← Surrounded
Loading summary
Transcript148 lines
- [00:00]
Interviewer
Aside from the content of the debates themselves, do you ever feel like you're going too much for the jugular with people though?
- [00:07]
Isaiah Martin
Facts are relentless and that's just how they are. I think that in this country we've done too much playing around when people say objective mistruths and so look. No, I don't. It's really clear that the Republicans are always spewing out misinformation. And I think the only way to beat that is very strong counters and rebuttals. So, you know, it's not suck to suck, I guess. We heard you.
- [00:32]
Interviewer
Nine years of bring back the snack.
- [00:34]
Conservative Debater
Wrap and you've won. But maybe you should have asked for more. Say hello to the hot honey snack wrap.
- [00:41]
Isaiah Martin
Now you've really won.
- [00:43]
Conservative Debater
Go to McDonald's and get it while you can.
- [00:46]
Interviewer
I'm here with Isaiah Martin. Isaiah, welcome to the follow up and thanks for being in surrounded.
- [00:53]
Isaiah Martin
Absolutely. It was such a great time. I really enjoyed it.
- [00:56]
Interviewer
Was it a great time? You know, I, I know it. Taxing.
- [01:01]
Isaiah Martin
No, I mean it was great. I mean, honestly, you know, debating is what I like to do and those guys, they didn't really put too much fire in my view. So, you know, it was really just going out there speaking facts and you know, getting out there. It was really fun.
- [01:17]
Interviewer
Yeah. Well, we, on behalf of Jubilee, you know, thanks for jumping into the arena and I actually want to give you, you know, in your intro in the episode you say you're a former congressional candidate, but I wanted you to have the opportunity to kind of just add a little bit more to that, like what has been your, what are your political aspirations and what's sort of your background running for Congress. And are you planning on running again?
- [01:46]
Isaiah Martin
Yeah, well, I know for me I got started in politics because I got frustrated with waiting in four hour long lines to go vote. Our governor had made things really difficult. So I got to work, turned our college football stadium into a polling site and beat the heck out of the Republicans and got a four hour long wait time down to about five minutes on election day. And it's that kind of energy that, you know, propelled me to continue to keep going. I met a mentor, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who was a really influential person in my life. She took me underneath her wings and really spent a lot of time with her learning how to do things, learning how the Congress works, learning how to really become productive in politics. So all that's kind of led me to this moment, you know, ran for Congress and this open seat that we had didn't go the way that I wanted, but now, you know, I'm really just kind of focused on, you know, getting out and telling our messages. Democrats, as we're the party that can make life more affordable for people, the party with the best policies, and really kind of show a roadmap of where to go in 2026 for the midterms as well as 2028. So I'm excited about the future that's ahead of us.
- [02:54]
Interviewer
I want to hear more of your thoughts about future of the Democratic Party, future of American politics. But first, I think we'll get there by reacting to your appearance in Surrounded. I'm curious, what was the experience like filming the debate and how did you feel going into it? And now how do you feel, you know, seeing it out in the world as kind of like a finished product?
- [03:21]
Isaiah Martin
Yeah, you know, I played sports growing up, so, you know, it kind of felt like going into a game really. Kind of felt like going into an arena full of folks that don't want you to succeed and doing what's possible to overcome. That, you know, really was kind of my mentality to prepare as much as I could before and to get in there and keep a very calm composure and just hit back with facts. And I think that that's what people have been really seeing, you know, across the Internet is I really made sure to use the facts against these guys. And you could see oftentimes Republicans would start sweating because they. They don't really have very many facts. So, I mean, look, it was. It was a really good experience. I enjoyed it. And 10, not 10 times out of 10.
- [04:07]
Interviewer
Oh, great. Well, don't feel pressure to.
- [04:11]
Isaiah Martin
No, I'm serious. Thank you.
- [04:13]
Interviewer
I'm glad to hear it. And it's fun to watch. You know, I had. I actually hadn't heard of you prior to you appearing in the show. I think, you know, when you were running, I think you crossed my newsfeed once or twice, but I hadn't kind of connected the dots of who you were and what, you know, your. Your background was. And so it was cool to see you go toe to toe with them. And, you know, I think my. I know Jubilee's aspirations and my hope for the show is like, it can really be a platform to find new voices or emerging voices in politics, stress test them and launch them into the mainstream, because if you can handle, you know, 20 people coming at you like you're saying in almost like a sports kind of intensity, they don't want you to win. They're Bringing everything they've got to you. I think my hope is that that that strengthens and raises the bar of public discourse. So speaking of, of facts, you and Dennis right off the bat. And I don't know if this is how it happened when you guys recorded it, but like right off the bat in the episode, there's a stark disagreement around immigration ice, what kind of people are being deported right now? So I'm going to replay that and we'll kind of dig in.
- [05:27]
Dennis
According to the DHS, 70% of the people have been deport. Have been criminals either caught in the act. Yes. I'm surprised you're surprised. You ran for Congress and you don't know this.
- [05:38]
Conservative Debater
That's what those numbers said.
- [05:40]
Dennis
That is 70%. The other 30% are people who went through the entire immigration process and had some sort of deportation attainer. So that is 700,000 people were deported like that 1.9 million people self deported. So far that's all DHS data. It's publicly available. You can look it up. So I'm just. How are you standing for criminals?
- [06:01]
Conservative Debater
Is that what you're doing right now of interior removal? 70% of the people deported literally have not been convicted criminals.
- [06:06]
Isaiah Martin
What are you talking about?
- [06:07]
Conservative Debater
That's according to dhs.
- [06:08]
Dennis
That's according to dhs. Where are you getting your data from?
- [06:10]
Conservative Debater
Dhs.
- [06:11]
Dennis
What day? This is like just recently last from.
- [06:15]
Conservative Debater
Up to October or mid October of this year.
- [06:17]
Dennis
So we're gonna need a fact check on this cuz I literally checked yesterday.
- [06:20]
Conservative Debater
Not convicted criminals. 70% of the people deported are not convicted criminals under interior.
- [06:25]
Dennis
They were people. So there were people that had either been convicted criminals.
- [06:30]
Conservative Debater
No.
- [06:30]
Dennis
Or they had or like at a stalemate. Because now you're claiming something and I'm claiming something from the same source.
- [06:36]
Conservative Debater
So 70% of the people that have been deported under interior removals are not convicted criminals. And that is a fact.
- [06:43]
Dennis
That's not a fact.
- [06:46]
Interviewer
It goes on quite a bit with Dennis.
- [06:49]
Isaiah Martin
Yeah.
- [06:50]
Interviewer
What's going on with Dennis?
- [06:51]
Isaiah Martin
Isaiah, you know, it was really interesting to me because he came out with a lot of energy and I really couldn't understand how somebody with that much confidence could be so wrong, you know, in his claim. And so it was very interesting I think to watch him go about that. You know, I think he came from jump trying to figure out if he could spark some type of confrontation. And as I later told him in the, in the exchange, one of us is going to go viral here when this fact check comes out and it's Definitely not going to be me. And I think that the people, now that the things have gone out, I've seen that, you know, Dennis was wrong on that one. But, you know, I think it's just this is what he's been, you know, he did throughout the episode. I think people will get a good kick out of just watching, I think the discourse that went on. And like I said, facts don't really care about feelings. And it was proven by the fact check. Yeah.
- [07:46]
Interviewer
So. And just to kind of let the listener know, you know, the fact check that appears in the episode supports what you're saying. I did my own digging and tried to see if there was, you know, maybe a misconstrued or a separate study that Dennis was referring to that he kind of got mixed up with. I couldn't find anything to support the numbers that he was throwing out there. And so, yeah, I mean, what do you think about just the information landscape that we're in right now, where two people come head to head in a debate as visible as this, and there's just, like a fundamental disagreement on what the data actually bears out as truth? What do we do about that? Is it something you see recurring in your debates and discussions with people?
- [08:39]
Isaiah Martin
Well, to be honest with you, I think that's why Jubilee is so important, is because when people go viral for just having the wrong information like that, I think it really builds on all of us to remember it's important to check your facts, because the thing about Jubilee is very high stakes. And if you go out there and you start spewing stuff and you get fact checked, you know, there's millions of people that are going to see that and say, oh, wow, you know, that's not a good thing. So I think that. That having, you know, these type of discussions are important because people can see all kind of disinformation that gets thrown out there into the stratosphere. And when it's pushed back against very vigorously, I think that kind of helps spread the correct information to as many people as possible.
- [09:22]
Interviewer
Yeah. And you know what's interesting about the comments on this video, you know, this interaction with Dennis, it's one of those unusual instances where, like, the very first debate, the very first encounter is kind of what everyone's talking about in the comments. And there was actually, you know, a popular comment that was like, we need real time fact checks, and they want, you know, a moderator or some sort of engines stopping the conversation in the moment and being, like, verifying a claim. Technologically speaking, that's something I've actually always envisioned or imagined being possible. You know, kind of like being there on set. It is kind of hard to think about how you would integrate that and how that could sort of derail things right away. But it's, it's an interesting kind of prospect. But what was. And I, I, you know, I kind of want to hear Dennis's side of the story, but, like, he chose to really, like, double down and just kind of deny the validity of what you were saying altogether. What. And we'll, we'll revisit. You know, you guys kind of, you went full circle, pulled him back in to the center at the end. But what's going on there from your perspective?
- [10:30]
Isaiah Martin
You know, it was one of those things, I think that he was really, really set on that one specific point. And, you know, he was going to try to go for it for the very end. And I think it was a very high stakes risk. Right. Because, look, if he would have turned out to be right, then I would have been the one that would have been mocked all over libs of TikTok and all these different political accounts. So I think he was just trying to make a gamble there. It was a raw gamble and knew in the back of my mind, because I had read over that data numerous times that I was correct. And so that's why I was willing to not let him change the subject, but to stay focused and to kind of let him hit a stalemate and say, look, okay, well, that's your position. Well, I guess the Internet will pick a winner here. And I knew it wasn't going to be him.
- [11:17]
Interviewer
Well, yeah, and he's, you know, he's running for Congress as well in California. I'm actually not sure at the time that was recording. I'm not sure where we are in that race. So I have to kind of do some digging there. But from your perspective, I'm going to kind of steel, man, the kernel of what I'm hearing coming from Dennis and what I, you know, the Vibey argument I'm picking up is that Democrats are the party that supports criminals. That's kind of like the subtextual claim there. And, you know, I see that a lot on the Internet. And, you know, even if you watch the Grammys last night, you know, you hear someone like Billie Eilish, kind of a pop culture figure on the left, saying, you know, nobody is illegal on stolen land. And so there's this caricature which I think is sometimes valid, of the left being the party that wants open borders, that doesn't want to enforce laws that has almost a suicidal level of empathy for criminals to the point where it creates kind of a degradation of law and order and order in society. Do you think there's validity there? Do you think Democrats, even if Dennis facts were wrong, do you think there's validity in that claim that Dems have kind of missed the mark when it comes to communicating a clear message on law and order and what kind of laws we need to enforce versus not?
- [12:47]
Isaiah Martin
Well, I think that that is often an attack that Republicans use, but it really doesn't have that much substance, largely because I know in Congress there's been work from Congresswoman Veronica Escobar to push the dignity act that she worked with Congresswoman Maria Alvira Salazar of Florida. There's been a lot of proposals, and Republicans have blocked nearly every single one. So, I mean, I think that when it comes to, you know, border security, I'm a big supporter of border security. I think that those things are not mutually exclusive. You can have strong borders while also saying that we want a pathway to citizenship. And I talk a lot of times on TikTok Live that I say that for those people that are in this country that are undocumented, if they agree to pay every single tax, state, federal and local, and they agree to pay an extra tax of 7% for seven years, they haven't committed a crime inside the United States or elsewhere. At the end of that, they get American citizenship. It'll create billions of dollars for us that we can use to invest in trade programs for our kids and will also help millions of people that are undocumented come completely out of the shadows. And I think that's something that's going to be to benefit everybody in this country. Now, you can push a policy like that while also saying we're going to enforce our laws and have a strong border similar to the way that Barack Obama did. So I think that President Obama had a very strong track record on that issue, and I think that Bill Clinton had a stronger track record on that issue. The belief that Democrats did not support a strong border border, I think, is a lie that's been made up by Republicans, and we need to look more forward on how we're going to actually fix it. Republicans have no solutions whatsoever on how to fix the immigration system in this country. And I think that that was a reoccurring theme that we saw in Jubilee.
- [14:27]
Interviewer
Yeah, you mentioned the way Obama enforced immigration, and I remember at the time hearing a lot of pushback. He's the deporter in chief or something like that because of the number of deportations that were happening. And I've seen a lot of clips of the way Obama, when he was a candidate for president, talked about enforcing immigration and the status of illegal immigrants in the U.S. those are kind of going viral now because a lot of people are saying this sounds really reasonable compared to what we're seeing in the world right now. What do you think about how Biden and Harris, this came up in the episode? And. And you said, you know, I'm not. I'm not defending everything Biden did. Do you think they fell really short with how they enforce border security? Is that something that you think Dems need to own more publicly to kind of create more distance?
- [15:20]
Isaiah Martin
I mean, I know that. That, you know, we were at a time in which we were recovering from once in a generation pandemic. Immigration started to increase at the end of Trump's term. We saw that. We could literally see a speech from Chip Roy where he's literally talking about all the influx of undocumented immigrants that were coming across the border at the end of Trump's presidency. And that continued. You know, the Biden administration tried to get legislation across the finish line, but the Republicans ultimately filibustered it. That would have put, you know, a lot more resources towards that area. And we saw immigration numbers come down towards the end of Biden's term. I think that ultimately, what we need to be looking forward to is what the future looks like. And personally, I think that, again, it's got to have to be something that's going to create something that's a real pathway for people. It's something that puts a lot of dollars towards enforcement. And I know that Democrats can see that moving forward as well. So, I mean, look, I don't agree with everything that was done by Biden personally. You know, I'm a big believer in getting rid of the filibuster. I would have got rid of it to pass that immigration proposal so we could actually get a real solution down there. But, you know, it was a disagreement. And I think that, as I kind of talked about on Jubilee, that, you know, sometimes you have disagreements with politicians, and that's just kind of how it goes.
- [16:37]
Interviewer
Yeah, yeah. One. One more thing I kind of want to hit on with immigration. Are you familiar with, like, David Sacks and the all in podcast?
- [16:46]
Isaiah Martin
I haven't heard it, no.
- [16:47]
Interviewer
No worries. David Sacks. I mean, he's in the current Trump administration, but he's got a very popular podcast. He's made the claim, and I've heard it circulate that, you know, Democrats benefit from the presence of undocumented people in blue cities because of it boosts census numbers. And so he thinks that, you know, he makes the claim that, you know, Democrats want a porous border and they want sanctuary cities because it boosts their representation and sway in government. What do you think about claims like that?
- [17:25]
Isaiah Martin
Is that why the Republicans were busing undocumented people to blue states? Is that why?
- [17:31]
Interviewer
Well, I think that was. I think that's a fair pushback. I think that a different form of political theater that was meant to sort of be like, you deal with it, but, you know, I mean, but if.
- [17:44]
Isaiah Martin
That'S what they were worried about, then wouldn't they keep them in Texas and Arizona and all these other places? It's amazing how Republicans have such cognitive dissonance, because I remember a time where they were trying to get them out. So now they're saying that blue states want them because of political advantages. I mean, that's just pathetic. I mean, I think that Republicans always come up with these arguments that coincide with each other, and it seems like that's what David Sacks is trying to do there.
- [18:12]
Interviewer
Yeah. Well, thank you for touching on that. I'm gonna pull up the next clip.
- [18:17]
Economic Conservative
Well, you talked about corporate taxes, because that's what Kamala Harris ran on. She ran on raising the corporate taxes and raising the effective gains tax. Can you at least acknowledge that that is just economically suicidal for our country and would result in businesses slashing jobs and leaving our countries in droves?
- [18:32]
Conservative Debater
You know what the. The top corporate tax rate was in the 1990s when Bill Clinton had the largest peacetime expansion of the American.
- [18:38]
Economic Conservative
What was it?
- [18:39]
Conservative Debater
35%.
- [18:39]
Economic Conservative
Okay.
- [18:40]
Conservative Debater
Higher than what it was now. Do you know what the effect 2070? Do you know. Do you know what the. Do you know what the effect of corporate tax rate was when Barack Obama had 74 straight months of job growth in America? Do you know when that was?
- [18:53]
Economic Conservative
I know that we know what it was. I know that we. When we slashed the corporate tax rate in 2017 that we had.
- [18:58]
Conservative Debater
Do you know what it was?
- [18:58]
Economic Conservative
Job growth under Donald Trump going, do.
- [19:00]
Conservative Debater
You know what it was?
- [19:00]
Economic Conservative
What was it?
- [19:01]
Conservative Debater
It was 35%.
- [19:02]
Economic Conservative
Okay?
- [19:03]
Conservative Debater
So in these mass periods of time in which we've had so much job growth in this country, million tens of millions of jobs created in this country, we had a 35% corporate tax rate.
- [19:12]
Economic Conservative
And then when we cut it again, there was even more job growth under the first Trump term.
- [19:16]
Conservative Debater
Not what happened? The rate of job growth literally declined right after that. We just continued on a trend, and then it literally smoothed a little bit. That's kind of what happened.
- [19:23]
Economic Conservative
No, did we add we had record job growth under President TRUMP From 2017 up until the start of COVID That's.
- [19:28]
Conservative Debater
Just simply not true.
- [19:29]
Interviewer
I hear this claim a lot when the topic of the economy comes up and Democrats approach to it, that, you know, Democrats are bad for business. You know, they squash the economy. They, they push, you know, and you heard this about Zoran Mamdani. I think we have to see how things play out. But businesses are going to leave the cities, wealth is going to move out of the country. There's going to be less jobs because companies are going to be more conservative about hiring because they have less money. Do you think? I don't think you think that's true, but how do Democrats message against that? And, and what is the right way for Democrats to message on how, how they can be strong with the economy?
- [20:18]
Isaiah Martin
I think that the way to do it is just to ask people, do you think the economy was doing well in the 90s when Bill Clinton was president? Because if you did, we had a 35% top corporate tax rate. I mean, we were hiring a lot of people. We had a lot of job growth that was happening. We had a lot of business growth that was happening. So many Fortune 500 companies were created during that time with the hired top corporate tax rate. You know, again, 74 straight months of job growth under Barack Obama. The facts don't care about Republican tears when it comes to this. And ultimately, I think it's just a lie that the Republicans have pushed out for a very long time because the big companies that fund a lot of their campaigns really don't want to see this. But what we do know is that after the Tax Cuts and Jobs act was signed, we saw an increase in stock buybacks, we saw more private planes bought by these big corporations. We saw an increase in profits. Stock market continued to increase, but we saw that the amount of money that they were investing in private sector manufacturing decreased under what it was under Barack Obama. That's not something that's very good. So ultimately, I think that we've got to be able to communicate the history of what we've been able to do, but then also talk about what we will do in the future. And the benefits to make affordability better by raising the top corporate tax rate is definitely there.
- [21:37]
Interviewer
That claim that Martin made at the end, that there was record job growth from 2017 to 2020, right before the pandemic. I did a little bit of digging and obviously it's a broad claim, but there was significant job growth in that period that he pointed out. And a big argument for, for Trump leading up to the last election was that Trump was great with the economy. He hadn't done the tariffs that we've seen this last year. But I mean, do you think, do you think Trump has done good things with the economy? Do you think his first term was, you know, before the pandemic, you know, successful in generating growth? Because, you know, a lot of people try and kind of compare him to Reagan, this kind of deregulatory president, that, that, that opens up space for growth. Do you think that doesn't work? Do you think that's untrue?
- [22:32]
Isaiah Martin
Well, I mean, but you got to look at what happened, what preceded Donald Trump, which was 74 straight months of job growth. I mean, when you have something that's going on a very strong trajectory and then you see the rate of increase decrease as a result of that, that's kind of what, you know, the point that I was making in that exchange. I think that ultimately, no, I don't think that an economy that was moving in a very strong direction, that you effectively go give all these money to the richest people in America and you, you flew around on Trump Force One saying that you were going to bring all these big manufacturing jobs back, but those same companies, despite the fact that they were getting all this profit, were spending less on private sector manufacturing. I mean, that's just how it is. So, no, I don't think that Trump is some type of economic guru. I think he was somebody who benefited off of Barack Obama. Now, traditionally, what Republicans say is, well, in 2025, why is it that you don't make the same argument when it comes to Biden? Because the situations are vastly different. Trump inherited an economy where you had sub 2% inflation. He inherited economy, like I said, with 74 straight months of job growth. When Biden got in office, he inherited two and a half trillion dollars printed into the economy as a result of the CARES Act. He inherited a once in a generation pandemic. It's a vastly different circumstances now. This time, the Trump is back in again. He inherited inflation that was going down, job growth that was going up, private sector manufacturing spend going up. And he ruined it all with a singular action, tariffs. He did a singular action that went and reversed all of these things. And so ultimately, I think that we've just got to be able to Communicate, you know, the facts behind this. I don't believe that Trump has been some guru for the economy. I think his policies ultimately make us worse off. I think people are living with that today.
- [24:17]
Interviewer
I remember, you know, when the tariff, what was it called? Liberation Day.
- [24:23]
Isaiah Martin
Yeah.
- [24:24]
Interviewer
We've almost had about a year of tariffs. The economy or not the economy, the stock market had a pretty sizable recoil right at that point. And since then, I've seen a lot of people, you know, maybe soften their opinions on Trump's tariff strategy. You know, pointing out that we didn't, we haven't seen as much inflation as was projected. We haven't seen as much economic recoil as was feared. And also that, you know, this revenue, which there's a valid argument that it's really revenue that Americans are paying is helping. You know, it's a, it's a positive thing that the government is collecting this tariff revenue. Do you think there we were, there was maybe too much fear mongering around that tariff impact, or do you think it's still going to bear out?
- [25:25]
Isaiah Martin
No, because the tariff, the tariff impact is still very much there because when you look at things and you realize that a lot of these companies had backdated a lot of inventory. Right. So that's what makes a lot of this inflation take place a lot later than what it is. And we're also seeing that the American taxpayer has to subsidize now our farmers in our country because they're getting screwed. There's more farm bankruptcies in the first quarter of this year of last year than all of the previous year combined. That's pretty terrible. That is not a good thing to be in. So our food prices are effectively being subsidized even more as a result of Trump's tariffs having to be in place. And if you were to ask those farmers out in Iowa, you'd ask those people out across middle America if they would rather have the subsidies or if they would rather have the tariffs gone away. They would 100% say get rid of the tariffs. And in addition to that, look, I think that ultimately, when it comes to the state of where we are, we didn't need that. These tariffs were not something that were effective for us. And I think that ultimately people kind of see that direction when it comes to the $600 billion. Right. That, that they're bragging about when it comes to tariff revenue.
- [26:36]
Interviewer
Yeah, yeah.
- [26:36]
Isaiah Martin
You, you, you said, you know, that that's money that comes from all of us. So what they did was they, they basically allow for the richest corporations on earth to pay less money in taxes. They're allowing for the deficit to increase because of all the international boondoggles and all the stuff that they're using for rich people to get richer. And they're extracting more revenue from people like you and myself. All that's happening is that the tax burden has been shifted while the deficit continues to go up. They're taxing us. They're bragging about $600 billion while they go in and cut taxes for the richest people in America. They're paying less, but we're paying more. That's all it is. It is a way to transfer the tax burden onto the American people. And what's happening right now is that the richest people in the world, the richest people in America are getting richer while everyday people feel themselves getting screwed. And I think that's reflective every single day.
- [27:27]
Interviewer
Well, and I, I mean, I will say I think time will continue to tell, you know, how much, how much that is, you know, is these tariffs are being reflected in inflation. You know, the cost of goods and services. It's, it's going, it's gone up. There has been inflation, but it, it hasn't skyrocketed. And like you said, you know, some of this was being kind of budgeted in, and so there's kind of a slow absorption effect. But then there's also this argument that these tariffs are giving the United States a ton of leverage to get better trade deals with foreign, with other countries and to kind of renegotiate top to bottom, what our trade relationships are with them. And I'm actually going to play you a clip because you and Martin kept going and this is about Canada specifically, but he kind of makes the, the argument that, you know, this is a leverage thing, like, you know, we tear up everything because that's just, that's just how the art of the deal. So let's watch that and then, you know, we can kind of dig into it a little more.
- [28:33]
Conservative Debater
This is what happens when you have conservative government. They're so sensitive, they're over here raising your prices because they had a commercial that you don't like.
- [28:41]
Economic Conservative
Tariffs don't raise prices. There was just, there was just a study uchicago that came out that tariffs actually don't raise the prices.
- [28:47]
Conservative Debater
Why would you go put tariffs on a country we had free, free trade with?
- [28:56]
Economic Conservative
I think that we have a strategic advantage of having our lumber industry here in the United States. I don't want to be reliant upon.
- [29:01]
Conservative Debater
Canada for lumber to go and achieve that aim.
- [29:05]
Economic Conservative
Yeah, it makes it more expensive for imports to come to the United States so that American businesses can relocate back to America.
- [29:12]
Conservative Debater
So now if your disagreement was tariffs on lumber, your answer now is for tariffs on everything again?
- [29:20]
Economic Conservative
Yeah, you want to establish leverage for future trade agreements. That's how, that's how trade agreements work. That's how negotiations work.
- [29:26]
Conservative Debater
And the leverage is to go and charge for something you are getting largely.
- [29:31]
Economic Conservative
For free again, because you want to have a strategic advantage of making it in the United States. Obviously.
- [29:40]
Interviewer
That was probably the most animated, I think you, you might have gotten.
- [29:45]
Isaiah Martin
Yeah.
- [29:49]
Interviewer
What are you seeing happening there, Isaiah?
- [29:54]
Isaiah Martin
Well, you know, the conservatives always seem to trip themselves up with the tariffs when it comes to Canada because we had free trade, it was free. And so they are really celebrating us having to pay more for something we were getting for free. And so I think that for the vast majority of Americans, when they listen to that, they say, well, how is it making America great to pay for something we weren't paying for? And I think that ultimately, you know, that's kind of what people are seeing. You know, look, I think that he was trying his best and you know, it's what the conservatives use in argument all the time, but I don't think it really landed there at all.
- [30:40]
Interviewer
There was something. There was, there was a direction. There's kind of an implied argument that he didn't build on, which was, and this is kind of tied to, you know, I've heard kind of arguments that like, you know, austerity is needed in the United States and we need to kind of like tighten our belts. And these tariffs are incentivizing American businesses to, to build and, you know, bring back some manufacturing and some kind of more fundamental economic activity to the United States. Because it's gonna, you know, there's gonna be a financial incentive to do that because if you're importing, it's gonna be more expensive. You push back. You're like, you know, is that really gonna happen? But I mean, this is something I've heard a lot. Do you think the US Needs more manufacturing onshored? Whether or not this is the right way to go about it?
- [31:31]
Isaiah Martin
Well, it, it depends on what sector. Right. So, for example, I support a lot of the high, high growth, high wage manufacturing that we've been able to create. Like, for example, the semiconductor, Manu manufacturing that we've been able to push. It's done a really good job. I've been really proud of microchip. Oh, that is the semiconductor. But anyway, I'm proud of the clean energy that we've been able to develop as a result. You know, there's so many things that we've been able to. Solar panels that we've been pushing here in America. All of those things are really good for us. No. And later on, we're going to also need more energy, so that means more nuclear power. All of those things, I think is going to be really good, important jobs that we can bring right here to America that's going to pay our workers a lot of money. But what that does not mean is trying to go and bring every single good that we get from overseas back to America. You know, our economy does not really benefit when we're saying that, you know, we're going to go get every Mattel doll that's made to be manufactured right here in America when we can say, look, we want those workers instead working on energy production. We want them instead working on semiconductors. And so the tariffs, I don't believe are going to be effective for us because all it's going to do across the board is raise the costs that everyday Americans are going to have to pay. And I don't think that's good at all. I know that. You know, one of the early things that I learned in economics is that if you go tell people this particular good was made in this country and this one was made in another, would you pay more for it if you found out that it was an American good? And the vast majority of Americans don't say that. They just want what's more affordable. So I think instead, we need to be more focused on high wage, high growth jobs that can pay American workers more money to grow the manufacturing sector. We did that when Joe Biden was in office with the Inflation Reduction act, with the Made in America executive order. That's the stuff that led to a massive increase in private sector manufacturing spend that's going to hire a lot more workers into the future. So ultimately, what I believe in is an America that does build on American manufacturing, but one that does it moving forward into the future with high growth sectors.
- [33:40]
Economic Conservative
Kraft Mac and Cheese is better than 90s hip hop. We'll remind you of your childhood without making you feel incredibly old. Kraft Mac and Cheese, best thing ever.
- [33:54]
Isaiah Martin
Mm.
- [33:56]
Interviewer
With the leverage component that Martin's talking about. You know, this is something you hear coming from Trump. We're, we, we had bad deals. We were being taken advantage of by our global partners. Globalization was kind of a bad deal for the US and we've let China take advantage of us and, and, you know, become a superpower with very little benefit to our economy. Do you think there's some truth in the United States going back out and kind of like swinging a big stick a little bit and being like, hey, we want to look out for Americans interests and, you know, make sure we're getting the best deal for them?
- [34:41]
Isaiah Martin
Well, Trump negotiated the last usmca, right? So, I mean, he literally negotiated a trade deal with Canada and with Mexico. Right. So, I mean, look, I think we're a year into this. Let's look at the track record. Manufacturing activity is down in the United States. It does not have the effect that he believes that it will. I don't believe that what he's saying is right. I don't think that making Americans pay more is the way to incentivize growth and production. We had a massive increase under Joe Biden because we were able to put targeted incentives in place. And I think that that's what's necessary here, not these ridiculous tariffs.
- [35:17]
Interviewer
All right, so I want to move on to our last topic, which is your prompt or your, your claim around Doge. That Doge was a total. I think it was total and utter failure or complete failure.
- [35:30]
Isaiah Martin
Complete and total failure.
- [35:31]
Interviewer
Complete and total failure.
- [35:32]
Elon Supporter
Elon said that it was somewhat successful and the only reason he wouldn't do it again is because everyone burnt down his Teslas and tried to destroy his business that he started. 100 to $200 billion in zombie payments is what he said.
- [35:46]
Isaiah Martin
I have a question.
- [35:47]
Elon Supporter
Yes.
- [35:48]
Conservative Debater
Did you get your $2,000 doge check? The.
- [35:51]
Elon Supporter
The. From the tariffs from.
- [35:53]
Conservative Debater
From Doge. As a result of all the spending supposed to happen, there was supposed to be a $2,000 doge check. Did you get that?
- [36:00]
Elon Supporter
No, but they haven't said anything about that.
- [36:01]
Conservative Debater
Have they introduced something for that?
- [36:03]
Elon Supporter
What? Who said that they were supposed to do that?
- [36:05]
Isaiah Martin
That's.
- [36:05]
Elon Supporter
I know we're supposed to be getting that.
- [36:07]
Conservative Debater
We'd be getting a check in the mail, but.
- [36:08]
Elon Supporter
No, but you guys went into this not letting him start do what he came there to do.
- [36:13]
Conservative Debater
So you control.
- [36:13]
Elon Supporter
Why would anyone want fraud to be continued in the White House when I brought up California? Because happening in this government. Why is it happening over there? What do you mean?
- [36:23]
Conservative Debater
You control the House, the Senate and the White House. Okay. And you still couldn't get it done.
- [36:30]
Elon Supporter
How could anyone work like that?
- [36:31]
Conservative Debater
Honestly, having all.
- [36:33]
Elon Supporter
Not let the guy having the House, the Senate and the White House villainized him.
- [36:38]
Conservative Debater
Control and all.
- [36:40]
Interviewer
Okay, first things first. When you watch Yourself debating. Because this came up a few times. You got under people's skin. This is aside from the content of the debates themselves. Do you watch yourself back in a. You know, in a scenario like this? And. And do you ever feel like you're. You're going too much for the jugular with people? Or do you, you know, or do you stand by kind of like that degree of intensity that you. You were coming out April with?
- [37:13]
Isaiah Martin
Facts are relentless, and that's just how they are. I think that in this country, we've done too much playing around when people say objective mistruths. And so look, no, I don't. You know, I think that it's really clear that the Republicans are always spewing out misinformation. And I think the only way to beat that is very strong counters and rebuttals. So, you know, sucks to suck, I guess.
- [37:39]
Interviewer
Yeah. So then the Elon of it all, because, I mean, there. There was a lot of promises made. Trillions of dollars is what we were told. Even if you take the most generous estimates of savings that Doge did uncover, it's nowhere near that target. Elon, in the private sector, is somebody who's achieved tremendous things. You know, some of the most amazing technological advancements we've witnessed in our life have happened with his companies. So what's the Delta? How come. How can someone like Elon, who's achieved, you know, revenue, deployable rockets in one part of his life, make such huge promises and then fall so far short of them with Doge?
- [38:33]
Isaiah Martin
I think that this is a part of the poison of misinformation. Maybe Elon found out that the government is not as wasteful and ridiculous as he thought it was. Because ultimately, I think that they all went in looking for something that just didn't exist. They were sold a pack of lies that Elon himself amplified and ultimately came out. That's why these estimates just didn't even come close to what they were saying. And so this is what happens when people are sold misinformation as fact. And I think that Doge is a perfect example of that. Personally, I believe that Doge was created to effectively get people to not pay attention to the trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts they signed for the richest people in our country, that they would feel that, oh, well, we're saving all this money from Doge, and that can justify the benefits of these tax cuts that didn't happen. And that was the main reason why I wanted to bring this up back into the forefront through this Jubilee was because it was a. Was a distraction from the main event, which was the richest people in America getting richer as a. From tax cuts.
- [39:37]
Interviewer
Yeah. And to be fair to Elon, you know, it's not exactly clear, but that did seem to be a point of fracture between him and the president. You know, there he kind of went on a tweet spree which sort of ended Doge or was the beginning of the end for Doge. Right around the time this bill was getting passed, Elon, you know, pointed out the adding to the deficit and, and, you know, felt that it was, like, you're saying, kind of counterintuitive to the goals of Doge. Do you think Elon was used to.
- [40:09]
Isaiah Martin
Of course he was. But the thing is, is that, you know, it goes deeper than that as well, because if you look at the way that Doge was. Was activated, they also lied. They lied. They were caught numerous times by, by all these different organizations, independent fact checkers, that showed that they were putting just completely misinformation in terms of the contracts that they were canceling, in terms of the top line number that they were reporting, they were lying.
- [40:35]
Conservative Debater
So Elon is not some kind of.
- [40:37]
Isaiah Martin
You know, innocent pony here. He's somebody who, who oversaw an agency and amplified on his own personal account, outright lies did not clean up misinformation. And I think that that is a big problem, and it shows kind of the really devious nature behind all of that.
- [40:54]
Interviewer
Mm. Do you think. Do you think just the power that Elon has changed his character? I mean, there was a. I think you described yourself as kind of an Obama Democrat, right. In the episode. And Elon admired Obama. They had kind of a public relationship. And then Elon changed his tune quite a bit. So there might have been, once upon a time, you and Elon might have been kind of aligned. What do you think factors in for that drastic change?
- [41:28]
Isaiah Martin
I don't know what happened in Elon's personal life between, you know, the moment that President Obama was in office to now. I don't know, to be honest with you. I mean, I asked myself the same question. When it comes to people like Nicki Minaj and all these other folks that are out there, like, how do these.
- [41:44]
Economic Conservative
People.
- [41:46]
Isaiah Martin
Have these wild swings? Right. So I don't know what it is, but, you know, I do know that ultimately what he tried to set out to do did not happen. He then lied about that to millions of people around the world. And that to me is pretty devious. So I think if he was really just some good natured guy that was just trying to really find waste in government. He could be a man and admit that, hey, you know what? We didn't find as much. And you know what? I was wrong. He could do that, but he didn't. He lied. He continued that. And that's something that proves to me that he was very devious in what he did.
- [42:27]
Interviewer
To go back to April, who you were debating in the clip, something I hear from April, even if Doge didn't deliver, there's this clear concern and belief in her that fraud is abundant in the way the government operates. And this is clear in our culture. You know, what's happening in Minneapolis is not solely because of Nick Shirley's YouTube video, but I would say it's like, pretty. That was a significant amplifying factor. You know, Nick Shirley puts out these kind of amateur YouTube investigative journalistic videos about fraud in daycares across Minnesota. And then the government goes so far as to threaten to. And I think they would have if the courts had let them stop funding going into the state until the fraud was sorted out. But there's also, you know, there's plenty of smart people who are claiming, yes, fraud is abundant in programs like this. Minnesota is just kind of the tip of the iceberg. Do you think there's validity to that? Do you think waste, fraud and abuse, regardless of whether Elon achieved reformation there, do you think that's a huge problem?
- [43:52]
Isaiah Martin
Well, first off, Nick Shirley is a targeted plant. And the reason for that is because this was something that was uncovered and was investigated under the Biden administration. The ringleader for this organization is in prison today. Yeah, there was prosecution. He had multiple. Multiple people got convicted from this. So Nick Shirley did not identify some type of fraud. This was something that we already saw, we knew about, and there were people that were being prosecuted and more people that were being indicted. I think that anybody that perpetuates fraud needs to be prosecuted, indicted, convicted, and put in prison. And if they are not supposed to be in this country and they're committing fraud, they need to be deported. I believe that every good natured American believes that. But the thing is, is that I'm not going to sit around and act like the fraud that Trump and Nick Shirley are trying to perpetuate is some blue state issue. When I can look at the states like Mississippi, where Brett Favre and Minnesota and Mississippi Republicans were tied up in a scandal of TANF funding that was literally in that degree, I'm not going to sit around and say that when Rick Scott the incumbent senator from Florida literally presided over one of the biggest health care fraud schemes in the history of the United States of America. So, I mean, this is something that I think that we should just look forward to as Americans to say that fraud, no matter if it happens from a Democrat or Republican, needs to be investigated. This from Donald Trump is nothing more than an attempt to try to use a situation that was already uncovered to make it look out to be a political thing that was advantageous for him. Ultimately, it's not going to work out because Amy Klobuchar is running for governor of Minnesota and she will slap the living daylights out of any Republican candidate that is in front of. So I'm not really strong prediction. Well, I, I'll take it to the bank. And so, you know, ultimately it's not going to work out too well for them.
- [45:45]
Interviewer
I won't play this clip, but you brought Dennis back. Dennis kind of had a rough video and he does it kind of, it repeats itself. You know, he makes the claim AOCs made money off of her position. I can't remember what other Democratic politician he refers to, but basically, you know, if a Democratic politician is making money off of off of their influence and off of their position in office, then they're doing it for selfish reasons. They're making money off the backs of Americans. It's not that hard to flip that around and point out that Donald Trump has made the most money of any politician. I, I mean, probably of all time from his position as president. What do you think it's going to take? I mean, this is just something I don't really think you can steal, man, at all. Like, Trump is making tons of money off of the presidency, but people don't really seem to care.
- [46:52]
Isaiah Martin
Why?
- [46:53]
Interviewer
How do you change that?
- [46:56]
Isaiah Martin
Well, I do think that people do care, and it's why Republicans are losing all across this country. It's why they lost Virginia governorship, Virginia lieutenant governorship, Virginia Attorney Generalship, 12 competitive seats in the Virginia House of Delegates, why they lost Miami mayor's race for the first time in 30 years, why they lost special election in Kentucky and Georgia, and why they just lost a Trump +17 district in the state of Texas. These guys are losing everywhere across the country because people understand that this is a grift. They're losing people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, they're losing, losing MMA fighters, boxers, Joe Rogan. I mean, the list goes on of Americans that are just seeing how pathetic this administration is. And so look, I don't think, you know, there might Be some folks in MAGA that's still running around with this or whatever. But, you know, people understand making $3 billion off the presidency is pretty outrageous. And investing in a meme coin that has no transparency whatsoever at all and using taxpayer funds to meet with said donors, and then it comes out that favors have been done for said donors. If that's not corruption, I don't know what is.
- [48:07]
Interviewer
Yeah, I mean, I'm really not getting pushed back on that at all because I. I don't really know how you can. But one thing I would say is if Democrats find themselves in a position ever in the near future where they have all three branches of government, let's say you were in the government at that time, what would your top priorities be? Like, what are the things they gotta be that gotta get done on the Democrats to do list?
- [48:36]
Isaiah Martin
I believe in getting rid of the filibuster and pushing through our agenda. I think that means creating a universal healthcare system for Americans in this country so that, you know, people are not having to go and worry about cutting their pills in half or, or whether or not a broken leg is going to be, you know, a really expensive thing for them. I think we need universal child care in this country so that people are not having to pay the cost of rent effectively for child care in this country per kid. It doesn't make any sense to me. I think we need to wipe out medical debt in this country. I think that we need to do a lot of things to be able to really get our country back on track and to make America a lot more affordable than what it is now. And I think that people are sick and tired of the constant gridlock that we're seeing. I think we need to get money out of politics. Banning all outside money from politics is something that I firmly support. Fundamentally reforming the Supreme Court to put term limits in place, I think is going to be a big thing. I think all of these things are going to be very important and to push it through, we're going to need to get rid of the filibuster to get that done. You know, I've seen a lot of different arguments from, you know, different folks that say, oh, well, if you get rid of the filibuster, what happens if the other side gets in and they push through their agenda? Well, you know what? I look more to Canada because they do not have a filibuster in the Canadian Parliament. They do have national health care. It became so popular in Canada that no conservative can ever run on the idea of getting rid of it because they know that it's going to be an electoral loss for them. So I believe in doing good policies, make them good and then having Americans benefit as a result.
- [50:12]
Interviewer
What I'm hearing is a Congress that is more of a presence in the way government functions as opposed to a really powerful executive which is what we're seeing right now.
- [50:23]
Isaiah Martin
Absolutely. 100%.
- [50:25]
Interviewer
Well Isaiah, thanks for being in Surrounded jumping into the arena. It was great to see you do your thing and thanks for coming back on for a follow up chat. I appreciate it. For more follow up episodes of Surrounded be sure to like subscribe. Leave us a positive review. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts. If you're watching the video version, subscribe to Tubely. If you want to see video episodes of surrounded, subscribe to Jubilee's YouTube channel. Thanks for supporting us. Thanks for listening. Remember, you could be wrong, so could I. Keep your mind open until next time.