1: concerned about people that judge other people, or people that
Speaker 1: are so upset. And I would assume you were one
Speaker 1: of them that was so upset at what Don Lemon
Speaker 1: did going into that church and disrupting a church service. Well.
Speaker 1: I don't condone people protesting on private property. I think
Speaker 1: that's wrong, it's against the law. But I find ice
Speaker 1: agents murdering people in the streets a little bit more upsetting.
Speaker 1: We need to have the separation between church and state,
Speaker 1: which clearly we don't have in Washington, DC right now.
Speaker 1: And I think the people that want the ten commandments
Speaker 1: in classrooms are people that don't abide by the ten
Speaker 1: commandments themselves. They break those commandments themselves, Hence the word hypocrite.
Speaker 1: I did not come here to change your mind or
Speaker 1: try to convince you on anything. I understand that's your
Speaker 1: objective when you go to debates. I came here to
Speaker 1: give you my opinions, my views on a number of
Speaker 1: different issues. Some we agree on, obviously a lot we
Speaker 1: disagree on. I think we've stopped listening to other people.
Speaker 1: This is why I do enjoy doing these kinds of things.
Speaker 1: But I think as a whole, we stop listening to
Speaker 1: other people. People that look differently than you and me,
Speaker 1: people that have different pathways in life, people that have
Speaker 1: been brought up differently in different cultures, different backgrounds. I'd
Speaker 1: like to think, as a whole, most human beings are
Speaker 1: good people. And then when we have issues and bad
Speaker 1: things that happen like nine to eleven and other issues,
Speaker 1: that the country comes together, even if it's only a week.
Speaker 1: But this is what I do, and this is what
Speaker 1: I preach, and I'm not trying to change people's opinions.
Speaker 1: People can have their own opinions and judgments about this debate.
Speaker 1: If you're a fan of Jay Dyer, they're going to
Speaker 1: agree with you. If they're a fan of my show,
Speaker 1: they're going to That's what. I don't really care about
Speaker 1: that stuff. Other people do. It's just not me. I'm glad,
Speaker 1: like I said in closing Land my Plan, Sorry, I'm
Speaker 1: glad we agree on the Epstein files. I'm glad we
Speaker 1: agree on some of the Trump stuff. That's refreshing. Obviously
Speaker 1: we disagree a little bit on religion. But here's the difference. Like,
Speaker 1: I would never tell you what to do. I would
Speaker 1: never tell you what to believe. I would never tell
Speaker 1: you that you can't think of something, even though I
Speaker 1: might hate the way you think, even though I might
Speaker 1: hate your opinions on certain things. I would never say, Jay,
Speaker 1: you are not allowed to think like that, even though
Speaker 1: I hate the fact that you think women should be
Speaker 1: in the kitchen. I would say, you know what, we
Speaker 1: have something called freedom of speech in this country. And
Speaker 1: if women you're you're clearly a married man, Clearly it's
Speaker 1: working out well for you. I would assume, which which
Speaker 1: is great. But you know, I would never tell you
Speaker 1: that you can't think that way. I think that's fundamentally
Speaker 1: very important. So anyway, thanks Jay for doing this discussion.
Speaker 1: There wasn't too torturous for you, and I don't think
Speaker 1: you're a bad guy. It was a civil, lively discussion.
Speaker 1: I enjoyed it. Go ahead, shut up.
Speaker 3: I would just say, yeah, I appreciate Brian coming. It
Speaker 3: was a great discussion. Thank you Sean for this opportunity.
Speaker 1: It was good. Yeah, I feel like, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: there was common ground with the Epstein stuff, with uh,
Speaker 1: you know, criticisms of Trump's turn worn Iran. All that
Speaker 1: was was good. I would just you know, again, stress
Speaker 1: that when it comes to debate, My take on debate
Speaker 1: is that it's more like a chess game, not in
Speaker 1: the sense of it being frivolous or a game, but
Speaker 1: that it has rules and it has boundaries.
Speaker 3: And it has limitations that define it being chess and
Speaker 3: not checkers or some other games. So when we come
Speaker 3: to debate, we have to be able to abide by
Speaker 3: the rules, and those are the laws of logic, which
Speaker 3: are essentially the laws of critical thinking. The laws of
Speaker 3: logic dictate debate, because that's how we know when somebody's
Speaker 3: not playing chess anymore and they're doing something else, so
Speaker 3: we have to play by the rules. I think that
Speaker 3: Brian didn't play with the rules for the most of
Speaker 3: the debate when it came to the issues of justifying
Speaker 3: the morals, or when it came to the issues of say,
Speaker 3: free will being a metaphysical claim, which again to me
Speaker 3: is no different than the type of claim that God's
Speaker 3: existence is. So that's when it gets into the domain
Speaker 3: of philosophy. So again, I'm not used to political debates.
Speaker 3: This is probably, I think, my first political politics debate.
Speaker 3: So I'm again glad for Brian Viers always, I think.
Speaker 3: So I can't think of another one. I've done a
Speaker 3: lot of you know, he's.
Speaker 1: A lot of we've done Islam, atheism, but I don't
Speaker 1: think I've debated politics until now. But could you do
Speaker 1: me a favor, Alex I said, Hello, okay, anyway, Jay
Speaker 1: diy Er.
Speaker 3: You can find me on YouTube, you can find me
Speaker 3: on Twitter, Instagram, all those check them.
Speaker 1: Out, guys, we'll link everything below. Comment below who you
Speaker 1: want to see next, y'all? Next time? Good job? How
Speaker 1: long was that? Two hours? Two hours and a half.
Speaker 1: That was my longest debate