Transcription
Do you support Trump? >> Uh, yeah, to a degree. I I wouldn't say I support Trump as the human, but I would support, uh, his cabinet. And not because of exactly what they're going to do, but I think it's more of a catalyst to change things. I think if we had gone with the left, you would be continuing to do the same thing where companies like Berkshire and Vanguard.
>> Okay, let me just clarify. Let me, let me just clarify. Election was held today. Harris versus Trump. Who would you rather vote for?
>> Trump.
>> Okay, go ahead. Keep going in your thing.
>> So, history's repeating itself and it, and even if we did make a grand change, I don't know if it would change anything, but it'd be pretty crazy to keep just voting in the same type of politicians we have that lie, that have huge, you know, buy-ins on like large sovereign wealth funds. They have Berkshire, Vanguard, you know, the argument that's been made a lot about, you know, those companies that are controlling the world. Truthfully, kings and queens like replaced their crowns and are now just corporations. So, we can say Trump or the cabinet or whatever, but they, you know, whether it be Israel, um, whether it be Berkshire, they're the ones that are manipulating Trump and his cabinet the most. But with someone like Trump, we're at least going to admit it and see it, and then there's going to be a solution, hopefully.
>> Anytime.
>> Are you a socialist?
>> I wouldn't say I'm a socialist. No.
>> Okay. Are you?
>> I do believe more things need to be socialized, but I wouldn't say everything needs to be social.
>> Are you? Are you left-wing?
>> Uh, I I I believe in compassion and often the argument starts out.
>> Like, are you supporting Trump because you think it will make things get pushed more to the left?
>> I think it's the catalyst. I I think this whole left-right argument is a bad argument. The only way for people to like break that paradigm is to have someone like Trump. You have to have such absurdities on both sides.
>> Know that you're not necessarily an accelerationist. So, what policies do you like of Trump's?
>> Uh, not much. Again, my argument isn't about that he has strong policies. It's that his his absurdity is going to be the catalyst that changes things.
>> Okay. So, cuz people will be against him.
>> Yeah. And and you start to dig deeper.
>> Okay. So, you are an accelerationist. So, to be honest with you,
>> I don't really care to talk to people like you because I think that it's a waste of time to be honest. Um, like you actively know that Trump is worse for the country and you support him knowing that he's worse for the country.
>> So, I don't say he's worse for the country. I don't believe that.
>> Well, that that's what you're saying is you're saying that we're going to be able to identify the absurdisms of it. So, in order for there to be absurdisms, that means that there needs to be things bad that happen, right?
>> No. No. So, so, so can I make the argument against that? Because what you're what you're implying is that with Trump, things are going to be worse. What I'm saying is we're just going to notice them more. So if let's let's assume Harris, I think if Harris had had been elected, we would continue just funding like Ukraine wars and other wars and we might not see on our doorstep the worst that you're saying, but the market was going to collapse. There there's a bubble coming. All the the experts are talking about the bubble that's going to pop, and it would pop whether Trump or Harris was there. There's no way of fixing this. What it is, we have too many dividends and buy-ins and pork bellies, whatever you want to call them, the futures, the swaps, they're ready to collapse again, but it's going to be 10 times worse than 2008.
>> For for which of the claims?
>> For that there's going to be a complete bubble pop regardless of administration because of the level of dividends that we have, because of the level of investments that we have.
>> I wouldn't know exactly where to start just right off here, but I I can make a quick analogy to make it make sense. Are you familiar with like a future swap?
>> Yes.
>> And then you the same thing that happened in 2008, the the bets on the bets. We're we're aware of how that's bad. Here's just one analogy or or one example is the futures and swaps that there are on gold, a physical asset, right now outnumber at about 47 to one, and that's just what is publicly traded. So there's the private trades to the private sector, there's an insurance on it.
>> Okay.
>> Do you understand the the potential problem in that?
>> Or does that so you said because this ratio is 47 to one, that means that there is going to be a bubble pop.
>> Well, this is just one example in one market. What happened in 2008 was just because of the housing market.
>> So, but we have a bubble in insurance.
>> So, is that it? Or you're saying so what is your source for that particular ratio and for the fact that that will then be a leading indicator for there being a bubble pop regardless of?
>> It's a pretty easy one. You could you could.
>> And I would argue that why would you want to put yourself in a worse circumstance in terms of the economy rather than a better circumstance in terms of the economy if you're trying to address this? You said the things will be the exact same regardless of the administration. We're just willing to call it out more if Trump's in office. Would we be at war with Iran if Harris were in office?
>> Uh, no. No. I don't think would have imposed tariffs, universalized tariffs if Harris were in office.
>> I do believe we'd be in a war with Russia.
>> Would we have threatened the annexation of Greenland if Harris were in office?
>> Would we have destabilized relations with a bunch of a bunch of our allies around the world if Harris were presidency?
>> Without you asking more questions, I'll admit yes, these things that you're going to try and point out, I'm probably going to be giving you the loaded answer that you wanted. But you're not asking the questions is would we be in a war with Russia? Would we be in possibly?
>> You don't think so? And why is that?
>> No. Because we were in a proxy war. There's nothing that would cause a direct war that specifically would have happened under the Harris administration. And Harris is not advocating for direct war because obviously they have nuclear weapons.
>> When was the last time? Show me what Obama.
>> What makes you think that we would have been at war with Russia? So because of the time scale, what it is is China and Russia are having pressure put onto them. They're having a population crisis right now. So the window for where they have any dominancy was either going to be through AI or through active war and then taking over some the same thing we basically do. Take over some strategic points, tax the [ __ ] out of it and then you know, we control. Russia and China are losing their grips on those things. Whether it be through the southeast seas, whether it be through the West and NATO and Harris, I and it's all an assumption like we're raising hypothetical, but I think it's pretty evident that the left has always proven that they're more of a vanguard and Berkshire is more of a right. I think history's kind of shown that and Vanguard has been the one that has.
>> Respectfully, you're yapping. You're not answering how Russia would specifically be at war with the United States under a Harris administration.
>> Because we would be we would ramp up our our needs over in Ukraine. It would have been like 10 fold than what Trump had done. Trump and it's stupid that.
>> There's no argument that it would have been 10 fold that Trump would have done. And secondly, let's say that it was.
>> We're being speculative. Don't hold it. It would be how is that going to lead to direct war with Russia?
>> Cuz they would have no option with with Ukraine. They can throw bodies. They can do the same type of war with us. That makes no sense. That makes no sense.
>> Why does it make no sense? Just why?
>> Because we were already funding the defense of Ukraine under Biden's administration.
>> Yes, we were funding it. But so so things ramp up just because it was.
>> So then if we're funding it like that, that's not direct war, boots on the ground.
>> How do you think Russia takes it?
>> And and when do you think they're funding Iran? You know that, right?
>> Yes.
>> So wait, what are you talking about? We're at proxy war with them to a greater extent since Trump got in office because of his war with Iran.
>> The that's a false comparison. So the proxying that's happening with Russia to Iran versus us in Iran is not the same as if we were to pro there is no way that Iran is going to put boots on our soil because of them proxying. They don't have the funds or the intelligence or the people for it. Plus the geographical distance is crazy.
>> I don't confuse your point is.
>> Because well, you're making a false comparison. You're saying that Russia with a proxy to Iran is the same as me saying that the proxy is going to be for us supporting Ukraine. Us supporting Ukraine, they can put boots in Russia. It's a much different threat. Okay. We can supply people with nukes. We're a different threat when we proxy.
>> So, we're a greater threat to Russia. I'm I'm really confusing how.
>> We are a much greater threat to Russia than Russia is to us.
>> Yeah. And that doesn't mean that they're going to go to direct war with us. That makes zero sense. Why why don't you ask the actual question that you're think.
>> Because both sides have nukes.
>> So if we're talking about an extreme war where everyone's just going to drop nukes, then yeah, but I'm pretty sure you'll see that.
>> Even if people.
>> There hasn't been direct war. There's no good argument that we were going to be at direct war with Russia. And the fact that you're trying to use this to deflect away from the fact that the the fact that you're trying to use this to deflect away from the fact that under Harris administration, we would not be at war with Iran, and we would not have the tariffs in place, universalized tariffs. We would not have destabilized our relationships with our allies by calling for the annexation of Greenland and Canada. Right? You understand?
>> I already I already admitted.
>> Like you're not listening and you're just cutting me off. Thank you.
>> I already told you yes to all that though. I told you yes, we would we would not be in the situations that you're saying we'd be in. And I told.
>> But you said that we would be at war with Russia, which you have no good argument for at all.
>> What do you mean? I I've told you many times that there's a. So why would we not go harder in Ukraine?
>> Regardless of whether or not we went harder, that's still not direct war with with Russia. Not an argument.
>> So you don't think one leads to two and two leads to three?
>> I I don't get No, I don't think that funding a proxy war within Ukraine is going to get us involved in a direct war. No argument for that.
>> Why wouldn't it?
>> Because we were already doing it. And we're doing it under Trump's administration, too. You're just saying that we do such a small amount. It's.
>> So so when I when I say the things like Berkshire, Vanguard, what what does that mean to you? Do you think that they're just an asset managing company or do you think that they actually do actionable steps to create diversion or to have hidden agendas behind everything they do? Could that be possible or not?
>> So they are investment management firms, but they obviously could have hidden agendas towards trying to profit maximize. I don't know what your obsession with Berkshire Hathaway is and with with Vanguard conversation though. I don't think it has as much relevance to this conversation as you think it does.
>> Well, when you start to look at all cabinets just throughout the world and you start to see how many like proxy leaders we put in, how how many puppet leaders we put in, and you see where the funding comes from. The funding comes from just two. So then let's get let's get rid of corporate funds in politics.
>> That's a left-wing policy, not a right-wing.
>> That's not fair, cuz both sides have both wanted to do that throughout history. I.
>> When is Trump advocated for that?
>> Left and right. See, this is what I'm trying to say. The acceleration.
>> When has Trump advocated for that?
>> Again, remember I never said Trump is the person. And remember what my argument was?
>> How do you know that you're going to lead to someone who will advocate for this?
>> No, no, no. We got to go back cuz you keep you we're doing a circular argument now and you keep putting things in my mouth. Already many times.
>> So you don't can't even make your argument.
>> I did in the very beginning and remember you tried to call me accelerationist and I said no, I'm not necessarily accelerationist, but you can call it what you want.
>> Yeah. So I don't know what you're even arguing. So would you like to clarify your argument?
>> You're the one that's been taken off tangents and asking loaded questions. Man, don't don't we're not going to play this game. You're not the only one who understands basic logic. This is my goal isn't here to be right. Okay, man. I don't know.
>> Asking you to clarify your argument. I don't know why you're getting so aggressive at that. Like, why are you getting mad at me saying more loaded, more prodding? No. Are we going to have a real Socratic, you know, debate or are we just going to be playing this game?
>> Are we going to focus on logic or is goal the truth or?
>> I asked you to clarify your argument.
>> My argument is not that Trump is right. Is that he is going to be the catalyst to make change to stop the left versus right argument. And when you stop the left versus right argument and you start to look at things logically and Socratically, you then can come up with solutions. But because we're playing this game of name calling and this or that, there is no way for solution.
>> Did I name call you?
>> Yes, you called me accelerationist just because I think something's going to be a catalyst.
>> Accelerationist is an ideological view. I was ask I was thinking that you were an accelerationist based upon your views that you had. That's not an insult. It.
>> It's not about insults. Name calling isn't just about insults, my man. What are you talking about? I was literally saying that I think you have a certain ideological belief.
>> And I didn't believe that. So you you can you can talk about someone's belief. All right, man. We're I think we're not going to see eye to eye. I don't think we argue the same way or or debate the same way because I'm making assumptions and you're just going to keep shooting them down and vice versa. So I I think I think we've hit the end.
>> What? We can keep going with the conversation. I would just ask you to clarify the argument and you won't do it.
>> What part do you need clarifying? I thought I just was very clear about where my stances about why I would support the Trump regime.
>> Not really, because you kind of the argument you were kind of making was that due to, uh, some time scale that Russia specifically wanted to expand and that was going to happen in terms of a war with the US. I don't see how them wanting to expand would lead to them going to war with the US. I don't see that directly.
>> Right? Because I think that they purposefully won't be able to go to war with any country in which isn't part of NATO because it would cause direct war with the US. That's why NATO works. NATO wouldn't work if your argument was the case that they wanted to start direct war with the US. It's not about want. It's a when they're put in a hard position, they don't have many.
>> Well, he's lagging real quick. But thank you everyone for joining in from Santana stream. I appreciate appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. If you're on YouTube again, everyone, hit that thumbs up. If you're on TikTok, tap that screen. Helps get it out to more people as always.
>> Okay, I'm back. Sorry.
>> Go ahead.
>> So, the the argument isn't necessarily about wants. It's if you are you under there's a population crisis happening both in China and Russia in a lot of places, but these two places specifically matter. Their strength right now has been a means of production. Russia's been very power Russia is one of the main powerhouses for agriculture when it comes especially to fertilization or fertilizing. So they they have a lot more strength and power than a lot of people think. When we've seen what real power is when the like in co When the chain supply broke, we saw who was actually dependent, who wasn't. We We saw scares in just a few weeks. Now, imagine if that drug on for months. We're already seeing just this one, you know, little stretch. The hormone was being shut down for a small amount of time and how much that's affecting the helium for all the chip production. So, there there's a lot of things we talk out of theory and we're talking out our ass, but the supply chain really is the matter of it all. If you understand who controls the supply chain, that's more so than all these other things you're talking about. The reason I bring that up and the population is because Russia, you said it was like a a time frame. I I'm paraphrasing, but like a time frame. The time frame is if the Ukrainian war was accelerated, Russia would have to make different decisions. Those decisions wouldn't be a full-on boots on war. Rub it. I'm more afraid of not being able to get my basic necessities like groceries than I am possibly there being, you know, a conflict in an empty field in the middle of nowhere.
>> Okay.
>> Or in a major city.
>> So then can I explain how what your argument makes no sense then is because Trump has caused us to go into war. You were saying that actually Harris is going to cause us to go to war with Russia, but you just said no, I don't think that there would actually be direct war, boots on the ground. So then here's my point. If you aren't concerned about the war and you're concerned about your grocery prices, your grocery prices are now more expensive because Donald Trump sent us to war with Iran. Why wouldn't you support Harris? Because Harris would not have sent us to direct war with with Iran.
>> What would Harris have done?
>> She wouldn't have taken us to war with Iran. She wouldn't have imposed the tariff. She wouldn't have caused for the annexation of Canada and Greenland, destroying our relationships with our allies. Those are all things I said earlier you have yet to respond to.
>> Cuz that's those they're loaded things. First off, we're playing like the the what-if game on something. And I'm asking, so then what would she do? We know what she wouldn't do. So what would she do? Cuz that matters into my answer, man.
>> Yeah. What would she do? I think that she would focus on domestically here, the economy here at home, right? In terms of people's needs, expanding healthcare access, child care, housing affordability, right? And trying to expand, um, the renewable energy production within this country and make us energy independent to a greater extent. Right? Like those those are things that I think she would have done to a greater extent than what we would have seen with Donald Trump. Whereas Donald Trump's given massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, she would give tax cuts to the working class and would do do tax increases on the very richest Americans in order to be able to pay for it.
>> Well, to a certain degree, yes, I but I don't think about the tax breaks to the to the working man. There's there's always hold. So the the left hasn't been great. Obama, Bush, Clinton, all them. They they failed the people as far as you want to talk about taxes. If you want to talk about the value of things, that's where I go back to the Berkshire and talking about like the 47 to one about gold ratios. If you understand what a future and swap is, the bets on the bets, you understand that all of these people have been just allowing this whether it be fractional banking or whether it be the limitations on, uh, life health and nutities at the beginning. I think you're Do you even understand fractional reserve banking?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And you're trying to act like it's something relevant to the conversation we were just talking about. How?
>> Cuz you're talking about you're saying that she's going to do all these things. I say she's going to do it under the guise of actually allowing fractional banking to get worse. The things that the left has always done.
>> How does that affect fractional reserve banking? That's going to be the same regardless.
>> No, they change. Whoa. The the the rules that the Fed set for fractional reserve banking changes all the time and it changes depending on who's in office.
>> Okay. You understand that the the chairman of the Fed is the Jerome Powell right now regardless?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> And you're saying depending on the presidency, they're not influenced one way or another ever.
>> No, they're independent. They act independently. Even though they were wait, Trump Powell was literally appointed by both Trump and Biden.
>> And he literally talks about how he acts independently and how he won't do things based on what Trump says. Trump's been trying to strong arm him arm him into doing what he wants and he hasn't been able to get that. Now you might be able to say that when he gets the new person specifically into the chairman of the Fed in the future, you might be able to do that, but right now there would be no difference.
>> So you're taking him he he's already been proven in Congress to have lied so many times. So.
>> Who I I don't know where to even start the argument on the whole Jerome Powell thing. Trump how where name one lie.
>> In early 2006 or two, sorry, 2026, he did that whole thing with the DOJ on Congress. It was like what, two or 2.5 billion, you know, uh, the let me Google it. Let me just Google.
>> A second.
>> Give him a second everyone. In the meantime, if you're on YouTube, hit that thumbs up. If you're on TikTok, tap that screen.
>> Or sorry, 2026. This is the most recent of the lies. He lied to the DOJ in the allegations of Congress regarding the 2.5 billion renovation of the Fed headquarters. Federal judge later blocked subpoenas calling the probe a pretext for political pressure by President Trump's influence. But if you actually look into it, there's tons of data that shows it. It just shows that the courts don't want to. If you haven't seen the pissing game.
>> Where did where did he lie? That was actually like. Isn't that Trump wrong there? Not him.
>> They're actually both wrong because it's a pissing game. I mean.
>> Where how was he wrong? What was the lie?
>> In the way that he used all the funds in the.
>> That's not a lie.
>> Yes.
>> What do you mean?
>> What's the article you're reading at right now?
>> Here, I'll I'll go into the actual docket. We'll pull out. Is there a way I can send you a link?
>> Yeah, go ahead. Tell me the title. One second. Well, man, we're going so far down a rabbit hole. You're expecting me to have like this info just right off the top. I'm sorry.
>> No, you said you're looking at it right now. So, I'm just telling you, what are you looking at?
>> It's a It's a spreadsheet on the allocation. I'm find it's 14 pages. I'm trying to find what pertinent to the.
>> Were we're using AI?
>> What? No. What am I using AI for? Then then what were you reading that from?
>> I'm at the federal reserve board.gov.
>> Okay.
>> Reading the statement that he gave versus the data.
>> No, but how do you know that it's.
>> Three contractors he hired.
>> What? Because the cont because so the argument was that the contractors were like charging $400 per bag of cement when some bag of cement is not $400. So that's how fraud mismanagement happens and it happens at all. You see it g what was the lie that he engaged in? You're saying that someone else committed fraud? What what lie did he engage?
>> Jerome Powell is the one that engaged in the fraud.
>> Oh, okay. So you said Jerome Powell was engaged in fraud. What? So why is So why isn't the attorney general gone after him? Oh, that. So, you're saying that the the US government only goes after or always goes after people that.
>> I'm saying that if the Yeah, I'm saying that the Department of Justice under the Trump administration would have gone after Jerome Powell if he did commit fraud. Absolutely.
>> Well, they did try and the judge threw it out. The left the left sitting judge threw it out.
>> So, the So, the judge threw out the case against that, meaning it was [ __ ].
>> No, he cited it wasn't because he thought it was [ __ ]. He thought it because it was political retaliation.
>> From Trump.
>> He didn't say because it was [ __ ]. So that's actually means that it's [ __ ]. You know that, right?
>> If it's just political retaliation and you're throwing it out, that means it's [ __ ]. That's political retaliation. I'm not going to even look at it.
>> So all judges are completely right, never wrong.
>> Okay. Well, I mean, you're saying that the judge is wrong, but why? Just because he did something you didn't like?
>> No, I I just gave an example. I'm looking.
>> Said the case was [ __ ]. 14 pages. I'm looking through 14 pages and this is just a small fraction of it, but 14 pages because when you buy things, you got to put it on a ledger or a spreadsheet or something. And on the ledgers, I'm seeing right here that they're charging $400 for a single bag of cement. That's just one example. I'm trying to find more examples to show you. See, man, we're not trying to get to the truth. We're just trying to be right here. And I'm.
>> Also like what's what's the source for that? I'd like to see the actual source of its folders.
>> Exactly. I'm trying to pull, man. One second.
>> Yeah. And also like if the judge threw it out like that, to me says that they thought it was [ __ ] because Trump was just trying to go after him and it wasn't specifically on legitimate grounds.
>> Same with the judges that were throwing out all those cases when the kids were trying to sue about all the mistreatment they were seeing, you know, in the correctional facilities. Give it 15 years later, we find out that judge is corrupt and we have tens of thousands of cases where we find corrupt judges.
>> Give any evidence that this particular judge is corrupt. I don't know why you'd assume the judge is corrupt because there have been some some corrupt judges in the past. It's not typical that a judge is corrupt. You have to provide evidence or reason to believe that a judge is corrupt. It's it's literally guilty until proven innocent for everyone against Trump, but for Trump, it's literally innocent until proven.
>> Until proven guilty, and you still consider him innocent.
>> No, see, this is where you keep conflating the argument. Again, I'm not saying Trump's a good person or that I'm any of his policies are right. Remember, this is you keep thinking I'm arguing from the other side. Trump is just as bad, too. And his judges are just as bad. When he was trying to play those games and retaliate to everyone, he came back into office a second time. That was all [ __ ]. That was all just a pissing game, too. See, here's the thing is you don't realize left and right wing are wings of the same bird, man. And you're getting like lost in this silly game. But.
>> So embarrassing to say like like nice virtue signal there. The left and the right are the same. No, they're not.
>> What of the same bird? I said wings of the same bird.
>> My left and right hand aren't the same hand, but they're they're hands of the same body.
>> But they're practically the same is what you're saying.
>> No. Well, they use the same mode. Yeah. Are my right hand and my left hand practically the same? Like in typical.
>> Right? At least for me. For me it's the same, right?
>> Yeah. But but they're two separate pieces there to support the same body, are they not?
>> So then if your whole point there.
>> Is that they're practically the same is the point.
>> That's why people use that particular like sort of comparison.
>> If you're saying they're practically the same, I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. After I just mentioned that we wouldn't be at war with Iran, right? If if if Harris were in office, we wouldn't have universalized tariffs. We wouldn't have been calling to annex other countries that are our allies. Would have destabilized those relations. We would have better conditions for healthcare access, childcare access. We wouldn't have cut 420,000 children on average every single month off the free school lunch and breakfast through the big beautiful bill. 2.5 million people off their access to food stamps on average every single month. And over 10 million people off their access to health insurance through Medicaid, right? While adding $3.4 trillion to the debt. That wouldn't have happened. So, there are countless things I can point to that are specifically different that are very big differences. These aren't like just like little teeny differences. These are massive differences. Okay. So, you're saying that the left wouldn't go to war with anyone. They would they wouldn't have any biases that have only corporate, you know, reasons for it, monetary reasons for it.
>> Repeat that one more time. You're saying that the left wouldn't be going to war with countries for only monetary or personal reasonings.
>> I'm saying that there's no evidence at all that Harris would have gone to war with anyone, right? Including Iran, because she disagrees with the war with Iran.
>> When was the last time a president was came through on all the things that they were trying to.
>> Wait, you guys are going to argue, oh, Kamala Harris would have done the same thing as Biden, but then you don't want to argue it for this. Did Biden start any new war, direct war? What do you mean? See that? That's the thing that the left does a lot is we do a lot of proxy wars. Are you saying proxy wars are better?
>> I uh I then direct war. Yes.
>> But it's not direct for us, but it's a direct war for the people that are having the war on them. I.
>> Yeah. Like for like for example, I would prefer that we do proxy war with Ukraine than do direct war with Ukraine. Why? Because that would lead to World War II. So yeah, proxy war is better than direct war in that context because direct war would be World War II. My guy.
>> Where's your evidence that a proxy war won't lead to the same thing as a direct?
>> The fact that it's happening right now and there's not World War II.
>> That's not great logic or evidence, man.
>> What? Under Biden's administration, we were funding Ukraine and there was no war.
>> If you knew, you know, proxy wars aren't.
>> Direct. So so just tell me what attrition of what direct war did Biden cause?
>> Again, a loaded question. That's not what I'm debating.
>> Okay. So then I'm asking you a proxy war.
>> So if they make all these arguments that Harris was going to do the same thing that Biden did and Biden didn't start any new direct war, well then that means Harris would.
>> Start a new direct. But he started plenty of proxy wars. He did, man, since the start. So I'm sorry. We we started we funded Ukraine, right? Trump has done the same thing. He realized that he was wrong on that. You understand that? He actually said that he was wrong on that. Did you know that?
>> Yes, man. You think you got all these gotchas and remember I'm not saying Trump's right. That's you keep trying to like equate it like a I got you. I got you. That's not the argument, man. And it has been the argument once.
>> That is a relevant point to bring up. And you acting like it's not a relevant point just kind of shows that you're unwilling to acknowledge where you were wrong.
>> No, I liter Dude, no. I think you're just mis I've been saying where I agree with you and where No, that's not the argument. Yes, Trump is terrible. None of his policies do I match up with. How many times do I need to say that before?
>> If you don't match up with any of Trump's policies, why do you even support him in the first place?
>> I told you he was he's going to be the catalyst to change things.
>> But in what way?
>> And not him, but his actions are going to wake people up.
>> Okay. So, in what way?
>> Let's use the most in what way? In what way?
>> To seeing that the system's failed. Like, we're already seeing how.
>> Okay, so this is what I mean. What is it going to lean people towards?
>> Oh, I I think with the help of technology, this is something that couldn't have been done before with AI, but now you can have great amounts of, uh, oversight, but that's not the correct word. Uh, like when you want to do ch what's the word you use for when you finally want to just when you have too much of something and you almost forget. It's like chapter 11 or eight, you know, in bankruptcy. Uh, it's it's that argument. It's we had so much [ __ ] going on that we couldn't even comprehend. And so usually you have fatigue. By the time you're even done understanding the scope of a problem, 10 more problems have already arised. But now we to have a better auditing. Sorry, that's the word I'm looking for. Auditing. Now there's a greater auditing we can do with, uh, officials and just policies.
>> Yeah, guys, we're going to be less overwhelmed under a Trump administration.
>> Well, again, that's not my claim.
>> Was that that's that's what sounded like your claim. So what what was your claim?
>> We're having a lot of conversation, man.
>> Just clarify. But don't make those comments, those inflammatory comments. Like ask a question. Be like, "Is this what you mean?" Not, "Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, man. I could play that game and be inflammatory, too, and we're not going to get anywhere." This is not Socratic at all, man. And this is why I like I want to be done with this conversation. We keep.
>> Good. I don't like you. I don't like you.
>> That's fine. That's again, that's not how debate works. It doesn't matter whether we like each other or not.
>> You're not engaging with any of my points. You're just crying the whole time or bringing up irrelevant points or yapping about random [ __ ]. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This is ridiculous. At this point, do you want to actually engage with my point? There's no false comparison. I clarified your view. I said clarify. And you get mad when I ask you to clarify.
>> And whine like a little baby. Dude, can you actually engage with my points?
>> You do red herrings and loaded questions.
>> What was the red herring?
>> What?
>> Oh my god. I'm done with this.
>> Yeah. Run away. Instead of answering the question, I asked you a question to clarify your position. And again, any clarifying question is too much for that guy. I do not like accelerationists. Like you know what you're what you're doing is leading to worse conditions for the country and you're like, "Oh yeah, I'm just going to be happy to cause worse conditions for the country because I think that maybe it will lead to better conditions when you have literally no evidence at all. It will lead to better conditions.