2 Liberals vs. 1 Conservative: BAR FIGHT | Michael Knowles, Brian Recker, & Ryan Basham
Michael Knowles goes head-to-head with Brian Recker, & Ryan Basham in this episode of Bar Fight, where the fired-up live audience chooses the hottest topics to cover. From wives owing husbands sex and leftwing violence no subject is off-limits with live questions from the rowdy Nashville crowd live from John Rich's Redneck Riviera.
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Visit https://goodranchers.com for an additional $100 off your first three orders– $40 off your first, $30 off your second, $30 off your third– with code KNOWLES and free meat for life when you become a new subscriber!
Brave Books - Go to https://BraveBooks.com/KNOWLES and use code KNOWLES for 20% off your first order.
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Whatever you do in your marriage is your f ⁇ ing business.
Okay, and we have no from the libs and we have yes from a married man who has a good time.
Welcome, everybody.
Thank you for being here.
Welcome to Bar Fight.
Is splitting a family apart political violence?
Can I speak to that?
No.
You might know him from TikTok, Ryan Recker.
No wonder there are resistance.
Okay, now hold on.
I have to ask.
Hold on.
I know you've decided that all comments that paint lightning and bad light is bad.
an advisor to Joe Biden's totally legitimate 2020 campaign, Ryan Basham, Nashville's premier beverage-fueled brawl, live at John Rich's Redneck Riviera, the show where I, Michael Knowles, go head-to-head with two esteemed interlocutors on topics chosen by you, our most esteemed barflies.
I've never debated an advisor to an auto pen before.
This should be fun.
Here, here is how it works.
We have each brought three topics to the table.
The audience chooses the topics.
We will duke it out.
And then our eminently sober patrons can come 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 either of my wonderful guests, you go to the red microphone.
Gentlemen, are you ready?
Yeah.
Let's do it.
All right, let's get started.
Yeah!
Ding, ding!
All right, what's everybody's first topic?
All right, topic number one for me.
You know, Christian nationalists accuse Zoran Mandani of wanting to institute Islamic Sharia law because they are projecting their own desires for dominance onto him.
Oh.
Dead silence.
Next one.
That's a heady one.
I didn't actually want that one, if I'm honest.
That was a producer pick.
Wow.
My first claim is the people who are most confident about gender-affirming care are the mainstream medical community.
Absolutely.
That's very true.
It's a factual truth.
We'll see about that.
It's not true for some people, but it is true.
Mine is that political violence is a distinctly left-wing problem.
Oh, my God.
I love being on Earth, too.
It's pretty good.
Start with something that's just a problem.
We have a decibel counter here to figure out which topic you all picked.
I don't know.
It was a little unclear to me.
Ben, do we know which topic won?
It was hard to pick because I thought it broke because it read nothing on the first two.
So we're doing the last one.
I'm actually a little upset about that.
I wanted to do the transgender one.
That's okay.
We'll do mine.
That's fine.
I hate that things are turning out well for you.
No, that's brutal.
Maybe at the end.
Maybe at the end we'll get it in.
Okay.
Political violence is a distinctly left-wing phenomenon.
You don't have to take my word for it.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies just came out and admitted this, that it's a left-wing phenomenon.
No less a liberal outlet than the Atlantic admitted it.
And this is based on data that systematically exclude left-wing violence.
So that's even not counting the BLM riots.
It's not counting clear left-wing ideological violence like the Covenant School shooting that happened here in Nashville.
Transgender shooter targeted Christian children.
It's not counting the Annunciation shooting.
It's not even counting an experience that I had.
I was at the University of Pittsburgh two years ago.
I just testified before the Senate on this.
I go down to Pittsburgh.
Two Antifa operatives who are members of a formal Antifa cell, the Torch Antifa Network, they show up.
They throw an explosive at the building when I walk on stage.
They seriously injure a cop.
One of them is in federal prison for this.
Not counted on any register as left-wing violence.
So even excluding all the big left-wing violence, nevertheless, even the liberals admit terrorism today in America is a left-wing problem.
What you're actually lying about from that study, the study actually says that this year is the first time in 30 years that left-wing violence has outpaced right-wing violence because historically it has always been white nationalist right-wing militant violence that has by far been the greater historic problem.
Only right now in a moment where authoritarian fascism is creating police states throughout the country and Trump's secret police is going around brutalizing and kidnapping people, are we seeing people respond with violence, which is understandable because Trump is creating a violent society.
When you create a violent society, no wonder there are resistance.
Okay, no, hold on.
I have to ask.
Oh my God.
Hold on.
Hold on.
What counts as political violence?
I'm sorry.
Is splitting a family apart political violence?
Or is it only political violence when it's not masked thugs doing it?
No, sorry.
I don't know.
It seems like political violence when a mass thug tears a family apart.
We can establish our terms.
So political violence, as it's counted by even the left-wing groups, is when the violence is conducted in furtherance of an ideological motive, identifiable on the left-hand side.
Like tearing people apart and sending them to deprecation centers thrown out by alligators, like that kind of ideological motive?
No, enforcing immigration law is not ideological violence.
But sending people back to countries they're not even born in.
Is that ideological?
Well, they weren't born in this country and they don't belong here either, so they're going to get out.
My God.
So you guys are happy that you just clap for people to be sent back to countries that they weren't even born in.
Y'all are telling me that.
As long as they're not here.
I am.
I'm sorry.
Do you know those are real people you're talking about?
Yeah.
So hold on.
You made a claim, though.
You made a claim, which is you said I lied, but I don't, what is the lie I told?
I said that the study came out and it said that right now in America, left terrorism is on the left.
It's the first time in history that it's been hired this year specifically.
Bleeding out the entire history of our country.
So I left that out.
That wouldn't make it a lie.
But then I think the thing you have to answer to my point is that the CSIS study, CSIS is a left-wing organization, even they're admitting the problem is on the left now.
The federal data, all of the other studies that we have exclude most of the left-wing violence, including BLM, which left dozens of people dead, a billion dollars in property damage, including the two transgender shootings.
And the two-wheeled damage.
And including the Antifa attack on me.
Dented cop cars are the violence here.
You're more worried about dented cop cars than families being torn away.
I'm just saying that it's violence, and you're changing the subject to immigration because you know that left-wing violence is the chief problem.
What I would say is that when you are militarizing cities, that the governors are saying we actually don't need you here.
You are actually instigating violence.
And Trump wants that violence.
You know why?
So that you don't pay attention to the Epstein files.
So as I understand it, my friend and interlocutor here has no answer on the left-wing terrorism problem.
So he wants to talk about immigration.
He wants to talk about Jeffrey Epstein.
He wants to talk about any other topic.
I repudiate political violence.
I don't believe that's the way.
Well, that's good because many left-wingers do not.
I do.
Many is not a data drug.
Well, actually, so there was a study came out, youGov, after Charlie was assassinated that showed that very liberal people are eight times as likely to justify political violence as very conservative people, and 26% of young liberals are likely to justify political violence.
Many multiples that of young conservatives.
I think you have to take that in the context of what else was happening, though, a couple years ago, those numbers were flipped.
I think we're in a situation right now where the outsiders are the liberals and raging against the machine.
Yeah, I mean, the vast majority of credible studies on political violence from the last 30 years have found that it's like an 85 to whatever split.
But can you address the point that I raised answering that?
Yeah, which one?
The fact that the BLM violence was not counted as ideological in virtually any of the registers, the fact that an Antifa attack on me that resulted in federal prosecution and a guy in federal prison was not counted as left-wing political violence.
The fact that the transgender shootings are not counted as political violence.
Can you address that?
Because if you can, then what you're saying is the numbers were cooked for years.
Well, no, two things.
First of all, I haven't read those studies to know the detailed definition.
I know you love to do that, which is cool.
But also, we already have a data collection problem when it comes to crime anyway.
All violence is bad, but we, and by the way, some of this is enforced by federal law, have a horrible time trying to track violence in this country.
So often our data is not that much.
And you know what's making it?
But do you know that what's making it harder to track is that the Department of Trump's Department of Justice actually removed a study following Charlie Kirk's very, very reprehensible assassination.
After that happened, they removed the study that says that right-wing violence has led to 520 deaths since 1990.
Left-wing violence, only 72 deaths.
And they removed that and hid it.
It's archived.
I can send it to you.
They're me.
They didn't remove the study in the sense that the study still exists.
They're just pointing out, as governments are wont to do, that new data and better data should be preferred to old data that are inaccurate and that exclude left-wing violence.
I think violence is just bad.
And I think we can all just agree on that.
But I do think we should look at why it's happening and who's instigating it.
Hold on, what do you mean why it's happening?
Is this a justification?
I'm like, government with the T. What do you mean why it's happening?
What does that matter?
If the violence is coming from the left, my question is not, well, let's figure out why they're committing all that violence.
No, I want to arrest them.
Stop the violence.
Governors are saying, no, thank you.
You don't need your military here.
So you're saying that because Trump is...
Yes, he wants a violent society to justify all the other things...
So you're saying the right-wingers are asking for it.
You're saying Trump is enforcing immigration law and therefore the left is becoming violent.
I do not justify.
No, absolutely.
I didn't say that.
I'm sorry.
That's what it sounded like you were saying.
No, I'm saying that when the right uses fascist authoritarian tactics, they know what that's going to create.
What's that going to create?
People will, yeah, they're literally putting pressure on the right.
The left will commit violence.
I mean, it's a pretty significant thing.
So that is the point that I'm.
You're granting the premise.
Yeah.
Yeah.
If my home was invaded, something bad would happen.
That's a bad thing.
So the left is committing violence at higher rates than the right, and they're justifying it at much higher rates than the right because of Trump.
Do you think that Trump should just militarize cities when the governors are saying we're actually totally safe here and no need for this military here?
Well, we've had federal law for many, well over a century that says that when cities fail to enforce order, that we have an insurrection actor because of that.
No, there is.
It's federal law.
No, no, but the thing is, every single one of these are instances of situations that the local police were already trained and prepared to handle.
Were they?
I don't know.
Crime has exploded in this case.
Absolutely.
Listen, every single sheriff or police captain that has been affected by this has tried to find a polite way to say, no, we had it, but we're going to work with you because you're here.
Two murders a day in Chicago.
You think they have it?
You think it's just fine?
I don't think they have it.
No, no, no, no.
People like to do that, but like every place in America.
People in Chicago like to murder.
Yes, that's true.
Listen, every place in America is violent.
And we like to blame big cities as violent places, but they're just more people.
It's a per capita problem.
If you're in a rural place, people still get murdered just less often because there are fewer people.
Now, if anyone has any questions, any, oh, I see the line is already very long.
Okay.
Hey, what's up?
I was just at Raising Canes with some friends, and they're like, oh, we need some people that probably aren't Republicans in here.
So we're in here now.
If you're a Republican, no, hey, I'm like kind of way more small government leaning.
So like all this like, oh, like f what the states want and f what the mayor wants.
I'm just going to do what I want because I'm the White House is like kind of psycho to me, right?
Like that's not, that's probably not going to foster like a healthy society when you have like the federal government really overstepping.
Coming from this side of things, I'm just kind of curious, why are you so set on making it like left-wing violence and right-wing violence?
Because like obviously, sometimes people are fing psychopaths, right?
Like we're on the same page there.
Like there's people that like, oh, they grew up in a MAGA household and then they like got addicted to porn on like fing 4 channel and they be, you know, they go psycho and they kill people.
And it's so weird to watch experts be like, was he Republican or was he a Democrat?
I said, no, he's a f ⁇ ing psychopath.
So I have my master's degree in psychology, right?
That's why I don't care.
I just think it's kind of stupid, just to be real.
It's just very reductive, the way that we do this.
Yeah, I think that's a great point.
I think one thing that I will say is that if we looked at some of the trends that are worth looking at, there is a real white male violence problem.
Just about every time there's a shooting.
I know you, I know, look, I know, I know you're not like, I know you, I know you've decided that all comments that paint lightning about bad light is bad.
Do we have to break out the crime statistics?
Because I don't know if we want to break out.
Just about every time you're the shooter, it's like, oh, surprise, surprise.
It's another white guy who got radicalized online.
We have a radicalization problem.
You think white guys are more likely to commit violent crime than other races?
No, I didn't say that.
In mass shooting specifically, we're going to have to do that.
Oh, in mass shooting.
It's a radicalization problem with white men.
Yeah.
Yeah, okay.
Well, I guess one thought that I would have in response to your question is the reason why it matters if they're on the left and the right, some people are just psychotic and you can't identify an ideological motive.
Sure, that's true.
But sometimes you can.
And it seems to me that if you want to fix a problem, you have to first identify what the problem is.
And so if you refuse, if you just bury your head in the sand, or if you say it's the other side, then you're not going to solve the problem.
Next question.
Hey, so I want to speak to your analogy.
You said if in response to the ICE agents coming into cities where the governors are saying they don't want them, you said if someone came into your house uninvited, there would be consequences.
So this country is our house, is our home.
So how would you feel about the consequences for the people who are here illegally and uninvited?
Great point.
You know.
Great point.
I was just reading about, reading up on statistics on that today.
And some of you are going to hate this, but it's factual.
Immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, are less likely to commit crime than people who are born in this country.
And statistically, the more immigrants there are in a community, the less crime there is in that community per county.
Statistically, 100% of that immigrants have been.
It's fabulous.
Good luck, man.
It's actually factually true.
It's a little complicated.
Let's be clear about.
He just said they already committed a crime.
I want to be clear.
And being in the country, most people who are here without papers got here on like a tourist visa and overstayed.
Most people who are here illegally do not.
No, no, no.
Not over the last four.
Hold on.
I have a whole sentence that you're interrupting.
But to be clear, legally, if all you've done is been in this country without papers, that's legally more like a misdemeanor closer to a parking ticket than it is to a felony.
That's what I'm saying.
So hold on.
You make a very good point, which is that a first-time entry barring other conditions can be a misdemeanor for sure.
Re-entry would be a felony.
There are other associated crimes with this.
However, I would ask one question.
Do illegal aliens pay federal taxes?
Yeah, actually, they do.
They do.
Hold tax and income tax often.
90s.
Actually, the IRS is a whole system for people who are undocumented to file taxes.
Okay, so I'm glad.
And by the way, economists overwhelmingly believe that immigration, including illegal immigration, is a net positive.
Forget about that.
I just have one.
I have one question for you.
Because if you make the point, as you have, that actually, you know, illegal aliens, even though they don't have Social Security numbers, they do pay federal taxes because to get employment, sometimes they'll use other Social Security numbers.
So they don't get the benefits, but they do pay into the system.
That's a fact.
Yeah, okay.
That's a federal crime.
42 U.S. Code, Section 408.
It's a federal crime to steal a Social Security number.
So there you go.
You got it.
But I just want to be clear.
The IRS has a process for people to pay taxes without it.
It's stealing the social security number, which he just admitted is a crime.
What happens here is we muddy up violent crime versus paperwork.
Okay, so now it's, we've upped it.
It's not that they don't commit crimes, it's that they don't commit violent crimes.
Who has not had a speeding ticket ever in this room?
I don't know what to do.
But that's all.
A lot of good drivers out there.
Throw you into a prison surrounded by alligators because of your speeding ticket.
Also, also, fun fact.
Fun fact: more than 70% of people in ICE custody today don't even have an accusation of a crime, let alone a record.
I shouldn't have the accusation that they came into the country illegally.
Okay, do we have any more questions?
Okay, so when we talk about these left-wing violence cases and things like that, we seem to like kind of talk around cases and things like that.
When we're talking, all of us have been paying attention.
We see Charlie, we see the Brett Kavanaugh, we see BLM violence, all this stuff.
We all have lived through these examples that we've seen face-to-face, but other than January 6th and maybe Charlottesville, how long has that been?
That's been 10 years ago.
You know, we kind of just don't pay attention to the fact that we have all these examples of left-wing that we talk about very specifically.
But when we talk about right-wing violence, we don't have a lot of examples.
No, there are general examples.
Yeah, I know it.
No, there's a difference between what you saw on TV because it was big and the statistics.
It's important to look at definitions and what you're studying when you define what violence is.
It's not like anecdotes are the same as data.
Well, the point is that it's awful and bad, but also anecdotes and your awareness of them do not equal the objective facts of the data as a whole.
And then every time we look into a right-wing one, it's a hoax.
Yeah, hold on.
So he asked, he said, look, you can point to all these specific examples of left-wing violence.
And then you guys said here, you said, no, that's not true.
You can point to all these ones on the right.
But then you didn't provide any specific examples.
Because I'm not relying on anecdotes.
The plural of anecdote is data, by the way.
Because crime in the aggregate is made up of individual instances.
Thank you for validating my education.
Because when you pick a specific one, it's always a hoax.
You can't name them, though.
Name what?
Specific instances.
January 6th, right?
He mentioned January 6th.
The only person who died in that political violence, by the way, was a Trump supporter, a military veteran, who was killed by a trigger-happy cop.
We'll put that aside for a second.
Because they stormed the Capitol.
Yeah, by the way, not even the worst attack on the Capitol, by the way, because you had in 1915 a Harvard professor left-wing bombed the Capitol over protesting capitalism.
You had Puerto Rican nationalists in the 1950s shoot it up, injured five congressmen.
You had the left-wing Weather Underground bomb it.
You had the left-wing Maoist Liberation Front bomb it.
So five events, four involve explosives, four involve leftists, one involves a silly Hornhat guy on the right.
Which are the serious attacks on the Capitol?
That was a lot of words.
I don't have a list.
We got to keep up.
I know.
I got to come up.
Look, look.
Look, look.
Again, you're going to.
Again, you're going to have anecdotes that support what you believe to be.
Are we going to have it?
You guys don't have anecdotes, though.
This wasn't our topic.
I don't care.
Yeah.
I mean, I'm going to go ahead and do that.
What happened in Waco?
I mean, there are plenty of point when the cops went in and murdered that cult?
You can Google this.
The data is very clear that historically, since 1990, deaths.
Let's just talk about deaths.
520 deaths from right-wing militant violence.
72 deaths from left-wing.
It's been a lot of time, but no specific instances.
I think it proves the questioner's point.
Okay, next question.
I'm talking about dead bodies.
I don't know what, like the BLM violence you're talking about.
Are you just talking about some property damage?
No, I'm talking about dozens of people murdered.
I'm talking about 520 people.
But I'm giving you a specific instance, which is the BLM riots.
You can't point to any instance.
I don't know.
Okay, next one.
Next question.
Historical examples.
I have 520 people.
That's it?
That's it.
That's it.
Okay.
So, two questions.
Which one of us at this table won the round?
And then there's going to be a follow-up question after that.
So, who here That our friend Brian won the round.
Hey, Copy, please.
Go here.
It got some out there.
Okay.
Who here thinks that our friend Ryan won the round?
Oh, all two of you.
Thank you.
All right.
Guys, stop it.
You love this, don't you?
Who here thinks I won the round?
Hey, come on, stop it.
Come on.
Okay.
All right.
Now, this is actually the most heated debate of the entire show.
Who do you think won the question round?
Who do you think deserves a seat at that beautiful Redneck Riviera whiskey VIP table?
My long-term.
Do we think of those guys back there?
Is it our friend from Raisin Canes, our hippie friend?
Is it?
I agree.
There's no more voting.
Mr. Hippie friend, you are at the VIP table.
Thank you.
Oh, God.
This is a long hour.
Now we've got.
I can't wait until he's been drinking a little bit and we get more questions.
Gentlemen, it is time for me to do an ad read for Good Ranchers.
Folks, while our VIP gets his seat, and before an actual brawl breaks out, let's talk about something that everyone can agree on.
And that is steak.
Not just any steak.
We're talking about Good Ranchers' steak, 100% American-raised, delivered right to your door.
Now, I don't care what side of the aisle you're on.
Nobody is turning down a sizzling, perfectly grilled steak.
That is why, when I fire up the grill, I know I'm serving 100% American-raised meat, top quality, delivered right to my door.
My children love it.
Now, let me bring the audience into this.
Give me a shout if you've ever tried grocery store meat and instantly regretted it.
That's great.
That's great.
Okay, that's bipartisan disappointment.
Good ranches fix that.
They're flexible with delivery, just like our unpredictable debates.
Order, pause, delay, cancel anytime.
Even if you lose tonight, you win at dinner.
Now, listen up.
If you go to goodranchers.com, use code Knowles, you will get 40 bucks off your first box, 30 bucks off your second, 30 bucks off your third.
And audience, this is where you can cheer.
Free meat for life when you subscribe.
Whoa!
So, whether you're debating voter ID or foreign policy, make sure the steak on your table is as good as your arguments.
Head on over to goodranchers.com.
Use code Knowles.
It's time for round two.
Thank you.
Thank you, Molly.
Yeah, ding, ting.
Thank you, Molly.
Okay, so let's go.
Second topics.
You begin.
Okay, Michael, you have said that wives owe their husbands sex.
I have.
You call it the marital debt.
Yes.
I would like to propose, no, they don't.
All right.
All right.
I'm glad my wife is not in the audience tonight to argue against me.
That's good.
I would love to hear her internal monologue.
We already kind of touched on this, but I'm going to read it anyway.
I should focus on deporting violent criminals, not whoever they can get their hands on.
Okay.
My topic is that Democrats are entirely responsible for that stupid government shutdown.
Really?
You agree with that?
You want, okay, I actually don't.
Remember, we're going to argue about it.
What do we think?
The people have spoken the first one.
Let's talk about sex.
The people have spoken.
We're going to talk about sex.
Here's the thing.
It's not that I don't want you to be.
I don't want you to be raised.
Okay?
I feel like that's fine.
That's fair.
So I grew up in something called purity culture.
Very strict traditional gender roles.
This is what men are like.
This is what women are like.
One of the tenets of purity culture is that men need sex.
Men want sex.
Sex is more for men than for women.
This creates a lot of problems.
Here's the thing.
Everybody's actually horny.
Everybody wants to have sex.
Speak for yourself.
When you create a system where sex is a duty and it's obligation, you're actually doing a lot of things.
First of all, you're not creating a culture of consent.
You're creating a culture of risk.
And you're not creating a culture where men actually develop the skills which cultivate desire in their partners.
When you have experienced sex where the other person deeply desires you and wants to be there with you, you would never talk about any kind of marital debt or obligation because that robs you of the experience of actually being in a mutually pleasurable sexual experience.
And it also sets up men and women really for failure with how to view healthy relationships.
I mean, I feel like if you're not getting the sex you want in your relationship, that's probably on you.
Like just generally speaking.
If you want, cultivate emotional intimacy.
Get enthusiastic content.
Find out what makes them happy.
Absolutely.
Any talk of obligation and debt actually is just incredibly unhealthy.
It's toxic.
Okay, so all fine points.
Now, I agree, sex is a privilege.
I've always said with me, it's especially a privilege.
And everyone says nothing when he does.
But what we're talking about here is not, you know, just sort of the ideal situation where everyone's always in the mood all of the time.
What we're talking about is situations where at the extreme case, we're getting to the nature of what marriage is.
Do husbands and wives, broadly speaking, at the end of the day, have an obligation with some frequency at some point, maybe to at least consider having sex with each other.
I think you consider it.
But here's the thing.
An obligation.
Pressure.
This has been studied.
The data shows pressure decreases desire, decreases satisfaction within marriage.
When you have that obligation and pressure, that will make your wife less likely to want to have sex with you and also less happy in the relationship.
Okay, so let's say you're married, you get married, you say, this is great.
What a wonderful honeymoon, honey.
And then your wife or your husband tells you that night, say, hey, by the way, I should have probably told you this beforehand.
I never, ever want to have sex with you, not even one time.
You should probably sign for a divorce.
That sounds like an unhealthy relationship.
Divorced.
Get divorced.
Yeah, but you're not.
Okay, so there you go.
You want to be in that marriage?
Hold on, hold on.
I don't know what you, I want to have sex with people who want to have sex with me.
But Brian, then you.
You call me crazy.
I feel like if you mean crazy.
I feel like if you get into a marriage with somebody and then they tell you that after you're married, that's what I'm saying.
But Brian, you've just admitted the point.
By saying at that point you should get divorced, you're saying if you're within marriage, you have to have sex at some point.
But if that's what both people, if that's what you want.
No, no, you just said.
If it is a sexual relationship and you married someone who's ace or asexual, not interested in sex, then you probably don't belong to each other.
Did you say ace?
What is ACE?
Asexual.
Asexual.
Some people.
Bad for a marriage.
Bad for a marriage.
Yeah, some marriages are happily sexless.
Not most.
I would say that's not normative, but it certainly is.
Hey, whatever floats your boat.
I personally don't need to control how other people do their sex.
Like, they could have, I want everybody to have the sex that they want to be having.
All right, this is getting too baudy.
I have a more basic question.
I have a more basic question.
What is marriage for?
What's like the point of it?
What distinguishes marriage from other unions, like two buddies or whatever, a boyfriend and a girlfriend?
I have thoughts, but you answered that.
Siblings, I don't know.
Intimacy, connection, companionship, partnership.
But I'm not involved.
I'm intimate with my buddy.
I'm intimate with my cousin.
But I'm not, not that way.
Not that way.
I'm saying it's different.
Listen.
We are affirming.
Hey, this is beautiful.
I think coming out is a really good idea.
Yeah, no, not for everybody.
You're not in intimacy.
Different.
Do you want to tell your story of when you came out, Ryan?
We can all be able to do that.
I don't think it's a good idea.
But it's different.
I am from this state list.
Can I propose something?
So I think one thing that's really important about the whole idea of debt is we are giving men and women a very bad idea of what sex even is and how it should be experienced.
We're letting boys think that actually women probably don't want to be here and it's actually normal to be in a sexual relationship where the other person is in a position of duty rather than cultivating that desire, which we're seeing this.
We are in a male loneliness epidemic for a reason.
Men are not learning a relational and emotional skills.
They're not learning how to connect with people as people.
Okay, yeah, I totally agree that people should get married and not be lonely.
By the way, if you have questions or comments, go to the microphone.
I guess I'd like to propose something.
It's a little weird.
I'm not going to marry you.
I know.
Listen, I've only had half my drink.
We'll see how the night gets.
We did learn in the Epstein files today that Trump sucked Bill Clinton's death.
Did you guys read that one?
Anybody read that one?
Did you guys see that?
I must admit.
I did not make that up.
That is in the Epstein files.
Google it.
I think I missed that file.
You missed it.
I have something to propose on the topic, which is because I'm very old-fashioned.
So I'm of the opinion that marriage is for having children.
I think that's what distinguishes it from other unions.
Bunch of childless people out there.
Not everybody gets, you know, there's infertility and everything, but it is a union between a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation and education of children and also for the mutual support of the spouses.
That's what distinguishes it from buddies or cousins or siblings or whatever.
So then my point is: if you don't do the thing that distinguishes marriage from other relationships, you've totally undermined marriage.
And you see this in religion, obviously.
You were raised in a religious household.
St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians, he says that, you know, husbands should not deprive their wives of sex and vice versa because they're not totally in control of their own bodies.
We control each other's bodies.
Let me just get this point out.
And so there's a religious basis all through Christendom, all through religious traditions, but there's a secular basis too.
There was a study in 2015, University of Toronto.
It found that couples who don't have sex are less happy than couples who do.
I don't know why there's a study for that, but there is.
It's found that couples that don't have sex are much more likely to get divorced.
Couples that don't have sex are much more likely to use pornography, which itself predicts divorce.
So it seems to me, and I guess this is just my basic claim, that within marriage, an essential part of it is occasionally bumping uglies.
Is that fair?
Sure, it's going to be different for everybody.
But I don't think it's different.
I think marriage, by its very nature, involves many people get married later in life and don't have children for all kinds of reasons.
They have dasectomies, they've already had children.
Not saying they have to have children, some people don't want to have children, and they can still get married because they want companionship without children.
You're allowed to do that too.
You actually don't need to control people, Michael.
You can actually let people live their life.
I'm not controlling you anyway.
I'm just describing marriage.
I'm not going to be able to get people to have the sex that they want to have.
And because I so badly want men to not be lonely and want them to have satisfying sex lives, they should know that gaining enthusiastic consent and creating emotional connection is the way, not talking about obligation and marital debt.
That will not work, boys.
But once again, get some ladies out here, please.
Thank you.
Once again, though, these things are not pitted against each other.
It's great, you know, couples, they're not pissed off.
When you talk about debt and obligation, you actually shut down desire.
The data tells that.
If you actually read sex researchers and sexuality.
No, I just cited a number of sex research studies, didn't I?
And I just pointed out that couples have been selling.
Marriages are healthier when they're having sex.
But marriages that talk about debt and obligation have less sex, is what I'm telling you.
But the question that we're asking is the question that we're asking is, does marriage necessarily involve having sex?
That's the question.
Okay, and we have no from the libs and we have yes from a married man who has a good time.
I don't want your relationship.
I would say the majority do.
Why would you determine that for another couple?
Do we have questions or comments?
Hi, I want to make sure I can look you in the eyes when I speak to you.
Hello.
Hello.
A large part of what brought me to this bar is this specific statement that you've made.
This isn't exactly fun to share to a bar full of people, although I see that this bar has women in it and men.
And I understand that that means that a large number of us in this room have unfortunately experienced rape.
I'm going to be very honest and open and look in your eyes and tell you right now that I'm a victim of child rape.
Rape started for me as a baby and lasted into my, well, into my adolescence and then through my adult life, as I now am a 31-year-old woman, tried to reclaim my body back.
I'm going to be ultra honest.
This is something that I'm already honest about in my own community, but I am a survivor of sex that happened to me in the fifth grade.
I devoted a lot of my adolescence, especially the 14-year-old, as I started to learn about this towards fighting against girls that were funneled and trapped into sex trafficking.
So a lot of my life growing up is about really beautifully trying to reclaim my own body.
And anybody I intend to love or marry, I should hope that if I need to lay in bed next to them beside that night, and all I can do is hold their hand, if that, I should hope that they would love me enough to give me that safety and my body, especially my husband.
Amen.
Well, I'm terribly sorry to hear of your experience.
Thank you.
And then thank you for saying that.
And so I guess to ask an actual question, because I said that as a question, hearing my experience, because a lot of this is, you know, we're speaking theoretical here.
I am truly a human that has endured that and fought against that.
So looking in my eyes as a woman, when I hopefully get married someday, when I don't want to, if there's a night I don't want to have sex with my husband that night, do you think I owe that to him?
No, no, not at any given time, whenever.
That's not any part of the claim or any part of the traditional Christian understanding of marriage.
So if there's a year, thank you.
And so if there's perhaps like a certain time in my journey, after I have opened myself up to a man to trust him to say, hey, thank you.
I do want to share my body with you.
You're my love.
Let's say at a point in my journey, I start struggling with my memories that I will tell you are graphic, are horrific.
They're difficult.
So if there's an entire, perhaps even five-month period or even a year, God forbid, a year that I don't feel comfortable letting somebody into the body that somebody has taken from me so many times, do I owe that to him?
No, so in the traditional sort of Christian understanding of this, there are all sorts of circumstances that would obviously mitigate what is traditionally called the marital debt, which would be like if your wife is just given birth or something, if I don't know, all the way down to a headache.
And so obviously a very grave condition, as you're describing, some kind of trauma, some kind of medical condition, would of course, and one would hope in a loving marriage, would willfully impel the husband to recognize that.
That is, of course, the case.
The only question that is being debated here is whether or not the institution of marriage necessarily entails sex in itself.
Not sex every day, not sex every two hours, not sex when people are upset or have difficult conditions.
Certainly not sex when a woman has just given birth or anything like that.
The only question, the very modest claim that I am shocked that my liberal interlocutors could not acknowledge here is that marriage at some point in its intrinsic nature involves sex.
And I think you would agree with that.
I think that for the most part, that is a natural outcome of marriage.
But I also believe that While there's a lot of byproducts of marriage, I do think that the main point of marriage is to join together and love each other and respect each other, especially respect each other's dignity, autonomy, and safety.
Certainly, but wouldn't you say, it's a great point, but wouldn't you say beyond that, because we were joking about, you know, having buddies and stuff, being intimate with buddies or whatever, you know, and it's like we can have intimate, safe, loving relationships with lots of people, you know, with your family members, with your neighbors, with your teachers, with your coworkers, whatever.
So there has to be something that distinguishes marriage from all of those other kinds of loving, intimate, beautiful relationships.
And it seems to me that what distinguishes it is not going on a honeymoon.
It's not that you share a bed or don't share a bed like Lucy and Ricky.
It's that at some point, there's this act that you do with your spouse that you don't do with your cousin or your teacher, hopefully.
So that's the only point of the claim.
And once again, I want to speak for you.
It does seem like you agree with that.
That sex is a typical outcome or a hopeful outcome of marriage.
A distinctive part.
Distinctive, yeah, absolutely.
Especially through a Christian view.
Yes, you are, you know, suggested to wait till marriage, all those different things.
However, I would like to point out two points, and then I won't hog this microphone.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you, all of you guys, for having the discourse.
But the two points, I guess, I would like to answer you on are that if the most desired outcome of marriage is having a child, there are a lot of people that deal with fertility issues, both men and women.
So that doesn't negate the validity of their marriage.
Certainly.
And then, you know, 10 years ago, the statistic was like one in three women have had that trauma.
The statistic has grown much higher, but I'd also like to point out that men also have a significant amount of sexual trauma.
So you have both men and women in marriage that have a significant, could possibly have these extenuating circumstances.
Therefore, I believe that it should have a fair, it's a bold claim to say that sex is a debt to marriage when there are so many people in this room that have probably, actually, there are probably people in this room that have shared some of my experiences.
I just feel like, you know, this conversation is basically the baseline is, do you have sex?
To me, the baseline is, are you committed to being in it with each other, lifelong partnership no matter what?
And everything y'all do together is none of my favorite.
You're in a lifelong partnership with your mom and dad.
I'm talking a one-on-one partnership called marriage, which is we are in this thing called.
I know you share marriage.
I'm asking what marriage is.
We share the things that people tend to pair together and merge when they're married.
But what is that?
That's all very vague.
What is the marriage?
To honor her story, you're like, oh, yeah, absolutely.
That's built in.
We do that.
But then when you start with the language of debt and obligation, what you actually have to do, though, is get to know the person in front of you that you're in a relationship with and understand what they need.
And the debt and obligation language creates a really unhelpful framework, which actually creates a framework where you're not entering into connection to actually find out what they need.
Instead, you're thinking about what I deserve, that I deserve something.
No, but you would owe it to your spouse.
My goal was that men need sex.
When you were talking, the quote that I'm referring to, you said, men need sex and women owe their husbands sex.
And vice versa.
But that is the purity culture framework, that men need sex and women.
This is what marriage is objects.
But that.
Sex object.
Whoever said anything like that?
How long do you have?
All of history?
Yeah, literally.
Even just today, like Megan Kelly, for instance, speaking about the female victims and refusing, actually reframing and saying, well, maybe Epstein and if Trump is implicated, they're not pedophiles because these girls were 15, as sexualizing these girls and saying that's not pedophilia because they're actually just teenagers.
I think we're kind of far afield off the topic, which is does marriage involve sex?
And the answer is obviously.
And I'm seeing girls and women and seeing them as objects is absolutely a part of this conversation, that men need sex and women are sex objects.
Okay.
And that is.
All right.
I don't really know how Jeffrey Epstein fits into this, but I guess do we have any more questions?
I just want to talk about him.
If you're arguing the premise that marriage, that there's no obligation for sex within marriage, I'll give you a little bit of a setup here.
Myself personally, I live with my soon-to-be wife, and I also live with my best friend and his soon-to-be wife, okay?
So if there's no obligation to sex within the marriage, how would you distinct, how would you make the classification between the relationship I have with my fiancé and the relationship that I have with my best friend, especially considering we both live under the same roof?
Oh, that's easy.
Are you married?
Well, what is he's asking, what does marriage mean?
And you're saying it's marriage.
And you're saying, what does that mean to you?
So if you believe that sex is an obligation, that means you can demand it from her.
It is a voluntary obligation that you both sign up for when you get married.
But if she doesn't want to do it, then you are you going to make her do it?
What's your plan here, bro?
No, absolutely not.
It goes back to the point Michael was making earlier that it's not an anytime sort of thing.
But there is an agreement that it will happen at some point in time.
Okay, so you just want her to live under that looming pressure that she's supposed to?
It's not a looming pressure.
It's voluntary.
If you didn't discuss those things, then take out the obligation language.
It's not helping you.
It's not serving.
Why did she get married in the first place?
Because you love each other, Michael.
Because you want to.
Well, you concentrate that later.
Marriage is making a public declaration that you're going to share life together.
And whatever you do in your marriage is your fing business.
Listen, if you want to set up, felons, we're sharing life together right now, but we're not doing that.
I am not declaring to the world that I'm making a public partnership for life with you.
Okay, we're discussing what we do together.
That's not where I'm going at all with you.
1 Corinthians 7, the passage that you read earlier, is absolutely about mutuality and relationships.
was actually quite revolutionary in a patriarchal society where women were often viewed as property to men.
That passage talks about a mutual relationship where you both...
Do you agree with the passage?
In what sense?
Do you agree with what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, 3 through 7?
You'd have to be more specific than that.
This passage you just cited.
I agree that you're saying that.
Do you agree with the thing you decided?
All right, all right, I guess.
Because that passage says you owe each other.
All right.
Okay.
Now, two questions.
Two questions.
Who up here won the round?
We turn first to Brian.
Hold up the blue panel for Brian.
I'll take it.
We turn.
Ryan was a little quieter in that round, but Ryan.
I've never had sex with a woman, so I don't have much to add.
Oh, but they owe you sex.
You should be demanding it.
You know what?
I'm good.
They don't owe Ryan sex.
I'm firmly behind that.
And who thinks I won the round?
Yeah!
It's kind of, that's almost like 50-50.
I don't, what do we, Mr. Davies, do we have an answer on that?
Who won it?
I think you won that round.
I won it.
I think I did win it too.
But I think they pay him to say that.
He is on stage.
I think I pay him to say that, actually.
Okay, now, much more important question.
Do we have a thought on who won, which of the questioners?
Well, I mean.
The late.
I think the lady, I would say.
Yeah, I would say the lady.
Okay.
And that's not a talking vote, like for real.
That was good.
Yeah, it was probably the only like heartfelt, substantive conversation of this entire night.
It was great.
So you're at the VIP table.
Okay, round three, gentlemen, what's your topic?
All right.
Let's go!
Okay, we're going to get to a lot more.
But first, go to bravebooks.com/slash Knowles.
Everyone says, get out and vote.
That is how you change the country.
Sure, that's a big part of it.
But another way that you shape America's future is not just at the ballot box.
It is in your home.
The left has known for decades that if you can just capture the minds and hearts of the kids, you can change the course of the future.
That is why it is so important for us to teach truth to them when they are young so they don't fall for lies as they grow.
That is why I am a huge fan of Brave Books.
My kids absolutely love them.
I brought 10 brave books home the other day.
They went crazy.
They even had stickers in them.
They are helping families teach timeless values through engaging stories that kids love.
Each month you get a new book that reinforces a pro-God, pro-America value, courage, honesty, love of country, all the things that my friends here totally disagree with.
So every single conversation starter, every single game is going to bring the whole family together.
And with their new streaming platform, Brave Plus, you'll have a whole library of wholesome, trusted shows and movies vetted by real parents.
That is included free with your subscription.
If you really want to make an impact, not just for one election cycle, but for generations, go to bravebooks.com slash Knowles.
Use code Knowles, KWLAS, for 20% off your first order.
BraveBooks.com slash Knowles.
Use code Knowles.
All right.
Thanks to the Republicans gutting the ACA subsidy.
Oh, thank you for that.
You got to work on your timing.
I didn't know that.
You know the most important part of comedy?
Timing.
Timing.
All right.
So thanks to the Republicans gutting the Affordable Care Act subsidies, healthcare is on the brink of being unaffordable for millions of Americans.
It's time that the richest country in the history of the world guaranteed health care for its citizens.
I mean, the next seven million.
Yeah, the rest of you are not interested in healthcare.
That's fine.
All right.
I get it.
Okay.
You know, ironically, healthcare per person costs more here than it does in all those other countries that are our peer nations that guarantee it.
Cost is cost.
All right, what's your topic?
Red states need to stop mooching off of blue states and make your own damn money.
Mine is...
Sorry, I just drank it.
Mine is that Trump broke the Democrat Party.
He broke it completely.
Mr. Davies?
It's tight.
This is a tight round.
I don't get that a lot.
I'm not sure if I can get the decimal reader or what, but I think Lynn won.
I actually think you won't like it.
I don't like how this is turned out.
I'm so glad I can't.
I'm supposed to win everything.
Yeah, okay.
All right.
You're still willing.
Okay, look.
So, fun fact.
I grew up in this state.
I now live in California.
Californians receive per capita 80 cents of benefit for every federal dollar paid in taxes.
Tennesseans get roughly $1.50 for every dollar spent in federal taxes.
In other words, California underwrites the cost of running Tennessee and keeping its citizens safe, healthy, and all that stuff.
So all I'm saying is y'all per capita need more Medicare than we do.
We make more money than you do.
Maybe we should try and equal that out.
That's all I'm saying.
That's what I'm saying.
Okay, so California gives more money to the federal government than it takes in.
And that's a big blue state.
Yes, and the in-verse is true for Tennessee.
Okay, now let's look at the other big blue state, New York.
Does New York give more money to the federal government than it takes or the opposite?
I believe it does.
It could be wrong.
It does not.
The Rockefeller Institute just found that New York is a network.
It's so much fun in high school.
I was.
I was.
New York receives $1.06 for every dollar that it gives.
It's a net receiver.
And it is true generally that depending on which statistics you look at, the red states, oh, now we're talking.
Thank you, sir.
It is true generally that the red states do tend to take more than the blue states, just as states.
It's not a huge gap.
It's like a seven percentage point gap, but it's still noticeable at least.
The problem is, though, that disappears when you look not just at the states, because the blue states are much more densely populated.
It's when you hone in per capita.
That's where the numbers start to get a little squirrely.
Because when you start looking in at federal entitlements like Medicaid, for instance, education entitlements, Head Start, when you look at defense contracts, which disproportionately go to the blue states, all of a sudden you start to see that the red states per capita are actually contributing more than the blue states.
Now, it's not totally.
That's really complicated, but acknowledgement finding a way to get there.
Yeah, it's yeah.
No, obviously per capita matters because you can't just have a state with like the most people, the biggest, most densely populated one, and compare it to something that's incompetent.
Yeah, I mean, the data stands what I said per capita.
I mean, the aggregate outcome is that red states in aggregate receive more than they pay.
Depending on what you count, and not when, I guess, not when you don't count one of the biggest blue states in the country, New York.
I mean, look, I'm not saying aggregate includes all of them.
I'm just saying in aggregate.
Well, aggregate does include all of them.
That's right.
That's what I'm saying.
It's in there, but it's still aggregate for blue.
That's what I'm saying.
But one of the ways that you arrive at that number is by not counting certain federal subsidies.
So like defense contracts, for instance.
Is that federal welfare?
Not exactly, but it obviously greatly benefits the states that it goes to.
It benefits their employment.
And it largely goes to blue states.
It depends on which entitlements exactly you're counting.
So if you're only counting, say, Medicare and Social Security, that gives you one number.
If you look at Medicaid, if you look at education, if you look at early child care, you get different numbers.
Are we looking at roads and hospital health insurance?
Sure, yeah.
If you only look at that, then yes, you'll find that the red states are.
We're trying to find the one fine line.
Oh, it's not one fine line.
Medicaid is a big program.
I don't know.
You can shift through all the hay here.
The needle.
There you go.
You got it.
We found a way to distinguish.
No, I'm just saying when you count everything, the situation is a lot more complicated.
It's uncommon.
And it's unclear.
And you're so good at making one-liners out of it, which is how you have all this money in this show.
Well, Tom.
I'm going to grow up to be just like.
So am I a net donor to the federal government?
There you go.
That's pretty good.
There you have it.
Okay.
I have nothing to contribute to this, really.
I don't really care about this.
The tables have turned.
I just feel like today we found out that, you know, Trump is in the Epstein files 1,500 times, and those just the emails that were released.
I don't know if you guys read that.
It's hard for me to really care about this other thing.
I got to be honest.
All right, I kind of like that.
I kind of like that you don't care about Ryan's topic.
Well, no, sorry.
I just, it's not in.
I look at a spreadsheet and other people yawn.
I love this for us.
I think we should tax billionaires more.
I mean, that's my thing.
I don't know.
Can we talk about that?
So with the whole subsidies, I think we have enough, and I actually support, I actually think it's fine that we subsidize each other.
I'm not against that.
So yeah, if the blue states are subsidizing the red states, cool.
If some blue states are being subsidized by red states, great.
If some people's health care is being subsidized by people who have a lot, great.
Like, how about we build a society that cares for each other?
How about we have more than enough?
What we have is a distribution problem because there is enough for everybody.
We have so much abundance, but the fact that we have more hungry children than most other developed countries, even though we are the most wealthy country in the history of the world, that to me is a problem.
That's on us.
And so that is on us.
We have distribution problems.
The fact that we almost cut SNAP for people heading into the holidays.
Democrats cut SNAP.
It wasn't Republicans.
Democrats did not literally have holding those children hostage.
It was a choice between children being fed for the holidays or people's health care.
I agree.
It was terrible when Democrats did that.
I'm glad that they conceded after receiving nothing in return.
There's an emergency fund that kind of snaps into Democrats.
KFAN quite pathetically.
So if we wanted, we could take a round and just trash Democrats together.
I love that idea.
That sounds great.
Yeah.
Literally, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Well, we need to need totally limp wristed, just absolute, just completely pathetically folded, no ability to negotiate.
Chuck Shu.
Yeah, I'm going to go to the next step.
I mean, I'm going to vote for you to win this round.
That was really great.
I agree with 93% of what you just said.
But what I will say was that government shutdown was absolutely because Trump was trying to delay the release of the Epstein files.
They did not want.
They did not.
It's so fun to sit here and watch your faces.
It's so good.
Grijalva's Grijalva's appointment was being delayed.
That's true.
And as soon as the government reopened, she was sworn in, and they immediately.
And then we got a thousand emails just like that.
That is absolutely why the government was shut down.
I'm open to the theory, but it was only Democrats who voted to shut the government down.
Well, yeah, because they looked at the banks.
So why didn't they be saying that?
24 million Americans are not going to afford their health care going into this year.
Hello, is anybody else on the Affordable Care Act in the room?
Is it just me that's not going to be able to insure my kids?
That's just me.
Nobody else.
I agree.
The Affordable Care Act was terrible, too.
I agree.
Literally nobody on Obamacare.
Almost 30 million Americans are going to lose their health care subsidies.
And we're already, by the way, we have more uninsured people in this country than any other country, even though we spend more on health care than any other country.
Wait, but I thought the Affordable Care Act was going to solve health care once and for all and guarantee a lot of healthcare.
That's what America is affordable.
Even if premiums went up 95% 15 years ago.
The Affordable Care Act was a sloppy compromise only because conservatives, in any other country, you know in Canada.
Only he could blame Obamacare on conservatives.
That's amazing.
That's amazing.
Oh, yeah.
A half measure is what we could get.
Absolutely.
Any other developed country has universal health care, Mike.
Everybody has to be able to get a lot of health.
Do you want everyone to have homemade?
Ironically.
Do you want everyone to have health care or not?
I certainly do.
Luckily, Barack Obama promised me that every American has good quality, affordable health care.
So I'm going to have to believe it.
Your wing will not get us there.
It will never get us there.
Every country that has universal health care has it the same way.
You know we're the only weird ones?
Did you know that the conservatives in Canada are not trying to back away from their government run health?
Do you know that 5% of Canadians who die each year are killed by their government or encouraged to commit suicide by their health care costs or duty?
I will compare our outreach to Canada.
We spend you guys know that we spend way more on health care than Canada and they have higher life expectancies than us, and they have more people insured.
They have completely different.
Guys, I'm glad that we brought this to Canada and to healthcare because it's much more interesting than that stupid topic that Ben.
But if we're really going to compare these things, we should point out that right now in Canada, as in the UK, which both have socialist health care, one in 10 citizens is waiting for a medical procedure.
30 million uninsured Americans and in Canada they're being killed by the government.
I require a system that doesn't insure everybody in order to not wait for something.
I'm the bad guy.
But I was told by your party that we insure everybody.
And we actually do offer everybody.
Okay, hold on.
The bell rang.
You can get your point in during the questions.
Here we go.
Super happy to be here.
I've seen a lot of videos of people asking questions, so I'm super happy that I'm here today.
Yeah.
Love it.
Absolutely love it.
Get it.
Can I talk about what they're talking about?
Are you Canadian?
What's that?
You said talk about.
Are you Canadian?
I'm from Minnesota.
Oh, so close.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
The Canada of America.
I'm the problem.
Oh, gee.
Yeah.
So talk a little bit about New York and how I prepare taxes and how about I think after this new tax bill, I think half the country will not pay federal income tax.
Talk about that a little bit.
About half the country of people who file tax returns in this country do not contribute.
They do not pay to federal income.
Yeah, the top 50% pay less.
It's true.
No, actually, I defy you to go look at the effective tax rate of this working class.
Do you guys know what the tax Forbes 400?
They did it.
The Forbes 400, do you know what their effective income tax rate is?
Do you know what they're paying?
The 400 richest people in America.
Somebody guess.
8.2%.
Do you know what the Walton family paid in 2024?
I wrote it down.
3.8%.
That should radicalize.
What's the corporate tax he asked?
That's radicalized.
What's the corporate tax?
The Walton family has more wealth than 40%.
Right, but it's all tied up in the Walmart corporation.
That's his point.
But no one's answering his question.
They can buy anything they want with them.
But no one's answering it.
Yeah, the Waltons are very rich.
But his question was, how come 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes?
I think we have a really complicated tax system for sure, and that's a problem.
That's a problem.
I just think that we should distribute tax burden more fairly.
So, what?
So, 60% don't pay any taxes, 70% don't pay any taxes?
I don't think those correlate, but we can play with it.
Let's go.
What would be more of it?
Okay, all right.
One more thing on the Forbes 400.
I'm happy you brought that up.
If we took all, if we confiscated all the money of the Forbes 400, we would run the government for less than one year.
We do a point.
We do not have an income problem.
We have a spending problem.
The actuarial.
This is important.
This is a really good point.
If you take the actuarial, here's my buzzword.
Actuarial evaluation of the federal government in a year's term is not a useful measure.
The federal government's finances really need to be looked at over decades at a time.
It's not as if, snap your finger, all these people's money for one year can't run the government.
That's not how financing the most complicated organization in the history of earth works.
It's just, it's a good soundbite, but it doesn't match how complicated the situation is.
It's very complicated.
That's why he wants to be aware of that.
Love me.
If we start anywhere, we should start with the $160 billion in taxes that the top 1% already owes that they haven't even paid.
Yeah, that is fun.
We should absolutely get started.
Speaking of taxes, the people who, most of the people at the IRS who got fired by Doge are the people who deal with the complicated rich people tax problems where they dodge taxes.
We didn't get rid of the people who audit everyday people.
We got rid of the people who deal with wealth taxes.
$160 billion, which would pay for, I think, what, 115th of the Green New Deal.
That'd be great.
SNAP was $120 billion, and people were complaining that that was too expensive.
If we just did it.
The only people who shut down SNAP were the Democrats.
I just want to keep reminding you.
The only question is the only Democrats are going to be a lot of people.
Look, the executive has, the president has a discretionary fund, an emergency fund that could have filled the entire responsibility of SNAP for the month in question.
The government shutdown too.
The Democrats' government shutdown was the longest in history.
It went so long that they had to go get private funding to pay the United States military.
There was not discretionary money sitting around.
The Democrats could have reopened it whenever they wanted, and they finally did.
But of course, they were telling him to fund it, and he was literally arguing with the people who were going to be able to do hold those children.
The shutdown occurred in Congress, not in the executive.
But you're talking about SNAP specifically.
Government spending this big, SNAP this big, there was this much and then some money available he could have put to it.
He just didn't.
That's just a fact.
He's not a king or a dictator, as you guys like to say that he is.
He actually has to listen to Congress on government funding.
And they gave him an emergency fund for things like this, which he could have used and he didn't.
Yes, after 41 days of a government shutdown, it's difficult to make out the money out of thin air.
But I'm glad that eight Democrats came to their senses, gave SNAP benefits back to their constituents.
I'm glad that 30 million Americans are going to lose their health insurance.
I agree.
Obamacare has been a disaster.
Because I thought you said that you wanted everybody to have health insurance.
I can relate to this.
Why emergency?
Gentlemen, we have.
I don't know that people are going to die, right?
They estimate that about 50,000 people will die.
I vote against Obama.
I hated that stupid health care law.
I still hate it today.
Keep going.
That's just statistics.
Okay, so you guys brought up health care.
I'm going to go down that route.
I've lived in a country, but I was American, of course, that had affordable health care.
Do you know how long you have to wait for affordable health care?
Yeah, actually.
Go through.
I'm just curious, where were you?
I was in Germany.
Okay.
Yeah, I mean, look, I'm not saying that universal health care is flawless, but I'm also saying our system isn't flawless.
People die on the system.
I'm just saying.
No, no, no, let me be clear.
Sure.
I would be thrilled if we could get out a spreadsheet and compare the outcomes, outcomes of healthcare in Germany versus the USA.
They live longer there.
Spoiler alert.
They live longer there.
And that's true.
They live longer.
That's true.
We can look at them.
They spend less true person, and overall, they have better outcomes.
They live longer.
Sorry, you had a bad experience, but other people are glad they're alive.
So thank you for your sacrifice that you had to wait.
And you know what also doesn't happen in Germany is nobody ever goes bankrupt because of their medical truth.
What about Canada or the other countries and you had that affordable health care?
Hold on, hold on.
What's the question?
Or what's the point?
What about places like Canada that have that affordable health care that you're talking about that are also, I forgot a while ago, are looking into suicidal options for people because they don't want to pay for your health care.
That's a.
What?
That's a fear tactic.
That's not even a problem.
It's not like you have physician-assisted suicide.
Is that what you're talking about?
It certainly is.
It's the death panels thing where it's the fear medicine.
No, no, no, it's physician-assisted suicide.
No, no, no.
It's that they're going to encourage you to kill yourself.
They do.
Yeah, the medical.
That is fearmongering.
That is an absolute sense.
They literally.
You know what sucks about that lie is that it kind of trivializes real mental health shit by taking it a target.
Do you have genuine-provided health care?
It works great.
People love Medicare.
It's very popular.
Don't change this up.
We're talking about physician-assisted suicide in Canada.
That's the questioner.
Are you talking about that one?
That's what he brought.
That's not a thing.
The questioner who we're supposed to be responding to.
But you don't want to respond to it because what is happening in Canada right now.
It's not a myth.
4.7% of Canadians, 4.7% of Canadians who die are killed by physician-assisted suicide.
By the way, it's not just the elderly, though we shouldn't be killing them either.
But in Canada, because of socialist medicine, women who are over the age of 80, 60% of them, for instance, who have breast cancer, need surgeries, do not get the surgeries.
90% of the women who are 50 and under do get the surgeries.
Let me finish my point.
They do get the surgeries because the government is necessarily rationing care.
And they say, give it to the younger women, let the older women die.
They've now taken this to an extreme where they encourage physician-assisted suicide.
And by the way, that's not just for the elderly, because 40 to 50% of it is for people who are under 75, people who suffer depression, anxiety.
Instead of treating them with compassion, the government goes in.
That's what I'm saying.
Michael, you are not either aware of that.
This is an absolute fear tactic myth that conservatives peddle out in order to fearmonger about socialist health care.
You can look up all those numbers.
I've had socialist health care, and anybody who has served this country has had it.
Anyone been on TRICARE before?
Hoorah, I was a Marine, and when I, oh, it was incredible.
What are you talking about?
You are crazy.
Everything was fully created.
Do the military vets in the room like the VA?
Is the VA the model of health care?
I'm a lost blue shield over TRICAR.
You are absolutely insane.
My healthcare was incredible when I was in.
I would disagree with anybody who feels like our system is flawed, okay?
It's definitely flawed.
That's not a disagreement I have with you.
It is.
I'm just saying it's flawed everywhere.
The difference is more of us are covered.
What I would also like to say is that if we're talking about Canada, it should be done.
Any of these countries that have universal health care, Canada, UK, Germany, the conservatives in those countries are not trying to get rid of it.
It's very popular.
They're just coming to America for their medical purposes.
They're just trying to iterate.
In our country, what is seen as a left position in any other country would be a very moderate position.
Yeah, so to say that our health care system is flawed is such an understatement.
Absolutely.
Have you seen a freaking commercial about drugs lately?
How in the hell am I, as a self-employed man, supposed to get insurance for me and my family when it's $400 for a aspirin at a hospital?
I agree.
We're the only country.
When the insurance companies and the medical community are so tied up, it's all about big governments.
It's all about the money.
We are the first, we are the only first world country where the pharmaceutical companies take the lead on pricing drugs.
Yeah, we also provide the most efficient care.
Look, I acknowledge the system in America is terrible because let's not forget we are currently operating under the Barack Obama healthcare system, which is passing.
I'll give one thing to Obama.
It is still better than these other countries.
Because in America, it's very difficult to find the numbers.
But according to the Commonwealth Survey, I think it's better that one in three Americans have medical debt, that 30 million Americans are uninsured.
You think that's better?
I think it's definitely better than the current career.
Other countries don't even know what medical debt is, by the way.
When you bring it up to them, they'll look at you like you got a penis coming out of your forehead.
They're like, what's wrong with you?
You talk at me like that for other reasons.
Medical debt is very bad, and our current Obamacare system is very bad.
But I do think it's better than dying while waiting on waiting lists, like in the social media.
People are dying for lack of health care.
Yeah, it's easy.
It is easier to take a camera and find somebody who has a complaint about how long they waited for something.
Hold on, I'm going to let you know I'm done.
But there are so many more, this is raw numbers.
There are so many more Americans who wouldn't even find that camera because they never got health care.
You can go find somebody in Canada who complains about the weight, but there are proportionately way more Americans who never even get it.
So that is a group.
There's a number, actually, that we can look to, and it's the Commonwealth Survey, which looks at Canada, the UK, Norway, and the United States.
And it found that in the United States, only 4% of people have to wait for extensive periods of time.
A fraction of a fraction of waiting for them.
They don't have to worry at all because they don't have insurance, Mike.
That's rigging the numbers.
Yeah, there's not going to be a lot of people.
I thought Barack Obama gave a lot of people.
It's easy to rig those numbers.
There's not going to be a longer waiting for you.
Hold on, you're saying that the Commonwealth surveys rigged numbers?
No, I'm saying your general statement, which is that somehow.
I'm just citing a survey.
I'm saying a major difference.
Right, and the point you're trying to make is that the wait is longer, therefore bad.
What I'm saying is many more people.
The main difference is not for many more people.
That's the wrong.
That's what it is.
That's what I said.
But I'm telling you, you're wrong.
Right, but I'm just citing the Commonwealth survey.
If you compare a society where the choice is everybody's insured who waits, we are a society where a portion of society gets to get in line and the other portion doesn't at all.
So would you say apples and oranges?
Would you say that in the United States today, if you want health care, you cannot receive it?
I would, no, actually, no, if you go to the bottom.
There we go.
I got it.
I'm happy to answer the question.
I'm happy to follow that.
I'm absolutely right.
Actually, pretty much every hospital in America is required to treat anybody who comes in regardless of ability to pay.
Per emergency.
And here's the thing.
Here's the thing about that.
That dynamic specifically is why we as Americans pay more per capita for health care because a person is more expensive for their emergency treatment that the government later has to cover than if we had just given them insurance in the first place.
So people could go to the doctor.
Yes.
Listen, the main difference between our health care and other countries is that in our country, there's a middleman called health insurance companies that rake in $71 billion in profits.
And all they do, they don't provide health care, they deny health care.
They are a middleman that extracts, making it more complicated.
They stand between us and the doctors.
No other country deals with that.
That's our broken system.
I feel like I'm back in 2009 before we were supposed to have fixed all of that.
No, you didn't let the conservatives stop that.
The only thing that made Barack Obama for all that's fine.
Yes?
Hey there.
Ryan, super happy to have this debate with you guys.
I actually missed this about our country, just having spirited debate.
We can disagree and have fun.
I found myself.
I'm a Republican.
I found myself agreeing with some of the points you guys made.
So thank you for being here.
My question is around raising the corporate tax rate.
That's a common Democrat talking point.
When we look at the Kamala campaign, a microcosmic example of government overspending, right?
You give her a billion dollars.
She goes $20 million in debt.
How can you defend the idea of giving politicians, non-business operators, more and more money, and somehow that'll solve the government's problems?
Well, I'm not saying that the government is perfect at money spending.
I think what we're talking about here is that every other first world nation gets more tax out of their corporations than we do.
So all I'm saying is the revenues are higher here and we somehow get less of it.
That's all.
That's all.
Next question.
I don't have much to say.
And if we were getting as much out of our operations here as they are in Ireland, we would have a better funded government.
I always, I turn to our friend at the VIP table.
To me, he's more reliable than the Bell.
I would love for you to interject with a non-sequitur.
All right, that's the end of round three.
Now, folks, we need to know who won.
I don't even know what that round was about.
I don't.
I don't need you to.
Mr. Davies picked some stupid topic.
And then we ended up talking about healthcare, Jeffrey Epstein.
I just want to agree that we haven't talked about Epstein enough, in my opinion.
We haven't talked about him nearly enough.
Who wants us to talk about Epstein more?
Maybe the next round.
Everybody line up who has a thought about Epstein.
Okay, now there's a question.
Who won that round?
Whatever that round was?
Was it Brian?
This guy.
Was it technically it was Ryan's topic.
It was it Ryan?
Woo!
Was it me?
It's like 33, 33, 34.
What do we think?
I'd actually got the round of it.
What do you think, everybody?
I think Michael Knowles got the round.
What a shock.
Hold on.
He was using that.
Hold on.
I want a recount.
I don't want it to seem like it was the 2020 election and completely rigged.
I want to know, was who here thinks it was Brian?
See, that's, well.
Who here thinks it was Ryan?
Oh, you guys, go on.
Who here thinks it was me?
I kind of want to give it to Ryan just because, but what do you think?
We just do it just because.
All right, Ryan got it.
Ryan got it.
I've always wanted to win on a technicality.
Okay.
That's great.
Okay, now a much more important decision.
Who won the VIP?
There was no one.
Oh, there I wrote it.
I don't know.
There's no clear winner to me.
They're all interesting.
The guy with the beard, he had a lot of, the older men, the older gentleman.
older gentleman yes where was the from minnesota Oh, the Minnesota gentleman.
Wait, no, hold on.
Wait, where was the older?
I feel like you should get it just because of his accent.
Yeah, it was good.
Oh, but with that.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
Well, he won there.
Yeah, yeah.
You are going to the bottom of the bottom.
Happy birthday to the VIP for you there.
Oh, thanks, man.
What's up, bro?
Okay.
I hope it's okay that I'm standing now.
This chair and I don't get away.
I know.
Hold on.
Wait, wait, wait.
It was already weird, and then somehow it just got lower.
I feel like it's my last relationship.
Now, since you're at the VIP table, my dear friends who are over there, did we solve the world's problems, or is there something else that we need to hash out before we turn the music back on and all go get another drink?
You know, I'm hesitant to say this because I feel that it's going to elicit a big bellow of booze.
Bellow of booze.
I, in fact, do want a big bellow of booze.
I am astonished.
I don't want to be like clipped into whatever.
So honestly, I don't really want to be sitting at this table.
Too late.
It's too late.
This is the wrong show.
But I am astonished at the amount of booze around, or considering the Epstein thing being considered a deflection point, when I think that, like, even in my walk over here, so many of you who have been booing at the Epstein things also shook my hand and thanked me for sharing my story of surviving trafficking.
And I also feel that this current administration and the platform ran so much on exposing the Epstein files and saying that really anybody that was suppressing the files probably had something to gain from suppressing them.
So my thought is, I don't feel that's been fully addressed.
I feel that it's like a lot of this is a lot of deflection from the Epstein files.
Let's just ask Michael.
Michael, do you think Trump should release the Epstein files?
And do you think that everybody exposed has a pedophile in those files should be imprisoned, potentially impeached?
Democrat or Republican.
Yeah, I think, look, I'm obviously- Just yes or no?
I'm all for maximal transparency that doesn't compromise national security.
No, obviously, you can't just release it.
No, so I'm all for a lot of transparency, especially on that issue.
We always say national security, though, right?
Like, every time it's like, let's get transparency, then it's like national security.
And so you know that that's always the card.
Every single time the military industrial, every time.
National security.
It's a great point.
I'm all for releasing the, especially because it's an issue of public interest.
We have already released like a ton of the Epstein files, but I'm all for getting more so long as it doesn't incriminate innocent people, which can be unfortunate.
Like there were accusations that were made by some of the supposed Epstein victims that were later retracted by those supposed victims.
So you can't have the greatest.
It's an enticing topic to go over victim claims, though.
That's dangerous.
No, but in the case of Virginia Jufrey, she personally retracted some of her claims against people.
So in that case, you wouldn't want people to be defamed when even the accuser is retracting.
They're getting killed and death threats are going out.
That makes sense.
But multiple victims have accused Trump.
I just think they campaigned on it like it wasn't a problem for him.
I say they invited that attention.
The Trump thing's ridiculous.
If Trump were seriously implicated in the Epstein files, I promise you, the party that was in power that tried to prosecute him four times, that tried to kick him off the ballot, that waited his role, and that justified killing him, would have released the information, I promise you.
You don't think he knew what was going on?
You knew what?
They justified killing.
Do you think what came out today?
Have you read what came out today?
I haven't read all of the dossier things.
I feel like just as a political analyst, it looks bad to be hiding it now.
I'm not saying he's guilty of anything.
I'm just saying it's a party foul.
But you want politically to have this thing I'm not giving you all the information about.
It looks bad.
The whole admin campaigned on releasing all the files.
And they did release a ton of files.
And we have it, as we mentioned, some are released today.
So obviously they did do that.
I guess my point.
How much did they do what?
Released a ton of files.
Okay, that's the best.
Pamboni handed out the film.
Literally, the slogan is release all the files.
And he has not released some emails today.
Right, but I guess the emails, by the way, said that Trump knew about the girl.
I guess then my question, though, is if you were to release accusations that are unsubstantiated that haven't been followed up with prosecutions, some of which have been retracted, certainly that would be massive prosecutorial misconduct.
No party would do that.
Yeah, I agree with that generally, but I think if you're the president, if you're the leader of the free world and you've made a thing about it, and then you defame innocent people?
I don't know.
That's fine.
I feel like there's more transparency being given.
Stacey Williams said that Trump and Epstein gropped her while smiling at each other like a twisted game.
Okay, all right.
This man over here with the bell.
Okay.
Shut up.
Time to go.
Now, do we do a, I don't even, do we do who won that round?
I don't even know.
Was that a round?
Does that count?
I don't know if that counts.
All right.
Where are we?
But he's voting for me anyway.
Thank you.
This guy right here is having a great time.
I appreciate that.
And so's the guy behind him.
Now, folks, in my opinion, nobody wins a bar fight.
There are only losers.
So we're not going to vote for the winner, okay?
We're going to vote for who lost.
Wow.
It's an audience vote.
I want to go home.
It's an audience vote.
Not before the vote.
First up, who here thinks that Brian lost?
What's the inverse of a sympathy vote?
An antipathy vote.
Who here thinks that Ryan lost?
I don't think.
Do you think he lost more than Brian?
Maybe.
Who are you, my friend?
Who here thinks that I lost?
My mother.
It was kind of even.
I don't know, dude.
I don't know.
Who do we think it was?
Should we try it again?
Who here thinks that our hippie friend won?
Yeah, nobody knows what happened, but you talked.
All right, thank you so much for being here.
It's absolutely wonderful.
And I say that our hippie friend buys the next round.
