🔴 RED NEWS | KAMALA TRUMP DEBATE! | AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY UPDATES

here now we're not doing a fucking intro All right, I need a link.

Somebody give me a fucking link to this debate.

Carlos is going to get in here too.

Where the fuck do I...

Where's the...

Oh, shit, they already started debating.

I didn't even get in my suit, all right?

Jesus Christ.

All right, hold on.

Is it on YouTube?

Ha ha ha ha!

Trump Kamala

All right

Where

said out to do

you're taking in billions of dollars from China

and other places

I left the tariffs

I got to text him

tariffs and yet I had no inflation.

Look, I missed.

What did I miss?

What did I miss?

I'm late.

I thought they would at least do an intro or some shit.

I thought they would do an intro.

Probably the worst in our nation's history.

We were at 21%.

But that's being generous.

Because many things are 50, 60, 70, and 80% higher

than they were just a few years ago.

This has been a disaster for people,

for the middle class, but for every

class. On top of that, we have

millions of people pouring into our

country from prisons and

jails, from mental institutions

and insane asylums, and they're

coming in and they're taking

jobs that are occupied right now by African Americans and Hispanics and also unions.

Unions are going to be affected very soon.

I made it.

You see what's happening.

You see what's happening with towns throughout the United States.

You look at Springfield, Ohio.

You look at Aurora in Colorado.

They're going to exploit the Haitian stuff.

They are taking over the towns.

They're taking over buildings.

They're going in violently.

These are the people that she and Biden led into our country,

and they're destroying our country.

They're dangerous. They're the highest level of criminality

and we have to get them out. We have to get them out fast.

I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country.

I'll do it again and even better. We are going to get to immigration and

border security during this debate, but I would like to let Vice President Harris respond on the

economy here. Well, I would love to. Let's talk about what Donald Trump left us. Donald Trump left us

the worst unemployment

since the Great Depression.

Donald Trump left us the

worst public health

epidemic in a century.

Donald Trump left us

the worst

attack on our democracy

since the Civil War.

And what we have done

is clean up Donald Trump's mess.

What we have done and what I intend to do is build

on what we know.

Shut up, bitch.

Listen, guys, I'm going to just do a disclaimer.

I'm not here to be like

I want to vote for this person or that person.

It's purely descriptive to predict who's going to win.

We're just trying to predict who's going to win.

We're not endorsing anyone, all right?

What you're going to hear tonight is a... But Trump looks better right now. We're not endorsing anyone, all right? What you're going to hear tonight

is a... But Trump looks better right now.

I'm not going to lie, optically.

Like, he's looking better in front of the

American public right now.

If he were elected again,

I believe very strongly that the American

people want a president who understands the importance of bringing us together,

knowing we have so much more in common than what separates us.

And I pledge to be a president for all Americans.

President Trump will give you a minute here to respond.

Number one, I have nothing to do. As you know, and as she respond. Number one, I have nothing to do.

As you know, and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That's out there.

I haven't read it. I don't want to read it purposely. I'm not going to read it. This was a group of people

that got together. They came up with some ideas. I guess some good, some bad, but it makes no difference. I have nothing to do. Everybody knows. I'm an open book. Everybody knows what I'm going to do. Cut taxes very substantially and create a great economy like I did before. We had the greatest economy. We got hit

with a pandemic. And the pandemic

was not since 1917

where 100 million people died.

Has there been anything like it? We did a

phenomenal job with the pandemic.

We handed them over a

country where the economy and with the stock market was higher than it was higher than it was I'm taking a fucking picture of that. What is my luck?

Where the economy and with the stock market was higher than it was before the pandemic came in.

Nobody's ever seen anything like it.

We made ventilators for the entire world.

We got gowns.

We got masks.

We did things that nobody thought possible.

And people give me credit

for rebuilding the military.

They give me credit

for a lot of things,

but not enough credit

for the great job we did

with the pandemic.

But the only jobs

they got were bounce back jobs.

It's right there.

And it bounced back and it went

to their benefit. But I was the one

that created them. They know it and so does

everybody else. Vice President Harris, I'll let you respond.

This whole day's a fucking nightmare.

Donald Trump has no plan for you.

And when you look

at his economic plan, it's all about tax breaks for the richest

people. I am offering what I describe as an opportunity economy, and the best economist in our country,

if not the world, have reviewed our relative plans

for the future of America.

What Goldman Sachs has said

is that Donald Trump's plan

would make the economy worse.

I'll literally have to get disinfectant lights

and clean this up. I'll literally be right

back. The Wharton School has said is Donald

Trump's plan. I can still hear it so I'm still

reacting. How would I

fucking know this happens? Sixteen

Nobel laureates have described

his economic plan as something

that would increase inflation

and by the middle of next year

would invite a recession.

You just have to look

at where we are and where we

stand on the issues. And I'd invite you to know

that Donald Trump actually has

no plan for you because

he is more interested in defending himself

than he is in looking out for you.

That's just a sound bite.

They gave her that to say.

Look, I went to the Wharton School of Finance, and many of those professors, the top professors,

think my plan is a brilliant plan.

It's a great plan.

It's a plan that's going to bring up

our worth, our value as a country. It's going to make people want to be able to go and work and

create jobs and create a lot of good, solid money for our country. Just to finish off,

she doesn't have a plan.

She copied Biden's plan,

and it's like four sentences.

I know there's bugs that live in my house,

but they're getting brazen.

Literally crawling on my monitor. I try to ignore

them. I know they're on the floor somewhere.

Take a look at her plan.

But now they're just going in my face saying,

fuck you.

Mr. President, I do want to drill down

on something you both brought up.

The vice president brought up your tariffs.

You responded, and let's drill down on this.

Because your plan is what she calls

is essentially a national sales tax.

Your proposal calls for tariffs, as you pointed out here, on foreign imports across the board.

You recently said that you might double your plan imposing tariffs up to 20% on goods coming into this country.

As you know, many economists say that with tariffs at that

level, costs are then passed on to the consumer.

Vice President Harris has argued

it'll mean higher prices on gas, food, clothing, medication,

arguing it costs the typical family nearly

$4,000 a year.

Do you believe Americans can afford higher prices because of tariffs?

They're not going to have higher prices.

What's going to have and who's going to have higher prices is China and all of the countries that have

been ripping us off for years.

I charge, I was the only president ever.

China was paying us hundreds of billions

of dollars and so were other countries

and you know, if she doesn't like them,

they should have gone out and they should have immediately

cut the tariffs, but those tariffs are there

three and a half years now under their

administration.

We are going to take in billions of dollars, hundreds of

billions of dollars. I had

no inflation, virtually no inflation.

They had the highest inflation

perhaps in the history of our country, because

I've never seen a worse period of

time. People can't go out and buy

cereal or bacon or eggs or

anything else. The people

of our country are

absolutely dying with what they've done.

They've destroyed the economy.

And all you have to do is look at a poll.

The polls say 80 and 85 and even 90 percent that the Trump economy was great, that their

economy was terrible.

Vice President Harris, I do want to ask for your response.

And you heard what the president said there, because the Biden administration did keep a number of the Trump tariffs in place. So how do you respond? Well, let's be clear that the Trump administration resulted in a trade deficit, one of the highest we've ever seen in the history of America. He invited trade wars.

You want to talk about his deal with China.

What he ended up doing is under Donald Trump's presidency.

He ended up selling American chips to China to help them improve

and modernize their military

basically sold us out

when a policy about China

should be in making sure the

United States of America wins the

competition for the 21st century

which means focusing

on the details of what that requires.

Focusing on relationships

with our allies. Focusing on

investing in American-based technology

so that we win the race on

AI, on quantum computing.

Focusing on what we need to do to support America's the race on AI, on quantum computing, focusing on

what we need to do to support

America's workforce so that

we don't end up having, on the

short end of the stick, in terms

of workers' rights.

But what Donald Trump did, let's talk about

this, with COVID, is he actually thanked President Xi for what he did during COVID. Look at his tweet. Thank you, President Xi, exclamation, preempt to when we know that she was responsible for lacking and not giving us transparency about the origins of COVID.

President Trump, I'll let you respond.

First of all, they bought their chips from Taiwan.

We hardly make chips anymore because of philosophies like they have and

policies like they have. I don't say

her because she has no policy.

Everything that she... No, no, I'm not the

China supporter. You're the China supporter.

No, no, I'm not the person who's going to

fucking fulfill the elite agenda.

Or I'm going to fulfill the elite agenda. You're not. She's going to fucking fulfill the elite agenda? Or I'm going

to fulfill the elite agenda. You're not.

They're fucking barking like bitch dogs.

This is even for the electorate. This is literally

for their donors. She's a Marxist. Everybody

knows she's a Marxist. Her father's a

Marxist professor.

And he taught

her well

but when you

look at what

she's done

to our country

and when you

look at these

millions and millions

of people

that are pouring

into a country

monthly

where it's

I believe

21 million people

not the 15

that people say

Carlos what's up brother that's, not the 15 that people say.

Carlos, what's up, brother?

That's bigger than New York State. I got to apologize to you and my chat.

The whole night has been a disaster, and I got attacked by a spider, literally attacked.

But we're good now,

smooth sailing now.

Yeah, I can hear you now.

They have, and she has

destroyed our country with

policy that's insane.

Almost policy that you say. Don't worry about the they say they have to hear our country

i don't i can't set that up right now my way but everyone can see your speech bubble so it's

like it's all right and they see your face and your picture and your speech bubble

all right sounds good would I be able to see the

do I have to put the

yeah put it on YouTube your home state

of Florida you surprised many

with regard to your six week abortion ban

because you initially said that it was too short.

And you said, quote, I'm going to be voting that we need more than six weeks.

But then the very next day, you reversed course and said you would vote to support the six-week ban.

Vice President Harris says that women shouldn't trust you on the issue of abortion because

you've changed your position so many times.

Therefore, why should they trust you?

Well, the reason I'm doing that vote is because the plan is, as you know, the vote is,

they have abortion in the ninth month. They even have, as you know, the vote is, they have abortion in the ninth month.

They even have, and you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia, not the current governor is doing an excellent job.

But the governor before, he said the baby will be born and

we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words,

we'll execute the baby. And that's

why I did that because that predominates.

Trump's making a good argument. The Democrats are radical in that. And her

vice presidential pick, which i think is a horrible

again this is really descriptive because he is really out of it but her vice presidential

pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine he also says in some

stage it was legal to like abortion in abortion in, like, the eighth month.

...execution no longer abortion, because the baby is born...

...in Oregon.

...and that's not okay with me, hence the vote.

But what I did is something for 52 years...

He's playing it smart.

He knows that voters don't like extremes on this issue.

And through the genius and heart and strength of six Supreme Court justices, we were able to do that.

Now, I believe in the exceptions for rape incest

and life of the mother. I believe strongly

it. Ronald Reagan did also.

85% of Republicans do

exceptions. Very important.

But we were able to get it, and now

states are voting on it.

And for the first time,

you'll go to see, look, this is an issue

that's torn our country on.

You're not getting any feedback from my end, right?

No.

Every legal scholar, every Democrat,

every Republican, liberal, conservative,

they all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote. And that's what happened. Happened. Now, Ohio, the vote was somewhat liberal. Kansas, the vote was somewhat liberal, much more liberal than people would have thought. But each individual

state is voting.

It's the vote of the people now. It's not

tied up in the federal government. I did a

great service in doing it. It took courage to do it.

And the Supreme Court has great courage

in doing it. And I give tremendous

credit to those six justices. There is no state in doing it. And I give tremendous credit to those six justices.

There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born.

Madam Vice President, I want to get your response to President's time.

Well, as I said, you're going to hear about the lives.

Is she fact check?

And that's not actually a surprising fact.

Let's understand how we got here.

Donald Trump

hand-selected three members

of the United States Supreme Court with the

intention that they would undo the protections

of Roe v. Wade. And they

did exactly as he

intended. And now in over

20 states, there are

Trump abortion bans,

which make it criminal

for a doctor or

nurse to provide health care. In one

state, it provides prison for life,

Trump abortion bans that make no exception even for rape and incest, which understand what that means.

A survivor of a crime, a violation to their body, does not have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body does not have the right to make a

decision about what happens to their

body next. That is immoral.

And one does not

have to abandon. Their face.

Carlos, give me the vibe check. Who do you think looks

stronger right now? Without like...

We obviously don't support either. Without like, the government and Donald Trump

serve I should not be telling

if you're American voter, who's looking

better in your view?

I have talked with women

around our country.

You want to talk about this is what people

wanted.

Pregnant women who want to carry I bet only a very small suffering from us. like Trump talking about those nine-month bands that are ridiculous.

I bet only a very small experience.

I'm just some vibes though.

Look at how they sound.

I look and how they're coming off.

Who do you think is?

She's bleeding out in a car

in the parking lot.

And Kamala, surprisingly, looks more sober than usually. She's bleeding out in a car in the parking lot. She didn't want to be here.

And Kamala, surprisingly, looks more sober than usual.

A 12 or 13-year-old survivor of incest?

In terms of just straight-up vibes, it's...

They're forced to carry a pregnancy to term?

Yeah.

They don't want that.

In terms of policy, they're both going to complete experience.

And that's what they have to do

because it's such a common sense issue.

I think that most Americans

are probably thinking

along the same lines

on this issue.

Even this issue

that's so divisive.

I think most people would come together on it

if he actually sat down and talk about.

It doesn't matter how much

how it's so-called pro-life one person is.

That would be monitoring your pregnancies

or something like that.

I think the American people

believe that certain

freedoms, in particular

freedom to make decisions about one's

own body, should not be made by the government.

Thank you, Vice President Harris.

Well, there she goes again. It's a lie.

I'm not signing a ban, and there's

no reason to sign a ban, because

we've gotten what everybody wanted.

Democrats, Republicans,

and everybody else, and every

legal scholar wanted it to be

brought back into the states.

And the states are voting.

And it may take a little time.

But for 52 years, this issue has torn our country apart.

And they've wanted it back in the states.

And I did something that nobody thought was

possible. The states are now

voting. What she says is

an absolute lie.

As far as the abortion ban, no,

I'm not in favor of abortion ban,

but it doesn't matter, because

this issue has now been taken over by the states.

Would you veto a national abortion ban if it could your desk?

Well, I won't have to because, again, two things. Number one, she said she'll go back to Congress.

She'll never get the vote. There's impossible for her to get the vote, especially now with

50-50, essentially 50-50 in both

Senate and the House. I think he's coming off strong here. She can't get the vote. You want to

become close to it. So it's just talk. You know what it reminds me of when they said they're going

to get student loans terminated and it ended up being a total catastrophe.

The student loans and then her,

I think probably her boss,

if you call him a boss, he spends all this time

on the beach, but look, her boss

went out and said, we'll do it again,

we'll do it a different way, he went out, got, we'll do it again. We'll do it a different way.

He went out, got rejected again by the Supreme Court.

So all these students got taunted with this whole thing about this whole idea.

And how unfair that would have been, part of the reason they lost lost to the millions and millions of

people that had to pay off their student loans

they didn't get it for free.

But they would say it's the same way that

they talked about that. Yeah, no, absolutely, Bob.

But if I could just get a yes or no, because

he's feeding into the fact that there's a promise

that, you know, regardless of what she says, their promises do not get realized.

And that hits at a very deep sentiment that the American people have on both sides of the political divide, which is at my opinion.

I don't need to cut you off.

We don't have to discuss it because she'd never be able to get it, just like she couldn't get student loans.

They couldn't get student loans.

They didn't even come close to getting student loans.

They taunted young people and a lot of other people that had loans.

They can never get this approved.

So it doesn't matter what she says about going to Congress.

So wonderful. Let's go to Congress.

We'll be able to talk about it more in debt after the debate.

But for now, we have to get out of Congress and out of the federal government.

And we did something that everybody said couldn't be done.

And now you have a vote of the

people on abortion.

Vice President Harris,

want to give you your time to respond,

but I do want to ask,

would you support any restrictions

on a woman's right to an abortion?

He said something about J.D. V. V.

Did you catch that?

I absolutely support. The protections of Roe v.

Wade.

And as you rightly mentioned,

nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term

and asking for an abortion.

That is not happening. It's insulting

to the women of America. And understand That is not happening. It's insulting to the women

of America. And understand what

has been happening under Donald Trump's

abortion bans. Couples

who pray and

dream of having a

family are being denied

IVF treatments.

What is happening in our country?

Working people, working

women who are

working one or two jobs,

who can barely afford

child care as it is, have to

travel to another state

to get on a plane

sitting next to strangers

to go and get the health care she needs

barely can afford to do it and what you are

putting her through it's all emotions it's all vibes

it's all memes it's all vibes, it's all

memes, it's all feels. And the people of America

have not, the majority of

Americans believe in a woman's right

to make decisions about her own body.

And that is why, in

every state where this issue has been

on the ballot in red and blue states both, the people of America have voted for freedom.

Vice President.

Excuse me, I have to respond.

Another lie.

It's another lie.

It's really Hollywood.

I have been a leader on IVF, which is federalization.

It's almost as if you're speaking from two different language. I have been a leader. In fact... leader on IVF, which is federalization. The IVF,

I have been a leader. In fact,

when they got a very negative

decision on IVF from the

Alabama courts, I saw the

people of Alabama and the legislature

two days later voted it in.

I've been a leader on it. They know that and everybody

else knows it. I have been a leader on fertilization IVF. And the other thing, they, you should ask,

will she allow abortion in the eighth month, ninth month,

seventh month?

Come on.

Okay, would you do that?

Why don't you ask her that question?

It's a new question.

You could do abortions in the seventh month.

Oh, man, she can't answer.

The ninth month.

Oh, that's so, he got her.

He got her so fucking bad.

He really got her.

The governor of Virginia said, we put the baby aside, and then we determined what we want to do with the baby.

That's so bad.

We're going to turn now to immigration. And that's wild because robyweight itself. That's so bad. Thank you. We're going to turn now to immigration.

And that's wild because roberleweight itself.

The deadline is important to Republicans, Democrats, voters across the board in this country.

Vice President Harris, you were tasked by President Biden getting to the root causes of migration from Central America.

We know that illegal border crossings reached a record high in the Biden administration.

I thought he was going to really fail, but I think he's doing good.

Honestly.

We know the numbers since then have dropped significantly.

But my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act? And would you have done anything differently from President Biden on this?

So I'm the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings. And let me say that the United States Congress, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Senate, came up with a border security bill which I supported. And that bill would have put 1,500 more border

agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying

to do their job. It would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States.

I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country.

That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking in guns, drugs, and human beings.

But you know what happened to that bill?

Donald Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress, and said, kill the bill.

And you know why?

Because he'd prefer

to run on a problem instead

of fixing a problem.

And understand, this

comes at a time where

the people of our country actually

need a leader who

engages in solutions

who actually addresses

the problems at hand

what we have in the former

snapy comebacks, someone who would prefer to run on

a problem instead of fixing a problem.

And I'll tell you something, he's going to talk about

immigration a lot tonight even when it's not the subject that is being raised.

You know, the clapbacks. And I'm going to actually do something really unusual. This is extremely weak.

I'm not. I am not. Because it's a really interesting thing to watch.

Seeing what I expected. You will see during the course of his rallies, he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal

Lecter.

He will talk about windmills cause cancer.

And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion

and bored.

Yeah, this is a really neat performance.

The one thing you will not hear him talk about

is you. You will not hear him talk

about your needs, your dreams, and your

desires. And I'll tell you, I believe you deserve

a president who actually

just me first and I pledge to you that I will. Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump deserve a president who actually Don't just follow me. What do you think?

Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump, on that point, I want to get your

results.

Once is she's doing well, too. She's doing bad.

Why did you try to kill that bill and successfully so?

That would have put thousands of additional agents and officers on the border.

First let me respond us to the rallies.

She said people start leaving.

People don't go to her rallies. There's no reason to go.

And the people that do go, she's busing him in and paying them to be there.

And then showing them in a different light.

So she can't talk about that.

People don't leave my rallies. We have the biggest

rallies, the most incredible rallies in the

history of politics. That's because people

want to take their country back.

Our country is being lost.

We're a failing nation. And it happened

three and a half years

ago. And what's

going on here, you're going to end up in World

War III, just to go into another subject,

what they have done to our

country by allowing these millions

and millions of people to come into our

country and look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States.

And a lot of towns don't want to talk. It's not going to be Aurora or Springfield.

A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it.

In Springfield, they're eating the dogs,

the people that came in, they're eating

the cats, they're eating

the pets

of the people that live there.

And this is what's happening

in our country, and it's a shame.

As far as the rallies a shame. As far as

the rallies are concerned, as far

as the reason they go is they like

what I say. They want to bring our

country back. They want to make

America great again. It's very simple phrase.

Make America great again.

She's destroying this country, and if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success.

Not only success, we'll end up being Venezuela on steroids.

I just want to clarify here.

You bring up Springfield, Ohio, and ABCD used to reach out to the city manager there.

When they're done, we'll actually like, there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured, or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.

It's literally like a boxing match.

There's no.

The people on television say my dog was taking. It has literally like a boxing match. There's no... The people on television

say my dog was taken and used for food.

Except maybe he said that.

How American stink is literally like children.

I'm not taking this from television.

I'm taking it from the city manager.

Fortunately, yeah.

By the people that went there.

Again, the Springfield City Manager says

there's no evidence of that. Vice President Harris, I'll let you

respond to the rest of what you've heard.

You talk about extreme.

You know,

this is, I think, one of

the reasons why in this election, I actually have the endorsement of 200 Republicans who have formally worked with President Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, including the endorsement of former vice president Dick Cheney and Congress member, Liz Cheney.

She's going to really know the traditional Republican white suburban middle-class urban.

The former president is, if he didn't make it clear already,

just ask people who have worked with him.

His former chief of staff of four-star general has said he has contempt for the Constitution of the United States.

His former national security advisor

has said he is dangerous and unfit.

His former Secretary of Defense has said the nation, the Republic, would never survive another Trump term. And when we listen to this kind of rhetoric, when the issues that affect the American people are not being addressed, I think the choice is clear in this election.

President Trump will give you a quick minute to respond here.

Thank you.

Because when I hear that, see, I'm a different kind of a person I fired most of those people

not so graciously they did

bad things or bad job

I fired them they never fired one person

they didn't fire anybody having to do with

Afghanistan and the Taliban and the 13 people who were just killed, viciously and violently killed.

And I got to know the parents and the family.

They didn't fire.

They should have fired all those generals, all those top people, because that was one of the most incompetently

handled situations anybody

has ever seen.

So when somebody does a bad job,

I fire him. And you take

a guy like Esper, he was no good,

I fired him, so he writes a book. Another one

writes a book, because with me, they can write books with nobody else can they. But they have done such a poor job. And they never fire anybody. Look at the economy. Look at the inflation. They didn't fire any of their economists. They have the same people. That's a good way not to have books written about you. But just to finish, I got more votes than any Republican in history by far. In fact, I got more votes than any president, sitting president in history by far.

Let me continue on immigration.

It was what you wanted to talk about earlier.

So let's get back to your deportation proposal that the vice president has reacted to as well.

President Trump, you call this the largest domestic deportation operation in the history of our country.

You say we used the National Guard. You say if things get out of control, you'd have no problem using the U.S.

military rates. You also said you were going to use local police. How's leaning into it. How would you deport 11 million undocumented immigrants?

I know you believe that number is much higher.

Take us through this.

What does this look like?

Will authorities be going door to door in this country?

Yeah.

It is much higher because of them.

They allowed criminals, many, many millions of criminals.

They allowed terrorists.

They allowed common street criminals.

They allowed people to come in drug dealers, to come into our country.

And they're now in the United States and told by their countries like Venezuela don't

ever come back or we're going to kill you. Do you know that crime in Venezuela and crime in

countries all over the world is way down? You know why? Because they've taken their criminals off the street and they've given them to her to put into our country. And this will be one of the greatest mistakes in history for them to allow. And I think they probably did it because they think they're going to get votes, but it's not worth it.

Because they're destroying the fabric of our country by what they've done.

There's never been anything done like this at all.

They've destroyed the fabric of our country.

Millions of people let in.

And all over the world, crime in. And all over the world,

crime is down,

all over the world

except here.

Crime here is up

and through the roof,

despite their

fraudulent statements

that they made,

crime in this country

is through the roof.

And we have a new form

of crime.

He's buffing racism,

and that works in the elections. He's putting all his points in the racism buck.

And that is definitely beating the abortion.

They were defrauding statement.

They cannot face the racism stat.

They didn't include the worst cities. They didn't include the cities face the racism stat.

They didn't include the cities.

They didn't include the cities with the worst crime.

It was a fraud, just like their number of 818,000 jobs that they said they created a crime.

President Trump, thank you.

I'll let you respond.

It's unbeatable.

It's unbeatable. I think this is so rich.

Unbeatable.

Coming from someone who has been prosecuted.

At least for Kamala, you know, she can't beat it.

National Security crimes, economic crimes,

election interference,

has been found liable for

sexual assault and his next

big court appearance is

in November at his own criminal

sentencing. And let's be

clear where each person

stands on the issue of

what is important about

respect for the rule of law

and respect for law enforcement.

The former vice president called for

defunding federal law

enforcement 45,000

agents. Get this.

She's trying to be too much like a Republican

and it's not working.

She's not smiling enough.

So let's talk about what is important in this race.

It is important that we move forward.

That we turn the page.

She's not TikTokable.

You know?

I don't know who told her this is a good strategy, but it's not working at all. the page on this same old tired rhetoric.

I don't know who told her this is a good strategy, but it's not working at all.

The needs of the American people. Address what we need to do about the housing shortage,

which I have a plan for. Address what we must do to support our small businesses.

Address bringing down

the price of groceries.

But frankly, the American people

are exhausted with the same

old tired playbook. Vice President Harris,

thank you. Excuse me. Every

one of those cases was started

by them against

their political opponent and I'm winning

most of them and I will win the rest of

appeal and you saw that with the decision

that came down just recently from the Supreme

Court. I'm winning most of them

but those are cases it's called weaponization

never happened in this country.

They weaponized the Justice Department. Every one of those cases was involved with the DOJ, from Atlanta

and Fawney Willis to the Attorney General of New York and the DA

in New York

every one

of those cases

and then

they say

oh he was

he's a criminal

they're the

ones that

made them

go after me

by the way

Joe Biden

was found

essentially guilty

on the documents case and what happened in my documents

case? They said, oh, that's the toughest of them all. A complete and total victory. Two months ago,

it was thrown out. It's weaponization, and they used it, and it's never happened in this country.

They used it to try and win an election.

They're fake cases.

President Trump, thank you.

A really quick response here, Vice President Harris, on this notion of weaponization of the Justice Department.

Well, let's talk about extreme and understand the context in which this election in 2024 is taking place.

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the former president would essentially be immune from any misconduct if he were to enter the White House again.

Understand this is someone who has openly

said he would terminate, I'm

quoting, terminate the Constitution

of the United States, that he would

weaponize the Department of

Justice against his political

enemies.

She's making him look too powerful.

This is bad.

It's bad for her or not, I mean.

We don't care.

Understand what it would mean if Donald Trump were back in the White House with no guardrails.

Because certainly we know now the court won't stop him. We know JD fans are. in the White House with no guardrails. I really thought

she was going to like...

When? I really thought, I even

said on the fresh and fit podcast, I was like

to stop him. She's going to play into the meme.

She's going to appear

like she's confident and smiling.

This is the one that weaponized.

Not me.

She weaponized.

I probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they say about me.

They talk about democracy.

I'm a threat to democracy.

They're the threat to democracy.

With the fake Russia, Russia, Russia,

investigation that went nowhere.

We have a lot to get to. Lindsay?

Vice President Harris, in your last run for president, you said

you wanted to ban fracking. Now you

don't. You wanted mandatory government

buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don't. You wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault

weapons. Now your campaign says you

don't. You supported decriminalizing

border crossings. Now you're taking

a harder line. I know you say that your

values have not changed. So then

why have so many of your policy positions

changed? So my values have not changed of your policy positions changed?

So my values have not changed, and I'm going to discuss every one of the, at least every point that you've made.

But in particular, let's talk about fracking because we're here in Pennsylvania.

I made that very clear in 2020.

I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as vice president of the United States. And in fact, I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking

as Vice President of the United States. And in fact,

I was the time-breaking vote

on the Inflation Reduction Act

which opened new leases

for fracking. My

position is that we have got

to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over-rely on foreign oil.

As it relates to my values, let me tell you, I grew up a middle-class kid raised by a hardworking mother who worked and saved and was able to buy our first home when I was a teenager.

The values I bring to the importance of home ownership knowing not everybody got handed,

$400 million on a silver platter and then filed bankruptcy six times

is a value that I bring to my work

to say we are going to work

with the private sector and home builders

to increase 3 million homes

increased by 3 million homes

by the end of my first term. My work

that is related

to having a friend when I

was in high school who was sexually assaulted by

her stepfather. And my focus

then on protecting women and children

from violent crime is based on a value

that is deeply grounded in the

importance of

standing up for those who are most vulnerable.

My work that is

about protecting Social Security and

Medicare is based on long-standing

work that I have done. Protecting

seniors from skills have not

changed.

And what is important is that there is a president who actually brings values

and a perspective that is about

lifting people up

and not beating people down.

And name calling, the true measure of that it sounds like a Republican national convention.

The true measure of the leader.

2012,

2016 or something.

She's just appealing to all of the mainstream.

She has no chance.

If this is,

if this is how she's going to

be the rest of the campaign,

I don't think you have a chance.

Well, first of all, I wasn't given

$400 million.

Oh, she's totally

worked.

I wish I was.

My father was in Brooklyn

Bill.

I thought Trump

had it in a back

a long time ago,

but I was given a fraction

of that a tiny fraction

and I built it into

many, many millions of dollars.

I mean,

her whole performance is based on a

opinion.

When people see it, they are

even surprised.

So we don't have to talk about that.

Specifically, the sort of

elite class that doesn't like

Trump's mannerism.

Defund the police.

She's been against that forever.

She gave all that stuff up

very wrongly, very

horribly, and everybody's laughing

at it, okay? They're all laughing at it.

She gave up at least 12

and probably 14 or 15 different

policies. Like, she was big

on defund the police. In Minnesota, she went out,

wait a minute, I'm talking now, if you don't mind, please. Does that sound familiar?

She went out. Oh my God. She went out in Minnesota

and wanted to let criminals that killed people. He's winning. I can't

believe it. She went out and raised money to get him out of jail.

She did things that nobody would ever think of. Now she wants to do

transgender operations.

I didn't think he had a chance.

This is a radical left liberal that would do this.

She wants to confiscate your guns and she will never allow fracking in Pennsylvania.

If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania. If she won the election,

fracking in Pennsylvania will end

on day one. Just to finish one

thing, so important in my opinion.

So I got the oil

business going like nobody has ever done before.

They took, when they took

over, they got rid of it, started getting rid of it, and the

prices were going up the roof.

They immediately let these guys go to where they were.

I would have been five times, four times, five times higher,

because you're talking about three and a half years ago.

They got it up to where I was because they had no choice,

because the prices of energy were quadrupling and doubling.

You saw what happened to gasoline.

So they said, let's go back to Trump.

But if she won the election, the day after that election,

they'll go back to destroying our country.

And oil will be dead.

Fossil fuel will be dead.

See, most Americans sleep through this shit, right?

When they hear a trigger words,

when they like see things,

it gets their attention.

It's what decides everything.

Nobody's actually

rationally falling down this shit.

So many people are going to base

your judgment on it. Yeah, but that's how

it's always been.

That's literally how it is. And we have an election in just 56 days.

And I want to talk about a peaceful transfer of power,

which, of course, we all know is a cornerstone of democracy

and the role of a president in a moment of crisis.

It's shit like that.

Mr. President, on January 6th,

you told your supporters to march to the Capitol.

You said you would be right there with them.

The country in the world saw what played out of the Capitol that day.

The officers coming under attack.

Aides in the West Wing say you watched it unfold on television off the Oval Office.

You did send out tweets, but it was more than two hours

before you sent out that video message

telling your supporters to go home.

Is there anything you regret

about what you did on that day?

You just said a thing that

isn't covered, peacefully and patriotically.

I said during my speech, not later on.

Peacefully and patriotically.

And nobody on the other side was killed.

Ashley Babett was shot by an out- out of control police officer that should have never, ever shot her. It's a disgrace. But we didn't do this group of people that have been treated so badly. I ask, what about all the people that are pouring into our country and killing people, that she allowed to pour it in? She was the Bauderzer. Remember that. She was the Bauderzer. She doesn't want to be called the Bauderzaa because she's embarrassed by the Borders. In fact, she said at the beginning, well, I'm surprised you're not talking about the booty yet. That's because she

knows what a bad job they've done.

What about those people? What are

they going to be prosecuted? One of these

people from countries all over

the world, not just South America. They're

coming in from all over

the world, David, all over the world, David,

all over the world, and

crime rates are down all over the world because

of it. But let me just ask you. David,

one of those people are going to be prosecuted?

One of the people that burned down Minneapolis

are going to be prosecuted, or in

Seattle, they went into Seattle, they took over a big percentage of the city of Minneapolis is going to be prosecuted or in Seattle.

They went into Seattle.

They took over a big percentage of the city of Seattle.

When are those people going to be prosecuted?

But let me just ask you. You might ask her that question.

You were the president.

You were watching it unfold on television.

It's a very simple question as we move forward toward another election.

Is there anything you regret about what

you did on that day?

I had nothing to do with that other

than they asked me to make a speech. I showed

up for a speech. I said, I think it's going to be

big. I went to Nancy Pelosi

and the mayor of Washington, D.C.,

and the mayor put it back in writing, as you know.

I said, you know, this is going to be a very big rally

or whatever you want to call it.

And again, it wasn't done by me.

It was done by others.

I said, I'd like to give you 10,000 National Guard or soldiers.

They rejected me.

Nancy Pelosi rejected me.

It was just two weeks ago, her daughter has a tape of her saying,

she is fully responsible for what happened.

They want to get rid of that tape.

It would have never happened

if Nancy Pelosi and the mayor

of Washington did their jobs.

I wasn't responsible for security.

Nancy Pelosi was responsible.

She didn't do her job.

The question was about you as president, not

about former Speaker Pelosi, but I do want

Vice President Harris to respond here.

I was at the Capitol

on January 6th. I was

the Vice President-elect.

I was also an acting senator.

I was there.

And on that day, the

President of the United States incited

a violent mob

to attack

our nation's capital.

To desecrate our nation's

capital, on that day, 140 law enforcement officers were injured, and some died.

And understand, the former president has been indicted and impeached for exactly that reason.

But this is not an isolated situation.

Let's remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying teaky torches,

spewing anti-Semitic hate.

And what did the president then at the time say

there were fine people on each

side. Let's remember

that when it came to

the cow was a militia. I'll tell you why, because she said the word

anti-Semitic. The president said, the former president said,

stand back and stand by.

So for everyone watching,

and Trump's base, obviously

by what she's saying, because they're like

super pro-Zienist, right?

Let's not go back. We're not going back. We're not go back. Let's not go back.

We're not going back.

It's time to turn the page.

And if that was a bridge too far for you, well, there is a place in our campaign for you to stand for country, to stand for country,

to stand for our

democracy, to stand for rule

of law, and to end

the chaos, and

to end the approach that is about

attacking the foundations of our democracy because you don't like the outcome.

And be clear on that point, Donald Trump, the candidate, has said in this election there will be a bloodbath.

If this and the outcome of this election's crazy because they use that against

Malau as well.

Let's turn the page on this.

They're making him look like a lion right now.

He is

He looks like the biggest badass ever.

They are making him

look so cool

to the eyes of the American border. And it was a term, and it was

a term that related to energy

because they have destroyed our energy business.

That was where Bloodbath was.

Also, on Charlottesville, that story

has been, as you would say, debunked

Laura Inggram,

Sean Hannity,

all of these people,

they covered it.

If they go an extra sentence,

they will see it was perfect.

It was debunked in almost every newspaper,

but they still bring it up,

just like they bring 2025

up. They bring all of your stuff up.

I ask you this. You talk about

the Capitol. Why are we

allowing these millions of

people that are going through on the...

That was an unclear boss. And I'll tell

you what I would do, and I would be very proud to do it.

It's just like I know how retarded people are, and they're going to hear that.

Right now.

And it's like that's all.

I'd like to see her go down to Washington, D.C. during this debate, because we're wasting a lot of time.

Go down to, because she's been so bad, it's so

ridiculous, go down to Washington,

D.C. and let her sign a

bill to close up the border. Because

they have the right to do it. They don't need bills.

They have the right to do. The President

of the United States, you'll get them out of bed,

you'll wake them up at 4 o'clock

in the afternoon. Come on.

Come on down to the office. Let's sign a bill.

He's winning. He's winning the

game. He's closing.

He's winning so. Oh, my God. He's laughing.

He's laughing. He's phenomenal. If they do that, the border

is closed. Those people are that, the border is closed.

Those people are killing many people

unlike J6. We talked to immigration

here tonight. I do want to focus on

this next issue to both of you because it really brings us

this into focus. Truth

She's not doing like the sassy clapback

shit. Mr. President, for three and a make her look stronger in the eyes of voters.

I still don't think I am.

She just like needs to look smug and like, like,

look like she's like smiling as he's talking and like skeptical but

like oh that's so

cute type of thing. Are you?

Are you not acknowledging that you know?

Yeah.

She looks like

he's the man in the room

and she's like gassing him the fuck up,

honestly, even the way she's attacking him.

There's so much proof. All you have to do is look at it.

And they should have sent it back to the legislatures for approval.

I got almost 75 million votes.

The most votes any sitting president has ever gotten.

I was told if I got 63, which was what I got in 2016, you can't be beaten.

The election, people should never be thinking about it.

An election is fraudulent.

We need two things.

We need walls.

We need, and we have to have it.

We have to have borders, and we have to have good elections.

Our elections are bad.

And a lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they're trying to get them to vote.

They can't even speak English.

They don't even know what country they're in practically.

And these people are trying to get them to vote.

And that's why they're allowing them to come into our country.

I did watch all of these pieces of video.

I didn't detect the sarcasm, lost by a whisker.

We didn't quite make it.

And we should just point out here as clarification.

And you know this.

You and your allies, 60 cases in front

of many judges, many of them Republicans

and said there was no widespread fraud.

That's the other thing. They said we didn't have standing.

A technicality. Can you imagine a system

where a person in an election

doesn't have standing? The president of the an election doesn't have standing.

The president of the United States

doesn't have standing. That's how we lost.

If you look at the facts and I'd love

to have you, you'll do a special on it.

I'll show you Georgia

and I'll show you Wisconsin and I'll show you

Pennsylvania and I'll show you Wisconsin and I'll show you Pennsylvania

and I'll show you we have so many facts

and statistics but you know what

that doesn't matter because we have to

solve the problem that we have right now that's

old news and the problem that we have

right now is we have his energy

level skyrocketed and they have put it into

the last debate we have a nation that is dying david mr president thank you vice president

harris you heard the president there tonight he said he didn't say that that he lost by whisker so he

still believes he did not lose the say that that he lost by Whiskers. So he still believes he did not

lose the election that was won by President Biden

and yourself. But I do want to

ask you about something that's come up in the last couple of days.

This was a post from President Trump

about this upcoming election

just weeks away. He said, when I win, those people who

cheated, and then he lists donors, voters, election officials, he says, will be prosecuted to the

fullest extent of the law, which will include long-term prison sentences. One of your campaign's

top lawyers responded, saying we won't let Donald Trump

intimidate us. We won't let him suppress the vote. Is that what you believe he's trying

to do here? Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people. So let's be clear about that. And

clearly he is having

a very difficult time processing that.

Super weak. But we cannot

afford to have a president of

the United States who

attempts, as he

did in the past, to upend

the will of the

voters in a free and fair election.

And I'm going to tell you that

I have traveled the world

as Vice President of the United States

and world leaders are

laughing at Donald Trump.

I have talked with military

leaders, some of whom worked with you.

And they say you're a disgrace.

And when you

then talk in this way

in a presidential debate and

deny what over

and over again are

court cases you have lost

because you did in fact lose

that election. It leads

one to believe that perhaps

we do not have in the

candidate to my right that I thought she would

make.

Or the ability to not be confused.

Look at his face.

He's winning.

That's deeply troubling.

And the American people deserve better.

I'll give you one minute to respond, Mr. President. Let me just tell you about world leaders.

Victor Orban, one of the most respected men, they call him a strong man.

He's a tough person, smart.

Prime Minister of Hungary.

They said, why is the whole world blowing up?

Three years ago it wasn't.

Why is it blowing up? She looks like she's about to cry.

You need Trump back as president. They were afraid of him. China was afraid and I don't like to use the word of

him. I'm just quoting him. China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him.

Look at what's going on with North Korea, by the way.

He said Russia was afraid of him.

I ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline,

and Biden put it back on day one,

but he ended the XL pipeline.

The XL pipeline in our country, he ended that.

But he let the Russians build a pipeline going all over Europe and heading into Germany.

The biggest pipeline in the world.

Look, Victor Orban said it.

He said the most respected, most

feared person is Donald

Trump. We had no problems

when Trump was president.

But when this weak, pathetic

man that you saw at a debate

just a few months ago, that if he

weren't in that debate, he'd be

running instead of hers. She got no votes.

He got 14 million votes. What you did,

you talk about a threat to democracy.

He got 14 million votes, and they

threw him out of office. And you know

what? I'll give you a little secret. He hates her.

He can't stand her.

But he got 14 million votes. They threw them out. She got zero votes. And when she ran, she was the first one to leave because she failed. And now she's running. I don't understand it, but I'm okay with it because...

Your time is up. Thank you.

We've got a lot more to get, too.

Turning now to the Israel-Hamas war and the hostages who are still being held Americans.

Oh, this is important.

Vice President Harris in December, he's smart, he'll know what to say.

Israel has a right to defend itself.

But you added, quote, it matters how.

Saying international humanitarian

law must be respected. Israel

must do more to protect innocent civilians.

You said that nine months ago.

Now an estimated 40,000

Palestinians are dead.

Nearly 100 hostages

remains. Guys, who is this lady? Just last week, Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu said there's not

a deal in the making. President Biden

has not been able to break through the stalemate.

How would you do it?

Well, let's

understand how we got here. On

October 7,

Hamas, a terrorist

organization,

slaughtered,

1,200 Israelis. Many of them

young people who are

simply attending a concert.

Women were horribly raped.

And so absolutely, I said,

Ben, I say now.

Israel has a right to defend itself.

We would.

Yeah, this is going to mobilize her young base.

And how it does so matters. Big time.

Because it is also true.

Far too many.

Innocent Palestinians have been killed.

Children, mothers.

What we know is that

this war must end.

It must end immediately

and the way it will end is we need

a ceasefire deal and we need the

hostages out. And so

we will continue to work around the clock

on that. Work around

the clock also understanding

that we must chart a course

for a two-state solution.

And in that solution,

there must be security

for the Israeli people and Israel

and in equal measure for the Palestinians.

But the one thing I will assure you always, I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself,

in particular as it relates to Iran,

and any threat that Iran and its proxies posed to Israel.

But we must have a two-state solution where we can rebuild Gaza,

where the Palestinians have security, self-determination,

and the dignity they so rightly deserve.

President Trump, how would you negotiate with Netanyahu and also Hamas in order to get the hospitals out and prevent the killing of more innocent civilians in Gaza?

If I were president, it would have never started. If I were president, Russia would have never, ever.

I know Putin very well.

He would have never, and there was no threat of it either, by the way, for four years,

have gone into Ukraine and killed millions of people when you added up.

Far worse than people understand what's going on over there.

But when she mentions about Israel, all of a sudden,

she hates Israel.

She wouldn't even meet with Netanyahu

when he went to Congress to make a very important speech.

She refused to be there because she was at a

sorority party of hers.

She wanted to go to the sorority party.

She hates Israel.

If she's president, I believe that Israel

will not exist within two years

from now, and I've been pretty good at predictions,

and I hope I'm wrong about that one.

She hates Israel.

At the same time, in her own way, she hates the Arab population, because the whole place is going to get blown up.

Arabs, Jewish people,

Israel,

Israel will be gone.

He's going to be

never happened.

Iran was broke

under Donald Trump.

Now Iran has

$300 billion

because they took

off all the

sanctions that I had.

Iran had no money for Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the 28 different spheres of terror.

And they are spheres of terror, horrible terror.

They had no money.

It was a big story and you know it.

You covered it very well, actually. They had no money. It was a big story, and you know it. You covered it very well, actually.

They had no money for terror.

They were broke.

Now they're a rich nation, and now what they're doing is they're spreading that money around.

Just say what's happening With the Houthis and

Yemen. Look at what's going on in the

Middle East. This would have never happened.

I will get that settled and fast

and I'll get the war with Ukraine

and Russia ended.

If I'm president-elect, I'll get it

done before

even becoming president.

Vice President Harris, he said... He was talking about

Tartaria, everybody. He said Tartara.

That's absolutely not true. I have...

My entire career in life supported

Israel and the Israeli people.

He knows that he's trying to again divide

and distract from the reality,

which is it is very well known

that Donald Trump is weak and wrong

on national security and foreign policy.

It is well

known that he admires dictators,

wants to be a dictator

on day one, according to himself.

It is well known

that he said of Putin,

that he can

do whatever the hell he wants and go into Ukraine. It is well known that

he said when Russia went into Ukraine, it was brilliant. It is well known he exchanged love

letters with Kim Jong-un, and it is absolutely well known that these

dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again because they're so clear

they can manipulate you with flattering

and favors. I think they're kind of

50-50 about it now.

And that is why.

So many military leaders who

you have worked with have told me

you are a disgrace.

That is why. We

understand that we have to have a president who is not consistently weak and wrong on national security, including the importance of upholding and respecting in highest regard our military.

Vice President Harris, thank you.

They're the ones, and she's the one that caused it, that's weak on national security by allowing

every nation, last month, for the year, 168 different countries sending people into our country.

Their crime weights are way down. Putin endorsed

her last week, said I hope she wins, and I think he meant it, because what he's gotten

away with is absolutely incredible. It wouldn't have happened with me. The leaders of other countries think that they're weak and incompetent,

and they are. They're grossly incompetent. And I just ask one question, why does Biden go in and

kill the Keystone pipeline and approve the single biggest deal that Russia's ever made Nord Stream 2, the biggest pipeline anywhere in the world going to Germany and all over Europe, because they're weak and they're ineffective.

And Biden, by the way, gets paid a lot of money.

Thank you. We have a lot of issues.

He's gotten weaker in that area. He almost admitted in the Tucker in a lot of money. Thank you. We have a lot of issues. He's gotten weaker in that area.

He almost admitted in the

Tucker interview that it was the U.S.

that blew it up.

And now he goes to

he goes from the U.S.

blew up Nord Stream to using

Biden giving the thumbs up to North Stream 2 as a talking point.

It's, I mean, so much of his base is against the proxy war against Russia.

And I think people are even...

He's thinking if when you,

it's actually remarkable

because when you think about,

here's the thing,

there's two games

they're playing with these debates.

There's whistling to the base

and then there's whistling

to the special interest,

the donors that control all the media,

right? So let's say Trump goes

full based on Ukraine.

Honestly, he's

he wouldn't because it's not what he believes, but let's say he did

that, right? He would

throw a bone to his base, but then

what happens?

His donors and these special interest people that fund his campaign,

they're going to start putting out hit pieces

and do as much damage as they possibly can

with the alt media networks and all this other kind of stuff.

And he'd get screwed up.

I mean, think about it.

Why do you think they defend Israel on stage like that?

Jews in America, they're like, what, 1% of the population?

So they're not doing it for the Jewish vote.

They're clearly doing it because they know that they're walking a fine line in terms of A-PAC, right?

They're walking a fine line in terms of J Street in the case of Kamala.

They have to say the right things or else, you know, there's a vital form of support they're not going to get.

But I have to be honest in my unbiased capacity. First of all, I'd never vote for Trump, but I always try to put myself in the shoes of a random idiot, right?

And from that perspective, I could be totally wrong, and that's why I'm going to check X after this debate to see if my instincts are correct.

This is all intuition, right?

But I really feel like this is the strongest performance I've seen him engage in since 2016

I have never seen him this high energy this confident this you know even the way he's talking

he's being funny he's being funny, he's doing the catchphrases, he's doing all the memes, all the clippable moments. It seems like he's coming off really strong and he's never been this strong since 2016, in my view. Could be wrong wrong about that but it's just intuition and again none of

this is based in logic none of this is based in like the the rational merits of what they're saying

because this is not what determines elections and debate outcomes.

As somebody who engages in a lot of debates, I have to learn this the hard way.

So, Carlos, you're a philosopher, right?

So for you, you think in a very

intellectually

um

how should I put it

concentrated way right

and you are

judging these things on the merits of like

okay is this like actually an intelligent or smart thing to say when you think about it?

But something, and I used to be the same way. Before I started getting in debates and blood sports, you know, I, it was clear to me that everything was rhetoric.

It was all like something else going on.

I could win a debate, but the audience, for example, I could win a debate.

Like, I did win the debate with Keith Woods and Joel Davis, the first debate,

but a lot of their audience really seems to believe,

like, oh, you lost. I was with Logo that time. I was like, how did I lose? I lost on every,

I mean, I won on every substantive point. And it's like, well, because they would say things like,

you know, about the purity of the race

and then i would respond in a way that rhetorically didn't sound good to their audience i'd be

like oh well what about inset like i was being very rational and whatever right so i started

learning over time how it works,

and it's not based strictly in the merits of, like,

what you're saying.

It's,

it's very emotional,

it's very intuitive,

and it's like,

it's like,

it's very vibes.

It's,

yeah,

well,

it's an extremely, It's, yeah, well. It's sophistry.

It's an extremely, it's an extremely advanced form of sophistry where it's like, it's not just rhetoric.

It's like, it's so many unconscious associations going on to see like...

It's the form rhetoric takes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The showmanship that accompanies the rhetoric.

Exactly.

Which is funny because sophistry today, the way I see it is like,

Sophistry is like someone being pedantic

and like too abstract and like too

isolated from any sense of like concrete

truth. Like when I debate

President Sunday. But no,

that's actually an interesting way of putting it. Yeah.

It's like sophistry in the sense of like just pure rhetoric, you know.

Here again, David Newark and Lindsay Davis.

Welcome back to this historic ABC News presidential debate tonight.

We're going to continue here.

Ukraine, we're now two and a half years into this conflict.

Mr. President, it has been the position of the Biden administration

that we must defend Ukraine from Russia, from Vladimir Putin,

to defend their sovereignty, their democracy,

that it's in America's best interest to do so, arguing that if Putin wins, he may be emboldened to move even further into other countries. You have said you would solve this war in 24 hours. You said so just before the break tonight. How exactly would you do that? And I want to ask you

a very simple question tonight. Do you want

Ukraine to win this war?

I want the war to stop. I want

to save lives that are being

uselessly, people being

killed by the millions. It's the

millions. It's the millions.

It's so much worse than the numbers that you're getting,

which are fake numbers.

Look, we're in for 250 billion or more because they don't ask Europe,

which is a much bigger beneficiary

to getting this thing done

than we are. They're

in for $150 billion

less because Biden and

you don't have the courage to

ask Europe, like I did

with NATO. They paid billions

and billions, hundreds of billions of dollars when I said,

either you pay up or we're not going to protect you anymore.

So that's maybe one of the reasons they don't like me as much as they like weak people.

But you take a look at what's happening.

We're in for 250 to 275 billion. They're into 100 to 150. They should be forced to equalize. With that being said, I want to get the war settled. I know Zelensky very well, and I know Putin very well.

I have a good relationship, and they respect your president, okay?

They respect me.

They don't respect Biden.

How would you respect him?

Why, for what reason?

He hasn't even made a phone call in two years to Putin.

Hasn't spoken to anybody.

They don't even try and get it.

That is a war that's dying to be settled.

Let's see if she wins into it.

I will get it settled before I even become president.

If I win, when I'm president-elect.

And what I'll do is I'll speak to one. I'll speak to the other.

Someone told her about our government.

That war would have never happened.

And in fact, when I saw Putin after I left, unfortunately left because our country has gone to hell.

But after I left, when I saw him building up soldiers, he did it after I left.

I said, oh, he must be negotiating. It must be a good strong point of negotiation. Well, it wasn't,

because Biden had no idea how to talk to him. He had no idea how to stop it. And now you have millions of people

dead. And it's only getting worse. And it could lead to World War III. Don't kid yourself,

David. We're playing with World War III. And we have a president that we don't even know if he's,

where is our president? We don't even know if he's a president.

And just to clarify here.

They threw him out of a campaign like a dog.

We don't even know.

Is he our president?

But we have a president

that doesn't know he's alive.

Your time is up.

Just to clarifying the question,

another legend. Do you believe it's in the U.S. best interest for Ukraine to win this war?

Yes or not?

I think it's the U.S. best interest to get this war finished and just get it done.

Negotiate a deal because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed.

I want to take this to Vice President Harris.

I want to get your thoughts on support for Ukraine in this moment.

But also, as commander chief, if elected, how would you deal with Vladimir Putin?

And would it be any different from what we're seeing from President Biden?

Well, first of all, it's important to remind the former president, you're not running against

Joe Biden, you're running against me.

I believe the reason that Donald Trump says that this war would be over within 24 hours is because he would just give it up.

And that's not who we are as Americans. Let's understand what happened here.

I actually met with Zelenskyy a few days before Russia invaded, tried through force to change territorial boundaries to defy one of the most important international rules and norms, which is the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity. And I met with President Zelensky. I shared with him

American intelligence about how he could defend

himself. Days later, I went

to NATO's eastern flank, to

Poland and Romania.

And through the work that I and others

did, we brought 50 countries

together to support Ukraine in its righteous defense. And because of our support, because of the air defense, the ammunition, the artillery, the javelins, the Abrams tanks that we have provided,

Ukraine stands as an independent and free country.

If Donald Trump were president,

Putin would be sitting in Kiev right now.

And understand with that with me,

because Putin's agenda is not just about Ukraine.

Understand why the European

allies and our NATO allies

are so thankful that

you are no longer a president.

And that we understand

the importance of the greatest

military alliance the world has ever known, which is NATO,

and what we have done to preserve the ability of Zelensky and the Ukrainians to fight for their independence.

Otherwise, Putin would be sitting in Kiev with his eyes on the rest

of Europe, starting with Poland

and why don't you tell the 800,000

Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania

how quickly you would give

up for the sake of

favor and what you think is

a friendship with what is known to be a dictator who would eat

you for lunch.

Vice President Harris, thank you.

We've heard from both of you on Ukraine tonight.

Afghanistan came up in the last hour.

I wanted her to respond to something you said earlier.

And please, I'll give you a minute here.

Putin would be sitting in

Moscow, and he wouldn't have

lost 300,000 men and

women, but he would have been sitting in

Moscow, quiet, please.

He would have been sitting in Moscow. Quiet, please. He would have been sitting

in Moscow.

Much happier than he is right now.

But eventually, you know, he's got a thing

that other people don't have. He's got nuclear

weapons. They don't ever talk about that.

He got nuclear weapons. Nobody ever thinks

about that. And eventually, maybe he'll use him and maybe hasn't been that threatening. But he does have that. Something we don't even like to talk about. Nobody likes to talk about it. But just so you understand, they sent her to negotiate peace before this war started.

Three days later, he went in and he started the war because everything they said was weak and stupid.

They said the wrong things.

That war should have never started.

She was the emissary. They sent her in to negotiate

with Zelensky and Putin. And she did. And the war started three days later. And that's the kind of

talent we have with her. She's worse than Biden. In my opinion, I think he's the worst president in the

history of our country. She goes down as the worst vice president in the history of our country,

but let me tell you something. She is a horrible negotiator. They sent her in to negotiate

as soon as they left

to Putin did the invasion.

President Trump, thank you.

You did bring up something.

You said she went to negotiate

with Vladimir Putin.

Vice President Harris,

have you ever met Vladimir Putin?

Can you clarify tonight?

Yet again, I said it at the beginning

of this debate, you're going to hear a bunch

of lies coming from this fellow.

And that is another one.

When I went to meet with President Zelensky, I've now met with him over five times.

The reality is it has been about standing as America always should as a leader

upholding international rules

and norms, as a leader

who shows strength

understanding that the alliances we

have around the world are

dependent on our ability

to look out for our friends

and not favor our enemies because you adore strongmen

instead of caring about democracy.

And that is very much what is at stake here.

The president of the United States is commander-in-chief.

And the American people have a right to rely on a president who understands the significance of America's role and responsibility.

The intertanky-in-term entertaining of me is really excited about this description.

She's giving up for our principles and not sell them for the benefit of personal flattery.

We've talked about Ukraine and Vladimir Pooley.

I do want to talk about Afghanistan.

It came up in the first hour of this debate.

I wanted to move on to Afghanistan.

Trump did the most amazing thing I've ever seen.

He got these countries, the 28 countries at the time, to pay up.

He said, I've never seen. He's the head of NATO.

He said, I've never seen.

For years, we were paying almost all

of NATO. We were being ripped off

by European nations, both on trade

and on NATO. I got

them to pay up by saying

one of the statements you made before,

if you don't pay, we're not going to

protect you, otherwise we would have never gotten it.

He said it was one of the most incredible

jobs that he's ever seen done.

Thank you. I want to turn to Afghanistan.

It came up in the first hour of the debate,

and we witnessed a poignant moment today on Capitol Hill, honoring the soldiers who died in the

chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. I do want to ask the Vice President, do you believe you

bear any responsibility in the way that withdrawal played out?

Well, I will tell you I agreed with President Biden's decision to pull

out of Afghanistan. Four

presidents said they would,

and Joe Biden did. And as

a result, America's taxpayers

are not paying the $300 million a day.

We were paying for that endless war.

And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any any war zone around the world, the first time this century.

But let's understand how we got to where we are.

Donald Trump, when he was president, negotiated one of the weakest deals you can imagine.

He calls himself a dealmaker. Even his national security advisor said it was a weak, terrible deal. And here's how it went down. He bypassed the Afghan government. He negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the Taliban. The negotiation

involved the Taliban getting 5,000 terrorists, Taliban terrorists released. And get this, no, get this.

And the president at the time invited the Taliban to Camp David, a place of storied significance for us as Americans, a place where we honor the importance of American diplomacy, where we invite and receive respected world leaders.

Oh my gosh, she's making them look so good.

I mean in my eyes.

Former president, as president invited them to Camp David because he does not again appreciate

the role and responsibility

of the President of the United States

to be commander-in-chief with a level of respect.

And this gets back to the point of how he has consistently disparaged and demeaned

members of our military, fallen soldiers, and the work that we must do to uphold the strength

and the respect of the United States of America around the world.

Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump, your response to her saying that you began the negotiations with the Taliban.

So if you take a look at that period of time, the Taliban was killing our soldiers, a lot of them, with snipers.

And I got involved with the Taliban because the Taliban was doing the killing.

That's the fighting force within Afghanistan.

They don't bother doing that because, you know, they deal with the wrong people all the time.

But I got involved.

And Abdul is the head of the Taliban.

He is still the head of the Taliban.

And I told Abdul, don't do it anymore.

You do it anymore.

You're going to have problems.

And he said, why do you send me a picture of my house?

I said, you're going to have to figure that out, Abdul. And for 18 months, we had nobody killed. We did have an agreement negotiated by Mike Pompeo. It was a very good agreement. The reason it was good, it was, we were getting out. We would have been out

faster than them, but we wouldn't have lost the soldiers.

We wouldn't have left many Americans

behind. We wouldn't have left, we wouldn't

have left $85

billion worth of brand new

beautiful military equipment behind.

And just to finish,

they blew it.

The agreement said you have to do

this, this, this, this, this.

And they didn't do it. They didn't

do it. The agreement was

terminated by us

because they didn't do what they were supposed to do.

I want to move on.

And these people did the worst withdrawal.

And in my opinion, the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country.

And by the way, that's why Russia attacked Ukraine because they saw how incompetent she

and her boss are. President Trump, thank you. She's like simultaneously trying to paint him as a

bad strong man while also at the same time paint him as long as long as long as he happened to turn black

and now she wants to be known as black i want to ask a bigger picture question here tonight

why do you believe it's appropriate to weigh in on the racial identity of your opponent i don't

and i don't care i don't don't, and I don't care.

I don't care what she is.

I don't care.

You make a big deal out of something.

I couldn't care less.

Whatever she wants to be is okay with me. She thinks she's winning.

Those were your words.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I mean, all I can say is I read where she was. She's stupid. She don't know. I mean, all I can say is I read where she was

not black. She doesn't know that she put out.

She doesn't understand Americans. And then I read

that she was black and that's okay. Either one was okay with me. That's up to her.

This is the win for him in the eyes of older than. Vice President Harris,

your thoughts on this?

I think it's, I mean, honestly, I think it's

a tragedy that we have

someone who wants to be president who has

consistently, over the course

of his career

attempted to use race to divide

the American people.

You know, I do believe that the vast majority

of us know that we have so much more in common

than what separates us, and we don't want

this kind of approach that is

just constantly

trying to divide us

and especially by race

and let's remember

how Donald Trump started

he was

offshore banking

land he owned land

he owned buildings

and he was investigated because he refused to rent property to

black families.

Let's remember, this is the same individual who took out a full page ad in the New York Times,

calling for the execution. Why he's so ruthless? who took out a full page ad in the New York Times.

Calling for the execution.

A five young black and Latino boys who were innocent

the Central Park Five

took out a full page ad

calling for their execution. This is the same individual who spread

birth or lies about the first black president of the United States. And I think the American

people want better than that, want better than this, want someone who understands

as I do, I travel our country. We see in each other a friend. We see in each other a neighbor.

We don't

want a leader who is constantly

trying to have Americans

point their fingers at each other.

I meet with people all

the time who tell me

can we please just

have discourse

about how we're going to invest

in the aspirations and the ambitions

and the dreams of the American people?

Knowing that regardless

of people's color or the

language their grandmother speaks, we all

have the same dreams and aspirations

and want a president who invest in those,

not in hate and division.

Vice President Harris.

Thank you.

Lindsay.

President Trump, this is now your third time.

This is the most divisive presidency

in the history of our country.

There's never been anything like it.

They're destroying our country.

And they come up with things like

what she just said.

Going back many, many years,

when a lot of people,

including Mayor Bloomberg,

agreed with me on the Central Park Five,

they admitted, they said,

they pled guilty.

And I said, well,

if they pled guilty,

they'd badly hurt a person,

killed a person,

ultimately.

And if they pled guilty, then they pled, we're not guilty.

But this is a person that has to stretch back years, 40, 50 years ago, because there's nothing now.

I built one of the greatest economies in the history of the world

and I'm going to build it again. It's going to

be bigger, better, and stronger.

But they're destroying our economy.

They have no idea what a good economy is.

They're oil policies.

Every single policy. And remember

this. She remember this.

She is Biden. You know, she's trying to get away from Biden. I don't know the gentleman.

She says, she is Biden.

The worst inflation we've

ever had, a horrible

economy because inflation has made

it so bad, and she can't get away with that.

Thank you. Your time is up. I want to respond to that, though. I want to just respond briefly.

Clearly, I am not Joe Biden and I am certainly not Donald Trump. And what I do offer

is a new generation of leadership for

our country. One who believes

in what is possible.

One who brings a sense of optimism

about what we can do

instead of always disparaging

the American people.

I believe in what we can do

to strengthen

our small businesses, which is why

I have a plan. Let's talk about

our plans and

let's compare the plans.

I have a plan

to give startup businesses

$50,000 tax

deduction to pursue

their ambition, their

ideas, their hard work.

I have a plan.

$6,000 are not related.

For young families, for the first year of your child's life.

To help you.

In that most critical stage of your child's development.

I have a plan that is about allowing people

to be able to pursue

what has been fleeting

in terms of the American dream

by offering

help with down payment

of $25,000 down payment

assistance for first time

home buyers.

That's the kind of conversation,

I believe, David, that people

really want tonight. As opposed

to a conversation that is constantly

about belittling

and name-calling.

Let's turn the page

and move forward. Thank you. Let's turn to page Vice President Harris.

Thank you.

Let's turn to policy.

We have to move on. President Trump.

Let's turn to policy, please.

She has a plan.

To defund the police.

She has a plan to confiscate everybody's gun.

President Trump, we do have to move on to other issues. She has a plan to not allow fracking in Pennsylvania or anywhere else.

That's what her plan is until just recent.

I just need to-

President Trump.

The former president has said something twice that I need to respond to.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, we're going to move on vice president Harris. President Trump, this is now your third time running for president.

You have long vowed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

You have failed to accomplish that.

You now say you're going to keep Obamacare, quote, unless we can do

something much better. Last month

you said, quote, we're working on it.

So tonight, nine years after you

first started running, do you have a plan

and can you tell us what it is?

Obama care was lousy health care.

Always was, it's not very good today. And what I said,

that if we come up with something and we are working on things, we're going to do it and we're

going to replace it. But remember this. I inherited Obamacare because Democrats wouldn't change it.

They wouldn't vote for it. They were unanimous. They wouldn Democrats wouldn't change it. They wouldn't vote for it.

They were unanimous.

They wouldn't vote to change it.

If they would have done that,

we would have had a much better plan than

Obamacare.

But the Democrats came up, they wouldn't vote for it.

I had a choice to make when I was president.

Do I save it and make it as good as it can be?

Never going to be great. Or do I let it rot? And I felt I had an obligation, even though politically it would have been good to just let it rot and let it go away.

I decided, and I told my people,

the top people, and they're very good people.

I have a lot of good people in that administration.

We read about the bad ones.

We had some real bad ones, too,

and so do they.

They have really bad ones.

The differences, they don't get rid of them.

But let me just explain.

I had a choice

to make, do I save it and

make it as good as it can be,

or do I let it rot? And I

saved it. I did the right thing.

But it's still never going

to be great, and it's too expensive for

people. And what

we will do is we're looking at

different plans. If we can come up

with a plan that's going to cost our

people, our population,

less money, and be better health

care than Obamacare, then I would

absolutely do it.

But until then, I'd run it as good as it can be run.

So just to yes or no, you still do not have a plan.

I have concepts of a plan.

I'm not president right now.

But if we come up with something, I would only change it if we come up with something that's better and less expensive.

And there are concepts and options we have to do that.

And you'll be hearing about it in the not-

You know what's crazy, huh?

Vice President Harrison, in 2017 he supported Bernie Sanders' proposal to deal away with

private insurance to create a government-run health care system.

Two years later, you propose a plan that

his liberal friends think that Trump is winning.

What?

First of all, I absolutely support and over the last four years as vice

president, private health care options, but

what we need to do is maintain

the affordable care. But I'll get

to that, Lindsay. I just need to respond to the previous

point that the former president

has made. I've made very clear my position on fracking.

And then this business about taking everyone's guns away,

Tim Walz and I are both gun owners.

We're not taking anybody's guns away.

So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.

As it relates to the affordable care,

I understand, let's just look at the history

to know where people stand.

When Donald Trump was president, or Wisconsin guys.

He tried to get rid of the affordable care.

60 times.

I was a senator.

Yeah, I haven't pressed on that distinction.

I will never forget the early morning

hours. That's crazy.

It was up for a vote in the United States Senate.

And the late great John McCain,

who you have disparaged

as being

you don't like him, you said

at the time because he got

caught. He was an American hero.

The late great John McCain, I will never

forget that night, walked onto

the Senate floor and said,

no you don't. No, you don't, no, you don't.

No, you don't.

No, you don't get rid of the Affordable Care Act.

You have no plan.

And what the Affordable Care Act has done is eliminate the ability of insurance companies

to deny people with pre-existing conditions.

I don't have to tell the people watching tonight.

You remember what that was like?

Remember when an insurance company could deny

if a child

had asthma? If someone was a

breast cancer survivor, if a

grandparent had diabetes.

And thankfully, as I've been vice president, and we over the last four years have strengthened

the Affordable Care Act, we have allowed for the first time Medicare to negotiate drug prices

on behalf of you, the American people. Donald Trump said he was going to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices on behalf of you, the American people.

Donald Trump said he was going to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

He never did. We did. And now we have capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month.

Since I've been vice president, we have capped the cost of prescription medication

for seniors at $2,000 a year. And when I am president, we have capped the cost of prescription medication for seniors at $2,000 a year, and when I am president, we will do that for all people understanding that the value I bring to this is that access to health care should be a right and not just a privilege of those

who can afford it. And the plan

has to be to strengthen

the Affordable Care Act, not get

rid of it. Fast as pro-lough

in terms of where Donald Trump stands on that.

I want to move to an issue that's important for a lot of...

She made a mistake.

Number one, John McCain

fought Obamacare for

10 years, but it wasn't

only him. It were all of the Democrats

that kept it going,

and you know what?

We can do much better than

Obamacare much less money

but she won't improve

private insurance for people

private medical insurance

that's another thing she doesn't want to get people are paying

privately for insurance

that have worked hard and made money and they want to have private.

He wants everybody to be on government insurance where you wait six months for an operation that you need to meet.

President Trump, thank you.

We have another issue that we'd like to get to that's important for a number of Americans, in particular younger voters, and that's climate change.

President Trump, with regard to the environment, you say that we have to have clean air and clean water.

Vice President Harris, you call climate change an existential threat.

The question to you both tonight is what would you do to fight climate change an existential threat. The question to you both tonight

is what would you do to fight

climate change, and Vice President Harris will

start with you, one minute for you each.

Well, the former president had said

the climate change is a hoax.

And what we know is that

it is very real. You ask

anyone who lives in a state who has

experienced these extreme weather

occurrences who now is either being

denied home insurance or it's being jacked up.

You ask anybody who has

been the victim

of what that means in terms of losing their home, having nowhere to go,

we know that we can actually deal with this issue. The young people of America care deeply about

this issue. And I am proud that as Vice President over the last four years, we have invested a trillion

dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production

to historic levels.

We have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs while I have have been vice president, we have invested in clean energy to the point that we are

opening up factories around the world. Donald Trump said he was going to create manufacturing

jobs. He lost manufacturing jobs. And I'm also proud to have the

endorsement of the United Auto Workers

and Sean Fane, who also

know that part of building a

clean energy economy includes

investing in American

made products, American

automobiles. it includes growing what we can do around American manufacturing and opening up auto plants, not closing them like happened under Donald Trump.

Vice President Harris, thank you.

That didn't happen under Donald Trump.

Let me just tell you, they lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs this last month.

It's going, they're all leaving.

They're building big auto plants in Mexico.

In many cases, owned by China, they're building these massive plants,

and they think they're going to sell their cars

into the United States because of these people,

what they have given to China is unbelievable.

But we're not going to let that.

We'll put tariffs on those cars

so they can't come into our country

because they will kill the United

Auto Workers and any auto worker, whether it's in Detroit or South Carolina or any other place.

What they've done to business and manufacturing in this country is horrible.

We have nothing because they refuse. You know, Biden doesn't go after people because supposedly China paid millions of dollars. He's afraid to do it between him and his son. They get all this money from Ukraine. They get all this money from all of these different countries.

And then you wonder, why is he so loyal to this one, that one, Ukraine, China?

Why is he?

Why did he get $3.5 million from the mayor of Moscow's wife?

Why did he get, why did she pay him three and a half million dollars?

This is a crooked administration, and they're selling our country down the tubes.

President Trump, thank you.

Thank you.

We'll be right back with closing statements from both of our candidates.

An historic night this ABC News presidential debate from Philadelphia.

Back at a moment.

I've been scrolling through Twitter.

Most of the shit that I'm seeing is like people mocking the spectacle of American politics.

Yeah, let me see.

And just like some of the clapbacks, just being used as memes.

That's it.

Um... memes. That's it. Um I'm looking now.

RFK had a good tweet about

you know, Goldman Sachs endorsing her plan is not something

to boast about

yeah I'm not seeing

anything right now but

I'm looking

I'm looking. there's a meme of a

Trump's like turkey gobble neck fold

that's going viral

his double chin looks like a little mitsack

sitting under his chin

I can't tell right now

I will have to wait till it's over

but

I'm not seeing anything

Yeah they're still trying

I see the

The Kamala face

Sassy face

Boasted one hour ago got 68,000 likes

Oh

shit Yeah they're doing the whole clapback thing 110,000 likes

can no one ate cats when I was president one is going pretty viral.

Yep, they're doing the memes for Kamala.

I knew it was pre-planned.

I just don't think she's doing a good job of it on the thing,

but they're going to do it anyway um i can't tell

right now

but the dnc does use fucking bots

just for the record they do bot shit

i have to talk to people in real life though

like i don't i don't know

my instinct could be totally wrong.

Did you see what Kyle Kalinsky posted?

No.

What do you say?

The picture of the Twin Towers, falling.

And the Twin Towers falling and the Twin Towers

are labeled Trump fans and the airplane

is like Kamala's. It's got Kamala's

head on it.

I don't know. My instincts

are totally maga, I guess.

I guess I'm like instinctually a maga guy.

Like on an uncongat I guess. I guess I'm like instinctually a maga guy. Like

on an unconscious level, I'm sciop

to be pro maga, like on an unconscious

level. Because like I

saw that and I'm like, oh my God,

he's steamrolling her.

Um, Oh my God, he's steamrolling her. There was one clip I saw after I came on that I guess was from before where he said that he was going to send her a maga hat because she just copied all his policies

yeah that one started doing part of its attraction i i i i like i said i stand by this for me like

from my from where i'm sitting, he has never done better since

2016 in this debate

from where I'm sitting.

And I think it's, I'm saying, maybe I'm

just over-hyping it because I remember his

Biden debate and how comparatively

low energy that was.

And I was like, oh, this guy is fucking done.

Like, he was, like, pulling back this whole time.

And then this debate, he's bringing out that same meme stuff, you know.

And I don't know.

I can't tell who's doing better

without... I mean, I have my instincts, but

I could be wrong about that.

Yeah, I'm really. I saw the only pro-Trump thing I saw on the Twitter search is the 3V1, which is not a good sign. It's never a good sign if you're like, you know,

that's your best thing.

And Kamala is winning the meme game on Twitter,

which I just find crazy.

I mean,

like,

are we watching the same debate?

Her meme game is like dog shit

compared to Trump in this debate.

But on Twitter is like making it seem like

she's winning that which that's why

I'm saying I'm like is it botted

are they just botting it I know the DNC

bot shit they do do that

but I can't believe that you know the DNC bought shit. They do do that.

But I can't believe that,

you know?

The more viral ones I've seen have been

pro-Trump. Oh, really?

The one of the eating cats, yeah.

I'm seeing a lot of pro-coma and stuff, too.

I've heard tonight two very different visions for our country.

One that is focused on the future and the other that is focused on the past and an attempt

to take us backward. But we're not going back.

And I do believe that the American people know

we all have so much more in common than what separates us.

And we can chart a new way forward.

And a vision of that includes having a plan, understanding the aspirations, the dreams,

the hopes, the ambition of the American people, which is why I intend to create an opportunity

economy, investing in small businesses, in new families, in what we can do around protecting seniors, what we can do that is about giving hardworking folks a break and bringing down the cost of living. I believe in what we can do together.

That is about sustaining America's standing in the world

and ensuring that we have the respect that we so rightly deserve,

including respecting our military,

and ensuring we have the most lethal fighting force in the world.

I will be a president that will protect our fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right

of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do.

I'll tell you, I started my career as a prosecutor.

I was a DA, I was an attorney general, a United States senator, and now vice president.

I've only had one client, the people.

And I'll tell you, as a prosecutor, I never asked a victim or a witness, are you a Republican or a Democrat? The only thing I ever ask them, are you okay? And that's the kind of president we need right now. Someone who cares about you and is not putting themselves first. I intend to be a president for all Americans and focus on what we can do over the next 10 and 20 years to build back up our country by investing right now in you, the American people.

Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump.

So she just started by saying she's going to do this, she's going to do that, she's going to do all these wonderful things.

Why hasn't she done it? She's been there for three and a half years.

They've had three and a half years to fix the border. They've had three and a half years to

create jobs and all the things we talked about.

Why hasn't she done it?

She should leave right now, go down to that beautiful White House, go to the Capitol,

get everyone together and do the things you want to do, but you haven't done it, and you won't do it.

Because you believe in things that the American people don't believe in.

You believe in things like, we're not going to frack, we're not going to take fossil fuel, we're not going to do, things that are going to make this country strong, whether you like it or not.

Germany tried that, and within one year they were back to building normal energy plants. We're not ready for it. We can't sacrifice our country for the sake of bad vision.

But I just ask one simple question, why didn't she do it? We're a failing

nation. We're a nation that's in serious decline. We're being laughed at all over the world.

All over the world they're left. I know the leaders very well. They're coming to see me. They call me. We're left at all over the world. They don't understand what happened to us as a nation. We're not a leader. We don't have any idea what's going on. We have wars going on in the Middle East. We have wars going on with Russia and Ukraine. We're going to end up in a third world war, and it'll be a war like no other because of nuclear weapons, the power of weaponry. I rebuilt our entire military. She gave a lot of it away to the Taliban.

She gave it to Afghanistan.

What these people have done to our country,

and maybe toughest of all is allowing millions of people

to come into our country.

Many of them are criminals, and they're destroying our country,

the worst president, the worst vice president in the history of our country.

President Trump, thank you.

And that is our ABC News presidential debate from here in Philadelphia.

Guys, what's her name?

What's this lady's name?

I want to do an interview on kick.

But anyway, I'm just kidding

look

look

alright we could talk now

it's over

I don't want to hear

these people jubber

these news people

all right

so I have some thoughts I'm sure you have a lot of news people. All right. So,

I have some thoughts.

I'm sure you have a lot of thoughts.

But...

Okay, so

obviously I think Trump won

like optically.

He totally won.

Total victory for him.

But

my mind started going

in other directions, because obviously,

we could talk about the debate

obviously but it's just like

it's not exactly that remarkable

I think most Americans don't care

about the issues that they talk about

that's not how it works

there's no direct... The issues

never get...

They never change.

They're never addressed.

So nobody cares about the issues, actually.

One of the things politicians say, like Bernie Sanders, is they're like, let's focus on the issues, the issues.

Who is Abdul?

Who is Abdul?

Why is everyone saying Abdul? Who the fuck is Abdul? Who is Abdul? Why is everyone saying

Abdul?

Who the fuck is that?

Anyway,

do you know who that is or who is that?

I don't know who that is.

Huh?

Abdul was one of the Taliban guys.

Oh, okay.

The Taliban.

I got it.

Minister.

What's up? That's who they were referring to. All right. Anyway, okay. The Taliban. I got it. Minnesota. What's up?

That's who they were referring to.

All right.

Anyway, no, no.

That's what actually got me thinking about what I was going to talk about.

Well, most Americans, they don't care about the issues because politics is not a, it's not a sphere in America within which issues are addressed.

Nothing really changes at the ground level, you know.

People have this mythology that everything was better under Trump, but that was just because it was pre-COVID, right?

COVID was the game changer.

So it's like it really has nothing to do with whoever's in charge of the presidency.

But what people do judge victory based on is like, you know,

well, there's obviously the meme stuff,

people like leaning on that.

And then there's,

there's, um,

it's strength versus weakness. It's really, I don't even know how else better to put it.

Now, let me explain it this way.

I don't want to jibber too long about it.

But most Americans probably do not like either candidate, but they definitely will be receptive to whoever is stronger.

And I think most people are kind of like cattle in that way.

I don't know if that's human nature or something else.

But when a victor wins and they're strong,

it doesn't matter if you like them or you don't like them because the minute you have to start like

it's a very strange dynamic it's like

Americans will not vote for a weak leader.

It's the number one thing.

Strength versus weakness.

And they're both weak leaders in an effectual capacity, but personality.

What personality is strong?

What personality is weak? Who is humiliating who? Who is stronger than the other person in the context of like humiliating the other person? And I think these are signals that Americans are very, very receptive to. They're very receptive to like, they don't care about policy. They don't care about any of that. That's all downstream from like who is actually beating the shit out of the other person optically?

Who looks better?

Who's humiliating the other person?

And on that basis, everything is set.

It's predetermined who they're going to choose.

And this is exactly how they themselves reflexively

think about it. Like, we

cut out the little

hack job

of an analysis that these people do after the debates.

But that's literally how they think about the debates and reflect on it.

Like, how do these people look while they're debating?

Not any of the substance of the comments.

And the most surprising thing for me

was really that I was able

to talk to Eddie on the phone real quick

while the debate was going and

he mentioned that

that weird

I was not expecting that

where both moderate and MAGA Republican friends of his were scared that Trump was losing.

And then the liberal ones were scared that Kamala was losing.

And I think in part what that shows is that no one is really confident

in their person.

And this might be a basic insight, but

all of these people

are really just voting against

someone. Honestly,

I may just be coping,

but that thing Eddie's talking about, like I need to know more, maybe we should get him in here, because I need to know more details. It's like, is this one friend group or are these different people? Because if it's one, if it's one friend group that's a mix of MAGA and traditional Republican, then

it would make sense why they would think Trump

is performing badly. Because you have to remember

by

MAGA, I'm not just talking about Republicans

who've come around to Trump.

That's not what I mean. That's not MAGA, you know?

There's some traditional

Republicans that came around to Trump

for extremely reflexive

reasons

intellectual even

if you can call it that reasons

they're like you know the TPSA types

and they're like oh Trump it, the T.P. USA types. And they're like, oh, well, Trump, it's Charlie Kirk, for example, right?

But MAGA are the people that actually liked when Trump said, like, grab them by the pussy or whatever.

Like, I don't know, that's an extreme example.

But, like like they liked

when Trump

was talking dirty

and like getting down

and dirty and like,

that...

He called out the fucking donors

that were in the

Republican National Convention

debate that were the ones

sharing.

Yeah, that was Maka.

Like that's...

So I need to make sure that's who we're talking about here

because it's a very fine line, you know?

I don't think it was those.

It seemed like more traditional Republican.

Right. And that makes sense. Then that makes sense because they're like they're looking at camilla and they're like oh on the issue she's

winning or whatever because they're like nerds probably policy nerds a little bit you know

but that's not how most that's not how americans vote in my, you know? But that's not how most, that's not how Americans vote, in my opinion, you know?

Oh, he's in show Q.

Let's bring him up here.

Eddie, what's up, brother?

How you doing?

Yo, what's up?

Eddie, first of all, I know you texted me two days ago or something.

I'm so sorry I didn't get back to you.

It was like I was right before bed that I saw it and I was like, I'll respond when I wake up and I didn't.

Oh, no, you're good.

I was just if you wanted to um

know what uh

yeah yeah no it don't even

don't even mention it we'll talk about it okay

okay okay okay okay but uh eddie

what's this so your maga friends are saying

that he didn't perform well?

One of them was one.

I mean, this guy's like, he's pretty class conscious.

I guess his dad's like a hardcore Republican, like the kind of traditional Republican who doesn't like Trump, and he felt like Kamala was winning, which was interesting.

But I think that's a dead giveaway. If his dad is a traditional, like, George W. Bush Republican, I'm not, I'm not sure if I would say he's Maga, you know?

No, no, yeah.

His dad's definitely not, and then he's not

super big Trump.

And then another girl I know who's like

totally like anti-Trump

I definitely think Kamala was killed

you know what I think that's describing Eddie actually

and Carl's I want your thoughts on this as well

I think what's going on has actually been reported by some data

which is that

liberals,

some liberals or former Democrats

are actually going over to Trump.

And then a lot of

Democrats, sorry, a lot of Republicans,

traditional Republicans are going

Democrat.

Kamala isn't total, or her campaign's not totally stupid.

The reason she was virtue signaling so much to the traditional Republican electorate is because they've looked at the data and the trends.

And they've seen that a lot of the democrats's strongest um turnouts or you know voters come from actually traditional republican strongholds like the more kind of middle class,

upper middle class,

I'd rather say suburban,

white, respectable population.

That is conservative in the Tory.

I don't know if you want Tory means.

In Britain, they have the conservative,

they call them the Tories.

The Tories are like the

fancy, you know,

the actual conservative in the sense

of like

clean-butt, respectable.

Right, the gentleman,

the top hat. Yeah, yeah.

And Kamala definitely is winning those people over.

No doubt about it.

Right.

And at the same time, there's more black people and Hispanics going towards Trump.

And this

is another thing people don't understand

is that a ton

of the end and Trump played that up

big time in this debate, which I think is going to

benefit him huge, you know,

regardless of our views on the matter.

Lotus, what's up, brother?

The anti-immigrant stuff is huge among Hispanics and black people in this country.

They are so anti-immigrant.

It's even more than white people sometimes.

It's crazy.

Yep. Carlos knows this.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, the

anti-immigration sentiment

is huge among America's

like more traditional minorities.

Where do you guys

like the Colin Kamala

communist is coming from? I feel like that's kind of

Don Jr.

Like that's his

watch his

I don't know who in particular

that's supposed to appeal to.

I think, yeah, I mean, I don't think that in particular is a strength of his.

I don't think it's doing him any favors.

And it's new.

It wasn't a part of the 2016

nexicon no well not even close i think this is more

influence from the republican party

that's well there

well here's the thing this is kind of a broader thing i wanted to talk about

um

this was like i was going to say a broader thing I wanted to talk about.

This was like,

I was going to say something, but then I forgot about it.

Fuck.

This is a broader thing I wanted to talk about, actually, which is like,

this is, oh yeah, this is what got me thinking when I was watching this. Like, Trump, I mean, he's inviting the Taliban to Camp David.

Oh, no.

And he's doing, he seems like such a ruthless pragmatist, real politic, right?

Just real politic par excellence, right?

And he's

like meeting

with Kim Jong-un

and all this

kind of stuff

and he's

embedding himself

in a kind of

new

global realism.

And

I want to think about that within the context of super imperialism because I think there's another dimension of super imperialism which I don't know or I don't remember Hudson I have to reread his super imperialism especially the third edition because I don't remember Hudson, I have to reread his Super Imperial as

especially the third edition, because I don't remember

him going into this. Have you guys read that cover

to cover? Super Imperialism? I have not

yet. I have not. That's my next after

Volume 3. That's what I'm going for?

What about you? Same thing

I haven't yet. I've listened to lectures on Same thing I haven't yet.

I've listened to lectures on it. Yeah.

So basically more or less super imperialism, as Hudson describes it, is this system of dollar

recycling, where the United States has this paradoxical role of being both a debtor and a creditor, where usually historically a dominant power is a creditor power, right? And that's where the source of their power. And it's very easy to understand how World War I happens and how all these wars are happening. It's just because there's an imbalance. Even in the Bronze Age, you study it, it's based between city states and the Bronze Age in Mesopotamia. Some states were debtors and others were creditors, and this is what was

the source of many revolutions in the Bronze Age by debtors rising

up. But the United States has done something which is like

almost unnatural historically. It's become both the debtor and a creditor, right?

And the Bretton Woods system and the actual system, those are two different things, I think.

The Bretton Wood system was something that was designed after World War II, where all gold

was going to be denominated in

dollars, or I don't know if I'm saying that

correctly,

but the dollar would be the world reserve currency.

You can exchange the dollar for gold at any time

if you lose confidence and faith in the dollar,

whatever.

And that was the origin in the beginning of this kind of recycling mechanism which was but but the mechanism was heavily

regulated within this framework that was controlled by the federal reserve and tied to, you know, government policy, and tied to the

central bank policy of all of these different states, you know, around the world.

Now, here's what's so complicated about these.

The central banks are not sovereign, neither the Federal Reserve or the central banks that were created in Germany, Japan.

These are not state banks.

They're central banks, meaning they're in the private sector.

So these are actual private sector actors creating the overt, kind of legitimate, quote-unquote, Bretton Wood system.

And they're colluding and collaborating with policymakers very closely and very heavily to devise a new world system.

And Michael Hudson kind of goes in the history of that.

And he talks about why the gold standard had to disappear.

And one of the arguments he'll use, actually, is the Vietnam War totally, totally upset the balance of trade. All of the deficit spending started coming from war, the war against communism for the Cold War. And the deficit spending of the United States made it impossible that the Brettonwood system could survive with gold backing up the dollar.

And it was actually the Vietnam War that was like the principal cause of this.

Right, which is like historically when the gold

standard is suspended, it's usually

in war times because they just want

to endless money printing

and, I mean,

Hudson says that the

US State Department called him up and they were

basically like, what do you recommend?

He's like, I would keep it tight as cold somewhat,

so you can't do endless credits swindling and war spending,

and they're like, okay, we're going to go off the gold standard then.

So, but post-70s, we have a new global system emerge.

Right. Yes.

And I don't think that system is properly understood.

I think even Michael Hudson talks about it in super imperialism, but here's the thing, though, because there's another

dimension of this, which I don't know if Hudson gets into, but which I've started to study

a little bit, and it's kind of making a lot of things make sense to me as far as this new

consciousness or subjectivity of global

realism

right which is the

what is the relationship

between the dollar recycling mechanism

which is between central banks and is therefore overt and public, exactly, and for what he got it. It's the offshore banking networks, the offshore gold, and the basically money laundering.

I mean, Hudson does talk about money laundering 100%, definitely.

I mean, he talks about how the oil industry is just laundering its money through Panama and all this kind of stuff, whatever. So he does get into that. But, and that's super interesting, by the way, because it's like, how do they not pay any taxes? Well, because they just launder all the money. But the money laundering aspect, how does that fit into the dollar recycling specifically?

Because I think there's almost a kind of contradiction between the two. I think the overt, you know, global minotaur, that's what Verifakis calls it, of super imperialism,

has also been marked by the emergence of a parallel global system.

This is actually a parallel global system of international finance.

And... parallel global system of international finance. And it's based in this huge offshore banking network, based in the Bahamas and the Caribbean and whatever.

And it's totally outside the purview of any kind of regulation by central that central bank set.

So what class forces are driving?

So one, we have the criminal element, which is clear.

We have, you know, some corporations that are trying to evade taxes and this kind of stuff. But what, it seems like a new, almost a new class has emerged from this space in this niche, which I think most people describe as an oligarchy, right? But in the sense of like the Russian oligarchy, I've read somewhere that 80% of Russia's wealth, GDP wealth, is in offshore banking accounts.

Have you guys ever heard that?

Yeah.

No.

Nice. So Russia... no nice so Russia

but Russia relies heavily

heavily

Russia relies heavily

on the offshore

banking to finance

its its economy, to spend money on anything.

That's why, I mean, people ask you, why doesn't Putin just kill all the oligarchs?

The Russian state actually uses these people to move money, toade sanctions that's the primary thing so it's not

just this is why i'm saying it's like it's not really one-sided because iran uses these networks

russia does north korea does 100 percent Everyone who's against the U.S. is using these,

in addition to the criminal elements and all these other kind of people. And that's in order to evade

sanctions, but it's also in order to evade, you know, global central banking regulations.

So it's super weird because it seems like this is like a parallel global system that has emerged,

which even the Bretton Woods policy makers are like totally naive about and like oblivious to on a systemic level.

And all of the major kind of independent, let's call them oligarchs around the world, who somehow are a little bit misaligned with the hegemony in some kind of way, whether they're in Japan, South Korea, wherever they are.

It's like they're plugged

into this like global,

new global

kind of dirty ruling class,

I guess I'd call them the dirty ruling class,

right?

Rogue ruling class.

They're rogue.

That's how I describe it.

And it seems like when we talk about like, oh, you know, Trump is being supported by the industrial capital.

So it's like, not really.

It's kind of this dirty or rogue international, you know, network that is really sympathetic to Trump the most, I think.

And it's rogue from the perspective of the United States

as like rules-based order. Yeah, Dubai is

huge. The oil shakes, the

Gulf states. I mean,

like now there's tensions emerging

between the UAE and

the UAE and the UAE Saudi Arabia

and the United States, right?

And Trump was like,

when Trump got elected,

MBS was super happy.

All the Gulf states were super happy.

Because like,

so this is the kind of context of the war

that's happening around the world.

It's like, russia you know is

in addition to the multipolarity it's leading the char it's a rebellion of this shadow network

against the

overt

like rules

based order

right

and it's super

but it's like

we have

what we need to do

is we need to study

how this like

shadow

offshore

banking system works in parallel to the dollar this like shadow offshore banking

system works in parallel to the

dollar recycling system

that Hudson talks about.

I think you probably got to go

I mean this is just me assuming without even doing

any preliminary research on that but

2008 probably shook things up

and changed the situation for the ruling class.

Like, obviously, it was a huge centralization

of the credit system and, you know,

almost like a further merger of the credit system

with the state, but

I imagine that would be the time when these money laundering

schemes started to become more prominent.

I don't know, or maybe it was way before that.

Maybe this is something that's been developing

for years I think that this

has been happening you know

since the 70s

at least

you know if not earlier

when they went off gold

because it a lot

you know another thing too is that

it was actually the Soviet Union

in the 50s or 60s that started

actually like very much

tap so you know LaRouche used to have this schizo worldview where like the british

are working with the soviets to undermine america the tiny grain of truth in that though is that the

soviets actually were taking advantage of the international British

offshore banking shadow banking system to evade you know US regulations and control you know

the Soviets didn't want the U.S.'s global control over the world

economically. So they would evade the U.S., you know, utilizing these networks. It didn't even start

just with like the oligarchs or the mafia or whatever after the 90s.

It started much earlier.

So I think it's, I think that is like a, this whole like global realism versus like the kind of Democrat idealism. I think that's the distinction that's opening up. The Democrat idealism obviously is also just as tainted and dirty. Don't get us wrong.

Don't get me wrong.

But it's also

like outdated. It's

maintaining the veneer of this global

rules-based legitimate system. And then here

comes Trump who's saying what? He's saying, well, it's

bullshit. You know, we live in a we well it's bullshit you know we live in a

we're not in Kansas anymore we live in a new fucking world you know um

you think there's any chance he appoints people like mcgregor and Mearsheimer if he gets elected?

I don't know about that. I just think, I have no idea.

Well, he's shocked it up. He's like completely on every, like, podcast he's done.

He's talked about the fact that he was kind of forced to put swamp

monsters. That's what RFK just said too.

That's really interesting.

I think him bringing

the RFK on was like

it sealed the deal

because it's going to bring so many

people that were probably going to bring so many people that

we're probably going to vote Democrat

or maybe not vote at all,

uh,

onto his campaign.

Yeah.

Doesn't hurt for sure.

But I think,

you know,

I think that,

you know,

something interesting about Trump?

You know what he is?

He's very Japanese in the sense that, like, you know how Japanese people depict a cliche and trope?

Okay, hold on.

Thank you, Chris.

Ask yourself where the dollar went.

Where did its value go?

It all sits in Chinese reserves.

It's backed by the gold standard of Marxist-Leninist-Productive capacity.

That's very true, Chris.

Thank you so much for the 10.

What was I going to say? Okay. much for the 10.

What was I going to say?

You're talking about Japanese? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So the Japanese have these like tropes of like the U.S.

If you play like I play Death Stranding

and it's like

the president.

And it's like,

it's just a trope.

It's like,

this is what,

this is the aesthetic

of like the American system.

Think about it.

You're a foreigner like you're in Japan.

And you have this,

just like we have like a trope

about the Japanese and there are a bunch of samurai

running around or whatever.

Like, the world has a degree

of expectations and familiarity

and, like, tropes in their

head about, like, you know,

this is the U.S. president.

And he's not just the president of America, like, ordained by the Constitution and all this

kind of stuff.

He is the figurehead of this global system, the so-called leader of the free world.

But this much bigger global system, the one that Hudson talks about.

Yeah, like a metal gear precedent, like a Kojima one. And that's what Trump was. Trump was wearing the

suit. He was a caricature of a U.S. president. And I think that's why he's loved internationally so much just in terms of like his

meme value.

Because he's like wearing a Halloween costume of a, he's like, it's almost like a mockery.

But it's not a mock.

It's in the same way you'd see it in like

an anime or a video game or something

like Mr. President and like that's him

you know

he is the

because he represents

I think the infection

of U.S. politics by this new awareness or at least new subjectivity, let's say, that is born out of a global system that has fully entered into

contradiction with the form of statehood and ideology and all this kind of stuff that we have,

according to the hegemony. You know, like he is playing the role and the part of a U.S. president, but is he really that?

No, he's not.

He's more like, you know,

he's more like someone playing the role of a president to fulfill a goal

that is not very presidential at all, right?

The goal being to to replace the kind of democratic idealism of the post-FDR

hero with this like ruthless new global realism, which is shared by the way, by all of the major powers in the world, whether it's Putin or others. It's just a global, it's a perspective of global realism. It doesn't have these illusions

of like, you know, oh,

we're going to free the world with democ, all this

neoliberal stuff.

It's a ruthless

real politic

that's, I think, is born

of, of a context

and again a new

like motive production if you will

that not just the United States

in its capacity formally

but even the United States

of the Bretton Woods

era is just not up to

the task of

updating

itself to, you know, it's just

outdated with regard to that.

Right, and it's,

we've had years of like,

I mean,

what was that

Samantha Power book?

The case

against genocide or

whatever.

She wrote this book

where like,

it's,

you know,

basically like

John Bolton,

neoconism,

but with democratic language.

Like, we need to get involved in these places

around the world, to protect

human rights, and now people

have, at least in

America, they have a more realistic view of

the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq,

and some now, even Libya

and Syria, like,

nobody buys that shit anymore.

It makes sense that there was

sort of backlash

to that, and to the sort of like woke

imperialism with, you know, like

Raytheon showing up at the pride

parades and stuff like that. And, you know,

Trump is,

in a way, sort of represents a natural

backlash to that. And I mean,

he's changed for

sure, and the Republican Party has

had an influence on him for sure, but, like,

the 2016 debates were,

you know, the perfect

sign of that, or the

time when you could

really see that, when he was railing against Jeb Bush

about his brother lying us into the Iraq war

and stuff and Americans like that

they're not reading Lenin's

imperialism the highest stage of capitalism

but they do have

this more

realist mindset now.

Most people I talk to in my community

are not in favor

of the war in Ukraine. The only people

who are, like, the professors and the

hardcore liberals

like that that

view is becoming a lot more prominent

which is interesting it's interesting

to see you know people like

Mearsheimer and McGregor who I mentioned earlier

who are not

communist not socialist you know I don't think they even

necessarily want to see the U.S. Empire collapse, but they recognize, like, them going on

in the old way isn't working anymore. It doesn't make sense. They're, you know, trying to

maintain unipolarity at all costs in a world that's becoming multipolar, almost like a new mode of production that they can't stop. But yeah, what that means for us here in the U.S., who knows?

You know, I

think that

one of the things that

for me has represented, I think ever since 2016, is the fact that American politics has had to always take a form in terms of appearance that is contrary to the content that is actually pursued, that is actually advanced, such that you end up in these very clear contradictions of promoting democracies while actually upholding, you know, the most

fascistic leaders in the world. I think that what has happened is that the form that that content

has taken has grown tiresome and has gotten to a level where the people do not buy it

anymore that the basic sort of ethical life and alignment of the individuals accepting that form

that that form of life itself took that has kind of collapsed i see that as a crisis of

legitimacy and trump represents almost like a more authentic way of reflecting upon the content itself

and that's what scares i, parts of the ruling elite.

That's why Trump scares him.

Not because he's a shift in terms of content,

but he's a shift in terms of how that imperialist content gets reflected

and the form that it takes.

I mean,

it's preposterous for someone to go up there and say,

you know,

when I was president,

we almost had Venezuela's oil.

What fuck are you doing?

You're supposed to talk about democracy and the violation of human rights and all these

other fucking things.

But I think for the public itself, because

there is almost like a removal of this gap between

the actuality of the politics and the form that it's taking,

it's almost,

it comes off as something that is very authentic

and that's something that you

see in the discourse of regular people

it's like they almost like crave

this authenticity. But it's like...

All they've ever seen in the political class

is dishonesty and inoffensive.

But I think, you know, when you try to situate that in materialist terms, though, in terms of like a new logic of production, or at least a new reality of global, you know, the global economy.

I think it's like, look at the fact that, look,

global central banking systems led by the Federal Reserve, let's say.

Good, Paul, thank you so much for the subscription.

They have a

specific

agreement with one and another.

They're part of

like common international regulatory

bodies that and, you know, that set the terms of, you know, that you honestly regulate dollars, for example, the Federal Reserve regulates dollar dollar you know uh dollar denominated deposits um and setting various requirements for them and there's like there's all these regulations for the global system of super imperialism.

It's, this is why this is, the reason this is so, like, complicated is because, like, look, there's the American Constitutional Republic, okay? Then there's super imperialism, which clearly is a contradiction. It's clearly a contradiction with the Constitutional Republic. But forget about that contradiction because it's not even primary anymore. Because now the contradiction is actually something else.

Okay?

And now the contradiction is between this global system of super-imperialism

based on this global system of regulations and rules,

financial rules primarily that we're talking about here.

And then there's this shadow system, which hypocritically super imperialism actually relies upon to survive.

All of the major corporations in the U.S. rely upon it to survive.

The global banking system relies upon it to survive.

The epitome of the hypocrisy was during the Cold War.

When the United States had to launder money to fund

anti-communism and mercenaries and drugs, using that same shadow system, which was totally

like illegal and outside the bounds, right? But simultaneously, in the same way

that it's like maintaining this global

system of super imperialism, let's call it Brenton Woods

or something else, the rules-based order,

you know, it's condemning as criminal,

various different rogue states that are dirty oligarchs, that are laundering money to evade sanctions and do this and do that.

But at the same time, they are themselves relying upon that same shadow system, like of offshore

banks and stuff.

Oz, do you think that this is like...

So, yeah.

Do you think this is a reflection?

Because that relationship

of like...

It's hypocrisy.

The relationship of the formal and acceptable capital

like a shadowy

almost like lumpen bourgeoisie

has existed the whole

20th century even when imperialism

was still rooted in nations.

No, I think this is

definitely something that

is the British, I think this is

the British Empire. I mean, in that

sense, what I'm trying to get that

is that I think what you're

describing there in the 70s is the process of the transnationalization of capital.

And I think that the relationship of like the in the surface capitalism and the shadowy realm that it has always needed, even if it pretends to antagonize

with it, has kind of followed through that advancement into its transnationalization.

I don't think so.

I don't think so.

I disagree with that because the Bretton Woods system and the overt, like let's call it acceptable form of capital, is not national. It's based in overt transnational institutions like the IMF, like the World Bank, all the various agreements the U.S. has with its, you know, colonies. And these are, these are overt, you know, whether they're constitutional or whatever, but they're overt. And they are transnational, though, you know. And they're not even just based on agreements of like between sovereign nations.

They're not just international.

Yo, one man, appreciate the five.

Thank you.

They're global organizations, but like, they are root.

Like the IMF in the World Bank, everyone knows the U.S.

and Western Capital has power within that.

This is what makes it so interesting, because they are rooted in the U.S., but they're not rooted in the United States' national sovereignty of which is the Constitution.

That's why I'm saying it's so complicated because technically we're on many

layers of the transgression of our

popular sovereignty as a country, many

different layers. It's not

just like, you know,

it's not just that this is a

contradiction between the American Republic

formally and the

no, that contradiction was coming to the

four after 1929, or

you know, earlier with the rise

of imperialism, which is what Lenin describes.

It's imperialism that violates

democracy and the

republic and the constitution.

That was just imperialism.

But even super imperialism, which comes after imperialism,

even that the sanctity of American super imperialism is being violated by America's opponents and also by itself.

It's like I said, it's that when Carlos, when you're talking about the contradiction between the form and the content what we're talking about is a hypocrisy

which is economic

you know

it's actually like a systemic

economic hypocrisy

which is like

materially rooted actually

you know

do you think that that shadowy

um

international

capital plays a homologous role

to like what the

um the plays a homologous role to like what the um

the not the gangs

the

the fucking Italians

the mafias to what the mafia's played in like

the 20th century

American capitalism

I think that

first of all, it's not even just a homology because the mafia is directly involved.

But I think the kicker is this.

That global system, or I don't know if you can call it a system, that global new economic reality is simultaneously. This is why I'm kind of hesitant to call it the increasing transnationalization. Because it goes full circle and now it's a vehicle for

polarity.

Russian polarity.

See, a lot, you know, sometimes

I mean, the Soviet Union was joined the IMF

in the World Bank in the first place.

It was, the Soviet Union

almost joined the IMF in the World Bank in the first place, which would have, you know, made things totally different.

So, I mean, that makes perfect sense that they would be using the globalization for their, you know, their own purposes.

But the thing is, they're not not using they're not using the actual

like acceptable

global institutions, but this kind of

dirty mind laundering reality.

Right, because they can't because the Soviet Union

wasn't allowed in the arms.

Exactly.

To see U.S. Imperial arms.

That's why they'll be like all these dictators,

they're all criminals and they're all dirty and rogue,

and it's like... Right.

But the kicker is,

there's a hypocrisy at play here

because that same thing is what

the you know the

super imperialist system

relies upon and needs

it, you know, itself. Why does it

need it? Because in order to wage the cold

war, the United States had to resort

to dirty methods.

In order for U.S. corporations

to be competitive globally,

they had to, or not even just competitive

globally, but just to fulfill their

aims, bypassing

the New Deal regulations, they had to get dirty,

down and dirty, and have their headquarters in Panama or whatever, and then recycle their profits through Europe so that they don't actually have to pay any taxes because the way Hudson describes it better than I could.

But, you know, whether it's tax evasion and loopholes

and all these kinds of things that everyone is using,

literally everyone is using them,

it's also a vehicle for polarity for Russia at least at least in the case of Russia

and that's so interesting to me because one of the minor quibbles that will happen in this

community now Rev I don't know if Rev is watching this but he can come one of the minor quibbles that will happen in this community.

Now, Rev, I don't know if Rev is watching this, but he can come in here and...

But oftentimes, RTSG, they're coming from somewhere that's legitimate.

Because a lot of the multippolarity ideologists have a really

stupid idea

that like, oh yeah, we're just going to switch off from

the dollar

and have our new currency and, you know,

we're just going to be sovereign again and just be normal

sovereign states. Well, it's more that they neglect the recycling aspect of the dollar.

It's more complicated than just, oh, I use dollars because, you know, I am controlled by the U.S.

It's also more like, well, this is a global system of recycling, okay?

And it's like a, it's like a, it's almost like an ecology, like it's a cycle, you know, it's like a cybernetic loop.

It's, it's not a one-sided, you know, it's like a cybernetic loop. It's not a one-sided, you know, symbolic concession to the United States.

It's an actual global system.

When my buddy was in Canada, he paid with U.S. dollars, and they gave him Canadian change because they wanted the U.S. dollars more than a Canadian.

Island two wings. How am I fucking gibbering, you fucking retard?

Go ahead and explain how I'm gibbering.

Yeah. go ahead and explain how I'm gibbering too vague

all right go fucking read a book then

anyway

it's impossible to not be vague when you're talking about this stuff in a conversation

right like what do you want me to do research be more specific to not be vague when you're talking about this stuff in a conversation. Right.

Like what do you want me to do?

Be more specific.

What do you need to be more specific?

Like,

what do you need to be more specific?

It's a global system of dollar recycling

where all of the money

that flows from the Federal Reserve to

these countries central banks

gets back into the U.S.

And a lot of them

are forced to make their credit payments

in US dollars

exactly because the US has

the simultaneous function

of being a creditor and debtor

power

so

right it's like the world

isn't a lot of the world is in

a lot of the world is in debt to the U.S.

at the same time that the U.S.

is in debt to them.

And the payments are all made in dollars,

right? So it's a recycling system.

For example,

petty bourgeois versus Comprador bourgeois in debtor countries. Okay, here's your problem, dude.

You are a dogmatic, you know, pseudo-Marxist, and you're trying to, like, find out how this squares this squares with like the terms you're familiar with

to fulfill like your preconceived worldview. Nobody's talking about the domestic politics, which all of the class relations you're talking about. I mean, the petty bourgeois versus

compradour bourgeois and the debtor countries, the relationship between class and recycling.

Well, that's the trick with it, because a lot of people have this assumption that because there's this

huge oligarchy, you know, in Russia or even in Iran, and I was trying to fucking get to that, by the way, when I was talking about RTSG's argument, that are definitely plugged into the global system, you know, the dollar-denominated global system.

But there's a caveat, okay?

So, yeah, it's a cool global system of recycling or whatever.

But there's also this underbelly, right, in the form of euro dollars and offshore banking networks.

And I am willing to bet that is just as much a system, like, of parallel recycling.

Like something is going on there that is homologist to the to what hudson describes or what verofocus describes with the global minotaur and it's it's a vehicle for it's an instrument for not just sovereignty for many countries, although it is for nations, but entirely new polarities.

And I find that extremely interesting.

Do you think it has a vested interest in that polarity or is it just ambiguous enough such that is able to be used by both sides?

That's the thing is it's used by both sides because it's not like this is a power that I'm talking about. It's not like a there are powers involved in it 100%. So there's a few powers I can name. It's like there's North Korea, probably, right?

There's Iran.

There's Russia.

And the elephant in the room is China,

which I'm not mentioning right now,

because it's a little more complex.

But it's all of these different forces.

Put it this way.

You know,

you guys ever watch Star Wars?

Yes.

You know how there's like the place

where all the criminals and rogues and rebels go

on the desert planet?

What's that?

What's that bar called?

No,

the...

Moss Isley.

It's called Moss Isley, right?

Mastley Cantina, yeah.

That's what we're talking about here.

We're talking about like Moss Isley Cantina and it's like everyone is there

even people who hate each other and want to kill each other. They're all there. Right.

And, um, um, So I think it's like the transnationalization of capital and the breaking down a barrier.

It's come full circle.

The most abstract capital has ever become, the most antisocial, the most alienated, the most global, the most, you know, the most intangible is the British system of offshore banking that was created in response to resisting the New Deal regulations post World War II and the regulations of the Bretton Woods system. The derivatives markets and all this stuff, I think, emerge out of there, actually.

Yeah, I think that's where a lot of their surplus comes from now, too, with the...

Yeah, but it's come like full circle,

and that is now

being assimilated

and assailed in,

in the,

uh,

the creation of new poles,

you know?

So they're serving, like, definite concrete, like, the most concrete goal for, it's like Russia and the SMO to win in Ukraine, right?

But there's others, too. There's development and so on and so on.

Like, development that's not affected by, you know, U.S. sanctions and other kinds of forms of intervention.

But I'm not going to say I've studied this offshore bank.

I haven't.

That's what I'm saying.

I'm proposing it.

I definitely needs to be understood.

Because I think we kind of have an idea of super imperialism, but there's a lot of unresolved questions about how it actually works.

So like I was saying, like RTSG is, they have merit in their critique of a lot of the multipolarists for not

understanding the system well enough.

But I'd turn it around and I'd also

say that, you know,

it's not

one-sided. It's not just that there's this

invincible

system of super-imperialism and the dollar is God.

It's more, there's, there's an internal contradiction within that system, which is, you know, epitomized by this parallel, you know, global economy and probably parallel system, right?

Sorry, I got distracted interacting with the chat.

Oh, it's all right.

I'm writing a gold standard paper right now because a lot of this stuff like, I a theory that you know almost nobody reads volume

3 because like

you know volume 1 is good but it's

mostly just marks laying the basis like volume

3 is where he really gets into the credit system

and currency oh yeah Marxists don't even

quote unquote Marxists in the Westists don't even, quote unquote

Marxists in the West, they don't even bother with

that. They take volume one, they turn

it into the Bible,

and then they just assume that

volume two and volume three are just like

DLC, where Marx is kind of

just like, I don't know, they think

he's just yapping for no reason.

That's why they need the anti,

that's why they need the anti-angles

thesis. Because it's only

on the basis of that can they say, oh, it's too

tainted by angles and therefore it's not worthy

of like study.

So Volk vultures brought up a few interesting things.

So first of all, Taylor Swift just endorsed Kamala.

And Volk thinks that's a desperate move because of the debate tonight.

And I don't know

but Taylor Swift just endorsed Kamala

tonight

so that's a nuke

against Trump we'll see

how that plays out that definitely will be a

nuke toward Trump.

Don't underestimate those swifties because they're fucking crazy.

And then second of all, he goes,

it is interesting how it's in the Caribbean and Latin America at the offshore.

Like the last retreat of global capitalism.

It's like specifically Caribbean, Central America Right, the places they've destroyed the most

Where there's basically no central government

It's just the Republic of NGOs

Right, but then why isn't it in Africa though?

That's what I think That's what I'm thinking when I think about it. It's like, to me, it's kind of a mystery.

Yeah, maybe just because it's closer. I don't know.

Darg actually said, Pirates of the Caribbean. You know what?

That's, yeah, the pirates thing is like,

this, because that was, you know,

the Caribbean was the birthplace, I think,

of mercantilism, right?

And therefore, early modern capitalism.

Like, it literally started there, and it seems like it's ending there, too, you know?

Yeah.

The Caribbean.

Like, that was where Atlanticlantic power was born for not only the british empire the spanish empire the portuguese these were the trade routes that created modern capitalism and this is like

yeah modern capitalism. And this is like... Holland.

Yeah.

Sorry, what'd you say?

Holland.

Holland.

Yeah, yeah. Great East, Portuguese, Holland, Britain.

Mm-hmm.

That is so

interesting though how, you know,

it's also because

it's geopolitically

uncontested territory.

Isn't that interesting?

It is outside the you know sphere of influence of europe and the whole old world

and right the u.s obviously it's the monroe doctrine the u.s., obviously, it's the Monroe Doctrine.

The U.S. considers it its sphere of influence.

The whole Caribbean is flooded.

I've written about this, like, the increasing military presence there, plus, of course, Colombia.

Oh, look what's going on in Haiti. They're gearing up

for an invasion of Haiti. I mean, it's already begun,

right? They've already sent the African

Union Task Force.

The Kenya task force.

We should have Danny come talk about it

again soon but yeah

he's been saying that forever that they're gearing up to invade

which is like the fourth invasion of Haiti or something like that

within not that many years

you know Hudson's so interesting,

is he talks about how, like,

offshore banking was the basis of commerce and antiquity as well.

In ancient Greece,

it was the same thing, literally, like,

not just offshore commerce, not just offshore commerce not just offshore banking like they would

settle trade outside of the purview of like the actual temples in these neutral territories.

These more neutral territories.

But it's just, now that, see, like, look, we have have a lot of we have the benefit of being unburdened by like dogmatic retardation and now is there's we don't have to worry about virtue singling and appeasing you know know, the KKE and whatever and being pure

in their eyes and all these like fake, phony Marxists around the world. So now we can

actually get to the work of like understanding the global system we live in and how it actually

works.

Right.

Because a lot, for a lot of people, they're just kind of like, well, how do I explain this in a way that's going to just like immediately reassure me in a way that I don't have to test with scientific investigation my dogmatic you know um my dogmatic vocabulary of Marxism you know right It's forcing Marxism onto the world

instead of like seeing

how the basic insights

of Marxism are in the world

through a concrete study of it.

Yeah. And it reminds me almost like

there's

a book that LaSaya writes on

Heraclitus in some of the

years before Marks dies.

And he sends a letter to Angles,

I think. I forget who it wasn't. I'm pretty sure it was

Engels. Telling him that all that Lassaya was doing in the book

was basically trying to get like dialectical insights from Heraclitus

and then foist them onto the real world

and see how many examples he can see in the real world

that confirm and affirm that previous system of thought and lexicon and that seems to be the framework that a lot of these marks is used instead of like actually studying the world concretely and if it leads to new interpretive categories being needed in order to understand things accepting that and understanding Marxism itself as his living breathing open sense of things they just forced old categories onto shit and if it doesn't fit you know even even more than that

there's one thing i like about world systems theory and this new era of globalism quote on

quote is it's like i like this idea that we're dealing with hyper objects.

We don't have to refer to tangible individuals or subjectivities or even classes as the sole site of reference.

We can actually just understand systems and the logic by which the system is

reproducing itself and functioning. And that takes primacy. And that is our guide to understand class distinction not the reverse we don't

first begin with the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie and then no you begin with this

dynamic right living system and understanding how this concrete

mode of production

works and its cycles

and its patterns

and its loops

you know and then

and that's what Marx's... Yeah, and that's what marks did in capital precisely and in volume

three right the one that nobody in volume three the last chapter is about class and he didn't even

finish it he he wrote like he wrote like a few sentences

and it

the page cuts off there

thanks marks

marks

could have solved

the barista debate

but he decided

to die early

he decided to write

theories of surplus value

instead or something but um which is pretty good and he said he was

going to return to it but he never returned to it but in volume marks first set about to understand the

capitalist system right and then at the very end of volume three, he's like, okay, now I can

start talking about class. See, he doesn't first begin with class to reduce capitalism to. He begins

with understanding how the actual fucking system works. Then he wants to investigate how the reproduction of that system endangers class divisions,

right? How that corresponds to or how the way it affects society leads to divisions,

class divisions, right? So he finally is like,

okay, I've written a lot about class.

We understand classes, but it's like, what are,

what is an actually, in a scientific sense?

What actually is class in a rigid kind of sense of political economy?

Because Marx and Engels never really

went into too much detail

about that actually.

As much as they wrote about class

in the practical sense

and the political sense

and in a descriptive sense

to understand what was going on,

when it comes to definitions of class that are precise enough to address the various

contradictions that Marxism has faced when it comes to like, okay, what is a class?

They never elaborated on what their rationale was for defining a class.

Like, it's okay.

It's your relationship to production.

But what is the relation between the relation of production to private property, right?

Because a lot of people are just, they content themselves as saying, oh yeah, the proletariat owns nothing except labor and the capitalist class owns private property and whatever. But it's like, okay, even if we roll with that to understand the distinction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, there's a million different classes in between, and there's a million previous existing societies. This is where it counts the most, before capitalism. How do we

classify classes in ancient societies, distinct classes, right? Because it's a historical anomaly

that people have nothing to sell

but their labor well that's new

right

so in the ancient world

where everyone was embedded to some degree or another with some kind of relationship to property defining their existence, what does a class actually mean? Now Marx was going to like totally elaborate on this in the last chapter of

Capital Volume 3. And he even starts bringing up questions you might think about, you know,

critically. Like, okay, class is defined by our relation to production, but, and it begins from the

division of labor, but the division of labor includes many different kinds of professions, like

doctors and fishermen and whatever, you know, steelworkers and, you know, um, lumberjacks or something. I don't know. He's just lifting all these different specific types of activity. And he's like, how do we derive from this class distinctions yeah there's different owners

of different forms of property as well and then the page cuts off from there let's

let me bring it up right now

because it's just so funny

how like Marx leaves us hanging.

The most important thing.

One of the letters

book where he leaves it hanging

in the middle, he's like, all right, I got to go fight the

revolution now. It's like, all right, I got to go fight the revolution now. It's like

written in the... It's a big revolution.

At the end, he's like, try to go.

But

I think the best way,

because he never sits down and systematically

reflects on the question of what is

class,

I think the best way to find his understanding of it is in the political works,

specifically in the works on the French Revolution, the 18th Premier,

where he's forced to give a class analysis.

But the thing is that it's not spoon fed to people.

You know, the only like... You know what? He derives...

Yeah. Just just real quick,

if I recall, the only place in the

18th Romare where he's extremely

explicit about what class

is, is him making a statement that it's He's extremely explicit about what class is.

Is him making a statement that it's going to count it.

I mean, for the dogmatic Marxist, it sounds insane.

But he's basically saying that the cultural life of a community is a central component

and how it distinguishes itself

from another group.

And that distinction is of a class distinction.

Because... And when you look

at not only the relationship of production of,

say, like a barista and a steelworker,

you not only have that material distinction

as far as like who's creating surplus value and who's working as an agent of circulation,

but you also have a fundamental cultural distinction.

Well, you can even go farther.

And according to Mark, that would even be a class system itself.

But you can go farther.

Marx uses class in that book

in a way that has explanatory value.

He's not,

which means

why are these different actors

clearly acting differently?

He's not just saying, oh, here's the cause. It's class.

When he's referring to class, he's referring to distinct groups that are distinguishing themselves,

just like you said, by culture, by their political stances, by their behavior, by their activity, by their relationship to the central event, which was the revolution, right?

And this gives class actually like a useful

it's useful like it's straight up

useful to explain

like Marx isn't using class

in a way that just ends up

reproducing the pure concept

he's using it in a way that is actually

involved with rendering the reality of an event intelligible.

It's a marker of intelligibility.

And a marker of intelligibility can only be, can only emerge, um, can only emerge, right?

When its form or its appearance, uh, could not be preempted by some kind of conceptual

derivision

where it's something

it's derived from

like what do I mean by that?

It's like you don't just

you don't begin with these classes

and then superimpose them.

You look at this event and how these different groups are behaving differently.

And class begins when you're just starting to identify these patterns.

You're starting to identify these patterns and how these different groups are reacting to the event.

And in this way, it's like, class is not defined by the extent to which a group satisfies a given

preconception or definition

but by how they're

actively distinguishing themselves

in the whole reproduction of society

you know

this is what gives it explanatory value

which requires a sociological

dimension

yeah yeah exactly

a class actually

actually be distinct

in a way that's intelligible

not just

satisfying a definition

like when people say the proletariat today are just anyone who's not just satisfying a definition.

Like when people say the proletariat today is just anyone who's an employee,

that has no fucking explanatory value.

It doesn't actually explain the differences in society at all.

All it explains is the intention and purport of ideologists to want to build a political project on the basis of uniting these groups, which is fine.

But you're not explaining anything about society.

You're just explaining your own intentions and nothing else you're not explaining why different groups are you know um distinguishing themselves in specific types of ways

you're just saying i want want everyone to, you know, have this identity because, you know, that would lead to a better society. Okay, but like, how does your identity prove its concretess? What is concrete about this identity? Where does it concretely and materially exist? You know? It's been reduced a lot of times into a very abstract agitational notion instead of one that is scientific economic conscious of the sociological dimensions and details that are a part of that and it's almost as if they use proletariat and bourgeoisie as a stand-in for like the Occupy Wall Street, 99 versus 1%, which is a completely abstract category that, I mean, you could perhaps twist it into making some sort of claim that maybe for agitational

propagandistic purposes, you can use it.

But it's completely meaningless

and it's unscientific. And the fact that

it's used like that by people

like, for instance, Richard Wolf

who should know a lot better.

I mean, this guy's kind of like paid to read the classics, and he's written really good scientific works of Marxist political economy in the past, but still uses these terms so loosely and abstractly

it's

you know it's disheartening and it's it's almost as if

there's such little faith in

what a correct scientific

analysis of the of the world

would do in terms of whether people would accept it or not.

There has to be this dogmatic reduction to something that's more comfortable to pitch to people.

And I have more confidence in people being able to accept a correct,

more scientific analysis because it falls more in line

with the things that they actually experience.

You know, you actually experience a real sociological difference

between the Levensfeld, the life world of say

a construction worker and someone working

at Starbucks that has a degree in

gender studies. There's a real distinction

there and you're not going to sit here from your Ivy

League professorial position

and tell me we're both part of the same class.

No, it's a real distinction.

That is at play. It's material. You're not going to tell me it's not material.

You know, it's interesting. It's so interesting. I remember Hudson talking about class,

and he's like, the term class or the origin of the use of the word class, someone correct me on this.

I'm not too confident in my memory on what he said.

But I'm pretty sure he said it was military ranks.

Like, that's literally the origin of it.

Like, different classes of society was based on different...

Oh, you're talking about in origins?

In...

No, Hudson. This is Michael Hudson. Oh, you, no, Hudson.

This is Michael Hudson. Oh, you're talking about Hudson?

Yeah.

Okay.

He said that in the collapse of antiquity.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's, yeah, I'm pretty sure.

Yeah, yeah, he said that, yeah.

Which is super, which is super interesting. I'll tell you why, because most land ownership in history, which most empires were freehold empires, where the majority of people own plots of land.

In return for military service, you engage in military service, and on that basis, you know, you're given economic rights.

You're given land.

And the higher your rank in terms of the military service,

the more, you know, you're entitled to in terms of controlling economically.

And the more you're rewarded with and all this kind of stuff.

Now, what I find fascinating about this is, first of all, it shows that class is deeply political.

It doesn't just spontaneously emerge from different economic relationships of production.

There's a deeply political dimension to class.

The proletariat and the bourgeoisie only become starkly evident when society adopts formal equality of the law, right?

That's when class antagonism as such, class contradiction as such, becomes pure, you know know freed from all this kind of free from all these different ways in which it's like um submerged in these other kinds of cultural whatever

relations like no pure class presumes equality.

This is one of the justifications, by the way,

Lenin uses for demanding the right to self-termination of nations.

The preservation of feudal inequalities or imperialist inequality, which is a kind of a return of feudalism, actually prevents

the ability for the class antagonism and the class struggle to become, become like acute

enough to be conducive to

you know

a proletarian

revolution

so and Marx and Engels

believe the same thing obviously

so there's a deeply political dimension of it, but also what did I just mention earlier, which is how the global system today was born out of the U.S.'s Vietnam War, you know, the military spending of the Vietnam War you know the military spending

of the Vietnam War

and so military

and war

definitely has a place

in this

which I don't know

if Marxism

has placed enough

emphasis on

historically

but it's It was World War I and World War II also emphasis on historically.

It was World War I and World War II also that really, you know, changed the world system and blew up

like the gold standard and then, you know, and with the Bretton Wood system, they

were moving away from gold. I am 100% willing to bet

that the Napoleonic Wars

were a huge factor

in like the rise of

you know, the proletariat

and the bourgeoisie as

as those terms

are used in the 19th century.

Because while you could see traces of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,

obviously in the 1700s or the 1600s, whatever, it's like after the Napoleonic Wars,

that's when they become in everyday conventional use

terms that people use to describe

very real sociological

distinctions. The Civil

War in America, yeah.

That's another pill that's crazy.

The American Civil War.

And you know what's funny about that, too, is that

between the Napoleonic Wars,

we're getting like,

we're kind of gibbering at this.

We're going to have to end the stream soon.

But I just want to say this.

Napoleonic Wars is a new type of the mass army.

You know, this is when mass popular armies

replace professional armies. Super homologous

to the proletariat as an industrial army you know like a mass army in the factory

whatever and that was the uh from the napoleonic war and the new paradigm of modern warfare that created

it was standardized it was standardized, it was mechanical,

and it was a mass army, a mass citizens army, whatever, right? Mass levy, yeah. Now, that led to a form of

warfare where you line people up, you know, in columns and they just shoot each other.

And, you know, big, big columns, though though by the way right but then it with the civil war the u.s.

civil war is what i'm saying this because the guns the reload capacity um yeah i'm not even getting to the naval warfare. I don't even know anything about that. I just know this. The firearms became, they had repeaters, you know, so you could instantly reload. And that became very dangerous on the battlefield, eventually in the U.S. Civil War.

By the end of the U.S. Civil War, what did you have?

You had trench warfare.

People weren't just like sitting out in the open, like sitting ducks, slaughtering each other while

standing up.

They were starting to dig trenches, and that was the foundation, actually, of World War I,

which was the U.S. Civil War.

It was World War I in its, it was a, what do you call it?

Foreshadowing the world war one and by the way i read this before the u.s civil war all military academies all of these great personalities that

graduated from the military academies you know ulysses grant

robert e lee you know you know to kumska sherman whatever they're all especially the southern

generals they're all modeling themselves off of napoleon they're like i'm going to be the next

napoleon they worship napoleon as like a god. All of their military tactics and strategy, they're like, we have to learn from Napoleon, Napoleon, Napoleon, right? And then, um, and then ironically, they, that was the end of Napoleonic warfare, you know, by the end of that war.

And World War I, the Civil War and World War one, give rise to a new, you know, class situation, obviously.

One very distinct from the industrial proletary in england that was written at the time of the communist manifesto definitely

but to bring it back to where you were mentioning earlier, like the origins of the concept of class in military strategy and lingo.

I mean, so many of the basic concepts in our lexicon come from military strategy and lingo.

Like, Engels was a military specialist.

Like, he was extremely well read.

In the history of military strategies, concepts like hegemony come from there.

Concepts like Vanguard come from there.

Some of the most central concepts in the Marxist lexicon are kind of just ripped off and re-articulated forms of military concepts.

Absolutely, yeah.

And, you know, fascist theorists are renowned for like ontologizing war

more than anyone else

Bigsy ideology is the

the war ideology. Yeah.

Lsortobal has a great book on that.

His book Heidegger in ruins.

Yeah, but...

He shows most central.

Briggs ideology is for it it but at the same time

I think there is

an ontological significance of war

because when you think

about why do people kill each other you know why do why do they fight wars? And it's like, oh, they're competing for resources and it's just nonsense. It's not true. It's a matter of contingency. You know, it's like, if not me, then you. If not my city state, then yours. It doesn't matter, you know, it honestly doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I guess. But who's it going to be? Well, that does matter, right?

And then... but who's it going to be well that does matter right um and this is a huge kind of i guess if we i don't like ontologizing more but if we were going to do that that would be place to begin, which is like how much it's rooted in contingency, how much it's rooted in this kind of like just purely meaningless.

We would both be equal and literally the same, but, you know, who's it going to fucking be?

You know?

And... gonna fucking be you know and it's like well what about a principle of equal respect

and equality

and I study the Bronze Age

and that is definitely what

that was people say the Bronze Age was just all war but you know war is And that is definitely what... That was...

People say the Bronze Age was just all war.

But, you know, war is the exception.

For the most part, people are trying to establish

relations based on mutual recognition and equality and respect.

But what ends up happening is that trade, the basics of world systems theory, right?

Trade deficits start happening. Some are importing more than they're exporting, and this is making people go bankrupt and so this is the

basis of a great deal many revolutions and you know what's interesting about the modern world

well i wouldn't say that what's interesting about the world after the bronze age the bra every war that

i can gleam in the bronze age seemed to also simultaneously be a revolution. War was revolution.

Meaning it wasn't just...

I mean, we hear stories of city states

becoming jealous of another city state

and fighting over it and going to war over it.

But these wars usually end in peace treaties

that just return this to the status quo.

They don't, these are not real wars, you know.

The real wars are always revolutionary wars.

Actually, maybe that's true for all world history when we define it that way.

It's wars are fought.

That is, yeah, I just came up with that right now

for this stream. I didn't have that prepared.

But when you think about it, here's what fascists

got wrong about war when you have two

otherwise equal actors and i mean equal not in the sense of their abilities and strength

but in terms of their their moral and cosmological claim to victory. And then you're just saying, okay, well, might is

right. Whoever stronger will win, and they're going to fight because of resources. So their

motivations are morally the same, right? That is not actually real war in the fullest ontological sense. Real war in the fullest

ontological sense is a revolutionary war, where it's not just two of the same men fighting each other. It's people fighting on behalf of completely different

cosmological principles, which are not equal, where one principle is, in a sense, more historically correct and adequate for the era, and the other is in vain, you know, attempting to cling to some outdated one.

And, like, real wars i mean the quintessential real war is the napoleonic war

that's a revolutionary war another real war is the u.s civil war that's a revolutionary war right

the only wars that were not revolutionary wars, like World War I,

produced revolutionary outcomes.

You know, they were revolutionary in the sense of the destruction and devastation they caused to everyone.

And only in this sense was it a real war.

But Lenin was the actual correct, true, you know, these fascist Larpers like Mussolini and them,

Oh, World War I, the true warrior, ethos, and spirit. It's like, well, no, that was Lenin.

Lenin was the only real war theorist theorist of World War I. Why? Because he understood that underlying this war.

This is the thing people don't know about Lenin. Lenin wasn't a pacifist. Lenin wasn't saying, I'm against

this war because I love peace and pacifism. No, no, no. Lenin was saying, there is a real war going on

because of this war now. It's a revolutionary war. It's a class war that has opened up because of this war now it's a revolutionary war it's a class war that has opened up because of this war

so those of you idiots that are still fighting for these outmoded stupid bourgeois governments

and imperialist governments you're a bunch of suckers you're not fighting for a real. You're not fighting for a real war. You're not waging a real

war. The real war is the class war, right? Is there a book that's written? I didn't read it,

but I loved the title. It was like, War on War.

And I love that.

It's about Lenin.

A book about Lenin that was called War on War, you know?

I remember seeing that title, and I was like,

damn, that's so fucking real.

Because, like, we're not here to be pacifists.

We're not here to end the war.

We're here to wage the real war, because one is going to be fought either way.

So, which war are you fighting for?

What's that, Mao quote? It's, like, the only way to end imperialism or violence is to take up the gun.

Yeah, yeah. It's like...

Even the quotes from at the time in video games.

It's like people who are edge lords that are like, war never changes. I play fallout.

Okay, fine, bitch. You want to do war never...

You want to talk about how

war is the true state

of man is war. It's like, okay,

I agree, but which war are we

fighting? Right.

And even Lenin, the

phrases of the time are

turn the war into a revolutionary war.

Exactly.

And that's a commitment to take the war itself

to a higher level,

to a more genuine level.

Yeah, yeah.

And that's why I think, you know, the conservative revolution, not quite fascist, but they definitely, you know, went over to the Nazis. Well, some of them did, and then they regretted it.

But there's definitely,

like,

they were definitely,

um,

convinced by Nazism to some degree.

But they kind of,

isn't it?

It's so fascinating how it was just like, they got it so wrong, so, so wrong, but like I could see how they could have gotten it right, you know?

Yo, how's...

The guy was not Hitler. It was Lenin. You know, Lenin was the real zeitgeist.

Lenin was the real, you know, revolution in the era.

And all of this stuff about, you know, this new existential questions about war and

nations and all this kind of stuff

should have been placed within the

context of Lenin's revolution,

not, you know,

anyway, go ahead, sorry, I didn't

mean a... Oh, no, you're good.

I didn't, I wanted you to finish because i was uh this

is a little bit unrelated but we were quoting the exact same quote actually it was mao who said

war can only be abolished through war and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up

the gun yeah that's the full quote

yeah yeah precisely

yeah

that's funny and it's like um

you know

it's important that

a lot of these a lot of liberal quote unquote anti-fascism which is not

I'm not talking about actual like fighting Hitler and Mussolini but just like the aesthetic of like

oh yeah fascism is violence and mean and war and authoritarian it's like the aesthetic of like, oh yeah, fascism is violence and mean and war and authoritarian. It's like

that is actually a sneakness against Lenin and against the October revolution because

social democracy was the whole you know flowers and roses

you know uh let's just have democracy and it was lenin who actually reintroduces klaus vits and

dictatorship and revolution and

war and stuff

and the social democrats

when they became

national social child it's

it's so funny how people call us social

chauvinists

and they don't understand the crucial historical context the social democrats

became social chauvinous in a way that was fully continuous with their conventions and with

their like their repertoire they were all they were the establishment at

the time they were what people were comfortable and familiar with and when lennon was calling them

social chauvinas he wasn't calling them this because they like somehow came somehow came upon this realization that, oh, we need to be tough and masculine and strong now.

It was the opposite.

He was calling out their hypocrisy.

They are these, you know, that's why Lenin is always railing against the pacifists as well, not just the supporters of the war.

Because Lenin's real position is that we need to wage a revolutionary war, you know?

It's not that, you know, oh, yeah, we need to be peaceful and, you know, liberal or something.

It's that we, it's so the so, but the social Democrats never see, this is, you know what,

you can understand. There's a truth to the third period, a commenter in view that social democracy

is the moderate wing of fascism

because the social

Democrats were too hypocritical

to morally,

existentially, ideologically,

and politically draw out the

consequences of the position

they found themselves in.

They were objectively servants

of this brutal World War I,

just absolute fucking brutality,

vicious, ruthless war.

And they were so cowardly how they would support their governments and maintain this two-faced.

Lenin hated these people thing where they're like, oh yeah, we're against the war, but like objectively.

And see, Lenin didn't primarily

have smoke for the actual

reactionary monsters of World War I

that were like

you know, doing, you know, taking

drugs and like, yeah, the

poetry of war or whatever.

Like, obviously we oppose that, but Lenin's real hatred was for the fucking two-faced hypocrites.

The people who were like, they were like AOC at the time.

They're like, oh yeah, I'm totally against the war in gaza but we

still need to support israel like that's exactly what the social democrats were doing they

weren't going full in like you know like adopting this revolutionary or like radical

ideology of war, it was the

opposite. They literally were exactly

the same as the

Democratic socialists of today,

like the bread to, whatever people

today leftists, who are,

they're two-faced. They're like, oh yeah,

I'm against U.S. imperialism, but

objectively and in practice, I'm going to

support every tangible example of that

imperialism. And that's

who Lenin hated

in World War I. That's who

he hated before the October of those, That's who he hated

before the October of those, that's who he had smoke for in particular.

So when we talk about social chauvinism, that's what we're talking about.

We're not talking, we're not yet talking about, you know, people who are drawing existentially the consequences of this terrifying and brutal war. Because although fascists claim to have drawn those consequences out, it was actually Lenin who did that.

Lenin is the one who drew out the existential.

And that was the October Revolution,

which was a revolution

that was carried out by veterans

of that same war.

Because they said, a new world is here.

After this destruction and carnage and devastation,

there's no way we can go back to how things were.

This is a new era now.

You know, it's a revolutionary war now.

The imperialist bourgeoisie unleashed this war, and now we're going to cease power.

And Lenin's terror, the red terror, you know, the emphasis on dictatorship, it was a military dictatorship

with war communism. That was from the ethos and the logic of that war. You know, that was him

owning up to the consequences of the nature of the world now

which is this is a fucking war kautsky and all these pieces of shit

are hypocritically you know scolding the bolsheviks for their brutal methods of

dictatorship and you know why they're spitting the bolsheviks for their brutal methods of dictatorship. And you know

why they're spitting, the Bolsheviks spit in their

faces and laugh? Because look at you

motherfuckers. You supported the most brutal,

ruthless war at that

point in world history.

You know?

You're hypocrites

that's why their criticisms fell short

because it's not about whether there's going to be a war or not it's about which

war you know

there's an article that

Luke Cox writes

and don't send me to the gulag

just for

Yeah, yeah, no

I'm not

Yeah, yeah

But he writes an article making the claim

That

that

um That the social democrats were absolutely essential for the fascists because they were the

reason why the fascists can point and say look everything that that you hate it's actually

the socialist because these fucking freaks that were never

actual Marxists continue

to call themselves socialist. And there's a quote

I want to read real quick, if I may.

He says, the masses must understand

based on the facts that fascism and social

fascism are closely related because they are their servants of monopoly capitalism and not of a liberalism which has already become legendary and because both prevent the masses from following the only possible way out of the state progressive impoverishment, the class struggle for

socialism and communism. The fascist

deception of the working masses

can only be exposed

if the exposure of the deception

if the exposure of the deception if the exposure of the deception touches on the central point,

the exposure of the real connection

between the theory and practice of social fascism,

i.e. the fucking social democrats,

and the theory and practice of fascism.

So all these people that spend so much fucking time talking about us as social chauvinist,

there's no, not even the slightest bit of a fucking semblance of connection to what the term actually means.

You know what's so tragic about Germany at that time?

You know all the Nazi propaganda and rhetoric about Marxism and anti-Marxism and shit?

You know why that was appealing to people and why they were using that rhetoric?

Because they were targeting, they weren't targeting, this is the tragedy.

The tragedy is that the actual Leninists were a new force in German politics.

They were new.

Yep.

The KPD was an immature, it was new,

not immature in a derogatory sense,

but in a historic, like a time sense.

It was new. It was just newborn, right?

It's like 1919 or something.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Social Democrats are in German

politics for decades and they have a fundamental role there. You know, it's so crazy how

similar our position is right now to the communist in Germany. It's so similar. Because the whole time, it's literally like how they're like trying to say Kamala Harrisism. Like you know how Nazis are like, oh yeah, Kamala's a Marxist. This is cultural Marxism, whatever. This is Bolshevism. this is Judeo Bolshevism, it's Kamala Harris.

And no, we're, and then we're here like, no, no, we're actually the fucking Bolsheviks. It's us. And they're kind of like sidelining us and ignoring us and scoffing

at us. It's the same

fucking dynamic in 1930s

Germany. Replace us with the German

communists and replace the

liberal leftists with the social democrats

and replace the far right today with the nazis it's the same fucking dynamic the far right is exploiting the failures and unpopularity of the social democrats in germany the nazis are and they're they they're attacking Marxism and they're attacking communism and all this kind of stuff.

And what they would literally write is they're like, oh, the social Democrats are claiming to be moderate, but they're secretly actual revolutionary Leninists, and they're going to do to hear what the Bolsheviks did.

And then he had the German communists.

They're like, look, motherfucker, I'm right here.

That's us.

That's not them.

We're doing that.

And the Nazis, the bulk of their propaganda

wasn't directed against the KPD

because the more the KPD

was given exposure

the better the KPD was doing

the KPD was totally

sidelined

they were totally

they had so much

potential to win the German

masses. Like the KPD had so

much potential. And they

knew it themselves.

But because they were so recent and so

new in German politics,

and they were relatively unheard of, they got fucking sidelined.

And you know, there's a famous quote that goes around. I don't think it's real, where Talman is like, after Hitler, us. You know about that?

I haven't heard that quote now.

Well, it's always been treated by like Trotskyites and Social Democrats.

But, you know, even the only grain of truth that quote could ever possibly have is like,

there was such a confidence

among the German communists that

they were inevitably the future.

They fucking knew it. They were looking

at Hitler and the Nazis and they're like, you guys are a bunch

of clowns. Like,

you can't address the actual

contradictions. Were the the you have not yet awakened to

lennon's revolution you aren't aware of the consequences this revolution is going to have for all world

history we do but they were too early they were way too early you but they were too early. They were way too early.

They were way too early in the game.

But like they knew they were the future.

And everyone else was a Social Democrat who is out of Lenin. People don't

understand. They focus too much. They're like the October Revolution. That's socialism. No. There was a

decades and decades and decades long social democratic tradition in Europe.

And that was still strong even after the Bolshevik revolution.

Very strong. Far stronger than the communists were, as a matter of fact.

And in Germany, the Nazis are taking that for granted

they're appropriating a lot of the social democratic traditions

they're emulating some of it

but they're attacking the social democratic establishment

because what are they saying?

They're saying oh the social democrats are outdated

and they're this and they're that. And we are the new order. But Lenin is the one who did that. Lenin is the actual one who embraced the full consequences of the post-war period post-World war one that was the true revolution

and europe did not feel that revolution or experience it there was an adventure in bavaria

totally failed a hung, it was totally

failed, right? Stalin knew

that it was a nothing burger,

these revolutions in Western Europe.

And the only

reason they were given so much emphasis

is because the dogmatic theory

was held that, okay, once the V revolution happens,

it's going to immediately spread everywhere, right? Well, Stalin was wise enough to know that. That's,

well, this is not the reality, you know. Anyway,

um,

so Europe had not yet taken the,

the Bolshevik pill,

so to speak.

Bolshevism was still very alien,

very foreign,

very new,

very unprecedented,

and they had not yet realized the, they haven't, they had not yet drawn out the full consequences. But there is, and they saw them as backwards. Yeah. They saw the Bolsheviks as fucking backwards. That's what the same way Democrats would say. Yeah, precisely. Social Democrats come. Yeah. Paulus fucking backwards. That's what the same way Democrats would say. Yeah, precisely. Social Democrats

scumns, Paulus fucking backwards. Yeah. It's the same fucking thing.

But it's clearly a new era after World War I, a revolutionary era, but it's, there's a, there's a translation era. You error you know i know you i've talked to you about

that translating the revolution in russia to europe and because of that who fills the niche

finance capital does you know to further consolidate power.

And that was through fascism.

And the social Democrats were totally, totally responsible, not just responsible because they enabled it.

But because it's like

Nazism was born from social democracy.

Fascism was born from social democracy.

It was a specific form of social democratic opportunism that was born in order to avoid the revolutionary

consequences of the aftermath of World War I. And Nazism was built on that foundation from social democracy.

And nobody took Bolshevism in Europe seriously.

Now, outside Europe, it was an existential threat against Western civilization itself.

But in Europe,

they weren't taking Bolshevism seriously.

You know?

So,

you know, this is

the situation that's being

dealt with in

Germany.

And what happens in the post-war period?

It's actually quite fascinating.

This is something fascinating.

I want you guys to think about this.

East Germany. So Talman

was right. However

tasteless. After Hitler,

us, well, empirically, that's what happened.

The communists did rise to power.

And the communists were right.

They knew it was the Soviet victory

in the great patriotic war,

half of Europe goes communist.

And a whole new

world communist order is being built.

I mean, at 1.25% of the

entire world population

is under the red flag, you know? The whole developing world, the whole third world, whatever. It's turning socialist or communist. And it's the USSR and it's the so it wasn't until

the Cold War

that the world really

felt the consequences of

Lenin's revolution

in terms of

something distinct from social

democracy

you know and specifically even the 70s even late socialism as they call it mature socialism at this point leninism is institutionalized and is embedded within the logic of state powers. It's not just in ideology. It's literally a new logic of state power, which to this day there is no political theory to explain. Post-Soviet, post-communist countries, many of them still operate on the basis of this logic, you know?

Even the third world non-communist states, they operate on the basis of this logic.

You know what country operates on the basis of some kind of Leninist logic?

Singapore, right? Which is a one-party dictatorship. So, Leninism becomes something objective by the 70s.

And all the idiot Nazis had, they, people don't understand this.

The Nazis were stupid.

They were barbaric idiot, idiots, obviously, but it's like they didn't even, they were so arrogant that they didn't, just like how the far right treats us today, they didn't even consider the possibility of leninism so by the

post-war period you have something really strange which is elements of the european new right

so let's say like the overwhelming bulk of of the Nazis just go over to NATO

and America

but then a

minority of them

it's kind of

fascinating

they are like

oh shit

I didn't realize

Bolshevism

was actually

viable

so in an opportunistic way, they start rooting for the USSR, at least to some limited extent.

Elements in the European New Right, you know?

And... elements in the European new right, you know? And when Russian radicals in the late 80s and 90s found out about that,

that is why these strange things like

national bolshevism started taking

form in Russia.

Oh, I'm one of those.

Yeah. But I just, I went on that spiel

because it got me thinking about how like, even in the, because isn't it, isn't it even true today that Lenin is still like under, why is Hitler considered this like historical statesmen, and Nazism is considered, like, the zeitgeist of illiberal authoritarianism?

But actually, it was Leninism, and Nazism was just some phony bullshit

con scheme by the

monopoly

monopolies class like

even today

the full consequences

and implications of Lenin's

revolution aren't fully understood

and like people

consider

there's so much existential weight

they established to Nazism

even the history channel

oh was Hitler an alien

and it's like they're so impressed

by Hitler and they mystify him and all

their kind of stuff. Yeah. And like, even if you're like an edge lord who's an idiot uneducated

in high school, you're just going to be doing hail Hitler's to be edgy because that's the ultimate

thing that's opposing the system in your mind

because it's the most forbidden one.

Right? But it's like in reality

you know

Bolshevism

see even some Marxists fall into the trap

and Carlos let me know if you know what I'm talking about here

where they're like there's something about fascism

we didn't

we didn't take into account

we got it wrong you know

this is the Frankfurt school people, too,

by the way,

where they're like,

we were in a way,

you know,

we were naive,

utopians,

and then the fascists came,

and we were totally

blindsided,

and now we need to

understand the essence

of fascism

and ontologize fascism and make fascism and make fascism a metaphysical problem that we have to kill the fascist within because and it's like no the communists in 1930s had already outmoded fascism historically.

Fascism was outmoded historically by Bolshevism.

That's the thing.

Bolshevism was already more historically, like, in the objective sense, I'm not talking about in a normative sense, in the objective sense,

I'm not talking about in a normative

sense, in the objective sense,

Bolshevism

was destined

to triumph over fascism,

because fascism was just outdated

social democracy on steroids. Whereas Bolshevism was just outdated social democracy on steroids.

Whereas Bolshevism was actually the new thing.

Leninism was the new thing, you know?

Not fascism. Fascism was an old thing.

Again, it's just an outdated social democratic paradigm.

Leninism was the new thing,

right?

And it's like,

yeah.

Well, you were saying, and that's like what

philosophy tube and contra points

say, where they're like fascism,

caught Marxists off guard. Yeah. And then they'll say, where they're like fascism, caught Marxists off guard.

Yeah. And then they'll say, you know,

and it was because Marxists downplayed

the effect of racism and actually

racist primary to class. And, you know,

they, you know what I think, though.

I mean, you know, these liberal arguments, but.

I straight up think, this is my opinion,

I've always, I even wrote this in my response to the CPSA,

the Brahmins of democracy.

What I think is this, why did the communists fail, though?

You know who we can actually blame?

Social democracy, unironically now why not the social democrats because

they're enemies you should already be able to account for them because communists did not do enough

to draw out

the implications of Lenin's

radical break from social democracy.

They too

were still kneecapped by a lot

of social democratic baggage.

Even they were

accustomed even they were um were were accustomed to and in germany in particular it's only later in the latter half of the

1930s that the common turn starts to draw out the consequences of Leninism better

in the popular front concept. Now, people associate the popular front with compromise with social

democracy. It's not true. The popular front was not a united front.

United fronts and popular fronts are not the same.

United fronts are just coalitions of different parties.

But the popular front was a specifically kind of populistic theory of class struggle they came to,

where they're like, we need to go down

to the countryside

and mobilize

this up-and-coming, populistic

and disaffected kind of

petty bourgeoisie or in peasantry

and have that

be a huge nucleus and base of a huge popular kind of people's movement

to destroy and crush fascism and imperialism and, you know, restore democratic, but democracy

back then meant populism, you know, meant the same thing.

And that is why there's such a difference between the Trotsky's anti-fascism and the common turns anti-facist, because Trotsky blamed fascism on the petty bourgeoisie and the peasants, you know?

Whereas what the common turn said was actually, no, fascism comes from the, um, from the highest, you know, monopoly financial capital's class, but it's deceiving the masses and the people it's

tricking them so we communists need to tap in to those demographics that would otherwise you know be

taken by the fascists and we need to win them over and that was the popular front

strategy and the person who perfects the popular front strategy is guess who it's Mao

Mao is actually the one who applies the wisdom of Leninism as it was drawn out.

As far removed from the baggage of social democracy, more than any other communist movement or party in the world

was Mao. And Mao went so far that even Stalin

disapproved of it. Why? Because Stalin too

had social democratic baggage

in his kind of dogmatic

assumptions about

the nature of proletarian class

struggle, you know?

Mao was

much more of a Leninist than Stalin,

you know, but had the German communists in the early 1930s been Maoists, we would all be speaking German today, but not under Nazism, but under

communism.

Yes.

It's funny.

You know, how they say, we'd be speaking, not German, but

some kind of Russo-German

dialect.

I don't know.

But how you're

absolutely right. At the

bottom it comes down to

like, were they

able not just to understand like the principle comes down to like were they able

not just to understand like

the principal contradiction but

what's implied in that which is

who the real friends of the

people are and how to handle

the contradictions within like

friends of the people.

And it's really Mao, the person who

takes this and

I think applies it

the most correctly.

Mao understands

there is this popular

struggle in China, regardless of Marxists. So who's going to lead it? Is it going to be Marxist?

Mao is drawing a lot from the genius of Sun Yotsen, actually, you know? Yeah, yeah. And Sun Yotsen's

Kumanang,

is that you pronounce it, the Republican

movement,

is what mobilized the Chinese masses more than

anyone else. And Mao was building

off of that foundation. And why

was that so beneficial to Mao?

Because Sun Yotsen was totally free from social democracy.

Instead of beginning his point of departure from social democracy,

Mao could begin from this authentically

Chinese Republican

movement as the square one

paradigmatically

of creating and defining the

context of communist struggle.

And defining the context of communist struggle. And Sonia Sen was also

incredibly influenced by the Bolshevik

revolution itself.

Haas, have you seen the show? It's translated to English

with subtitles on YouTube,

but the age of enlightenment?

I've heard of it. I know.

You know, you know, I was going to say something.

It's,

it's, uh, yeah.

It's a show about the new culture movement that leads up to when the

parties formed in 21.

And one of the things you get to see is how they work out like the sort of thinking that is most fruitful and carrying forth the revolution that they want to have.

And there's no baggage.

There's no social democracy baggage.

It's almost like, that's why pragmatism fits so well in the Chinese contacts because their thinking was through and through pragmatism.

It's like what is actually going? They went straight to the source. their thinking was through and through pragmatism.

It's like,

what is actually going? They went straight to the source

in terms of getting their paradigm

of modern republicanism.

They went straight to the source of America.

They went straight to America.

They didn't,

they didn't give a shit about European social democracy.

They didn't even concern themselves with that.

They just went straight to America.

And yeah, they were influenced.

He was influenced maybe like Henry George, Sonia Atsin.

But you know what I was going to say, guys, I'm going to say

I feel like how you guys

feel about Dubois

is like an American, even though

Dubois didn't have the same

political historical

significance.

Um,

I don't want to send you on a huge tangent on that because we got to end this soon but it's like i feel

like it's similar i'm going to get us going but

yeah

yeah that's going to get you guys going definitely

but yeah it's like you have, like, Montero says it

as simple as you,

as you can.

Like,

Americans don't really care

about Lenin and Mao

that much.

Like,

they're great and we should read them,

but like,

if we're not capturing our own

class heroes,

then, like,

how are we going to get Americans

on board with this specifically American

socialist project?

And, like, Du Bois gives us analysis

of the Civil War

that's not just a class

analysis, but it's better than

any of the class analyses

that are being given by

communists at the time, because he's

actually talking about

the slaves as a class

and what it meant when they

when Lincoln announced that they were

going to abolish slavery, and all these slaves started fleeing the South and joining the Union Army, which had the double effect of a general strike for the Confederacy and in flux of troops.

And he also, if I can just intercept real quick. He also

rejects the tradition of social

democracy. Because remember that

Du Bois in the 90s studies, he finishes

his PhD in Germany.

So he gets to hang out with the whole

social democratic clique. And he's

not sold. He's not sold at all on click. And he's not sold.

He's not sold at all on it.

But he was sold on the Bolshevik revolution.

So from the 1890s to the early parts of the 20th century,

he had his interactions with the soldiers,

Democrats.

He wasn't sold.

He gets sold with the Bolshevik

Revolution and then in the 1930s

after the

crisis, he picks up

Lenin once again and he picks up Marx and

angles and that's when he becomes a communist

and he writes black reconstruction

in 35.

So it's,

it's, you know,

it's very similar to the phenomenon with Mao that you were talking about.

It's like going straight to Marxism.

Real quick,

real quick,

hold the thought and I'll let you finish.

Before Sun Yotsen, there were dogmatic Chinese Marxists who Sun Yat-Sen rejected and who in no way were related to or influenced Mao.

Because Mao, so it's the same thing thing just like how there were dogmatic

American Marxists

who got the Civil War

wrong

in China

before Sun Yotsen

there were these

dogmatic

you know

carbon copy

from Europe

Marxists in China

who

Sun Yotsen

you know,

departs from. And

it's like, because he's actually dealing with

a sober and honest

appreciation of his country's situation.

And like you said, Dubois

is analyzing the Civil War, honestly,

not according to the dogmatic

baggage from European Marxism.

It's like Sun Yotsen was similar.

Sorry, go ahead.

No, no, you're absolutely right.

And I mean, then the

question arises, like, was this

social democratic experience like like, just the form this ended up taking in Europe?

But it wasn't because these are, these are the same fucking people that both Marx, but then later Engels said, we want nothing to do with them

they're using our name

they didn't even like the name of social democracy

yeah

we want nothing to do with them

that's what Marx and Engels felt about them

and you know they had

personal relationships with them there was like some of these people were in charge of Marx's estates and, you know, for you to have such a personal relationship with these people and get to the point where you say, look, man, I'm not a fucking Marxist. If these people are Marxist, I'm not a Marxist.

Remember who was one of the,

and I hate to say this,

because I'm a Cuban and he's a Cuban.

Paul,

what was his name?

Paul Lafarre.

Right.

He was,

along with the other French guy.

The right to be lazy.

Mark's almost had a brain aneurism

when he brings that to him

Yeah

He's married his daughter

Don't tolerate that

Anyway

Oh

There's some quotable shit in there

But the point was

Like this tradition

is not the form that Marxism

takes in the West.

It itself is

as you mentioned earlier

through and through a caricature of Marxism

to the extent that both

Marx and Engels, who had

personal, it's hard to break with someone

when you have personal context when they're friends,

when they come over the house, they eat, and

they're married to your fucking daughter.

But to get to the point of saying, if

you're a Marxist, I'm not a fucking Marxist.

Well, look, you look, I want to...

The fact that these people had nothing to do with Marxism.

I want to end this on this, because we actually have to end this.

But to leave on one note, as much as I trash social democracy,

I do think people like larz lee kind of have a point

only in the strictness like why did marks and angles still not fully break with them because there a, because the essence of

the success of social

democracy was actually

based in the

Bismarckian real politic.

LaSelle is

literally friends with Bismarck and is applying the same real politic outlook of like, okay, we're not going to focus too much on ideology. Let's actually like just meat and potatoes, build a successful movement.

And it's a double-edged sword because there's a lot of ways in which that leads to the corruption and the dogmatism and the sterility, because their goal was to literally just simplify Marxism

so an idiot could understand it.

That's why it became so conceptually simple, but it also became dogmatic because they made it institutional. They institutionalized this specific rigid, you know, understanding of Marxism into conceptual forms.

But they had successes, and they showed these successes, and it spoke for themselves.

You know, the Social Democratic movement was yielding results all across Europe, And LaSalle was brilliant in terms of his

ability to organize and, you know, and Marx took note of that, Engels took note of it. The Social Democrats

in Germany very much were hitting the ball out of the park before World War I.

And Engels, I think he was party to the Erfurt program.

Am I correct about that or no?

Yeah, even though he

wrote extensive

criticism, but

there was a rational kernel there.

I'm not saying, you know,

something...

Yeah, yeah, that's what I mean.

Like,

there, it's still,

because it's almost tempting

to be like,

okay,

social democracy is the devil. Like, that's the foundation of all the evil. But it's almost tempting to be like, okay, social democracy is the devil.

Like, that's the foundation of all the evil.

But it's like, yes,

social democracy definitely...

Um...

Well, because...

But here's the thing.

Remember Lenin's polemics in defense of social democracy in russia

which are brilliant because social democracy in russia is a new thing not an established movement

and who is lenin fighting? He's fighting the economists.

So the real

problem, well,

this is a conclusion I got to years ago, is actually

17th century Anglo-Saxon

metaphysics.

But it's like,

it's like these ways in which people are interpreting Marxism in a really dogmatic way,

undilectical way, whether it's the economists, you know, whether it's the, um,

and there is a total opposite, the voluntarists, you know, like the Nerolyknics, you know, the liquidators, all these different groups that are enemies of social democracy, which are claiming that social democracy is wrong, and that actually we can just return to pure Marx, you know, pure Marxism, which is just this kind of determinism and stageism, yada, yada, yada, yada.

Well, uh... yada yada yada um well uh you know the the achievement of social democracy was this need to prove how class struggle and the truth of Marxism has to be mediated in ways that are not themselves immediately identical with the form that insight takes. It's that form content distinction that, you know, you guys very much emphasize. And Lenin saw him,

the reason Lenin was so heartbroken by

Kotzky is because he was

a crusader for social

democracy in Russia starting out.

He was the one

actually um, starting out. He was the one actually

defending the faith,

you know, in a territory, it had no precedent in.

Attacking Bernstein and... Yeah, yeah. what are your thoughts on uh plekinoff ah um huh well i have such mixed feelings because I don't like Placanov as a dogma or as a as an authority

I don't regard him as an authority

and I'm ready

to take him out and back

and shoot him with a shotgun

because of my hatred of Spinoza

and Spinozaism

and that wrong,

he coined it such an evil thing.

He said it was dynamized Spinozism,

Marxism.

And I

consider that

a capital offense.

I hate the Spinozist

interpretation of Marx's materialism a lot, because I think that's literally the reification of the Anglo-Saxon kind of reductionist metaphysics, which totally vulgarized materialism.

But,

because remember,

I'm an angelic materialist.

I believe in the

materiality of the,

you know,

of essence,

material as essence,

you know,

uh,

materialism that's based more in the kind of fire, you know, more intangual materiality.

Anyway, I don't want to get into the craziness about that.

But I, but then

there's the Placano

of Ilyankov

and there's that

Spinoza they share

in common,

which is a

spinoza.

It's a completely

distorted Spinoza.

Yeah. That's, but it's brilliant reading distorted spinoza. Yeah, that's

it's a brilliant reading, but it has

nothing to do with Spinoza.

Exactly, exactly.

And that Spinoza

has some of my respect.

Because that is a

Spinoza

that, and it's not Spinoza himself,

the real one's intention,

but that Russian crazy version

that they created,

that Spinoza has a great deal

of cosmological import, has a great deal of cosmological import,

has a great deal of direct physical significance,

in terms of like a way of understanding.

I mean, there's skin in the game as far as like, for Ilyenko, we all know the cosmology of spirit and how far he goes with that. But Placanov as well, you know, Placanov as well draws out these readings of Spinoza that extend him to the

level of like

it's

I think they're both operating with a

Hegelianized Spinoza

and the reason why I brought up Plagenoff

is because

what's interesting

you know even Angles but it's like it's like a Plagenoff is because what's interesting,

you know, even angles.

But it's like a Spinoza that is imminentized

such that it's like a way of understanding

an underlying logic of the actual physical

universe,

which was not, like the actual physical universe,

not theoretical one, not philosophical one,

but like literally the actual real world.

And that was not Spinoza's intention.

Sorry, go ahead.

The reason I brought up Placanov is because something very interesting

happens. Like Engels condemns

all of these people that become the figureheads

of social democracy.

But the only one that

all you can find is

praise for is Plekanov.

There's an article that Plekanov

writes in the early

1890s on Hegel

on the 60th anniversary of his

death. It's a beautiful

amazing article. I

recommend everyone to read it.

And Kaltzky sends it to Engels.

And Engel says, this is fucking fascinating.

Who is this guy? And Kaltzky's

replies, he's the only one who has

read his eagle amongst any

of us.

And he really appreciated

Plagonoff, but you have this interesting thing that

because the second international is

this source of authority,

because the figurehead of

Kautzky are the luminaries

of Marxism, I almost felt like Plagenoff

you know, it's like with the anti-communist

so-called Marxists talk about Stalin. Like when you

had these brilliant theorists within the Communist Party and they say, oh, they had to limit themselves and they couldn't rise up to their brilliance because of the Stalinist party or whatever the fuck.

Like that's what happened to Placanov.

Lekonov was extremely brilliant and he was hamstrung by this authoritative body of so-called Marxism.

Yeah. Which was just the caricature, which was the social democrats.

And what's interesting is that in the earliest debates, Lenin ends up finding himself like the people that are on his side

politically. We're completely idiotic in terms of theory.

And the people he's debating against that are led by Placanov,

they're on the other side politically, but he's in the

situation where he's like, fuck, theoretically, these guys

are a hell of a lot more

direct. There was a kind of German...

They're wrong politically because they're following

fucking Kautzky. There was a kind of German...

Well, we should also remember

though Placanov behaved

badly politically

he took the false false

wrong positions

but one thing I want to

I'll end it on this

I think Hegel is far more materialist than Spinoza is.

And I think you would agree.

Because the materialism of Marx is an ascension to the concrete, right?

Yep.

And I think Spinoza's substance, it's almost like that is the fundamental form of the abstract, you know?

It's the imagined concrete that Marx talks about at the beginning of the Grondresa, where he says that all of the political

economists, they think they're engaging with the concrete.

Yeah, but that's like the most kind of metaphysical version. It's like turned into a

metaphysical principle. That's why it's almost... It's an abstract. It's an abstract concrete. It's not a concrete

concrete. Yeah, yeah. And that to me is like, that's the beginning point. And then there's an

ascension process through Hegel. And then Marx's materiality, his material object,

is like on the total opposite side of then Spinoza's substance.

It's,

it rises from Hegel's kind of idealist system

into a

material object

that is comparatively

more kind of

intangible and substanceless

than Spinoza. It's more, it's less kind of intangible and substanceless than

Spinoza's. It's more

it's less substantial

than Spinoza's substance

if you want to, it's more in the direction

of the virtual and the kind of

fire, you know?

But what do I mean by that is like,

Marx's material object

can be understood only

in terms of a

relationality, you know,

of form and content.

And that's what content is, actually.

It's content.

But it's a relationality.

And it's a...

I mean you

obviously you would

you would emphasize

the

aspect of it being a process

right

by drawing from Heraclytis

even from the beginning

it's a kind of it's a from the beginning, it's a kind of

it's a materiality of change.

It's a materiality of

contradiction as the

engine of a movement,

right? But I would also say

it's the materiality also

of the essence of the thing, the thing to which all objects in particular...

Spinoza's substance is this kind of notion that for a given object, that object, as it affects our sensibilities, takes on a form.

And so Spinoza's substance is like a super form, as platonic as that sounds, you know?

Yeah. But it is like the

it is the real

kind of

um

it is a kind of

it's a dogmatic form of the real

more real as more real.

Yeah.

It's, I wonder what you think about this.

It's almost that it's the platonic form in a manner that removes...

Hold on, Carlos.

I got to go to sleep.

I'm sorry, boys.

Oh, yeah, no problem.

See you later.

Oh, see you, but...

It's like...

It's like...

It's like...

It's a platonic form that removes the two levels that exist in Plato.

And it's almost as if the platonic form stayed, but with the sublation of Plato with Aristotle.

It's like...

It's a dogmatic concept of immediacy, you know, of the immediacy of a thing.

A thing in its immediate reality, right?

It's the pretence that this is the ultimate reality.

So the immediacy is turned into the substance.

And for Marx

it's the opposite that's true

right

we arrive at the real

essence of a thing

only after we have exhausted

all the ways in which it's a thing only after we have exhausted all

the ways in which its

existence is

mediated by

relationships and by processes.

He calls it a process of concentration.

Yeah, precisely.

It's the end. And that's just taken from NATO.

You know, the ground, you know, you don't start with the ground.

You get to the ground at the end.

But what's interesting, and I wonder if there's any scholarship on this.

Ilienkoov wasn't stupid

you know he was a very smart

philosopher with the hiccough

of Spinoza he was a very good reader

of the history of philosophy

but he has this

extremely distorted understanding

of Spinoza

that basically turns that abstract

category of substance into

a notion of the concrete and substance

becomes, he reads substance in Spinoza as this unity of

opposites, as the

concrete. And I think it's completely incorrect,

but I wonder what the sources

of that is. Is it like a mistranslation

into Russian? It's the notion

I think it comes from Placanov

probably, but it's the notion

that Spinoza is the quintessential materialist,

and if we want to be materialists, we want to regard the unity of opposites as something

materially real, we must consider it as a kind of underlying substance, you know, the primacy of the substance of reality. But it's an interesting move from materialism to substantialism, Because material is a word that is

the same thing as essence, the essence of a thing.

But the essence and the substance of a thing are not the same.

The substance of a thing is a kind of like hypothetical,

phenomenal form that pre-exists, you know, the content of a thing.

That is the content of a thing.

It's the identification of content with some kind of ready-made phenomenal form.

Whereas the real content is more like, you know, like what LaConn will call, a symptom within the appearance of a phenomenal form.

The thing within that very same phenomenal form

that forces it to be what it is

on account of its inability to,

in the process of reproducing itself,

move beyond itself.

It's an underlying contradiction at the basis of a given object, right?

And the specificity of that contradiction is the content.

But that contradiction can only

be understood in terms

of a specific

kind of

failed process

and this is Jizek, but

a failed process on account of which a thing reproduces itself, and thereby becomes what it is on the basis of that failure. And failure, just in the sense of like it it comes upon and descends and regresses into

the contradiction that defines the whole of what it is and on the basis of that dissent or that regression, it ascends into being, a particular being.

Does that make sense, or is that craziness?

No, that does that make sense? And that craziness? No, that does.

And I think that I like the distinction

between essence and substance

because substance is so intimately tied

to the way of thinking that Heidegger

described as forehand

present that hand

and it's so fundamentally rooted

in killing

things basically like taking them out of their

context taking them out of the processes in which

they exist and for the sake of understanding

them but all your understanding is a dead entity, something that you have yourself manipulative.

It's just, it's reductionism. It's exactly. And that's that's dominated most of the history of, of philosophy. I was, I was going to say,

you know who I'm reading now,

and this might not,

this might get me canceled,

although I don't think this is the sort of public.

No, don't even say it.

Don't even say it.

I know what you're going to say.

Don't say it.

Say it for another time because I don't even want

I don't even want to see the fucking bullshit

people are going to bitch if you're saying that

So save that for another time

But I know who you're talking

This is the Stalinist censorship guys

But it's the guy in the Enkov recommended to a student but I know who you're talking. This is the Stalinist censorship, guys.

But it's the guy in the Enkov recommended to his students, right?

Yeah, I know who you're talking about.

Save those thoughts for later, man. Save those thoughts for later, man.

Save those thoughts for later. All we could say is Ilyenko

literally recommended him to his students

as a forced reading.

You're not going to find it.

Yeah.

Unless they might.

Anyway.

All right.

I'm going to end it there, though.

I got to eat something.

But honestly,

great.

We should do this more often.

This is like such good content.

We should do it with the actual camera.

You got, I fucking, I thought we're going to be on camera.

Listen, I literally was like, I'm just going to shower.

I won't be too late for the debate.

And the debate literally started at 9 sharp.

I didn't know they did that.

I thought it was like a five minute intro.

But I, but then a spider attacked me.

And that was on stream.

I got attacked by a giant spider on my monitor.

I left of spider

yeah

that's like the way

there's people in my chat

they're um

they're very upset about how I interrupt

but

the only reason I interrupt is because I have a thought

and if I don't say it immediately I'll forget it

and I just want to say it

but sorry about that.

I'm used to it with Noah.

Yeah.

It was the same way.

Hey brother, let me interrupt you real quick. Yeah. It was the same way. Hey, brother, let me interrupt you real quick.

He proceeds to interrupt fucking shezing fingers.

No, that's fine.

This has been fun.

We should do something like this more often.

Yeah, definitely, definitely.

All right, see you later, man. See you, brother.

All right. I'm going to end

this stream.

See you guys. I'll see you Thursday. Bye-bye.

Good stream. We'll do this