The full transcript

How is net negative migration a failure?

We're not getting mass deportations. That's what we're talking about.

You don't have to massively deport people who aren't coming in, dude. You don't have to.

They're already here.

Yes, and by the way, he's going after the criminal elements of those people first, which he's been doing. There's a net negative of them crossing into the border. If you had said day one, day one with any Republican administration, we'd have only 1,000 border crossings a day versus 46,000 border crossings a day, you'd say it's the biggest fucking success anybody had ever seen. Somehow with Trump though, Trump gets exactly that done. Day one, and Owen goes, well, what have you done for me lately?

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-022

There should be dozens of Epstein arrests. They are literally covering it up. Exactly.

They've redacted names. Who should we be arresting?

Exactly.

What does that mean? Why are all the names redacted from the files?

Why haven't they given us all the files? I'll actually tell you. And if you had done your due diligence, you would know this.

Oh, because they're victims.

No, no, no.

I got arrested 4 times for this guy, spent months in prison for this guy, did everything for this guy. Censored, lawsuit, everything. Lost all my social media, kept supporting him, and then what is the one recognition I get from him? Fuck you, shut up.

Tonight's topic is, has Trump's presidency been successful? I'm going to start by introducing the affirmative speaker for that question. He is known for his high energy and sharp debate style, which has gotten him invited to elite podcast platforms such as The Joe Rogan Experience and The PBD Podcast. He is also the leader of the organization known as The Crucible. Please join me in welcoming Andrew Wilson.

Smokey Man bad, they cry, they shout.

Smokey Man bad, but he snuffs them out with a flick of his wrist.

With that, we will be introducing the negative position for tonight's debate.

You turned off the music, James.

He is best known as a bold and outspoken political commentator recognized for his energetic presence and his coverage of current events across major platforms. He has been a prominent voice with Infowars and continues to engage millions through his independent content and reporting. Please join me in welcoming Owen Shroyer.

Thank you.

For tonight's format, we will have 5-minute openings followed by 5-minute rebuttals. A crossfire section of 40 minutes followed by audience Q&A for 30 minutes and then 3-minute closings. With that, I have the timer set for you. The affirmative going first. Andrew, the floor is all yours.

First and foremost, thanks all of you for being here. And before we do anything else, we got the legend Owen Schreuer. Can we give him a good round of applause? That said, you're still going to get stomped. So first and foremost, let me clear up any misrepresentation when it comes to my views. I am anti-Zionist and anti-Christian Zionist especially. I have done many debates on the topic and I've won them all. I'm also very anti-Islam and consider the ideology just as poisonous as the ideology of Zionism, especially Christian Zionism. I'm not anti-Zionist. I am not a war supporter in Iran, and I never have been. I say this at the beginning of the debate so when bad faith trolls who are on foreign accounts try to influence American politics in the comments, claiming that I'm in some way a Zionist, pro-Israel, pro-Islam shill, you can shatter the lies by simply showing them the beginning of this debate, which they won't even watch, and you and I can laugh at their stupidity together. That said, I also don't believe Jews or Arabs are ontologically evil just because they are Jewish or Arabic. I represent a worldview, and I believe there are stupid and evil ideologies in this world. And those are the things I debate against and resist on a political level. Today, we debate if Trump has been successful as a president. Usually, I would clear this up semantically and quickly with Owen, but we seem to have the same general notion about what success means and doesn't mean. So we will just get right to the heart of the debate. I'd like to begin by pointing out that Trump stopping two count it two different left-wing women from becoming president and being the first. president who is a woman should immediately default him to the position of a successful president, as just that alone saved the nation from years of torment and suffering from the most insufferable vocal fry women the world has ever seen. That alone, I feel like, wins me the debate. But there's so much more. Starting on the pro-Christian side, office of faith. Though I don't like who's in it, I like there's an office for it. Affirmed via executive order there are 2 genders and revoked the idea of gender being different from sex. He signed an executive order stopping transurgical chemical alterations of children. He made Christmas Eve and the day after Christmas federal holidays, affirming Christian beliefs as the ones we celebrate. He signed an executive order to eradicate anti-Christian bias in the government. He expanded school choice via executive order so we could remove our children from indoctrination centers of atheists. He signed an executive order expanding Christian participation in adoption. He reinstated the Mexico city policy blocking U.S. tax dollars from promoting abortions in other nations. He enforced the Hyde Amendment to stop federal funding of abortions. He strengthened the conscious— conscientious protection for doctors and nurses who are against abortion. He supported religious charter schools. He directed the State Department to prioritize against Christian persecution abroad, just to name some of his policy directives. And that's just the Christian side. Domestically, his most major victory is something incredible: net migration negative, more immigrants leaving than coming. Both legal and illegal, which was his primary function in office from the standpoint of voters. And this is one of the few Western nations where that is the case currently, with limited exceptions. The Cato Institute, very pro-immigration, had to admit themselves that Trump has limited legal immigration even more than illegal immigration, negating the base fear from his own base that he would stop illegal immigration, ramp up legal immigration. He hasn't. Over 130,000 less per month. Just on the legal side. Real wage growth is up 1.3% under Trump. It was negative under Biden. The federal workforce down 10%, which is excellent. Crime is down across the nation. Even Owen agrees with that. The Overton window has shifted right on most national conversations, including LGBTQ and transgender ideology. This isn't even getting into the historic court cases like Roe v. Wade and Chevron, which undid huge injustices in the United States. These are just some of Trump's accomplishments among many. I just can't list them all due to time. The idea of Owen Schreier and many other anti-Trump right-wingers is accelerationism. The glaring logical hole, of course, in that is all that happens is Democrats get power, make life worse for everybody, and then they just run back to Republicans to fix everything the Democrats did. And the entire time is spent by Republicans cleaning up the mess that Democrats and leftists left for us. It doesn't work and can't work in a two-party system. Ensuring Democratic control by denouncing Trump and Republicans just assures a PAC Supreme Court, outrageous censorship, mass migration, expansion of gay agenda, feminism, and the movement of an anti-Christian and anti-Christ driven world. You guys seem to forget we had Biden. It was awful. And rather than continue his policies, people elected Trump en masse because life under Democrats is fucking awful. Now, you aren't going to get everything you want out of any administration. Trump is way too pro-feminist, pro-gay, and pro-Zionist for my personal liking. But we all knew that going in. He was still vastly superior to the alternative, to Democrats and their cohorts, especially Harris, who wanted to roll back tax breaks. And taxes and offset instead of tariffs, which is Democrat policy as usual. We knew Trump was pro-Israel. He moved the embassy to Jerusalem and tore up the Iran deal the first time around. We knew this was part of what we were getting when we elected him, including Owen Schroyer, who, by the way, was put in solitary confinement by Democrats and held, in my opinion, as a political prisoner. That's what's in store for us under Democrats. I will cede no ground to Democrats under any circumstances, as there's no alternative. There's nothing. You cannot give Democrats power, period. And with that, I'll cede the rest of my time. But just note, that progressive ideology is always waiting to strike, and going against Trump is not going to help against that fight.

+5 R-1.1 · Strawman: attributing accelerationism to opponent · Andrew Wilson

+1.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession: Trump's flaws · Andrew Wilson

Thank you very much for that opening. We'll kick it over to Owen for his opening as well.

Well, the premise of this debate is, has President Trump been successful or not? The premise is not, are the Democrats a bad political party? I think that we all agree with that. So that is not the premise of the debate. And I feel that the very fact that we are having this debate shows that there is at least room for consideration that the Trump administration has not been successful. And while you do list off things that Trump has been successful on, and I will give credit to this administration on securing the border. And lowering crime rates. Quickly on those issues though, these are not things that we should have to beg for. These are not things that we should have to consider a success. These should be things that are considered a standard. So really that's more of a story of how corrupt our country has become, which gets to what this administration was supposed to be all about. It was supposed to be addressing the corruption head-on in that collision and destroying it in the process. And I think it's fair to say that at least to this point, it's not happening. But here's some of the other issues that I think are going to be more important when it comes to is Trump going to be successful. The economy. The vast majority of Americans still believe the economy is heading in the wrong direction. We have more Americans that are living paycheck to paycheck today than any other time in recent history. And as everybody is well aware, our national debt continues to go to record highs. But it's not just the country that's in debt. The average citizen is in debt. It's so bad now that people are having to take out payment plans for pizza delivery. Now, you might not want to blame all of that on President Trump, and perhaps that's fair, but yet this is the economy ongoing under President Trump. And it doesn't help when anytime there's another war on the other side of the planet, we have billions of dollars to spend on that while the average American continues to struggle. So the economy, I don't think you can claim has been a success. Tied into that is Doge, the Doge cuts. Elon Musk believed we could get $1 trillion in Doge cuts annually. We got a couple $10 million and they stopped that. There's not going to be any Doge stimulus checks whether you wanted that or not. So Doge getting cut out cold I think was a major failure. Barack Obama has deported more Americans than Donald Trump. Now we might get into the details of that today. I will spare those details for the opening. I'm sure that this will come back up, but yet that fact remains. What about the deep state? President Trump himself has posted about treasonous politicians more times than we can count. So if there's politicians that are treasonous and you are the president, then I have to ask, where are the arrests? That's kind of the biggest crime you can commit in this country, and yet nobody has been arrested. Don't even get me started on the Epstein clients, which are apparently a hoax one day And then the next day, Melania Trump is addressing the nation on how the victims of the hoax need to speak to Congress. So I'm not sure where we want to go with that. But either way, no deep state arrests. Where are all the Epstein pedophile arrests? We're not getting those. These are things that people anticipated, and yet there's no success there either. And by the way, as you mentioned, Trump's victory over the liberal women, which I think we'll all agree was a major victory, he was not the president when that happened. He's never won an election as president. Just thought I'd point that out. As far as the Office of Faith is concerned, it seems to be going about the same way of the Board of Peace— nothing but vanity, no real results. You talk about the anti-Christian bias that they're fighting, yet look at who Trump is working with now. He's making sure that Kareem Jean Bowler— Kareem Jean Bowler kicked off of the Religious Liberties Commission for her political takes. Yet Laura Loomer, who is a vehement anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic psychotic, somehow has the ear of President Trump. So I'm not sure if that's really working for the anti-Christian. You know, wage growth, that's going to be an interesting one. I'm sure we're going to get more into that. But I think it goes back to the general economic picture that whether it's Trump or anybody else, Americans are still struggling. And I think if we be honest here, if we're going to be honest, A lot of this economy is actually Trump's fault. And I know he likes to blame it on Biden. But if you go back and look at it, it was the COVID economy that caused the permanent damage. It was the COVID economy that resulted in 10 to 15 to 20% inflation. Those are Trump's policies. Now, Biden was obviously a disaster. I'm not here to promote anything Biden did, but that was the Trump economy. The COVID economy is the Trump economy. Now, as far as accelerationism is concerned, I don't believe I have ever publicly supported that. I do understand the concept. I understand why people like it. I'm not here because I want Democrats to win. And I think this is a very important statement for me to make, because much like in your opening statement, you wanted to clarify some things that people get wrong about you. I want to clarify this. I do not want Democrats to win. As has already been documented in this debate, Democrats have put me in prison. In fact, I was put in jail 4 times for supporting President Trump, including the last one when I was put in solitary confinement. So believe me, I know how dangerous The Democrats are. The problem is it's not up to me. This is Trump. If Trump cannot get the Republicans over the finish line in the midterms, that has nothing to do with podcasters. It has nothing to do with accelerationists. And it has everything to do with President Trump and the GOP. And ultimately, that's going to be the major measuring stick as to whether or not he's successful.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-022

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-022

↳ P32 raised again here · first raised at U-022

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-006

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession: border and crime · Owen Shroyer

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground: Democrats a bad party · Owen Shroyer

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for that 5-minute opening as well. We'll jump into the 5-minute rebuttals. The timer is set for you, Andrew.

Yeah, so this is just straight time, right?

You said straight time?

Yeah, so, so 5 minutes each?

Yep.

Okay, gotcha. So let's go through a bunch of this stuff. Let's start with the economy. He seems to be pretty upset about the economy and says that it's all Trump's fault. In some ways, he's correct. And in many ways, he's not correct. So progressives warned us of this, right? Progressives said, if you cut all this immigration, GDP go down. Why? Because they have an influx of cheap labor, right? You have cheap labor that comes in that artificially keeps the wages depressed for corporations. They can then sell you things and goods for cheaper. Pretty simple, right? So what does Trump do? Stops all this mass migration. Prices go up. I'm stunned. This was—

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession: Trump's policies raise prices · Andrew Wilson

this—

we were forewarned of this for years by the opposite side, by progressives. And so what's hilarious about this is that, yeah, it is in fact going to be the case that if American companies have to start paying fair wages to American citizens, prices are going to go up. But you can't have your cake and eat it too, Owen. You can't say, I want there to be no mass migration to the United States at all. and I want all my goods and services cheap. It's not gonna work that way. How can it? Can you explain to the audience what the Owen Schroyer policy would be to offset that? No, you can't, because you wouldn't have one. You're gonna have to eat shit on that. One way or the other, you're going to have to. The other problem is he says there's a war on the other side of the planet. That's true, there is. It's been going on for about 7 weeks. That's about it. 7 weeks. So not 40 years. That's our big— hang on, it's my rebuttal time. I won't interrupt yours, I promise. 7 weeks, not quite the forever war that we were promised from the other side. And it seems to be ramping down. Not only that, when it comes to that war, what we find is that most of the exports in oil are going from China. They're going to China. How does it not behoove the United States strategically to do something about that? Of course it does. And we can dive into that too in the open back and forth. Now, I'm not a big supporter of foreign wars, especially not in Iran. I'm not making any excuses for it. I'm just pointing out something which is obvious. He also says Elon Musk did Dogecuts. Were Democrats going to do Dogecuts?

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-230

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-024

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-031

No.

Trump made that promise and that's exactly what they tried to do. He's been hamstrung at every level. This guy has 3 times the amount of court cases against him as Any other president does in the last 50 years. It's ridiculous. Democrats hamstring him at every corner. So as we go through this, let's talk about Epstein. That's another big one. With Epstein, you have to separate mythology, the actual mythology of Epstein, from the facts of Epstein. To hear the other side tell it, there is a global pedophilic satanic organization which runs the United States. The evidence they have for that? Fucking nothing. They have nothing. They have no evidence whatsoever. Guarantee you he won't be able to provide us with any evidence for that. Not a single shred. Not only that, I'll tell you something really interesting. I do know of a satanic-type religion of pedophiles. And right this second, Trump's blowing them up right this second as we speak. He blew up their leadership, the Ayatollah Khomeini. Instituted marriage, child marriage as young as nine years old inside of Iran, and we're killing them overwhelming. You want to talk about pedophiles? Let's talk about pedophiles. Where are they at? I can tell you who we're blowing up right now who are pedophiles. That would be Trump blowing up pedophiles. That's what he's doing currently. So it's really funny to me. The Epstein people. Hey, wait a second. We're totally anti-pedophile. This is ridiculous. There's pedophiles at the top levels. They have no evidence for that. And yet, if we just look not too far away, we see that there's an entire nation of pedophiles. Do you mind doing trade with them? Right. Owen Schreier recently said, I don't care why— or he said in his debate with Shabos, why is it that Iran is not allowed to have a nuke, but Israel is? Are you— what are you advocating for there, that a whole country full of pedophiles is allowed to have a nuclear bomb?

+4 R-2.2 · Recasting a consistency question as advocacy · Andrew Wilson

Yeah.

Why should we allow that? It's ridiculous. Moving through some of these other problems, she says the problem is Republicans' podcasting means nothing. When we were talking about Trump, especially in his second term, podcasts meant everything. In fact, Kamala Harris said it herself, Joe Rogan and the fact that Trump went on Joe Rogan really helped push him over the top. Harris regretted the fact she didn't do the podcast syndicated radio shows. She didn't do the podcast circuit. She didn't do any of that. She regretted it. She said that she regretted it. She even blamed Myron Gaines, a podcaster, for parts of her loss. She blamed him, him and the evil manosphere, because they don't want women to be president like somebody else who's on stage right now. So as we go through this, I'm kind of happy. I'd like to get into the back and forth as quick as we can so that we can see if any of these criticisms actually hold muster. He's not addressing corruption. Yeah, he's not addressing corruption head on. It's like, wait, wait a second. What do you mean? He's going after the SPLC right this second as we speak. Super corrupt organization, which was working with the deep state, by the way. Just pointing that out.

↳ evidence for the P8 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-033

With that, we'll kick it over to Owen for his 5-minute rebuttal as well. Floor is all yours, Owen.

All right. Well, as far as when this war started, obviously there's a lot of contention in the geopolitical debate realm, but at least for this administration, it started last June with Operation Midnight Hammer. And since then, we haven't gotten a lick of honesty because we were supposed to have annihilated or obliterated— was the official word from the president— their nuclear capabilities. And then they came back a few months later and said Iran was weeks away, days away from a nuke. And so now we're over there again. And I think to most people, they perceive this war, I think accurately, as just another regime change war. Now, you may not care for Iran's leadership. You're not going to get any pushback from me on any of that. And yet the facts remain. This was a regime change war. They lied to us about it from the very beginning. There is a major contingency of Trump's voting base that voted for no new wars. It was part of the campaign promise. In fact, Trump himself for decades has been talking about how we've wasted blood and treasure in the Middle East, wasted it, his own words. He ran against Bush's wars in his first campaign in 2015 and 2016, and he even said specifically no more regime change wars. So that's just a total reversal of policy on that. And this has people wondering who's making these decisions. I don't need to get into that now, but we're not even getting consistency on the messaging in the last couple of weeks. The strait is closed. It's not closed. We've won the war. The war is not over. We need to go in. Nobody really knows. And by the way, I think Trump does that strategically. But nonetheless, the truth is that we don't get— we don't get any honesty from this administration. It just doesn't add up. And as far as the strategy with China and Russia, I'd like to think that this is all going to work out in our favor. I'd like to think that that's the play that Trump is making. However, it doesn't appear to be going in our favor. I think that most of the world is looking at the foreign policy of this administration and they're seeing it as very favorable to Israel, which is essentially a pariah of the entire international community. And so instead of perhaps these countries maybe driving away from Russia and China, I think they're driving to China and Russia and away from the United States because of Trump's aggression again in the Middle East as the world views it on behalf of Israel. As far as the Dems hamstringing Trump, I think that that happened a lot in the first administration. I'm not really seeing as much of it in this administration, but this gets back to the deep state. I thought we were talking about criminals. I thought we were talking about the Obama administration committing treason. We were talking about them illegally spying, and yet now President Trump says, I'm okay to give up my liberties for safety. I'm okay with them illegally spying on you. That doesn't really sit well with me, and I think the Dems are going to look at that very favorably when we get to the midterms. Israel does have a nuke. It is against the— it's a violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Agreement. They're not supposed to have one. Everybody knows they have it. In fact, technically they shouldn't even be our ally because they have a nuclear weapon, but somehow they're above all of these rules. Now again, I'm not here to take any ground in defense of Iran, but I will point out the fact that Israel is famous for repatriating pedophiles. That is a fact. Everybody knows it. American pedophiles, American pedophiles are able to flee to Israel and get safe harbor there. We have many, many instances of this. Now, the Epstein files, I don't know how deep we wanna go into this. This one is a little confusing to me. You say, show me evidence that there is a pedophile ring. Well, I would slap down on the table not even 50% of the Epstein files. We don't even know how many we've gotten. but it's 50% max. There's not a single Iranian in the files, not a single one. Now there is a certain group of people that are in there, but we don't need to get into that. But they all are rich and they're not in prison, and that's where they should be. So I don't really want to have to think about Iran's cultural issues. These are Americans and people that were using them for blackmail to get leverage over our country. That's how most people perceive these Epstein files, of which We don't even have the entire files, but in them we see references, what appear to be killing people, taking women, young women, babies as sex slaves. Who knows what else is going on in these files? There's very obvious code language. I know this, if I was able to get one of my kids' cell phones and I'm reading through this cell phone and they keep talking about pizza and grape soda and jerky, I'm gonna pull one of them aside and I'm gonna say, hey, what are you talking about? And if they say, oh, I'm just a pizza connoisseur, me and my friends just make beef jerky and eat grape soda, I'm gonna say, bullshit, tell me what the hell you're talking about. If I see you saying, I'm gonna get pot from my friend, I know you're not talking about a potted plant. I know you're talking about drugs. So it's obvious the same thing is going on in these emails. Where is the investigation? If your kid brought that to you, you would not believe them for one second. You'd say this is clearly code language and I'm going to investigate what it is. I think we should continue to investigate these Epstein files instead of continuing to cover them up, because I do think there is a there there, as most other Americans do. And that's something that Trump campaigned on and many of his administration talked about for years.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-006

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-153

And time. With that, we're going to jump into the crossfire. This is 40 minutes, so this is fully up to you guys. If it gets too rocky, I'm gonna jump in and put it into 90-second responses. So the floor is yours, gentlemen, for open dialogue.

So I wanted to start, if we could, with Israeli repatriation of pedophiles. So you and I both agree that this happens and it's abhorrent. Do you know what the numbers are, roughly?

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-039

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground: Israeli repatriation is real and abhorrent · Andrew Wilson

The last story I read was a CBS story. It was a couple dozen, I think.

I think total that I could find, I was being as charitable to your view as I could, about 200. That's a lot. It's a significant amount. But it's nothing in comparison to the Catholic Church. Nothing. Which is somewhere around 100,000 children, perhaps, or more. When we talk about this idea of pedophilia here in the United States, Owen, this is my big issue with this, is that there's always a red herring, right? The red herring is, well, Israel repatriates pedophiles. It's like, Yeah, that's true. So does the United States in a way though. We have passport bros who go, they go to Malaysia, they have sex with underage kids, and then they come back here. It's the same exact principle applied. The only difference is there's no official right of return. There doesn't need to be. They're already U.S. citizens. But when we're talking about this, we know where the groups of pedophiles are. We've known this for years. The Catholic Church, for instance, again, part of one of the largest pedophilic scandals world. Which church do you belong to again? Is it Catholic?

+4 R-2.2 · Personal-affiliation jab (tu quoque) · Andrew Wilson

I have no qualms with what you are saying about the Catholic Church whether I identify as one or not. So, go ahead, I will sit here all day as a confirmed Catholic and ridicule their pedophilia.

Yeah, I'm just saying that when you use the red herring of the Israeli repatriation.

How is it a red herring if it is true?

Because, well, the red herring happens when you say—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Owen Shroyer

Didn't you admit it is hundreds?

When you say, hey, wait a second. Yeah, hundreds for sure.

So, it is a real thing, so it is not a red herring?

I'm not, no, the red herring portion of it is when you obfuscate away from the arguments on the Epstein front. pedophiles, as though there's a global cabal of pedophiles. I point out in Iran there's an open cabal of pedophiles. You say, well, Israel harbors pedophiles too. It's like, no, they don't have official policy for pedophilia, dude.

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-041

They don't.

Hold on a second.

You just admitted you're talking about people that have been actually charged with crimes of pedophilia that Israel knowingly takes in.

Some of them.

No, no, no.

That's not in every instance. That's in some instances.

So they are very well aware.

Sometimes it's suspected. One of the big key ones was an Australian case I'm sure you're familiar with. That was one of the big key ones, but it's not always the case that they're charged with anything. Lots of them are just suspected of this.

There was just an IDF security official, Aleksandrovich, who just got charged, caught in a bust, and he fled over there. He's gone.

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-039

Of course, but you're going to find—

Give me a comparable story this year in the Catholic Church.

You can find the same thing.

Show me the Catholic Church finding a pedophile and saying, come to the Catholic Church.

They move them to other churches. What are you talking about?

So name—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Andrew Wilson

so to allow them to continue to offend, hundreds of thousands of cases.

So show me, show me one name.

I'm supposed to remember every name of every—

I just gave you one name in the last year: Tom Aleksandrovich, IDS Security.

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church doesn't move around pedophiles?

No, I just said they do. I can talk about the Catholic Church all day long.

Then why are you—

but we're talking about the Trump administration dealing with the Epstein files. That's what we're talking about.

So as we're diving into the Epstein files, give me your biggest piece of proof that Donald Trump in any way knew about any pedophilia and name actual names of people who you're willing to say are pedophiles in that administration. Go ahead.

Okay. I never made either one of those claims.

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession: not accusing Trump directly · Owen Shroyer

Exactly.

But I will respond to your question. Howard Lutnick lied when he said he hadn't been to the island since he found out. He got caught lying. He took his family there. This was after Epstein had already been a convicted pedophile. Now, if Donald Trump wants to claim he has plausible deniability as far as Epstein's activities are concerned. I suppose that's fair enough.

Are you even claiming that guy's a pedophile?

Well, you know what? If you want to talk about the things Trump has said about—

You're not answering the question before we move on to the next one.

We can talk about Donald Trump.

It's a question.

Hold on a second.

Are you going to call that guy a pedophile?

Have I called Trump a pedophile once?

Well, this is why I'm getting clarification on this.

The answer is no.

The reason I'm getting clarification is because on the Epstein files, people refuse to separate mythology from fact. And there's a lot of mythology here. And this mythology that you guys continuously talk about, that Trump is in some way associated with this global cabal of satanic pedophiles, but you never name names, you never give evidence. Your only evidence is they don't give us evidence. Why would you trust the evidence that these people give you anyway? Why would you even trust that anyway? You don't trust them, the evidence that they've given you so far. So why is it always the demand is like, I want endless evidence of a thing that I always make— we always make claims about.

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-075

So Trump is obviously maybe mentioned more than anyone else in the files. If you want to claim that he has nothing to show illegal in the files, that's fine. Howard Lutnick, however, lied when he said he hadn't been there. He is still in the Trump administration. He was just running point for their meeting at the Oval Office just last week. And he's in the files taking his kids to Epstein Island. So would you take your kids to Epstein Island? I would not take my kids to Epstein Island.

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-078

Well, okay. So are you saying at the time he he there was media scrutiny that this was a pedophilic island?

Yes, 100%. 100%. Epstein had already been charged. He'd already been in jail.

Are you saying this guy took his kids to the island to get them raped?

+4 R-2.2 · Ventriloquism of opponent's position · Andrew Wilson

I don't know what he took his kids to the island for.

+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty · Owen Shroyer

He denied it. He denied it again. By the way, he denied this. This again, he lied. Absence of evidence means that that's evidence. That's not evidence. You guys never will actually name.

Did Howard Lutnick go to the island?

I'm not sure. He admitted it.

He's in the files.

He took his kids. I'm not sure on that particular, but it's irrelevant, the particular, because even if I grant the particular, you won't actually call the guy a pedo because you don't have evidence. You never have evidence, just claims. Claim, claim, claim, claim, claim. No evidence for it. Now, I'm willing to cede a bunch of points to you if you can show me some evidence of it. Happy to do it. So you're— hold on, I'm almost done. Trump was actually right. He claimed that the Democrats were going to use the talking point that, you know, Trump's a pedophile, Trump's covering for pedophiles, the whole nine yards. He says, yeah, that's a hoax. Whole thing's a damn hoax. And it is. The whole damn thing is a hoax. They've been calling this guy a pedophile. You just said he's named in the— how many times is he named in the Epstein files? That's a Democrat talking point. But what's he named in the Epstein files for actually doing?

What?

Well, there are FBI investigations that have some pretty serious claims. They never manifested anything. Not credible.

They literally say not credible.

So we're not here to have a debate over the Epstein files, but I do find it odd. No, you are the one that brought it up. But I do find it odd that you're going to pretend like Howard Lutnick didn't lie about going to the island after Epstein was convicted and took his kids.

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-078

Even to the point. Are you going to tell me—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Owen Shroyer

hold on a second. It doesn't help your case. Are you going to tell me that Donald Trump was not friends with Jeffrey Epstein.

He was initially friends with Jeffrey Epstein. He also banned him from his properties.

↳ evidence for the P18 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-095

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession: Trump was friends with Epstein · Andrew Wilson

That's fine. And he might have helped bring him in.

Hang on. He banned him from his properties. And he was also front and center at pointing out to people that Epstein was a creep. That's one. And two, everything that's mentioned in the files— Michael Tracy has done great work on this. He's gone through them ad nauseam. So the things which are put in there about Trump are ridiculous on their face. And claims from various people about Trump are noted inside of these files most of the time as being not credible at all.

Here's what's credible. Alex Acosta is the one that cut Jeffrey Epstein his sweetheart deal. It was so bad of a deal that they had to reexamine it and rearrest Jeffrey Epstein and put him back in jail in New York City.

Which administration did that happen under?

Where he was ultimately killed.

Yeah, which administration did that happen under?

The Trump administration.

That's right, he got arrested under the Trump administration.

It's actually starting to look a little more suspicious now.

What?

How is that more suspicious?

He died in jail.

What administration did Acosta— what administration did Acosta—

Trump's.

Was he in when he cut the deal?

He wasn't in office. Trump wasn't in office.

Yeah.

Acosta was an attorney.

Whose administration was that under?

Obama's.

Obama. So Obama— we have Acosta Under Obama. Under the Trump administration, they rearrest Jeffrey Epstein. Isn't that amazing? The guy protecting the pedophiles.

So the person that Trump brought into his administration is the one that cut Jeffrey Epstein a sweetheart deal that no pedophile child sex trafficker has ever seen before in their life. Such a sweetheart deal they had to rearrest him again.

Yeah, they have seen it before in their life.

First of all, whether Trump— He wasn't even accused of pedophilia.

He was accused of sex trafficking. pedophilia. What he was accused of was localized trafficking in Florida. And yes, people have been cut sweetheart deals for that. You're full of it. Okay.

So your stance is Epstein was not a pedophile and there's nothing in the Epstein Files? Because I don't want to debate this the whole time.

I didn't say that. My stance is that there's bold claims which are made and I can see you running from it. I don't blame you for running from the claims.

This isn't the debate. Is it a failure of justice or not? This is worse. Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Well, then it's part of the debate.

be dozens of Epstein arrests. They are literally covering it up.

Exactly.

They've redacted the names. Who should we be arresting?

Exactly.

What does that mean? Why are all the names redacted from the files? Why haven't they given us all the files?

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-006

I'll actually tell you, and if you had done your due diligence, you would know this.

Oh, because they're victims.

No, no, no, because victims advocacy groups and lawyers have tied this thing up like nobody's business. And again, Michael Tracy's done research on this.

And no pedophiles go to jail.

Which pedophiles should go to jail?

The ones that they've redacted. What are their names? So Epstein trafficked kids to no one.

No, Epstein was getting kids.

So Epstein—

Ghislaine was trafficking kids to him.

Okay, so Epstein raped all the kids, no one else did.

Name a single person he trafficked a kid to.

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-075

They're all redacted from the files. What are you talking about? The files don't even indicate that. You can see in the emails, he says, I have girls, how old do you want them? I have girls, I don't like yellow, I want Russian. It's all right there.

That's not him. There's nothing to do with pedophilia as far as you know. Show me something.

So as far as you know, it does.

Wait a second. Absence of evidence is not evidence. Do you agree with that?

No, I'm using your logic against you. If you're saying my logic works for me and not for you, okay, so I'll accept this because I don't want to debate. So Epstein was not a pedophile. He was not trafficking children to anybody. He was not friends with Trump. They're not covering up Epstein. They're not covering up the files.

+6 R-2.2 · Ventriloquism: 'so Epstein wasn't a pedophile, glad we got there' · Owen Shroyer

I'm willing to see the distinction between the mythology of Epstein trafficking children to all of these various pedophiles is a mythology. I'm also willing to see that Epstein himself may very well have been a pedophile, but it seemed like the trafficking was going to him. And you have no proof to the alternative of that. And even when you point at Acosta—

So what does that prove?

This happened under Obama, rearrested under Trump. Trump's the only one who released any Epstein files at all, signed in the Epstein Transparency Act.

Congress also pushed for it. After they redacted them for weeks, they still haven't released everything. Because of victims. They still haven't released everything, by the way.

How would Trump run redact them? Can you explain that to me?

Well, they shouldn't be redacted at all.

Yeah, but how would Trump unredact them?

Well, it's actually pretty easy. I think he calls them and says, hey, no, unredact these.

No, no, no. That's the judicial branch. That's a different branch of government.

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-162

And he can call them and tell them—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Andrew Wilson

Trump's allowed to do that with classified documents. Not allowed to do that with redactions. Those redactions are going through the judiciary. So what should Trump do here?

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-162

He can easily— he can easily declassify— he can easily release everything.

They're not classified. They're redacted.

Then why aren't they released?

He did release them. Not all of them. Millions of documents.

Not all of them.

And not only that, again, how would he get them unredacted? Tell me.

Not even all of them. They're not even released.

How would he get them unredacted?

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-162

How? It's very simple. You bring out the investigators and you simply read the names that are redacted. That's all you gotta do.

↳ evidence for the P19 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-169

You mean like they did in front of a press club and those poor guys who weren't actually pedophiles got calls and threats and everything else?

That happened to one guy.

Yeah, but I mean, one guy— that's reading the names of people who aren't even related to it. This is the problem here. So this is good. So you're satisfied with the Epstein I didn't say satisfied, but I'm pointing out that I'm not willing to make—I'm not willing to make claims that Donald Trump's a bad guy based on redactions that he's not responsible for. You can't tell me how he should unredact them.

You can't tell me it's very simple. I want victims' art. You can't tell me all of this. I do. I do want to.

I only want to jump in just because, given that we have only 40 minutes for the open dialogue, though this is—it's been. Epic so far. I just want to be sure if there are other topics you want to cover. We have 28 minutes left.

I would say, can we move on to the economy? Epstein files is a debacle and a disaster for the releasing of the Epstein files was a debacle. I agree with that. The problem is, is that what I'll never accept is lack of evidence being evidence of a thing. And while you pretend that there's a global pedophilic ring that you have no evidence of controlling the United States. I can show you a global pedophilic ring which exists right out in the open that Trump's blowing up right now.

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-144

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession: Epstein release was a debacle · Andrew Wilson

So Epstein didn't put a bunch of security cameras in all of his places. That didn't happen. He wasn't working with Maxwell, the daughter of the top Israeli spy.

Yes, he worked with Ghislaine Maxwell. Yes, there were security cameras in his various places. All of that is correct. That's, again, you asking questions, not providing evidence.

So what does he do that for?

Wait, there's cameras here. What's that evidence of?

This is an event. This is a televised event.

Yeah, but what's the evidence of?

Who is Epstein telling He's not tele— he wasn't televising anybody.

Got any proof?

So why are there cameras installed?

Because the same reason rich people have cameras all over their houses.

So he has them in all of his bedrooms, secret cameras?

What secret cameras? Can you show them?

Yeah, they're in the emails. He literally hired IDF security people to put secret cameras in all of his rooms.

No, no, no, no.

He had a damn security room with monitors in his mansion.

You're talking about one specific instance in one specific room, by the way. Not on all of his properties and not in the Florida properties. And those are the ones where he got convicted of all these things. So what are you talking about? You're talking about a completely unrelated thing to what I'm asking you. Do you have evidence that Trump was part of a global pedophilic ring or that anybody was?

Yes.

Okay. Absolutely. Give me your best piece.

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-075

The Epstein Files.

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-153

Best piece in the Epstein Files?

The whole fricking thing. What are you talking about?

Nothing.

Okay, so hold on.

So was Epstein convicted?

Not of pedophilia.

Yes, he was. Okay, who was Maxwell convicted?

I'm sorry, was Max— sorry, I'm sorry. When was Jeffrey Epstein convicted of pedophilia?

Epstein, jail.

Maxwell, when was Epstein convicted of pedophilia? When was— 2 of them committed suicide in jail. Convicted of pedophilia?

I think whatever the first charge was, in 2007 in Florida. That's not—

he wasn't convicted for pedophilia. That wasn't trafficking children.

First of all, so now you're saying Epstein wasn't a pedophile?

He's doing underage— there were— there was One or two of the underage prostitutes that came from the school, that's true. But I think they were underage. I think they were 16, 17, not prepubescent children. It's a whole different ballgame. He wasn't convicted of pedophilia.

So Epstein wasn't a pedophile. Glad we got there.

I didn't say Epstein wasn't a pedophile. I said you haven't given us any proof he is.

Got some? Yeah, there's no proof Epstein wasn't a pedophile.

Oh, I'm gonna use an argument from incredulity. He killed himself in jail.

Nothing to see here. And we should probably pardon Maxwell too.

I'm totally incredulous, but I have no evidence of my claims.

Just because the economy is another topic we might want to cover still while we have time. We do still have about 25 minutes.

Anyway, so I try to operate off a facts basis. What happened— I'll just sum this up real quick and then I'll give you the last word on it, to be fair. I'll just summarize it very quickly on Epstein. Epstein very well could have been a pedophile and likely was himself a pedophile. But when you make these claims about demonic global pedophile rings which control the United States, yeah, I want some fucking evidence. I do. And I'm not willing to throw the President of the United States that I voted for under the bus without any evidence. I'm not. So, you know, if you want to tie it off, you can.

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-075

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession that Epstein was a pedophile · Andrew Wilson

Well, I'll just say we also saw in the Democrat emails spirit cookings and children in the hot tub for entertainment. But there's no evidence of pedophile rings right now.

+6 R-2.2 · Mockery of a position in place of engagement · Andrew Wilson

You're talking about— I'm sure none of it happened. cooking. I'm sure the big art project.

Spirit cooking.

Yes. Leon Podesta, who was part of a massive art project for spirit cooking, along with— how about we talk about rocket pizza? Did they have babies underneath there, Owen? Did they have children in the basement, Owen?

Good opportunity to go into the economy.

Yeah. All right. So moving into this, I just got a single question for you, Owen. How would eliminating mass migration into a net negative Not cause economic downturn or higher prices? How's that even possible?

Well, it's actually— there's a simpler fix to that, and that is you have to cut taxes. You have to cut them significantly. You have to cut them immediately. Americans are paying roughly 30% of the money that they make plus the property that they own. That number needs to be single digits tops, and a lot of Americans will have a little more money to take care of their bills and take care of their family. But we're not really having that happen. Now, this— I feel like this whole argument is assuming that Americans don't want these jobs.

I don't know. It's assuming they do. In fact, my argument to you is just— I'll simply state it. If it's the case that we bring in, I don't know, 100,000 immigrants tomorrow to California, let's say. Okay. And they're willing to take $10 an hour less than the Americans who are there. Would you agree with me that that'll probably save you prices in goods and services from whatever that corporation is? or company?

Probably, yeah.

Probably. So like if you took McDonald's and you paid them $25 an hour, your cheeseburger is going to get more expensive. You agree with that? So you can offset that with immigrant labor. Do you— do you agree that that's likely true?

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-230

+3 C-1.2 · Concession that immigrant labor lowers prices · Owen Shroyer

Yes, but I don't believe that's the solution.

I agree with you. But if it is in fact the case that Trump is doing his job, which it seems like he is since we have negative net migration, why wouldn't it be the case that if we're deporting all of these illegals and they're self-deporting at an overwhelming rate, Of course your localized food prices are going to go up because most of these jobs are now going to Americans. In fact, this is exactly what Cato is saying. They're saying we're getting hurt mostly in the economy because Trump is not even letting legal immigrants come in. I thought that was what we wanted, man. We want to stop that legal and illegal immigration. But it's like, not if your fried chicken is going to go up $0.30. What are you talking about? We want that, right?

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-022

Well, the deportation numbers are not where they need to be. I don't know how much that falls into the economic realm of things. Obama deported more people than Trump, so we're not getting those numbers.

There was a lot more people to deport.

But I think that there's other reasons for that. I think that this gets into the, let's say, failures at the Department of Justice, which maybe they're just starting to get into with the SPLC, but I don't know. We'll see about that if we come back to that. We're being told as Americans, hey, buck up and pay more for gas. It's this war in Iran. You've got to buck up. It's your patriotic duty to pay more for gas. That is a war that's being fought in the foreign and special interests. Do you think Americans might be willing, instead of paying another extra dollar per gallon of gasoline, maybe an extra 10 cents for a cheeseburger if they know that that means Americans are taking the job? I mean, that's essentially what we're being asked.

But most Americans don't know that because even people on my side are running around saying Trump's not deporting enough people, even though we have a net negative in migration right now. Those jobs— Well, we have a closed border. Hang on. Those jobs— yes, a closed border and net negative migration, legal and illegal. More people are leaving than coming. That's for the first time we finally got that. It's like, yeah, prices are going to go up from that. You know this. Why not be honest with people if that's the case? Well, prices went up from tariffs. And I was talking about gas. Hang on. Hang on. I'm almost done.

Prices went up from tariffs. Prices went up from taxes.

Okay. You want to get into tariffs? We can do that in a second, but let's start with the gas prices, all you're doing is pitting Trump against Trump. At— on the Biden level, at his top, do you know what the gas prices were?

About right where they're at now?

Nope. Way more. They were—

they were over $5.50.

Yeah, they're a dollar cheaper right now at the peak of Trump than they were at the peak of Biden. So you're only comparing Trump's gases— gas prices to Trump's gas prices, because if you compare them to the Democrat, they were still way higher. I mean, way higher.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-242

Now, when did the price go up?

Trump speculation mostly.

No, when did the price go up?

Oh, I thought you said why did the price go up? No, when? When did the price go up? Well, the price has been going up steadily and decreasing steadily.

Since we attacked Iran.

Yes, correct. Due to what? Market speculation. And you can't control speculators and neither can Trump. It's not because we have some supply shortage of oil. Where's our shortage? Nowhere. We're not getting oil from Iran. We don't even have the processors for their oil. That goes to China. So we have no shortage, but our oil prices go up. Why? Because of speculation. And you just completely omit that. Not only do you omit that, but you omit this other part, which is you still haven't explained how it is that we're going to have net negative migration and prices aren't going to go up. They are.

Hold on a second. Trump is the one that claimed that he could get gas prices down. He did. He's the one that made that claim.

And he did. They're lower than Biden's peak by a dollar.

No.

Yes. Okay. But we haven't even— we don't even know if we've seen Trump's peak. If this war in Iran doesn't end.

Well, you can't, you can't just say, well, I'm incredulous, they may go up more. They're actually going down. They've been going down steadily.

Gas prices are going down?

Yes, they're going to be going down. Yes. And speculators, by the way, are speculating that, which is why they're going to be going down. Interestingly enough, when we're talking about oil prices, though, and gas prices, yes, at Biden's peak, they were a dollar more than they are, the national average, right this second as we're talking. I even made sure this morning before we came in. Just just to be sure, and yes, that is in fact the case. So it's like you you're only comparing Trump to Trump, and even with him blowing the shit out of pedophiles in Iran like the Ayatollah Khomeini, he still managed to give you a dollar cheaper gas than Joe Biden did.

But you just said it wasn't Trump. You just said it was the speculators. Now you're giving credit to Trump. So I don't know what you know. I'd like a little consistency.

Okay, so wait a second. So. You're going to blame it on Trump instead of the speculators. But when I say even under those circumstances, it's a dollar cheaper, that can't be because of Trump. Let's be clear.

No, no, no. Here's my— I want the consistency. Here's my metric. Trump said on his campaign he would get gas prices down. He did. He hasn't done it. Yes, he has. He's even admitted that we had to take a detour off of America First to do this war. He said it's over. It's not a war.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-242

It has gotten the gas prices down.

Gas prices have gone up since we started the war.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-242

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-262

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession that gas prices rose after the strikes · Andrew Wilson

Yes, gas prices went up when we started the war due to market speculation.

So Trump started a war and now gas prices are higher.

That's the fact. Yeah, but you're only comparing Trump to Trump. And if you're going to compare him to Biden, gas is still cheaper than the Democrats.

I'm comparing this administration to this administration.

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-262

Exactly.

Gas prices have gone up since he started this war.

Yes. And if you, if you follow Trump's plan, gas prices are likely going to bottom out because he has control over oil there.

That's a nice hope.

Control over oil in Venezuela.

That's a nice hope.

He has control over all of it.

Venezuela oil won't be ready for probably months though.

But we still have control of it. What did I say? The future will go down.

We'll see. I hope that's the case. I hope that's the case. But that's not the case right now. And Americans are struggling financially. And now here we are in another war in the Middle East and we're sick of it.

Are you going to blame market speculators?

I'm going to blame Trump for getting us into another war on Israel's behalf. Yes, I am going to blame Trump for that. He did that.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-039

So help me out here. Can you tell me all of the downsides of Donald Trump killing pedophiles in the Middle East?

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-035

First of all, do you know every single person? Were those schoolgirls pedophiles?

It's institutionalized in the Iranian.

Just no, no. Were the were the two hundred schoolgirls pedophiles?

+4 R-2.2 · Attributing a monstrous motive in place of the point · Andrew Wilson

You want to make sure that they're alive so they can get raped? But that aside, no, of course not. But there's going to be deaths inside of a war.

Okay, so it is a war.

Yeah, I didn't say it wasn't a war. Does he need congressional approval over the word? Even though there's no ground invasion, there's no boots on the ground, there's none of that. I just want to know, how is the global interest served? You're so concerned about pedophiles. He killed one of the most major ones who's ever existed since 1970, the late 1970s. He constantly was friends with— he put it inside of the Constitution of Iran that you can marry 9-year-old girls, dude. And by the way, Khomeini— that's good. So, Khomeini was married to a 15-year-old. Perhaps by the lunar cycle could have been 14. His son was married to a 14 or 15-year-old. A lot of his high command were married to children as well. Trump killed all of them, all of them without a single boot on the ground.

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-035

Great. And I'm sure after we've killed thousands of Iranians, including young schoolgirls and the entire family, I'm sure that the Iranians are going to be less radicalized because of that. So I'm not radicalized. What do you mean?

How do you get more radicalized than marrying children, dude?

What do you think they're gonna stop talking about? You think they're gonna stop? No.

Well, I'm just saying, how do you get more radical? You're like, oh, the Iranians are gonna get more radicalized than marrying kids. Like, oh, the United States blowing up the pedophiles is gonna really—

how many, how many countries has Iran been bombing this year?

Well, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.

You remember that? Is Israel a state sponsor of terrorism?

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession that Israel committed terrorist acts · Andrew Wilson

I think that Israel's done many terrorist actions.

Is America a state sponsor of terrorism?

I don't think that America generally is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Okay, well, in the Obama administration, it's very well known we were arming moderate rebels that turned into ISIS, that turned into ISIL. So America backs these proxy groups, the CIA backs these proxy groups all the time.

But that was due to Bush Doctrine. Most of that was due to Bush Doctrine.

And now Trump isn't— now Trump is Bush?

Trump has— when? Where's the forever war? We're in the Middle East. Not a single boot on the ground.

We've been in the Middle East the majority of Trump's administration.

Is there a single boot on the ground in Iran?

We have been at a war in Iran.

That's the question, bro.

Since—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Andrew Wilson

Is there a single—

Okay, that's like, that's like all over the Middle East.

We have boots on the ground in Iran. We got boots on the ground.

Where's our invasionary force? We got people in the strait. We're talking about going to Kharg Island.

Oh, we had 7,000 people there and now there's 10,000 people there. Where's the big invasionary force to take over Iran?

So, okay, fine, I'll tell you what. Where is it at? If, if they do go into Iran, what will you say?

+6 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard question · Andrew Wilson

Yeah, well, at that point I'm done.

Okay. Fair enough.

It is the case—

Fair enough.

I've drawn the line for myself that if there's a ground invasion of Iran, that would be a continuation—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Owen Shroyer

What about casualties?

Hang on. That would be a continuation of the Bush policies.

What about casualties?

Hang on. Let me finish the point, and I'll get to casualties too. If it's the case that there's a mass ground invasion of Iran, then yeah, I would have to pull support then because that would be a continuation of Bush forever war doctrine. However, limited strikes like what we saw in Venezuela or 6 to 8 weeks, which is what we're seeing right now, that's not enough to pull my support from this president, especially with all of his success in domestic policy. Even if I grant you— and I'm not a fan of the war, I'm not an advocate of it— but even if I granted that it's the worst thing he could have possibly done, it's not going to change the fact he's been a successful president. His domestic policies alone in eliminating crime and mass migration and being a net negative, that's what people wanted more than anything. It wasn't just the forever wars. It was The mass migration, that's what Trump always harped on. And he's been after it and after it and after it. And he did deploy the National Guard to protect these various centers in these cities while ICE was removing these people from the nation. Democrats did everything that they could do to stop him, including court cases, terrorism against them, and everything else in between. So it's like all of those show me that the guy is very successful, even if I grant it to you how bad Iran is.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-039

↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-301

Well, I think that they made a major blunder on the deportations because now they're basically stopping them. They should have gone after the Democrats first. Quite frankly, they should have been arresting Democrats for treason. Alejandro Mayorkas should have been the first arrest. He should have been hauled in front of Congress. And you're a little too late going after the SPLC, in my opinion, which is now being— funny enough, it's actually being directed at the right. They're now using this SPLC thing to claim that anybody that's a dissident on the right is paid for by leftists and needs to be censored. That seems to be the theme with that. But they should have gone after all of these groups right out of the gate, Andrew. They should have gone after all the Catholic charity groups, all the Jewish charity groups, all these groups all along the Rio Grande, all of these groups on the southern border, all the Democrats that brought them in, all the Biden administration that brought them in. All of them should have been hauled to jail.

↳ P31 raised again here · first raised at U-650

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-024

Yeah.

And they weren't. Except they have due process, And what process have they started?

They haven't even started the process.

How do you know the SPLC?

Because there's no results.

Tell me, how long, how long were you aware of the SPLC investigation?

What are the charges?

They're all political crimes. Hang on, let's walk through this. When were you aware of the SPLC investigation? When they released it, right?

Yes.

Yeah, so when they released it. You're not aware of what the Trump Justice Department is investigating or not investigating.

Show me the evidence. You're the one who wants to talk about there's no evidence of your claim. Lack of evidence, lack of claim.

Hang on, hang on. He said multiple times that he wants to bring James Comey up on charges, right? He said multiple times that he wants to go after these people.

Those charges got dropped.

Instructing his Justice Department to investigate these things. We're finally starting to see the fruit. My evidence is we're finally seeing the fruit with the SPLC. I'm guaranteeing you that there's going to be other organizations which are indicted for various things like this. This is exactly what it is that you said that you wanted.

It's at least a step in the right direction. No, they've only been charged for financial crimes. They need to be charged for—

So was Al Capone.

They need to be charged for treason.

Yeah, Al Capone— Al Capone was not charged for his mob hits or for bootlegging.

Wait a second, you're not comparing Al Capone to a $15 million invasion of this country.

If it's the case that you go to jail for 15 years—

Al Capone is more of an American than Mayorkas.

If you go to jail for 15 years for the crime of murder or to jail for 15 years for the crime of financial— for some type of financial fraud, you can prove the one but not the other, which one would you go after?

I would go for it all. That's what the feds do. That's what they did to me.

No, you wouldn't. If you could prove one but not the other, you would go after the one you could prove.

No, no, no. They always overcharge so they can get you a plea and get their incarceration rate and get their conviction rate. I would know. I've been through it before. Regardless, we're talking about almost 2 years into this administration and no deep state arrests. None. Who do you want to see arrested? I just told you, Mayorkas. There's one. How about the Obama administration? How about John Brennan? How about James Clapper? How about James Comey?

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-024

Tell me what your process would be to arrest them.

Okay. First of all, Dan Bongino, who was the deputy director at the FBI, spent 8 years, 8 years writing books and doing a podcast all about arresting these people. He gets in there and does none of it.

Yeah. The same Dan Bongino who talked about what was going on in the Epstein files ad nauseam, how none of it made sense.

And then changed his mind.

Because he went in and saw— here's what's funny. Why would anybody ever want to go work for the Trump administration for from the private sector, especially somebody like Dan Bongino, if it's the case that he goes in and looks at the evidence, reviews it and says, actually, I got this wrong. And you guys fucking crucify him for it. You crucify him for saying, look, I got this wrong. And it's like, why would anybody ever want to go work for the Trump administration if that's going to be the case, Owen?

Imagine that. You give us a little peek into what's going on in the Epstein files and it makes people even more aware and more suspicious. And then you say there's no there there. If anything, our peek at the Epstein files showed us that there is something serious there. Very serious.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-006

No, you've never— look, not only have you never provided any evidence for that, but your other problem is you didn't actually answer my question. What incentivization would— like, let's say Trump drafted you to go to his administration to investigate these things and you went in good faith and you did and you came back and you were like, look, I took a look at all this evidence and I was wrong about this. And then all of your friends and cohorts and everybody else who was cheering you on fucking crucified you for it.

You know what, Andrew? It's funny that you say that because that's literally happening to me right now. From who? That's literally happening to me from this new MAGA right cult. Who? I already did this. I already put my time in. I was arrested. Crucified you for it? Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. For 4 different times I was arrested for supporting Trump. Okay. Now I think— All incorrect, by the way. Now you like Trump. I don't like Trump. Now, beyond the point. I already went through that crucible. I already put my face, my name, my neck out there. And it's not even that I necessarily did it for Trump. I did it for the truth because I believed Trump was innocent and I wanted to support him. But how are you crucified? I have, I have MAGA people putting me on lists. I have MAGA people doxxing me. I have MAGA people sending people to my house. I have Laura Loomer in my box all day telling me she's telling Trump to post negatively about me.

That's typical.

Trump posted something about me. He told me to shut the fuck up. So I got arrested 4 times for this guy, spent months in prison for this guy, did everything for this guy, censored, lawsuit, everything, lost all my social media, kept supporting him. And then what is the one recognition I get from him? Fuck you, shut up. I don't even care. I didn't even do— I did it because it's the truth. And now the truth is this administration has turned against us. MAGA has now been weaponized against us. And Trump is now the very globalist that we were supposed to get out of the White House.

↳ P31 raised again here · first raised at U-650

↳ evidence for the P15 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-024

This is ironically hilarious. So the first, the first thing that you claim, you say, hey, look, I was crucified for my support of Donald Trump by Democrats. Do you agree it was by Democrats?

Well, actually, first it was by Republicans because we were going up against—

Never Trumpers.

Yeah.

Like you are right now.

No, I'm not a Never Trumper.

I voted for him 3 times. What happened is, well, now you're like, oh, he's the worst thing ever.

No, I'm saying he's failed this country.

administration failed. Yes, it failed. And when you're talking about this, Democrats were the ones who persecuted you. Democrats were the ones who threw you in jail. They were the ones who didn't want to give you a fair trial. Me and my wife, we advocated for the release of J6ers everywhere that we possibly could, yourself included.

And I will give Trump that. That is the biggest victory. I've never regretted voting for Trump because he did that.

+1.5 C-1.2 · Concession crediting Trump on J6 releases · Owen Shroyer

Yeah, huge victory. Okay. But not only that, let's dive into this a little bit deeper. When you're talking about your supposed crucifixion now by the right, Trump hasn't shut down your channels. He hasn't done any of that. Under Biden, that was a sure thing.

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-022

Well, let's not be so sure that's not going to happen soon.

You say gonna, hasn't though. Okay. Under Biden, it was just—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Owen Shroyer

Isn't that the whole point? None of this stuff has happened under Trump and you're saying, oh, but it could. Hang on.

Under Biden, no, it's not. Under Biden, it would have for sure. He was working with Facebook and these other groups in order to shut down people who had podcasts. You have a voice right now. That's true. The president of the United States might've told you to shut the Fuck up, but he still gave you a platform. Tell him to shut his fucking mouth. That's the distinction.

No, Trump did not. That's the First Amendment. That is the First Amendment.

It was given to us by the founding fathers. Biden didn't give a fuck about the First Amendment. He's just working with the tech companies to shut you down.

Trump doesn't care either. Trump—they'll censor us under Trump. They already did. He did nothing. Where? What are you talking? When did I get censored? What year? No, the Trump administration. I was censored under Trump one. I was censored from 2018 to 2022.

Trump's administration censored you. What?

What did he do for it?

What did he do to end the censorship? That's different. That's— you, you got to make a distinction.

No, no, no. You're the one making claims that Trump did something for me. Yes, he did. I'm not asking Trump to do anything for me.

I'm saying that he instructed his Department of Justice to stop putting pressure on Facebook and these other groups for censorship.

↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-372

He promised he would do that. But that is happening. That's why he just brokered the deal to give the Ellisons everything so that they can censor the internet in favor of this War and foreign policy that's unpopular.

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-375

Where is that happening right now? It just happened with TikTok.

It just happened with Paramount.

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-375

No, TikTok—they talk about the war constantly. Ellison and Oracle arguing with them constantly.

Ellison and Oracle are about to have all these databases.

They're going to sell all of them in the future soon. But you've been wrong about futures before. And by the way, oh wait a second!

Right now. Okay, hold on a second.

I'm talking about hold on a second.

When I'm holding when when when Doge ended, yeah, and then Musk. Called the Epstein files a hoax and then struck Iran, I was called a panicking. I was called a panicking because I knew it meant we were getting into a war with Iran and a regime change war with Iran. I was called a panicking. I was called a panicking because if he did this, the MAGA coalition would be destroyed. And I was called a panicking because I said if he does this, we're going to lose the midterms. And now all 3 things of those have happened, except every single one.

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-024

You were also wrong about Venezuela. What was I wrong about Venezuela? Venezuela, you said that there's a good chance there that we're going to be bogged down in a Never said that. You did too.

No, I never said that.

You said it on your show yesterday.

No, I did not.

You said there's a good shot there. You were in a debate when you said it, in fact, with a caller. It's a good shot there would be bogged down as well. When did— what are you talking about? So that's what's funny to me. It's like every time I dive in to your view, it's always, well, down the road he's going to do these bad things. Down the road he's going to do this. Trump's administration hasn't censored you. Trump's administration didn't jail you. Trump's administration didn't do any of that. You just gave him credit for getting you released. And not only that, when we talk again, we're talking about the economics of this thing. We diverted into this, which is fine. I think that speech is something that we need to debate about. But when we're talking about the economics, you still haven't actually told us how it is that you, Owen Troyer, are going to make an offset for net negative migration without prices going up.

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-230

There's going to be an adjustment period.

↳ evidence for the P5 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-231

Cut taxes. That's an adjustment period.

You can cut taxes in a year.

Do you think that prices are going to immediately decrease because you cut taxes?

Cut taxes, prices don't have to decrease. You have more money in your wallet. You have more money in your bank account. You're not paying it to the government.

Again, those are adjustment periods that are incremental. It would be— so if you cut taxes immediately— Takes one year. Takes one year. And by the way, Trump doesn't unilaterally have the power to do that. He doesn't unilaterally have the power to just cut taxes. That has to go through Congress. And so this idea that you have, one thing he did do and he did do well unilaterally with his executive orders was with migration. And he did get us to the point where we're at a net negative, a net negative of migration. Who would ever have given us that? Who? Who out of anybody in the field would ever have given us net negative migration?

If Trump has a positive, it's definitely on the migration issue, but it's not perfect. He's still giving Chinese students, he's still letting Chinese students into these universities to save their ass. He's still letting the H-1Bs—

+4.5 C-1.2 · Concession that migration is a Trump success · Owen Shroyer

70% decrease of the H-1Bs. The Cato Institute recently said, in fact, cut down 136,000, 50% of the H-1Bs eliminated under Trump's policy. So yeah, it's true, Chinese immigrants can still come in and study under H-1B visas, 50% less of them. That's correct.

So don't you think that there should be an adjustment period just like you said with taxes? Shouldn't there be an adjustment period for hiring Americans? Because what happened was the farmers, agriculture, all these big businesses said, Trump, we have to have this cheap migrant labor.

That's correct. Yes.

And so he caved. He caved and he let the donors get what they want. That's what Trump does. This is a donor class administration.

In this case, not only did he not cave, but the opposite happened.

What are you talking about? He didn't— he's doing mass deportations.

No, no, no. He gave subsidies. And yes, there has— not only has there been big-time deportations, but it's border crossings. It's just new ones even coming in versus self-deporting. Is an amazing feature at a net negative. Same with immigration internationally, which means legal immigration. So yeah, he did deal with them with subsidies that was designed to keep the prices down. But again, if we follow your policy, which would be mine, you want them all out, right? I want all the Mexicans who are working illegally out of here.

I would say you can't, you know, there's too many, but I would say you have to do at least the 15 that came in under Biden.

Well, you want to get rid of I want them all gone. I want all the illegal immigrants gone, don't you? Yeah, I would say so. Okay, great. So if we get all the illegal immigrants out of California— But Trump's not doing that. Hang on. If we get all the illegal immigrants out of California tomorrow, right, what happens to the price of produce? Does it go up or down?

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-230

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground on the deportation goal · Andrew Wilson

Well, we need an adjustment time, Andrew.

↳ evidence for the P5 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-231

That's my whole point. We would need an adjustment time.

+7.5 R-1.1 · False claim of agreement then argued from · Owen Shroyer

So we both agree that mass deportation is a failure of the administration.

What you're dealing with right now is an adjustment time due to the— How is net negative migration Failure.

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-022

We're not getting mass deportations.

Yeah, you don't have to massively deport people who aren't coming in, dude. You don't have to. They're already here. Yes, and by the way, he's going after the criminal elements of those people first, which he's been doing. There's a net negative of them crossing into the border. If you had said day one, day one with any Republican administration, we'd have only 1,000 border crossings a day versus 46,000 border crossings today, you'd say it's the biggest fucking success anybody had ever seen. How about somehow with Trump? though. Trump gets exactly that done day one, and Owen goes, well, what have you done for me lately?

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-022

What is the number? What is the number that you would be happy with of deportations for Trump's 4 years?

Overall number?

Yeah.

Probably I would want to see— like happy with, you said, versus what would be optimal that I'd want to see?

Let's put a reasonable but good expectation number.

I mean, I would be happy if it was the case that we had no new immigrants coming in. I think that's a massive success.

Well, we agree that Trump has had a success. I'm— okay, let me answer my own question, then you can respond. I think if Trump doesn't deport at least 15 million people, which seems like an impossibility, but they came here, we can get them out, there's strategies to do it. I think 15 million, if it's less than that, I think we got a problem.

Well, the entirety of the basis for the 15 million number, you would agree with me, there's way more than 15 million illegal immigrants.

40, maybe.

Or 50. Yeah, it's very high. Yeah. So if it is the case that it's very high, that we have this amount of illegals that are here, that's going to take a long time. And Trump has been— hang on— Trump has been hampered. He was moving towards this. He's been hampered in the courts. Again, 3 times the amount of injunctions than any other president when it comes to illegal immigration. And he's trying to unilaterally do this because Congress isn't working with him. He's hamstrung at every level. He's using executive orders to push that through, and it's been wildly successful, wildly successful with the tools that he has. You have to say that that's successful, a net negative migration.

↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-336

I've said that that's the one success, but I just—

↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-401

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Andrew Wilson

How is that still a big success?

I just don't think that it's going to be where it needs to be. I think that he's caved on the mass deportations, and at the end of the day, as much as both of us would like to see every single illegal immigrant deported. I think that—

But if they are, the prices are going to go up, right?

I think that you can negate that by not getting into another war in the Middle East.

Ruin adjustment. The war in the Middle East, are you kidding me? You think that that's the budget buster in comparison?

Absolutely. He's asking for $1.5 trillion in the next defense budget.

Nothing.

We pay $1 trillion in interest on our debt.

Do you know what our entitlements are in comparison to military spending? Cut them all.

Cut them all.

But that's my whole point. When we're talking about entitlements, the number one spending, not military.

That's one. I think the second— I think interest is about to take entitlements.

Well, maybe, maybe. But the number one spending right now is entitlements is 3 times higher than military spending, 3 times higher. Most of those entitlements are coming in because of illegal immigration and mass migration. You know this.

I've heard you say it yourself. I have zero tolerance for any welfare.

Yeah, I've heard you say it yourself. So if that's the case, you're not going to be able to do this without a transitory period where prices go up. It's been a year. When you see all of these jobs— first of all, real wage growth has gone up 1.3% because the jobs are finally going to Americans.

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-022

The economy is bad. Don't— you can throw numbers every day. The economy is bad. More Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-024

Are real wages up or down?

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-022

Down.

Okay, so how far down are they?

They're, they're as down as they've ever been.

They're as down as they've ever been, ladies and gentlemen.

+4 R-2.6 · Unfalsifiable dismissal of wage statistics · Owen Shroyer

Anybody can cook these numbers.

down as they've ever been. No, the wages are up.

Are you going to— are you going to tell— are you going to tell Americans that they're doing good financially?

I didn't say— I didn't say there's not room for improvement. We're talking about whether or not Trump is successful. I think that Americans would be doing worse if real wages were at a net negative like they were under Biden. Yes. And that real wages have gone up 1.3%. It's a major thing.

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-022

↳ evidence for the P6 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-033

And cost of living has gone up 2.3%.

↳ evidence for the P24 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-445

And guess what? That'll go down when you get rid of mass migration and immigrants.

The conclusion of the open dialogue. Gentlemen, thank you very much. That was a riveting open discussion.

I think we take questions.

Yeah, I know.

By the way, that's how a gentleman debates.

We are going to start the Q&A. If you can come down this aisle, this is where we will have your questions.

This is rigged. This is rigged right here.

100%.

How does she get first question?

100%, it's right.

Check the ID.

And folks, I have to remind you—

Where are the borders of this place?

For the Q&A, it's absolutely essential. We want to press you to get to your question as fast as possible. As fast as possible. And no double questions. No, I've got to. With that, I'm also even going to hold the microphone just to be sure. With that, thank you very much. Rachel.

OK. going to be disingenuously framed as Andrew loves Epstein now. I just want to say many of you were very happy about a lot of Owen's points on Epstein, and I am too. And Andrew did make clear we don't think he's good. We don't think pedophilia is good. Given that, since there are 30,000 to 40,000 girls 15 and under each year getting married in Iran, and there are 2.3 million girls and women living in Iran right now who were married before they turned 15, and this was not the case before this regime took over. There were 18-and-up marriage laws prior to 1979. If we can get rid of this regime and the regime change eliminates this child marriage in the millions, would that be worth it to you, all of you who are upset about the Epstein files? Would that be—

Absolutely.

something that you would support?

Well, I'd have to know what the worth it payoff is. No, I would— I'm inclined to say no too. I'm inclined to say no too because Iran is not my country. We've been in the Middle East for decades, for my entire life.

So we only care about pedophilia when it's here. We don't care about 2.3 million children being married off to old men in Iran.

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-468

I care about fixing my country first, and I feel that our presence in the Middle East has not resulted in anything positive.

So then at least be honest that it's not about pedophilia. You do not care about pedophilia whatsoever. You're just ass mad.

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-468

Well, if you want to change Iran, I'm sure that they'll take you over there. You can go over there and fight the regime change war of the administration if you care so much about it.

No, the point— the point is—

no, I didn't. No, no, no. The point is consistency.

If the entirety— if the entirety of the if Trump isn't actively going after pedophiles, he's supporting pedophiles. Has that been said? Hang on, hang on, hang on.

He's never mentioned that Iran has pedophiles. Hang on, let me make the point.

If that is the case, why does he need to mention a thing that's known? But anyway, if it is the case that it's not consistent, hey man, if Trump isn't actively going after what I think is a US pedophile ring that I can't even prove exists, Then he's supporting pedophiles. But over in Iran, where you literally see him blowing them up, where's the consistency there, man?

He blew up 200 schoolchildren. Nobody has mentioned fighting pedophilia as part of this war. It's a regime change war for Israel to get control of the Middle East. That's what this is all about. And so, no, I don't support that.

↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-473

Are the Iranians— is it—

Iranians bad. Iranians bad. Iranians bad.

Is it institutional to the Iranians under Sharia law that they're allowed to marry kids or not?

+5 R-4.2 · Subject change on the Sharia child-marriage question · Owen Shroyer

When every American has a backyard with a backyard barbecue pit and a pool, then we can go police the world.

Can you answer the question? Is it the case that institutionally Sharia allows you to marry children or not?

I'm not interested in Sharia. I don't want it in my country.

Can you answer my question? Can you answer the question?

Owen? Yes, Sharia is bad. I don't like Sharia.

I condemn Sharia. So then the idea that she has is in fact the case. She's talking about consistency. If Trump is covering for pedophiles by not arresting who you think are pedophiles with no evidence, then you're supporting pedophiles by not letting him kill them in Iran. It's different.

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-035

It's my country versus Iran. I live in America. I want to fix America. If you want to fix Iran, go to the Middle East.

↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-473

↳ evidence for the P25 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-473

Nobody's stopping you. It's not about fixing Iran. It's about the consistency of your logical position, which is not—

So it's not about fixing Iran, but that's the entire basis of your statement.

It's not a logical position to say, oh, I'll oppose it in this one hand, and if Trump doesn't do that, he's supporting it. But on the other hand, if I take us away from killing them in Iran, that's not him supporting pedophilia. It's bizarre.

You want to go one more time?

No, I'm good.

Oh, okay. You got it.

Hey, how you doing? Um, so wouldn't being successful on at least your primary promise of a thing be considered success?

No.

No. If I hit one home run in a 10-inning game and we lose, that's not a success.

So—

It is if it's your first one.

Is it? Yeah. Is it the case, though, that Trump has been hugely successful when it comes to mass migration? He has been successful in that arena, and that was one of his number one promises.

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-022

I said, I said yes. I said that that's been a success. That's one of like, if there's 10 issues, that's one of them.

↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-401

But that's all negated by a 7-week war.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-039

↳ evidence for the P32 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-024

It's a separate issue, and he's failed. All right. First, Andrew Wilson, I first learned about the Orthodox Church from you, and my family and I were just baptized into the church this past Christmas. Christ is risen. Second, Owen, You've made a lot of comments about prosecutions and reducing taxes, all while neglecting the fact that these require two other branches of government working with Trump. The judiciary branch has consistently blocked him and almost every single move he's made, and it's had to go to the Supreme Court. I don't know how many times. Meanwhile, Congress, no thanks to Republicans in Congress, by the way, have dragged their feet on almost every single issue. So why are you putting all the responsibility? Well, Trump appointed the Attorney General and she failed him, so he, he did that. He appointed that. So I don't know.

It's not the judiciary, dude.

So I don't know what—

I don't know what exactly you're saying. He's asking about the judiciary of radical judges which have blocked Trump every chance they get. It was so bad, in fact, that the Supreme Court finally had to step in and say, look, sorry, California, you can't set immigration policy for the rest of the country.

Do you believe these judges are corrupt? I don't believe they're corrupt.

corrupt?

Many of them, yes.

So then why don't we do something about corruption?

Because in this case, corruption is a matter of spectrum between political ideology. The Democrats believe that they're doing something which is well within the purview of federal judges to do, and it was within their purview to do until that was recently constitutionally lifted by the Supreme Court, who said federal judges in California can't anymore say, hey, Texas, this is going to be the new standard for immigration law. They were blocking Texas immigration law in in radical courts in California, dude. He's been hamstrung at every level by the judiciary. 100%, that's true. The Supreme Court, which he appointed, he's had massive victories there.

Well, not according to him recently, but I would just— I just find it amazing that the Biden administration can make thousands of prosecutions and arrests within months, but this administration can't do anything about Epstein clients or about the deep state.

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-024

Thousands of arrests of who?

Myself and January 6th.

Yeah. So they were able to utilize the power of the media to paint all of you guys as being violent extremist insurrectionists in order to get the public on their side. In this particular case, not only Democrats, but, but on your side, people have weaponized the media instead to paint Trump out as though he's part of some pedophilic satanic elite, thus getting the The one thing he always had in his teeth was the media. And you guys have done everything you can to take that away through this obfuscation of Epstein and the Epstein files. Well, we have way bigger fish to fry in domestic policy for sure. And you don't— you still don't even have any evidence of any of those claims, which is wild. This is for Owen. So if Trump could only do one thing that would make you change your mind, Would it— would you rather him act more on the e-files or where we're currently at with Iran? Which one is a bigger issue for you?

I would say probably get— bring the troops home, generally speaking. Bring them all home. And I think you win the midterms if you do that. I think you save face with everything. If you come out tomorrow and you say we're done in the Middle East and we're bringing all of our troops home, I think you sweep the midterms.

This is mainly for both of y'all. I just want to ask, how can we get our economy to rebound after the negative effects of the tariffs, especially on American manufacturing workers. I myself actually work at an industrial plant that produces grinding wheels for brakes. And our business, we had to increase prices a lot because costs of raw materials went up a lot because it was harder to import them because all the chromium and manganese comes from China.

Sure.

So I'm wondering, like, what is y'all's stance on how we could get the economy back and get the prices back down? Well, I was a big fan and still still am of tariffs. What the tariffs were used for— people get it wrong all the time. They think that it was just willy-nilly. It wasn't. What happens is if you have the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, so this means that these are tax-free imports and exports. So if Canada imports a bunch of stuff from China, who we have a 25% tariff on, and then just labels it Canada, don't they avoid any of our tariffs, the Chinese? Yes. So what that is, is it's closing back doors by putting tariffs on westernized nations. And there's no possible way, by the way, for you to raise revenue in the United States. You only have 2 ways to do it: taxes or tariffs. So Harris's idea was that she was going to get rid of the corporate tax breaks, and that was going to drastically increase prices because it has to. Trump's idea was that he was going to fight a tariff war with potential future enemies and people who are adversaries with this on the global stage now. Pick your poison. Which one would you want to see?

Yeah, I'm a little concerned. I think Andrew and I would probably agree with most of these issues. I'm a little concerned about that we— that you talk about your company specifically is so reliant on China. This is something, whether it's Trump or the next president or Biden, all of our presidents have been put into a deep ditch because our Congress has sold us out to mostly West Asia, China. That's why everything is made over there. So now we're basically reliant— these minerals you're talking about, rare earth minerals, we're basically reliant. Pharmaceuticals, we're extremely reliant. And that's because Congress for the last 20, 30 years has completely sold us out.

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground on tariffs · Owen Shroyer

Through bribes and kickbacks, by the way.

And so we're screwed on that deal. I would say I support tariffs too. I would agree with Andrew that I support tariffs. The problem that the president has— and he did get screwed, I think, by the Supreme Court on a deal.

He did.

But the problem that you have is we have so many corporate taxes, we have so many regulations, it's like you're already so deep in the hole. You talk about your company. What I'd like for President Trump to do since the tariffs look like they're not going to work now, I'd like to see him get corporate tax rates as low as possible. I'd like to see him— remember when he came in the first administration, he did that big display and he cut the red tape and it was getting rid of all this regulation. I think that that's the best plan right now. I think we just have to get rid of as much regulation as possible, get rid of the corporate tax rates as much as possible. And, you know, that, that is one that you can mostly blame on the Democrats, but the Republicans went along for the ride.

Well, Trump extended— hang on— Trump extended his tax cuts and is going to continue to the extension of tax cuts. Not only that, he does want to get them lower. When he's talking about regulation, especially as we dive into this, you have to remember a couple of things. The first thing is, is that he did get screwed on the tariffs. Okay. The best thing on planet Earth would, would have been for him to continue to raise revenue through tariffs. That way you can lower taxes. But how are you going to raise revenue, man? How are you going to raise revenue without tax increases or tariffs? You can't do it.

Can I make a suggestion? Actually, what I'd like to see is I'd like a policy that If you're going to come here and work, whatever money you're going to send overseas, we're going to tax that at at least 50%.

Yeah, remittances.

Honestly, I'd tax it at 80%.

But remittances will do hardly anything. That's the problem. Even if you tax those remittances—

It might not change much financially, Andrew, but people will stop doing it. They'll either stop coming here or they're going to stop sending the money home because we're just going to keep it.

People would still work in the United States. Illegal immigrants would still come in here even if you had a 10% tax on remittances because it's still way more money than they're going to be.

Then I'd go 80%.

Yeah, but you're never going to get 80% through. And that's not the thing Trump can unilaterally do. Again, you'd have to have both houses in this case. At least Congress would have to act on that. So I love the idea.

We used to have— we had Congress for a minute. We had Congress for a minute now.

Yeah. But could you say that just the money being made due to the large amounts of goods we have to import from China, could that also boost it? Because China I mean, they are far too big of an industrial power for us to just cut off. I mean, they produce half the world's steel. They have 4 times our population, and their industry has been expanding rapidly for around 70 years. That's what the tariff war was for. The tariff war was designed to weaken the Chinese economy as much as possible. And Democrats and some of the Never Trumpers and some of the Republicans who don't like Trump really went after him for tariffs because they made the same argument. Well, good prices are gonna increase. Yes, of course they are. But what's the alternative? If you have Kamala Harris comes in and she takes out the corporate tax, right, the corporate tax decrease, your prices of your goods still increase, except now you're not weakening your global adversary. So it's like, which poison you wanna pick?

↳ P33 raised again here · first raised at U-522

I would say too, if there's one thing, if you're gonna look an American in the eye and say, hey, we have a transitory period, you know, they say this thing, short-term pain for long-term gain. That's probably the only one where I would look them straight in the eye and say, I'm square with you. If you need to do these tariffs to try to rebalance the global market and that hurts us for maybe a year and we can start producing steel, we can start bringing some manufacturing back, bringing mainstream back— Main Street back, that would be something that I would say, okay, Americans would believe in that cause, but the whole thing's been turned over by the Supreme Court now, so.

↳ evidence for the P33 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-525

+3 C-1.2 · Grants the tariff transitory-pain case · Owen Shroyer

Yeah. Go to the next person.

Hey guys, um, thank you for introducing me into Orthodoxy. You're welcome. Um, how many people—

yeah, preacher up here.

Yeah, I see. Bring out the holy water.

Come on.

A question for both of y'all. You know, in— I'm noticing a lot with foreign policy, especially in the last 50 years, you know, I, I see myself asking this question: what kind of America do we want to be? Do we want to stay to our imperialistic roots, which is based from like the Spanish-American War, you know, our acquiring of Philippines, Guam, Grenada. Do we still want to be that imperialistic power in the world, which I'm totally down for? I don't consider it an imperial power, but a hegemonic power. And I think that that's the proper context. Americans are not imperialists and never have been. We don't have an empire, a traditional empire like what you'd see with the British Empire, things like this. We're a hegemon, and the United States will brook nobody messing with their hegemon status. And when you guys think about it, I know how that sounds. You go, wait a second, I don't care if we're a hegemon. Yes, you do.

Yes.

Oh yeah, you do. You care a great deal if you're a hegemon. You just don't know that you care a great deal if you're a hegemon. But let me just ask it to you this way. If it was the case that you could pick between 2 lives, the one life is there's a guy who lives up on a hill who has everything and can kick the holy shit out of you and you could be that guy or the guy he kicks the shit out of. Which way you rolling, man? Tell me. You want to be the guy on the hill.

I think I agree directionally, but I feel like Americans are the ones getting their ass kicked right now. That's the problem. I feel like Americans—

+1.5 C-2.1 · Common ground on hegemony critique · Owen Shroyer · low confidence: excluded from score

By who?

By our own government.

Oh, well, that's— okay, hang on, hang on. Yes, inside of a hegemonic—

I do want to just speed up the Q&A. Just say it.

Yeah, very quickly, I'll just say I agree with that. Yes, of course, especially from Democrats and progressives. They beat the holy shit out of the private sector in the worst way possible. I guess what I'm saying is directionally to answer your question, when you're talking about empire, we're a hegemon, not an empire.

+1.5 C-2.1 · Common ground on harm from Democrats · Andrew Wilson · low confidence: excluded from score

I've got to go to the next one. Thank you very much.

Hey, firstly, thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Owen.

My question is around immigration and the demographic shift.

So my question is, with the US turning into a country with a non-white majority, the concern is that the significant demographic shift will change the country fundamentally and America will cease to be America. And this is echoed on—

echoed in the dissident right-wing spheres.

And I want to quote Ben Shapiro here. He said in 2016, if I'm not incorrect, he said, I don't give a damn about the so-called browning of America.

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-557

Correct.

Color doesn't matter, ideology does. And this has caused massive infighting in the right wing. And my question is, do you associate with the mainstream conservative view that Ben Shapiro and MAGA spouts, or the more dissident and alt-right fundamental conservative— Well, I don't think MAGA spouts that. I think Ben Shapiro does, but I don't think MAGA in general spouts that. So I would answer it this way. Let's just agree with Ben Shapiro for the sake of argument here. That yes, under cultural nationalism, we'd want people who have the similar values to the United States. Those do just so happen to be most of the white nations. I'm just pointing that out, that if you wanted to import people who had the most amount of your values, that does seem to be from the nations which are mostly white. So I would even grant Shapiro's argument because, I mean, how would that actually hurt the MAGA base to grant the argument?

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-557

Well, I don't think I don't think we are taking Ben Shapiro's statements at face value at this with this quote here. I think he means something a little bit different than we're perceiving. But nonetheless, let me give you an example of something I experienced that might put this kind of into a picture for you. When I was charged by the federal government and I was going through the process of defense, I dealt with a Chinese prosecutor. I dealt with I think it was from Azerbaijan. I forget which country, a country in the Middle East, who was a magistrate judge. And then there was another prosecutor. I forget where it was. The point is, 3 foreigners that were now American were involved in my case. I had a free speech case. They even cite my speech as the reason for putting me in jail. Now, I don't know if it's the perfect example, but I look at that and I say, here's 3 people who weren't born in the country, who don't have that ingrained love of free speech. It's not in their heart. It's not in their soul. It's something they might have been taught. It's something they might have learned as like a textbook concept, but they don't understand the soul of it. They don't understand the spirit of it. And so that's where I think it starts to come into play. There's an American spirit. There's an American soul. You have to have it. You can learn it through a textbook, but when you come from a foreign country that doesn't, you know, live and die by these ideas and practices, it's a little bit different when the rubber meets the road. So I do think it matters. It might not matter what your skin color is, but it matters that if you come from a country that doesn't value free speech, you really can't even comprehend what that means to Americans. I don't think you can.

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-557

Let's just say for the sake of argument very quickly that it did, that everybody in the United States said, you know what, we just don't want mass migration from only brown countries. Let's just say that they did. So fucking what? We have the control to do that if we want to do that. Nobody bitches if Japan does that. Nobody cares. They don't give a shit. Not a bit. So the thing is, is that if it's the case that you really want a democracy, you really want a republic, you really want the will of the people, well, mass migration in all Western nations is resisted by all people in Western nations. Isn't that amazing? They all hate it. Every one of them. In the UK, they mass voted against it. They hate it in Australia. They hate it in Western Europe. They loathe it in Eastern Europe. It's unpopular everywhere it's tried.

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-557

↳ evidence for the P28 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-561

You have the next question? Just get as many people in as possible. Ready for you.

All right.

So this Congress so far has only passed 83 bills, which is on track at this point to be the lowest of the modern history. So I want this from both of you, which is what is your opinion on the, the current Republican Party, which to Trump heads and how they've misspent their trifecta in government and what it means for the political future of the party? Yeah, so I would agree with Owen. So here's maybe an olive branch. Republicans aren't doing a great job, and it would be nice to see many of them in Republican primaries get primaried out by better candidates. I would agree with that 100%. I just think that you're gonna need Trump's support to do that. 100%, you're gonna need his support to do it. So I do think that ultimately, we miss the forest through the trees. And what happens is we go, wait a second, if we just accelerate and we wait until things get really bad, then somehow base candidates are going to come out of the woodwork and there's going to be new messiahs. That's not what happens. What happens is you live in 4 years or 6 years of misery, and then you rush to the other party to offset the damage done. And all you do the entire time your party comes in is undo everything the other one I'll give you a chance to respond to one if you want, but then we've got to move to the next question.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-022

↳ evidence for the P31 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-426

+3 C-1.2 · Concedes Republicans are underperforming · Andrew Wilson

I'll be quick. Speaking of Trump endorsements, I wish he wouldn't endorse people like Lindsey Graham right here in South Carolina. And, you know, I've been given the thought process behind it. I don't like it. I think Mark Lynch would be a much better senator. And Trump used to campaign against Lindsey Graham. But I will say, I think it's I will say this in response to the Congress issue with Republicans. I don't think this GOP, I don't think this Republican Party actually likes Trump. I think they're faking it. I think they're pretending it right now.

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-566

Of course.

And I think when the time comes, they will all turn on Trump. And I'm afraid it's going to be after the midterms when the Democrats move to impeach. If they do, I think a lot of Republicans are going to turn on Trump in that case. And we'll see what the Republican Party does.

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-566

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-567

I don't disagree. By continuously attacking Trump, that especially by labeling him as a pedophilic protector, which, by the way, he was almost assassinated for the other night. Right. You read the manifesto. He was almost assassinated because they were like, well, you're protecting pedophiles. You assure Democrats coming in, which will hamstring Trump and they will impeach him. I 100% guarantee you that if Democrats get in office, they will impeach Donald Trump. And accelerationists on the right want that. But for why? Why? What's the point? That's not going to do any good. It's not like Democrats are going to come in and be like, well, we're not Zionists no more. Yeah, right. They'll just make everything worse.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-022

Policy did that, not podcasters.

You have to jump to the next question.

Huge fans of you both. Just want to say, good job. Spent a lot of time talking about the Epstein files. I just had a quick question about your— both of you, your opinion on Donald Trump hand-appointing Ronald Lauder's son-in-law, Kevin Wurst, to the National Treasury earlier this year. Who, if you know anything about the Epstein files, he was the second biggest donor besides Les Wexner to Jeffrey Epstein.

It's just the facts. Whether Trump was involved in anything illegal or not, I'm not convinced that he has been, but it's just a fact. Trump was in the Epstein circles. He was— he hung around with all these people. I don't think you can deny that.

+4.5 C-1.2 · Concedes no conviction that Trump acted illegally · Owen Shroyer

We'll go to the next question.

Hello, you two.

First of all, thank you guys so much for being here.

I have a question for both of you. I'm a little concerned about this sort of division sort of on the right. So Owen, could you provide me your strongest point of praise for Trump and Andrew, your strongest point of criticism, please?

Yeah, I'll make it quick. Again, I will never regret voting for Trump because he freed a lot of my friends that would have spent much of the rest of their lives in, in a federal prison. So for that, I will never regret voting for Trump. Whether or not I think it's propaganda-driven, he has restored a certain level of patriotism, I think, to this country that is always good, whether or not it comes from a base of truth or not. He is constantly trying to induce patriotism, so I think that that's good. He's obviously secured the border. On these 3 things, I would say that Trump has done a great job.

+4.5 C-1.2 · Concedes three Trump successes · Owen Shroyer

Yeah, Trump's done a great job. So to answer your question directly, he's way too pro-woman.

+1.5 C-1.2 · Names a Trump flaw when asked · Andrew Wilson · low confidence: excluded from score

That's true. I will say the— I call it I call it the bimbofication of the administration.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-580

It's really— look, it's really bad. Bondi is a bimbo, 100%. The faith— his Office of Faith lunatic that he has in there, she's a problem, right? The fact that they bend over backwards for the females in the administration—

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-580

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption to reframe · Owen Shroyer

This was supposed to be positive. At least say they're good-looking or something.

No, no, I'm supposed to take the worst. Oh, you were taking the worst. I'm taking the worst. What's the worst thing? done. His pro-woman is the worst thing he's done, in my opinion.

Just to get in as many questions as we can with the remainder of time that we have.

Why are the women clapping for that? Good God.

Nobody hates women like women.

I have to restrict you guys to just one response to each question just to get as many questions in as we're running a little behind.

Okay. Oh, and Andrew said in his opening statement that one of the strengths of Trump was moving the Overton window. Just had a conversation about Republicans secretly hating Trump. I think I've seen you long enough, a big fan. You have a problem with the uniparty and the way things have been for years and years and years in this country. Given the fact that it would be impossible to even consider a fraction of that uniparty before Trump, wouldn't you say that that alone is a success of Trump? That we have a better chance— he's making small incremental gains now, but we have a better chance of actually having someone that someone like me and you would say is much better in the future because of Trump. And wouldn't that be enough for you? you to consider him a success? Yes, but I think the issue— I think the issue that we're going to face is we're 2 election cycles away from that coming to fruition, and whatever damage is going to be done in the next 4 years, I don't know. I don't know how bad it's going to get, but I think that we're starting to see that process, yes.

It's funny to me, though, again, every time we go down these roads, it's It seems like Owen is more on the Trump has been more successful than not. His big 2 things seem to be hinged on— and I knew that they would— the Epstein files and what's going on in Iran. But anytime we get into domestic policy and what's going on here, he seems to have a much more favorable opinion. So—

I get a closing statement, right?

Well, hang on. I'm just answering to the question, right? So—

Just making sure.

So yeah. So I mean, overall, he seems like he's far more pro-Trump than not pro-Trump as far as the successes, in my opinion.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Maybe the— maybe the—

Thank you very much. This one.

Thank you both for the exciting debate.

Andrew, do you believe that Trump could do a policy or an action that would be so bad that it would overcome all of his net successes?

And if so, how would it not be him portraying himself as the God-man Jesus Christ, thereby incurring the wrath of God on our nation. Oh, I see. So the meme, the meme. So I think that Trump's actually memed worse stuff than that, honestly. But sure, I'm willing to grant that was bad. Okay. Yeah, he should— he shouldn't have memed out, you know, himself as Jesus Christ healing the soldier. 100% agree. I'm definitely not giving Democrats control of the nation Over it? It's not— no way. Not in a million years. So even if Trump blasphemed, let's just say he's a blasphemer, all of the Democrats are blasphemers. They're all anti-Christian. They're all lunatics. And most of them are atheists. So it's like, okay, a little bit of blasphemy versus that. I'll take the little bit of blasphemy. Maybe you don't like it, right? But I'm assured what'll happen to Christians if Democrats get back into power. I'm assured.

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-022

+1.5 C-1.2 · Concedes the Jesus meme was wrong · Andrew Wilson

That was a doctor. Okay. I thought I was a doctor.

You know, too, on the doctor thing, he did say that with a smirk. He was— he was like shitposting to the media when he said it. Just saying.

We'll go to the next one.

Okay. I wasn't going to ask a question until the very end. Owen said that there's a MAGA cult now that Trump is the head of. And I guess the question is, the biggest split now would be headed by Tucker Carlson having like nicotine-driven demon visions and Candace Owens talking about like Bridget Macron's phallus and, uh, like committing calumny against a widow and Erica Kirk, I guess. And like the guy you just interviewed, Dan Bilzerian, talking about whatever the hell he's talking about between playing poker and fucking tons of women, whatever. So I guess the question is to both of you, I guess.

Big pimpin' Bilzerian.

Which side is better Trump and his people who are actually, you know, effectuating change, you know, in our favor, or, you know, the people talking about Bridget Macron's dick and all that?

I mean, that's kind of a bit of a straw man, so I don't really know what that has to do with this debate.

I don't see Candace Owens in South Carolina, you know, campaigning for Mark Lynch.

Or even debating on views. At least Owens debates his views.

I did campaign for Mark Lynch. I was here.

No, no, but I'm saying, like most of the people within the, you know, true MAGA, as you would see it, they're mostly online outside of you and a couple others. They're mostly online just complaining.

Yeah.

No, I mean, I'm not sure what exactly you're asking. Unfortunately, let me, let me just, let me answer it like this. Unfortunately, good people in politics are very rare.

I feel like that doesn't answer the question at all.

There are no good sides. How about that? There are no good sides. There are no good sides.

So he's answering directly. Obviously, Trump and the people who are affecting change in the positive light towards more— which Owen just admitted— sets the stage for us to have better candidates in the future due to these current policies and direction that we're going. Obviously, that's superior to talking about Brexit. Macron's penis.

We'll go to the next. This is actually our last question for the night.

The penis might get erect before we win another election.

Well, thank you to both gentlemen, by the way. My question is exclusively to Owen. So you mentioned about the problem of rising prices in America, and you proposed a solution, which is cutting more taxes for the average American so they have more money to spend. But from my point of view, right, I believe that this will be counterproductive because, like, when you cut taxes, it actually stimulates the demand demand, and when you stimulate the demand, it actually makes the inflation worse. So I'm just wondering what's your opinion on this, because I just do not believe that, you know, from my understanding of economics, just cutting taxes to solve an issue of rising prices and inflation is not the way to approach it. So what do you think of it?

↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-024

Well, I would disagree with the premise. I think that Americans having more money in their pocket, in their bank account, would be good for them economically. And the other side of that coin, let's say that the conclusion you've reached is accurate. The other side of that coin is that Americans just stay in perpetual debt, the country stays in perpetual debt, and Americans can never own anything, which is the current rate that we're at. And I don't think that's good. I'd like to see Americans be able to own something. I'd like to see Americans have money in their bank account for an emergency. And that is not the case right now.

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-618

That's definitely not going to be the case under Democrats, 100% not going to be the case under Democrats and progressives. Not only that, though, you didn't actually answer to the question of inflation. And that's what's being asked here is about inflation with tax cuts with no offsets. I understand exactly what your position is and it makes sense to me. I would just— what I would say is this: if you're going to have corporate tax decreases, that's going to lower prices or it should in theory lower prices to the consumer. Do you agree with that?

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-618

Yeah.

Okay, so if that's the case, people already are going to have more money to spend without inflating the money supply, right?

Well, yeah.

Yeah, okay, there we go.

We'll jump to the next one, and we're going to move into a rapid fire. If you guys are able to answer in as pithy a way as possible, we'll go to the next question.

Um, I'm relatively pro-tariff. It seems y'all two are also, but I don't see how you square the tariffs at the same time while Howard Lutnick and his sons are raking in millions, hundreds of millions of dollars through Cantor Fitzgerald, while at the same time Howard Lutnick is advocating for Trump to increase tariffs?

Not quite.

Buying out tariff rebates via companies while the American people are paying for those rebates on both ends. Yeah, I see what you're saying. You're saying there's a private company which is taking advantage of the terrorist situation? Well, Howard Lutnick signs. Okay. Yeah, I'd have to look into the specifics and details of that, speak competently on it with that particular case.

↳ P30 raised again here · first raised at U-626

+1 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty on the Lutnick tariff conflict · Andrew Wilson

I would say you're speaking of Cantor Fitzgerald, and I think, I think Lutnick is just a problem. You know, I don't know if we'll ever get to the bottom of those answers, but I think that you have to look at it now and wonder if that wasn't a Lutnick policy that ultimately he cashed in on. I think that's a fair question.

↳ P30 raised again here · first raised at U-626

Copy-paste out of Lutnick.

Do a really quick one.

Hey, first day he took his kids to school. Come on.

Andrew, you spoke about the— he was talking about exporting Israeli pedophiles back and saying that was an obfuscation. Okay, so we don't want to talk about Israeli pedophiles, but what's one thing we can talk about? Did we talk about it? But what I actually gave it more accurate numbers, which is more important.

Okay. I mean, he said.

Going right to your point about accurate numbers, the Israelis have killed roughly 70,000 women and children, which is an official policy of their Palestinian ethnic cleansing, which is something Trump has enabled and supported. Would you say— would— is like that a success of Trump? Like, is Trump— So we don't care about killing their pedophiles, but we care about But if they die and it's to our benefit, that's not America first? I'm confused. I want to make sure I got this right. So if Trump is affecting killing a pedophilic elite in Iran, that is bad because it has nothing to do with American interests and you don't care about foreign countries, right? But if it's the case that Trump in some way enables them to kill their enemies, right, that's not America first and that's bad. You got to make up your mind here. The killing of innocent people I'm talking about by the Israeli government. Okay. Yeah, it's not America, so who cares, right? Isn't that the whole point?

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-039

It kind of is America because they take hundreds of billions of dollars from us. Yeah, and they use our military. I mean, we subsidize Israel. Is anyone else sick of subsidizing a foreign country?

I mean, good Lord. Hang on, hang on. We subsidize every— hang on. We subsidize every foreign country. I agree. Stop it all. So that's one. Cut it all off. Not only that, here's what's funny is like, I don't want to subsidize Israel. I don't give a shit about Israel. Okay? I don't care. But I also don't give a shit if they're engaged in perpetual conflict with Arabs. I don't fucking care. I agree. Pull our money out of that. I don't want anything to do with it. That has nothing to do with whether or not Trump has been a success as a president. president, even if I count that against him. I hate to do it, but even if I count that against Trump, he would still have been a more successful president. Still. All right, ready? Hey, so we've heard from Andrew tonight a lot about how the Democrats have hamstrung Trump. Trump can't unilaterally, unilaterally do X, Y, and Z. So why is it that when it comes to declaring a war, not a war, he can do so unilaterally without approval from Congress? Yeah, because he's the commander-in-chief of the general. Hang on. No, no, no. It doesn't mean that. You need to read the Constitution. Let's go to the Constitution. To the Constitution says that he can unilaterally declare war. Do you want me to answer or not? First of all, first of all, if you know U.S., if you know, if you know U.S. history, then you would know how many times we've been embroiled in conflict abroad by the president of the United States, including hang on, including by Thomas Jefferson. Why'd you leave? Is that— is it just like a mic drop and then I'm gonna go?

↳ evidence for the P26 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-635

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground on cutting foreign subsidies · Andrew Wilson

Like, they tell me I started a war. Of course I started a war, but I'm gonna say it's not a war because I don't want to get impeached. It's very simple, okay? It's very simple. Yeah, the commander-in-chief— it's over. I won 5 times, by the way, and I'm the president of peace.

The commander-in-chief does have broad power when it comes to unilaterally utilizing the military. Congress has of the purse. They have control of the funding and of the purse. Right now, the military's funded. Trump can do basically whatever the hell he wants with them unless there's an act of Congress. Where is that at?

↳ evidence for the P27 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-637

We have to jump into the closings.

So it failed, didn't it?

Yeah. Yeah.

You'll— we'll go right into these closings with 3-minute time sections. We're going to start with Andrew, of course, and then we'll follow up with Owen. Andrew, the floor is all yours for your 3-minute closing.

Yeah, so a whole bunch of things to cover as we're going over the span of this debate. I know that we got caught on the Epstein stuff, but the reason that that was important to get caught on is because it's the hammer and bludgeon that the left wing has been using to defame Trump now ever since the debacle of the Epstein file release, which was a debacle, 100%. I, I'm not going to even bother trying to defend it. It was a debacle the way that that was released. Now, that aside, labeling this guy a pedophile— and that's what they label him— and labeling him as a protector of pedophiles, all that that's done is destroy him in the public psyche. And when you see the alt-right— maybe not all alt-righters, I'm generalizing here a little bit— but when you see right-wingers who will also try to bludgeon him with the same thing, they're doing the Democrats' work for them. Democrats never gave a shit about the Epstein case. files. Nothing was ever released under any Democrat president. In fact, the sweetheart deals to Costa, as we pointed out, was done under Obama. They've never cared about it. They use it as a bludgeon, a bludgeon against the guy, and Republicans go right along with it. Basically, they're using that as a position to try to sweep the midterms, and that's exactly what's probably going to happen. And you're going to be really mad when they do because you're going to remember—

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-022

+6 R-2.1 · Whataboutism deflecting the Epstein cover-up charge · Andrew Wilson

Yeah.

Remember what it was like living under Democrats. It sucks. Now, that's why that was so important. And I asked Owen about evidences, and of course, he didn't fucking have any. The evidence is always, we don't— they didn't give us enough evidence. OK, but what about the fact that what we do have, what about the redactions, Andrew? What about that? OK, that was all done mostly by attorneys. Trump can't do much about that, right? Every time you get into the specifics of these things and these details with these people, It's no different than when I'm on TikTok arguing with them. They never have anything of substance to say on the topic, only insinuations. This is what must be happening, this and that. But they're defaming the president of the United States with this. They're bludgeoning him with it, which gives the Democrats an upper hand. That's why that was important coming into this when we're talking about the success of Donald Trump. I'd say that that's hamstringing some of that success. When it came to the domestic policies, Owen basically rolled over. I mean, he agrees with me on the net-zero migration. He agreed on Trump pardoning him and all of his friends. He agreed with tariffs. He agrees with all of these various things. The only 2 points he seems to have that he really tries to hammer Trump on is just the idea of this conflict in Iran, which is only going on for 7 weeks. I'm not going to move against Trump without serious boots on the ground if he's doing limited limited airstrikes in this war to give ground to Democrats. That's insane. No way. I'm not doing it. The other problem is, is that I think I demonstrated all of these successes. Owen did not do a great job of demonstrating Trump's failures.

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-022

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-022

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-570

30 seconds.

He, in fact, agreed with me more than he didn't on most of the things that I consider to be successful. Now, if we go back just a couple of years, if I said that we would get to a point where we have net negative migration, more people leaving than coming in, you guys would be jumping for joy. Never thought possible, and yet here we are. That's not good enough. What's Trump done for me lately?

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-022

↳ evidence for the P31 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-426

Thank you very much for that closing statement. The timer is set for you as well, Owen. 3 minutes. The floor is yours.

So my last, my last comment as far as the debate here is concerned The ultimate measuring stick for Trump's success is going to be the midterms, which you've sacrificed that you are expecting that Republicans are going to lose. Trump is going to be on the campaign trail and Republicans are going to still lose the midterms. And if you want to say, oh, well, this is the media, this is the Epstein stuff, Trump has been against the media through 2 election cycles and won— well, 3. He's won 3 election cycles with the media attacking him. So I don't really think that's legitimate. But I want to step back. I want to step back from the actual contents of the debate and I want to make a general statement about why I don't view Trump's administration as a success. And that might be because my expectations were too lofty, but this is the reality of the situation as I see it and I think as a lot of Americans see it. The debate up here was politics as usual. It seems like a lot of the stuff happening in D.C., Democrats, Republicans, it's all just politics as usual. I supported Donald Trump and voted for Donald Trump 3 times because I'm sick of the politics as usual. I'm looking for somebody to go in there and have massive reform, turn tables over, shrink the government in ways that we never thought possible. Make a— I mean, we all think Trump says treason. How many times has Trump said treason? Nobody's been tried for treason. Nobody's been arrested for treason. So I elected a reform agent. I elected a change agent. I elected somebody to get in there and not do politics as usual, but actually ram heads with the globalists, ram heads with the establishment, and completely remake this country to closer to what it was founded upon, closer to the constitutional ideals, closer to self-government, closer to being independent, shrinking the government, bringing everything internally instead of sending out aid all over the country. That's what I wanted. Lofty goals, high expectations. Maybe, but I think the understanding from the American people and why we supported Trump, I don't know how much longer, I don't know how many opportunities we're going to get to save this country politically. Politically, I don't know how many other opportunities we're going to get to save this country. And I feel like if we can't do it with Trump and Bongino and Patel, if we can't do it with this team, that's a blow. That's a blow. I don't know where we go from here. The Democrats get back in, it's going to be worse than ever. But that's what I elected from Trump. I elected a change agent. I wanted somebody to get in there and do massive reform, massive shrinking of government beyond just DOJ, arresting deep state criminals. And we're just simply not getting it. And it doesn't look like it's going that way either. And I'm just concerned. I don't know how many more election cycles our country can take before it becomes impossible to save this country politically.

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-024

↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-024

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-024

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Owen Shroyer · ruling prints at U-024

Thank you, Donald.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. Please join me in giving one final applause to our speakers. What a fantastic debate.

Great debate.

A lot of fun. Great job.