Michael Knowles DEBATES Two Liberals | Bar Fight ft. Adam Mockler & Cecilia Rae
Michael Knowles goes head-to-head with Adam Mockler and Surrounded star Cecilia Rae in this episode of Bar Fight, where the fired-up live audience chooses the hottest topics to cover. From incels to deportations, no subject is off-limits with live questions from the rowdy Nashville crowd.
- - -
Today's Sponsor:
Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com and use promo code KNOWLES for 35% off your first order PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Most of the illegals are asylum seekers or are they economic?
Wait, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, look, wait, wait, look, tell me what you just said.
I want to help you get laid.
Not me.
Are you pro-inceled?
Well, welcome to Barfight.
I'm Michael Knowles.
I'm joined tonight by two guests.
Wow, real sophisticated answers.
I know.
You would know him from CNN if anyone ever watched Adam Mockler.
Well, dude, you got to answer my questions a little bit.
Just because you're wrong about something doesn't mean it's not convenient.
You know what?
You should get out of my country.
They want more deportations.
I'm also joined.
One of the most reasonable people ever to appear on Jubilee.
That would be Cecilia Ray.
This is how it works.
We have each brought three topics to the table.
The audience chooses the topics.
We will duke it out.
Then our highly sober audience, I can already tell how sober you are.
You can go up to the microphones to pick a fight with any of us.
If you want to fight me, you go to the blue microphone.
If you want to fight my guests, you go to the red microphone.
Let's get into it.
Ceci ladies first.
Okay, if the big beautiful bill is the ugliest piece of legislation written for the American people.
Okay, Adam.
Trump is putting Russia first before America first when it comes to the Ukraine war.
He's putting Russia first, yep.
Okay.
Nope.
You guys can boo all you want.
It's true.
Okay.
Yep.
My topic is, the only problem with Trump's deportations is we need more of them.
This feels a little bit skewed.
It seems a little bit, oh done.
I thought Nashville was a blue city.
I don't know.
The whole country's turned red, though.
Mr. Davies, who won?
Looks like the people want more deportations.
They want more deportations.
Let's hear, Michael.
All right.
The deportations have been great thus far.
We've gotten rid of lots of criminals.
We've gotten rid of lots of face-tatoo, Satan-worshipping gangsters.
I think it's all really good.
We have cut crossings over the border down to basically nothing.
In May, it was literally nothing, not one man apprehended.
Historic lows since then.
So that's all been great.
Self-deportations have been even better.
2.1 million immigrants have deported foreign-born in just the last seven months.
1.6 million of them illegal.
That's 10% probably of the illegal alien average.
The only problem is if we want to improve our crime statistics, if we want to improve safety, and if we want to improve drains on our public welfare systems, we need to deport more.
No, you say no.
Why?
Am I kind of start?
I'll go.
I say ladies first.
Yeah, I'll go.
Okay, so here's the thing with the deportations is that you look at it through three different lenses.
The first lens you could look at it through is the money lens, right?
The billionaire lens, where they pay $89 billion in taxes while Tesla and Amazon pay zero.
So we're going to toss out $89 billion.
But we don't know what, you know.
And then the second lens you could look at it through is, oh, they're all criminals.
But in reality, a study done by the Justice Department in 2021 showed us that American-born citizens are 10 times more likely to be incarcerated for a weapons charge, five times more likely for violent crime, two times more likely for drug offenses, and two times more likely for property crime over documented and undocumented immigrants.
And it's because when they come here, they have more to lose than we do.
I'd rather have people here that are willing to cross thousands of miles with just the clothes on their back because they really want to be here.
And we've seen our GDP has crashed into the negative.
All these farm jobs that you guys all say, oh, I'm going to go, they took our job, they're empty.
Why is no one taking them?
What do y'all, what's going on?
Okay, Adam, do you agree?
I have my own framing that I want to approach this with.
Do you want to respond or can I go?
Sure.
So you mentioned that the non-illegals, the citizens commit far higher crime.
That's a little strange because when you look at the federal docket for just 2024, almost one-third of cases on the federal docket are non-citizens.
That's much, much higher than their share of the population, which is in the single digits.
Probably about 5% for illegal aliens alone.
Then, if you look at the prison population, BOP, 15% of inmates are non-citizens, much, much higher than their share of the population, which is 4%.
Then, if you look at just the costs to the cities, I can go to New York, my old hometown.
The New York Comptroller showed that they were spending $1.5 billion in 2023 on the illegal aliens who were there.
That number doubled the following year, 2024, to $3 billion.
It's over $3 billion this year.
So, when you say this is a net positive for the economy, they're contributing so much more than the billionaires.
When you say they're no good for crime, I don't know.
I look at the numbers from, I look at the numbers out of New York, I look at the numbers out of the CBO, I look at the numbers out of the National Academies of Science, and I say they're all contradicting you.
No, you're studying, I don't ever trust your statistics.
Can I hop in real quick?
Go for it.
Okay, so I'm going to take a little bit of a different approach when it comes to this.
I want to start off with the fundamental idea.
Everybody in here agrees that if somebody is here illegally and they commit crimes, get them the f ⁇ out of here, right?
Yes.
Get them the hell out of here.
If somebody is here, listen.
Yeah, did you just hear them?
No, not all of them.
They're not here illegally.
No, not all of them.
You said if they're here ill, like not all of them.
Michael, is there a difference between a civil and a criminal violation?
Well, wait, is crossing the border illegally a civil or a criminal violation?
It depends on the case, but it can be a civil violation.
It can be a civil violation.
So it's a repeating violation.
Illegal so can I just again it can be okay Okay, so let's all start off with the fundamental idea that it's still illegal.
It's here illegally.
No, it's not.
It is a civil violation.
Well, it is not a criminal.
What is illegal mean?
What is illegal to the law?
Okay, so let me just get into this.
I can start with the fundamental idea that if somebody is here illegally and they commit crimes, they should be sent to another country's prison.
And I'm a libtard.
By all standards, I'm a liptard, and I believe that.
But that is not what the Trump administration is prioritizing.
They have reallocated funds meant for the deportation of criminals towards the deportation of farm workers, the deportation of people going to the courthouse.
Trump made a true social post.
Listen, Trump made a true social post where he said, all the great farmers of Iowa just called me and said, I am deporting too many of the, did that happen?
Did he make that true social post?
Yeah, unfortunately, he stopped deporting them.
He made that true social post.
He continued deporting them.
Your issue right here is that UOSA liberals are taking these 80-20 positions.
And you're not quite there, but you're getting closer to the 80-20 position than we are.
70% of Americans want a legal pathway for people who are here contributing to the country.
And what Donald Trump is doing, one more point.
What Donald Trump is doing is criminalizing asylum en masse and prioritizing the deportation of farm workers.
Most of the illegals are asylum seekers or are they economic ones?
Wait, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, look at that.
Wait, wait, listen to what you just said.
Most of the illegals are asylum seekers.
Asylum seeking is not illegal, Michael.
It's asylum seeking.
That's a pathway.
The people that we would call illegal aliens, non-citizens in the United States who aren't on a green card, who are not here on a visa, are most of them seekers or are they economic?
What percent of the people deported?
You're not going to answer that question because you know the answer.
Wait, no, no.
What percent of the people deported have had criminal violations?
It's only 30 to 40 percent.
So 60 percent of the people deported have no criminal violations.
Guys.
They're not rounding up.
Can I test the audience?
Can I test you guys, if somebody comes over here and seeks asylum and what they try to do is build a better life, build a family, and they're working on a farm, do you guys think there should be a path to citizenship to become an American?
That is the antithesis of what America stands for.
You guys are anti-American then.
Yeah, you are.
You are anti-American.
Can you imagine going to a Nashville bar, talking to great patriots and saying you're anti-American?
That's the craziest thing.
America was built off of immigration.
Yeah.
Hold on.
Hold on, Adam, you can phrase your point.
Then we got some questions.
Right here.
Okay.
Okay, to the panel.
Americans will work every single job.
They just want to be paid a wage that's worth it and treated well.
The only reason, do not let me, let me talk.
The only reason that we have illegal immigration and so much legal immigration is because the corporate lobby wants cheap labor and they can treat their workers like shit.
Hey, hold on.
I want to make a correction.
I want to make a correction.
The other reason is that Democrats want a permanent electorality.
They want an electorate where they do not have to campaign.
They don't need good ideas.
They will just win every single election because of the people they imported.
That's funny because Logitos went red.
No, Titos went closer to being red this election.
Okay, but do you think that once we deport everyone that suddenly Congress is going to raise minimum wage?
It's not about the minimum market.
It's about labor economics.
Wages go up when there are less people to do the job.
Wages will go up when there's less people to do the job.
That guy is seriously vying for a VIP table spot amazing.
Wait, wait, wait.
No, no, no.
I'm going to say something.
No, I want to say something.
Am I going to go?
Okay, I want to say one more thing right now.
So this whole mass deportation thing, first off, they're not going to raise minimum wage for you because everybody's going to be able to do it.
I'm not asking you to do that.
You should ask the corporate.
I think what he's saying is because it's not about the minimum wage.
Right, because there are pressures on the labor market when you flood it with a local staff who are hiring and exploiting them.
That's because they're available.
That's the market.
This whole mass deportation thing, just so everyone knows, it is all to fuel the racism in this country.
No, it's not.
When in reality, stop.
In reality, the only color, the only color that matters in this country is green.
Are you green enough?
And 99% of us are not.
So you're not going to get a pass unless you could pay for it.
Money.
But to our earlier point, if that were true, though, Cesi, the illegal aliens are a drain on resources at the state and local.
They're not so much.
According to the CBO, the International Budget Office.
Oh, the CBO that you guys don't trust when it's convenient for you.
But also, according to the Protection.
Do you trust the CBO on the Big Beautiful Bill?
Well, I certainly trust it more than Adam Mockler.
Do you believe the CBO or no?
Listen, if we enacted the mass deportation that Donald Trump wants over the next decade, $900 billion would increase the deficit.
3.3% of our communities would be hopped off.
It pays for their health care.
Wait, can I ask you a question?
Can I ask you a question?
Would you be okay with people being here, immigrating here?
Probably not.
No.
Listen.
Probably not.
Can I ask you why?
So you're just un-American.
Wait, wait, I just want to ask you.
So you're just un-American.
Wait, but I just want to ask you.
You weren't born here?
And you don't want people to immigrate here.
Because we have more than enough.
You know what?
You're a bigger person.
Are you gay and gay people too?
It's my country.
You weren't born here.
That doesn't matter.
That's the country.
Wait, guys.
No, it's not.
I want to do it.
And you're not from here.
That's okay.
You're a hypocrite.
You're a hypocrite.
I don't think it's hypocritical to come to a country and then say that no one else is allowed after.
I don't really want this guy in my country.
I don't know.
I do.
I want to elect that guy in the audience.
I'm not a senator or something.
I definitely want to get that.
You're also a little brown.
Jesus.
You say he looks brown?
That's what they're doing.
If you look the wrong skin color, if you have the wrong tattoos, they're just picking you up.
All right, do we have another question back there?
Wait, I have a question.
I have a question.
Are you guys okay with ICE racially profiling?
Oh, so we got a bunch of racists in the audience.
Well, hold on.
Are you okay with ICE racially profiling?
I think if ICE is confronted with a little Norwegian grandma and a guy named Jose who doesn't speak a lick of English and they're trying to pick up illegals, probably go for Jose, right?
The racial issue is that racial profile.
Technically, that's probably racial.
That's not what I'm talking about.
You can go to the example.
They said you got a Norwegian and a Hispanic.
You're picking up illegal immigrants.
You're picking the white person, is what you're doing.
I would not pick the white person because she didn't.
I'd be the most extreme example, but do you think you should be able to go somewhere?
And if there's a group of people speaking Spanish, you should be able to directly target them due to the Spanish that they're speaking to.
Speaking Spanish is not a race.
I'm just talking about the profile of the people.
Plenty of white people speak Spanish.
Even black people do, too.
They are profiling people based on their language, their skin color, and things.
That's what I'm saying.
And arguably.
Well, hold on, that's different, Adam.
This is a very important point.
You're saying, should we profile people based on strictly one criterion?
And I would say, ah, probably not.
That's probably broadbright.
But they think we should.
Hold on.
But the audience thinks we should.
So you'll disagree with your own audience.
No, no.
You just said.
Wait, should we racial profile?
Hold on.
But what you just said was race, speaking a foreign language in an enclave that's segregated from the mainstream community, speaking in their own way.
Well, now you got like five different touch points.
Yes.
I would say, Tom Holman, round him up.
Here's the problem: the Trump administration has admitted they have done illegal deportations.
When they brought back Kilmar Armando Obrego Garcia.
Kilmar Obrego, give me a break.
He's a gangster from Maryland.
The Democrat Senator Chris Van Holland, love of his life.
Wait a minute.
If he's a gangster, why did the Trump administration bring him back?
He's being prosecuted right now in the United States.
Why did they bring him back?
Because some two-bit federal judge made him do it, so now he's being prosecuted here.
Why would they agree if it was just Trump always disagrees with judges?
Why would he bring him back?
Because Trump's not a tyrant like you people always say that he is.
He follows the law, he listens to the courts, and he works within the system of laws.
Okay, now, who was the VIP in that round?
Do we even have to ask?
Is that our future senator, Mr. Not Born here, American?
Where's he?
Where's he at?
Sir, you get to go to the VIP table.
Great to see you.
Paolo.
Paolo, that's a good name.
Is that Italian?
All right, now that's.
Get him out of our country.
Get him out of our country.
Yeah.
Anti-Italian discrimination.
Okay.
Now, folks, Sassy, would you like to go first?
Okay, so my top topic is: Trump is using national emergencies to distract from the Epstein files because he's in them.
Okay, does that do it for you?
That's it.
Okay.
All right, Adam.
How about this one?
Trump's tariffs have been an unmitigated disaster.
Yeah, they have been a disaster.
Boo the tariffs, yeah.
Boo.
I don't like that topic because it's so wrong.
Okay, my topic is: it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Gay marriage is really bad for kids.
Is that what?
All right, wow, all right.
Michael, you won.
We're gonna do Adam and Steve first.
Wow, man.
2003 slogans still crushing in 2025.
Love it.
Okay, let's get into it.
Seems to me there's no such thing as gay marriage.
There's nothing against guys who are a little light in the loafers.
I lived in New York and LA.
I went to the gayest university in the world, but it's just Yale.
He guessed it.
But men and women are different.
And so the union of two men is different from the union of two women.
And that's different from a marriage, which is a man and a woman.
And I think that men and women both have something to contribute.
I think that children benefit from a mother and a father.
I don't think men and women can be replaced and substituted for each other.
And the science shows that kids who are raised in gay households do a lot of work on basically every measure.
That's not true.
Yeah, so what did I get wrong?
A few things.
First of all, I just want to start with the fundamental fact that I think marriage is important.
I think that marriage is something that should be incentivized.
And in America, there is gay marriage.
You can say gay marriage does not exist, but there is gay marriage since 2015.
That's like saying there's up-down, though.
You could say it, but it doesn't make it real.
Legally, gay people get married.
Have gay people gotten married in the United States?
No.
Well, some have when they're hiding their desires, I guess.
Legally, have gay people gotten married in the United States?
Have a man and a man legally gotten married?
No, that's not possible.
That'd be like swimming in outer space.
Legally, it doesn't mean anything.
No, legally, they are married.
Wait, guys, in the crowd.
Two men have never gotten married ever in America?
They've married women.
What do you mean, semantics?
Can you explain what you mean by semantics?
No, I'm straight.
I'm just trying to defend.
If you have a point to make, go up to the microphone.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I feel like you're the one that's playing semantics when you say semantics means meaning and I'm trying to get to the mean And by the way, semantics are very, very important.
So when we look at the laws in the United States, you cannot look me in the eyes and say two women have never gotten married.
You can play semantics.
Yeah.
I'm looking you right in the eyes.
Two women have never married.
You're lying in your life.
That's true.
You guys can cheer, but I'm sure you guys are not married.
It's not true.
Right.
We know that people have to do that.
You can play semantics, but let's go downstream to your next argument that children don't do better in gay marriages.
Which has been true.
There's a lot of statistics showing the exact opposite.
There's studies.
There's one that I was reading earlier.
I can't remember the exact name, but it was the main one that's supposed to prove that children in same-sex couple or same-sex marriages don't perform as well, but there were a lot of other factors they weren't controlling for, such as unstableness in the family household, which was not directly related to gay couples.
But can I ask you a question?
Hold on, hold on.
So you were touching on points that do bear on that, but this is a very important part of the debate.
Because the study that everyone cites in defense of gay marriage, gay marriage, is the Rosenfeld study from St. Francis in 2010.
And it found that the kids raised in gay households did just as well as the kids raised in normal households.
The problem was that the study eliminated households where the parents had moved and the kids had moved within five years.
That disproportionately removed the same-sex households.
So that was re-examined later on, and when you controlled for that fact, it wiped it away.
More importantly, in 2012, there was a study that came out of UT Austin.
This was much more thorough.
It measured the kids of married parents, heterosexual living-together parents, two fellas, two chicks, measured them on 80 different measures of social outcome.
The parent, or the children rather, of the same-sex couples did worse on 77 out of 80.
The exceptions were voting habits and alcoholism among kids raised by lessons.
Can I ask you a question?
I want to ask a question really quick.
Would you rather, so the gays when they adopt are taking kids who don't have homes.
Would you rather kill them?
Sometimes intentionally purchasing kids through the IV.
With the intention of depriving them, they go through the same checks as straight couples to adopt.
Can I say a few things really quickly?
Can I ask you a question?
Sure, Adam.
So yeah, each state has different laws that are, you have to meet certain requirements to adopt people.
So you cannot just adopt somebody if you're an absolute piece of shit all the time.
Plus, how many straight people have kids that shouldn't?
You can, you can, but overall, there are house checks, there are things that go through.
Can I ask you a simple question, though?
Yes.
Say a kid was abandoned by their family at a young age and they're growing up in the foster care system.
Would you rather them spend most of their formative years in the foster care system or with two parents that are the same sex?
So I think it's very telling that you're focusing on older children in the foster care system and not there as well and not defending kids who are either adopted as newborns or kids who are, which is an increasingly frequent occurrence, kids who are purchased through the IVF and surrogacy industry with the intention of depriving them of their natural mothers.
I think you're doing it because it's the most sort of horrible.
No, you're not answering my question.
Wait, did he just answer my question?
Yeah, do you want them in the foster care system?
No, I guess my answer is because the overwhelming scientific evidence backs up the overwhelming common sense evidence that's a question one more time.
I'm answering it for you.
That kids do worse on virtually every measure raised by same-sex children.
So I'd rather have them in the foster care system.
I don't think so.
I am answering the same answer.
Yes or no?
You've kind of just slithered around it.
Wait, what's his answer been, guys?
Yeah, I don't know.
Does he want to?
No one knows your answer, bro.
Clarify your answer for me.
I am answering it for you.
What does his answer been?
I don't think that children do well raised by same-sex system.
That's not the question.
The question is: do you want them in the foster care system more than in two houses?
I don't think that two men or two women should be able to do that.
So, you're slippering through the guys.
Are we going crazy or is he not answering the question right now?
I guess my answer for the foster care system would be that kids are being raised often in same-sex situations in the foster care system.
So, you can't make a comparison between those two because you're already dealing with one man or five.
Why did it take like five minutes to make that point at the end?
Because you're evading the actual point, which is whether children raised in same-sex households do better or worse.
And the scientific evidence, which you could not cite.
The scientific evidence, which you could not cite, uniformly says that they are not.
Not uniformly, no.
You just cited a study from 2010 that somebody's not going to be able to do that.
Which was corrected from 2010 later out of Simon Fraser University.
There are multiple organizations.
When I was doing my research, I can't remember, but there are multiple organizations.
You got to do better research if you can't remember.
Dude, you got to answer my questions a little better.
I don't know.
I think I just answered your question.
So, yes, the foster care system.
So, a foster care system is what you prefer.
That's so ridiculous.
You're making a totally inept comparison to avoid the actual point.
But there aren't enough, like, gay couples adopt, and so do stray couples.
I don't understand why you would rather have them in the foster care system.
It's a very common situation that happens, Michael.
A lot of times, people are abandoned, and gay couples obviously can't have kids, so what they do is adopt.
Now, my question is: No, that's not true.
What they do generally is purchase children through the IVF industry.
Generally, adoption rates are way higher.
Straight couples are also buying kids when they do ideas.
Well, they shouldn't do that either.
Wait, do we have any questions over here at the mic?
Adam, I think you're completely wrong.
About what?
How did we get on topic from kids to marriage?
First off, that was.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Let me talk.
Oh, that was his problem.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Let me talk.
All right?
There is two genders in this world.
You are born with either a, you know.
You just went from kids' marriage to gender.
Okay, but it doesn't make a difference.
Well, you just said he that way.
Men belong with women and women belong with men.
That's all I got to say.
Thank you very much.
Real sophisticated head.
I know.
I thought that was so dead.
Your prompt didn't include the kid part, though, right?
Say it again.
Your prompt did include the kid part, though, right?
Also, you're here with a giant group of men, right?
Well done.
Excellent question.
All right, we have to move on topics.
Okay, so please, I want to buy you a drink at the VIP table.
We got Mayflower cigars over there.
Don't light them inside, please.
Can you tell me, what is your name?
Joey.
That's a good name.
Josephina.
Josephina works too.
I mean, it's only for a day, you know?
Wait, so you guys are okay with a group of guys breaking gender norms to have a little bit of a child?
They're not adopting any kids.
Don't worry.
They're going to be no kids tonight.
Wait, no, but you guys are okay with that?
I feel like that usually wouldn't be okay.
You guys would call people like that like weird, but they're just like having fun, right?
Well, the reality is, if you're just playing around and pretending, and we all know it's like a big joke, that's one thing.
But the crazy thing that happened is we're arbitrary.
No, the crazy thing that happened in our society is we all started to pretend that like the farce was reality, and that's when you take it a little bit too far.
You know, I don't know.
Do you think gender dysphoria is not real according to the DSM-5?
Or are you going to all of a sudden not believe it?
I think some fellas think they're ladies or they watch too much porn or whatever, but they shouldn't.
It's bad for them, and they should be tethered to reality.
That would be the charitable, and it's the charitable right thing to do because charity is clarity, would be my view.
Okay, ladies first.
What's your top topic?
Okay, my next topic is the incel male loneliness epidemic is self-imposed.
That was the incel crowd.
Adam?
My last one is.
Trump has personally profited more off of this presidency than any other president in history.
He has doubled his net worth.
They're applauding the prophet, I think.
They're not applauding the profit.
Because you guys are hypocrites who have no spine.
I don't mind profits.
Profits are great.
He's doubled his net worth, my dude.
He was like, dude at the mic was just saying that Americans should be paid living wages, yet the president is doubling his net worth.
And you're like, yeah.
During the presidency?
No, I was in the internecine period.
Now, okay, my last topic.
28% of Zoomers should be alive today, but their mothers killed them.
Kind of a do-er topic.
Yeah, okay.
All right.
No one wants to talk about that, but it's true.
Isn't that crazy?
Okay.
I don't know, Mr. Davies.
I actually couldn't tell between those two.
I was actually a clear winner on the decimator.
The decimator popped when all incels came out in four.
There's incels.
I'm doing incels.
Hold on one second.
Go to balanceofnature.com.
Use promo code Knowles.
Life gets busy.
Do you remember to reorder your supplements every month?
Is that top of your list?
It's just one more thing on your already packed to-do list.
That is why you need to become a balance of nature preferred customer.
Here is why it's a game changer.
Your supplements show up like clockwork every 28 days right to your doorstep.
Or if you're like me, they show up to your office and you think that that's nice because then you get it accept that the hyenas around the Daily Wire are going to try to steal your balance of nature.
So you got to go to the desk and get it really quickly.
You got to get it first.
You don't need to remember to reorder.
No running out, just happens automatically.
No hunting for deals, no promo codes, no stress.
Plus, shipping is totally free every month.
Now, you know what really sold me?
You get your own personal health coach.
Someone who checks in, cheers you on, and helps you stay on track with your goals.
They look at the whole picture: body, mind, and spirit.
Easiest routines are the ones you don't have to think about.
When it's automatic, it's consistent.
When it's consistent, it sticks.
You handle life.
Balance of Nature handles the rest.
Right now, you can become a preferred customer and lock in wholesale pricing with free shipping every month.
Go to balanceofnature.com.
There's promo code Knowles, Canada WLES.
For 35% off your first order as a preferred customer, plus get a free bottle of fiber and spice.
That's balanceofnature.com promo code Knowles.
See, what's your argument?
All right.
So the male loneliness epidemic, let me tell you, this whole incel movement, it's disturbing.
I think that a lot of guys, you know, feel alone or they're angry.
And then this whole red pill podcast came through to tell them where to put their anger, blame women.
And we can't get laid.
But in reality, I think you should be blaming more like the dating apps, this and that, because we're not out in the wild.
We're at a bar right now with like 70 people.
You can find a match here instead of online where you have 7,000 and everyone's just playing the game.
I just don't feel like there's enough contact.
I mean, as time goes on, according to the CDC, we're having less sex.
Excuse me.
You're having less sex as time goes on.
Like, we, I think incels need to get a gay friend and a girlfriend to glow you up and show you the way.
There's somebody.
There is somebody for everybody.
Have you ever seen the show My Strange Addiction?
They're all married.
So if you're an incel in the room, you will find yours, trust.
So hold on, Celsius.
I want to see if I can narrow it.
I thought you were going to go after the incels, but that was like a cup talk.
That was very inspiring.
But that's the thing.
Like for the incel movement, like I don't want to tear you down.
Like I want you to be built up so that you're good men for us women.
Wow.
Okay.
I want to help you get laid.
Not me.
Are you pro-incel?
No.
But other women.
I could help you with your style.
I could totally help you.
Wow.
That's it.
If the Basher Party could get any more excited, I think they would be out of the room.
Okay, yes.
Can I just give a bit of a boring answer as a young dude who's grown up in this culture?
I'm not an incel, but I just mean, I've grown up and I've seen this.
Are you a vol cell?
What's that?
An incel is an involuntary celibate.
And a vol cell, I've learned, is a voluntary.
What's the name for a normal person?
Okay, okay.
I think that a lot of this was exacerbated by social media.
And then when the COVID pandemic hit, a lot of people put up bubbles around themselves.
The COVID pandemic kind of feels like a lot of people were isolating.
And I had to intentionally tear down that bubble and make sure I'm socializing after.
So I think we see the downstream effects of social media and COVID kind of fing up the brains of young men en masse.
And a lot of this stuff happens online.
But just from what I've seen firsthand, it's a lot of social stuff that has been caused by the environment we've grown up in.
Wow.
You know, I can't believe it.
It's kind of weird, but I agree.
Actually, if you look at us, we're not allowed that we agree on something.
Because I was looking, it's the Global Male Loneliness Index, or whatever it is, says that COVID was the spike in 30% of male loneliness.
The numbers are awful.
80% of suicides are men.
Men report having been extremely lonely the day before at a much higher rate than women.
So they're really in a bad spot.
And my only thought on it is, well, actually, Adam, it's to your point, which is instead of like the incel, it's like, are you an incel trad, hip, cool, whatever?
If you're just normal, if you just be normal and you live a normal life and you do normal things, which weirdly includes a bunch of dudes like every so often wearing weird wigs and going out to a bar, that is normal.
I go to a bachelor party, it's a normal thing.
I'm going to one tomorrow, actually.
You know, if you just do that behavior, you're here.
It worked for your parents.
It worked for your grandparents.
Exactly.
You guys need to get out into the wild, man.
Do we have a question?
I got a question.
I'll clarify.
Not an incel.
Got a girlfriend.
Val cell, practicing Catholic, you know, for now.
But I think there is an issue.
There is an issue.
And the issue I'm finding is that my friends at least don't want to meet a girlfriend or wife at a bar necessarily.
They want to meet her in church or a church event or something like that.
In my generation, for the first time in history, there are more men attending church regularly than women.
So I'm wondering, I don't want this trend to kind of keep going in opposite directions where you end up with all these church-going, stand-up, you know, men without options for when they're at church.
I mean, are they flirting?
Are they doing the appropriate things?
The women aren't there.
What's your prescription, Michael?
What's your responsibility?
The women aren't there anymore.
That's the problem.
Well, that's because a lot of religion holds women back.
So we don't want to be there.
Oh, yeah.
Religion's what's holding women back.
Religion's the problem.
Religion's saving women.
Religion saving women from the idols everywhere right now.
Maybe not yet.
And it's never too late, you know?
Actually, let me say this.
My grandmother is a Christian pastor.
Like, I grew up in the church.
Oh, that's not real either.
No, they don't.
Come on.
Yes, she's a Methodist Christian, Cuban pastor.
The reason they're booing, it's very nice that your grandma's Christian.
That's a good thing.
But it's because they don't.
The idea is that she was the first one in her church to be a pastor.
This is true.
I'm not lying.
In deference to your grandmother, I won't make the broader theological.
Yeah, don't do that.
But you go to a Catholic Mass, I take it.
Is that right?
Yes, that's right.
So there, we don't have priestesses in the Catholic Mass.
No.
But you make a great point, which is that in the new atheism, men led the way out of religion.
Men led the way to atheism.
And then now that everyone realizes atheism is dumb and totally indefensible, now it's the men leading the way back.
But you have this problem, especially if you go to the traditional masses, where if you want to date, the odds are good, but the goods are odd.
I mean, these are real particular people, and it's a lot of guys.
So in that case, I would just say you have to do what is incumbent upon a man, and you got to lead, and you have to kind of lead by example.
And maybe that means that tonight when you're leaving this wonderful bar, you know, you see a girl who's relatively wholesome.
Well, you're Valsel at dating.
But some of your friends, you see a girl who's relatively wholesome for Lower Broadway and Nashville, and you invite her to the traditional Latin Mass tomorrow.
I think you guys just need to shoot your shot when you want to.
It's a numbers game at the end of the day.
I mean, no, legit, it is, all right?
It's a numbers game.
So shoot your shot.
See something, say something.
When I see someone's cute, I say it.
I ask guys out all the time.
Yeah, hold on.
Okay, listen.
I understand what you're saying, that it's self-inflicted, because I think if a man sees a problem, he shouldn't blame anybody else for it.
He should do whatever he has to do to fix the problem.
But what do you think?
What do you think?
What do you think about the fact that an estimated 1.4 million women in America are on OnlyFans, and most of them aren't making any money from it?
Well, but if you're in college, if you're in college and you're trying to meet the person you're going to be with the rest of your life, what are you supposed to do when like 25% of the chicks around there are showing their tits online for free?
Free market money.
Then that's not, okay, so then, well, since they're out there and you know they're on OnlyFans and that you already can write them off as the chick you don't want.
So I guess they're exposing themselves so that you know that's not.
I'm just saying it's like harder to catch a fish when you dump toxic waste in the pond is all I'm saying.
You know, hold on.
His other problem with it, your problem with it right when you said the question was not that they're on OnlyFans, but that they're not making any money from it.
There's an argument if she's making a million dollars.
Listen, I mean, if they're doing it for no money, that's just stupid.
but also there can't be a seller without a buyer.
So maybe if Meg stopped opening.
That's true, too.
I think it's gross.
The reason why OnlyFans is popular is because a lot of lonely young men buy OnlyFans.
There can't be a seller without a buyer.
But aren't those lonely young people?
But if there's nothing to buy, you can't buy it.
If there's nothing to buy, you can't buy it.
I thought we liked free market capitalism in here.
I thought if there was demand for us, that's not unrestrained by a moral order.
If there is demand.
Wait, so you're okay?
I don't worship mammoth.
Are you okay with the government stepping in if there's a immoral?
So is the government in your eyes?
I don't really know much about your ideology.
Is the government in your eyes the ultimate arbiter of what's moral and what's not?
No, there's an objective moral order that we can intuit because we're creatures.
OnlyFans is objectively bad in your eyes.
Yeah, for sure.
Not in my eyes, so it's not objective.
Yeah, I don't care.
No, just because you're wrong about something doesn't mean it's not.
That's convenient.
That's convenient for you.
No, no, no.
Listen, two plus two equals four.
You talk to a three-year-old kid, he might think two plus two equals five.
That doesn't mean that we just throw our hands in the air and can't come to a family.
There is a creator economy in OnlyFans with not only millions or 1.4 million girls participating, but even more millions of men.
So all of these people in your eyes are just complete moral degenerates who are wrong.
Yeah, basically.
But then we all sin.
What's your governmental prescription to stop that from happening?
What's your prescription?
Does the government step in and regulate OnlyFans, stop men from buying that?
Okay, wait, I don't know, basically.
That's not small government.
That's more government.
So you want more government to step in.
Yeah, I want a proper, limited government.
Real conservative pursues the common good.
I'm not a libertarian, but I'm a conservative.
But I want to ask the audience a quick question.
Okay, for the guys in here, clap if you would want to see OnlyFans completely go away.
All right, okay, wait.
Anyway, wait.
Hold on, Adam, you're not clapping.
Now clap away.
If you wouldn't want it to go away.
I don't get it.
You don't have to watch this.
Hold on.
I don't want to embarrass you, Adam.
But notice here.
She said, you want to see this disgusting pornography site go away?
And clap if you want to do it.
And you didn't clap.
That makes you look like a weirdo.
You should have clapped.
You should have clapped.
I'm not like a weirdo.
Can I just explain?
Yes.
I'm just rather agnostic.
I think if there's supply and demand, I think there's a lot of people.
You've got women being exploited, selling their bodies for sex.
They're going to be washed out of it.
They're going to have trouble getting jobs.
No man's going to want them like I'm not going to do it.
That's their personal decision, though.
That's their personal decision.
But it's a bad decision.
I think it's valid word.
So are you their boss or their dad?
No, I'm a citizen in a self-governing republic that makes it a lot better.
To go to their common good.
You have to go to their page to see it.
You know what my question is?
If you want the government to be able to step in and regulate something like OnlyFans, which it currently does on the books, by the way, that's the problem.
When the government is arbitrating what's moral like that, then what happens when the next administration comes in and they say, hmm, any dude with a mic who is spewing stuff like Michael Knowles is, I think that that's immoral.
I think that that is objectively immoral, and I want to regulate dudes with microphones.
That is a slippery slope.
You have just described how government works.
Yes, that's true.
There is a.
No, no, no.
I am describing what happens when one government overreaches and tries to impose their morals.
No, no, no, you have a slippery slope.
Wait, so if you're saying this is how government works, why doesn't the Trump administration regulate and ban OnlyFans like everyone in this room wants?
Because they are not going to do that.
Well, because the Supreme Court weakened the obscenity laws, which have been on the book since the founding of the country, and they did that in the middle of the 20th century, which is a very important thing.
So it's not how administrations work.
Because the Supreme Court is not allowing the administration to do it.
No, but George W. Bush prosecuted a pornographer for obscenity in 2008.
One pornographer is different than banning an industry at the federal level.
You want the government to ban an industry.
When's the last time the government's banned an industry that has demand?
What was the answer out there?
Prostitute.
Well, it depends in certain places, but I'm just going to say it's still.
When's the last time?
They have banned federally some sort of demand market.
Narcotics.
Narcotics?
Not.
Well, marijuana, for that matter.
At the federal level.
Not at the state level.
I guess that works, but I just don't think that's comparable to OnlyFans.
Adam, wouldn't you say that all laws to some degree have recourse to morality?
Because we say this is good and this is bad, and we need to be good to the asylum seekers and we need to be good to the trans children or whatever.
You're always making recourse to moral arguments.
You just don't like it when we do it.
No, I don't know.
The thing about you, though, is that all your positions are personal decisions and morals for you that you want to impose on me.
No, well, I think actually that statement that you just made, that's your personal opinion about how government should work.
But I don't want you to impose that personal opinion about what I can do with my government on me.
And I don't want you to decide, oh, all these women and men can't do OnlyFans.
Well, I don't want you to decide that I can't decide that all those women and men can do OnlyFans.
You can have that opinion, but you can't actually get to the point of view.
And you can have that opinion too, but you can't make me listen to you when you say that I can't make the government ban OnlyFans.
I'm not sure what I'm trying to do.
The difference between you and I is I don't want to put anything in the legislation that stops.
And the difference between you and I is I don't want women to be trafficked for pornography.
Who is being trafficked when they decide to do it themselves?
You have to spawn the pornography in it.
Do the prostitutes on the street decide for themselves?
I mean, depending on the chick, right?
I don't know.
I'm not on the street.
Maybe, yeah, maybe.
Let's talk to their pimps.
Let's see if they decide for themselves.
I don't know.
I agree.
You agree.
I agree.
That the prostitutes decide for themselves?
Okay, all right, all done.
The Bachelor Party took a bad turn.
Okay, listen.
Who is the VIP?
Who is the VIP?
I would say me.
Thank you.
That's very, I appreciate that.
No, I would say.
It's got to be Mr. Catholic Ballcell, right?
I think Volcell gets it.
Yeah, Volcell gets it.
Yeah.
Volcell gets a cigar.
Yeah.
Congratulations.
Congratulations, Mr. Volso.
Okay, I feel terrible because you got your topic in.
I got two of my topics in.
Mr. Adam flew out here all the way from Chicago.
No, I was in New York last night.
I got you out of Chicago and New York.
Maybe you should thank me for that opportunity.
Chicago's a nice city.
Come on, it's nice.
Chicago is a great city.
Chicago.
Well, it is MAGA country.
That's my favorite thing.
You guys are being uncharitable when you say Chicago is not a nice city.
It is a nice, affordable city.
It's what?
I don't know.
That's fair.
I don't know.
Any city where I can walk around in the middle of the night and Nigerian white supremacist MAGA supporters can take my subway sandwich away, that is not a good city.
That's a terrible city.
I want to debate at least one of your topics.
I don't want you going home without us talking about what you're doing.
Do it.
Do you want to choose or should they choose?
I want them to choose.
Say that they want tariffs.
They want tariffs.
Let's do tariffs.
Let's do tariffs.
Tariffs.
There we go.
We're doing tariffs.
What's your point?
I can start off with a lot of points, but I guess I just want to start off with a question.
Is that fair?
Yes.
When do you think Liberation Day tariffs went into effect?
Well, it was a process, and they're still going into effect now.
But they began in April of this year.
The announcement happened in April of this year, but Trump does this weird thing where he makes tariff announcements, but he doesn't actually enact them for like two weeks to 90 days.
And I think we can all agree with this fundamental idea that Trump's tariffs have been confusing.
Trump's tariffs have been pushed back over and over.
But the reality is, the Liberation Day tariffs, the most radical tariffs that he announced, didn't go into effect till August 7th because he put in a 90-day delay.
August 7th was 14 days ago.
So you guys are going to rest your whole claim on the fact that tariffs haven't caused inflation, but the tariffs just went into effect.
But I also want to point out the fact that Trump's tariffs have no rhyme or reason.
If you want to argue that we have trade imbalances in America, I wouldn't disagree.
But that is not what Trump was remedying.
How is remedying trade imbalances, putting tariffs indiscriminately on every single country?
Do you know what country has the highest tariffs right now?
Is it like Mauritius or something?
Brazil, but not even to rebalance trade because of Bolsonaro was being targeted.
So what I'm making my point here is that Trump's tariffs have not been too intentionally or targeted help the economy.
What they have been doing is a lever for him to, you know, help Bolsonaro to use corruption, a lever that has not helped the American people.
Tariffs are inherently inflationary, which you'll agree.
Tariffs are inflationary.
Not necessarily.
Well, they can be, but they're not necessarily the consumer.
They largely are inflationary because at Customs and Border Patrol, that is when it's collected by American companies.
So I just want to wrap this up.
I think that Trump's tariff policy has been an unmitigated disaster.
It has been awful.
So I agree with your points that that's confusing.
I think that was intentional.
I agree with your points that some of the measures for implementing them seem arbitrary.
I also think that was intentional and effective.
But I guess my question is: let's really hit, let's get specific here.
You say they've been a disaster.
By what economic measures have they been?
There's a few.
PPI just came out and showed that vegetables are up by 38% over the past week.
Why do you think PPI went up?
Why do you think PPI went up?
There's a few reasons.
It could be targeting.
It could be weather.
PPI is the producer price index, which is how producers are counting what things cost and what they're selling to people.
But overall, why did it go up?
Vegetables went up 38%, a combination of weather and tariffs.
Weather and tariffs, is there maybe a third possibility that's correlated with PPI going up?
The fact that we just hit the highest stock market ever recorded in the month of August, which is correlated with higher PPI.
You want to know why we have the highest stock market?
I don't even care why we did it just pointing out.
That's why PPI went up.
No, no, you can claim the highest stock market is impressive, but you know what's impressive to me?
Trump took office and crashed the stock market on Liberation Day, and it didn't recover until he reversed the tariffs.
So the only reason the market is up-He didn't reverse the tariffs.
He didn't reverse the tariffs.
You just said the tariffs are being implemented right now.
He put a 90 days.
He put a 90-day pause.
Let me finish.
He put a 90-day pause, which confused people to such an extent that nobody believes him.
The stock market is hitting all-time highs at seven months into his presidency, which is not impressive.
It was a very important thing.
As the tariffs are being implemented, as you just did.
Because nobody believes him anymore.
Not a single person believes that Donald Trump is imposing tariffs, that they will start.
You didn't even know when they started.
The guy who was saying I didn't destroy them.
I told you they were being implemented successively and they began in April.
I gave you the precise answer as the first time.
Did you say August 7th?
No, but they began to be implemented with the same thing.
So you agree with my fundamental axioms.
You agree with my fundamental axiom that tariffs have been confusing that they yielded any results?
Yes.
What?
Okay.
Well, here are the results.
Because there are three things that tariffs can do.
Tariffs can raise revenue.
Tariffs can get you better trade deals.
And tariffs can boost manufacturing.
All of those things are contradictory.
Yeah.
Exactly.
So this is so amazing because you make such a great point, Adam.
If you get the better trade deals, usually you don't get the revenue, you don't get the manufacturing.
If you get the manufacturing, usually you don't get the trade deal.
Rather, you don't get the revenue because it's not coming in.
Right.
Now, what's so strange about Trump's tariffs is that we have raised a lot of revenue.
$100 billion since April.
Wait, why is the deficit still increasing at a massive rate?
What the hell?
The budget deficit?
Yeah.
Well, because we're only, as you point out, like two months into the tariffs.
No, Trump claims that he's raised $3 trillion or something.
Don't distract.
Don't distract.
Okay, go for it.
$100 billion in tariffs.
That is more than twice.
That's two and a half times the historic average.
So we are raising revenue at a huge cliff.
Then, manufacturing activity, manufacturing activity, is it a three-year high?
No, it's not.
No, it is not.
It is at a three-year high.
By this point in Biden's presidency, we had added 200,000 manufacturing jobs.
We've lost 28,000 since Trump took office.
Manufacturing activity today, August 2023.
Nope, is it?
It is.
I mean I don't know Look it up in the Look it up man Manufacturing is dropping.
It's at a three-year high.
So that means that it's signaling you're getting further growth.
But the craziest thing is the trade deals have been insane.
We just closed a deal with the European Union.
We tariffed their goods.
They basically don't tariff our goods, and they're investing $600 billion in the country.
So Trump managed to get all three objectives of tariffs simultaneously, and the economy is in an all-time high, and employment is full.
There is no economic indicator that has gone down under Trump.
It's all at highs.
But I noticed that all the time the market is brought up when in reality, the average American, sometimes the stock market isn't what affects them.
Like not everyone's playing into the market.
The average American.
Can I ask you a question?
I mean, the average American is not paying.
Most Americans have retirement accounts and pensions and that sort of thing.
But in that way, they're not going to be able to do it.
I want to be fair and reply to your EU point in just one second.
But I want to ask you the question.
When you cite this $100 billion raised, who is that raised from exactly?
It's raised from the countries that we're tariffing.
That is not true.
So when you're saying goods are coming over the border, customs and border protections is taxing the other country.
Yes.
That is not how it works.
And it's only really the cigar manufacturer who makes my product in Nicaragua.
I know a lot about tariffs and how they work.
And unfortunately, for my industry, there's an 18% tariff in Nicaragua.
But it's okay.
I mean, listen, I'm willing to eat it because we have a very successful.
Wait a minute, you just said Nicaragua was eating the cost.
Are you implied that other countries were eating the cost when it hit CPP?
Oh, are you eating the cost?
No, are you asking me if a manufacturer in another country has to bear that cost?
Yes, of course.
But I'm saying it's a manufacturer in the other country.
No.
Which, in the case of premium cigars, is outside the United States.
But you're eating the cost.
Yeah, unfortunately.
Yeah, but not everyone's going to eat that cost.
A lot of it is going to go down to the consumer.
I know.
That's why you got to go to good companies like Mayflower.
Okay, folks.
This is the last chance.
This is your last chance to win a free drink and a cigar.
So you need to get to that microphone.
We have someone up already.
I would say the economic impact of the tariffs was priced in, I would say, even before Liberation Day.
Americans know what they're getting into as far as this.
This is what they voted for.
Not on the bank.
And that's also why, as Michael stated, we are at all-time highs for SP.
And people, inflation is back to 2% to 3%, if I'm not mistaken, and people have more money back to their paychecks.
The other thing is the tariffs had nothing to do with the amount of revenue that we were bringing in.
It was more about the accountability for other countries.
That's a nice distinction.
So you voted to have prices raised?
I'm confused.
Oh, we knew what we were getting into.
So you voted to have prices raised.
We voted for a president that wasn't going to fall asleep at the table with other people.
Oh, he's asleep.
Yeah, he's just taking $400 million jets, doubling his net worth based off of crypto, and deporting people with costs as well.
And I would give you that.
I 100% agree with that.
ask you a question very very quickly you can claim that donald trump it seems like you were trying to make the argument that he was rebalancing some of these deficits by holding countries accountable I would say it's not about accounting for deficits.
It's about accountability and how we look on the main stage.
It has nothing to do with the trade deficit thing.
Nothing to do with that.
In my humble opinion, the reason that he picked that is because it's so crazy.
But you realize we look batshit insane when we're tariffing Switzerland, who we had free trade with.
We had free trade with Switzerland, and we're tariffing them.
We're tariffing Brazil.
We're tariffing islands with nobody that lives there, but not Russia.
So the point is, every time someone says that we're going to be able to do major sanctions on Russia, you know, we don't have much trade at all with Russia.
We can at least play tariffs.
But the point that I'm trying to make is: Donald Trump claims that he is intentionally and targeted, or people claim that he is trying to hold countries accountable in a targeted way.
That's not what's happening.
It is broad, sweeping tariffs that make no sense that you admitted were confusing.
And now you guys have to reverse engineer some sort of weird cognitive.
No, because look, you make this point about Europe.
You're making the point about Switzerland, but let's talk about the European Union.
You would say, well, this is crazy.
These allies of ours, why are we smacking them with these insane tariffs?
And why?
This doesn't make sense.
We need to just put even more sanctions on Russia or whatever.
But notice now, we have a great trade deal with the European Union.
We're dealing with like a 15% tariff.
We got 600 billion bucks from them to invest in our country.
So obviously, it was just a way to negotiate.
And it also happens to raise revenue and boost manufacturing.
Wait a minute.
But those are ancillary events.
Okay, if you're negotiating to reshore manufacturing, then you can't be raising revenue off of tariffs because nobody's going to be importing them.
Yeah, that's what you'd think.
It actually takes a very delicate balance to be able to serve all the lives.
Trump is dealing 40 chests right now with other countries.
No, it's just the numbers don't lie.
Okay, next question.
For years, the U.S. has been screwed over by China, Europe, South America.
This isn't just about short-term.
We need to be looking at long-term.
We need to be looking at five years, ten years, 20 years.
Since NASDAQ, we have been screwed over.
USA!
USA, you make a great point.
You make a great point.
Stop looking at the last two, three, four, five months.
We need to be looking at five years, ten years, 20 years from now.
These tariffs are setting a message that the U.S. will not be screwed over.
Amazing.
Let me ask you a question.
We need to rebalance trade and stop China from ripping us off.
And Donald Trump is here to stand up for us.
Let me ask you: what deal has he cut with China?
We are done with this.
What deal has he cut with China?
We don't necessarily.
This isn't about right now.
What deal has he cut with China?
This is about setting us up for five years.
No one has to do that.
What deal has he cut with China?
I'll give you an answer on it because you're saying, well, we need to balance trade.
No, no, no.
My question is, what deal has he set with China?
Because you are saying that he set a deal with China.
He has set two 90-day delays.
You can't answer what a deal is.
He can't answer what a deal is.
Nobody can.
I'm trying to answer it to you.
Even on the delays, which are obviously strategic, the point of setting the trade equilibrium as being the metric is because it's so crazy and kind of impossible in certain cases.
Obviously, what's he going after in China?
China's trade issues with us for 25 years have been illegally subsidizing steel, manipulating their currency, stealing our IP, all of these things, right?
Now, all of the previous presidents, since we stupidly let China into the World Trade Organization, all of them went at that directly.
They got no results whatsoever.
Trump comes in like a bull in a China shop, pun intended, and he does it in the first term and he does it in the second term.
And he says, no, I'm going to pick this totally random metric, namely the trade deficits, and I'm going to start punching people around until we get better deals on all of these.
Michael, I'm going to ask my question one more time.
What deal did he get with China?
What specifically are you asking me?
I'm asking you what deal did this person just came up to the mic and said Trump took office and is going to hold China accountable.
All Trump has done is pussyfooted and delayed 90 times and you're sitting here stuttering because you can't get it.
Okay, then answer the deal.
What deal has he cut with China?
No, no, shut up.
What deal has he cut with China?
No, but I think.
No, listen, answer right now.
But, Adam, we've been addressing your point because you're saying he didn't get a deal quickly enough.
He didn't get a deal in 30 days.
There's no deal.
What's his framework?
But you're saying I don't like this term.
This is the long tariff.
If your point is, Adam, well, Trump hasn't gotten this trade deal done within 30 or 60 or 90 days.
I ask, where's Joe Biden?
For 200 days?
Where is Barack Obama's great?
Joe Biden puts any of the underlying problems with China.
Listen, Joe Biden put targeted tariffs on China.
He didn't put tariffs on the world like a fing retard.
I'm sorry.
He's not a retard.
Stop talking.
Donald Trump is very ableist.
Stop talking.
I don't like that language.
Woke this business language.
Woke this is dead, Michael.
Woke is dead.
That's true.
Trump is a retard.
Sexy.
I am totally here.
I'm so here for doing more American manufacturing, more exporting.
I totally agree with that.
But you guys know that Trump has all his shit made in China, right?
Okay, I just point out that I'm posting.
That's a calumny.
He makes this stuff in America.
He actually does.
He does.
I have the hat.
I got the hat in 2016.
It's made in America.
It's got the hat on right now.
It is.
It is.
It's great.
There are a lot of knockoffs, though.
That's another way China's stealing our IP.
They're stealing our MAGA hat.
Can I point something out very quickly?
Yeah.
I got to have one topic tonight, and it was tariffs.
I think I just ran around the room on tariffs because you couldn't name a deal.
You couldn't name any deal.
What are you talking about?
And nobody could name anything that Trump has accomplished.
Hold on, hold on.
Adam, Adam.
You brought up tariffs, and I was happy to talk about it.
You said it was a disaster for the American people.
You said it was confusing.
I asked you to cite a specific economic measure by which it was a disaster.
You couldn't.
I cited every economic measure, which is at all citizen few.
GDP.
I asked you to already have a negative.
GDP contracted in the first quarter.
PPI is going up.
Electricity has gone up 10%.
And electricity has gone up.
That's the best year.
And all of that.
That is because the tariffs have not come into place yet.
The tariffs have not even really started.
So hold on.
The tariffs have destroyed our economy, but they also haven't come into place yet.
When did I say the insurance economy has said they've been an unmitigated disaster?
Disaster, Michael.
Okay, okay.
So the tariffs which don't exist have been terrible.
Now, who is the VIP of that round?
Yeah, 30%.
I say the USA guy, right?
Where is he?
All right, there we go.
There we go.
Now, VIP table.
You blessed few.
I have a question.
Molly, you can relay this.
Did we solve the world's problems?
If not, if not, we didn't.
If not, is there something you would like us to hash out in our final remaining moments before the music comes back on?
So, okay, okay.
Mr. Panel, you keep saying that Michael couldn't name a deal.
He couldn't name a deal.
Are you going to name a China deal?
Name it.
No, I'm not going to try to deal with it.
The trick is there's no deal yet.
That's the big trick.
First of all, deals take time.
And in order to strike a deal, China's not going to do it because they're nice.
Okay?
You need to put pressure on them.
You need them to bleed for a long time.
Let me finish.
For a long period of time.
Okay?
And so my understanding is Trump's putting a tariff so they bleed for a long period of time, and then they come to the table and there's a negotiation.
What else should he do?
What can we add?
President Mockler, what should Donald Trump add to the tariffs?
Maybe some clarity to the tariffs.
When it comes to China, he has not gotten a single deal.
And I guess they're just restating the question.
What specifically, what would you make clear if you're going to add clarity?
Okay, what Donald Trump does is he sets these arbitrary deadlines and pushes them back.
When Donald Trump said that first 90 days, you're evading the question.
You're totally evading the question.
Clarity with deadlines.
I'm asking you right now.
Clarity with deadlines.
He said a 90-day deadline with China.
What did he do to that 90-day deadline?
Wait, let me listen.
What did he do to that 90-day deadline?
Trump has pushed deadlines.
Now answer the question.
Maybe not push deadlines and hold people accountable.
He's pushed it back and back and back.
Okay, don't push a deadline.
Do anything else?
You can tariff the countries that China trades with to put pressure on them.
There are so many ways to place pressure on China.
What Donald Trump is doing is fucking around.
He's like any single deal.
But he is tariffing countries to China trades.
So you bleed China by tariffing.
Tariffing the countries surrounding them.
He's already doing that.
He puts it in the future.
He's tariffing Brazil more.
He's tariffing Brazil more.
But he's tariffing, he's tariffing literally every country.
He's doing is destroying America.
So he's already doing that.
Is there anything that Trump is not doing because you're so upset about his China policy?
Is there anything he's not doing that you would do other than do it faster or whatever?
Wait, can I ask you a quick question right here?
Sure.
You said that it takes time to do trade deals.
Wasn't Trump's entire motto, 90 deals in 90 days?
I mean, that's what he said.
Why?
Okay, wait.
Didn't he also say he'll end the Ukraine war on day one?
Can I ask you guys in the crowd?
Did he get 90 deals in 90 days?
No.
Did he end the war?
No.
This dude is a weak man.
Who else?
Who else is trying to defend America?
Who else is trying to tariff every country like a fucking retard?
Donald Trump?
You just advocated tariffing all those countries.
Who else advocated Trump?
Trying to save America like Donald Trump.
Who else is waking up to save America?
No, who else is crying like Donald Trump?
No, let me say something.
When you want to make a fucking deal with someone, you need to schmooze.
You need to do this and that.
You don't bully people and strongman them.
You need it all.
Adam's point.
Adam's complaining that Trump is schmoozing and being too diplomatic, and he's saying he's got to bully him more.
He's saying that he's perpetually pushing back deadlines and he looks like a book deal.
You admit that he's getting a 90-day deadline.
Okay, listen.
You're agreeing with us and with the VIP thing.
Can I ask you a question?
I don't like it.
Do you remember when Trump said there would be severe consequences on Vladimir Putin if they did not get a deal in Alaska?
He said severe consequences.
He left that meeting and not only were there not severe consequences, but Donald Trump has since adopted Putin's position.
You see the same framework when it comes to Putin's position.
What are you talking about?
I will answer in one second.
You see the same framework when it comes to tariffs.
You asked me what I would do differently.
I would add clarity and I would finish the deadlines.
He put a 90-day deadline on China.
When we hit that 90 days, our president added another non-speaker.
You can't say, I'd be clear and fast.
Clear and fast about what?
Then you say, I would tariff other countries.
He's already doing that, and you were complaining about it.
So what was the other thing that you would do?
I would not tariff all countries.
I would just not even start with the tariffs.
I would not start with the tariffs.
You would not tariff anybody.
But you would also tariff all the countries.
How about this?
I would do targeted tariffs against China like Trump did in his first administration.
Okay.
What Trump is doing is tearing up trade deals that he negotiated himself.
If your problem with Trump second admin is you'd prefer the Trump first admin, that's a pretty good question.
Can I answer your question about Putin?
That's okay.
That's all right.
Can I answer your question about Putin?
Sure.
When Donald Trump went into this deal, went into this Alaska meeting, he was promising a ceasefire, right?
He asked for a ceasefire.
He said there would be severe consequences if there was no ceasefire.
After he left, guys, it's a free country.
It's a free country.
After he left, what he did is he said, I don't want a ceasefire anymore.
I want a peace deal.
What that has allowed Putin to do is not negotiate for short-term peace.
He has killed hundreds of civilians in Ukraine since Donald Trump said he doesn't want a ceasefire.
What Donald Trump is doing is falling into the Putin framework of using negotiations to inevitably delay.
What Russia does, they're smart, dude.
They're very, very smart.
They delay.
They kill people.
So hold on.
So hold on.
Your issue with Trump convening a summit in Alaska, getting Putin there, then convening Zelensky and the European leaders three days later in the White House to work on not just a ceasefire, but a broader peace deal.
Your problem is you say, well, the war has gone on three extra days and civilians are dying.
No.
I don't remember you saying any of that when Joe Biden was president, encouraging the war to continue.
I don't remember hearing.
He's encouraging the war to continue.
He absolutely was encouraging the war.
Joe Biden and unfortunately, not only the Democrats, but many squishes on the Republican Party, were advocating for the war from a grand strategic standpoint because they said it was degrading the Russian military and it was a meat grinder in Ukraine.
We're advocating for more debts and for the war to go on.
And the only party that was calling for peace at all was the Republican Party.
And there's not peace.
And the only president on whose watch Vladimir Putin has not further invaded a country in the last quarter century is Donald Trump.
Let's be real here.
You all saw, maybe you all saw the whole meeting between Trump and Putin.
Trump is Putin's bitch.
He sat down and spoke before our president.
I'm sorry.
Well, it's so strange.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Trump has levied much tougher sanctions on Vladimir Putin than Barack Obama or Joe Biden.
That's kind of strange.
No, he is not.
He didn't.
And he didn't lift sanctions in his first term, you're talking about maybe.
Or Dungo's first term.
And well, we're seven months into.
The only way to end this war is to make it such that Vladimir Putin is facing such severe consequences that he will never reinvade.
Russia has a strategy of launching an invasion, then they pause that invasion, then they reinvade.
They've done it with multiple countries.
They did it in 2008, in 2014, in 2022.
We cannot allow that.
Right, they did it under Bush and Obama and Biden and not Trump.
That's really weird.
How come through Trump?
I think I'll go with Trump's strategy.
Wait, through Trump's four years, Crimea was occupied.
Almost five years ago.
Yeah.
No, I mean, his first four years, Crimea was occupied.
Right, but he didn't further invade, is what I said.
The thing is, Russia has a strategy of launching an invasion, pausing that, then reinvading.
We need a peace deal that makes sure Russia cannot just reinvade.
Listen, I agree.
I thought the Obama doctrine, as written by Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic interviewing the president, that said that Vladimir Putin could operate within his strategic sphere of influence.
I agree.
I thought that was very.
I agree as well, Michael.
Is there one more question at the microphone?
So, Michael, do you think that women should work only in the kitchens or pursue their careers?
I think they can work in the living room, too.
There are other rooms also that are even more enjoyable.
Okay, folks, that's our show.
I want to thank Ceci and Adam for being here.
I want to thank all of you for being here.
Now, before we go, in my view, I'm very diplomatic.
As you know, I'm a lover, not a fighter.
I find nobody wins a bar fight.
People only lose bar fights.
So I want to know of the three people up here, who do you think lost the bar fight?
And I will, I'm going to, they're yelling at poor Adam.
Hold on.
Okay, so I'm going to.
Do you, what about, is it me?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Totally not biased either.
That's real.
Is it Ceci?
I almost hesitate.
I almost hesitate.
Was it Adam?
Was it Adam?
we put up a fight we put up a fight we put up a fight All right.
Well, after that.
You have no.
You're wearing a wig, brother.
You're wearing a wig, sister.
No, he took his off.
I can't even hear you, bro.
I can't hear you.
All right, before an actual bar fight breaks out, let's go get Adam a drink for that.
That was terrible treatment he got.
Thank you very much to both of you for being here.
