Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Mossoff on Heritage; Housing; Tariffs; Filibuster; Epstein; War on…? | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

Mossoff on Heritage; Housing; Tariffs; Filibuster; Epstein; War on…? | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Fundamental principles out of reedom, rational self interest, and individual rocks.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: This is the Uran Brook Show. Oh right, everybody walk
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: up here on Brook Show and this, uh, what is it?
• 0:24
  Speaker 2: It's Friday, Friday, No River fourth and you can see
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: stolen the road.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: I am now in Denver, Colorado.
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: I'm looking out the window here and there's construction right
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: in front of my face. But if I can look
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: just beyond the construction, there's downtown Denver on my right
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: and the amazing, beautiful Rocky mountains right in front of me.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: So a beautiful site. Anyway.
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Denver, when the sun is shining as it is
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: today and the sky is blue as it is today,
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: is a is a pretty special place, a pretty beautiful place.
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: It's sadly, it's unusual for me to come to Denver
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: and for the to be this good.
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: But the weather is really nice right now.
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: I I'm exhausted, you know, so you'll have to bear
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: with me a little bit.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: Today. I want to give you a little bit of
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: an update on kind of what's been going on.
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: And I did yesterday. I did debates on capitalism versus Socialism.
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: It should be up on the website of the Steamboat Institute.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: So if you search on YouTube Steamboat Institute, you'll.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: Be able to find a video.
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: I think that they've got a debate series and this
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: is the latest debate, so you can find it in
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: the Steamboat Institute's YouTube YouTube channel.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: You know. I think it was an interesting debate.
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: It's a guy I've debated in the past a few times,
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: I think four times in twenty nineteen. He has become,
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: my feeling is my sense, has become less of a socialist,
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: much more respectful of markets over that time, and it
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: was hard to get him to disagree with much of
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: what I said. A few places here and they disagreed.
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: But overall, I think it was a good debate.
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: I think those they learned something benefited from it.
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: But it wasn't quite as fiery as a debate as
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: you'd expect with a socialist.
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: Something crooked over here, I don't know.
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: Maybe it's not cooked. You tell me if it appears
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: crooked on your screen, but not play around with it
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: too much.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Anyway. That was yesterday. We had about two hundred people
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: in the audience, a really good turnout. There was a
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: lot of students, which is really good. It was at
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. It was dominated by
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: you know, I'd say people on my side dominated the audience,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: which is surprising for an university campus, but maybe for
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: not for Colorado Springs, which is a quite a conservative
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: place in the audience prizing to me, I learned after
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: the fact as he came up and said hello, introduced himself.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: We'd met before, but I don't think he remembered that
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: it was Vernon Smith. I don't know if you guys
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: know who Vernon Smith is, but Vernon Smith won the
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: Nobel Prize in Economics in two thousand and two. He
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: is a free market economist, one of the free market
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: economists who won Nobel Prizes in the past. He is
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: I believe over one hundred years old. I might be wrong,
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: maybe he's ninety eight or ninety nine. But he was there.
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: He came up, congratulated me, made a comment about one
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: of the arguments, and.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: Still shop, still with it, and about one hundred years old.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: So that was fun.
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: It was fun to Steephenes Smith. The last time I
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: saw Vernon Smith, he was angry with me, and he
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: was in the audience at an event probably twenty nineteen.
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: I think it was ninety eight then. Anyway, he was
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: in the audience in twenty nineteen at an event in Dallas.
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: That I did where I argued that religion was incompatible
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: with liberty and this is an a mon pellerin society meeting,
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: and he got really upset.
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: He had he used to be an atheist and become
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: religious to later in life, very late in life, and argued,
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: you know, pretty aggressively with me that no religious religion.
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: Was necessary for liberty.
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: So it was good that this time he thought I
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: did well and didn't have anything to contradict me. So
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: so that was you know, it was nice that they
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: came out to an event like that. It was nice
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: to see somebody at about one hundred maybe maybe but
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: a little less, maybe a little more around one hundred
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: years old, still as a shop and.
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: Engaged as he is. So that was good.
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: What else about yesterday's events? I mean, Steamboat always does
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: a good job, so I congratulate them. Hopefully I'll be
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: able to do more events with them.
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: It was a It was a good event.
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: It was well run, it was well managed, and as
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: I said at the audience was really good in terms
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: of numbers. I want to say something about the event
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: I did on Wednesday night in San Francisco. I don't
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: think I've talked about that event. I think I did
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: a show just before that event, and so you know,
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: I think the last show, or maybe the show before that,
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: maybe it was last show. Somebody made in the super chat,
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: somebody made a comment, aren't you on talking too much
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: about Tecker Carlson And aren't you talking too much about
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: these post libels about all this negative stuff, their negativity
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: and so on? And I kind of almost agreed with
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: that and suggested, yeah, maybe maybe there's too much of
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: that and everything. Well, after Wednesday night, I am recommitted
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: to know the problem is we don't talk about them enough,
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: and it's really really, really really important that we talk
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: about them more and we make arguments against them and we.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: Analyze what they say.
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: And so I'm going to be doing more, not less
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: of that, because what happened on Wednesday. Wednesday was a debate.
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: It was a debate with me debating basically the audience.
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: It's a kind of an interesting, weird format which I'll
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: describe in a minute, but basically.
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: The audience.
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: The event was put on by the Hamilton society, which
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: was kind of a group of young men.
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: I think it's all.
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: Men, but I think the Catholic, the religious, the conservatives,
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: and they've created this kind of debating society in San Francisco.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: The members and the people who attend these events are
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: all startup founders, the ambitious people within Silicon Valley. These
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: are the entrepreneurs. These are the people creating technology. And
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: you know, some of them were students, so I talked
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: to some of them. Some of them were students, like
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: computer science students at Stanford or at Bokley.
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: So this is these are the people who came to
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: the event. This is the kind of the future of
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: Silicon Valley and in that sense, the future of the
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: US economy.
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: There were a lot of people there. There were over
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: two hundred people in attendance at this thing. The event
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: was a debate. The proposition was Christianity will destroy the West.
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: I defended that proposition, so it was my argument to make.
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: I made a speech for about fifteen minutes. I think
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: I was supposed to talk for fifteen I think I
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: talked for twenty and then a short Q and A
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: and then other people could make speeches. The chairman kind
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: of the person who runs the Hamilton Society made a
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: speech and then he answered questions, and then other people
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: in the audience could make speeches, so you can make
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: a five minute speech.
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: And then I made a speech, and at.
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: The end there was something called a duel where me
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: and the chairman of the Society went at it, you know,
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: kind of debate style, but kind of really quick, back
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: and forth debate style, which was a lot of fun.
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: I really really enjoyed it, and I think everybody did it,
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: you know, shockingly in spite of the fact that the
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: audience and this is the surprise, right, so the audience entrepreneurs,
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: computer science people, technology people, overwhelmingly religious, overwhelmingly religious.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: And I got a standing ovation at the end.
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: So at the very end when he thanked me, I
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: mean literally all these people stood up.
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: I just argued that Christianity was a disaster, it was
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: going to destroy the world.
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: There was a horrible you know, the whole idea of
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: religion and Christianity particularly horrible ideas and so on. And
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: in spite of that, they gave me a standing ovation.
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: So I was pretty blown away with that. I think
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: I did a good job, and it was it was
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: suddenly a lot of fun. I'll state that again, and
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: I was in the quality of the audience was like,
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: but here's the thing that really struck me and the
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: reason why I'm going to be talking a lot more
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: about these crazies on the right. At least I think
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: there were two, but at least one explicitly one of
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: the speeches.
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: Don't want that many speeches. Given One of the speeches,
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: try to make the argument.
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: By a young guy, I'm sure really smart again from
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: Tech made a speech basically arguing that Western civilization was
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: fundamentally a civilization of Europeans and only Europeans, and it
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: was not about ideas, It was not at all about ideas,
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: that it was purely.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: An issue of blood, if you will.
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: I mean, the guy who made it was a Spaniard,
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: so I suggested he do a twenty three in meter
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: and discover how European he really was. And I told
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: him the Spanish, the Spanish, you know, empire probably had
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: more to do, had had more, you know, probably was
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: successful more because of the Islamic Empire that had been
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: there before them, the Muslim empire that had been there
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: before them, than anything European, you know, anyway, I rebucked
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: what he said and everything, but the very notion that
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: he would say Western civilization is about being white basically
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: a European, and that was not He was not the
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: only one who said that. One other speech was similar
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: to that, slightly different spin. Okay, that was one speech.
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: And then a number of people came up to me
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: afterwards and we were talking, and one of them wanted
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: to defend ideas of Kurdis Yovin. We'll talk more about
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: Kurtis Yavin in future shows. Maybe we'll take a video
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: or article of his and analyze it because I think
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: it's worth doing. Or maybe we'll have Nicos on and
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: Nicos has read a lot of Kurtis.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: Havn and we'll talk about We'll talk about that. We'll
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: talk about that as well.
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: I think it's important that he's a thinker, arguably and
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: intellectual arguably behind much of what's going on in Solican
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: value terms of a shift to the right. But he
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: believes in in a monarchy. He believes in running out
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: the country like a corporation. The country should be run
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: by a CEO with authoritarian power. Anyway, so that came
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: up and a number of people were like nodding ahead
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: and supporting, and then another guy, you know, was kind
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: of we were going back and forth. At some point
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: he said, he looked at me with this puzzled look
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: in his face, and he said, I mean, with the
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: real puzzled looks.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: I think this was authentic.
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: He said, shoe against white nationalism, and I got angry
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: because that is such a white nationalist is a despicable
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: idea that I really got angry. And he looked really
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: puzzled and taken aback by the fact that I would
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: get angry by this, that this would somehow be something
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: I would really get upset about.
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: That I thought that those were really bad.
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: In other words, techa calls and the postal libbulls, that
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: generally the kind of anti Western civilization nutcases.
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: Are really having an impact out there. They really have
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: an influence. And these are young people, by the way,
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: A number of them came up to me and said
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: a number of them came up to me and said,
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: And many of the ones who came up to me
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: and said this were these kind.
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: Of white nationalists and were the kind of you know,
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: Curtis you off in, and some of them quite religious.
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: They came up to me and said, yeah, we listened
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: to your podcast a lot. And the guy who actually
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: said about Western civilizations, you and the Europeans, said he'd
• 12:25
  Speaker 2: heard one of my podcasts, and I said, x y Z.
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: So these people are listening to what I have to say,
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: and it's really really important that we start making arguments
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: against their position, and hopefully they hear them, and hopefully
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: we have some I have some influence on young people
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: and sway them away from these ideas before they latch
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: onto them. You know, who knows if I can be successful,
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: you know, but we have to try. And these are
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: the kind of these exactly the kind of people, right,
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: These are successful entrepreneurs, young, still searching for philosophy, uh,
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: ambitious again, entrepreneurs tech overentited, science overented, so rational.
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: That we can't afford to lose. And so I'm saying again.
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: That it's time to it's time to double down and
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: now and now taking on the right, taking on the
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: bad elements within the right, uh and analyzing in I'm
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: sorry it's so negative, and I'm sorry it's it's so
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: ridiculous and absurd, and and maybe what I need to
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: do is is is focusing on some of the more
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: intellectuals on the right and try to analyze their positions,
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: you know, focus, maybe even I do more shows about
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: Christianity and and focus in on why Christianity is as
• 13:56
  Speaker 2: bad as why I think it's as bad as it is,
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: Focus on Kodis Yawn and Patrick Deneen and some o
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: the other intellectuals, and really dig down, dig deep into
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: into why these ideas are incredibly destructive and why I'm
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: so opposed to it, and maybe even maybe even on
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: the issue of racism, which I just have always taken
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: as No, that's ridiculous. You know, that's evil. How could
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: anybody support it? Maybe we need to maybe I need
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: to come up with some other arguments with a Kim
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: who has just on a sticker I thank you. Kim
• 14:25
  Speaker 2: was at the event, so if you're interested in hook
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: perspective on what happened that night, you can ask Kim. So, Kim,
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: thank you for being there, and it was it was
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: fun to meet up with Kim again. I've seen her
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: before in uh at Okon, I guess, and in Silicon Valley,
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: so we.
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: Could do that.
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: But uh yeah, I mean so I'm not going to
• 14:46
  Speaker 2: back off as as maybe I suggested I would last time,
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: and in so in this context, I wanted today to
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: recognize at a Masoff, at a Masaf who's been on
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: the show show in the past and is a friend
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: and somebody have known within the objective's world going back
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: to the mid nineteen nineties, so for a long time.
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: But Adam, says Curtisyovvin, I've seen better arguments from middle schools. Yeah,
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: but we need to rebuck them because it turns out
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: that entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley buy into these arguments. So,
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: I mean, I always think, yeah, this is stupid. I
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: don't need to rebuc rebute this. Well, maybe we do.
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: Maybe we should make the effort. Maybe we should not
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: assume assume that everybody just gets it the.
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: Way some of us do.
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: Anyway, Adam, who have known since the nineties, been part
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: of the objectivist kind of community for since then and
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: has been on the show at least twice.
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: Maybe more than that, maybe three, three times.
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: Maybe Anyway, Adam just put out a letter, which I
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: think is an important letter. It's a letter resignation from
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: the heavy foundation he was. It turns out I didn't
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: know this, but he was a visiting fellow at the
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: Edward mess the Third Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: at the Heritage Foundation, and he resigned, and so I
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: want to read parts of the letter.
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: Now. I did not get a copy of the letter,
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: so but I assume it's okay that I'm reading it
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: because Adam allowed the letter to be published on Twitter.
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: It was published by Ilia Ilia, which Ilio one of
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: the alias published at Ilia Shapiro. There's Ali Shapiro in
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: the ISLI so many which are and I get them
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: mixed up, and everybody gets them mixed up, which to
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: the show again. Anyway, It's a powerful letter resignation, so I.
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: Thought it would be worth reading it out. This is
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: one more.
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: Resignation in a series of people leaving Heritage Foundation and
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: resigning over what it's happened over the last few weeks
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: that we've covered here regarding Heritage. I think it's it's
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: super important that good guys, that the good stand up
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: against evil, and in this case, Heritage is representing evil,
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: and stand up against it and quit, but also explain
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: why they quit. I've seen some people resigning from Heritage
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: without really saying why. So what I like about Adam,
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: what I like about this is Adam published the letter
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: and now it's made public and everybody can see exactly
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: why Adam has left Heritage Foundation.
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: And I think that is important because it's.
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: A mall stand, it's an intellectual stand, it's a philosophical stand,
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: and it is it is important.
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: I'm going to read you from the letter.
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: It basically is addressing all these things that we're talking
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: about in terms of what is going on on the
• 17:40
  Speaker 2: right and the evil in the evil on the right.
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: Somebody wants to make the point that Adam back Trump. Yes,
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: he did in spite of that. I mean he backed
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: Trump because of Israel. Well, I think he was on
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: my show and said that that the number one issue
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: for him was anti Semitism in Israel, and he begged
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: Trump because of that, and after October seventh, he didn't
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: see a choice. I understand that, as I said, the
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: fact that somebody voted for Trump, I get why some
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: people voted for Trump. And so yeah, anyway, here's Adam.
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: It is with heavy heart that I resigning my visiting
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: fellow position in the Edwin Metes the Third Center for
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. My resignation
• 18:33
  Speaker 2: is effective immediately I get a skip because it's a
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: long letter. Unfortunately, October thirtieth video and your subsequent interviews, videos,
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: and commentary have made it clear to me that Heritage
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: is no longer the story think tank that I was
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: proud to join in twenty nineteen. Adam and I might
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: disagree about the story think tank, but that's not the point.
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: He goes on.
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: Y October thirtieth videos video indefensible. So were your purported
• 19:03
  Speaker 2: explanations and backtracking in subsequent interviews and social media posts.
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: The October thirtieth interview was worse than a poor choice
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: of words or mere mistake. It was a profound moral
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: inversion to use the language of ancient anti Semitic blood libel,
• 19:21
  Speaker 2: such as globalist class and venomous coalition. It was especially
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: lowsome to use this language to defend Tucker Calson. Tucker
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: is quickly following Candide's own down the very dark path
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: of Jewish conspiracy theories and defenses of Nazis. After a
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: Candas explanation, Tucker is quickly following candiss own down there,
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: oh sorry. After Candasa's explanation a couple of years ago
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: of Kristolnach as burning of communist books and not in
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: an attack on Jews.
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: This was the final store for me, and my judgment
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: has been.
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: Repeatedly con firmed by her ensuing years by her in
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: the ensuing years. Similar to canvases just asking questions strategy,
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: Tucker's increasingly hosting friendly head nodding in agreement interviews with
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: people who explicitly praise Nazis and are unrepentant in their
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: anti Semitic slurs of Jews in Israel, such as his
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: interview of Derelkoopa and Agapia the name I can't pronounce,
• 20:26
  Speaker 2: Tucker's friendly, smiling interview with Nick Foentis and avowed Nazi
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: who simply was simply then the deer of Tucker's increasing
• 20:35
  Speaker 2: number of friendly interviews.
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: With nihilists and anti Semites.
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: In all of these interviews, Tucker's blankantly refused to challenge
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: any of their calumnies, propaganda, and falsehoods, despite despite your
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: subsequent claim in a follow on X statement on October
• 20:56
  Speaker 2: thirty first, that we should quote challenge them head.
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: On unquote and open debate.
• 21:01
  Speaker 2: This bears emphasis emphasizing Taka has never challenged one of
• 21:06
  Speaker 2: these evil guests on his show For example, in a
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: two hour interview with Frantis, Teka never asked Fantis a
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: single question about his Nazi views or even his Nazi
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: slur of President of Vice President jd Vance as a
• 21:19
  Speaker 2: race trader, given jd Vance's marriage to Usha, to Usha
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: and they know Usha and their so called brown children,
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: to quote four inters, this is neither. This is neither
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: debate nor critical engagement with ideas with which we profoundly disagree.
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: This is toleration and or agreement with evil ideologies and ideas.
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: This is made even more clear by Taker's contrary treatment
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: of anyone he deemed to be a quote Zionist. Unlike
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: his interview with Frantis, Cooper and Agrapya and many others,
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: Taka engages and skeptical interviews with pointed, hart hitting questions
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: of Senator Ted Cruz and others about their Zionist of
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: pro Israel positions. All this makes it absolutely clear that
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: Taker gives credence. There's millions of viewers that evil ideologies, collectivism, nihilism,
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: and anti Semitism are consistent with conservatism and America First Movement.
• 22:18
  Speaker 2: Tucker's friendly and laughing conversation with fuantas signals there's millions
• 22:22
  Speaker 2: of young viewers that it is permissible to give a
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: pass to such evil, even in their best life possible.
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: Tucker makes clear we at least, we at least should
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: tolerate such evil because, as you said in your October
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: thirtieth video, we should not be quote attacking our friends
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: on the right.
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: This is a massive moral inversion. This is the opposite
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: of what Heritage Foundation you know, stood for over many
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: decades in America political discourse. It stands in the opposite
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: of the ideas of divining fathers in the Declaration of
• 22:57
  Speaker 2: Independence and Constitution, a neededble, natural rights, limited government, rule
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: of law, and free markets, and the flourishing society the results.
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: In these ethical and political commitments.
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: Although you told us in the town hall last Thursday
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: that you made a mistake in your October thirtieth video,
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: you have not retracted or withdrew on the video. It
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: remains on x on your ex account with more than
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: twenty four million views today. That's what it remains unclear
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: precisely and specifically what you regard as your moral mistake
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: and failure in leadership.
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: This is compounded by the mixed messages that you have
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: been giving to us in the world.
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: About the lessons you have learned, you have con continually reiterated,
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: for example, your claim in your October thirtieth video which
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: should not cancel a friends and NATTACKA always will be
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: As far as I'm aware, you have not disavowed this claim.
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: But you're falsely conflated here the struggle sessions and cancelation
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: campaigns that the woke left inflict on their apostates and
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: heretics with the proper, steadfast moral condemnation of nihilism, collectivism, Nazism,
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: and you. Adrid Aristotle observed in a seminal treaty on
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: ethics that in a choice between truth and friendship, it
• 24:16
  Speaker 2: is the truth that we must always give our primary allegiance.
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: Even with your missed messages mixed messages, one thing is
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: clear by your words and actions. Heritage is wedded to
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: Tucker and everything he has come to represent on the
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: periphery of the groper movement created by Fuentas. Instead of
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: the truth, you've chosen a false friend of the American
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: ideas that Heritage was supposed to represent. This in abstract,
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: this profound failing of truth and justice would give me
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: serious pause and would still I would still ultimately resign.
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: But it's even more pressing today to call out the
• 24:53
  Speaker 2: small failing and to take a stand.
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: It is still shocking to me that the day is
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: the worst single day slaughter of Jews and the Holocaust.
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: The invasion and attack of Israel in October seven, twenty
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: twenty three, was unleashed its tsunami violent anti semitism.
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: This swept Europe.
• 25:07
  Speaker 2: In the US in the past two years, woke brownshirts
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: have been screaming genocidal slogans in the streets on the
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: university campuses. They have been doing much worse than merely
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: screaming slogans like free Palestine and from the Rivers to
• 25:21
  Speaker 2: the Sea. They've acted in harassing and assault and assaulting
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: American Jews, fire bombing and vandalizing homes and businesses, and
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: murdering American Jews in DC, Colorado, and California.
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: This has never happened before in the US.
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: The nihilists and collectivist bigotry has driven woke leftists into
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: frenzied unseen, into frenzies unseen in the West since the
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: original now Nazi brown Shirts terrorized Jews in Germany in
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: the twenties and thirties and has now reared its ugly
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: head in the American political rights. Now is the time
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: to differentiate the right in the left, not to join
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: the left and embracing this toxic fusion of collectivism and
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: anti Semitism. He continues, You make clear your choice endorsement
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: and toleration of false friends of freedom, rights, liberty, and
• 26:12
  Speaker 2: the American ideals of defining father despite the awelliant claims
• 26:16
  Speaker 2: to the contrary that they are advocates of America.
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: First to represent conservatism.
• 26:22
  Speaker 2: Worse than false friends, they have proven to be advocates
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: of the evil ideologies that cheek to destroy these achievements
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: of Western civilization as represented by the United.
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: States of America. I cannot stand by in silence. It
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: is time for choosing. I choose to resign, so.
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: I think a powerful letter. I want to congratulate Adam
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: for doing this. It's not easy, although you know, given
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: given how bad things are, maybe it is easy. It's
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: not easy to leave a post. It's not easy to
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: stand up to your boss and to your peers. Uh,
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: it's not easy to make make this public and take
• 27:05
  Speaker 2: a moral stand in public in this way, Adam is is,
• 27:10
  Speaker 2: you know, in this in that world of think tanks
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: and and uh conservatives and small el libertarians we'll call it.
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: Uh. Uh, you know, think tanks in Washington, d C.
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: He's part of that world. Uh.
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: And and he's taken their courageous stand here. And I
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: give him credit for that. Uh, I get him credit
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: for that. And I and I think he's absolutely right,
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: absolutely right in his diagnosis of heritage and coverent heritage
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: and uh and and and where it is heading and
• 27:44
  Speaker 2: uh and kind of the moral travesty of what Roberts did,
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: as we talked about on the show. So if you'd like,
• 27:53
  Speaker 2: if you'd like to read the letter, you can find
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: it on Twitter against again, Elio Shapiro published it, So
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: just look up earlier Shapiro.
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: And you will find I think you will find the letter.
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: It's worth reading if you know Adam, it's worth sending
• 28:08
  Speaker 2: out Adam congratulations for for for resigning from Heritage, even
• 28:14
  Speaker 2: though again I'm sure it was not an easy professional thing.
• 28:18
  Speaker 2: Oh maybe it was easy. Again, given the stakes for Adam,
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: it probably was easy, but again not not professionally not easy,
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: I'm sure. Okay, So yeah, I mean, this battle will continue.
• 28:37
  Speaker 2: It is great to having more people. It is important
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: to have more people join the fight. It's important to
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: call out the left and the right on on the
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: on on these kind of issues. I have said for
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: a long time, and and not everybody's gonna agree with
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: me that I think the right is. It's a large
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: extent the Lodger enemy, the enemy that I think warries me.
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: More because.
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: It is to some extent, you know, affiliated with where
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: we are and what we represent. So again I'm glad
• 29:15
  Speaker 2: to see I'm glad to see more people join this battle,
• 29:18
  Speaker 2: and we would be talking much more about this in
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: the weeks, months.
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: And probably years to come. It's not going to get
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: any easier. It's not going to get any better. As
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: I say in Silicon Valley in San Francisco, it is spreading.
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: It is spreading, by the way. I hope to return
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: to that, to the to the Hamilton Society again, to
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: do more debates.
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: I'm hoping to engage with them because I think engagement engagement.
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: Again. You know, some of those views are.
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: Horrific and really horrible, but the people who run the
• 29:55
  Speaker 2: Hamilton Society are not the people who actually presented those views.
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: Those are some the people who attended to talk, and
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: you know they're religious.
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: We disagree, but we need to have this conversation and
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: we need to be able to present rational ideas to
• 30:12
  Speaker 2: people who might be open to still changing their minds
• 30:15
  Speaker 2: about some of the really horrible positions that they have
• 30:20
  Speaker 2: and the damage Tucker is doing in our world that
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: Candice is doing, the Jdvans is doing that, Patrick Deneen
• 30:30
  Speaker 2: is doing, the JD Vance is doing.
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: It really is unimaginable. It really is unimaginable.
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: Chandas says, Uran is the Devil, I don't think the
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: devil is the right terminology. I think the terminology these
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: days is Uran is the Antichrist. I think that is
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: the terminology that Peter teel Is is spreading. It's the
• 30:52
  Speaker 2: anti Christ. Okay, so that is That is Adam's letter
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: to Heritage, which I thought was worth reading to everybody.
• 31:09
  Speaker 2: I just want to add one thing it just because
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: I came across this as I was preparing the show.
• 31:13
  Speaker 2: Again from Techo Calson, just to keep you up to
• 31:15
  Speaker 2: speed about Tackle Causon. It turns out that in this
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: morning's newsletter, the tacko Colson published. He publishes I Guess,
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: a weekly newsletter. Tucker finally found people who he believes
• 31:28
  Speaker 2: are really, you know, really property call and compared to
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: the Nazis, it's not for wins, it's not candas. It's
• 31:39
  Speaker 2: actually Israelis, Israelis and Jews like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin.
• 31:47
  Speaker 2: He writes about them, These people are sick, you know.
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: He makes the argument that in the Old Testament, you know,
• 32:01
  Speaker 2: he makes an Old Testament argument about about the Jews, right,
• 32:04
  Speaker 2: the Jews, uh and uh about the Jewish, supposedly the
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: Jewish blood superiority.
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 32:13
  Speaker 2: He says, there's no such thing as blood superiority. I agree,
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: And then he says those who disagree, like the IDF's leaders,
• 32:25
  Speaker 2: he is really Defense Forces leaders have more in common
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: with ad of Eichmann than Jesus. So the idea of
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: leaders he has decided believe in blood superiority. I don't
• 32:41
  Speaker 2: know any idea fleetiers who believe that, he says, of
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: more common with Adam of Eichmann than Jesus. It's y,
• 32:54
  Speaker 2: you know, it's pretty sick. H Tucker CALLSI His is
• 33:00
  Speaker 2: really evil, sick, bad, horrific. All of the above, don't
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: have anything to do with him, and ideally.
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: Don't subscribe, you know, don't have anything to do with him,
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: sanction him.
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: Oh by the way, Troy came in, Thank you Troy
• 33:22
  Speaker 2: with five hundred austrolion dollars. Thank you, Thank you Troy.
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: That is incredibly generous and very much appreciated. I know
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: we had some other stickers from Kim.
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: I said that earlier, and I think you know there
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: was some there was ru downs, So thank you guys.
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: All right, let's look a little bit about housing, a
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: bunch of small stories about housing.
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: But kind of that that struck me that there's a
• 33:56
  Speaker 2: post going around. I think it was published like two
• 34:00
  Speaker 2: or three days ago, yeah, November twelfth, so two days
• 34:04
  Speaker 2: ago it was published a post. It has a beautiful picture.
• 34:07
  Speaker 2: This is on Twitter. Beautiful picture of a house. It
• 34:10
  Speaker 2: looks like a pretty big house. This particular house.
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: I think it's about three five hundred and fifty square feet.
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: It looks kind of.
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: It's like what you considered a classic American two story.
• 34:23
  Speaker 2: There's an attic. They might be a basement, but in
• 34:27
  Speaker 2: a very lots of trees. Beautiful, beautiful house, right, I mean,
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: not my style architecture, but a big, distinguished house. And
• 34:38
  Speaker 2: the heading goes, an average working class man man could
• 34:43
  Speaker 2: buy this house in the nineteen fifties support four kids
• 34:46
  Speaker 2: and a state and a house and stay home wife. Today,
• 34:51
  Speaker 2: a two income household can't even buy eggs without going
• 34:54
  Speaker 2: into debt. What is what the eff is going on?
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: Many people on Twitter have pointed out, and this is
• 35:03
  Speaker 2: part of the dangers of Twitter, that this house in
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties would have required, you know, an income
• 35:16
  Speaker 2: that is probably in the top one percent. This is
• 35:19
  Speaker 2: far far off from an average working class a salary
• 35:23
  Speaker 2: could afford this house. An average working class salary in
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties. And the average house in the nineteen
• 35:28
  Speaker 2: fifties was about one thy twelve hundred square feet, so
• 35:32
  Speaker 2: about a third a third of the size of this house.
• 35:37
  Speaker 2: It was one story and pretty simple and pretty pretty bare,
• 35:40
  Speaker 2: pretty bare, not in this kind of neighborhood and certainly
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: not this kind of size and not kind of this prosperity.
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: And people since then have been posting photos making fun
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: of this.
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: You know, somebody posted a photo of the white house,
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: you know, and said, in the nineteen seventies, a peanut
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: farmering to Jimmy Carter, you know, I could buy this house,
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: you know, with folk kids and stay at home mom
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: and everything.
• 36:08
  Speaker 2: So a lot of people are making fun of this,
• 36:10
  Speaker 2: but I think it's important to note that. And we've
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: talked about this a lot on the show, and we'll
• 36:14
  Speaker 2: keep talking about it because it keeps going back. This
• 36:17
  Speaker 2: ridiculous nostalgia to some imagined nineteen fifties utopia is bizarre
• 36:24
  Speaker 2: and wrong and deceiving and dishonest, fundamentally dishonest. There was no,
• 36:31
  Speaker 2: you know, dream utopia in the nineteen fifties. The nineteen fifties,
• 36:36
  Speaker 2: people did not live better lives. They were not wealthier.
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: It's not true that you could afford all these wonderful
• 36:42
  Speaker 2: things on one salary that you can't today.
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: Our standard living, quality of life.
• 36:47
  Speaker 2: Our homes are cause our technology, our washing machines and
• 36:51
  Speaker 2: dryers and a conditioning and the million of the gadgets
• 36:55
  Speaker 2: that we have at home that didn't exist back then.
• 36:57
  Speaker 2: And just to share size of homes and plots of
• 36:59
  Speaker 2: land and everything so outstrip anything that was happening in
• 37:02
  Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties that it's just incomparable how much bad
• 37:06
  Speaker 2: a life is today, and yet both the left and
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: the right, for different reasons, harken back to the nineteen fifties,
• 37:14
  Speaker 2: as if there's some ideal. So no, no, I mean
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: this is this is a complete lie, and it's a
• 37:20
  Speaker 2: lie being constantly repeated and perpetrated.
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: Don't fall for it.
• 37:24
  Speaker 2: And when you hear it, speak up against it, because
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: it's it's part of this idea of going backwards. And
• 37:33
  Speaker 2: I hope that one of the things I represent is
• 37:38
  Speaker 2: an anti stagnation perspective.
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: My perspective is if you don't grow, if you don't
• 37:44
  Speaker 2: move forward, then you go backwards. And growing backwards means
• 37:48
  Speaker 2: or going backwards doesn't make any sense. You stop going.
• 37:52
  Speaker 2: You actually, if you stop going, you start shrinking, and
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: shrinking means death. Shrinking means approaching death. So life requires growth,
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: Life requires forward forward progress, Life requires ambition into the future.
• 38:05
  Speaker 2: And UH and and these kind of pictures and memes
• 38:08
  Speaker 2: and and ideas are destructive to that ambition and moving forward.
• 38:12
  Speaker 2: This veneration of a past, UH is just pathetic and ridiculous.
• 38:18
  Speaker 2: Talk about pathetic and ridiculous and housing A JD. Vans
• 38:22
  Speaker 2: in an interview I think yesterday, UH said the following
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: and and and we've talked about the fact that housing prices,
• 38:29
  Speaker 2: particularly on the coast, I expended it. Housing prices have
• 38:32
  Speaker 2: gone up significantly, although again the extent to which they've
• 38:35
  Speaker 2: gone up, to the extent of which housing is unaffordable,
• 38:39
  Speaker 2: to the extent of which young people can afford houses,
• 38:42
  Speaker 2: is vastly and horrifically exaggerated by.
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: Both left, Mom, Donnie, and right everybody in the right,
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: you know, the the.
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: The victim and grievance grievance mentality is now shared by
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: left and right and both you know, aggressively pitching grievances.
• 39:09
  Speaker 2: And one of the big grievances is housing. Anyway, jade
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: Van's responding to that, says, said this, a lot of
• 39:15
  Speaker 2: young people are saying housing is way too expensive.
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: Why is that because we flooded the country with thirty
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: million illegal immigrants who were taking.
• 39:25
  Speaker 2: Houses they that ought that ought by right to go
• 39:31
  Speaker 2: to American citizens.
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: Now, there's so much wrong with this.
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: I mean, again, this is straight out of the kind
• 39:40
  Speaker 2: of leftist zero sum world perspective. Now, thirty million illegals,
• 39:49
  Speaker 2: where do you get that number? That's a vastly exaggerated number.
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: But this is the guy who talked about Haitian immigrants
• 39:54
  Speaker 2: eating cats in Ohio or wherever it was.
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: So he is not He lies strategically. He knows exactly
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: what he's doing, and he knows exactly where to exaggerate,
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: where to make up stuff and repeated, repeated, repeat it,
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: and then people start believing it and just becomes part
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: of our culture. So there were no thirty million illegal immigrants.
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: And I thought these illegal immigrants were destitute. I thought
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: they were coming here and sucking on the tits of
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: the state. They were welfare recipients, they had nothing. How
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: did these guys get loans? How did they get a mortgage?
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: Or did they afford the incredibly high prices?
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: A bogus And if homes are unaffordable to Americans I've
• 40:40
  Speaker 2: lived in the United States and who have jobs and
• 40:42
  Speaker 2: are llegal in the United States, how are these houses
• 40:45
  Speaker 2: affordable to illegal immigrants? I don't understand that. You know,
• 40:50
  Speaker 2: that makes absolutely no sense to me, right, that somehow
• 40:55
  Speaker 2: these houses are.
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: Affordable to illegal immigrants.
• 40:58
  Speaker 2: But even if it was the case that we had
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: a large immigration into the country, and let's assume that
• 41:05
  Speaker 2: these immigrants are hard working, they're making money, so they can.
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: Afford a house. Then the reason house prices are going
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: up is not because of this massive immigration coming in.
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: It's because we're not building homes fast enough in order
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: to fulfill. Then you demand why isn't a response we
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: should have built more houses? And what about this idea
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: of taking houses that ought by right to go to
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: American citizens? I mean, I know the left believes that.
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: You have a right to basic income and a right
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: to food, and right to healthcare, and right to education,
• 41:41
  Speaker 2: and maybe even a right to housing. Now it turns
• 41:44
  Speaker 2: out that Jadvans believes that Americans have a right to
• 41:47
  Speaker 2: housing by right. Homes and our fixed pot that the
• 41:54
  Speaker 2: government allocates by right to the deserving class, and the
• 41:59
  Speaker 2: deserving class people who have I don't know, American ancestral blood.
• 42:04
  Speaker 2: Maybe we should allocate houses based on how many generations
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: have been in America. Maybe that's how we should allocate houses,
• 42:11
  Speaker 2: not by price because they're expensive, but just by if
• 42:15
  Speaker 2: you can, if your ancestors fought in the Civil War,
• 42:18
  Speaker 2: get house. A War of Independence, you get two houses
• 42:21
  Speaker 2: World War two, maybe half of ours.
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 42:26
  Speaker 2: So the more ancient your bloodline, the bigger a house
• 42:29
  Speaker 2: you get something like that. I mean Jdvans repeatedly engages
• 42:36
  Speaker 2: in collectivistic, zero sum central planning thinking. And one of
• 42:43
  Speaker 2: my goals over the next three years is going to
• 42:47
  Speaker 2: be to do everything that I can to discredit JD
• 42:51
  Speaker 2: events now so that he does not become the Republican
• 42:54
  Speaker 2: nominee in twenty twenty eight. Now, I try to do
• 42:57
  Speaker 2: that which Trump didn't work but postially because I thought
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: that September that January sixth would finish Trump off and
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: it didn't.
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: But here we have a specific target, Jady Vance.
• 43:09
  Speaker 2: I want to make sure that this guy is so discredited,
• 43:12
  Speaker 2: at least by people who listen to my show, that
• 43:15
  Speaker 2: he is not the nominee. And to do that, we'll
• 43:18
  Speaker 2: talk about Jade Vance, We'll talk about Tacker, Calson and
• 43:20
  Speaker 2: four Inches, because I think they're all related, and clearly
• 43:23
  Speaker 2: he is the candidate of Taker, Calsa and the good Friends.
• 43:27
  Speaker 2: But I don't think I have any influence, but to
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: the extent that I have influenced, I'm hoping that we
• 43:32
  Speaker 2: don't get to a position in twenty twenty eight where
• 43:34
  Speaker 2: a bunch of you and a bunch of other objectives
• 43:36
  Speaker 2: think that Jadvans is the best candidate out there, and
• 43:40
  Speaker 2: that objectives should support him because by then, hopefully we
• 43:44
  Speaker 2: have discredited enough shown how collectivistic, zero sum central planning
• 43:49
  Speaker 2: he is and how culturally horrific he is in terms
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: of views.
• 43:55
  Speaker 1: That that won't even be an option.
• 44:00
  Speaker 2: Right. Somebody says the nineteen fifties when aberration in American
• 44:09
  Speaker 2: history and was never the norm. No, I don't think
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: that nineteen fifties went aberration, but they weren't that great.
• 44:15
  Speaker 2: I mean, people forget that in the early nineteen fifties,
• 44:18
  Speaker 2: many many families had to double up in homes. You know,
• 44:22
  Speaker 2: veterans came back from World War Two, and it took
• 44:25
  Speaker 2: them a while to get up on their feet and
• 44:27
  Speaker 2: to get good jobs and to you know, and the
• 44:29
  Speaker 2: Gibo made it possible for them to go get an education.
• 44:32
  Speaker 2: But then they had to start from somewhere, and they
• 44:33
  Speaker 2: started from nothing. In the economy had to recover from
• 44:37
  Speaker 2: the horrors of the Great Depression in the World War.
• 44:39
  Speaker 2: So the nineteen fifties were a period of struggle and
• 44:43
  Speaker 2: a period of much difficulty. And yes, the economy did very,
• 44:47
  Speaker 2: very well because it was it had been deregulated in
• 44:49
  Speaker 2: the late nineteen forties and the Federal Reserve did a
• 44:53
  Speaker 2: decent job of not inflating the economy. And it did okay,
• 44:57
  Speaker 2: it did well, but it wasn't like whoa nineteen fifties amazing, stunning,
• 45:03
  Speaker 2: It wasn't.
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: It wasn't that great. Okay.
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: Finally a piece of good news also about housing, which
• 45:10
  Speaker 2: is interesting, and that is that the Institute for Justice
• 45:13
  Speaker 2: Interest for Justice, which is.
• 45:15
  Speaker 1: A free market pro American you know.
• 45:22
  Speaker 2: Firm, that legal firm that that basically sues the government
• 45:25
  Speaker 2: over violations of individual rights, is now suing the government
• 45:29
  Speaker 2: and hopes to take this case to the Supreme Court.
• 45:34
  Speaker 2: It's suing the government aren't about rent control, So it
• 45:39
  Speaker 2: is a lawsuit that that is, you know, suing this
• 45:45
  Speaker 2: idea of rent control as a taking as a constitutional
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: violation of the takings clause. Now they're only they're doing
• 45:52
  Speaker 2: it on a limited basis. That is, they're not challenging all.
• 45:57
  Speaker 1: Rent control schemes because they're not sure they could win that.
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: They're hoping to win this one.
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: Again, a lot of these legal institutions like Spacific Legal
• 46:07
  Speaker 2: Foundation and IJ view this as incremental. You get good
• 46:11
  Speaker 2: rulings that overturned bad laws and then you expand that
• 46:16
  Speaker 2: here they're looking at apartments that are basically sitting vacant
• 46:22
  Speaker 2: because rank control would allow them to charge rent that
• 46:25
  Speaker 2: is so low, only charge rent that is so low
• 46:28
  Speaker 2: that it doesn't make any sense for these people to
• 46:31
  Speaker 2: actually rent the apartment out.
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: Is an example. This is an apartment in Manhattan.
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: It contains two bedrooms, and the legal rent is set
• 46:43
  Speaker 2: at seven hundred dollars a month. Can you imagine that
• 46:46
  Speaker 2: in Manhattan seven hundred dollars a month with two bedrooms.
• 46:50
  Speaker 2: The apartment became vacant in twenty nineteen after a long
• 46:54
  Speaker 2: term tenancy. The last tenant was in the apartment for
• 46:57
  Speaker 2: over forty years, vacant ever since, because it simply doesn't
• 47:03
  Speaker 2: make sense for this company who owns the apartment to
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: rent department out for seven hundred dollars a month. According
• 47:09
  Speaker 2: to the law, they have to renovate this apartment. They
• 47:11
  Speaker 2: have to bring it up to code, they have to
• 47:14
  Speaker 2: upgrade furnishings, and not to luxury, just at the basic
• 47:17
  Speaker 2: level that the regulations demand. That would cost so much
• 47:20
  Speaker 2: money that they would never recoup the investment for seven
• 47:23
  Speaker 2: hundred dollars a month, So they would rather just let
• 47:26
  Speaker 2: it sit there empty than make the investment to bring
• 47:29
  Speaker 2: it up to code. Now, the argument is that by
• 47:34
  Speaker 2: limiting their ability to rent it at a higher rate,
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: the government is basically violating the taking clause of the Constitution. Now,
• 47:44
  Speaker 2: supposedly Justice Thomas, at least in an opinion that he
• 47:50
  Speaker 2: wrote a few years ago, gave an opening to challenging
• 47:56
  Speaker 2: the whole idea of in control from a constitutional basis.
• 47:59
  Speaker 2: And IJ is filing this lawsuit with the idea of
• 48:02
  Speaker 2: taking it to the Supreme Court and hoping to at
• 48:04
  Speaker 2: least overrule some aspects of rent.
• 48:07
  Speaker 1: Control, which would be amazing.
• 48:09
  Speaker 2: I mean, some of the best things happening in the
• 48:12
  Speaker 2: world today are the things that Instant the organizations like
• 48:16
  Speaker 2: IJ and Pacific lead the Foundation are doing. They are
• 48:19
  Speaker 2: fighting in the courts for more freedom. They are being,
• 48:23
  Speaker 2: you know, quite successful, and some of the best news
• 48:28
  Speaker 2: that we have in terms of liberty and freedom comes
• 48:30
  Speaker 2: from these lawsuits that they are bringing. So congratulations to
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: IJ for being in this lawsuit, and we'll follow it
• 48:37
  Speaker 2: and hope that they win in the Supreme Court and
• 48:41
  Speaker 2: we get to over turn at least a portion of
• 48:46
  Speaker 2: rent control, and that maybe will set up the stage
• 48:50
  Speaker 2: for doing a word and control completely. Finally, that would
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: be pretty amazing. All right, let's see where we want
• 49:01
  Speaker 2: to talk about.
• 49:02
  Speaker 1: That's housing. Oh yeah, more good news. This good news
• 49:05
  Speaker 1: is on the tariff front.
• 49:07
  Speaker 2: Donald Trump and his administration which have for months and
• 49:11
  Speaker 2: months and months and months now told us over and
• 49:14
  Speaker 2: over and over again, the towers do not raise prices.
• 49:19
  Speaker 2: That indeed, tawots are being paid by foreign manufacturers. I've
• 49:24
  Speaker 2: changed their minds, it turns out, according to them. Then,
• 49:28
  Speaker 2: in spite of the fact that tariffs don't raise prices,
• 49:35
  Speaker 2: if you eliminate tariffs, prices go down.
• 49:39
  Speaker 1: That's miraculous. Hard to imagine, hort to understand how that works,
• 49:46
  Speaker 1: but how to believe anyway.
• 49:49
  Speaker 2: In an executive order this afternoon, this Friday, Donald Trump
• 49:54
  Speaker 2: is slash towse slash towers on a number agricultural products.
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: Impudding impart to say, these are all tariffs that he
• 50:02
  Speaker 2: put in place, so he slashed his own tafts. These
• 50:06
  Speaker 2: are not ancient tabs tariffs that he put He has
• 50:09
  Speaker 2: slashed them in an effort, explosive effort to bring down
• 50:14
  Speaker 2: the cost of grocery prices.
• 50:16
  Speaker 1: Now, I know many of you complained that I did
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: not believe in.
• 50:19
  Speaker 2: The tariffs that tariffs were just aimed at at. They
• 50:22
  Speaker 2: didn't raise prices because fawn has paid them. Even Donald
• 50:26
  Speaker 2: Trump now understands that tarifts raised prices stunning So, uh yeah,
• 50:37
  Speaker 2: if you want to buy oranges, or tomatoes, or bananas,
• 50:42
  Speaker 2: or much more importantly, if you want to buy coffee
• 50:46
  Speaker 2: or cocoa, chocolate and tea, prices are going to go
• 50:52
  Speaker 2: down because tariffs have just been slashed on all those products.
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: Also, beef inputs.
• 51:00
  Speaker 2: Have been tariffs have been slashed, as well as spices
• 51:04
  Speaker 2: and even some fertilizers.
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: Wow, I mean, I know. This has a lot to
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: do with poll numbers.
• 51:10
  Speaker 2: That suggest that Americans are very upset about the cost
• 51:12
  Speaker 2: of living, and the cost of living has gone up
• 51:16
  Speaker 2: over the last year to large extent because of tariffs,
• 51:20
  Speaker 2: which we I know, the economists, who can't predict anything,
• 51:25
  Speaker 2: we have told you over and over and over again,
• 51:27
  Speaker 2: will raise prices.
• 51:28
  Speaker 1: They have to. They have, and even the Trump administration
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: out recognizes that and to remedy that they're cutting tariffs.
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: This is great news. I suggest that Trump go all in.
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: This is his great opportunity to change his mind and
• 51:45
  Speaker 1: to actually lower dramatically the cost of living in the
• 51:48
  Speaker 1: United States. How about zero tariffs on everything?
• 51:53
  Speaker 2: Be a revolutionary Trump, be a real radical none of
• 52:00
  Speaker 2: us wishy washy stuff, not just on bananas. Cut tariffs
• 52:05
  Speaker 2: on steel and aluminum and automobiles and everything everything.
• 52:10
  Speaker 1: Make it zero. You want to make America great again,
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: That's how you do it. Liberate us, move us towards freedom,
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: that's how you do it. So yeah, good news. Prices
• 52:29
  Speaker 1: are going to come down. Your coffee should cost less
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: very very soon.
• 52:35
  Speaker 2: So excited about the fact that the Trump administration is
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: learning maybe a little lesson maybe the e stapolated more
• 52:44
  Speaker 2: broadly about tariffs and actually.
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: Coming to realize that this is.
• 52:51
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that even as of also Friday, the
• 52:57
  Speaker 2: Trump reiversation also announced that those tariffs that they had
• 53:01
  Speaker 2: on Switzerland. You remember they put like fifty percent tariffs
• 53:03
  Speaker 2: on Switzerland on watchers and chocolate and stuff like that,
• 53:08
  Speaker 2: it turns out that they are now easing easing. I
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: don't know what easing means and how much they're easing,
• 53:15
  Speaker 2: but the punishing levees on imports from Switzerland they're going
• 53:20
  Speaker 2: to be dramatically lower. So yeah, it's it's getting to
• 53:26
  Speaker 2: the point where.
• 53:29
  Speaker 1: Maybe you know the tariff issue is slowly being the
• 53:34
  Speaker 1: impact of it is slowly being reduced. I will say
• 53:37
  Speaker 1: today I spoke at Leadishipport and the Rockies, which I
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: speak at every year, and I and both the speaker
• 53:42
  Speaker 1: before me and me both attacked Trump's tariffs in front
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: of a group of that usually really resents challenging Trump
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: on anything, and they have spoted pretty well. So I
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: think the tide has.
• 53:56
  Speaker 2: Shifted in terms of public opinion about tariffs, and maybe
• 54:00
  Speaker 2: this is one battle where reason and rationality is winning
• 54:04
  Speaker 2: at least a little bit. All right, let me let
• 54:10
  Speaker 2: me just see what do we We're going to talk
• 54:11
  Speaker 2: about those three items, Okay, one more lengthy one and
• 54:16
  Speaker 2: one short ones. I want to talk a little bit
• 54:19
  Speaker 2: about the Philibesta, which is being on really on people's
• 54:24
  Speaker 2: minds with the with the government shutdown and the idea
• 54:28
  Speaker 2: you needed sixty votes in order to pass this this
• 54:31
  Speaker 2: continuing resolution. Why sixty why not just fifty one? Why
• 54:35
  Speaker 2: do we need this special thing in the Philibusta? And
• 54:38
  Speaker 2: some people claiming, oh, it's in the constitution, which.
• 54:40
  Speaker 1: Is not so.
• 54:41
  Speaker 2: I want to talk a little bit of a philibusta's
• 54:43
  Speaker 2: arugument for it and arguments against it. Give you a
• 54:45
  Speaker 2: little bit of history of where it comes from. Uh
• 54:48
  Speaker 2: and and and give you a little sense of what
• 54:51
  Speaker 2: this is about. So the philibesta was really born in
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: eighteen oh six. It was in the early Senate, right
• 55:00
  Speaker 2: at the beginning of the Republic. You know, a simple
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: majority could cut off debate using a rule called previous
• 55:06
  Speaker 2: question motion. It's a tool that the House has, and
• 55:09
  Speaker 2: so at some point you're debating and debating and debating
• 55:12
  Speaker 2: and debating.
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: And okay, enough, we have to vote.
• 55:15
  Speaker 2: In eighteen oh six, of the recommendation of Vice President
• 55:18
  Speaker 2: Aaron Burr, the Senate removed this motion as part of
• 55:21
  Speaker 2: a kind of cleaning up the rules. As unintended consequences,
• 55:26
  Speaker 2: they created the filibuster. The filibuster at the time mean
• 55:30
  Speaker 2: that people could continue debating the issue indefinitely and hold
• 55:34
  Speaker 2: up a vote indefinitely, as long as you kept debating,
• 55:38
  Speaker 2: as long as you kept speaking, and there was no
• 55:43
  Speaker 2: formal mechanism to end debate. And indeed, the first filibusters
• 55:48
  Speaker 2: started in the eighteen thirties and eighteen forties, and suddenly
• 55:54
  Speaker 2: people realized, well, unlimited debate was possible, and we'll never
• 55:57
  Speaker 2: get to vote on this if they keep talking. So
• 56:01
  Speaker 2: the filibuster was born out of neglect, out of unintended
• 56:06
  Speaker 2: consequences of a slight change of a rule.
• 56:08
  Speaker 1: They didn't really know.
• 56:09
  Speaker 2: What happened in philibuster is the idea that you could
• 56:11
  Speaker 2: continue talking, you continue debating one or several senators, and
• 56:17
  Speaker 2: you can continue doing this so the vote never comes
• 56:19
  Speaker 2: to the floor, you know, And there were examples where
• 56:23
  Speaker 2: this worked. In nineteen forty one, Henry Clay's attempt to
• 56:25
  Speaker 2: create a national bank was blocked by philibuster. In the
• 56:29
  Speaker 2: late eighteen hundreds, filibusters increased, often used around civil rights
• 56:34
  Speaker 2: issues in patronage battles, but they were still rare. The
• 56:39
  Speaker 2: Senate met less frequently. There wasn't a lot to vote on,
• 56:43
  Speaker 2: and mostly they just voted, and you know, the people
• 56:47
  Speaker 2: didn't filibuster that many issues. In nineteen during World War One,
• 56:55
  Speaker 2: a group of Isolation senators filibuster the bill that would
• 56:58
  Speaker 2: have armed merchant ships. President Wilson demanded reform. He thought
• 57:06
  Speaker 2: this was unacceptable, and so they introduced what was called.
• 57:10
  Speaker 1: The cloture rule. And this was a rule that said
• 57:13
  Speaker 1: that you could cut off debate if two thirds of
• 57:15
  Speaker 1: the Senate voted to cut the debate off. If two
• 57:19
  Speaker 1: thirds voted, the debate was cut and they would the
• 57:21
  Speaker 1: issue would go to a vote right. In the thirties through.
• 57:27
  Speaker 2: The nineteen sixties, filibusters became associate with blocking civil rights legislation. Suddenly,
• 57:32
  Speaker 2: Democrats used it to filibuster to prevent anti lynching bills,
• 57:37
  Speaker 2: voting protections, and other civil rights measures. There was even
• 57:41
  Speaker 2: the longest single individual filibuster of the period was Storm
• 57:45
  Speaker 2: Thurman in nineteen fifty seven, where he spoke straight for
• 57:48
  Speaker 2: twenty four hours eighteen minutes against the Civil Rights Act
• 57:51
  Speaker 2: of nineteen fifty seven, and then in nineteen sixty four
• 57:54
  Speaker 2: there was a sixty day filibuster where they tried to
• 57:57
  Speaker 2: derail the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four, but
• 58:00
  Speaker 2: ultimately closure two thirds vote was invoked and enough Senators
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: voted to actually go ahead and vote on a civil
• 58:08
  Speaker 2: rights Act. In nineteen seventy five, there was a decision
• 58:14
  Speaker 2: made that two thirds was too rigorous of standard, and
• 58:16
  Speaker 2: it was lowered to sixty votes, two fifths of the
• 58:20
  Speaker 2: full Senate. They also created a two track system where
• 58:24
  Speaker 2: you could debate on one bill could continue even if
• 58:27
  Speaker 2: it's being filibustered while the Senate moved on to other
• 58:29
  Speaker 2: business right.
• 58:31
  Speaker 1: And this is what the modern filibuster is. It no
• 58:34
  Speaker 1: longer requires you to non stop talking.
• 58:37
  Speaker 2: All you have to do really is to threaten a
• 58:40
  Speaker 2: filibuster that if it comes to vote, you won't let
• 58:42
  Speaker 2: it because you'll start talking, and that forces a closure vote.
• 58:46
  Speaker 2: And unless you have sixty votes to force a vote,
• 58:50
  Speaker 2: you don't even bring a bill to the floor to
• 58:53
  Speaker 2: be voted on. And that's where we are today. Where
• 58:57
  Speaker 2: we are today is that the philibuster does become a
• 59:00
  Speaker 2: standard tool for the minority party to stop anything the
• 59:04
  Speaker 2: majority wants to pass.
• 59:06
  Speaker 1: All they have to do is threaten filibusta.
• 59:09
  Speaker 2: Sometimes they do speeches, but mostly they just threaten it,
• 59:13
  Speaker 2: and then you have to have sixty votes and that's it.
• 59:16
  Speaker 1: That's just accepted normal. Now this has been eroded a
• 59:24
  Speaker 1: little bit.
• 59:25
  Speaker 2: In twenty thirteen, Democrats ended the filibuster for executive branch
• 59:29
  Speaker 2: nominees and lower court federal judges, be the Supreme courts
• 59:33
  Speaker 2: still required sixty votes. In twenty seventeen, Republicans ended the
• 59:38
  Speaker 2: filibustera to the Supreme Court nominees, so it only needs
• 59:41
  Speaker 2: fifty one vote, and they did that in order to
• 59:43
  Speaker 2: get Neil Gosich elected.
• 59:45
  Speaker 1: He wasn't going to get sixty.
• 59:48
  Speaker 2: So now all presidential nominees only need fifty one, but
• 59:52
  Speaker 2: almost all other legislation, with the exception of budget reconciliation
• 59:57
  Speaker 2: we will leave that for another time, need sixty votes
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 2: in order to basically pass. Again, not in the constitution,
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 2: but a part of the way things run. Now here's
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 2: the thing. What this does is it gives the minority
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 2: party vita power if it can stick together. We show
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 2: that it couldn't. The Democrats couldn't stick together with regard
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 2: to the government shutdown. But if they can stick together,
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 2: they can block. If they have if they have forty
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 2: one votes, they can block what the majority wants to do.
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 2: So it protects the minority rights in the Senate. That's
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 2: part of the positive. It encourages an attempt for bipartisanship
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 2: and it prevents big major swings in the law for
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 2: good or for ill. I think the main thing that
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 2: it does that I like is to slows things down.
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: It forces thought, it forces consideration, forces their empt to
• 1:01:01
  Speaker 2: try to get people from the other party to vote
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 2: for it, and it doesn't allow for big ideological swings.
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: But of course that's also a problem. You know, it
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 1: gives the.
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 2: Minority exaggerated power. We already have a system of checks
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 2: and balances. This adds on to that another check and balance,
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 2: and it gives the video policy you have to have
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 2: sixty votes in the Senate to do anything. It paralyzes
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 2: Congress in the end. At the Senate level, the House
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 2: doesn't have anything like this. And it said vises good luck,
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 2: which I'm for generally good luck and partisanship, you know,
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 2: which I'm against tribalism. And this is the problem that
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 2: when you want to do good things, it slows them
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 2: down and stops them.
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 1: It makes it impossible.
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 2: So, for example, if today on energy for example, or
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 2: environmental regulation, the administration would like to pass bills in
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 2: the Senate they would actually dramatically reduce regulation of environment
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 2: and actually liberalize economy and really make dramatic changes in
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 2: the world in which we live. It can't do it
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 2: without getting significant democratic vote votes, and we know the
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 2: significant of democratic votes are not forthcoming. So change for
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 2: the positive is basically halted.
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 1: It stopped now. It also prevents a lot of bad
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 1: stuff from happening. Who knows what this administration would like
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 1: to pass in terms of voting, in terms of you know,
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 1: election rules, in terms of immigration, in terms of a
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 1: lot of other things that I think are dangerous and problematic.
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 1: And what if the Democrats, as when they at Obama
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 1: had the White House, the Senate, and the House, they
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 1: could have passed all kinds of things socialized healthcare and
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: Medicare for all with just fifty one votes. So I
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: have to admit torn I'd like the good legislation to
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: only require fifty one votes and the bad legislation require sixty.
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 1: I'd like to slow down any negative bad legislation. On
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: the other hand, people should get what they vote for,
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: and if people vote for.
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 2: For political power, for political party to have the House
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 2: of Senate, to end the White House, maybe they should
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 2: be allowed a free fall to pass whatever they can pass.
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 2: So I'm tone, I'm not, you know, I don't fall
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 2: clearly on one side of the other. It's frustrating when
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 2: there's some good bills they never pass. For example, I
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 2: think they're going to be some bills on the table
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 2: which expand dramatically expand health saving accounts, which I think
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 2: would be really good. I don't think it can pass
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 2: the Senate because I'm not sure they can get the Democratic.
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 1: Votes to get it passed. It would be great to
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 1: pass that on fifty one votes. Environmental deregulations, some of
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 1: the some of the energy regulations that we want to
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: permanently get rid of, which would be really, really good.
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 2: Right now, I'm not sure certainly this administration cannot get
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 2: Democratic votes for it. We're in a position where Democrats
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 2: can't get Republicans to vote with them, and Republicans can't
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 2: get Democrats to vote for them, you know, except when
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 2: it's for expanding government and then and then the parties
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 2: come together.
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 1: But for shrinking government, you can't get the parties together.
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 1: So it is, it is a quandary. I don't.
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 2: I don't come down clearly on one side of the other.
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 2: As I've always said, I like gridlock because I worry
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 2: that almost every any administration, including this one, is going
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 2: to pass more bad things and good things, more bad
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 2: things and good things. And it's a shame that we
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: don't get the good things, but it's good we don't
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 2: get the bad things. So I'm mildly pro filibuster, but
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 2: I'm also you know, people voted.
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 1: For all this bad stuff. Let him have it, just
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 1: like the tariffs. They got the tariffs. Now they're holding
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 1: the back.
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 2: You know, suffer the consequences of your actions. Voting matters,
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 2: you know. The best way to prevent this is is
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 2: a kind of divided government. But of course, if you
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 2: have divided government, it's like a filibuster. You're never going
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 2: to get the good legislation. So sadly, in the world
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 2: in which we live, there's no way to get the
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 2: good stuff without getting the bad stuff as well, and
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 2: filibuster is an example of that.
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: If you do away with it, you get both. If
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 1: you don't do away with it, you don't get the
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 1: good stuff. So I'm torn.
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 2: It's not clear to me which side is better, but
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 2: generally I tend towards, you know, divided governments and not
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 2: getting a lot done, because I worry about the downside
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 2: more than about losing out on the upside. In the
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 2: case of politics. In every other aspect of life that's
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 2: not the case. So I'm probably still for the filibuster
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 2: in spite of the fact that a lot of things
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 2: that I'd like to pass are not going to pass.
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 2: All right, Two quick stories, and then I'll go to
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 2: your questions. I know we've got a lot of questions,
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 2: and I do have a hard stops. If because of
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 2: the hard stop, I have to delay some questions the
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 2: next show, I apologize, but I'll I'll do the questions
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 2: in the next show. I answer all questions. I won't
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 2: lose them. Don't worry all right quickly. Jeffrey Epstein Epstein,
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 2: This is still ongoing right now. Congress is going to
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 2: vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein's content. There's a majority, I
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 2: think it now's a representative for this to pass. There's
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 2: probably a majority in the center for this to pass.
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 2: The Democrats will vote for it, and a number of
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 2: Tobeicans and actually a significant amou of Republicans will probably
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 2: vote for it.
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 1: Trump tried to stop it.
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 2: He tried to convince law and Bob It, the congresswoman
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 2: from Colorado, to vote against releasing the Jeffrey Epstein.
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 1: It didn't go well. She insisted on voting for it.
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 2: So there was a there was a procedural vote in
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 2: the House to allow us to come to a vote.
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 2: And it's going to come to a vote, and yeah,
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 2: expect to see a lot of Jeffrey Epstein files hitting
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 2: the news. Of course, some Epstein files have already been released.
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 2: They raise even more suspicions about Trump's relationship with Epstein.
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 2: Nothing is clear, nothing is obvious, but they just just
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 2: the language of them and the way they're phrased. These
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 2: emails that Jeffrey Epstein wrote about Trump suggest that maybe
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 2: Trump was more involved in what Jeffy Epstein was doing
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 2: with young girls than would be we would believe, we
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 2: were led to believe. Also, Maga seems to be shifting
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 2: in positions from pedophelia to well, maybe having sex with
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 2: teenage girls is not pedophelia. Maybe that suggests that there's
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 2: a lot more about what Trump was doing than anybody
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 2: wants to admit. Anyway, Trump is responding to this by
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 2: being very defensive, as he always is, and by going
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 2: in the attack, which he always does. So Trump has
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 2: basically told the Department of Justice to start probing the
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 2: relationship between Epstein and Epstein and Bill Killington, so go
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 2: after democrats. So basically, Trump's viewers, if Jeffrey Epstein is
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 2: going to bring me down, he's going to bring down
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 2: a bunch of Democrats as well.
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: So I'm all for this.
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 2: Let's get them all out. Let's get it all out
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 2: in the open. Let's release everything. I don't understand what
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 2: hasn't been released already. Let's release everything. Let's figure out
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 2: who did what and when and if that means ending
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 2: the political careers of a bunch of people, Democrats, Republicans, whatever, Fine,
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 2: I mean, I'm all for that.
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, let's get it out there. Let's get it all
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 1: out there.
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 2: It's sad that Trump is saying go after Clinton rather
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 2: than just you don't go after anybody who deserves to
• 1:09:21
  Speaker 2: go after given the facts.
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 1: That's not how Trump operates.
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 2: But we will get a lot more Jeffrey Epstein emails
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 2: and stuff. And it does turn out, just by the
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 2: emails that already be released, that a lot of the
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 2: rich and powerful people who politicians and businessmen who were
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 2: associated with Jeffrey Epstein did not count to what they say,
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 2: did not disengage from him, even after the allegations about
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 2: his activities his Peterphelly activities became public. So this continued,
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 2: and uh, yeah, I mean, there's still a story there.
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 2: And it does look like we'll know more because Congress
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 2: is going to force the release of these files and
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 2: if Trump is if it's a problem for Trump, It'll
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 2: be interesting to see how Maga responses, because Maggot's pushing
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 2: for the release of the files. But then if they
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 2: come back as as Trump was did bad stuff, what
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 2: are they gonna do?
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 1: Are they gonna turn against Trump or not.
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 2: Finally, just to just to point out that because I
• 1:10:31
  Speaker 2: did say in a past show, I think that the
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 2: gerald Ford aircraft carrier UH was was delayed in arriving
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 2: at the Caribbean, and maybe Trump was backing off going
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 2: to war with Venezuela and going to war with the cartels.
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 2: It turns out that no, it's now in the southern Caribbean.
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 2: It has joined the other forces in this in the Caribbean,
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 2: it is off the shows of Venezuela. This is the
• 1:10:57
  Speaker 2: largest if this is the largest aircraft carrier in the
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 2: American fleet, the largest aircraft carrier in the world.
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 1: I think, incredibly powerful war machine.
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 2: I think this is just an increased pressure on Maduro
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 2: and to try to get him out of Venezuela, to
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 2: get regime changed without a war. But it is also
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 2: an indication that America is willing to go I guess
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 2: to violent action. The US is continuing to blow ships
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 2: out of the water for who knows what reason, killing
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 2: people without any trial, without jury, without any kind of
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 2: legal framework to justify it, without a declaration of war,
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 2: without anything.
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 1: Really, it's truly astounding that.
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 2: This is allowed to continue, that nobody is outraged by
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 2: the fact that the United States is just killing people
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 2: in the Caribbean Sea through the discretion of I guess
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 2: military commanders.
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 1: And you know.
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 2: And now there are murmurs of we're going to launch
• 1:11:59
  Speaker 2: at tax inside Mexico, We're going to go after cartels
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 2: wherever they are, which I think is just just horrific.
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 2: I mean, the solution of the drug war or the
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 2: drugs is not war with the cartels. The solution of
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 2: the drugs again is to legalize them and let local
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 2: law enforcement take care of them. And if the United
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 2: States can help local law enforcement contain the violence.
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 1: Then so be it.
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 2: But get rid of the violence in the United States.
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 2: It is not through a war in Mexico and the
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 2: rest of.
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 1: The Latin America.
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 2: That will be a topic we will be discussing more
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 2: as developments in the Caribbean Sea. As things develop in
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 2: the Caribbean Sea, all right, let's let's not send to
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 2: your questions, you know, so we've got quite a few questions,
• 1:12:54
  Speaker 2: so that is in use for fighting November fourteenth.
• 1:12:57
  Speaker 1: Again, thank you for joining me. Thank you for all the.
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 2: People who did stickers, primarily Troy who did five hundred
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 2: Australian dollars.
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 1: Think you think you?
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Thanks so Jack for a sticker, and thank
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 2: you John for the sticker, and thank you to all
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 2: the other sticker providers that can think before.
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 1: Normative randroid as well. I don't think I think that before,
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 1: but especially as I said to Troy, we got a
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 1: lot of twenty dollars questions, so we're going to start
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 1: with those and then with over time we have left,
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: we'll do the five to ten dollars questions and if
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 1: there's anything left after that, I have a hard stop
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 1: in forty five minutes.
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 2: We will take them up on the next show, which
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 2: will be on Sunday. We'll do a show on Sunday
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 2: and we'll cover those all, right, nanjavij algithm. Psychopaths a
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 2: very small and number in modern society. But during the
• 1:13:48
  Speaker 2: Dark Ages, wasn't most everyone a psychopath? People slaughtered each
• 1:13:52
  Speaker 2: other on the regular with no remorse zero Some thinking
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 2: turns us into monsters. Yeah, I mean, I don't know
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 2: what psychopaths exactly means. I mean, to be a psychopath,
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 2: I think is a clinical psychological diagnosis. I don't think
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 2: slaughtering and murdering people in the makes you a psychopath.
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 2: But I don't know it's a psychological term. I'm not
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 2: a psychologist. I don't like the diagnosed people with those
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 2: kind of things. It is true that in modern times, killing, slaughtering, raping,
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 2: pillaging is pretty much unaccepted in civilized society. Now, note
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 2: that there are plenty of people at our universities who
• 1:14:33
  Speaker 2: believe that killing, raping, burning people alive, torturing them is
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 2: completely okay if you're the so called oppressed. If you're
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 2: a Palestinian and the people you are killing are you know,
• 1:14:51
  Speaker 2: Israeli is a Jews. So even in a civilized society,
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 2: while people might not do it the things, they are
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 2: willing to support them.
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 1: Because of an ideology.
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 2: Now, and note that these Palestinians, the Gazans who did
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 2: this were behaving like Middle Ages Europeans. So the number
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 2: of people engaging in slaughter, the number of people willing
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 2: to engage in slaughter. The number of people capable of
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 2: great pillage and slaughter is dependent on the state of civilization.
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 1: The more civilized the place, the less the fewer people
• 1:15:29
  Speaker 1: they are who are willing to kill, the more barbarica place.
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 1: And and here barbarism and civilization has more to do
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 1: with the ideas than anything else, the less slaughter there is.
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's the book Better.
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 2: Better, Angels of Our Nature about by Stephen Pinka about
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 2: the level of violence and society over time, and he
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 2: shows quite dramatically how over time violence has declined dramatically
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 2: in the Western world as we became more civilized, which
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 2: means as we gain more respect for reason and for
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 2: individualism and for the sanctity of life. And that when
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 2: we were mystics and collectivists and tribalists, violence was all
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 2: the rage. I don't like labeling it a psychological issue
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 2: rather than a philosophical one.
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 1: Ideas shape human behavior at the end of the day.
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 2: When we embrace barbaric ideas, we become barbarians. When we
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 2: embrace civilized ideas, we become civilized. I mean, it's not
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 2: quite that simple, but that's a principle. Ian great performance
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 2: at the web debate and good for doctor web debate.
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 1: That was my debate.
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 2: That was a debate yesterday as human socialism and capitalism,
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 2: and good for doctor Mossov. Do you know if doctor
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 2: Marsov regrets his support for Trump in twenty twenty four election.
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I haven't talked to him, but I
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 1: don't think so.
• 1:17:04
  Speaker 2: I think he still views he still views Kamala as
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 2: a worst choice, particularly on the issue that swayed him,
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 2: which was the issue of Israel, you know, and then
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 2: maybe there are other issues in which also supported his
• 1:17:19
  Speaker 2: support for Trump. But next time we have Adam on
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 2: the show, we can certainly ask him about that, or
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 2: you can ask him about that.
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 1: But I don't think. I don't think he regrets it.
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 1: And if that's not true, then he will come on
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 1: the show and tell us otherwise.
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 2: Peb says, I was honored to have m Thatcher, Margaret
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 2: Thatcher speak at my nineteen ninety six commencement. Cool She
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 2: spoke on China, the West and capitalism, saying it would
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 2: bring democracy to China.
• 1:17:50
  Speaker 1: By voting with dollars. She was right or was she right?
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 1: And what was she missing? Well, what she was missing
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: I think was the.
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 2: Was the willingness of the Chinese regime to engage in
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 2: self preservation, which I think was what happened with she
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 2: in the mid twenty teens, where he clamped down on
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 2: economic freedom in order to preserve the authoritary nature of
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 2: the regime. She was one of the reasons he did
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 2: that was because she was right, was because that the
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 2: free markets were moving Chinese to demand more political freedom.
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 2: You saw that in the post COVID era as well,
• 1:18:28
  Speaker 2: with the demonstrations against the shutdowns, the lockdowns. I don't
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 2: think she saw the willingness of Chinese government to continue that. Also,
• 1:18:38
  Speaker 2: I think she overestimated the power of capital, of I
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 2: don't know what you call it, of markets free of
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 2: real philosophical ideas. To actually liberate liberate the people, the
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 2: Chinese are going to have to fight for their freedom.
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 2: They're going to have to fight for their liberty. I
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 2: truly believe that one there will be another Tannerman Square
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 2: and the Chinese people will have to fight back. And
• 1:19:05
  Speaker 2: to do that, they're gonna have to believe in liberty
• 1:19:07
  Speaker 2: and freedom.
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 1: To do that, they're gonna have to be armed with
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 1: real ideas, not just I want to make more money
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 1: and not that that's bad. Right, wanted to make more
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 1: money is good. They need to.
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 2: Understand the relationship between political freedom and economic freedom, and
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 2: they need to demand political freedom and they need to
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 2: be willing to fight back for it. They want a
• 1:19:31
  Speaker 2: Tennerman Square. I mean, they showed incredibly courage. Once the
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 2: shooting started, they were gone. And partially of it is
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 2: because of the overwhelming force. It has to be the
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 2: case that elements within the military will stand up to
• 1:19:44
  Speaker 2: the regime and support the protesters or whatever.
• 1:19:48
  Speaker 1: So I think she will be right.
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 2: In the very long term, or China will descend into poverty,
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 2: into tlitarianism again.
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: I think that the.
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 2: Attempt to balance economic freedom with authoritarian regime is not.
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 1: Sustainable even either move towards more freedom or towards significant
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: less freedom. And right now we're moving towards less freedom.
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: Whether that is the path or whether that is going
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 1: to change.
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 2: I mean, you know, a lot of people said, and
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 2: I said, Tom, I show that there was a possibility
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 2: that she was out and in October when the Communist
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 2: Party meets, they might kick him out. That did not happen.
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 2: She has only consolidated his power further. Does not bode well,
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 2: for at least the short medium term for China Harper Campbell,
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 2: while Ma'm donnie one on the same ballot, measures were
• 1:20:42
  Speaker 2: passed deregulating housing development in New York City. Will the
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 2: future of the mixed economy be greater deregulation while simultaneously
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 2: growing welfare systems? Well, here's the thing that is not
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 2: very much reported. Mam Donny supported the deregulation. That is,
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 2: mum Donny supported leading housing. He ran on a platform
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 2: that both encouraged rent control and at the same time
• 1:21:08
  Speaker 2: encouraged deregulation the building of housing, so greater housing supply.
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 2: He is, you know, supposedly part of the YIMBI, you know, yes,
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 2: in my backyard, kind of the pro pro housing growth
• 1:21:21
  Speaker 2: part of the left.
• 1:21:23
  Speaker 1: But I do think that's true.
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 2: I mean, if you look at the Danish model, the
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 2: Nordic model that they admire so much that the left
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 2: today thinks is the ultimate model, that model is basically
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 2: a model of less regulation, significantly deregulation, and much more
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 2: or much more efficient effective depending on you know, effective
• 1:21:44
  Speaker 2: for the goal, right, not effective in a big scheme
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 2: of things, but welfare state, So yes, I expect more
• 1:21:55
  Speaker 2: redistribution and potentially less regulation. Particularly when it comes to housing.
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 2: There seems to be a consensus building that housing needs
• 1:22:04
  Speaker 2: to be deregulated, and even the left, even the socialist left.
• 1:22:07
  Speaker 2: The guy I debated yesterday was very very pro deregulating housing,
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 2: you know, and and and and some of the new
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 2: housing should be built by the state, but some of
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 2: it should be private industry. And but deregulation was the
• 1:22:22
  Speaker 2: theme housing, not I don't know anything else, Andrew. Do
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 2: you think Tuka has a massive inferiority complex. He's often
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 2: concerned the Jews don't see themselves as better than him.
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 1: Why does he care? Rand did imply that too, He's
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 1: evil flowed from feeling of inferiority. Look, I don't know.
• 1:22:45
  Speaker 2: I don't like to to be psychological motivations because I'm
• 1:22:48
  Speaker 2: not a psychologist. I've said I've told you this many times, Andrew,
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 2: So I don't know. I mean, Tucker comes from a
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 2: wealthy family. He very much has a almost as acratic bearing,
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 2: an aristocratic perspective.
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 1: He really considers himself better than everybody else. I think
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 1: that he is offended by the fact the Jews, of
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 1: all people, are maybe in some cases, most successful, richer
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 1: and have entered that part of society which they used
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 1: to be banned.
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 2: From in the early part of the twentieth century and
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 2: nineteenth century. But I don't know what ultimately drives it.
• 1:23:27
  Speaker 2: There's no question I think that much adoption of evil
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 2: ideas is driven by lack of self esteem.
• 1:23:34
  Speaker 1: But look, at the end of the day, it's lack
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 1: of thinking. It is evasion.
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 2: I don't know the psychological motivation for that, usually inferiority
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 2: or lack of self esteem, but I don't know.
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 1: It just could be a choice.
• 1:23:52
  Speaker 2: It could be a certain tradition, it could be I
• 1:23:55
  Speaker 2: don't know what he is adopting, but it's very well
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 2: could be lack of self esteem. Adam says, I never
• 1:24:05
  Speaker 2: heard you mention that the current state of US culture
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 2: is a manifest consequence of the mass disminding of young
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 2: Americans under the worst anti philosophy of education.
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 1: Have I missed something now? I think I say it
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 1: all the time, I talk about it all the time,
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 1: that you know, the.
• 1:24:20
  Speaker 2: State of American culture, the state of American youth is
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 2: a consequence of the fact that they've been taught to
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 2: emote and not to think. Now, that's disminding. That's exactly
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 2: the essence of what disminding is. I don't use that term.
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 2: Diminding is not a term in my vocabulary. It's in yours, Atam,
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 2: and you brought it up many times on the show.
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 1: But I do emphasize over and over and over again
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 1: that what the American educational system, progressive education in particular,
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 1: but generally the American educational system does is it emphasizes emotion,
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 1: it emphasizes socialization, and de emphasizes thinking and thinking skills.
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 1: And that is the consequence of that is the anti
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 1: conceptual mentality that is dominant both the left and the
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 1: right today, the unthinking ideologies and.
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 2: Therefore the unthinking, mal educated people around us attracted to them.
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 2: All Right, it looks like Lincoln has submitted a full
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 2: part question, So let's read through this and see any
• 1:25:28
  Speaker 2: advice on someone in undergraduate trying to go to the
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 2: intellectual public policy academic route throughout career wise. I initially
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 2: assumed I'd go into into finance, but fixing the garbage
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 2: in that universe in the universities and think tanks is needed.
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 1: For reference, I don't know what that means. Lincoln, of course,
• 1:25:56
  Speaker 1: it's needed, But what has that to do with you? Right,
• 1:25:59
  Speaker 1: So it's needed, does that mean you need to do it?
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: We'll get to that in a minute.
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 2: For reference, I'm currently in an honors student at the
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 2: University of Arizona's Philosophy, Politics, and Economics program.
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 1: That's a good program on the pre law track.
• 1:26:13
  Speaker 2: I'm pretty smart top five percent sat Schoolles, who could
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 2: probably get into any grad program.
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 1: Or law program short of Yale or Harvard.
• 1:26:23
  Speaker 2: I'd like to pursue economic and economics masters alongside my JD,
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 2: and perhaps even an ECON PhD, but I'm not sure
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 2: where's where to study. Most ECON program programs are anti
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 2: market without with the exception of George Mason. Given I
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 2: come from a comfortable family, Tuition costs, you know, the
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 2: lower salaries compared to finance an issue. Since tuition costs
• 1:26:55
  Speaker 2: well maybe a non an issue. Can't tell if there is.
• 1:26:57
  Speaker 2: Since you've gone through both academia and AORI. What's your
• 1:27:00
  Speaker 2: advice at entering this world. Well, first, I want to
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 2: make sure that your motivation is right.
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: You need to do what you what your values dictate,
• 1:27:10
  Speaker 1: that is what you're gonna enjoy doing. This is gonna
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 1: be your career. It's gonna we will spend most of
• 1:27:15
  Speaker 1: your time. So don't go into I don't know, into
• 1:27:21
  Speaker 1: ref into think tank world or the intellectual world because
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 1: it's needed. Go into it because you're passionate about.
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 2: It and you really want to do the work, and
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 2: you think you'll really enjoy it, and you think this
• 1:27:33
  Speaker 2: is where you will be happy spending most of your life.
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 2: So if you've decided, you really decided you want to
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 2: go into economics and you want to get to a
• 1:27:46
  Speaker 2: law degree in economic degree, I do actually think Judge
• 1:27:49
  Speaker 2: Mason is a is a great place to go.
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 1: Now you're gonna struggle with the temptation. Judge Mason University
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 1: is very good.
• 1:27:58
  Speaker 2: The economics department is very good at convincing people that
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 2: anarchy is the right political system.
• 1:28:05
  Speaker 1: So you're gonna have to fight that.
• 1:28:06
  Speaker 2: It's going to be difficult because their professors are very
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 2: very smart and they make the best arguments possible for anarchy.
• 1:28:12
  Speaker 2: And the more objectivism you know going into that program,
• 1:28:17
  Speaker 2: the more you'll be able to resist the temptation to
• 1:28:19
  Speaker 2: be absorbed by it. You could also go to Clemson,
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 2: which has a decent econ department, I don't remember if
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 2: they do a PhDs. Judge Mason, they do, and they
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 2: have a decent law school where for example, Adam Mosov
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 2: teaches in their law school. So they've got a decent
• 1:28:32
  Speaker 2: law school in a good economics department. So it's a
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 2: good place to go at that point.
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 1: Once you are.
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 2: Once you have the PhD in economics, then you can
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 2: decide do I want to be an academic and go
• 1:28:47
  Speaker 2: and teach and or do I want to come to
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 2: the Ironman Institute. And maybe at that point in the
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 2: iron Man University they'll be a demand for somebody to
• 1:28:55
  Speaker 2: teach economics. I know today there is some demand for
• 1:28:58
  Speaker 2: somebody to come in and teach economics and become a
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 2: professor at the Iran Institute.
• 1:29:03
  Speaker 1: So one thing I.
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 2: Would encourage you to do, and I can't remember if
• 1:29:06
  Speaker 2: you're already doing this or not. One thing I'd encourage
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 2: you to do Lincoln is take as many classes as
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 2: you can at the ARU from AARI, take as many
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 2: classes as you can. Let them know that you want
• 1:29:19
  Speaker 2: to become an intellectual, so that they give you kind
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 2: of a put you on an accelerated track. You don't
• 1:29:27
  Speaker 2: get involved with all of the undergraduate and graduate programs
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 2: at the Iron Ran Institute. Why you're getting your PhD
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 2: in economics, even if it slows you down, do not
• 1:29:36
  Speaker 2: stop taking classes from the institute. Keep taking classes at
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 2: the ARU, Keep stay.
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 1: Involved with the I with ARU because it will it
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 1: will give you an It will give you it will
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: help you resist kind of many of the arguments and
• 1:29:57
  Speaker 1: give you the tools to argue back against ag amount
• 1:30:00
  Speaker 1: your professors will make. And it will give you an
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 1: opening once you graduate with that PhD to come and
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 1: work at AARU. But that's what we're looking for.
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 2: We're looking for people who have PhDs in economics and
• 1:30:11
  Speaker 2: really no economics to come and teach today?
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 1: Are you? And and also no objectivism? Right importantly, no
• 1:30:17
  Speaker 1: economics and no objectivism to come and teach today? Are you?
• 1:30:21
  Speaker 1: So absolutely.
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 2: You know, go and and I see no problem in
• 1:30:27
  Speaker 2: pursuing that track if that's really what you want to
• 1:30:29
  Speaker 2: do versus the finance career you seem to have wanted originally.
• 1:30:35
  Speaker 2: So figure out what you really want to do it
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 2: and go and do it, and the institute will create
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 2: opportunities for you to become an intellectual within the objectivist world.
• 1:30:44
  Speaker 1: Once you have a PhD.
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 2: There won't be any problem if you're a PhD and
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 2: an objectivist, They're going to be lots of opportunities for you.
• 1:30:52
  Speaker 2: Lincoln continues your point on debunking the housing meme. Gave
• 1:30:56
  Speaker 2: me an idea for you to make its own show.
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 2: The idea that life was beat in the fifties eighties
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 2: is very common, with wage stagnation since nineteen seventy one
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 2: and affordable fifties housing being related. Yeah, I mean, I've
• 1:31:12
  Speaker 2: talked about that many many times on the show. I
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 2: could do a whole show just debunking that, you know, absolutely,
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 2: But yeah, all right, nicokap, could you make a show
• 1:31:27
  Speaker 2: about your favorite composers and their best pieces? Yeah, I'll
• 1:31:30
  Speaker 2: probably do it as a member's only show. So I'm
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 2: glad to see you a member. That's a good idea
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 2: for the next member's only show. Thomas, where does the
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 2: claim that logic leads to authoritarianism come from? Peacock raises
• 1:31:43
  Speaker 2: this phnominous parallels too. How did logic get tied to apathy?
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure why apathy.
• 1:31:49
  Speaker 1: I assume you've seen How did logic get tied to authoritarianism?
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 1: You know, I think it goes in a sense all.
• 1:31:54
  Speaker 2: The way back to Plato, though Plato never used the
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 2: term I don't think used the term logic in this context.
• 1:32:00
  Speaker 2: But the idea is that, you know, logic, reason, rationality,
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 2: only some people have access to that, or let's say,
• 1:32:11
  Speaker 2: really really smart people can do that much better than
• 1:32:14
  Speaker 2: the rest of us, and therefore those people should guide
• 1:32:17
  Speaker 2: our lives.
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 1: We are not very rational, we are weak, we are
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: not that smart.
• 1:32:23
  Speaker 2: We should let smart people make decisions for us because
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 2: they'll make better decisions for us, because we can't sustain
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 2: our lives. So that's I think where it comes from.
• 1:32:31
  Speaker 2: It comes to this idea that logic, reason, rationality qualities
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 2: that are associate with intelligence, and since most people are
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 2: not intelligent enough to really to live up to that,
• 1:32:48
  Speaker 2: you know, execute on logic and all of that, that
• 1:32:52
  Speaker 2: we need. We need guides, We need authorities to tell
• 1:32:58
  Speaker 2: us how to live and what to do. I think
• 1:33:01
  Speaker 2: that's a connection. Jonathan, thank you Adam for quitting heritage
• 1:33:05
  Speaker 2: great shows lately.
• 1:33:06
  Speaker 1: You're on. Thank you, Jonathan appreciated.
• 1:33:08
  Speaker 2: Jonathan continues, You're on Brook as the James Brown of philosophy,
• 1:33:12
  Speaker 2: the hottest working man in show business.
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you, thank you, Liam.
• 1:33:19
  Speaker 2: Ironic when Bill O'Reilly is the only major Republican to
• 1:33:23
  Speaker 2: come out and condemn Tucker and Candice Owen.
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 1: Wow, Bill O'Reilly did that? All right?
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 2: Bill O'Reilly my nemesis from the two thousands. It's gonna
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 2: know he's still around, Harper Campbell. Since Goldwater? Did the
• 1:33:37
  Speaker 2: Conservatives typically place the capitalism before the Christianity. Now it's
• 1:33:40
  Speaker 2: the other way around. No, I mean, Conservatives never placed
• 1:33:42
  Speaker 2: the capitalism before the Christianity. And indeed they've never been capitalist.
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 2: And this is why conservatives, I mean, what government has
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 2: been conservative since?
• 1:33:52
  Speaker 1: What government has been po capitalist? Since Goldwater?
• 1:33:56
  Speaker 2: I mean, maybe, arguably for short period of time Reagan
• 1:33:59
  Speaker 2: you could argue, at least verbally and in terms of
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 2: rate of growth of spending, non military spending was very.
• 1:34:06
  Speaker 1: Low, and there was some deregulation.
• 1:34:10
  Speaker 2: But overall Conservatives have not been stringent advocates for capitalism.
• 1:34:16
  Speaker 2: It's always been weak. Now it's completely gone, that is
• 1:34:19
  Speaker 2: the difference. Now it's completely gone.
• 1:34:22
  Speaker 1: But they were never.
• 1:34:25
  Speaker 2: Never placed a beg emphasis in capitalism and whatever capitalism
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 2: there were, as Irvin Crystal would say, we'll give it
• 1:34:31
  Speaker 2: two cheers, and Michael Novak one cheer, So even the
• 1:34:36
  Speaker 2: most animate conservatives would only give capitalism to or even
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 2: one cheer, whereas they give Christianity three cheers.
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 1: You know, so yeah, it was always Christianity first, James.
• 1:34:52
  Speaker 1: It is?
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 2: Is it like the Supreme Court will throw out the
• 1:34:55
  Speaker 2: tariffs before the end of the year. Well, the stock
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 2: market boom. I think the Servian Court rule throughout the tariffs.
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 2: I don't know about the timing. I haven't looked into it,
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 2: but it's likely I think before the end of the year.
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 2: Maybe I shouldn't say that because I'm not sure. Will
• 1:35:11
  Speaker 2: the stock market boom? I don't know, because the stock
• 1:35:13
  Speaker 2: market has so much positive already priced in, and it's
• 1:35:18
  Speaker 2: already pricing I think a significant weakening of tariffs if
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 2: nothing else. And also remember Trump won't give up on tariffs.
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 2: He'll just use another statute to increase them. This is
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 2: a cornerstone of his agenda. So I don't know if
• 1:35:34
  Speaker 2: the stock market will boom. I don't like to make
• 1:35:36
  Speaker 2: stock market predictions rue downs. I know from personal experience
• 1:35:42
  Speaker 2: the new listeners find you by commenting about find you
• 1:35:47
  Speaker 2: by commenting.
• 1:35:48
  Speaker 1: On conservatives and leftists. They need to hear a new perspective.
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 2: So it's my commenting on conservatives and leftists that causes
• 1:35:58
  Speaker 2: them to find me. Yeah, I'm going to continue. I'm
• 1:36:03
  Speaker 2: going to continue. And I agree they need to hear
• 1:36:05
  Speaker 2: a new perspective. And they're out there and and and
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 2: they're listening, and hopefully, hopefully we will sway some of them. Lincoln,
• 1:36:14
  Speaker 2: thank you for the sticker. Stephen Harper, thank you for
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 2: the sticker. Appreciate it. Michael, I think Alex Epstein should
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 2: take advantage of the conpolitical climate and create an Epstein
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 2: file that gets captured by Google searchers but directs people
• 1:36:33
  Speaker 2: to his website.
• 1:36:36
  Speaker 1: You know, I know that's meant to be funny and
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 1: it's on, but but you have.
• 1:36:39
  Speaker 2: To be really careful because people people like because of
• 1:36:43
  Speaker 2: the similarities name you do not want to be lumped together,
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 2: you know, particularly in the kind of environment that we live.
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 1: Right now, not your average algorithm.
• 1:36:55
  Speaker 2: Did you see Alun musk response to critics of his
• 1:36:57
  Speaker 2: trillion dollar pay package. He was practically citing, yeah, reciting
• 1:37:01
  Speaker 2: Golts Golts a speech. Yeah, I mean there was strong
• 1:37:04
  Speaker 2: elements of iron Rand in that, and of course Elon
• 1:37:07
  Speaker 2: Musk is red iron Rand. And is in the past
• 1:37:10
  Speaker 2: quoted iron Rand and quoted out Shrugged. So it was
• 1:37:14
  Speaker 2: pretty good. It was pretty good.
• 1:37:16
  Speaker 1: And he's absolutely right and good fair Lawn.
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 2: I mean, as I've said in the past, Elan is
• 1:37:23
  Speaker 2: infuriating because you know, you love him one day and
• 1:37:26
  Speaker 2: you hate him the next.
• 1:37:27
  Speaker 1: And he's a complete he creates complete whiplash. Right.
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 2: He says great stuff and you go, oh, this is fantastic,
• 1:37:35
  Speaker 2: and he says awful stuff, and oh my god, what
• 1:37:37
  Speaker 2: do you say? You know, so you know, he's he's
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 2: all over the place, and he does not have a
• 1:37:42
  Speaker 2: consistent base, a consistent ideology, a consistent frame of consistent principles.
• 1:37:48
  Speaker 1: I wish he did. The world would be much much
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 1: better if he did. Hawpa Campbell.
• 1:37:53
  Speaker 2: Do you get the highest super Chat revenue of any
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 2: podcast relative to the size of audience? I think what
• 1:38:01
  Speaker 2: was I number two or something like that. I'm way
• 1:38:03
  Speaker 2: up there relative to the size of audience Superjet. Yes,
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 2: I don't know if at number one, but I'm close.
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 2: Kim says Wednesday was great. Too many wacky Christian conservatives
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 2: at the event, though, bummed you didn't debate the priests.
• 1:38:19
  Speaker 1: Well, there were. It was interesting the priest.
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 2: It was in an auditorium owned by a church, and
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 2: the Catholic priest of the church was there in the audience.
• 1:38:30
  Speaker 2: You're sitting in the back, but one of his seminary
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 2: students was in the front wearing a collar.
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 1: Right, he was there. And the fascinating thing about the
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 1: seminary student is that he was.
• 1:38:40
  Speaker 2: Constantly rolling his eyes and shaking his head when the
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 2: people defending Christianity were speaking, because they were talking nonsense
• 1:38:51
  Speaker 2: but historically in theologically.
• 1:38:55
  Speaker 1: And he was, you know, doing this when I was speaking.
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 2: And when the vote came at the end of whether
• 1:39:06
  Speaker 2: you think the proposition is right or wrong Christianity will
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 2: destroy the West, he abstained. And I don't think he
• 1:39:14
  Speaker 2: abstained in the beginning. I think in the beginning he
• 1:39:16
  Speaker 2: was clearly against the proposition. I think it's I think
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 2: I made a good case that he acknowledged the truth,
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 2: at least was historically true. And I think he was
• 1:39:30
  Speaker 2: embarrassed to some extent by the people defending Christianity.
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 1: And it was fascinating to watch his face as they
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 1: were talking.
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 2: So this is a seminary student, and he actually wanted
• 1:39:44
  Speaker 2: to make a speech, And I wish they'd led him,
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 2: but he wasn't one of the people they let give speeches.
• 1:39:49
  Speaker 2: All right, Clark, Misery is always the goal of the envious,
• 1:39:53
  Speaker 2: the momentary thrill they get from making you as miserable
• 1:39:56
  Speaker 2: as they are.
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 1: Yes, that is envy for you, Christian. Glad to see
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 1: you in church Wednesday. Yes. Uh, if Christianity defines Western civilization,
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 1: would those Christians consider countries like Armenia in Latin America
• 1:40:12
  Speaker 1: to be Western? No? I well, it depends.
• 1:40:15
  Speaker 2: Maybe some of them would, but many of them wouldn't
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 2: because they associated with a certain type of Christianity affiliated
• 1:40:22
  Speaker 2: with Europe, Europe and Europeans. But that would have been
• 1:40:26
  Speaker 2: an interesting question to ask them.
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 1: I I don't know.
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 2: I don't know if they would consider it er. They
• 1:40:33
  Speaker 2: also would separate Armenia. For ex, Armenia, for example, is
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 2: Orthodox Christianity. And I think they associate Western civilization with
• 1:40:41
  Speaker 2: the with the Western Church, not with the Eastern Church,
• 1:40:45
  Speaker 2: not with the Greek Orthodox or the Russian Orthodox Church.
• 1:40:48
  Speaker 2: And that I think is how they separate out Western civilization.
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 2: Uh so, maybe not with regards to Armenia, but yes
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 2: with regards to Latin America. What about Africa? That is
• 1:40:57
  Speaker 2: becoming more and more Christian.
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 1: I doubt that they would consider Africa Western civilization even
• 1:41:02
  Speaker 1: though they're Christian.
• 1:41:04
  Speaker 2: I mean, the population of Africa Christianity's growing dramatically, particularly Catholicism,
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 2: So I think at the end of the day they
• 1:41:13
  Speaker 2: for them Western civilization is a combination of race and religion.
• 1:41:19
  Speaker 1: Jamie.
• 1:41:21
  Speaker 2: Golf courses use chemicals that have been shown to significantly
• 1:41:24
  Speaker 2: increase risk of Parkinson's other neurologogical conditions. Does the public
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 2: have the right to block private enterprise from building golf
• 1:41:31
  Speaker 2: courses close to them?
• 1:41:32
  Speaker 1: Well, I mean this is simple.
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 2: People should sue the golf courses that have used those chemicals,
• 1:41:39
  Speaker 2: and if they win the lawsuit and they get damages,
• 1:41:44
  Speaker 2: then that'll raise dramatically raise the cost of building a
• 1:41:49
  Speaker 2: golf course and make it impossible, you know, prevent them
• 1:41:53
  Speaker 2: from using those.
• 1:41:53
  Speaker 1: Kind of chemicals. Of course, if it's really proven, and
• 1:41:57
  Speaker 1: I doubt that it's proven, I'm very very skeptical of.
• 1:42:00
  Speaker 2: Of of the fact that of the idea that chemicals
• 1:42:05
  Speaker 2: in golf courses create a responsible for parkins is very
• 1:42:08
  Speaker 2: skeptical of that.
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 1: But let's assume it's true. Uh, then and IF's unequivocal
• 1:42:13
  Speaker 1: and it wins.
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 2: In a court case, then yeah, the EPA or Congress
• 1:42:18
  Speaker 2: has pass a law banning the use of those chemicals
• 1:42:20
  Speaker 2: because they clearly cause harm.
• 1:42:22
  Speaker 1: They're clearly a violation of individual rights. But you'd have
• 1:42:26
  Speaker 1: to prove it, and I haven't seen.
• 1:42:28
  Speaker 2: I mean, if that was true, I would expect there
• 1:42:31
  Speaker 2: to be massive lawsuits in the works and uh and
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 2: and a lot of pressure on the e p A
• 1:42:37
  Speaker 2: to ban these chemicals. So I don't know that I've
• 1:42:45
  Speaker 2: seen that. I'm not an expert. I haven't followed this,
• 1:42:47
  Speaker 2: but I haven't seen it. Thomas, why debate politics if
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 2: it's downstream of ethics and pistemology and metaphysics, why not
• 1:42:56
  Speaker 2: debate a pistemology metaphysics instead, because nobody will debate and
• 1:43:00
  Speaker 2: nobody will come to a debate where you talk about
• 1:43:02
  Speaker 2: epistemology and ethic and metaphysics.
• 1:43:05
  Speaker 1: Nobody's interested in that. If you debate politics, you bring
• 1:43:09
  Speaker 1: up epistemological and ethical issues in the debate. The debate
• 1:43:14
  Speaker 1: is filled with ethical issues. If you debate capitalism, you're
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 1: talking about its morality. You're talking about where it's ethical,
• 1:43:19
  Speaker 1: and therefore you have to define standards of ethics and
• 1:43:23
  Speaker 1: but but by in the way that you debate, you model,
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 1: you show a proper epistemology, you're showing your audience how
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 1: to do with pistemology, how to think about the world.
• 1:43:35
  Speaker 1: Epistemology is not just technical epistemology for most people. Most
• 1:43:39
  Speaker 1: people will never uh you know, really examine and think
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 1: through and fully accept measurement emission in concept formation. They won't.
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 1: They won't get that. What you need to teach people
• 1:43:55
  Speaker 1: is how to how to on a day to day
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 1: basis think, how to use concepts, how to use their mind.
• 1:44:00
  Speaker 2: And the best way to do that is not to
• 1:44:02
  Speaker 2: teach epistemology or to teach metaphysics. The best way to
• 1:44:06
  Speaker 2: do that is to model it. And one of the
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 2: ways to model it is to debate politics. Hopefully on
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 2: the show, I try to model good at pistemology and
• 1:44:17
  Speaker 2: good metaphysics and reality oriented.
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 1: I seek the truth. I want facts. You know, it's
• 1:44:27
  Speaker 1: not about people's emotions, it's about reality. It's about facts.
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 1: I look to integrate, I look to induce, to look
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 1: at reality and facts and repeated patterns and what's going
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 1: on and understanding causality.
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 2: That is what people need to learn about epistemology and metaphysics.
• 1:44:44
  Speaker 2: They don't what they you know, it's to elevate thinking.
• 1:44:47
  Speaker 2: It's not the technicalities of metaphysics and epistemology that they
• 1:44:52
  Speaker 2: need to learn and they need to get. And the
• 1:44:56
  Speaker 2: reality is that if you actually did ethics of pistology
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 2: or particularly metaphysics and personology as subjects, nobody would come.
• 1:45:04
  Speaker 2: Nobody's interested in learning those things except for a few philosophers.
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 2: What you need is to show how to do it,
• 1:45:12
  Speaker 2: how to think, how to approach topics, and that's what
• 1:45:17
  Speaker 2: you model when you debate political or cultural issues. Good question, though, Andrew,
• 1:45:25
  Speaker 2: why do you think the self declared masters of negotiation,
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 2: who is the self declared master of negotiation, who is
• 1:45:30
  Speaker 2: our president, decided to sit on the sidelines during the
• 1:45:33
  Speaker 2: government shutdown and not try to lead negotiations. He was
• 1:45:37
  Speaker 2: utterly uninterested. Well, because he's utterly uninterested. He's not interested,
• 1:45:42
  Speaker 2: you know from his perspective. You know, he was an
• 1:45:47
  Speaker 2: opportunity to make the Democrats look bad. He thought that
• 1:45:50
  Speaker 2: at least, and he has a certain nihilistic tendency to
• 1:45:56
  Speaker 2: see things broken. He likes to break stuff, and this
• 1:46:00
  Speaker 2: as an opportunity to break stuff.
• 1:46:01
  Speaker 1: He fired a lot of people. He thought it's an Opportunityfy.
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 1: Now he's being forced to hire them all back by
• 1:46:07
  Speaker 1: the deal, you know, the negotiated deal to the end.
• 1:46:10
  Speaker 2: So I just don't think. I think it was his
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 2: way or the highway. That's what he told Democrats, and
• 1:46:16
  Speaker 2: he wanted to break the Democrats. So he wasn't interested
• 1:46:19
  Speaker 2: in negotiating. He's not interested in the mechanics of government.
• 1:46:23
  Speaker 2: He's not interested in legislation generally. That doesn't interest him.
• 1:46:27
  Speaker 2: He'll do it, but it's not what drives him. It's
• 1:46:30
  Speaker 2: not what gets him. Andrew, do you think the standing
• 1:46:34
  Speaker 2: ovation by the religionists was out of respect for your
• 1:46:38
  Speaker 2: commitment to rational argument despite their disagreement, or were they
• 1:46:41
  Speaker 2: converted to the content of your argument. No, it wasn't
• 1:46:44
  Speaker 2: that they were converted, because we had a vote at
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 2: the end and some changed their mind, but very few.
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 2: It was respect for my ability to argue, respect for
• 1:46:55
  Speaker 2: my passion.
• 1:46:56
  Speaker 1: And for my skill in presenting my case.
• 1:47:00
  Speaker 2: It was clearly that, and they got a lot of
• 1:47:01
  Speaker 2: comments to that effect afterwards. It wasn't that they I mean,
• 1:47:05
  Speaker 2: maybe some of them. It caused some cognitive dissonance and
• 1:47:07
  Speaker 2: cause them to rethink their position, which I think is true.
• 1:47:10
  Speaker 2: But again it's modeling the right approach, which I think
• 1:47:15
  Speaker 2: has ultimately a long term impact of people changing their minds.
• 1:47:18
  Speaker 2: They might not change their mind at the debate, but
• 1:47:21
  Speaker 2: it might cause them to rethink some of the things
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 2: they believe, which leads them into a whole sequence of rethinking.
• 1:47:27
  Speaker 1: A lot of what they believe. Mars from Ours just
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 1: thank you for doing what you do. I appreciated Mars
• 1:47:36
  Speaker 1: from ours. Thank you, Jamie before.
• 1:47:43
  Speaker 2: Taller in nineteen oh the law nineteen eighty six hospitals
• 1:47:46
  Speaker 2: could turn away emergencies in a full private healthcare system.
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 2: Would some people in emergencies get turned away?
• 1:47:54
  Speaker 1: Yes? Yeah, I mean.
• 1:47:58
  Speaker 2: I think most people would not because a they'd have insurance.
• 1:48:02
  Speaker 2: Almost everybody would. Some people wouldn't have a chance, but
• 1:48:06
  Speaker 2: they'd be a charity wing a charity fund of a hospital.
• 1:48:11
  Speaker 2: But some hospitals might not have that fund and it
• 1:48:14
  Speaker 2: might not might not have the capability of providing charitable services,
• 1:48:18
  Speaker 2: and they would turn them away.
• 1:48:19
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 2: I think it would be very very rare. It would
• 1:48:23
  Speaker 2: be the exceptional case. And again incentive to get insurance,
• 1:48:29
  Speaker 2: and you say, oh, you know people can't afford it. Well,
• 1:48:33
  Speaker 2: it's an incentive to be able to afford it. And
• 1:48:35
  Speaker 2: of course, if you privatize healthcare completely, then.
• 1:48:41
  Speaker 1: People would be richer. If you made the world the
• 1:48:44
  Speaker 1: free market, people would be rich and insurance.
• 1:48:46
  Speaker 2: Would be easily affordable. That's what we should strive for.
• 1:48:52
  Speaker 2: Jamie says. With privatized roads, would there be some traffic
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 2: slowdowns due to toll stops? Would they be speed limits
• 1:48:59
  Speaker 2: and would you be allowed to drink and drive? I
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 2: don't think there would be slowdowns because of tolls because
• 1:49:06
  Speaker 2: today tolls are electronic. It could be tracked by GPS.
• 1:49:10
  Speaker 2: You wouldn't even need a machine. All it would do
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 2: is you attract every way you drive, and it could
• 1:49:16
  Speaker 2: bill you based on which road you drove on to
• 1:49:20
  Speaker 2: which owners do you owe the money. It would be
• 1:49:22
  Speaker 2: a pretty simple, straightforward process. There'd be companies that specialize
• 1:49:25
  Speaker 2: in providing tolling services to owners of roads, and if
• 1:49:30
  Speaker 2: you wanted to drive on those roads, you'd have to
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 2: get a sticker with a GPS tracking and you'd buy
• 1:49:37
  Speaker 2: a service from one of the service providers that made
• 1:49:40
  Speaker 2: it possible for you to do that.
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 1: So no, I don't think so.
• 1:49:43
  Speaker 2: Would there be speed limits, Yes, speed limits determined buy
• 1:49:47
  Speaker 2: the owner of the roads, and they would have a
• 1:49:50
  Speaker 2: strong incentive to do that because they don't want accidents
• 1:49:53
  Speaker 2: in the roads that make them less usable.
• 1:49:57
  Speaker 1: They want to.
• 1:49:59
  Speaker 2: Be able to of stores in the roads and pedestrians
• 1:50:02
  Speaker 2: and so on which provide revenues. So all of that, Absolutely,
• 1:50:07
  Speaker 2: there'd be speed limits. There might also be speed limits.
• 1:50:11
  Speaker 2: It might also turn out the insurance companies own the roads,
• 1:50:13
  Speaker 2: and they would have speed limits because they would want
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 2: fewer accidents, and because they would have then they would
• 1:50:19
  Speaker 2: have fewer claims to pay. Would you allow drink and drive? No,
• 1:50:23
  Speaker 2: to drink and drive represents a real threat to other people.
• 1:50:28
  Speaker 2: For the police would stop you for drinking and driving
• 1:50:30
  Speaker 2: because of the threat you represent to others.
• 1:50:33
  Speaker 1: So you know, if you are driving in a risky way,
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 1: the police would have their authority to stop you and
• 1:50:39
  Speaker 1: test you for alcohol. It is you exhibiting risky behavior
• 1:50:44
  Speaker 1: that is a justification for stopping you. Stephen thoughts on
• 1:50:50
  Speaker 1: the counter mount of Crystal, the novel themes, movie version,
• 1:50:53
  Speaker 1: et cetera.
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 2: I mean, there are lots of movie versions. I generally
• 1:50:56
  Speaker 2: like the countermount of Crystal. It's basically a revenge story.
• 1:51:00
  Speaker 2: I like revenge stories. Injustice is done to this man,
• 1:51:04
  Speaker 2: he spends time in prison, he escapes, and then he
• 1:51:07
  Speaker 2: basically destroys his enemies.
• 1:51:12
  Speaker 1: Cool. I love that destroying your enemies is a good thing.
• 1:51:16
  Speaker 2: Somebody who committed a huge injustice against you should be destroyed,
• 1:51:20
  Speaker 2: and so I like the theme of Monte Cristo Justice.
• 1:51:24
  Speaker 2: Basically it's all about justice and bringing justice to the
• 1:51:28
  Speaker 2: world after a massive, massive injustice. I don't remember any
• 1:51:33
  Speaker 2: particular movie version of it that was good. I'm sure
• 1:51:36
  Speaker 2: there's several, so I'd encourage people to look for it
• 1:51:38
  Speaker 2: and definitely read the book.
• 1:51:40
  Speaker 1: Read the book. It's a good book. Count to Monte Cristo. Jamie.
• 1:51:44
  Speaker 2: Have you heard of the Ostrich call recently in British
• 1:51:47
  Speaker 2: Columbia and what's your opinion on it? If so, Does
• 1:51:50
  Speaker 2: the government have a right to kill private owned suspected
• 1:51:53
  Speaker 2: to be sick with bird flu animals? I think only
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 2: if they represent a risk to either human beings, and
• 1:52:03
  Speaker 2: it has to be an objective verst to human beings
• 1:52:05
  Speaker 2: or the property of other people, that is, other people's birds.
• 1:52:09
  Speaker 1: So there has to be an objective risk and.
• 1:52:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know the details about the British Columbia
• 1:52:18
  Speaker 2: calling of the birds, but yes, if the risk rises
• 1:52:23
  Speaker 2: to such a degree where if this bird infects and
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 2: there's no way to isolate the birds, and if the
• 1:52:29
  Speaker 2: birds infect somebody else's birds, they will all die and
• 1:52:32
  Speaker 2: destroy that.
• 1:52:33
  Speaker 1: Person's livelihood, that's a real legitimate risk.
• 1:52:36
  Speaker 2: Or if this virus has the potential, a real potential,
• 1:52:39
  Speaker 2: not just a small probability. And all of this is
• 1:52:43
  Speaker 2: we worked out in law, and I don't have the
• 1:52:45
  Speaker 2: answers in terms of the exact numbers. But if this
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 2: has the potential to really jump to human beings and
• 1:52:51
  Speaker 2: it's imminent and it's going to happen, yeah, I think
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 2: some protections have to be put in place. Exactly how
• 1:52:56
  Speaker 2: you do it and what you do, you'd have to
• 1:52:59
  Speaker 2: be an expert to the terms in that, and I'm
• 1:53:00
  Speaker 2: silly not an expert. But it's a real issue that
• 1:53:03
  Speaker 2: needs to be solved. How you solved it exactly, that
• 1:53:07
  Speaker 2: is up to philosophers of law and epidemiologists and property
• 1:53:11
  Speaker 2: rights experts to have to figure out exactly. Lincoln Armenia
• 1:53:16
  Speaker 2: is a perfect example of Christianity ruined the culture hyper
• 1:53:19
  Speaker 2: smart people who are successful when secular in the US,
• 1:53:22
  Speaker 2: But the Christian Middle East country is so impoverished. Yeah,
• 1:53:25
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think that's true everywhere. The more fundamentalist
• 1:53:29
  Speaker 2: religious you are, the less as a culture, the less
• 1:53:34
  Speaker 2: successful you're going to be. True of Christianity, true of Judaism,
• 1:53:38
  Speaker 2: true of Islam, two of all of them. As I said,
• 1:53:41
  Speaker 2: I'm reading this amazing book about the Islamic Central Asian
• 1:53:47
  Speaker 2: They call it an Enlightenment, but Golden Age. It's truly
• 1:53:50
  Speaker 2: stunning what they did and why they did, how they
• 1:53:54
  Speaker 2: did it, and how it ended in dramatic fashion. And
• 1:53:58
  Speaker 2: the Dark Ages of Islam have lasted eight hundred years,
• 1:54:05
  Speaker 2: nine hundred years, eight hundred something years. Pretty amazing how
• 1:54:10
  Speaker 2: long their Dark Ages have been. Michael consistently successful immigrants
• 1:54:17
  Speaker 2: on non Christians, Indians, Chinese, Jews.
• 1:54:20
  Speaker 1: Et cetera.
• 1:54:21
  Speaker 2: Hispanics don't perform as well because they are could by Catholicism.
• 1:54:25
  Speaker 2: I mean, that's an interesting explanation for I haven't thought
• 1:54:29
  Speaker 2: about that for immigrant success.
• 1:54:34
  Speaker 1: Probably true.
• 1:54:35
  Speaker 2: Nigerians have succeed in America are Christians typically, so that
• 1:54:40
  Speaker 2: might be an exception. But yeah, I have to I'd
• 1:54:43
  Speaker 2: have to look into that and look at the stats
• 1:54:45
  Speaker 2: and and and get a bit of clue on it.
• 1:54:46
  Speaker 2: But yeah, that's that's that makes sense. All right, guys,
• 1:54:52
  Speaker 2: I have to go. I didn't give credit to my
• 1:54:54
  Speaker 2: sponsors today. I will make up for that on Sunday.
• 1:54:58
  Speaker 2: You you can check out the sponsor is downe below.
• 1:55:01
  Speaker 2: Actually add Defenders of Capitalism to our sponsor's list in
• 1:55:07
  Speaker 2: the comments below. And yeah, thank you, thanks for super chatters.
• 1:55:15
  Speaker 2: You did amazing today. You met our three hour goal
• 1:55:18
  Speaker 2: as we as we approached the end of the second hour,
• 1:55:21
  Speaker 2: So I very much appreciate that. A lot of that
• 1:55:23
  Speaker 2: has to do with Troy, but also the rest of
• 1:55:25
  Speaker 2: you chimed in lot. You know, lots of twenty dollars
• 1:55:28
  Speaker 2: questions and some good stickers, but a lot of twenty
• 1:55:31
  Speaker 2: dollars questions.
• 1:55:32
  Speaker 1: It really got us to where we needed to be.
• 1:55:34
  Speaker 1: A lot of ten dollars questions. So thank you.
• 1:55:37
  Speaker 2: I will see you all on Saturday on Sunday, no
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 2: show tomorrow, but I'm hoping for a show that will
• 1:55:44
  Speaker 2: do a show on Sunday.
• 1:55:45
  Speaker 1: See then bye, everybody.