Black MAGA Grifter EXPOSED in Civil Rights Debate

No, you're right about the the skew of the discrimination part. Uh, I mean, uh, he got to think about it. You got to think about whether or not less discrimination is good or bad.

I confronted a Trump voter on Charlie Kirk. Video by Adam Mockler. So, a couple weeks ago, we reacted to the first portion of this debate between Adam Mockler and this raccoon right here, uh, black conservative who came to debate him. He completely washed him in the first portion of the debate. And if you want to see my reaction to that, I'll link to it in the description down below. It'll also be the top pinned comment, so you can go ahead and check that out before watching this if you haven't already seen that. But without further ado, let's go ahead and finish this debate.

I guess I want to ask a question. This is gonna be this gonna be it's gonna take this in another direction. Okay. Do you think Charlie Kirk was right about the Civil Rights Act or do you think that his view was like racist on it?

Um, no. Well, no. It wasn't racist. Excuse me. He was definitely right about the Civil Rights Act of.

Can you clarify?

So, a lot of people were was playing this clip of Charlie Kirk saying, "So, this guy has a problem with the Civil Rights Act. He has a problem with equality." Let's hear it out. That he was racist. And when I watched racist and I can't quote what he says specifically, but he said the Civil Rights Act was good until they use it as a Trojan horse to basically add more ideologies and rhetorics when it comes to America like the LGBT DEI and stuff like that, which basically ultimately helped white women in the end, not black people. So, I mean, so what's the basis of the argument or what's the basis of the criticism? Charlie Kirk didn't like Martin Luther King for one reason and one reason only. As he progressed as a conservative, he understood he saw in this current conservative climate, MAGA Republicans are racist. And so he became more racist and more extreme as time went on. Not too long ago, Charlie Kirk was calling Martin Luther King a hero and a civil rights icon. And then he changed his rhetoric because he wants to blame Martin Luther King for DEI and affirmative action, which why do you have a problem with that? First and foremost, affirmative action and DEI were feeble but somewhat appreciated attempts by the American government to try and write some of their wrongs. You see, if you were falsely imprisoned and then you were just released after being imprisoned wrongfully for 5, 10 years, would you consider that to be justice just because they let you out of prison? And so, black people were being oppressed by the the law of the land. And finally, uh, the government put bills and laws in place that attempted to address the the discrimination by making it illegal to discriminate based upon race. That is the equivalent of letting the falsely imprisoned man out of prison, the wrongfully imprisoned man out of prison. However, I imagine if you were released from prison after being wrongfully incarcerated, you would expect some kind of restitution to be paid to you by the government. Well, black people are owed that in this country as well. And what that looks like is reparations. Of course, the American government is not ready to do that. And so, affirmative action and DEI, those were gestures that started to move things in the direction of right and the wrongs. So many advantages have been given to white people in this country going all the way back to the 1700s just on the basis of their whiteness. We are talking about trillions of dollars that have been given in the form of government handouts to white American men. The most noteworthy, of course, in my opinion, is the Homestead Act, where over 270 million acres of land was given away to millions of white American men for free. Blacks and Native Americans were explicitly excluded from partaking in the Homestead Act. Today, one in four white Americans are direct beneficiaries of that that massive handout that the government gave in the late 1800s. But you can take it even further and come to the logical conclusion that many of the people who received this this handout, this was the foundation of their wealth creation. Th this then led to them creating jobs and and opportunities. But because of the racism, Jim Crow, and segregation that followed, you can you can understand how white people who aren't even direct beneficiaries of the Homestead Act still went on to benefit from that amount of wealth being put into the hands of a racist white America. It's just like how there were many white people during the time of slavery who didn't own slaves, but they benefited economically as a result of being white in an America that had black people as slaves to provide free labor. And so fast forward to today, the government puts in place things like affirmative action, which really just makes it a little bit easier for a black person to, let's say, get into a particular university or to acquire a certain job. You have to remember, yeah, white people, they may not have things like affirmative action. However, the wealth and the privilege that they have have inherited because of their whiteness, that is their affirmative action. And so, Charlie Kirk despising Martin Luther King because policies arose out of the civil rights movement that that functioned to try and provide justice to black people. And again, it is a feeble and pathetic version of justice. It is not at all the form of justice that black Americans truly deserve, but it's something. The fact that he is mad that black people even just got something uh really reveals how much of an evil individual he had become, you know, close to the end of his life. And so this raccoon trying to defend that [ __ ] is absolutely pathetic.

I digress with that point, but I don't necessarily see how him saying that that's racist.

No, you're right. You're right partially. I think so. So, this is a debate that I've been having a lot with people about whether or not Charlie Kirk thought the Civil Rights Act was good or bad. And what you're saying is true. He would generally say this. He would say the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. And he was doing that to kind of rage bait people, right? Like just to say something inflammatory. But then he would back it up by saying because it's led to DEI policies that aren't good in modern day. The problem there becomes Charlie Kirk would then also use these talking points right afterwards when he would talk about the Civil Rights Act. He would say they committed less crimes before the Civil Rights Act. And then what he would say is there were less single mother households. Now all of this is true, but there's something called like leading a horse to water where you give a bunch of you give a bunch of descriptions of something. You give a bunch of facts.

Completely unrelated. Completely unrelated. The the increase in crime and the the increase in single motherhood had nothing to do with black people receiving more rights. And that's so evil that he would say that because he's essentially saying black people are animals that when you give them more freedom, they hurt themselves and become more self-destructive.

You don't actually give the prescription. So then people are wondering, oh, what's the prescription there? And I think Charlie Kirk, every single time he said this was leading people to the conclusion that the Civil Rights Act shouldn't have been passed and that black people were better off before, which I just don't think is true. The Civil Rights Act gave black people the right to vote and everything.

No, it did not. See, and I knew you were going to go there. Black people had the right to vote in the 1800s. You do realize that, right? That's the 15th amendment. What What's the face? It's literally the 15th Amendment. They had it. It was equal discrimination.

They They had the right to vote in the 1800s. You do.

No, but there were voting right So why did they pass the Voting Rights Act? Why did they pass the Voting Rights Act if it did nothing, dummy? The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. And what did it do? The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important civil rights laws in US history. Its purpose was simple but powerful, to stop states from preventing black Americans and other minorities from voting. And so, yes, even though thanks to the amendments to the Constitution, which gave black people the right to vote, anybody who knows anything about black American history understands that one of the components of Jim Crow America were racist policies that were put in place by very red uh very conservative states that that put things in place to make it hard, if not impossible, for black people to actually vote. And so even though according to the Constitution they they should have had the right to vote, these states were doing things to make it harder such as literacy tests, understanding tests, poll taxes, intimidation, Englishonly requirements, impossible registration questions, grandfather clauses. Imagine that, having to pay money to vote. Now, someone might say, "Oh, but everybody had to pay the pole taxes, whites and blacks." But when you understand that due to Jim Crow segregation and just racism and and and the the history of slavery, black people have less resources than white people in America, especially at the time when when these policies were put in place by Jim Crow America. And so, and this is how racism has evolved and continues to be ingrained in our legal system today. It it's not explicitly racist. It doesn't say on paper blacks aren't allowed to do this. However, they put laws in place that clearly are going to impact black people more negatively more than white people. And in so doing, and when that is the actual motive, that is the goal. In so doing, you still are implementing racist laws. And so that's why the Voting Rights Act needed to pass be passed. And that's why the modern Republican party wants to undo all of it. They want to undo the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

It was against discrimination of black people at voting booths, at restaurants, at everything. That's what it was.

Why is he so angry? Why is he so angry about that? You [ __ ] raccoon. Why does it Why does it frustrate you to hear that the American government passed policies to make it easier for black people to vote? Why does that upset you? Oh my god, this guy's disgusting.

You can't discriminate.

Okay, but the but but the Civil Rights Act, it was signed by Linda B. Johnson.

I said was true. It was about non-discrimination about You're right about the discrimination part. No, you're right about the excuse me, the discrimination part.

Uh I mean, uh, he got to think about it. You got to think about whether or not less discrimination is good or bad.

As discrimination against black people, yes, is bad. But my thing is this. Nowadays, he said that it's being used as a Trojan horse to to let in other ideologies, which I would have to 1,000% agree with.

But I think that he was doing this thing where in my I'm sorry I I hate to cut you off, but black people already had the right to vote in the 1800s. A lot of people are

Also you complaining about affirmative action and DEI. You've already acknowledged that white women have been the primary beneficiaries of both of these policies. And white women for the most part only marry white men. And so when they have their white male children, you still have white men indirectly benefiting from affirmative action and DEI thanks to their white mothers. Because white women benefited more from these policies than anybody else. More than black people, more than Latinos, more than immigrants, more than anybody. White women benefited from it the most. Which again makes it so hilarious that white women are attracted to MAGA

Trying to basically mix it up and like black people just got the right to vote.

That was a mistake. The Civil Rights Act enacted a lot of protections, equal rights protections around how you can get a job around how you're treated in society and some of that kind of fed into voting rights because this is a fact. Black people's votes have been suppressed throughout American history.

I will give you this. It did take three black people to equivalate to one vote. So I will give you that.

Yeah, that there was there. So So the thing is, so the Civil Rights Act was obviously good. I feel like Charlie Kirk does this thing where he doesn't outright say it, but it's like if I said this, if I said, "Man, when I used to work in the 80s, it was all men in my workplace and we were so productive. But then in the 2000s, this is an example. In the 2000s, women were in the workplace. And then when women were in the workplace, it was way less productive. We weren't able to get anything done." I could probably believe it.

No. if I just stopped right there.

He's like, "Yeah, no, that sounds right." He's like, "He already told you this is a hypothetical example." And he's like, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I believe that."

What's your prescription there that women shouldn't be women shouldn't be in the workforce?

They probably shouldn't. I mean, nowadays they should not. I mean, the You got to think about it.

I mean, this is just a side of bigotry, man. It's just about literally this is just disgusting, man. You're like just worshiping the straight white male.

Our kids our kids bro our kids are dying there isn't about to be an America in a minute if we allow uh people to continue to get abortions allow women to not be in the home and allow the system to raise their kids and then that child grow up to be a degenerate and now they're a part of the statistic you don't you don't think Wait let me just ask you this do you honestly believe that a child is better off in a single parent house home preferably the mom than a two parent household with a mom

Wait I never claimed that okay

So, so he's against women having the option to have an abortion, but he's also against uh children being raised in in single mother households. Don't you think that there are many women who if they had the opportunity to have an abortion wouldn't become single mothers? So, which is it? My thing is this, and this goes back to rhetoric, like we was just talking about with Charlie Kirk. They push this dangerous rhetoric that's going to basically burn America to the ground. Oh yeah, girl. You can do it all by yourself. But but hold on. Here's the thing. You got you you have to admit to this, bro.

You have to admit to this.

Even when it comes to the LGBT, the women's not the women's right movements, but the I'll call it the boss babe movement nowadays, this stuff is dangerous to women. You do realize that majority of women want to be married. You just said the majority of women want kids.

You just said this type of stuff will burn America down.

Okay. Who is stopping women from getting married? Who is stopping women from having kids?

Wait, no. Let me say I know I know what you're saying. I know what you're saying. You said that this will burn America to the ground. You want to know what would burn America to the ground is removing half of the workforce from the working. Our GDP would half. Our output to other countries would drop if we removed all women from the workforce. the country would go to [ __ ] hell. It would be like Middle East. Do you want to be like a Middle Eastern country where women aren't Do you want to be like a Middle Eastern country where women aren't like a Middle Eastern?

So dude, women should have rights ideally to be a Are there any women in your family that have jobs that you respect?

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. My mom has a job. Everybody in my family I know have but they admitted that it's hard to work and try to have you know kids at the same time.

But this is why we can incentivize some sort of laws where women have time off or when they are pregnant they can do this. the idea. Yeah. Or how about governmentf funed child care? Ooh, how about that? Imagine if dayc carees were free just like elementary schools in high school. Wow.

Think we should remove women from the workforce. That is not a viable position.

I don't think Look, I think we should cut back on like hours and stuff for women because they don't want to work as hard as men anyway. What if some do they Okay, if some do then that's an exception to the rule. And my thing is this. You do realize that women contribute 80% of the consumer debt.

Currently, the unemployment rate for black men is higher than black women. But yet, you're saying men women don't want to work as hard as men. So why do they have a higher employment rate

In America, right?

80% of the consumer

80% of the consumer debt is from women.

You realize that 50% of the jobs in America are by women. It's not. You want to remove half of the workforce. And wait, what's the consumer debt? And what are you trying to get to?

Okay. So, so my thing is this. I my thing is this. So listen, you you argued about removing 50% of the women, right? You said you want to do that. No. Well, I I wouldn't have I wouldn't have a problem of that happen. I wouldn't, you know, mind

that would [ __ ] that would burn America to the ground.

But there aren't enough men to replace all the women in the workforce. Do you understand that? If all the women stopped working, we do not have enough men to replace them. Do you get that? Like sure there are plenty of men who are unemployed and let's not forget the majority of them are probably unqualified for the various jobs and roles that women play in the workforce. Also, Mr. conservative fundamentalist guy who who wants to have a wife and kids. Let me ask you something. When when your wife gets pregnant and has to go to the gynecologist, who do you want sticking their fingers up her vagina? Do you want a guy to do it? Would that make you feel better? Me personally, I love the fact that when my wife was going through her three pregnancies, every single time she had female gynecologists. I personally like that. What about fitness trainers, you know, hair stylists, nail salons, and I I'm only mentioning those things because dudes like this, they want women to be so feminine, right? So pretty and feminine. Well, how you think they're going to do that without having access to all of these industries that help women to beautify themselves? Oh, so you want men now to start working in these hair salons? So immediately you're going to have to concede that, oh well, actually, no. I guess there are some markets where we actually still want women to be employed. This is no different than the whole immigrant situation and the deportation of undocumented immigrants. We deport a bunch of undocumented immigrants and then what happens? the economy starts to [ __ ] flounder. You have farmers who are complaining about the ice raids because they don't have people to actually work on their farms. You have that one factory where we had all of those South Koreans creating batteries in a I think it was a Hyundai factory and an ice raid. Some [ __ ] Karen blew blew a whistle and tipped off ice. They got all those people out of there. Trump literally just came out and said, "We need these H-1B visa holders because the American population simply doesn't have enough qualified people to do certain jobs." And so we if we want to continue to enjoy certain luxuries and continue to innovate and push certain technologies forward, well then we are going to need to have these immigrants here.

And does that mean the H-1B visa thing will not be a big priority for your administration? If you want to raise wages for American workers, you can't flood the country with with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of foreign workers.

You also do have to bring in talent when you have plenty of talented people. No, you don't. No, you don't. We don't have talented people. No, you don't have you don't have certain talents and you have to people have to learn. You can't take people off an unemployment like an unemployment line and say, "I'm going to put you into a factory. We're going to make missiles or I'm going to put

How did we ever do it before?

This, of course, was a major blow to the ego of a lot of these white Americans, a lot of these uh MAGA Republicans because they don't want to hear that. They don't want to hear that they are actually not as qualified. They don't want to hear that they're not as competent and that their whole white supremacist idea that they're just better and more qualified just because they're white is a [ __ ] illusion that doesn't actually yield real world results. But then those same MAGA Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich and put laws and policies in place to better fund our education system so that we are producing more qualified people so that we don't need to import more qualified people from overseas. These people, they're schizophrenic. They don't know what they want. They're just so This is This is what white supremacy and racism does to people, bro. This is what conservatism does to people. It makes you stupid. It makes you your own biggest enemy. That would [ __ ] that would burn America to the ground.

But but not necessarily. You want to destroy America. My thing is this though. Not really. Because here's the thing.

You are saving a lot of money for people who's there that's doing absolutely nothing. Now, let's be honest. Let's be honest. If I got three efficient men that are working, but I have eight people that are working, three men, five women, and those five women aren't really doing nothing, what the hell am I paying them for?

This analogy is just awful. What if I wait what if I had five women who were hyperproductive and then three men who did nothing? They're not going to be as hyperproductive as the men because men work harder. This is statistically true. They work hours. They they definitely work more. Come on, Adam. That's definitely disingenuous, dude. Men work more hours. They work way more hard. Laborious jobus. 90% of pilots are men. 90 What? Well, over 80% of police forces in our country are men. Over 90% of military are men. Hold on. You said that that's false, but I'm giving you numbers.

Say it was false. I said that you were tripping right now. You are hardcore.

I'm not tripping, but it's a factual.

Can I tell you how you're tripping?

Go ahead.

The reason why women are just now breaking into the wor workforce at this rate is because America disincentivized women from going to college. I want to finish this point right here. For hundreds of years, for the first 200 years of America, women were told not to go to work. Women were told they should stay home in the 50s and take care of children. Women were told exactly what you're telling women right now. Because of this, women had an inherent disadvantage when it comes to college. There is something called the Scolie effect. There was a show called The X-Files back in the 90s, and there was this lady named Dana Skoly. After this Dana Skoly character popped on TV with a science degree, and she had like a law degree or some [ __ ] the amount of women who went to college to STEM degrees almost doubled. So basically, women were told in society, don't go to work, don't go to college, stay at home, and didn't want to work and didn't want to go to college. They were told not to. And now

they did not get told to. They didn't want to. So a lot of women were critical of

if women didn't want to go to work, they wouldn't have started going to work. Listen, you have to acknowledge one of two things is true. Either America needed women to go to work, which is why they went to work, or they went to work because they wanted to go to work. Either way, you're [ __ ] Your position is just completely bankrupt. the women allowed to vote in its okay but here's the thing though a lot of women did not want to vote

and this is the history of America we put women in the workforce because we needed women in the workforce and now that women have been able to actually acquire some level of empowerment in part as a result of that now this is frightening the insecure conservative man and so he wants to take women out of the workforce who's going to replace the women sir are there not enough unemployed men to replace all the women that would have to come exit the workforce. And you're so [ __ ] stupid. You think that, oh well, my wages are going to go up because there are less women in the workforce, but it's going to go up proportionate. See, yeah, you take the women out of the workforce and so there's less supply of workers and so your pay goes up. But guess what? Now you have a bunch of women that you got to take care of, dummy. Now you got a bunch of women you got to take care of. And so yeah, even though that money goes up at the ultimately, you're you're still [ __ ]

Okay, wait. Let's take this back for sure.

That was a good one. My claim is that Donald Trump's invasion of Chicago is authoritarian.

Okay.

So you think that Trump has the same ideologies as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler?

When you say that somebody is authoritarian, you're not directly comparing them with somebody like Hitler. Like just when I say that somebody is communist, I'm not comparing them to every communist. But Donald Trump uses the same strain of authoritarianism that could have been seen with Hitler.

So who was he trying to control exactly?

When Donald Trump took office, the first thing that he did was try to silence descent. He sued multiple media companies. Did Biden sue any media companies? No, he didn't. Donald Trump then told James Comey or said James Comey, Leticia James,

how is this how is this being an authoritarian though? If I was an actual authoritarian, then you do know they wouldn't even have the right to do those things or say those things. The protest they protest in they protest in Chicago all that they're protesting.

And what is Trump doing?

How are you?

Wait, wait. What is Trump doing in response to the protests? He's mobilizing the military in the city

to get rid of the illegal migrants. That's not for the citizens.

ICE gets rid of the illegal migrants. ICE does, not the not the military.

First of all, nobody said that the National Guard was there for illegal migrants.

You just did. Oh my Oh my god. These people are [ __ ] literally couch chewers, bro.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You're trying to twist my words. You said that I said that is Trump trying to be an authoritarian and you said that um he's Can you repeat that? I'm sorry.

Let me go through this. Let me lay out case. What do you think authoritarianism is? What's your opinion?

I think it's someone who's trying to basically silence someone for, you know, their political beliefs or their beliefs or anything like that. people who are attacking a specific group

like and and I don't know if you're trying if that's where you're going like when it comes to the illegal migrants

author no no I'm not going there authoritarianism means somebody in power is consolidating all of the checks and balances around him so nobody can check him he's unable to use that unchecked power to go after opposition

that's why we have three branches of government

and let me explain this we have three branches of government and what Donald Trump did right when he got into office is not only install loyalists in the different uh agencies around him like the DOJ J, we have Pam Bondi who he's directly or he's directly asking to do things. Can you point to me Biden doing that? No. Wait, wait, let me ask you.

But let me get But now, let me ask you, but now But now I got you in the hot seat now because you do know that the Republicans, we have the executive chair, we have the House, and we have the Senate. So why isn't everything that Trump wants is happening right now?

It is. Okay. Listen.

Okay. All right.

Donald Trump right when he got into not, by the way, but okay.

Donald Trump right when he got into office,

what is he? What what has Trump tried to get done that Congress and Senate has blocked?

Sure. That every institution around him had somebody who could literally do his bidding. So we have Pam Bondi, we have Cash Patel,

in my opinion doing a terrible job.

Listen, we have Cash Patel at the FBI who's probably covering up the Epstein files for Trump at this point. I agree with that.

So look at this. So So just think about this. He has people in positions of power who

Why are you defending a man that you believe is actively trying to protect pedophiles? These people are so morally bankrupt and yet I'm sure he calls himself a Christian

things up for him. Pam Bondi you think is not doing a great job. She's she's been asked by him. Cash Patel may maybe not doing a great job. At the FCC we have Brendan Carr who is a Trump loyalist. We can go across the board and he appoints people in chairs to silence opposition. When James Comey's name was brought up online and then he was indicted three days later. That's authoritarianism. That means the president

But how do you know that though? Like how like my thing is that you can say that that's that's that's authoritarianism, excuse me, but you have to have proof of that. Like how

Yeah. This is another thing with these um black Republicans, these black conservatives, these raccoons, their mustaches, whenever they do rock the mustache, they always got this bushy unckempt thing. Like this [ __ ] little piece right here is bothering the [ __ ] out of me, bro. It's just like hanging over his lip. It's like this [ __ ] is so nasty.

How does that connect with what your definition of authoritarianism is?

My definition is somebody who's in power is using their power to silence opposition. And when James Comey is speaking out against Trump and Leticia James, and Shifty Schiff, I don't know why I used

Leticia James. So you mean to tell me that Leticia James wasn't calling Trump a Nazi and calling Trump like

should she be indicted and targeted for this?

I mean that's her that's her right to free speech. But my thing is this. She should be held accountable and responsible for the things that she say.

You kind of just

So, okay. So, should JD Vance also be held accountable for calling Trump Hitler? What about the the the Republican the Jewish Republican congressman that literally is calling other conservatives Hitler. He's comparing them to Hitler and saying they need to be neutralized. That was that came from a Jewish Republican congressman.

My point. So, I said that Leticia James is getting targeted and it's for mortgage fraud. And what you said is, "Oh, you think Leticia James should be able to have free speech and call him a Nazi." And you're essentially leading it to, "Wait, she should be

I never disputed someone having their First Amendment taken away from them. I said she can say whatever she wants. But my thing is, you have to be held accountable with what you say.

She can't say whatever she wants.

Exactly. She's trying to and she got indicted. She tried to and she got indicted for it.

Okay. That and that's what I'm saying. You You have to be responsible with what you say. You do realize when I you do realize when I say you can say whatever you want like literally though like you can say whatever you want. Now I'm not saying that um in particularly when it comes to in America that you like you can't like you can't like you can just say anything but physically you can say whatever you want but

then that's not freedom of speech dummy. You can say whatever you want in Russia and China as well but depending on what you say you might get packed up and that's exactly what you're preaching. You're saying, "Oh, yeah, everyone should be able to say whatever they want, but you might be held accountable." Now, we're not talking about the fact that there are consequences for the things you say, such as you might say some racist [ __ ] around the wrong black guy, and [ __ ] he might punch you in your [ __ ] mouth. You know what I'm saying? You may say the wrong thing in front of a Mexican, he might [ __ ] put you on the floor. Yeah, that that's consequences. But guess what? You shouldn't be put in prison. That's the whole point of freedom of speech. You should never be put in prison for saying something somebody doesn't like. The law shouldn't be weaponized against you just because someone says something you don't like. That's freedom of speech. It doesn't prevent you from getting fired from your job. It doesn't prevent you from women not liking you. It doesn't prevent you from getting flamed or cooked on YouTube by by commentary channels. It doesn't protect you from any of that [ __ ] From people not liking you and and hating you and your fans unsubscribing. All of that. Those are examples of consequences of people exercising their free will in response to you saying some [ __ ] Okay? But what you shouldn't do is be targeted by the government or imprisoned because you said something that somebody didn't like. That is when your freedom of speech is being violated. And that exactly is a kind of of um strategy that Donald Trump is implementing. He's punishing people wherever he can and however he can when you say something that he doesn't like.

To be held accountable and responsible for the things that come with it.

Let's loop back to Chicago. But I just want to ask you, do you think Trump directing his attorney general to prosecute people is authoritarian?

People do it all the time.

Who's done it before?

Um, well, I I can't think of no.

People do it all the time. Who's done it before? Well, I can't think of anybody. You're telling me you can't think of anybody yet? It happens all the time.

Uh, attorney general at the top of my head right now.

It's new. It's new. And what he's doing is openly directly asking for that. But let's bring it back to Chicago. I'm going to give my argument, then I want to hear what you have to say. From all the research I've done, JB Pritsker back in 2020 mobilized the National Guard during the BLM protests and riots to protect black businesses and black.

But how long did it take him to do that though?

I I mean, I don't know exactly. I'm sure he mobilized the National Guard, protected black communities. A few years later, JB Pritsker was trying to coordinate with ATF, law enforcement officials, uh, FBI. He was even allowing ICE agents, but Donald Trump is escalating it to such a degree where he wants not only the military, but he wants Blackhawk choppers, which did happen. And this got to a point where just yesterday or it was a few days ago, 27 police officers were teargassed in Chicago. I don't know if you saw this. The National Guard literally or the military literally teargassed our officers.

That was on accident. That was on accident. They were caught inside of the tear gas. They didn't p They didn't purposely do that.

I don't think they did. Did you see the

And that's kind of disingenuous on your end.

No, it's not. What they're doing is actually not They're making the police force less affected. Did you see the pastor who got shot in the head with a ball? These people are going crazy in Chicago. This is not

But do you see what the people that do you see what these people are doing to these federal agents? Even even the superintendent said that you cannot attack these federal agents. You cannot attack law enforcement. So, you agree with that? But that's what they're doing.

The priest wasn't and the seven the 27 cops weren't.

We're talking about the people who are protesting against ICE.

You shouldn't do that. But here's the solution. You can coordinate with law enforcement. You can make sure that this is stopped or you can mobilize the effing military. Like here's the thing. Will mobilizing the military reduce crime?

Yes. Because we have an example of that and that would be Washington DC.

We have another example and it's North Korea. You know what I North Korea has?

I live in North Korea. See, this is what they do. Oh, but what about

Yeah, we're trying to prevent it from becoming North Korea

countries. Dude, we live in America. If we know that this works in Washington DC, yes, it did. We're only Okay, let me ask you.

Only one homicide happened during that National Guard.

Of course, crime will drop when you have the effing military mobilized. That is not a wrong with that cuz that is not a law. Okay, so that's what we should do then. We should have a perpetual police state, which we already do, but an even worse one where the f where we have men wearing fatings walking the streets with M16s. That's what you want. That's the version of America you want. You want to go outside and see men. But here's the thing, we all know what's going to happen. The people who white people who live in rural America, in the middle of the country, the poor whites, they won't have to deal with that [ __ ] And white people who live in suburbs and upper class communities, they won't have to deal with that [ __ ] right? It's only poor people in urban areas that are going to have to deal with that. And who of course is the majority of that? Brown people, minorities, people like blacks, Mexicans, people of that nature. They will be the ones who have to constantly deal with even though less than half of a percentage of the community is actually committing these crimes. Everybody has to be under constant military occupation. That's the version of America that you want. That's insane. How about we address the problems that's creating crime in the the first place? How about we address wealth inequality? How about we address the fact that, you know what I'm saying? So many of these these young people are in communities where they have nothing to do. Their schools are [ __ ] Their parks are [ __ ] Their recreation centers are [ __ ] Like everything is [ __ ] there. How about we make it easier for people to get a higher education? Do you know what percentage of the prison population has a college degree? Look at what happens as people become more educated. Less than high school, 30%. High school diploma or GED 40%, some college 13 to 15%, bachelor's degree 4%, graduate degree, so master's degree or above less than 1%. And so we see the more educated people become, the less likely it is that they end up in prison. The same thing happens with divorce rates, with homelessness. literally education. Knowledge is power, right? My people perish due to a lack of knowledge. And so this is what we need to address, not be putting uh people from the military on the streets and throwing more people in prison. That is not the solution because it's not addressing the the root problems that are causing people to go down a life of crime.

Long-term solution. It is not a viable solution. It is not an American solution. You don't mobilize the [ __ ] military to see. This is what you do in North Korea. The way that they have stopped crime is by closing down the border so no one can get in. No one wants to go to North Korea. And now there's military on the streets. No [ __ ] There's no crime in North Korea. But when you put military on the streets of Chicago and there's no crime. Yeah, you can point to that. Not Not that there's

Yeah. Let's take a look at China. China has a population four times the size of America. yet they have a smaller prison population and they have almost no police presence on the streets. And so it turns out there is a way to solve the problem of crime and and this is true for many other countries as well. Uh there's a way to solve the problem of crime without throwing everyone in prison and putting police officers on every corner of every street. Maybe we could try that out. Don't you think it would be better? Isn't that a nicer solution in regards to the problem of crime? A a reality where we don't have this this this barbaric uh prison industrial complex that that's essentially just another form of slavery. Uh wouldn't it be better if instead of going that route, our [ __ ] can look more like China or or many of the other European countries that don't have this problem, many of the other developed countries that don't have this problem? Wouldn't it be nice to to accomplish that in such a way where people have their freedom

when you have military walking through the streets? How long does

But you're doing the you're you're using the extreme and that's what the left do. That's what the left does all the time. You guys always jump to the extreme. Oh, Kim Jong-un, this doesn't work in North Korea. But my thing is this though, we live in America, right? So my thing is, are you going to allow and I believe this is one of the topics that we were supposed to talk about, but are you going to allow your city to be burned down like like Minnesota like how Tim Waltz allowed with Black Lives Matter protest and Antifa rallies and stuff like that. Will you actually allow that?

That's why JB Pritzker mobilized the National Guard to prevent that

long though. People already died. People already lost their businesses. People already moved.

He didn't allow it to burn down. He mobilized the National Guard.

I said he took too long.

I said you like to do that a lot, man. You like to switch my words a little bit.

When you watch this over, you just said that. Exactly. But

no, I said he like he he he allowed it to happen too long.

Just to bring this back, I want to ask you a question. How long can we mobilize the National Guard? Say for example,

I would say up to like a 100 days.

Okay. Then what happens

or like a month to 100 days? Excuse me.

That is why it is inherently a short-term solution. What happens after

it works though?

Wait. After 100 days, after the military is gone and people are actually able to like go out in the streets and do [ __ ] again and the deterrence is gone, what's the solution from there? This is not a long-term solution.

Exactly. It did it did nothing to address the root problems. And so the whatever problems were solved by the military occupation, they're just going to spring right back up. And so either you address the root problem, which just do that from jump, do that from step one, or have a perpetual military occupation of urban lowincome cities.

Oh, that that's actually a good question. And I I will give you that point. Now, I can't make promises as to safety will become better after the National Guard is gone. But here's the thing, though. Are you not going to take those 100 days of safety and no murders, no crimes? Yes. Chicago needs a 100 days.

I don't think people feel safe right now in Chicago.

I mean, the people who aren't committing crimes feel safe. Now, the people who are committing crimes, they don't feel safe because there are more police detail out there. There are more federal

black people are the most exonerated group of people in this country. Which means what? Black people are the most falsely imprisoned group in this country. So

Tell me why you think black people would feel safer having more military and more police presence, if we know that this country has a long history and a habit of falsely imprisoning black people. Black people don't feel safer around the police. Sure, I'm sure they enjoy the ones who aren't committing crimes and the ones who want to live in a safe environment. Sure, they enjoy hearing gunshots ring off less and hearing that there are less murders occurring. But they also know that they're a target as well, just because they're black.

And that's why we see in cities where this strategy was implemented, we see the economy hurting as a result of it. People are going out less. People are going to restaurants less. People are purchasing things less. What does that do? It puts less money in the hands of business owners, and the economy stagnates. That's what this does. It puts fear in the hearts of these people because these very same people are tools or are arms of a racist judicial system that targets minorities simply because they are black or Mexican or Arab. That's the America we live in.

Agents. There are National Guard out here. These people can't commit crimes.

"Do you think that if we pulled people from Chicago who voted Democrat at like an 85% rate that they're okay right now with the military being deployed in here?"

"First of all, that's bias because you know that the majority of Democrats don't like Trump's decisions when it comes to him being president."

"So when Trump is mobilizing the military against the will of the people, you think, okay, well that's because Trump isn't doing anything to help the people. That's why. Do you think if Trump all of a sudden started making decisions that are creating better jobs, more jobs, higher paying jobs, do you think Democrats would be against that?"

"[ __ ] no. [ __ ] no."

"City, the governor of the state."

"City though, they're illegal migrants."

"No. No. Against the will of the people in people who are living in the city don't want this. Like we just talked about, I said 85%."

"See, and that's my thing though. Where are they getting this information? Because you do know Brandon Johnson has a 6% approval rating, right?"

"Yeah. He's really unpopular. My thing is this, dude, whatever the hell Brandon Johnson, whatever the hell Brandon Johnson is saying, the people think opposite. Okay."

"Brandon Johnson is the mayor of Chicago, by the way."

"Clips saying people that are thanking National Guard agents that are thanking federal agents. Thank you guys for being here."

"I've seen those clips, but that's the minority, like we just said."

"Not really. Me myself, I've went on Fox News and told Tom Homan to please come to Chicago and deploy the National Guard and deploy ICE to because we need help here, dude. You got to understand the crime that's going on in Chicago. People, we're talking babies here. Kids do die every single day."

"The majority of people in Chicago don't want this though. They don't want it to prove that claim."

"Okay. So, let's just think about this. If 85% of people in Chicago voted blue, let's just say it's roughly that, you know, it's like a really high."

"90. So, I'll give you. Yeah, for sure."

"Yeah. Yeah. So, if like 90% of people, how many of these people, and you can say they're biased, but this actually feeds into my point. The people of Chicago, the governor of Illinois, the mayor, everyone from a top down, not everyone. I know there's people who want this. They're all saying that this is not how they want to do it. Now, there are ways to increase police funding. You want to know what I would do? I would increase police funding, more police training. I don't think we should defund the police. That is really [ __ ] dumb. I think we need to increase police funding. And."

"So, you're a Republican now."

"That's not what. No Democrats."

"What we could do?"

"No. The Democrat position has always been to expand the government and to fund government programs better. We need to be paying everybody more. We need to be paying the mailman more. We need to be paying teachers more. We need to be paying police officers more. We need to be paying everybody that the government takes care of, they all need to be getting paid more. The more money you invest, the better things perform. What you focus on grows. And so what you pour into, you get more out of. You get out what you put in. And so, yeah, a part of the reason why the police force is as bad as it is in the ways that it is bad is partly because not enough funding is going to train these people properly. The idea wasn't just, oh, let's take away money from the police just to punish these racist police officers. It was take that money since these police officers are racist and problematic and they have too much power and when they walk around with that badge and that gun they turn into [ __ ] just criminals, a lot of these guys and are going on ego trips. Let's put that money towards putting people in place that can tackle the problem from a different, less aggressive, less violent angle. Let's try and get to the root cause of the problems. Let's take that money from the police force, give it to social workers. Let's invest in violence intervention. Can we start to address the problems at the core, at the root of the problem instead of just sending out these police officers to brutalize these communities? That was the idea behind it. It was kind of like, you know what, [ __ ] it. We can't fix these racist police officers. So, let's just put people in place who can actually address some of the core problems. However, I think we need to do both."

"Increase police funding. And a lot of liberals think this. Increase police funding."

"The Democrat party is truly the real America First party. Better training. And you know what? Actually, there's a study. This is for real. Communities tend to be policed better when they know the police in their community. If they know this person is a friendly face, then that person tends to blend in with the community well. When we're mobilizing the National Guard."

"But what you just said though, why don't majority of the top leaders like AOC, Jasmine Crockett, and Chuck Schumer, why don't these leaders say that? The same exact thing that you said. Pritkar has been saying that has not been saying that. His obsession with Donald Trump is honestly ridiculous."

"Well, Trump is the one that's posting like AI memes of him shoving food."

"See, that's the thing, man. You guys always go back to Donald Trump. This is honestly the only thing."

"Pritzker is always criticizing Donald Trump. Well, Donald Trump is generating AI images of him and constantly attacking him. Oh, you guys are always attacking Trump. It's like, oh my god, man. Jesus Christ. Wipe your mouth off."

"You people can talk about. And my thing is this. Donald Trump isn't the only."

"He's the president. This is a political debate about the decisions being made in the country. You don't think the president is relevant to talk about and criticize where that is concerned?"

"Republican that's doing stuff. Okay. Now, if you guys weren't just being so biased and so fixated on Donald Trump, you could actually see that."

"He thinks I'm the enemy from within. I don't know."

"You specifically. Are you taking that personal or?"

"He says Democrats. I'd consider myself a Democrat."

"Okay. So, you're taking that personal or?"

"I mean, how else can you take it? He said Democrats are the enemy within."

"Okay. So, my thing is this. Do you think that democratic policy has worked over the past 12 years?"

"In blue cities? When it comes to no anywhere when it comes to the economy?"

"Yeah. The GDP rate always goes up under Democratic leadership and it goes down under Republican leadership and that's been consistent for like the last 16 presidential terms. It's just a fact. This country does better when Democrats are in power."

"It comes to."

"Sure. You want to know what's the biggest GDP state in the country? What state is carrying all the other states?"

"I believe California."

"Yeah. Is that a blue or red state?"

"It's. Dude, oh my god, this is so disingenuous. You know, California has a high production system. You know, all of the movies are filmed there. You know, all the rich people are good liberal policy. Come on, dude. So, you're saying you realize that there's a reason so many people move to California, right?"

"Capitalism, though."

"Wait, wait, that's entirely different. You're saying that California has great universities and that's why rich people are there leaving California too."

"You're saying that California has a film industry, universities, rich people, but it's a Democratic [ __ ] hole. You can't have both of these things at once. California is carrying the country on its back."

"I don't. You're making yourself look bad because you know these actors and these lawyers and these top earners probably like yourself, these people don't stay in the inner cities in LA like you know, like these rich people aren't staying there. Adam, and you know that. So let's talk about how Democratic policies have failed then because I see Chicago for example. Let's take Chicago and we could talk about a few different aspects but Chicago has multiple colleges that are leading in the country. Chicago's out."

"The most violent states in this country are red states. The states with the worst crime rate are red states. The states with the highest production productivity GDP generation, they're blue states. What are we doing? What are we talking about here? Rhode Island is bigger than any red state right now and a lot of it is due to certain ports not in Chicago but in New York and California, the ports and the imports that we have coming into these make them so dominant. So we're talking about blue states that have, you know, a lot of problems with some crime and infrastructure and like nothing's perfect. No city is going to be perfect and due to the high population density of cities, there's going to be more crime naturally."

"That I could agree with."

"Yeah. I think that Democratic lawmakers should do better. I think so. And I think I think they should do better, but I don't think that blue cities are failing or anything. I think there's problems within them."

"So, when I mean by failing, do you know what mastery is? That's 80%. So, 80% in my opinion. Well, any honestly, I'll take that back. Anything over 50%. Well, I will include the majority. So, my thing is this. If it's under 50% or if it's so low to where, okay, this is an issue, then I would consider that a failing rate. Would you consider a 40% failing?"

"40% of what?"

"Of. Okay. 40% out of 100. Would you consider that failing?"

"Um, yeah. But."

"40% 40% of I don't get what you're talking about."

"So, okay. So, let's say."

"I got a grade on a test. Yeah."

"Okay. Okay. So, now let's equate that to let's equate that to crime, right?"

"Let's compare the inner cities in blue states to the inner cities in red states and see which ones fare better."

"I mean, the data speaks for itself."

"Crime is up by 80%."

"And wait, where?"

"No, no, I'm just example. Adam, listen to me, just listen. Sorry."

"So crime is up 80%. Right. Would you consider that good or bad?"

"That would be awful. Holy [ __ ]."

"Okay. So, so my thing is this, right?"

"Where is that happening?"

"When. Okay. So, when it comes to averages in crime in the economy when it comes to um."

"Literally nowhere. You can take a look at the most violent country in the world. Even they don't have murder rate increases of 80%. This is just like a completely nonsensical argument, but okay, let's let him continue."

"Businesses staying in those cities."

"California, New York, um, excuse me, Illinois, they are all failing in these categories. Adam, the economy, we are in a 1.2 billion deficit."

"Do you think crime went up or down during Biden's term across blue cities?"

"And what?"

"We have a trillion dollar deficit. Not billion dollar, but okay, let's just say he misspoke there."

"Adam, is that a serious question?"

"I mean, look it up. Did crime go up or down?"

"I believe that crime went up and you do realize that some crimes don't get reported. Now, a lot of people say that, oh."

"Crime has gone down in Chicago."

"Crime isn't up because the statistics doesn't say because and Brandon Johnson says this a lot as well, that crime isn't up and this that and third. No."

"That's literally what the data tells us. Crime has been going down consistently."

"Reports of crime are down and that's what people are failing to realize. I can see a person getting his ass whooped or getting his car broken into. I'm not going to report it. You want to know why? Because it's Chicago."

"So, okay. So, he wants to use the data when it benefits him. But when the data doesn't benefit him, what does he say? The data is unreliable. Isn't that convenient?"

"He's going to get away with the crime. The police are going to show up like, what, six minutes after the damn fact. I'm already dead. You know, so my thing is this. People find it to be useless to depend on our police nowadays. And I'm just talking about Chicago. I'm talking about the Democratic cities. This really doesn't happen in, you know, red Republican states, stuff like that, because they actually back their police. Now, in blue cities, you have to admit they, especially in the black community, they say, 'F the police. I'm not snitching.' They're not cooperating or applying with the police act."

"But that's nothing new, right? Black non-cooperation with the police is nothing new. So if that was happening in the past, why is that data reliable and now this data untrustworthy?"

"All like when they get pulled over, first thing they're going to say, 'Oh, I'm black, so I'm going to give this person a hard time because he's a white cop.'"

"This is [ __ ]. We've already spoken about this in previous videos. We have plenty of studies done by Ivy League institutions like Harvard and Stanford that have proven that black people are harassed by the police in ways that white people just are not harassed, even when you control for all of the variables that you can think of which may influence how things go when interacting with the police, right? And so, for instance, when they take a look at neighborhoods that have the same crime rate, when they control for the rate of crime, black people are still overpoliced. They're harassed by the police more. The police will more often use non-lethal force with black people than with white people, even when controlling for all the various variables. In my video that I did responding to that YouTuber Aidito who tried to make an exposed video against Antonio Speaks, I'll link that down below as well. I went over all of that data. We're not going to go over it now, but there's so much data that reveals that. So, this idea that black people just don't cooperate with the police just because we're black is [ __ ] [ __ ]. Okay? The police, they discriminate against black people. That's without a doubt. That's just a fact."

"Now, you can argue that, you know, some police are going to be biased towards black folks, but in my personal opinion, I've never had a problem with the police than one time when they mistaken me for someone else. I mean, mistakes are going to happen. Like, show me the perfect person. So, that's just my take on that."

"I will leave it there. And I just want to say, man, I really do appreciate this conversation. I know that like I know I know that everything in America."

"Yeah, you got your ass cooked. You got your ass cooked. Well, so that's the rest of the debate, man. This dude truly is a [ __ ] [ __ ]. But you guys let me know what you think in the comments section down below. Thank you for watching and until next time, peace out. Heat. Heat. N."