1 Democrat vs 10 MAGA Republicans (HEATED DEBATE) | DSH #1982

Summary

Podcast Summary: "1 Democrat vs 10 MAGA Republicans (HEATED DEBATE)" | Digital Social Hour #1982

Host: Sean Kelly
Date: May 27, 2026
Theme: Unfiltered debate on rule of law, immigration, and economic policy between a Democrat and a panel of MAGA-identifying Republicans and conservatives.

---

Episode Overview

In this charged episode, host Sean Kelly moderates a live, unscripted group debate pitting one (self-identified) Democrat ("David Mauricio") against a diverse group of 10 MAGA/Republican and conservative voices, including young activists, small business owners, state assembly candidates, and anti-immigration hardliners. The debate covers three main prompts:

1. Do Republicans and Trump uphold the rule of law and the Constitution?
2. Is immigration good for America, and what are effective border solutions?
3. Is current Republican economic policy good or bad for America?

The discussion is combative, fast-paced, and occasionally veers into personal attacks, but also offers moments of policy depth and surprising points of agreement.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Rule of Law & Constitutionality

• Accusations Against Trump:

  • The Democrat (Host/"David Mauricio") argues Trump disrespects the law, citing:
    • Overriding judicial rulings ([02:23], [10:02])
    • Intimidating political opponents and leveraging DOJ for retribution ([02:23])
    • Instances of defying Supreme Court/orders on deportations (Operation Metro Surge, [11:16]-[11:49])
  • "At the end of the day the law, it doesn't matter to Donald Trump. What matters is doing whatever the fuck you want." — Host, [22:50]

• Conservative Pushback:

  • MAGA panelists contend Trump works within legal channels—even if he challenges or criticizes courts ([07:28]-[09:35], [14:42]-[15:53])
  • Multiple point to the high number of court cases Trump has lost as proof he's abiding by due process ([14:42], [22:40])
  • "That’s not someone who doesn’t follow the legal process. That’s somebody that shows up to court 250 different times and loses and goes through the process in the legal system as it’s designed." — Debater 4 (Marty), [14:53]

• Double Standards Debate:

  • Discussion highlights how both parties have officials who criticize or bend the rule of law (Obama on SCOTUS, Kamala Harris' DA/AG records, [15:19], [48:34]-[56:11])
  • Strong criticism of Kamala Harris for allegedly withholding evidence and defying court orders as California AG — leading to a meta debate on hypocrisy and lesser-evil voting ([48:34]-[59:39])

• Memorable Moment:

  • "If you are a prosecutor and you do that, you want to keep innocent people in prison, you are a disgusting person. You should forever be barred from holding office on that fact alone." — Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris), [54:25]

---

2. Immigration: Crisis, Solutions, and Assimilation

Border Policy Arguments:

• MAGA Stance:

  • "We should put missiles on top of the border. Because think about it. If you had a zero percent chance of getting across our border alive, do you think people would do it?" — Young Conservative, [04:01], [106:04]
  • Frequent claims of terrorism risks: "Data shows that over 30,000 known jihadist terrorists were smuggled in across the border during Biden administration." — Debater 2, [43:43], [75:15]
  • Assertion that open border/democratic policies are responsible for crime, loss of "American values," and overwhelmed infrastructure ([35:02]-[41:31], [47:40]-[48:29])

• Democrat Pushback:

  • Emphasizes complexity: root causes for migration, economic benefits to legal/illegal immigration, and inefficiency of simply "locking down the border" ([80:28]-[82:27])
  • "Illegal immigration is bad. Those individuals tend to get exploited. We have a shadow economy... these people are being paid pennies on the dollar." — Host, [84:14]

• Points of Pragmatic Agreement:

  • Both sides favor more immigration judges, systems for vetting, and targeted expansion of border enforcement — but clash over specifics ([62:30]-[62:38], [78:12]-[78:19])
  • Consensus that mass deportation is unfeasible and harmful to economic sectors ([88:38]-[89:31])

• Personal Stories & Nuanced Takes:

  • Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative) references his mother’s legal immigration and the value of process and vetting: "She did everything the legal way... I care about this country so much that I don't want the infrastructure to be so overwhelmed." ([82:27]-[83:37])
  • Restaurant owner: "I owned restaurants. 90% of my employees were illegal... We need some sort of policy that can be made available for those that are trying to work." ([87:53]-[88:38])

---

3. Economic Policy (Tariffs, Manufacturing, and GDP)

• Republican Case for Protectionism:

  • Trump's use of tariffs, "throwing out NAFTA," and bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. is praised ([109:36]-[113:00])
  • "The United States, and guided by Republican policy of lower taxes, lower regulation has allowed for us to become the greatest country that God has ever created. And that's just a fact." — Debater 3, [113:36]

• Liberal/Democrat Critique:

  • Argues tariffs function as a regressive tax on consumers, raise grocery/gas prices, and rarely achieve the job growth promised ([114:15]-[115:12])
  • "When you have to pay a higher price for goods at the grocery store, that's going to affect you deeply." — Host, [115:12]

• Back-and-Forth on Policy Tools:

  • Debate on using tariffs as both manufacturing stimulus and leverage in trade disputes ([116:06]-[117:12])
  • "You can’t have all these things at once. If you want tariffs because you want to reshore manufacturing, you can’t be looking to use it as a means to get countries to the table." — Host, [115:55]

---

4. Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Judicial/Court Criticism:

  • “Do you think it’s reasonable for the president of the United States to question the findings of the judiciary in such a way that shows hatred, fear, and insecurity in the minds of the average American?” — Host, [10:32]
  • “He personally in his feelings does not like the ruling, but he did not overstep it. He didn’t full Andrew Jackson and make..." — Debater 3, [10:42]

• On Immigration Solutions:

  • Host: "If you're working a job, it's clear you have good intentions and you produce over a trillion dollars in economic output. We've already run up deficits, why not make more revenue?" [87:31]
  • Debater 2: "If we just let any single person from Afghanistan come in a mass influx, ... do you want those people coming into our country?" [79:14]

• On Political Violence and Hypocrisy:

  • Host: "We both agree political violence is bad in America… And I think that’s wrong." [117:26], [118:38]
  • Debater 1: “Those who choose the lesser of two evils forget that they still choose evil.” [57:32]

• On Policy Contradictions:

  • Host: “Republican policy is free markets… It’s being careful… So how’s a tariff not intervention?” [113:47]
  • Debater 3: “That’s why I said Republican policy has changed.” [113:54]

---

5. Structure & Tone

• Tone alternates between adversarial, sarcastic, and occasionally productive. Host regularly checks guest claims for evidence and clarifies positions.
• The episode features bouts of shouting, accusations of hypocrisy, and some personal insults, but also moments of candor and points of consensus, especially around complex problems like immigration and economic transition.

---

Important Timestamps

• Rule of Law Debate Opens: [03:20]
• Trump and Court Orders: [10:02]-[11:49]
• Conservatives Praise Trump's Compliance: [14:42]-[15:53], [22:40]
• Kamala Harris’ Track Record Challenged: [48:02]-[59:39]
• First Heated Immigration Exchange: [33:21]
• Restaurant Owner Explains Shadow Economy: [87:53]-[88:38]
• Republican Economic Policy Arguments: [109:36]-[113:36]
• Tariffs and Protectionism Debate: [114:15]-[117:20]
• Final Consensus on Political Violence: [117:26]-[118:38]

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a rare, raw look at the major ideological divides shaping U.S. politics post-2024: the rule of law under Trump, the persistent culture war on immigration, and the new economic fault lines between protectionism and free market orthodoxy. While the debate is often fiery and personal, it also surfaces the core questions facing American democracy and society. Listeners seeking civil back-and-forth or clear answers may find the episode frustrating, but those interested in the real temperature and complexity of public discourse will find this a revealing, sometimes uncomfortable, snapshot of the nation's conversation.

---

Host’s Final Takeaway:
“We both agree political violence is bad in America… everyone should condemn it on all sides.” — Host, [118:38]

Transcript

[Sean Kelly]

Hey everyone, Sean Kelly here. Let's talk about something crucial. Your data. It's out there and it's constantly under threat. Traditional tools, they just don't cut it anymore. They're slow, complex and a real hassle to manage, especially when things go south. That's exactly why you need to know about Cohesity Data Cloud. It's a game changer. Imagine having an AI powered platform that not only protects and secures your data, but also unlocks valuable insights. With Cohesity, you can detect threats faster using cutting edge AI and automation. And if disaster does strike, you're looking at recovery times in hours, not days. This isn't just about reacting, it's about building resilience. Interested in stepping up your data game? Head over to cohesity.com data cloud. Remember, with Cohesity, it's resilience everywhere.

[Dish Network Advertiser]

Tired of overpaying with DirecTV? Dish offers a reliable low price every month without surprises. Get the TV you love and start watching live sports news and the latest movies, plus your favorite streaming apps all in one place. Switch to Dish today and lock in the lowest price in satellite TV starting at $89.99 a month with our two year price guarantee. Call 888 add dish or visit dish.com today.

[Host/Interviewer]

All new drinks are now at McDonald's with refreshers like the Strawberry Watermelon Refresher and the Mango Pineapple Refresher with Popping Boba to crafted sodas Sprite Berry Blast with berry flavors and cold foam. Who knew ice cold drinks could be so fire? Try them all now at McDonald's. Refreshers contain caffeine. Copyright 2026 the Coca Cola Company Sprite is a registered trademark of the Coca

[Advertisement Voice]

Cola Company There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. Stand still. Not a chance. You're a lifelong learner who's come this far. Now we are here to help you keep going further. Capella University what can't you do? Visit capella.edu to learn more.

[Sean Kelly]

I feel like a lot of people just accepted getting ripped off by their bank. Monthly fees, overdraft fees, ATM fees. Like why are you paying money just to use your own money? That's why Chime caught my attention. Chime is changing the way people bank. With fee free banking built for you, not the bank. No overdraft fees, no monthly fees and access to thousands of fee free ATMs. Honestly, the benefits are kind of stacked. With direct deposit, Chime members can get up to $1,150 in annual rewards be free. You could get 5% cash back on things you already spend money on like gas and groceries. Plus savings that grow faster with 3.75% APY. That's way above the national average. They've also got Spot Me which lets you overdraft up to $200 fee free and real customer support 24. 7 actual humans. My younger self would definitely benefited from something like this. Chime is not just smart banking. It's the most rewarding way to bank. Join the millions who are already banking fee free today. Head to chime.com that's chime.com dsh it only takes a few minutes to sign up.

[Advertisement Voice]

Chime is a fintech not a bank. Banking services for MyPay and ChimeCard provided by Chime's bank partners. Optional products and services may have fees or charges. Stated annual percentage yield on cash back for Chime prime only. No minimum balance required. Checking account ranking based on a J.D. power survey published October 20, 2025. For more information on APY rates, MyPay, Spot Me and travel perks go to Chime.com disclosures Would you have voted for

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

no, you wouldn't have voted for anyone.

[Host/Interviewer]

Trump like he's better. He tried to overthrow the government in 2020. He believes anybody discretion to do whatever he wants like go to war in Iran. Like impose tariffs that are going to impact the regressive tax. Like I don't know, coming after states that he doesn't like either. Targeting ActBlue, targeting nonprofits, targeting anyone, James Comey, all these individuals. Because at the end of the day the law, it doesn't matter to Donald Trump. What matters is doing whatever the he

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

wants is going to be very important. Data shows that over 30,000 known jihadist terrorists were smuggled in across the border during Biden administration. They're strategically placed around critical infrastructure in the country right now.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Hold on.

[Host/Interviewer]

So that's the best?

[Young Conservative Participant]

Yeah. Like we should put like missiles on top of the border. Because think about it. If you had a zero percent chance of getting across our border alive, do you think people would do it?

[Host/Interviewer]

What does he mean when he says that he who saves his country breaks no law?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

You know that's not for me to opine about.

[Host/Interviewer]

Oh really? When JD Vance is like you dropped a ruling, lets you enforce it, what does that mean? That means you have no respect forever

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

be barred from holding office on that fact alone. Then you couple it with what she did as the attorney General.

[Host/Interviewer]

My name is David Mauricio and my first prompt is Republicans and Trump fail to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Gotcha. How you doing? What's your name?

[Young Conservative Participant]

Good.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Marty.

[Host/Interviewer]

Nice to meet you, Marty.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Thank you.

[Host/Interviewer]

So you believe that they follow the law. Am I. Is that correct?

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

It's a very vague statement.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, it's just going to be abiding by the amendments. The negative rights given to the American people ensure the government does not trample over those rights respecting doctrines like the separation of powers, et cetera, which Trump administration has violated numerous times. If you'd like me to give you examples. Okay. Yeah. So when it comes to the First Amendment, they've targeted law firms that have worked with litigants in the past that they do not personally like. A great example is Perkins Coy, who did the second round of contrary research during the 2016 campaign. They facilitated it Steele dossier on behalf of Fusion gps, and for that reason, they were targeted in the future. It was already ruled upon, by the way. It's currently going through appeal, but ruled that their first, fifth and sixth amendments were violated. Adjudicated, brother.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Well, first, I'd say you said that he didn't like. Yeah, I don't know if it's a matter of not liking them. Like, if you commit a crime and the police catch you doing that. Yeah, you could say, well, I don't like the police because they caught me. But there is real crimes done by these law firms. The law fair is huge.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, I don't know if I necessarily agree with that statement, but, yeah, there is a legal procedure, and usually it's a judge that makes that determination. But the Trump administration handed down punishments without any judicial intervention, which was the violation of law.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Right.

[Host/Interviewer]

They were targeted for their viewpoints. The fact that they work with litigants that he didn't like, like Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and also like Barn Access Counsel, like essentially shunning them from all federal places of work. So I feel like that's kind of doing the role of a judge, right? Yeah.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

I just don't know if it went down like that.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay. What instances of violation that the Democrats blame the Trump administration for? You aware of?

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Well, there's a ton of them. You see. You see it daily.

[Host/Interviewer]

Daily every president.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

What's that?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, sorry, I misunderstood what you said. What specifically? So what instances of lawfare are you referring to? At least in his second term,

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

lawfare that was done against on.

[Host/Interviewer]

On Democrats is a means to discredit the Trump administration and blame them for just filing the rule of law.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Well, on a daily basis in their news, MSNBC or whatever. Ms. Now cnn, it's gets a continual dialogue that way.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. And I recognize that the media is going to make accusations. It just, it's whether or not that's adjudicated.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Right.

[Host/Interviewer]

That's why it has to be seen in the courts, which is why I brought you represent you with an example of a case that's sort of been ruled upon. How's it going? You got to tell me your name again. I'm bad with names.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Yeah, you're good. I am.

[Host/Interviewer]

Dorian. Nice to meet you, Dorian. Nice to meet you. Okay. I'm assuming you think that they are upholding the law and the Constitution, correct?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Pretty well, I'd say, yeah.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

And one of my main points for this is that Trump has had a very good record with Supreme Court injunctions, petitions. I mean, he's petitioned the Supreme Court and he's won more petitions than Obama, more than Biden, and he's had some really massive rulings. We have, we had casa, which showed that limited national, nationwide injunctions. We had Trump the United States, which is an amazing landmark ruling that defines separation of powers. So it seems like Trump's actually been on the other side where people have been using the law to persecute him and limit his mandate of power. Yes.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay, so what about the recent case? Re invoked IUPA as a means to grant himself emergency terror powers. What did the court say there?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Again, like every Presidential Guard ruling, every president has had the Supreme Court rule against them.

[Host/Interviewer]

I recognize that. Yeah.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

But it doesn't necessarily mean that you are not upholding the law. It just means you have a different legal interpretation.

[Host/Interviewer]

I, I think that's. I think that opens the door for a lot of abuse. I don't think every instance of them invoking a statute on the books to do a particular thing can just be treated as testing out a novel legal theory. These things are relatively clear in the case of the National Guard deployment. Posse Comitatus is relatively clear as a federal statute. Them commandeering states, militias. I mean, it's a state's rights issue. I agree that presidents have cases go up to the Supreme Court when it comes to their policy, but this could be on trivial issues like Joe Biden being able to forgive student loan debt, not whether or not the president can deploy the National Guard on Democrat states because he doesn't like what they're doing. He doesn't like the fact that citizens are protesting ice or the governor doesn't like his policy. Right.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

I mean, what you consider to be trivial. What I consider to be trivial will Differ, and everyone in this room will differ. So it's not really for you to say what is trivial or not. And secondly, if it was just a novel legal theory, then most of these rulings would be 9, 0. But there's a lot of judges who do agree with him. And you can say, well, it's politicized. But I have more faith in the court than that. I have more honor in the court than to believe that the court's been politicized to do.

[Host/Interviewer]

Donald Trump doesn't.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Well, no, he does. The court is filled with very serious people. Whether they've been appointed by Biden, whether they've been appointed by Trump, whether they've been appointed by Bush. They're filled with serious lawyers. And these lawyers, some of them may not the majority, but some of them do agree with Trump. And I think that these lawyers agreeing with Trump proves that Trump had some sort of a ground to, to do these actions may have not been the right decision, but there had. But there was a reasonable pretext to do so.

[Host/Interviewer]

So when I say Donald Trump doesn't respect the court, I'm going to give you an example. Regardless of whether or not there's conservatives that align on him on a myriad of issues, is regardless. Right. In spite of that, when he was in front of Congress for his address to a joint session, the Supreme Court was there and it was following the tariff ruling. He called them out in front of the entire nation because they did something he didn't like. Whenever judges rule against him, regardless of what president appointed them, what does he call him?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Right. No, that's true.

[Host/Interviewer]

What does he call him?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

I'm some sort of activist.

[Host/Interviewer]

Judges. Right, Right. Do you think it's reasonable for the president of the United States to question the findings of the judiciary in such a way that shows hatred, fear and insecurity in the minds of the average American?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Listen, you're saying that he failed to uphold the Constitution. He personally in his feelings, does not like the ruling, but he did not overstep it. He didn't full Andrew Jackson and make.

[Host/Interviewer]

And funny you mentioned that.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Yeah. And make it so that the Supreme Court had to use their own enforcement mechanism.

[Host/Interviewer]

What is, what does he mean when he says that he who saves his country breaks no law?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

You know, that's not for me to opine about.

[Host/Interviewer]

Oh, really? When J.D. vance is like, you dropped a ruling, lets you enforce it, what does that mean?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

That.

[Host/Interviewer]

That means you have no respect for the Constitution. Right.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

The findings, they didn't actually do anything

[Host/Interviewer]

contrary to the order Court Orders all the time. Following Operation Metro Surge, a federal judge like spoke out and said they ignored over 96 court orders.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

And which quarters were those?

[Host/Interviewer]

I can't tell you specifics, but I do know the Alien Enemies act, deportations, they ignore those. A DOJ whistleblower actually came out and said that. The deputy attorney general at the time, Emile Beauvais, said that we need prepare to tell the court, fuck you. They were ready for an injunction. They're ready for the courts to enjoin their ability to deport these people in no due process. And they still did it to the labor camp.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

They have not, to my knowledge, they have not done anything that's actually reversed or disobeyed a court order. And as I mentioned, what was that? And I also want to bring this back to Democrats. We're talking about Trump a lot. The Democrats, they failed to uphold the rule of law. They let that poor Ukrainian refugee get murdered after the ban, had prior convictions. There's been a myriad of cases of Democrats in George Soros funded prosecutors letting these violent criminals off the streets. And that to me, is not upholding the rule of law. I don't think anyone in this room would agree that. Upholding the rule of law.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. In the case of the man that murdered Irina Zarudska. And just really quick, I want to establish this. If the Democrats are doing something wrong, I know everybody here is going to believe that they break the rule of law, that they cheat. Donald Trump calls them cheaters all the time. He said the only way they can win is cheating. Does that make it right to cheat? Does that make it right to ignore the rule of law?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Does that make it right for the Democrats to cheat?

[Host/Interviewer]

Of course not.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

No, I don't believe that.

[Host/Interviewer]

I hold that principle for both parties and you should as well. So whenever I'm making an argument, you shouldn't say, let's talk about the Democrats instead, because then this is a country of laws, rules, democracy, institutions. It should stay that way. If you agree, then we probably should move on. But I just want to get that out. In the case of the man that murdered Irina Zarudska, it was a murder, by the way. I don't think it was like a. He was totally justified to kill some innocent woman for no reason. What were any of the charges that he went to jail for previously? I was jail for armed robbery.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Is that correct?

[Host/Interviewer]

And should he receive like a life sentence? Should he be there for the rest of his life?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Well, there's a felony murder rule, and I don't know if he killed anyone. But if. If he was charged with felony murder, go away for a pretty long time.

[Host/Interviewer]

I mean, what was he. What was he charged with? Essentially? Because a lot of times I see this with gripers, too. They bring up an instance of a minority that committed a crime, and they're going to show a list of previous offenses. It's going to be something along the lines of robbery, for example, maybe arson, maybe shoplifting. And they're going to say the. The system failed. I mean, we're also a system of reasonable punishments. I know we remember what amendment that's from. Right. So one of the worst. You can't just put people in jail forever. Right. You can't also expect to know what crimes they're going to commit. Right.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

But there's a lot of cases in which these people. I mean, there's also the New York no cash bail rule. These are just laws that endanger the

[Host/Interviewer]

community because bail is only granted after the determination that the individual is not going to pose a threat or stay within that given jurisdiction. Right.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

No, I. I think that the.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

The.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Yes, the court does determine that if the bail can be given, if they're not identity society, but the standard still gets lowered because we're still having no cash bail. You're still allowing people to serve probation for very serious felonies and for violent armed robbery. It should be a really long time prison, probably about 20 years. And when you release these people that early, it endangers the community and you

[Host/Interviewer]

fail to uphold the rule of law. Okay, thank you so much. I don't know if you want to shake hands. I have clammy hands, so it's up to you. Thank you, man. Nice to meet you, man. Nate. Got it. I remember that one. Yeah.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

So.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

So my. My point is this. Do you follow a litigation tracker?

[Host/Interviewer]

Not for all cases, no. Okay.

[Young Conservative Participant]

So.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

But that's run by NYU professor. It's not very friendly to jump. That shows They've won about 126 court cases to date. And he's lost. He's lost more than he's won. He's lost 250.

[Host/Interviewer]

A lot of cases. Yeah, right.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

That's not someone who doesn't follow the legal process. That's somebody that shows up to court 250 different times and loses and goes through the process in the legal system as it's designed. Another point you brought up was the judges and criticizing the rulings of the Supreme Court. I think that that's called democracy. And you're allowed to disagree and not necessarily respect Every decision that the Supreme Court has.

[Host/Interviewer]

I agree. Yeah.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Obama has criticized them at the State

[Host/Interviewer]

of the Union address right in front

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

of them, directly in front of them. Yet Biden called a decision destabilizing that the Supreme Court made. So there's been disagreements in the past. I don't think that necessarily means that Trump is or ends administration is above the law.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

And then the same thing with the economic, the International Emergency Economic Powers act, they did rule against that, but the ruling was not that he couldn't do it. It was that that particular statute didn't apply.

[Host/Interviewer]

Grant them the power. Yeah.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

To the tariffs.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Four days later they complied. And they've already been processing refunds.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

You know, and now he's looking into, I think it's 122 or he's looking at different alternative methods. This is not somebody that doesn't follow the law. This is someone that fights for his principles and is willing to use the legal systems available and take the legal channels available to fight for the American people, because that's what a leader does.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's funny. So when you're in court because you are discriminating against individuals after signing executive order 14161 targeting people for, I guess pro Palestinian speech is the way it was applied in practice, is that a novel legal theory or is the issue the fact they're violating individual civil liberties?

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

I'd have to look into that particular case. But what I would say is that there are, there are types of speech that just aren't allowed. You can't scream fire in a, you know, in a computer support Gaza pro Palestinian. It's very vague and I'd really like to hear the justification and the rationale behind that.

[Host/Interviewer]

Because there must be individuals like they targeted. For example, Mahmoud Khalil, who was a legal permanent resident green card here for a long time, a family and everything black bagged off the street. They had no cause, no real evidence, tenuous at best that this man was providing material support to Hamas. It was just the fact that he was pro Palestinian. And there's also a maze, ostrich lists of other individuals that were also targeted for the same thing. So while you say he and she shows up to court. I recognize that, but what are you showing up to court for? The all the numerous lawsuits and whatever else, like deploying the National Guard against Democrat states, like depriving individuals of their first.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

That shows he's pro law enforcement because by doing so he's enforcing the rule of law, which the Democrat governors refuse to do. In their own cities.

[Host/Interviewer]

If you're pro law enforcement, you invest in law enforcement, you ensure that all these officers have everything they need to do their job to the best of their abilities. But he didn't do that. For example, in the case of Operation Metro Surge, the number of ICE agents deployed, like, greatly overpowered the local municipal police department. 3,000 to 400.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Maybe they weren't doing their job.

[Host/Interviewer]

Oh, okay. So are we back in the blue or the blue? Not back in the blue. Why was it back in us?

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Well, that's why we're increasing the amount of law enforcement officials. ICE is official law enforcement.

[Host/Interviewer]

We absolutely backed. ICE is not going to show up to cities hundreds of miles away from the border with the intention of doing roving patrols and picking anybody up because they sound like they're Mexican.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Let me just say this. We were pro enforcing the law. And so just because you're an officer doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing your job or that you're even following the law.

[Host/Interviewer]

Typically, court doesn't mean somebody's solving a dispute of just a differing opinion as to what a statute entails. It's harm being done and the court deciding to provide them a remedy. So those violations, when ruled upon and determined, the executive is operating outside of the constraints that they're in. According to Article 2, that's not a good thing. That means you broke the law and it was determined by a judge that you did so. Right?

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Well, not necessarily, because that's not what

[Host/Interviewer]

lower courts get rule overruled all the time, regardless. But at the end of the day. Hold on, hold on. Regardless of whether or not that's the case, that does not mean that you ignore a ruling. Right. You follow it up until that was already higher jurisdiction. We follow until a court of higher jurisdiction overrules that one or stays a particular order.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Well, what I would like to say is that the numbers don't lie.

[Advertisement Voice]

Your home holds the story of your life. Renewal by Andersen. Windows are built to weather every season with you. They frame the little moments and the big ones, from first steps to graduation

[Host/Interviewer]

to new beginnings.

[Advertisement Voice]

While life keeps moving our window stand strong through every chapter. Let Renewal by Anderson be part of your story. Windows Built to last. Visit renewalbyandersonhome.com to learn more.

[Dish Network Advertiser]

Tired of overpaying with DirecTV? Dish offers a reliable low price every month without surprises. Get the TV you love and start watching live sports news and the latest movies, plus your favorite streaming apps, all in one place. Switch to Dish today and lock in the lowest price in satellite TV starting at $89.99 a month with our two year price guarantee. Call 888 add dish or visit dish.com today.

[Host/Interviewer]

The new Strawberry Watermelon Refresher is now at McDonald's. It's made with strawberries and a whole lot of whimsy. It's one of many new drinks now at McDonald's. Refreshers contain caffeine.

[Sean Kelly]

I feel like a lot of people just accepted getting ripped off by their bank. Monthly fees, overdraft fees, ATM fees. Like why are you paying just to use your own money? That's why Chime caught my attention. Chime is changing the way people bank with fee free banking built for you, not the bank. No overdraft fees, no monthly fees and access to thousands of fee free ATMs. Honestly, the benefits are kind of stacked. With direct deposit, Chime members can get up to $1150 in annual rewards fee free. You could get 5% cash back on things you already spend money on like gas and groceries, plus savings that grow faster with 3.75 APY. That's way above the national average. They've also got Spot Me which lets you overdraft up to 200 fee free and real customer support 24. 7 actual humans. My younger self would definitely benefited from something like this. Chime is not just smarter banking. It's the most rewarding way to bank join the millions who are already banking fee free today. Head to chime.comDSH that's chime.comDSH it only takes a few minutes to sign up.

[Advertisement Voice]

Chime is a fintech, not a bank. Banking services from MyPay and Chime Card provided by Chimes Bank Partners. Optional products and services may have fees or charges. Stated annual percentage yield and cash back for Chime prime only. No minimum balance required. Checking account ranking based on the J.D. power survey published October 20, 2025. For more information on APY rates, my pay Spot Me and travel Perks, go to Chime.com disclosures.

[Sean Kelly]

You've got weight loss goals, but hitting them is another story. If you want to know what's really worth your time when it comes to losing weight, skip the guesswork and get weight loss by hims. It's designed to support you in losing the weight and keeping it off and HIMS now offers access to an affordable range of FDA approved GLP1 medications including the WeGovy pill and the WeGovy pen, plus lifestyle tips to support you along the way. With WeGovy at Hims, you can lose up to 20% or more of your body weight. When combined with diet and exercise, it helps you regulate your appetite and eat less though success is within reach. Plus, WeGovy is the first GLP1 pillar, so there are no needles needed. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.comDSH to get a personalized affordable plan that gets you. That's H I M S.comDSH hims.comDSH Weight loss by hims is not available in all 50 states. WeGovy is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk as to get started and learn more, including important safety information, WeGovy clinical study information and restrictions, visit IMS.com TRUMP.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

You know, Trump has showed up again. Lost more than 250 times because he broke the law.

[Host/Interviewer]

250 times?

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

No. Just because you don't agree with the law or the interpretation doesn't mean he broke the law.

[Host/Interviewer]

He doesn't agree with the interpretation. Whenever he talks about these things, he's mad. He doesn't have the power. He believes anybody, anybody discretion to do whatever he wants, like go to war in Iran, like impose tariffs that are going to impact the average American's regressive tax. Like, I don't know, coming after states that he doesn't like either. Targeting Act Blue, targeting nonprofits, targeting James Comey, all these individuals. Because at the end of the day, the law, it doesn't matter to Donald Trump. What matters is doing whatever the fuck you want. What matters, the person you want in office. Right.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

What matters is improving the quality of life here in the United States.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. And he's still Donald Trump is a fighter.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

And you know, at the end of the day, the people who voted him in don't want him to quit. And we support the ongoing fight.

[Host/Interviewer]

Listen, thank you for being nice, but the short term pain hurts a little too much. Okay.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

But you got, you need short term pain for long term growth.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay, I'll see about that one. We'll see about that one. Nice to meet you, bro.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Short your peak long term group.

[Host/Interviewer]

I like that you're running for state or federal?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

State.

[Host/Interviewer]

State assembly, District. State assembly, yes. Nice, nice to meet you. It's a pleasure to meet your name again, Joseph Shirafi. Joseph, so I'm assuming you believe they follow the rule of law in the

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Constitution, you know, as being potus. It is a hard job. So I'm not going to pretend here that he's a saint and that he's done everything correct and we're going to sit here and make everybody happy. In this conversation, however, just like you've pointed out.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yes.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

There's been a number of different cases that we've brought to the table. And he's still here. He's won one before.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Election.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yep.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

And then he's won again.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Now are these elections, are they fake?

[Host/Interviewer]

No, he believes they are. So there's people.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Well, I don't know if he believes they are.

[Host/Interviewer]

Every single election he's participated in, he says it was rigged.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

I think that's opinionated. I don't think he's going to say that the, the one that he won is fake. That's wrong.

[Host/Interviewer]

He believes that he won in 2024 as well, but it was just too big to get.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Slow down.

[Dish Network Advertiser]

All right?

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Slow down. Do you think that he actually mind. I'm sorry, you think he won the election or no?

[Host/Interviewer]

Do you think he thinks he won? I think the American people.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

I think he believes that the election process that happened in 2025 was, was a good deal for him. Right. So now let's talk about the President's job. The job of the President is to govern the whole nation.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Yes.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Right. The. The job is to help us get into a position where we profit and that our communities and families can thrive. Right.

[Host/Interviewer]

Totally agree.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

And that's what he ran on. And that's why I voted for him. And that's why I believed him.

[Host/Interviewer]

And you know, because let me level with you.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

The moments that he, he took and he actually grandstand and made everybody feel happy and funny and warm, but he was actually pounding on great ideas that we needed as Americans at the time.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. You know what, let me level with you.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

I do think he does follow the rules of law.

[Host/Interviewer]

We're not talking about the rule of law right now. We're talking about your feelings with respect to his policy. And I actually agree. A lot of the American people were under the impression that regardless of how vulgar he was, his policy was designed to make their lives better. Tariffs are going to reshore manufacturing. There's going to be a short term level of pain. And at the end of the day, we have hundreds of thousands of jobs for blue collar workers or anybody that doesn't want to go to college. That didn't happen. So hold on. He said he was going to secure the border. What's a single bill that he's passed to secure the border and bring about decade long comprehensive change?

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Well, I'll tell you, I've been to no palace. I've been to the border. I've seen the actual border.

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on. You're not answering the question.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

I've talked to contractors that are actually being paid in order to build this. Now being a part of a non profit, now being a part of a non profit that counters child trafficking, we understand that the border was the most vulnerable part for these children to come in and to be taken advantage of and to be vulnerable. Yeah, that has stopped a huge amount during the Biden administration. It was flooded, open, all these kids were coming in. Over 300,000 kids just reported were going into the American United States with no, no documentation, no nothing.

[Host/Interviewer]

They were documented.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

And this is the, this was the last point of, of entry where they were able to get stopped. And no, you can't say that all these children were documented.

[Host/Interviewer]

That is very offended. Given away to family members, et like verified.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

You're going to tell me as a, the president, I'm not going to let

[Host/Interviewer]

you get away from what I said.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

No, no. As a child trafficking advocate, you're going to tell me that you know the numbers better than me, that you're saying all 300 children of these children.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

I'm not offended.

[Host/Interviewer]

How do you have a number, thousand

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

of these children were all documented.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm just trying to get you on what you have a question. How do you have a number from

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

different organizations that work with the government?

[Host/Interviewer]

So not the federal government themselves?

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Yes, of course, the federal government.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay, so they have a number of a certain, a certain amount.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Absolutely.

[Host/Interviewer]

Which means what, that they have a

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

limited record number of doctrinal abuse. Yeah, but that's only a, that's a little percentage of what we think.

[Host/Interviewer]

There's more children. Millions.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

There is definitely hundreds of thousands of children. If the, if the record is 300,000 guaranteed, it's at least double that because they don't report.

[Host/Interviewer]

And you know what, you know what, that's scary. And child trafficking is terrible. So what's the bill that Donald Trump's introduced to tackle it?

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

I am telling you that he has been brought the border under control. He's secured the border. I've seen it myself. Look, I've been to Washington. I've actually delegated for the Dignity act to try to get people to have amnesty, to be able to be here so that they can work here and, and, and pay and live under the rule of law. Okay, I've been to the border. I've seen no gollas. I've seen straight up open desert where people can only get by through a, through the, what do they call those, those big giant spikes that they used to put on the Beaches, you know, that was the only thing that was covering it. People can walk right through there. There is now a border being built, a road. We never had a road going from the west to the east through that area. Now we do because of what he's done. So whether you want to say it's a bill or not, his initiatives, his litigation has put it to that area where we can now actually say, hey, something's getting done.

[Host/Interviewer]

So I appreciate the monologue, but it was just to prove that, well, he failed in that promise.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

He didn't.

[Host/Interviewer]

The other one was no new wars. What happened there?

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

No new wars. I agree that we needed to fight and say, hey, no new wars to get into the White House. And when you get into the White House, you have a whole new perspective of what happens. You can run all you want and say, I'm running my campaign on this and this and that. When you get in there and you're dealing with a flock of 10 to 20 year old litigators that have been in there that are telling you this and you're trying to find the best way to get around. Yeah, you might make some sticky situation,

[Host/Interviewer]

drag us into some wars. Yes.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

I'm definitely not going to sit and say that I'm pro war, so.

[Host/Interviewer]

But I can address the immigration president

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

is one of the hardest jobs in the world and I don't think you would want to be that right now.

[Host/Interviewer]

Fuck no. Definitely not. Which is why I don't think Donald Trump's well fit for the job when he's falling asleep in the Oval Office. Well, that's besides the point.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

The, the American people think that he

[Host/Interviewer]

is because he made you feel nice. Polling is pretty bad because he ran

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

on great principles that I agreed on

[Host/Interviewer]

and he's failed to do provide in every single.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Not fail to provide in everyone.

[Host/Interviewer]

We've lost a million jobs and in this. That is not true.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

We have not lost a million jobs.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yes. Okay.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

If anything, we've actually gained jobs that were lost from 30 years of free negotiating with China that hollowed out American jobs.

[Host/Interviewer]

The manufacturer brought those back here down. The manufacturer.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Let's not slow down.

[Host/Interviewer]

Let's up a little bit. Come on, dude. Okay, listen, I know you want to be emotional, but let's facts don't care about your feelings. Okay. The manufacturing sector has not grown.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

It hasn't.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay. What's that really?

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

So electric technology.

[Host/Interviewer]

Electric vehicles, general spending on manufacturing

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

technology. Silicon Valley, like making deals with Saudi Arabia to.

[Host/Interviewer]

So that we can get trillions of dollars off here. Let's control ourselves. Manufacturing off bills with the homeboy over here. Manufacturing spending on. On construction has been in a free fall since Donald Trump assumed because the terrorists needed to get through a proving point.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Right.

[Host/Interviewer]

We haven't. We said this two years ago.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

We said it was going to go high. We all know this. And it was going to drop because he was bluffing people.

[Host/Interviewer]

And the bluff worked.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

75% of different countries.

[Host/Interviewer]

You need to come.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

They went to it.

[Host/Interviewer]

You need to calm down right now.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Slow down.

[Host/Interviewer]

Listen. So if manufacturing spending, construction spending is down in a free fall, over 100,000 manufacturing jobs lost specifically. And you mentioned AI new jobs being created.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Yes.

[Host/Interviewer]

Not because of Trump.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Yes, absolutely.

[Host/Interviewer]

Because what, Bill?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Because.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Okay, you want to talk about the bills? Let's talk about the news lines and getting trillions of dollars donated to America.

[Host/Interviewer]

That's not showing up in the foreign direct investment numbers. That's not showing up.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Biden show up and did he get anybody to actually believe in America?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

No.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Everybody started hating America because everybody.

[Host/Interviewer]

True. That's.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

We know that's true. Kamala Harris would have got in there. They would have taken advantages of even further.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Now am I saying he's made every right decision? I don't think that's even possible for a human, because he's a human. But I do believe that if we put Kamala Harris in there, we would be way worse off.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay. So I believe that Joe Biden did a really bad job messaging to the average American. I can give you that. I think a bad job standing up

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

for America in general.

[Host/Interviewer]

Donald Trump walks with a stanky leg, bro.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

I'm not even talking about walking. I'm talking about. He didn't go in and stand up

[Host/Interviewer]

for us as a leader.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

He let people run all over us.

[Host/Interviewer]

When Stephen Miller presents it with an executive order, he's like, which upset. When Stephen, he's like, oh, we're gonna kill everybody, Bill. And he's like, oh, that's a good one. I heard about that. He doesn't even know what he presented. Look, I love your impression.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

The impression is that too. It's a little terrible.

[Host/Interviewer]

I honestly think mine's a little better. It's okay to have a good one.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

It's the best, actually. If you've ever asked if you get

[Host/Interviewer]

the same things Donald Trump is good at, I don't know, talking on microphone. He's not good at being president. Look, in the same way that you're not good at doing a Trump oppression.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

If we were going to say that morality was the. That Was you have to be 100% morality. The 100% correct. Let's, let's just blow everyone out of the water because nobody could do that.

[Host/Interviewer]

Exactly.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

So he's a person.

[Host/Interviewer]

So let's talk about him like the person king. Let's put him in therapy.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

I wouldn't say he's a king. I definitely wouldn't say he's.

[Host/Interviewer]

Let's put him in therapy. You know, maybe he needs some counseling. Maybe he's just like, he gets mad sometimes. He just wants to.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

All right, let me ask you a

[Host/Interviewer]

question because I think six members of

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Congress, I think, I think we're boring everybody here. Let me ask you a question. Do you think that immigration should be enforced?

[Host/Interviewer]

So prompt two is about immigration. Sir. I'm just asking him, you know what? Nobody. The rule of law. That's a great point. Immigration should be enforced. Donald Trump's not enforcing immigration law. Okay. He's violating the. How do you think he's not violating the ina? Showing up to courthouses to pick people up, pressuring judges to drop those cases that was ruled. Okay. Do you think ice, he deployed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Minnesota with cbp, Customs and Border Protection. I remember the southern border. Minnesota, I live in Minnesota. I thought it was Texas. Minnesota borders Mexico. I forgot my bad issue on geography. He deployed them to do what? Curtail individuals first amendment rights. Kill two American citizens, Go to schools, pick up kids, five year old children pending asylum orders with no order for removal. So did Donald Trump.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Donald Trump. Donald Trump said that.

[Host/Interviewer]

Donald Trump said. No, it's not what he said, it's what he did.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

So.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Because you're feeding me what I fed you, so I'm going to give it back to you.

[Host/Interviewer]

Donald Trump said a million, a million things to humanize your.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Trump did not say go out there and kill little kids.

[Host/Interviewer]

Thank you.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Okay. He didn't say go out there and kill him.

[Host/Interviewer]

Right.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

He did send people to California because there was some craziness going on in California. Their directives are illegal and we know that California.

[Host/Interviewer]

You heard about the Todd lines.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

One of the worst proponents, one of the worst.

[Host/Interviewer]

What I was, I was in L. A yesterday. Immigrants. So as a Nevadan, I knew just the eye test.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

We don't want California to come to Nevada, plain and simple.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

And you know what? We'll say that. I'll say this in final running. Trump is not perfect. However, he has been a proponent of fighting against child trafficking. So I respect that aspect and I hope that we can still fight and save a lot of these children I know that are getting abused.

[Host/Interviewer]

I like that. I love that you mentioned that. So there's a guy named Jeffrey Epstein and it says the rule of law right here. There was A ad passed 177 days ago called the Epstein Transparency act. And the deadline to submit the Attorney General Pam Bondi now.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Oh, the X. Yeah.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, no, not Pam Bondi. I wonder why Was forced to submit the documents 146 days ago, if I have the time. Correct. And then the current Attorney General, Todd Blamp said no more documents, although still 3 million in DOJ custody. So they're violating a federal statute meant to be transparent and open about one of the fucking countries, the world's most infamous sex offenders and child traffickers. So he's a proponent of the child trafficking. Unless we document Epson. He's a crazy guy. You know, Go ahead and talk about that guy.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You make a good point.

[Host/Interviewer]

I know. There you go. How's it going, man? Nice to meet you, Alan. So I'm assuming you disagree with the prompt. Right?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Yeah. I mean, my question to you fundamentally is, do you think. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think Biden uphold the rule of law? Do you think he enforced immigration?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, there's policies. Statutes changed in the books and he used expulsions to. Sorry, used, what's it called, Expedited removals multiple times to expel a number of illegal immigrants that came into the country illegally.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

He didn't secure the border at all. He let tons of people in illegally.

[Host/Interviewer]

So how was he let him in? Yeah, he left Biden.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

He didn't do anything to prevent them. He didn't send ice. He didn't have Border patrol.

[Host/Interviewer]

CBP exists. Yeah, that's exist.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

A lot of. A lot of Border patrol agents said that they weren't allowed to do things that they're supposed to be doing under the Biden administration.

[Host/Interviewer]

Like what?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

So how is that upholding the rule of law?

[Host/Interviewer]

Oh, sorry, I didn't hear that. Border patrol agents were barred from doing things that they're required to by law. Can you tell me?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Yeah, like putting people back, sending them back to where they came from.

[Host/Interviewer]

There were deportations under Joe Biden.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

There was very little. Okay, so they led more people in the country than any other administration. So how is that. No, how is that upholding the rule of law? So whenever Obama was. Whenever. I'm not going to slow down. Whenever Obama was in office, he deported Obama. A lot of people. Right. When Biden got in, he didn't uphold the same Rules of law that Obama, that Bush, that Trump term one had to follow. He did not do that. That was one of the reasons why he lost the election. He put Kamala Harris, as the borders are to actually enforce the law, and she failed to do that.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I mean, you're laughing, but it's reality.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's not actually reality.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

It is reality.

[Host/Interviewer]

So you told. You said that they deported very little people, but CBP wasn't allowed to deport people, so.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I didn't say they weren't allowed.

[Host/Interviewer]

I said that you did.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

No, they were highly encouraged not to. A lot of border patrol agents complained. You can listen to Tom Holman. He talks about this all the time. He was. He's been in charge of that agency under Democratic presidents and Republican presidents.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

There was a lot of pressure from the Biden administration, just like the Biden administration also pressured big tech companies to censor people on social media. So are they upholding the rule of law? Why are they putting.

[Host/Interviewer]

Which one do you want me to talk about?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

You pick my main point.

[Host/Interviewer]

Immigration or social media?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

My main point is this.

[Host/Interviewer]

You know, they're going around subpoenas. You keep discourse.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

You keep saying Trump doesn't uphold the rule of law.

[Host/Interviewer]

You keep saying tension of what unmasked. You keep saying anonymous accounts that post things about ICE that they don't like.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

You keep saying Trump, that's real legal, doesn't uphold the rule of law. As if Democrats do do that.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

When in reality, under their administrations, there's been a lot of instances which we've already went over where they're not upholding the rule of law.

[Host/Interviewer]

So Joe Biden. Wait, how many illegals came in under Joe Biden?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

They say around 20 million. That's the estimate.

[Host/Interviewer]

Who said that?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

The federal government.

[Host/Interviewer]

That's not true.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Any of the officials. Tom Holman.

[Host/Interviewer]

Donald Trump said 30. Christine Nome, under oath, said.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

He actually says 20.

[Host/Interviewer]

He cites that number, Christine Ohm under oats at 15 to 25 million. DHS prior to that, said there's 10 million encounters and those encompass individuals.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

There's a margin of error for something where you can't win million. It's between 10 and 20 million. Yeah. Yes. It's somewhere in that range. That's what even Democratic people have been saying.

[Host/Interviewer]

There's got away estimates of individuals that managed to evade cbp. Correct. And that's anywhere from two to two.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

So are you. Are you making the argument that the Biden administration handled the border well, question. It's a yes or no answer.

[Host/Interviewer]

That's a different question. Do you think they did well question of. Hold on.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Because.

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

They did not uphold the policy immigration

[Host/Interviewer]

during his administration the process uphold both the rule of law in the Constitution and they're asking me if they did an effective job at doing so. You recognize that.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Yeah.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

They fundamentally hold the law. They didn't enforce the law that's on the books.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Administrations have the ability to either enforce the law that's on the books.

[Host/Interviewer]

They cannot ignore or ignore the law.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Yes.

[Host/Interviewer]

No.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

A lack of enforcement you can rule is also like ignoring the law. You're not doing the job.

[Host/Interviewer]

Where was the.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

You were put in position the Biden

[Host/Interviewer]

administration ignore the rule of law. Can we do we have any evidence of this being the case?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

We have lots of evidence that they didn't enforce the immigration policies that had been been passed.

[Host/Interviewer]

I know that since the Clinton administration

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

recognize you but Obama enforced that. Bush enforced that Trump term. You're laughing, but it's the reality.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, it's because you're not. I asked you for evidence.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I think Obama did much better in upholding the law.

[Host/Interviewer]

Evidence.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Say the Biden administration.

[Host/Interviewer]

Evidence means examples, not you repeating what you just said. So do you have any evidence that they violated immigration? Title eight, I'm pretty sure is immigration. If I remember correctly.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

The evidence. Yeah. The evidence is all these people came in.

[Host/Interviewer]

Oh, this is the inflows. That's what it is.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Yes. Not enforcing. Deporting people. Not enforcing. Deporting criminals. Allowing criminal. Allowing illegals that have criminal records to not have to go back to where they were supposed to.

[Host/Interviewer]

Like who?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Dude, millions of them. Why is it ok, so why is that?

[Host/Interviewer]

What class? Why, why were they granted? Why is it.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Why is ICE. Why has ICE in 2025 picked up tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that were here under Biden that have criminal records crawling in that had been sitting here that had been a trap rather. No, they've been let go of.

[Host/Interviewer]

Walking in, you're like opening the door. You're going to lock yourself in a jail cell. So Immigration and Customs Enforcement has greatly changed.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

There's no Democratic leaders that think that Biden did well with the border.

[Host/Interviewer]

Listen, a lot of the. Thank you.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

We're terrible.

[Host/Interviewer]

We need to prom. We're talking about the rule of law. Okay.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I'm talking about immigration. I'm talking about enforcing the law.

[Host/Interviewer]

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has changed their tune to an illegal extent. So do you know what the Todd Lyons leak memo.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

No.

[Host/Interviewer]

They're violating the fourth Amendment. They don't look towards A judicial officer for admit, for warrants. They just look at a higher ranking ICE official to get warrants. So to enter an individual's domicile with no consent, nothing. Just barging in and breaking the fucking.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

And they're not supposed to.

[Host/Interviewer]

There is no evidence.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

If they're doing that they shouldn't.

[Host/Interviewer]

Under Joe.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

My point.

[Host/Interviewer]

There is no evidence. If the greatest displacement event.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Don't be 100 honest.

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on. No, wait.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Have had times where they violated the rule of law.

[Host/Interviewer]

The people need to know this.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Democrats. For someone that doesn't like Trump, you have to. People need to know all the time.

[Host/Interviewer]

So under. Hold on. Under Donald Trump and under Joe Biden, they oversaw the largest displacement event in the history of the Western hemisphere.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Largest displacement.

[Host/Interviewer]

The decline of Venezuela that displaced almost 7 million people. A million of which.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Why were they here to begin with?

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Why were they.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Why were they here to begin with?

[Host/Interviewer]

Slow down, Mauricio.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Why were they here to begin with?

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

They were here because Biden, right?

[Host/Interviewer]

Slow down. Listen, listen. That displacement event led to a million Venezuelans coming to America and millions going around to fellow country.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Why were they here?

[Host/Interviewer]

Because we accept refugees, bro.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

They did not come under refugee status.

[Host/Interviewer]

But there was.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Majority of. Majority of those people came.

[Host/Interviewer]

There was a caravan asylum claim.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Majority. That's not true. Majority of those people. Majority of those people came through the caravan and came into the United States and they shouldn't have been here. That's something that Biden. Biden. Let people you recognize that benefit from mental asylum clinics.

[Host/Interviewer]

You recognize that Venezuelans would have. They would have qualified for asylum, right?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Not all of them. No. There's different categories. There's the cpc.

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on. All of them did. It was a country. They did not.

[Sean Kelly]

Does it feel like your student loans are a permanent part of your life? It doesn't have to be that way. With SoFi, you can consolidate your student

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

loans and refinance with a shorter term,

[Sean Kelly]

potentially becoming debt free Sooner. Join over 580,000 members who have already refinanced their student loans with SOFI to take control of their financial future. Getting started is easier than you think. View your [e-mail] Next Today, SoFi Student loans are originated by SOFI bank in a member FDIC. Additional terms and conditions apply in MLS. 696891.

[Dish Network Advertiser]

Tired of overpaying with DirecTV? Dish offers a reliable low price every month without surprises. Get the TV you love and start watching live sports news and the latest movies, plus your favorite streaming apps all in one place. Switch to DISH today and lock in the lowest price in satellite TV starting at $89.99 a month with our two year price guarantee. Call 888 add dish or visit dish-dot com today.

[Host/Interviewer]

The new Sprite Berry Blast is here with berry flavor and cold foam. Sprite from McDonald's just got bluer, one of many new drinks now at McDonald's. Copyright 2026 the Coca Cola Company Sprite is a registered trademark of the Coca

[Sean Kelly]

Cola Company I feel like a lot of people just accepted getting ripped off by their bank. Monthly fees, overdraft fees, ATM fees. Like why are you paying money just to use your own money? That's why Chime caught my attention. Chime is is changing the way people bank with fee free banking built for you, not the bank. No overdraft fees, no monthly fees and access to thousands of fee free ATMs. Honestly, the benefits are kind of stacked. With direct deposit, Chime members can get up to $1,150 in annual rewards. Be free. You could get 5% cash back on things you already spend money on like gas and groceries, plus savings that grow faster with 3.75% APY. That's way above the national average. They've also got Spot Me which lets you overdraft up to 200 fee free and real customer support 24. 7 actual humans. My younger self would definitely benefited from something like this. Chime is not just smarter banking. It's the most rewarding way to bank. Join the millions who are already banking fee free today. Head to chime.comDSH that's chime.comDSH it only takes takes a few minutes to sign up.

[Advertisement Voice]

Chime is a fintech not a bank. Banking services for MyPay and Chime Card provided by Chimes Bank Partners. Optional products and services may have fees or charges, stated annual percentage yield and cash back for Chime prime only. No minimum balance required. Checking account ranking based on the J.D. power survey published October 20, 2025. For more information on APY rates, my pay Spot me and travel Perks, go to Chime.com disclosures.

[Sean Kelly]

You've got weight loss goals, but hitting them is another story. If you want to know what's really worth your time when it comes to losing weight, skip the guesswork and get weight loss by hims. It's designed to support you in losing the weight and keeping it off and HIMS now offers access to an affordable range of FDA approved GLP1 medications including the WeGovy pill and the WeGovy pen plus lifestyle tips to support you along the way. With WeGovy at HIMS, you can lose up to 20% or more of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise. It helps you regulate your appetite and eat less, so success is within reach. Plus, WeGovy is the first GLP1 pillar, so there are no needles needed. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.comDSH to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you. That's H I M S.comDSH hims.comDSH Weight loss by hims is not available in all 50 states. Wegovy is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk. As to get started and learn more, including important safety information, WeGovy clinical study information and restrictions, visit IMS.com with an

[Host/Interviewer]

abusive federal government, you're completely wrong. Economy.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

No, they did not.

[Host/Interviewer]

That is. That beats the fear standard. What do you mean?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

That's not true.

[Host/Interviewer]

What's the standard?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

The ones that came in during that time were. Were not permitted to be here. The only ones that were permitted to be here were the ones that had CPC status that had got it under Chavez.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

The previous president.

[Host/Interviewer]

So you're.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

You're.

[Host/Interviewer]

So Maduro is not people. So Maduro is not a dangerous leader that needs.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I didn't say he wasn't a dangerous leader.

[Host/Interviewer]

So when your country.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I'm saying that that amount of people should.

[Host/Interviewer]

Discrimination people that majority religious affiliation.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Mauricio. Majority of the people that came in, they. They were the criminals and they also were people had.

[Host/Interviewer]

For the mental institutions too.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Yes.

[Host/Interviewer]

And the crime.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

If you have a criminal record, you're not supposed to be permitted in this country. That's one of the rules. So all these people, all these people that were.

[Host/Interviewer]

We do biometric background.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Should it have been here? Well, there's no biometric if the people are coming in illegally and we don't have a way to track.

[Host/Interviewer]

So were they asylum?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

You're not being fair.

[Host/Interviewer]

You're not being fair.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

You're not. You're not being fair because you're not recognizing. Most of these people that came in weren't even tracked. A lot of them had criminal records. Why was Trend Iragua here in Denver, Colorado? Why are you laughing over here? There's tons of Venezuelans that actually killed Americans.

[Host/Interviewer]

I listen.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

That's not funny.

[Host/Interviewer]

Stop. The pearls are. They're running away. You got to clutch them harder.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

There is a reason why Trump won because people were fed up with this stuff.

[Host/Interviewer]

They. They believe that they were fed up. Yes, they were fed up.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

No, they Were fed up because it was affecting them in their cities. People getting murdered.

[Host/Interviewer]

People.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

The infrastructure. Having to share infrastructure with tons of people that you can't account for. Every one are even contributing taxes.

[Host/Interviewer]

Every. Every city in the world, we have to share people that you don't account for.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I said the United States. When you have.

[Host/Interviewer]

Is that not how cities were infrastructure?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

When you have an influx of people? There was an example in Ohio. There was an influx of people in a city. They started having tons of Venezuelans come in. They were seizing the apartment complex. City did not have enough infrastructure to support the amount of population that came in.

[Host/Interviewer]

How's it going, bro? So I'm assuming you disagree with the prompt, right?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I want to start with asking you a question first.

[Host/Interviewer]

Go for it.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Do you feel that Kamala Harris would have better upheld the rule of law?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. Okay. Can you tell me why her administration did not show like a clear inclination to, I guess, like absurdly stretch the definitions or. Or the possible use cases of particular statutes in pursuit of like an expedient way of passing their policy?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Okay. Before she was vice president, what were her two. Two roles? In the executive branch.

[Host/Interviewer]

Oh, in the executive branch.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Yes. For the state of California, actually for the city of San Francisco. In the state of California, she was

[Host/Interviewer]

district attorney attorney General.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Yeah.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

How was her reputation as the district attorney for San Francisco?

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm assuming you're going to bring up that they were throwing like parents in jail because their kids didn't go to school or something.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

She was eviscerated by a district judge. Withholding exculpatory evidence on hundreds of cases.

[Host/Interviewer]

Holy crap.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I am sorry, but if you are a prosecutor and you withhold exculpatory evidence, you should forever be barred from holding office. That is disgusting. That is egregious. There is no excuse for it. That is a clear indicator of how you are going to act in the executive branch. Then when she was the attorney general, do you know what happened then?

[Host/Interviewer]

It's funny you say that.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Do you know what happened when she was the attorney?

[Host/Interviewer]

When you try to overthrow the government, does that. Is that a clear indicator of how you're going to operate?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You will. You will not acknowledge my point because I don't know. You're backed into a corner.

[Host/Interviewer]

Slow down.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I am going off of her track record. Look, your smart ass antics.

[Host/Interviewer]

You're gonna. You don't have to get upset like.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

No, you're the one. Every time you get backed into a corner, you will not acknowledge.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm not aware of what you're referring to.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I am trying to get to it. If you will just be quiet, I will get to it. You know, you're getting backed into a corner, so you're trying to deflect. I'm let you do that.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, you contradicted yourself.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

If you want to come with smart ass antics, I'm going to come right back with it. Let me make my point, then you can make your point. That's how a civil debate happens. Okay, so would you like to tone it down and be civil?

[Host/Interviewer]

You're the one that's getting a bit accelerated.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Make my point and you can make your point.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay, go for it.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I am going off of her track record as the executive, both as the district attorney and as the Attorney General in California. And I think that both of how she acted in those instances are clearly indicative that she would have been much worse at upholding the rule of law when she was the Attorney General for the state of California.

[Host/Interviewer]

I want to say on the first

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

one, I'm literally making my point about her track record. What she did as the Attorney general was even worse.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay, okay, go for it.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

When she was the attorney general, the Supreme Court deemed California's prison conditions to be cruel and unusual. They gave very specific instructions on the amount of inmates that had to be released. Justice Kennedy, who was a conservative justice, even siding with the Democrats and said that there was needless death and suffering happening on a weekly basis. Okay, so Kamala Harris defied the Supreme Court for years on end. It was so egregious, she created a constitutional crisis. And for the first time in Supreme Court's history, they were going to hold the state of California in contempt. Every legal scholar at the time said that she would be forever barred from ever holding a federal bench because the motions were egregious and they were written in bad faith.

[Host/Interviewer]

Holy crap.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

If you look, you're saying holy crap. I'm sorry. But that is clearly indicative of how she acts when she is in the executive. And I can give you some of the stuff that you've said.

[Host/Interviewer]

I can't even get a word out, dude. I can't even.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Go ahead then. So you respond specifically to the point of her track record.

[Host/Interviewer]

And I would be willing to bet

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

you that you didn't even research and didn't even know that about it.

[Host/Interviewer]

I know the SCOTUS case, they did abide by inevitably.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Correct.

[Host/Interviewer]

There was a, like a number of individuals and all these. She wrote motions and all these. What the, bro. Wait, hold on. We need to stay on topic. Because please don't. Please don't say these things that are contradictory because I'm going to have to talk about.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

That's not contradictory.

[Host/Interviewer]

It is.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

That's part of what she did.

[Host/Interviewer]

When Emil Bove says fuck you to the courts, what does that mean? Is that being bad faith?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Don't deflect. Go back to a reputation.

[Host/Interviewer]

Let's stay on the topic.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Go back to a reputation.

[Host/Interviewer]

So again, so they did abide by the ruling. There was a number of individuals across all these prisons that were like, good credit that could have been left out early. And the population is starting to get pretty tight. Am I correct?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

See what you just did there?

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm not aware of all I'm asking

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

you what you just did. I took a very, very.

[Host/Interviewer]

Tell me what I did. If I'm unaware.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

And you just tried to brush over it.

[Host/Interviewer]

You said, I'm not brushing over.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You said, oh, they eventually. They eventually acted in accordance. Like, do you. Do you have any legal experience? Do you understand when legal scholars say written motions in bad faith?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Do you understand how egregious that is and what that says about.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's like, if that's the record, you should be mad, dude. When a federal judge goes out and accuses your administration of violating 96 court orders, when all you do is invoke the state secrets doctrine in bad faith so you do not have to provide them the information. They do what they need.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Sorry, what did I just say?

[Host/Interviewer]

People to a labor camp in El Salvador like how this to be a complaint.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

My point is very, very simple.

[Host/Interviewer]

You're not making a point.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

No, I am making a point. I am telling you that even if what you say is 100% true about Trump. All right. Even if I give that to you, I am telling you that I think Kamala Harris would have done worse of a job. And the reason why I believe that is because how she acted when she was the executive.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm trying to get into that. You're not letting me know.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I am.

[Host/Interviewer]

You're not. You just go ahead brushing it off. They. They ended up releasing the individuals on the credits. The case dragged on, I believe. Fuck was it passed. But the number of.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

After what happened, what did it take? What did it take?

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm not going to tell you.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Okay, so I'm not. Okay.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

So thank you very much. You support a candidate and you have an opinion about that candidate based upon not properly research searching your candidate.

[Host/Interviewer]

That's what you're time as Attorney general and district attorney.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You don't Think that's important. If you. If you are.

[Host/Interviewer]

But you just admitted. I'm asking you to provide me, like, more. Claire. I'm asking clarifying questions. You've been able to, like.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Okay.

[Host/Interviewer]

Enable. Sorry. To articulate any of the things now.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

And now you're having me bring up a different point.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, it's not a different point.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

It's related.

[Host/Interviewer]

Donald Trump's a rapist.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

And you're like, I am telling you. Candidate. And you just admitted that you didn't properly vet her. You literally.

[Host/Interviewer]

District Attorney. Yeah.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Once again, you just, like.

[Host/Interviewer]

Was she held in contempt? Was she sanctioned?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

She was about to be held in contempt of court by the Supreme Court, and only at the very end did she finally give in. All right. Every scholar said she would forever be barred from holding a federal.

[Host/Interviewer]

Who are these legal scholars?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

And then here's the deal. The district judge. You can go read it yourself. I've actually read it. Okay.

[Host/Interviewer]

Congratulations.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

It was around 300 cases that she withheld exculpatory evidence. I am sorry, but if you are a prosecutor and you do that, you want to keep innocent people in prison, you are a disgusting person. You should forever be barred from holding office on that fact alone. Then you couple it with what she did as the Attorney General. I don't give a shit if everything you say about Trump is true. She would have done a worse job.

[Host/Interviewer]

So I'm just 5,000 images cruel in unusual conditions.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Bro. He sent me with a labor cap.

[Host/Interviewer]

Like, give me a.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

All you're doing is smiling. You got backed into a corner and you can't respond to the point.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm trying to have a conversation.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I'm asking clarifying questions because you're trying to brush over my points and you don't acknowledge them.

[Host/Interviewer]

You're going to get called.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Oh, you don't.

[Host/Interviewer]

I.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

No. Okay, so you just admitted that they're egregious. You just admitted those are both horrible acts.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, yeah. If. If what you're saying, I promise you there's trouble.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You can go factual.

[Host/Interviewer]

If. If your recollection of it is correct, then, yeah, that's pretty up.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

See, before I have an opinion. An opinion about a candidate. I actually do. Proper. It's not true.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, it's not true.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

How is it not true?

[Host/Interviewer]

Because they're still defending the Trump administration after a year of violating the law.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I am not. This is what I. This is what I'm saying. Trump is the lesser of two evils is the only thing that I'm saying. And part of the. Part of What I hate about American politics is that I feel there's hypocrisy on both sides. And the only thing that both sides does is they hold the other person account, they hold the other party accountable, and they hold their candidate to one standard, that they're not the other person. And I think you are guilty of that. I think that you would go with Kamala Harris even admitting that what she did is egregious.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm not aware of what she did. I can't opine on something I don't know all the facts about.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Okay, but then again, it goes back to you didn't properly vet a candidate

[Host/Interviewer]

that you support fiscal policy, her time as senator, her time as vice president. I think she did a relative.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You're talking about the rule of law, upholding it specifically. These are very, very specific acts where she showed her character when she is in the executive branch and how she will not uphold the rule of law. She will defy the Supreme Court in literally.

[Host/Interviewer]

She defied the court.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

She defied the Supreme Court and created a constitutional crisis.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay. And then she abided by the ruling eventually.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Kind of. Kind of the same thing. Like Trump, right? Like, you kind of like.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, no, no, hold on, slow down, slow down. Delay is bad. But you recognize that I'm not necessarily in a corner. I just don't know what you're talking about. About, like, those are two very different things.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I really can't believe that you keep

[Host/Interviewer]

admitting you want to get, like, a cool clip or whatever, but if you were a candidate, if your problem with American politics is the fact that people are contradictory or hypocritical, I'm about to, like, extend an olive branch to you. If those things are true, if she healed individuals in centers, like prison centers, in terrible conditions in America, that even then probably wouldn't stand up to the standards by which prisons are judged, that's really bad. She would not have my support. Support. Okay, so she wouldn't have turn it back on you. Are you going to condemn the Trump administration and are you going to walk back your support?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

So I'm actually not. Would you let me finish?

[Host/Interviewer]

It's like a yes or no question.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I was about to make a statement.

[Host/Interviewer]

Sorry, sorry.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

So I am actually not a supporter of Trump's implementation. I am a supporter of Republican ideology. I feel that he has failed with implementation, but I don't feel that it's any worse than any Democratic candidate has also failed with implementation. I think that politics is a stage. I think that people run on ideology and Then when it actually gets to acting that they all fail on implementation. So the reason why I think that Trump is the better option is because he's the lesser of two evils. I agree with Republican ideology. Both parties have drastic failures on implementation. I do not agree with Democratic ideology. So I can't stand being in the lesser of two evils position. Ana Abrand said those who choose the lesser of two evils forget that they still choose evil. So I think that that is very, very prominent.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, I'm part of the video for candidates. I agree. But earlier you said that your issue with American politics is that both sides are incredibly hypocritical and when they have grievances with the other side, their own side tends to share similar actions. And I conceded to you that if Kamala Harris did those things that you're saying she did, I wouldn't support her. And when I turned the question back on you, you said, well, hold on.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I just told you I don't agree with his implementation, but I literally support his ideology.

[Host/Interviewer]

You support him in practice.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I support most Republican ideology on more of a libertarian.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay. If you know what you know now. If you know what you know now, would you have voted for Donald Trump

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

in 2024, being in that position, knowing that Kamala Harris was the opponent? Yes, because I think she would have

[Host/Interviewer]

Then you're just a. You're aiding in the issue that you hate so much. You're doing exactly what you swear to destroy way. You're being a hypocrite.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I'm not being a hypocrite. Yeah. I point this out.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

You could.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You can ask Alan and James right there. I point out Trump's problems all the time.

[Host/Interviewer]

You still.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I have these.

[Host/Interviewer]

That's nothing to you is not disqualified Harris. If Kamala Harris was essentially keeping people in prison when they didn't need to be, when they could have been released. That's so then the question back on you as egregious as all the things.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

So then you just backed yourself into a trap. So if you knew this, if you knew this right now, would you have voted for Trump? You wouldn't have voted for anyone.

[Host/Interviewer]

No. Trump like he's better. He tried to overthrow the government in 2020.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Listen to me, 21. If you are admitting that you wouldn't have voted for Harris in 2020 if

[Host/Interviewer]

she was a piece of that would put people in jail. It will like and extend their sentences against the wishes of the Supreme Court. Yeah, for sure.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Thank you for your honesty. I greatly respect that you are the first Democrat that I brought that to their attention and they have admitted that.

[Host/Interviewer]

Probably the first. Give me some grace here. Probably the first Democrats. It's just not aware of the case. I don't know if I trust.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

No, I had. I had Dean crash out on a TikTok live because I set him up. I asked him, you can go verify it, it's live. I asked him, I said, do you think that if a prosecutor was caught for withholding exculpatory evidence they should forever be barred from holding public office? He said, yes, absolutely. I said, there you just agree that Kamala Harris should be forever be barred from a holding office. And he was like, what? And he literally left alive. Try to go back and research it. Came back with some bullshit points. Points. Got schooled on the bullshit points and fucking left. Should I debate him face to face?

[Host/Interviewer]

Emil Bove, who now has a judicial appointment, who should. Sorry, should he be unseated because he told the courts fuck you prior to. He preceded their TRO on the flights to El Salvador and he said we need prepared to tell them to you

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

according to he was going to do something that was egregiously not upholding the

[Host/Interviewer]

rule of laws that are claiming that you're depriving individuals of their 5th and 14th amendment.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Yeah, I would agree with that appointment.

[Host/Interviewer]

I told you, I agree Donald Trump yester.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I agree with the ideology. I do not agree with the implementation.

[Host/Interviewer]

That's hypocritical.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

No, it's not.

[Host/Interviewer]

Because you'd still vote for the guy. You still support him. If you ran again in 28, would you vote for him?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I actually didn't vote.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, if you ran again in 20,

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I think that doesn't matter. Your vote doesn't matter.

[Host/Interviewer]

Earlier you said you would have voted for him. So if he ran again in 2028, would you vote for him?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Who's the candidate having?

[Host/Interviewer]

Him and Gavin Newsom.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

God damn.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Who?

[Host/Interviewer]

Seriously, it just seriously so funny. You hate the idea of hypocrisy in politics. Okay, But I'm the one admitting if that's true. Fuck her. I never vote for in my life. And you can't do the same when Facebook.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

If that's the situation, I'm not voting.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Just like you. I'm not voting.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

So same situation.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay. There. Yeah, let's get there. You also gotta stand.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Let's not be adversarial. Let's find some common ground.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay? Okay, sure.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

So I believe immigration is good for America.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I believe that we have to have a border that is clearly enforced.

[Host/Interviewer]

Agree.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

And I think that we have to have limits on that immigration done by proper academics that can say this is the amount of immigrants that we can allow into this country to where it is a benefit and not something that's negative.

[Host/Interviewer]

I agree on just about every single thing when it comes to caps on admission. Maybe it has to be a dynamic thing because that actually contributes to a lot of the wait times that we see depending on the type of visa or what it is that you're.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I think we need more judges. We need to say, here are the channels, like, whatever the hell it takes.

[Host/Interviewer]

Like if more immigration judges, uscis, adjudicators, kind of those kind of things.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

If we're going to let in 5 million people a year, we need to have the infrastructure so those 5 million people a year.

[Host/Interviewer]

But Trump isn't doing that.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

That I don't. Well, what did Biden do?

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, he passed. Well, he wanted to pass the U.S. citizenship act of 2021, and he obviously came behind the Lankford bill, but he didn't really have much political capital to drive the parties close on an issue like immigration.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Okay. So I have issues with how Trump is implementing ICE policy right now.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

I think that people are being treated immorally. I think that they are breaking the law.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. Yes.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

However, I think that the humanitarian crisis that Biden created on the border. Border is a hundred times worse. And there are statistics and then there are reality. I have connections to the border. I told you about my past. Yeah, you live in there, too. And it literally funneled billions of dollars into the cartel. It created a market forum. It created things like people are saying something like 85 of all women that went through there were raped. That was not good for the immigrants. And that was not. Do you have empirical evidence?

[Host/Interviewer]

Like, what do you. What do you cite? Because I do know that especially when you're crossing through Mexico, extortion is very possible. I know at firsthand. I mean, that's why I left. Right. But, yes, I just, I just don't. The 85 is.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Like I said, there are claims. I said there are some people that are claiming that.

[Host/Interviewer]

I don't, I don't discount that extortion happens at the border. I think Joe Biden, it's tough. A lot of the admissions were individuals looking for some kind of protected status asylum, refugees as a result of displacement. COVID19. All of those things. Things. So to deny them when I think that we have the capacity and the fiscal capacity to allow them to stay in this country. They're obviously net benefit. Immigrants always invigorate economies.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

But see, what I'm talking about, though, is like, okay, so if they're not human trafficking, they're trafficking drugs, right?

[Host/Interviewer]

So with drugs, the majority of drug inflows come from US Citizens that are.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

No, I'm just. I'm saying the cartel, though, it's coming from people in Mexico.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, that'll take cooperation with Mexico, but we're talking about solving the border issue.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

But here's. But, but this is what I'm saying, right? So if you are trafficking drugs, right, and you have to sneak your product into the country and wait for payment versus the border is wide open, those people can freely cross. And the people. This is true. I know this from, like, literally inside information. They.

[Host/Interviewer]

They were there, like the border there. There's multiple ports of entry.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

If you passed the border and you were an illegal immigrant and you did not pay the cartel their due, they would kill you.

[Host/Interviewer]

You.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

That is a.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, if you get a coyote, maybe. No, no.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Coyotes were brought out of the equation. Coyotes were getting people across the border. The border was open. It's a complete. Under the Biden administration, on the ground,

[Host/Interviewer]

these things are just not true. There was boots on ground all the time. They want to expand those things to Lankford Building, which is an incredibly conservative immigration bill, by the way.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

What about, what about all of the clips of the CBP just standing by and letting these people cross the river?

[Host/Interviewer]

Seen that in my life. Wait, do you expect them to, like, shoot them when they're crossing the river?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You've never seen that. Well, here's the thing.

[Host/Interviewer]

People are crossing a river. What do you want CBP to do?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Like under Trump?

[Host/Interviewer]

You're not answering my question.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Under Biden, I'm trying to explain it to you. Under all these other presidents, when they got to the border, they were stopped. If they saw them, they had to use coyotes. Under the Biden administration, they did not have to use coyotes anymore. They let them in. There is all this footage of showing them just. Just ushering them across the river.

[Host/Interviewer]

Cbp, grabbing people from a river means that they're letting them in. What do you want? What do you want CBP to do

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

if they know they're going to be stopped when they get across the river? They're not going to get into the river. The first place, the very point that

[Host/Interviewer]

these individuals are crossing, the very necessity, their lives depend on it, the very economic benefits, all these kind of things are fleeing persecution.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You just don't.

[Host/Interviewer]

Why would they just Sit on the other side.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Okay. It's a really simple question.

[Host/Interviewer]

I think Joe Biden could have done more. To act as if he didn't try is ridiculous. He tried to get the Langford bill, which is incredibly conservative. I don't necessarily agree with that. Would have put more immigration judges, expand infrastructure, more boots on ground, all of those things. And Donald Trump shot it down. He hasn't introduced a single bill as of this moment that I voted.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Donald Trump.

[Host/Interviewer]

Let me just say this, hold on. You mentioned immigration judges. He's fired over 100. He's purging it.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

There was a bill previous to the one that the Republicans shot down that the Democrats shot down previous to that. And the Democrats don't get any flack for that. That they only try to sit there and give the Republicans flack and say, oh, Donald Trump shut this down.

[Host/Interviewer]

Democrats, what was the difference? What was bad about it?

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Why the Republicans were not willing to compromise on the numbers, I believe, and then also the boots on the ground. So that was a better border policy. It was nine months before the one

[Host/Interviewer]

that you're talking about, sizes, influence within the GOP to stop them from.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

No, I'm not talking about the gop. I'm talking about the one the Democrats shot down.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay, so did Donald Trump have introduced another.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Donald Trump have influence in the Democratic Party to get the Democrats. So it's very, it's very, very simple. There was a bill's change. There was a better bill across. The Democrats shot it down and then

[Host/Interviewer]

it was better about the bill, the

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

response to that because it placed harder limitations, more boots on the ground. It would have been more enforceable.

[Host/Interviewer]

Democrats don't want that. And then, and then they come together, Congress, as they do, to represent both sides of the.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

So it's okay if the Democrats don't want something, but then it's not okay if the Republicans don't want Democrats.

[Host/Interviewer]

Wait, wait, wait.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

They were literally in the same position. The Democrats said, no, we will not agree to this. The Republicans said, no, we will not agree to this. The Republicans said, no, it didn't solve the issue. Why, why didn't the Democrats go.

[Host/Interviewer]

You don't answer my question. You asked questions.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You're trying to deflect and you're trying to confuse. I'm making my point very, very people back.

[Host/Interviewer]

If the immigration crisis, because they said

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

it wasn't immigration and they said it

[Host/Interviewer]

wouldn't solve the problem, Trump shot it down. If the immigration crisis is as bad as you say it was, Greg Abbott would not ship 100,000 immigrants to a bunch of different sanctuary cities without any cooperation, without any information. You're from Texas. You know why they did that. That's bullshit. He weaponize the human.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You know why they did that? There was literally like tent cities all across. They literally said Texas does not have the infrastructure.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's the border state.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Then why were there tent cities? Like, are you denying reality? Are you literally denying like exact experience of social media clips, things that I've seen with my own eyes of these tent cities that were there under Biden? Soon as Trump gets into office, they're not there anymore.

[Host/Interviewer]

You're acting as if.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

So it's reality. It's reality.

[Host/Interviewer]

And Greg Abbott as well. Use a humanitarian crisis, which I don't disagree. Millions of people.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Democrats shot down legislation too.

[Host/Interviewer]

Millions of people coming in all of a sudden. I guess it's not that big of a deal. We shoot down legislation, Greg, I could shit them across the country to make it bad for other Americans. So what? He can punish sanctuary cities.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

You'll criticize the Republicans for shooting our legislation, but you won't criticize the Democrats are shooting legislation and then introduced by Republicans.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's really bipartisan.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

It's really, it's really simple.

[Host/Interviewer]

Things happen.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

As Trump came into office and started and started issuing executive orders illegally. It goes away. It was done.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay. Hey, good shit, bro. It James Myink. How's it going? James? David, nice to meet you. So you believe that immigrants are not good for America. Is that going to be your position?

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

I believe immigration does have a benefit to America. Now question for you. What is your vision on how we handle immigration policies here when it comes?

[Host/Interviewer]

For what? Like internal enforcement or just the border

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

or both in general, how we enforce the border, what type of immigrants you want seeing here quantity of immigrants.

[Host/Interviewer]

So when the. In terms of quantity, it's going to depend on like a number of things. It should be a relatively dynamic number depending on what the economy necessitates, like natural disasters where refugees need to come. If there's a cap, for example, and there's 250000 people that are displaced, I mean we don't want people to die.

[Sean Kelly]

Right.

[Host/Interviewer]

So it has to be like an ever dynamic changing number. But it should never exceed like 3% of the population, for example, because that.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

That'll be.

[Host/Interviewer]

And again, it would need to be incredibly unique circumstance for that to be the case and for it to be justifiable. But when it comes to fixing what we have now, it's obviously building up that infrastructure, more immigration judges to oversee more cases, which would really chop out that backlog. When it comes to coming into the country, we definitely need to refine that and make it more streamlined.

[Dish Network Advertiser]

Individual Tired of overpaying with DirecTV? Dish offers a reliable low price every month without surprises. Get the TV you love and start watching live sports news and the latest movies, plus your favorite streaming apps all in one place. Switch to Dish today and lock in the lowest price in satellite TV starting at $89.99 a month with our two year price guarantee. Call 888 add dish or visit dish.com today.

[Host/Interviewer]

The new Sprite Berry Blast is here with berry flavor and cold foam. Sprite from McDonald's 2 just got bluer, one of many new drinks now at McDonald's. Copyright 2026, the Coca Cola Company. Sprite is a registered trademark of the

[Advertisement Voice]

Coca Cola Company you've never been one to settle, stand down or stand still. You're a lifelong learner, energized by excellence. There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. You've got competition to outrun, momentum to build on, and your own high standards to meet. Stop now. Not a chance. At Capella University we help you catch what you're chasing because you've always had the drive. Now go earn the degree. Capella University. What can't you do? Visit Capella Edu to learn more.

[Sean Kelly]

I feel like a lot of people just accepted getting ripped off by their bank. Monthly fees, overdraft fees, ATM fees. Like why are you paying money just to use your own money? That's why Chime caught my attention. Chime is changing the way people bank. With fee free bank banking built for you, not the bank. No overdraft fees, no monthly fees, and access to thousands of fee free ATMs. Honestly, the benefits are kind of stacked. With direct deposit, Chime members can get up to a thousand one hundred fifty in annual rewards. Be free. You could get 5% cash back on things you already spend money on like gas and groceries. Plus savings that grow faster with 3.75 APY. That's way above the national national average. They've also got Spot Me which lets you overdraft up to 200 fee free and real customer support 24. 7 actual humans. My younger self would definitely benefited from something like this. Chime is not just smart banking. It's the most rewarding way to bank join the millions who are already banking fee free today. Head to chime.comDSH that's chime.comDSH it only takes a few minutes to sign up.

[Advertisement Voice]

Chime is a fintech, not a bank. Banking services from my Pay and Chime Card provided by Chimes Bank Partners. Optional products and services may have fees or charges. Stated annual percentage yield hashtag for Chime prime only. No minimum balance required. Checking account ranking based on a J.D. power survey published October 20, 2025. For more information on APY rates, my pay spot me and travel perks, go to chime.com disclosures you've got weight loss

[Sean Kelly]

goals, but hitting them is another story. If you want to know what's really worth your time when it comes to losing weight, skip the guesswork and get Weight Loss by hims. It's designed to support you in losing the weight and keeping it off, and HIMS now offers access to an affordable range of FDA approved GLP1 medications, including the WeGovy pill and the WeGovy pen. Plus lifestyle tips to support you along the way. With WeGovy at HIMSS, you can lose up to 20% or more of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise. It helps you regulate your appetite and eat less though success is within reach. Plus, WeGovy is the first GLP1 pill, so there are no needles needed. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.comtsh to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you that's hs.comDSH hims.comDSH Weight loss by hims is not available in all 50 states. Wovi is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk as to get started and learn more, including important safety information, WOVI clinical study information and restrictions, visit hims.com have

[Host/Interviewer]

years long waiting periods because of caps that are incredibly low on countries for like like low Skill work visa, US I believe H2B something like that along those lines which is typically at 26,000 per country results in a crazy gap.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Now do you believe that the Biden policies on immigration and the border are beneficial for the future of our country?

[Host/Interviewer]

What policy? In particular the open border policy. Anyone could come in they didn't have an open border policy where anybody well,

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

yeah, we saw a mass influx of

[Host/Interviewer]

immigrants from everywhere around the world. Yeah, exactly. There was a global pandemic. There was a huge displacement event.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

There was natural will be fundamentally different when it comes to immigration.

[Host/Interviewer]

Right.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

So I believe in the core values of our country and I believe that the people who are coming to this country need to adopt those values and therefore, therefore we need to have very strict immigration policies. I personally believe that we shouldn't just invite anybody in. We need to be much more strict, even more strict than what Trump is trying to induce with these people.

[Host/Interviewer]

Policies like what?

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

First off, I think vetting is going to be very important. Data shows that over 30,000 known jihadist terrorists were smuggled in across the border during the Biden administration. They're strategically placed around critical infrastructure in the country right now.

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Around military bases.

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

This is a.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, no, no. How can you vet people that came here illegally? Right, right. They broke the law. Right.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

We have to lock down the border. I believe in a border wall. I believe believe in more people on the border itself. More judges. So we do agree in some aspects,

[Host/Interviewer]

but essentially, yeah, one for one, we

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

need to slow the process down. I don't care if that affects people who are good coming into the country that do want to benefit this nation. The problem is we have too many people coming in right now who pose a security risk to this country and who are not willing to adapt to our values of this country.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Country.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, I think that typically we treat immigration, at least the security is presented by it like in a very, I guess, absurd way to. To it like unrealistic expense. Extent. Sorry. You said 30,000 jihadists came in under Joe Biden. Correct.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

No jihadist terrorists.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay. How many immigrants do you believe came in under Joe Biden?

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Well, that's not. That's besides the point.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, it's really.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Speak to.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm going to hold on because no question, it's irrelevant. No, it's irrelevant.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Explain to you the relevance the open border policy.

[Host/Interviewer]

I can explain to the relevance.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Allowed for that to happen.

[Host/Interviewer]

You didn't mention an open border policy.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Priority of the US Government is to protect our culture, to protect our citizens. And if we're not strict on immigration and border policy, even far beyond what Trump's trying to impose right now, that's only going to impact our country in a bad way.

[Host/Interviewer]

So I don't know what you mean by culture, but I just, I want to know, know what was the total number that you believe came in?

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Well, let. Again, that's irrelevant.

[Host/Interviewer]

20 million. If it's 20 million, only 30,000 of them are. This conversation speaks to their, I guess, proclivity to a destination, a country. Correct.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Do you value what we have traditionally here in America?

[Host/Interviewer]

I value democracy, our institutions, the rule of law and negative rights. Yes, that's the culture.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Yeah.

[Host/Interviewer]

Sorry, one sec.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Just to frame this the right way without sounding. So the type of immigrant that you like to see come in, what is the ideal type of immigrant? Do you want somebody who is willing to participate?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, someone that appreciates those pillars of our. Of our country.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Now, how do we funnel those types of people in without letting the ones who are not willing to assimilate?

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, again, you mentioned vetting, and then you follow that up by saying 30,000 jihadists were smoking, so they illegally entered the country and managed to, I guess, subvert the vetting process. We have very strict vetting procedure. Biometric data of, like, those. Those processes, just basic background checks. I don't know what, like, what do you want us to use? Like, in order for those.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

In order for those systems to function properly? Yes, I think we could agree we need more people.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, I agree we need more infrastructure.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Right.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

But what is the baseline to allowing those systems to actually work? Work that is going to be locking down the border.

[Host/Interviewer]

So you want a moratorium on immigration, Is that what you're saying? Like, nobody comes in?

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

No, I'm not saying nobody comes in. I'm saying we need to physically secure the border. The idea of the border wall itself, more surveillance systems, more people on the ground, so that way people can't just sneak across. That is a great step towards progression. Now, when it comes to vetting them, are you opposed to people having to study up on American history, learning about our culture, and being willing to assimilate to our culture?

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, when you say assimilation, what is it that you're referring to? What culture?

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

So obviously, America is a multicultural country, right?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yes.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Now, let's take a place like Afghanistan, for example.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Completely opposite culture there. If we just let any single person from Afghanistan come in in a mass

[Host/Interviewer]

influx, you're referring to the ethos of the nation as being one. That's what, like violent, jihadist crazy, shri a law people.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

So I'm. I'm saying I don't want people coming

[Host/Interviewer]

into this country that are violent.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Yes.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, sure, they're violent. But not every person coming from Afghanistan is going to be a violent criminal. Right.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

We're also a Christian nation.

[Host/Interviewer]

Fundamentally, we're not a Christian.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Now, it is perfectly okay for any religion to come here, but. But there is a certain standard.

[Host/Interviewer]

We're not a Christian nation, though.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

There is a certain standard.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay. Okay.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

A lot of these other countries who are not Christian nations, the way they live their lives there, the way they treat women, for example. Do you want those people coming into our country?

[Host/Interviewer]

I don't want abusers or murderers or like, radical religious fundamentalists enter the country in the same way that I want a Christian radical that wants to change this country and make It a Christian country because it's not. Not what's the establishment clause of the first amendment.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

So we have some common ground here. I think we definitely disagree on, we

[Host/Interviewer]

agree on basically the solution. I mean like it's one for one.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

So your, your proposed solution, right?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yes.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Do you disagree with. Absolutely. Locking down the border so we have complete control over who gets to come in.

[Host/Interviewer]

If that involves robust infrastructure to like ensure that nobody comes in illegally, I think it addresses a security concern, but it doesn't address the root cause which is going to be the way people enter the country. Country. So would you be pro the border building up infrastructure? I don't. The border. What do you mean by the border wall?

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

It's a way to physically secure our border.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay, like what? Like just. Is it going to span over like the rivers and stuff too?

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Ideally, you know, a 30 foot high wall.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

That prevents tunneling from underneath. I'm talking total lockdown here.

[Host/Interviewer]

Holy. I feel like it's like a crazy waste. Maybe just.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

I think we can agree here. We can already have one necessary measure to obtain this very similar mutual goal that we do have.

[Host/Interviewer]

The problem, the problem here is when it comes to Republicans in general, you tend to have very crazy wowing policy agendas like creating a 100 foot tall, 50 foot wide brick wall that nobody can get through. People will come out of necessity. Do you agree?

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

People will come to the border of necessity.

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on, hold on. If it is well known to the

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

rest of the world that we take our immigration seriously, we do.

[Host/Interviewer]

We have a whole title in the book.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

They know that getting across our borders illegally is next to near impossible. That is going to deter a ton of people from coming over here putting themselves at high risk situations. Population doesn't come to traffic by the being raped.

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on. There already is a deterrent in existence. It's the laws on the boat looks. Immigration law under Joe Biden, the deterrent again. The determine we need to deal with root causes. Americans throughout Donald Trump's campaign always wanted to deal with the root cause. We had hollowed out our manufacturing which up our economy. That's why we have no more job. We want to deal with the root causes. The root causes are the pathways to residency in this country. My second prompt is immigration is good for America.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

So for this prompt I just want to establish that, that I am pro immigration. Okay. My, my philosophy is this. I'm actually Hispanic myself. So.

[Host/Interviewer]

Latino, bro?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Yeah. What are you?

[Host/Interviewer]

Mexican. Okay.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I'm Costa Rican. So my mom, she came here in the 1990s. She followed all the immigration policies, the procedures. She waited two years to get approved. She paid all the fees. She came to the U.S. she, she got a college degree and then she married my dad, who's an American citizen.

[Host/Interviewer]

Awesome.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

So she did everything the legal way. And I, so I have no, I have no problem with immigration.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

But I do believe immigration needs to be done in a very well mannered way. And I don't think that people from other countries, even if they are dealing with bad situations with which I'm sympathetic to, I don't think that that is enough of a reason to allow them to either skip the line or to come in the US with no proper vetting or just at rates that we may not be able to handle, not because of racist reasons, but because. Well, that's a talking point that a lot of Democrats use.

[Host/Interviewer]

But I didn't call you racist.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Not me, but I'm saying that that's a, that's a talking point that a lot of Democrats use. And I really think, for me, I'm Hispanic. I don't hate my own people. For me, it's more like, hey, I care about this country so much that I don't want the infrastructure to be so overwhelmed. Like countries like India, for sure. Countries like China.

[Host/Interviewer]

They're wearing a Trump shirt. He's overwhelming the system. He fired 100 asylum judges.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

That's not really overwhelming, but when you

[Host/Interviewer]

fire 100 asylum judges, they have to oversee over like a 2 million case backlog.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Well, I don't know about the specific thing.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm. Okay, I'm just.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I'm just making the point that I'm pro immigration, but it needs to be done the right way. I don't know where you stand.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm not against that either. Illegal immigration is bad. Those individuals tend to get exploited. We have a shadow economy made up of 10. Sorry. Not tens of millions. Millions of people. Millions of individuals being paid pennies on the dollar in comparison to legal counterpart. It's not a good thing. We have to recognize why they're doing it because the pathway is not streamlined. There's long wait times. They don't have the benefit, the luxury of the money or the time necessary to come here the right way. So. So asylum is a system by which individuals in very bad circumstances, unfortunate circumstances, are allowed to enter the country. But that's not skipping the line. That's a separate.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Well, I'm not talking about those people.

[Host/Interviewer]

You're talking about illegal images. Yeah.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Let's be clear. If someone's Coming through a port of entry, a legal port of entry. They're coming through asylum. The, the law is that they can be protected and they can.

[Host/Interviewer]

Donald Trump doesn't believe that you have a pathway.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Well, he's allowed it, so I do believe.

[Host/Interviewer]

What do you mean? They got rid of this. He's not asylum seekers coming at port like Luis. He's not reporting a. He's not, you know, see car. Right.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Not deporting. He's not deporting people that have. Have already been here, that already have asylum status. My point is the people that have been Here illegal, the 10 to 20 million people that have potentially come in, I think that's way too many people. If you look at like what's going on in Europe since.

[Host/Interviewer]

Bro. Lock in, bro.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Just. Just from 2014 to 2024.

[Host/Interviewer]

Uhhuh.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

The murder rate, the crime rate, the rap rate, everything has. Has.

[Host/Interviewer]

God damn it.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I didn't say that. You said it. You said it.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, you said it. You said it.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

I didn't say it.

[Host/Interviewer]

Exactly. That's.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Is the next person.

[Host/Interviewer]

Your name is Simon.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Simon, Yeah.

[Host/Interviewer]

I knew it. Remembered you.

[Debater 7 (Restaurant Owner, Moderate)]

Yeah. So I, what I mainly disagree with is it seems that there is a sense amongst Democrat that it's okay to shelter illegal immigrants because they're just working here or, you know, they came here because they got kicked out of their own country or whatever.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Debater 7 (Restaurant Owner, Moderate)]

I lived in London for six years. I had to go through like a nine month process.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay. I thought it was going to be another Mohammed thing. Jesus Christ. Please God, keep me away.

[Debater 7 (Restaurant Owner, Moderate)]

My point is every other country in the world has a very strict immigration policy and strict regulations around getting at least first world countries. Right. In terms of getting into the country and working legally. And my confusion is why Democrats have a problem with that within the United States and why do they have a problem with kicking out people that are simply just here illegally?

[Host/Interviewer]

So obviously Immigration Customs Enforcement, all internal enforcement, has a finite amount of money you don't have with the budget. They currently have enough money to get out every single illegal immigrant living in this country. So you ought to allocate those funds to get after people that are threats to public safety. Safety. Right. And that's why, just based on the current fiscal environment, we can't just simply come after every single person in mass deportations because we're going to run up the ICE budget and we're going to come after social safety nets, we're going to come after investments in infrastructure, all these things, which is why Donald Trump is spending all his money on fucking offense and defense and ICE and cutting money for the average American. But when it comes to deporting them, and me being against the idea of getting rid of our shadow economy is because it doesn't make sense to me. If these people are being exploited in America, is the punishment of exploitation to be shipped back to your country? No. If you're working a job, it's clear you have good intentions and you produce over a trillion dollars economic output. You're going to have children here, they're going to have an American education. And we're already running up deficits. Why not make more revenue? So I like the idea of those people being given some protected status, some visa, something, some kind of legal permanent residency, not citizenship, but the capacity to have that job mobility to make a family here. And we don't lose out on the huge economic benefit benefits. It's a moral and fiscal thing. It's the reality. If we get rid of them, we lose out on everything. And there's going to be vacuums of vacant jobs that Americans are not going to fill unless they're paid perversive wages.

[Debater 7 (Restaurant Owner, Moderate)]

Okay, so three points. Number one is that Trump's ICE policy seems to be working. Last year was the first year of negative net migration in the US in 50 years. 2.5 million people left, 600,000 were forced to leave, 1.9 million voluntarily, barely left. Okay, so the policy seems to be working. In addition to that, I agree with you. I used to work in the restaurant industry. I owned restaurants. Yeah, they make a.90 of my employees were illegal. I tried checking their Social Security numbers. They're all fake. So I would agree that we need some sort of policy that can be made available for those that are trying

[Host/Interviewer]

to work, and that's millions of them. You reckon the shadow economy is huge and we benefit from it so much. So it's just. It just seems so wrong for me to punish these people.

[Debater 7 (Restaurant Owner, Moderate)]

So I think we can agree on implementing a policy there. But I. I also think, think part of the reason why we're trying to get rid of many of these people is because robotics and AI are going to replace a lot of those jobs.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Debater 7 (Restaurant Owner, Moderate)]

So I think that's why that's become increasingly more important, is get those people out that could be committing crimes because we're going to replace them with robots anyway.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, I just don't tend to believe that random farm worker or someone working at your restaurant was just going to commit a crime. And it's totally fine because they're going to Replacement robots. These are. Are human beings. Right. So I just like the idea of dehumanizing in that way. But to. You mentioned something about Donald Trump's policy being effective. They're not targeting criminals, they're running up budgets, they're overspending, and for what?

[Debater 7 (Restaurant Owner, Moderate)]

Well, they're scaring the shit out of

[Host/Interviewer]

people that are here illegally. And they're leaving, too. Right. They're operating way outside of the purview of just being Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. So this idea that, oh, they're starting the bad guys. They're not targeting the bad guys, they're fucking. They're completely gutting the farm sector's labor force. Like, that's really bad. That's not. Not something you should be doing. The farmers got so mad at Trump and he was like, we're not going to do that anymore. We're going to protect the farm. So I just find it really odd how, oh, this is this all working out fine when you're seeing the effects in real time. There's two American citizens that are dead. We saw a record number of habeas petitions in Operation Metro Surge, and all those cases tended to yield in favor of those plaintiffs, the people harmed. And I just. I can't wrap my head around that being a good policy, that having good effects when, I mean, there's death everywhere, there's economic downturn and there's instability. That's not good to me.

[Debater 7 (Restaurant Owner, Moderate)]

And I can't calculate the number of lives saved from the 2.5 million criminals that saw their way out of our country.

[Host/Interviewer]

His point, he mentioned that there was 30,000 jihadists out of the 7 trillion people that enter the country. That seems like a pretty low rate of crime. There's an access report on 11 border cities that goes over their rates of crime and they're below the national average. Crap. Immigrants are cool and peaceful. You see, I'm like lash now. I'm not violent, right? I love America. You know this guy Davis, Remember the

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

impression when I got the Trump hatch?

[Host/Interviewer]

All right, brother. Why do you believe immigration is bad for America?

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

Sir, I don't necessarily believe immigration is bad for America. I believe your idea of immigration in general is bad for America.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay?

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

You sat here and said that I don't think there should be a cap. And then earlier you also said that, oh, we do need more immigration judges. And your idea sounds like, correct me if I'm wrong, you want more immigration judges so more people can get their cases brought forward quicker and get people in the country.

[Host/Interviewer]

Right. Not everybody applies who applies for asylum gets accepted. I also like the idea of overseas applications. Just people and immigration judges in general. Correct. Yeah. It's not just for increasing inflows, it's to allow for.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Sorry.

[Host/Interviewer]

To ensure that there is not a backlog of cases. Sure. Don't like catch and release. Right. You don't want all the brown people walking.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

So the point I'm trying to make here is according to George Orbas, a astute professor in Harvard shows.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

So someone probably more my school is better than his. He shows that the immigration is actually a problem when they're above 6 to 700,000 immigrants each year. We took in a million in 2023. Because what happens, supply and demand. When there's more immigrants here, that means that there needs more jobs to be filled by these people. They need to work, they need housing. So by the way, you said earlier as well, construction production is down. So if construction production is down, housing is down, then tell me why, tell me why exactly we should be taking more migrants and immigrants when you can't even house these people.

[Host/Interviewer]

People. So they're ephemeral, negative externalities in the presence of individuals going to any state or any locality or any city. It doesn't fucking matter what you're referring to because at the end of the day that current supply of housing, jobs, etc is not there for additional people, which is. You're making like a.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

You're right.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

It's not there for additional people.

[Host/Interviewer]

So we shouldn't be bringing these people in the country down.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

They're not for people.

[Host/Interviewer]

So the way economies operate is regardless of whether or not. You know what, hold on, I have a better question for you. Should the labor supply not expand?

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

Absolutely, you should expand. But if it is not, why?

[Host/Interviewer]

Why?

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

Because more jobs, more money, the economy

[Host/Interviewer]

thrives, more people work.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Exactly.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

But if it is not growing when

[Host/Interviewer]

you can't take in migrants, it's not growing because of Trump's fiscal policy. When you.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

We're talking migration.

[Host/Interviewer]

When migration report, they add trillions of dollars into gdp.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

We're talking the idea of migration. Stick to the topic, Stick to the topic.

[Host/Interviewer]

When you. Because you mentioned. I'm assuming as an economist professor.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Right.

[Host/Interviewer]

So you know this to be the case. When you increase aggregate demand, aggregate supply falls lows, which means there's more jobs, there's more production, there's more houses, there's more money, there's more everything, which is why America has grown. Our population is not 50 million, it's 350 million. And almost a 30 trillion dollar economic output every single year. Things need to expand. There's negative externalities in the short term, there's market inefficiencies, but they tend to solve themselves as a result of the firm's desire to continue to build and expand. Because they profit, profit, profit. Right, Absolutely.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

But okay, in your magic, in your magic. No, no, no, no. In your magical world here you're saying, brandon, in the migrants, they can work the agriculture which will then turn and bring housing and jobs and construction. We can't bring them in if we don't have the housing. We are already housing Americans. They deserve the jobs. They're here first. The job of the politicians is to serve American people first. They should not be serving. I let you finish. They should not be serving these people who are foreign to this country. Our process is strict. It should be stricter. We should have more immigration judges. I do agree. So that clogged the system.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

System.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

But we should not just be having a revolt. An open door like you want clearly is what it sounds like. You want an open door, people coming through. No, because you said yourself, you said bring in more people that boost the agriculture. We don't have the housing and the supply and demand. By the way, it's unfair for u. S. Citizens when immigrants come in because they undercut the jobs because they're being paid a fair wage to them because they're from a country that pays them like garbage. In Mexico, it's like where you said you're from. People in the United States fight fair for a fair wage, you liberals claim.

[Sean Kelly]

I feel like a lot of people just accepted getting ripped off by the their bank. Monthly fees, overdraft fees, ATM fees. Like why are you paying money just to use your own money? That's why chime caught my attention. Chime is changing the way people bank. With fee free banking built for you, not the bank. No overdraft fees, no monthly fees and access to thousands of fee free ATMs. Honestly, the benefits are kind of stacked with direct deposit. Chime members can get up to $1150 in annual rewards fee free. You could get 5% cash back on things you already spend money on like gas and groceries industries. Plus savings that grow faster with 3.75 APY. That's way above the national average. They've also got spot me which lets you overdraft up to 200 fee free and real customer support 24. 7 actual humans. My younger self would definitely benefited from something like this. Chime is not just smart banking. It's the most rewarding way to bank Join the millions who are already banking fee free today@the chime.com that's chime.com dsh it only takes a few minutes to sign up.

[Advertisement Voice]

Chime is a fintech, not a bank. Banking services for MyPay and Chime Card provided by Chimes Bank Partners. Optional products and services may have fees or charges. Stated annual percentage yield and cash back for Chime prime only. No minimum balance required. Checking account ranking based on a J.D. power survey published October 20, 2025. For more information on APY rates, my pay, Spot Me and travel Perks, go to Chime.com disclosures.

[Sean Kelly]

You've got weight loss goals, but hitting them is another story. If you want to know what's really worth your time when you it comes to losing weight, skip the guesswork and get Weight Loss by hims. It's designed to support you in losing the weight and keeping it off and HIMS now offers access to an affordable range of FDA approved GLP1 medications including the WeGovi pill and the WeGovi pen, plus lifestyle tips to support you along the way. With WeGovy at HIMS, you can lose up to 20% or more of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise, it helps you regulate your appetite and eat less though success is within reach. Plus, WeGovy is the first GLP1 pill, so there are no needles needed. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.comDSH to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you that's HS.comDSH HIMS.comDSH Weight loss by HIMS is not available in all 50 states. WeGovi is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk as to get started and learn more, including important safety and safety information, WeGovy clinical study information and restrictions, visit hims.com in business, I'm always trying to get the best outcome for the best price. So it's kind of crazy. I haven't looked at my life insurance in years. I don't even know if what I'm paying is competitive or if I have enough coverage with how things have changed. That's why I started looking into select quote. For over 40 years, they've helped more than 2 million Americans secure over $700 billion in coverage. Their whole model is simple. They shop around to find you the right policy for your specific needs so you're not overpaying or undercovered. Their licensed agents work for you in as little as 15 minutes. They compare policies from top rated carriers to find something that fits your health and your budget and they do it for free. No medical exam, no problem. You could get same day coverage up to $2 million. And if you've got pre existing conditions, they've got options for that too. Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than [e-mail] save more than 50 on term life [e-mail] today to get started. That's SelectQuote.comDSH you guys, you guys claim

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

you want fair wages. You guys want fair wages, except you give it to.

[Host/Interviewer]

When you look at the slave states, when you look at the rep. The federal minimum of seven to the topic. When you look at California, $17, $16. Republicans do not want fair wages.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

Immigration is good for America. You're talking about Trump.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. You're talking about saying I don't like three points.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

If you can't argue semantics of immigration, then why are you even arguing?

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm willing to. You don't even know what aggregate demand is. I just told you.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

You said aggregate demand means they come and work these jobs, therefore turns.

[Host/Interviewer]

Which is why over the last hundred years. Correct.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

Where are we housing them? Tell me we're going to house them. If we have a housing problem in America.

[Host/Interviewer]

If we have construction of housing problem in America. Yes, there are. Yeah. Only in.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

So why are they coming? Where are we going to house them?

[Host/Interviewer]

I know you wanted yourself.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

We have a housing problem.

[Host/Interviewer]

Everybody listen. You get upset because I interrupted you.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

You aren't letting me speak.

[Host/Interviewer]

You aren't letting me speak. Mr. Vice President. Quiet, quiet. President, quiet. And Mr. Vice President.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Go for it.

[Host/Interviewer]

Go for it, buddy. So this idea that, oh well, we don't have enough housing in areas of high demand. Texas is a ton of vacant units. And where are they going to California, to la? Are they going to New York City? True.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

They're immigrating to who?

[Young Conservative Participant]

Texas.

[Host/Interviewer]

Californians.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

California is going to Texas.

[Host/Interviewer]

New York.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

And people from Massachusetts are also going from Texas. They're fleeing these liberal economies because they had the highest cost of living, Massachusetts

[Host/Interviewer]

and those things.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

No, it's because they allow an influx of immigrants and now they can't get jobs because they're being paid. Not at the same rate. They're actually shipping them out. Remember like you said yourself, they shipping them out.

[Host/Interviewer]

There's 20 trillion. You know, the population of Hispanics in Texas is now the majority. Majority. What?

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

My, my point I'm making, They're immigrants. They're coming from California to Texas. The housing is there. Immigrants can't come in Legally, because they don't have the housing. They have the land for it.

[Host/Interviewer]

So housing is issues in high demand areas like California, where the economy is the fourth largest in the planet.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Correct.

[Host/Interviewer]

Because everybody wants to live there. But the issue, firms don't want to live in California, people don't want to live in California firms.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

Companies are leaving.

[Host/Interviewer]

People have grown over the last 10 years. Years. Their GDP always grows.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

They're taking massive amounts of illegal immigrants which do. Which do promote the gdp, but it does not help the US citizens, which is my problem with immigration. When you take in mass amounts, it

[Host/Interviewer]

segregates from the U.S. what do you mean? I've.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

I've been trying to speak. You interrupt like three points. And by the way, you haven't really stick to the current topic. Like you talked about housing.

[Host/Interviewer]

Housing's the problem in California. But there's NIMBYs. And guess what? I'm sorry, America is not your dream authoritarian la la land where the President of the United States consists of saying, I'm going to build a home there because I want to. Americans have rights. If they don't want a house in their backyard, they can say it. It's not the brown person. That's, I guess don't bring race into it.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

It doesn't matter the color, bro.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm just saying, like that's what you're doing.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

What's the number?

[Host/Interviewer]

Tell me, is Nick Fuentes your favorite?

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

Absolutely.

[Host/Interviewer]

I've never seen a single episode. Tell me where the majority of illegal immigrants come through.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

What countries do they come from?

[Host/Interviewer]

It's going to be from north to South America.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

So they're brown. I didn't say you did. It's statistically a fact. Yeah. Your immigration of your policy of immigration is terrible.

[Host/Interviewer]

You want open door people coming through.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

I'm final point.

[Host/Interviewer]

Make the final point. I make my final point.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

You have not been able to talk about the point. You're talking about Trump. You're talking about. You're ignoring the housing crisis. No, it's because you immigrants cause this issue when they come in at Mass.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm going to respond. Right.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

You said an authoritarian nation. Yes.

[Host/Interviewer]

We should have a strict border.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

We should have strict immigration policy, open door like you. You oh la la land. Everybody come here. It's a perfect nation. We have no obligation taken any person from any other nation whatsoever. It is a privilege we give them.

[Host/Interviewer]

The language is very disingenuous. You're not obligated to do anything. By the way. That was my position. So this idea, you know, it's really funny. You assume my position on immigration. Did you ask me a single time, how many illegal immigrants or immigrants do I want to enter this country? Did you? I heard you speak. I said a dynamic number that changes depending on the circumstances across the globe. Does that mean that you're going to

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

point?

[Host/Interviewer]

Does that mean that if everything is fine, if everything is all else held equal, I'm going to say 10 trillion people sent to the country? Definitely not. That's absurd. And it's funny. Earlier you mentioned you can't discuss the semantics of immigration. But I'm recognizing the economic issues in California as it pertains to housing. You say, oh, it's actually not the nimby. No, it's actually not the red tape. Oh, it's actually not the high demand. You don't want to recognize substance when it doesn't favor your narrative. So this. Oh, got him. Cut you off.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

Incorrect.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Got him.

[Host/Interviewer]

Lero. Peace out, bro.

[Young Conservative Participant]

So why is immigration good for America?

[Host/Interviewer]

It's a net economic benefit. And these individuals tend to benefit us in, like, a myriad of ways. I think it's always good to expand the supply of labor because that'll inevitably translate to a better economy. Better economy is good for everybody. And I like people, by the way. I like human beings.

[Young Conservative Participant]

So you just like the economy? You don't like, you know, like, people coming in?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. There's standards for that as well.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Yeah.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Like what?

[Host/Interviewer]

Already established. Like, don't be criminal.

[Young Conservative Participant]

What?

[Host/Interviewer]

Don't be a criminal.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Don't be a criminal. Well, like, what happened with, like, Lake and Riley?

[Host/Interviewer]

She was murdered by an immigrant.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Yeah. And illegal.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Jocelyn Nun.

[Host/Interviewer]

Illegal is illegal. Illegal is illegal. Correct. Illegal means broke the law. Correct. Jocelyn, that's like low iq. Pearl clutching is trash.

[Young Conservative Participant]

But you said.

[Host/Interviewer]

But you're.

[Young Conservative Participant]

You're the one. You're the one that said that.

[Host/Interviewer]

They're running away. The pros are running away. Get them. Get them a tier 2.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Does the Joe Biden administration know?

[Host/Interviewer]

Don't, don't. Don't come to me like with deaths, bro. The Trump administration wields debts and their benefit whenever they get the chance. So give me a break.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Please calm down.

[Host/Interviewer]

Immigrant, Venezuelan.

[Young Conservative Participant]

I need you to calm down.

[Host/Interviewer]

Chicago by Greg Abbott.

[Young Conservative Participant]

You're acting like a woman right now.

[Host/Interviewer]

All they do, all Republicans do is weaponize humanitarian crisis to the benefit so they can get people like you. You're. You're one of the fucking. What's the name of that?

[Young Conservative Participant]

You don't even know.

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on.

[Young Conservative Participant]

You don't even know what you're talking about. You have no fucking idea.

[Host/Interviewer]

People that are easily, you know, I'll just say low iq. There you go. It's probably better.

[Young Conservative Participant]

You think I'm low iq?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yes.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Are you retarded?

[Host/Interviewer]

Started what? What do you mean?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Are you?

[Host/Interviewer]

No, I don't think so.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Okay, so then admit that you mean you're. You're the one that said this earlier. Like verbatim. You said that? Oh, yeah, the United States, actually, we have the best, like, you know, background checks and we know everybody that's coming across the border. Like, you know, all the kids that were like sex trafficked and everything. Like, we knew exactly who they were because they were like Casey.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, they're documented.

[Young Conservative Participant]

That's like literally verbatim. Like your word.

[Host/Interviewer]

By definition, that means they're documented?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Yes.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Okay, so then why didn't we know the person that was gonna, you know, rape and kill the these women?

[Host/Interviewer]

Because they're illegal.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Oh, wait, so illegal immigration is like bad, right?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, I don't think that.

[Young Conservative Participant]

I think, okay, we should close our border then, right?

[Host/Interviewer]

It's already closed.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Okay, so should we put like, you know, illegal means?

[Host/Interviewer]

It's like already a statute on the books that prevents an individual from engaging in a particular activity.

[Young Conservative Participant]

A lot of them.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, I'm operating under that assumption. Sorry, I'm just going to be some mutual respect here. So I think, you know, that when a person breaks the law, they're operating outside of the confines of what, the officially recognized authority, the United States government. Government tends to be permissible. So then like before a sanction. Correct. So then why you cannot gauge whether or not a group of people are going to engage in crimes? Because I don't know if you're gonna murder me, but who knows, one day maybe you'll shoot up a school. But that.

[Young Conservative Participant]

That's only a trans person. That is a trans person.

[Host/Interviewer]

I'm not kidding. No, listen, white dudes do it all the time. Listen, per capita people. Actually, I'm not more table determining that proportionality. Do you know you want to judge immigration? Do you know how incredibly weird absurd idea that every single one of crime.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Do you know how proportions work? Do you know how they work?

[Host/Interviewer]

The relevance of that question.

[Young Conservative Participant]

What trans people? White school shooters?

[Host/Interviewer]

The relevance of that question is what?

[Young Conservative Participant]

The relevance. I mean, you claim the relevance is what? You, you literally claimed that white people do more school shootings proportionally counting or

[Host/Interviewer]

not counting gang violence.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Well, that's actually disgusting. That's actually disgusting. I mean, that's. That's actually disgusting. You're a disgusting person for that. I mean, you call me a break

[Host/Interviewer]

like poor innocent girls as it means to justify the most unjust country, and you want me to. Madam, that's disgusting.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

I'm talking.

[Young Conservative Participant]

I'm talking now.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I'm talking.

[Young Conservative Participant]

I'm talking.

[Host/Interviewer]

Don't be rude.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

Don't be rude.

[Host/Interviewer]

Don't be The American electorate. You are fake news.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Don't be rude.

[Host/Interviewer]

Democrats. And you have no response.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Don't be rude.

[Host/Interviewer]

Quiet. Don't be quiet.

[Young Conservative Participant]

You won't even let me finish my point. You're actually not even a real debater. I mean, you sit here and you talk over people.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Like on your campus. On your campus. Campage. I mean, like, it's garbage. You know what campus? On your campus tours, actually. I mean, mean, mine's a lot better. And with my partner who just destroys you.

[Host/Interviewer]

Also glazing more, bro. Glazing more. Glazing me Zoron. Jesus Christ, bro. Gargling that dude.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Oh, you can't even do it right.

[Host/Interviewer]

Like, God damn. Let's. Come on, let's.

[Young Conservative Participant]

I mean, all you like to do

[Host/Interviewer]

is you want to talk, you want to, like. Let's have it be substantive at least.

[Young Conservative Participant]

We just. Honestly.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

We are.

[Young Conservative Participant]

And honestly.

[Host/Interviewer]

What is the way? What is the way?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

What is one way?

[Young Conservative Participant]

One way. How we can get illegal illegals to stop coming over our border illegally. Like people to stop coming over our border illegally by.

[Host/Interviewer]

By treating the root issue. That's the best solution.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Yeah. Like we should put missiles on top of the border. Because think about it. If you had a zero percent chance of getting across our border alive, do you think people would do it?

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

No.

[Host/Interviewer]

People at the border. Yeah.

[Young Conservative Participant]

The answer. The answer would be. Would be no.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, right. How old are you?

[Debater 7 (Restaurant Owner, Moderate)]

What?

[Host/Interviewer]

How old are you?

[Young Conservative Participant]

I'm 18.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. This 18 year old is coming up with this magical idea. Novel idea. We're going to put missiles on top of the border to kill illegal immigrants.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Base.

[Host/Interviewer]

Base.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Enforcing our lives.

[Host/Interviewer]

Blow people up at the border.

[Young Conservative Participant]

No, no, no, no.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

I'm not Benjamin Netanyahu.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Okay?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

I'm not Benjamin.

[Host/Interviewer]

You guys need to put the flags up.

[Young Conservative Participant]

I'm not Benjamin Netanyahu, but I know what you're saying.

[Host/Interviewer]

That's not gonna offend me.

[Young Conservative Participant]

What?

[Host/Interviewer]

It's not gonna offend me.

[Young Conservative Participant]

I don't like you either, actually. How about we, you know, treat this at the root? Like you said, stop them from coming over by putting people. You know, if there's a 0% chance of you robbing a bank, you're going out of the bank alive, you're gonna get shot and killed. Are you gonna do it? Yes or no answer.

[Host/Interviewer]

Nobody. No.

[Young Conservative Participant]

No. Okay, so if we did the exact same for our border, do you think people would try to. To come over?

[Host/Interviewer]

There's laws and no. That prevent you from killing.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Well, clearly that hasn't worked.

[Host/Interviewer]

Do you kill a shop?

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

It hasn't worked.

[Host/Interviewer]

Like. You see what I'm saying? The solution for crime is killing people. Are you stupid?

[Young Conservative Participant]

Not all crime.

[Host/Interviewer]

That's. Okay, so if you shop, what's the difference between shoplifting and illegal immigration? Bad. To the point where you commit a murder, it's like you're gonna get life.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

Okay, well, no people.

[Young Conservative Participant]

No people would.

[Host/Interviewer]

But when you're in a.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Nobody would do it.

[Debater 5 (Hispanic Conservative)]

Nobody would do it.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay, so you want to.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Nobody would do it.

[Host/Interviewer]

Kills people that'll kill somebody. That breaks the law.

[Young Conservative Participant]

Kill somebody. It depends what law.

[Host/Interviewer]

Oh, how American, bro. How American of you. My final prompt is current Republican policy is bad for the economy. Why'd you do this?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Why did you insult?

[Host/Interviewer]

There's a reason why nobody wants it. What's up?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

I said, why did you insult Charlie Kirk?

[Host/Interviewer]

It was a joke, bro. That's. I think somebody asked me at the beginning what do I think about political violence. And I think it's condemnable. But you joke about it. Yeah, I joke about it. He joke he was using the death of Lake and Riley as a cudgel to justify. And I find that disgusting. Do you think when I do the same, it's condemnable?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Do you think it's repulsive when Nick Fuentes jokes about rape?

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, for sure.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

But you joke about political violence.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. To establish that all of a sudden that what I just said is an issue. But him using the death of innocent, innocent women as a means to justify generalizing millions of people, that's totally fine though, right? Is it?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Let's just go ahead.

[Host/Interviewer]

Hold on. Answer my question. Say. Right. It's not what's.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

All right.

[Host/Interviewer]

But when I make a joke, he say, oh, he should have died. I said, counting or not counting gang violence, that's disgusting. But when you started the conversation, he invoked the name of Lake and Riley, a woman that you guys have dragged through the mud for years as a means to justify mass deportations. It's totally fine.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

No, we see a. I'm calling out

[Host/Interviewer]

a double standard, bro. That's all it is.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Innocent woman who had her whole future ahead of her get butchered on camera

[Host/Interviewer]

by every single illegal in this country.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

I remember people have Reactions to that. Those reactions are valid. You're A joke about Charlie Kirk's not valid.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, it's. It's not valid to generalize millions of people based on one instance of crime.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

I'm saying the reaction is valid.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, it's not. Their feelings are valid. The reaction's valid. You know, it doesn't make it right. Right. Valid doesn't make it right.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

We can debate the minutia of policy,

[Host/Interviewer]

but I'm saying your.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Your joke about Charlie Kirk them something differently.

[Host/Interviewer]

Do you think the individual's concerns with his death can be valid? His. His existence in politics?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

His existence in politics.

[Host/Interviewer]

He's a fascist or a Nazi. Could that be valid?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Of course it's valid. You're allowed to be.

[Host/Interviewer]

It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it right to say Charlie Kirk should have died. It's still wrong. Regardless of all my grievances, Charlie Kirk should not have died. It was wrong for him to die. But you see, when it comes to illegal immigrants, you're saying, well, actually, it is valid for them to be mad at every single Venice.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

I see the feeling.

[Host/Interviewer]

But let's go back to the problem we're getting, right? Well, that's why you want to move away. You brought it up, bro. You brought it up. So you're saying current Republican policy is not bad for America. It's good. Tell me one economic metric that is better than Joe Biden's last year in office.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Well, it's unfortunate, I don't have props here because I was just looking at a chart and the chart was showing manufacturing jobs. And it looks like There was a 3% decrease with Joe Biden, the entire Joe Biden presidency. And then under Donald Trump, it peaked at around 3%. 15. 15,000 manufacturing jobs were added in March. And this is actually pretty personal to me because I come from a small town that many of you may not have heard of. It's called Lewiston, Maine. And in Lewiston, Maine, we have these. There's a river, and we use the river to produce hydropower. And this hydropower produced textile mills. And when you go to downtown Lewiston, you see all these abandoned buildings, you see these slums, you see homeless people, immigrants, Nigerian immigrants, all that stuff, and it's hollowed out. But when you read about the history of Lewiston, which I have done, because I'm really interested in that, you can see that people had good jobs and they had employer provided housing. So they had good jobs, they had dignity, they had housing, and those jobs were taken away and those were jobs were offshore off to shithole countries like Cambodia and Thailand, stuff like that. And there is no reason why we cannot have protective measures. And even, you know, your friend Joe Biden agree with this. Joe Biden renewed.

[Host/Interviewer]

Renewed.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Joe Biden renewed Trump's tariffs after his first.

[Host/Interviewer]

He did not renew tariffs on every single exporter in the world. That's not true.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

First off, I'm talking about the first term.

[Host/Interviewer]

The target. I'm trying. Right. Trump's not. Second term.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

First term. First term.

[Host/Interviewer]

They're not the same.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Those were renewed.

[Host/Interviewer]

They're not the same.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

And they were renewed because they were working.

[Host/Interviewer]

Those things are not the same. Those things are not.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

And they brought jobs back to America and they. Our country's been hollowed out. It hasn't.

[Host/Interviewer]

The manufacturing sector as a percentage of GDP has decreased, but its overall value added is still in the trillions of dollars. Dollars. But here's the thing, as come as countries and economies progress and like technological advancement occurs, people tend to move away from things that are no longer advantageous. So the production of textiles and apparel is not something done in America because we decided to specialize on other things like aircraft, spacecraft, military equipment, technology, semiconductors. Sleepy Joe Biden, he passed that bill.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Right, exactly.

[Host/Interviewer]

Cars, etc, generators, pharmaceuticals. We do think things that align more with our specialties, with our capacities.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

I'm glad you brought up cars. So President Trump actually used tariffs and throwing out NAFTA in the Trade Act. Trade. Trade deal to bring General Motors and start to shift them back to the United States because General Motors makes a lot of their cars in Mexico, as you know. And these terrorists were instrumental in bringing this back to the United States.

[Host/Interviewer]

So again, the imposed tariffs on every single exporter. I'm not in the planet.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

I'm not defending that.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

I'm.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, that's the conversation. No Republican policy is bad for the economy. Every single member of the GOP is behind these tariffs.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

You're just making that up.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's okay. I'm one.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

I'm part of the gop. I don't believe in that.

[Host/Interviewer]

Okay, then I guess you don't support the Trump administration, do you? You be a Rhino. Rhino alert.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

So. So President. Okay. Excuse me, I'm talking.

[Host/Interviewer]

President Trump, I was going to.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Is a. Is a person. I mean, he essentially is the ruler of the world. He runs the plan planet. There's a lot of things that he does in the world, and I can't agree with literally every single thing. If you were asking me right now do I agree with President Trump, I'm generally speaking say no, but this is another person. Trump, you said Republican policy. Republican policy has a couple of things. Hasn't been towards terrorists, but it's been shifting towards terrorists. I agree with protectionism. So does President Biden. I agree with deregulation and I agree with lower corporate tax rates. I ran a small business for a while and I saw the horrors because we manufactured our. Another shitty country, Germany. I manufacture our products in Germany and I saw the horrific tax regime that was imposed on us when we were trying to create this product in Germany. On the value tax, the lur taxes, the corporate tax, it's all terrible. The United States, and guided by Republican policy of lower taxes, lower regulation has allowed for us to become the greatest country that God has ever created. And that's just a fact.

[Joseph Shirafi (State Assembly Candidate)]

Fact.

[Host/Interviewer]

Well, God didn't create it, but sure. Oh, God, you're going to hell. No. So I'm getting. By the way. By the way, when you get to hell, Joe Biden will be president. Republican policy is free markets.

[Debater 2 (Conservative on Immigration)]

Right.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's. It's being careful. Right? No intervention. The market can solve it on its own. So how's the tariff? Not intervention.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

That's why I said Republican policy has changed. You know, Republican Party.

[Host/Interviewer]

Arbitrary and it benefits you. Currently, the Republican Party supports Donald Trump, not protectionism. So whatever he says, says, goes. That's the reason why now they're open to the idea of tariffs. They didn't like high taxes under Joe Biden. They don't like them. Now when it comes to imposing a regressive tax on the American people, we can probably do that one. That's okay. So I just. I think there's a contradiction there.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Okay, listen.

[Host/Interviewer]

So just because you think that the consumer surplus, so the benefits that people have from capitalism, from markets, that being a wide array of products they can purchase, depending on what is it that you like, shouldn't that be protected? That's the benefit of capitalism.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Are allowed to buy whatever product.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, you're not. Because now the government is making a change of budget constraint in response to a term.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

It's not a sanction, it's a terror.

[Host/Interviewer]

It is going to incentivize you from purchasing that.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Good.

[Host/Interviewer]

So that's the goal of the tariff, dude.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Okay, so you're still allowed to purchase it. You just disincentivize.

[Host/Interviewer]

If I. Not if I impose 100 tax on you wearing that suit, are you going to wear the suit?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

It depends on. It depends on the suit.

[Host/Interviewer]

It depends on my budget, bro. Lock in, bro. Doesn't get. Come on, Lock. You're not. You're not wearing the fucking suit. You're getting another suit. An American suit.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Why do you so poor? Are you. Are you broke? I know you're college.

[Host/Interviewer]

I wouldn't be able to afford a fucking suit if there's 100% tax on it, that's for sure. Holy shit. I mean maybe broke as fuck. Exactly. Exactly. So I serve as a better example of the average American and you don't. When you have to pay a higher price for goods at the grocery store, that's going to affect you deeply.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

That's what I'm glad you brought up.

[Host/Interviewer]

Grocery stores was gas and eggs, which by the way the gasoline index according to the CBP is the CBP report increased the largest it ever has month to month in terms of a percentage increase since the program started in 1967 with groceries. This idea real quick that the average purchase is not going to be affected by tax. Taxes on goods is ridiculous. It is clear. We've seen it.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

It's vital for our national security that vital objects are vital. Goods that are being made sure in the United States are protected.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yes, sure. Okay, so subsidize them. And

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

I'm saying tariffs. You're same subsidy. The tariff is a better option. It protects American industry, it protects national security.

[Host/Interviewer]

And.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

And it's a good way to negotiate with and punish countries who disagree.

[Host/Interviewer]

I think it's a greater. Well, well, that's. You can't have all these things that once. If you want terroristic because you want to reshore manufacturing, you can't be looking to use it as a means to get countries at the table to change tax policy. Sorry, trade policy.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Saying you have one tool has multiple uses.

[Host/Interviewer]

It's a multi tool. No, if you. If you want to use it for manufacturing, how can you use it for trade deals?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Saying in different. So, okay, so if I. So for example, with. With France and their wine, we could use tariffs to punish France with wine. That's not going to research or manufacturing industry.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, but you're using it to punish France. Correct?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Right.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yes.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

So we can use the same tool different ways in different scenarios.

[Host/Interviewer]

No, because you're doing it to bring France to the table. Right?

[Sean Kelly]

Right.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah. So once you make that deal, the assumption is that the tariff will be dropped.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Right.

[Host/Interviewer]

So there will be no manufacturing benefit.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Exactly. But there was no manufacturing benefit to begin with. With. With wine.

[Host/Interviewer]

Why wouldn't there be?

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

It's wine.

[Host/Interviewer]

Wine that's made here, for example, would increase, therefore allowing them to expand Supply.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

We don't need to protect the wine industry.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yeah, I agree. We only need to. So we at times protect particular industries.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Don't need to protect the wine.

[Host/Interviewer]

Tends to have less to protect the

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

wine industry industry then it's on the table to use as a negotiating tool with France is what I'm saying.

[Debater 1 (Critical of Kamala Harris)]

Yeah.

[Host/Interviewer]

So if you're. All right. Okay. If your goal is now. Hold on. Okay, hold on. Liberal. Hold on. Liberal. If your goal is to resurge. Sorry, Reshore Manufacturing. Not looking to make a trade deal. You're not looking to lower a tariff. The whole point is to keep it on and allow for the firms to

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

start building up their select circumstances.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yes. But yeah, you can use it for a deal and to build a manufacturing.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

You're not listening.

[Host/Interviewer]

You're doing this on purpose because I

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

know you're intelligent guy.

[Host/Interviewer]

You.

[Debater 3 (Pro-Trump Supporter)]

Purpose.

[Host/Interviewer]

You called me a bad word earlier. All right, all right. Peace out, bro. I have an. Yeah.

[Debater 4 (Moderate/Defensive of Trump)]

I have an idea.

[Sean Kelly]

Yeah.

[Host/Interviewer]

What if I call somebody up and we try to try to come to an agreement? I wouldn't be the prop that filling it up. Okay. You want to do. I think. I think it's likely that mustache. Probably we can have the best conversation. And he's closer to my age and I'm. I'm. I discriminate. I'm just joking. No, I think. I think we can have a good conversation. So we both agree political violence is bad in America. But I tend to see that there's a discrepancy in the way some elected officials or people on the left and right tend to treat it. They see it as justifiable, depending on the circumstances or. I mean, it is what it is. They did it. We can do it back. And I think that's wrong.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

I agree. And whether or not it's mainly on the left or the right, we can go semantics. We can go DOJ studies, the FBI, whatever, you know, what the affiliation was. But we're both agreeing that it should be condemned fully. It's never justified. Liable again. January 6th, Charlie Kirk's murder.

[Host/Interviewer]

Yes.

[Debater 6 (Anti-Immigration Advocate)]

You can go down the long list of unfortunate circumstances where there have been so much political violent cases growing. Like you said yourself earlier, before we did this debate, you said usually political violence cases happen in a country that's failing. Yes, and I agree. Usually does happen. Assassination attempts and stuff like that. And we're seeing that on the rise right now in America. It's scary, it's sad, and everyone should condemn it on all sides.

[Host/Interviewer]

I can agree more. Yeah, there you go. We hate political violence. Right? So I'm gonna forget better.

[Sean Kelly]

Thanks for watching all the way to the end. Guys, please hit like and subscribe. It helps us grow the show and helps us get bigger guests. Thank you so much.