All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 20, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:05:12
3461 Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton | Third Presidential Debate Analysis

On October 19th, 2016, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton participated in the third Presidential debate between the Republican and Democratic candidates - moderated by Chris Wallace.Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.
We have survived round three.
The very third presidential debate, I guess, of the next four years has come to a close this night of the 19th of October 2016.
And we're staying up late to jaw you through it in only the way that Mike and I can.
Mike, thoughts, impressions, go.
Okay, well, the third debate, we can get into the overall impressions a little later on, but going into it, you pop on the stream, and all the pundits, I was watching the CNN stream, and all the pundits, of course, are framing it.
Donald Trump must win this debate.
He's on the rocks.
He's on the ropes in his campaign.
One wrong move in this debate could be the end of Donald Trump's candidacy.
This Donald Trump's candidacy is over thing.
You guys were kinder than my guys.
My guys were like, he is down 467,000 points.
No human being in the history of the universe has ever recovered from such a crushing behind.
And it's just like, man.
Okay, so basically, he's lost.
It's over.
But we're going to go through the rituals and the routines.
It's like, wow, do you have to frame it?
I mean, there's a couple of polls where he's actually up.
But no, you got to frame it like he's just falling apart here.
You know, like, we're just surgeons.
We know he's dead.
But we got to go through the routines before we call time of death.
It's like, yeah, that's great, guys.
Very objective of you.
Yeah, coincidentally in the polls that aren't massively oversampling women, oversampling Democrats or groups that are likely to vote for Hillary Clinton or Democrats just in mass on average, he seems to be doing very well.
And internally, everyone is extremely happy thinking it's going to go very well on Election Day.
But, you know, we got to prime the audience before the get-go saying that Donald Trump is doomed, but, you know, we got to go through this third debate anyway.
Earlier they were actually, earlier this week, saying, man, I don't, you know, Trump, I don't even know if he's going to show up for the debate.
I think he's looking for a way out.
It's like, I just pulled that out of my ass, but I'm going to say it anyway, and I get paid to do so.
How fantastic.
Trump, of course, known for being a quitter and never, ever coming back from being behind.
Never.
Never happened before.
Compared with Hillary Clinton, who, you know, vanished for the last seven days.
No one saw where she went, just kind of disappeared into the ether, and no one dared ask a question about that or maybe bring that up as a debate point.
Hey, she's vanished from the campaign trail.
That's pretty weird, given that this is the biggest election of our lifetime.
She's just gone.
Why?
No, don't need to ask that question.
That's not it.
She can rely on the media to try and win the election for her.
Why would she bother, you know?
I mean, if I'm ordering a pizza and it's going to be driven to me, I don't go pick it up.
You know, the media is going to drive the pizza.
This entire election is just a fascinating psychological experiment of trying to sell a product that nobody wants and the angles in which to do it.
Like, okay, no one wants Hillary Clinton.
Let's just hide Hillary Clinton completely and stay stronger together and talk about children, hope, and change in a bunch of fluffy language.
Yay!
Maybe then they'll vote.
But yeah, she's completely hidden and has been for certainly like the last week.
Cain did one event which drew like 50 people and was a complete embarrassment.
But as Trump continues to do, you know, 10,000, 15,000 people a couple times a day.
You know, she's gone into hiding.
And, you know, it's not like she emerged with a great vim and vigor for this debate.
It was just a normal basic performance.
She didn't melt down like the last debate where she looked like she wanted to nod off in the last 30 minutes.
But, yeah, it was just it was a debate.
It wasn't the knockout like it was Trump to Hillary in the last in the second debate.
The first one, you know, Trump didn't accept any of the goading.
And get into the weeds like he did in the first one.
It was just, you know, this is my talking points.
I've repeated them 40 times in front of a mirror.
Okay, Hillary Clinton, repeat how, you know, Judge Curiel and Donald Trump and Trump University repeat all the same talking points.
Mexican rapists for the win.
And making fun of disabled people for the win.
And release your income tax for the win.
I mean, we all heard it before.
The funny thing with Hillary, too, is like, it's one thing if you're like the tough person.
You know, like, nobody likes the drill sergeant, because, you know, like, even if you learn to embrace the suck, as they say, the drill sergeant who's like, no, you got to run up that mountain again with a 40-pound bag strapped to each arm and no shoes, and, you know, he's making you tough and you hate him, but you know he's doing good for you.
Hillary Clinton is like the Santa Claus candidate that nobody likes.
And it's really hard to not be liked when you're showing up with all these gifts and goodies and free vans.
And we're going to expand your benefits and you're going to be free college.
I mean, if you can't be likable, if people don't really get enthusiastic about you when you're showering them with free stuff...
Man, you know, that's like walking up to a hooker with $10,000 and she's like, no, no, no, sorry.
I got my standards.
It's like, but I got $10,000.
How unlike I am now minus $10,000 with a hooker in terms of likability.
Hillary Clinton isn't a drill sergeant.
She's more like a shrill sergeant.
Oh, I think we're going to rap now.
Word.
Word to your major.
The first thing in this that kind of jumped out to me was Hillary Clinton and her promises.
She made a promise that she won't allow anyone into the country that'll enact terrorism.
She also promised that she won't add a single penny to the national debt.
Now, these are promises that are impossible to keep.
No one can actually make this promise seriously.
How can you promise no one will ever enter the country that'll cause problems or terrorism or a crime or something like that?
You can't.
Can't.
You know, you're not going to completely cut off anyone from ever coming into the country, so you can't make that promise.
The idea that you won't add a penny to the national debt?
If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, the first 30 seconds after she's sworn in will be hundreds of thousands of dollars added to the national debt just because of the way the country is currently structured.
So those promises that, you know, are not even logically possible to keep even if everything worked out magically and she wanted to actually get it done.
So that was my first impression.
Like, ooh, fluffy language and false promises.
The delightful way to start off.
Well, yeah.
I mean, there was a politician, I think her name was Sheila Copps up here in Canada, who said she was going to oppose this goods and services tax.
And she said, you know, if it goes through, I'm quitting.
And she did actually quit.
Now, she did turn around and run right again to get back in, but she did actually look to a consequence.
What are the consequences if she fails to fulfill any of these promises?
What are the consequences for Obama if it turns out that you really can't keep your doctor, you really can't keep your plan, and you really can't keep costs even down to where they were before, let alone dropping them by a quarter or a third or whatever the hell he was talking about?
So what are the consequences if these promises don't get fulfilled?
And what does it mean?
Let's look at her past history of promises or good decisions, right?
She voted for the Iraq War.
Afterwards, she said, oh, that's a mistake.
But I take full responsibility.
She helped to invade and destroy Libya, if not vast sections of the Middle East.
And afterwards, she said, oh, yeah, see, that was a mistake.
I take full responsibility.
She decided to set up her own private server.
Afterwards, she said, oh, well, after a while, she said, oh, that's a mistake.
I take full responsibility.
I mean, just saying that is not magic words that fix anything, and what are the consequences?
If I don't pay my taxes, can I say, oh, that was a mistake, I just take full responsibility, and they're just like, okay, off you go, because you've said the magic words.
You know, you brought up Obama's.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Obamacare line.
She started talking about the Second Amendment.
I immediately thought, like, well, if you like your Second Amendment, you can keep your Second Amendment.
Yeah, I don't think that's going to work out when she appoints extremist Supreme Court justices that are just going to interpret the Constitution to mean what they think it should mean because it's a living, breathing document, don't you know?
Yeah, I don't think it is.
See, living is something that breathes, and something that, you know, a book is not a living document, a book is not alive.
Babies are alive, but we'll get to that later.
See, you've got to treat the document, you've got to treat the Constitution as a living document, but a fetus or near-term baby as a piece of medical waste or a virus, but that's, you know, we'll get to that.
What, the thing that sort of everyone was talking about afterwards was this, you know, the usual gotcha question.
Are you, Donald J. Trump, going to accept the results of the election?
I don't know.
Oh, we're going there.
Yeah, let's start with the beginning.
It's a big hit.
Because, I mean, everybody's talking about that, and that's, like, the big thing.
And, you know, maybe it's because I'm sane.
I don't understand the gotcha.
I mean, do they think he's going to lead some sort of coup?
Like, is he going to just bring all the centipedes along with their...
Bayonets and muskets.
You can say, I don't like the result of the election.
You can even say, I reject it.
That doesn't mean that there won't be a peaceful transition of power.
I mean, Gore in 2000 didn't accept the results of the election.
He sued.
He held things up.
He took things to court.
It was over a month.
Yeah, he went on and on fighting it.
I mean, was he illegitimized and it is no longer welcome in Democrat circles or anything like that?
Not to mention that he was accused of sexual abuse by a bunch of masseurs, but apparently that was rejected as well.
You know, those are just stories.
Those don't count.
He's on the left.
So what does it mean when they say, well, will you accept the result of the election?
And I loved his answer.
Of course you can't say yes.
Because, I mean, there's a Podesta email which we talked about, May of 2015.
They believe that Obama, the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters.
That is a direct quote.
You've got O'Keefe with his Project Veritas videos showing high-level Democrats conspiring to commit rampant, Countrywide election fraud.
And so, of course, you can't say, I'll accept the election until you find out, you know, whether, say, they can knock the four million dead people off the rolls to begin with.
And I'm pretty sure the dead people are going to vote Democrat because zombies love their brains and don't have any of their own.
So, of course, you can't say, I'm going to accept it until you find out what the circumstances are of the election.
Well, I think this would have been a lot easier to make this case if it wasn't for the last week and the work of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas.
I mean, you have Bob Kramer, who has since been fired slash stepped down, you know, that weird thing that tends to happen when this stuff comes out.
He met Obama in the White House.
He made many White House trips.
This is not like a fringe guy.
Hundreds of them.
Over 300 of them.
This is not some fringe guy.
This is someone that has a direct pipeline and connection to the main Democratic leadership.
You have people on tape describing in intricate detail how you rig elections and how you get people that shouldn't be able to vote able to vote and how you can bus them to other states.
And there's lots of people.
This came out recently.
There's lots of people that are registered in multiple states, which is illegal.
You're only supposed to be registered and able to vote in one state.
So there's all this stuff coming out and all this evidence and the idea that the election is rigged or the system is rigged and they're ragging on Trump for saying that.
Well, someone put out a video clip where, you know, Bernie Sanders, the system is rigged.
This stuff is rigged.
We just came out of the DNC email scandal where it's pretty clear that it was rigged against Bernie Sanders when it came to the Democratic primary and he didn't stand a damn chance.
And we're not just talking about the superdelegates.
We're just talking about We're good to go.
When James O'Keefe released videos that definitively prove that this stuff is happening, and this is not fringe conspiracy at this point.
There's very easy ways for people that are in the country illegally to vote.
All they have to do is get an ID card more often than not, and there are certain states which hand out ID cards if you just say, I live here, and you have a pay stub or something.
You can get an ID card, and that will allow you to go in and vote, because if people show up to vote and they don't let them vote, they tend to get pretty upset.
And it's a lot easier to just let them pull the lever than create a big disturbance.
So the path of least resistance is typically how it goes.
So you can get lots of people that don't have a right to vote or want to vote multiple times.
That happens, can happen.
And the people that are going to vote multiple times are going to vote illegally.
Well, the people in the country illegally, more often than not, are going to be Hispanic people from Mexico, which we know from voting patterns that they're not exactly going to be voting for Donald Trump in mass numbers.
So...
Yeah, Donald Trump raising these concerns, it's completely legitimate, and I'll tell you, I love the fact that he didn't just roll over like every single other Republican cuck or political cuck.
Oh, yeah, I'll just accept the results of the election.
Yeah, no problem.
Well, they asked him about the 17 other Republican guys who were trying to get the nomination, and he's like, yeah, and then they shafted him.
Oh, yeah, you signed the pledge.
How come you haven't signed the pledge yet?
And then, you know...
endorse Trump and still don't support him.
You know, Cruz eventually did.
Rubio eventually did.
But there's still, you know, Jeb Bush is hanging out there pink and naked, not celebrating him with an exclamation point.
So yeah, it doesn't mean anything.
It was just another, I took it as the equivalent of Anderson Cooper asking, so can you promise that you've never, you know, sexually assaulted anyone the last debate?
It was going to be a gotcha because, you know, just looking at the numbers, the raw numbers, I think Trump in a fair election would blow this thing away.
I am concerned about the voter fraud.
And James O'Keefe's video certainly didn't diminish that concern.
Well, of course, the...
The moderator and the people I saw analyzing it afterwards were just shocked, horrified and appalled, Mike, at the very idea that there could be any kind of violence in the political process.
James O'Keefe has released a video where the Democrats are basically saying, oh yeah, No, we're sending people to Trump rallies, crazy people.
We pay them, people with mental illnesses.
We'll send them to Trump rallies.
Here's how we're going to set up the violence.
Here's how we're going to attack them and so on.
So with the Democrats openly fomenting violence in Trump rallies, attacking Trump supporters and so on, both the people at the top and also their supporters...
But he's the one who's got to put the rubber stamp of legitimacy on this election.
I don't know.
How about you don't send crazy people to Trump rallies to attack people?
Maybe they could focus on that rather than some theoretical thing where Trump might roll his eyes if Hillary Clinton gets in.
But no!
It's the mainstream media, so they can't even bring that up.
Oh, many of the mainstream news outlets aren't even reporting on the videos.
They aren't playing the videos.
They're not even reporting on WikiLeaks, of all things.
You know, they're still talking about last week's news with the people that came forward and were pretty immediately discredited regarding their accusation against Donald Trump.
And you can look at our presentations for more on that.
But yeah, the fact that we can just ignore all this Project Veritas stuff, what a joke.
I mean, this is probably the most serious thing to come out.
I think it's even bigger than WikiLeaks.
What James O'Keefe has uncovered in his videos.
And it goes right to the top.
There's evidence of that.
And the fact the media has, in unison, rallied against Donald Trump.
Oh, look at the violence that he's inspiring and creating.
His supporters are so violent.
Look at the culture of violence that he's creating.
He once said, you know, you can rough up, back in the old days, you could rough up protesters.
He said that once.
Let's replay that 40 times, and that is the cornerstone of Trump's campaign.
Here you have people saying, I pay homeless crazy folks to assault people or cause trouble at Trump rallies.
And they were behind Chicago, the biggest riot that happened, where police were injured and all that.
I mean, I'm hoping we're going to see some legal action against these people and these organizations in the near future that won't impact the election.
But the idea that Donald Trump is somehow the violent candidate that's inspiring violence when the Democratic side is literally paying people to cause violence.
I mean, this whole narrative of Trump leading to violence has been exposed as one giant joke.
Left is going to left.
And this is why Hillary Clinton has this like tape recorder in her head.
You know, she's well, I'm going to say that Donald Trump incites violence.
Like the fact that Donald Trump was pointing out that he thought that her campaign was behind the incitement of violence in Chicago at Trump rallies and other Trump rallies.
And she's like, well, you're in tight violence.
I mean, there's no input.
It's just these are the points I want to get across.
And this is she's got these talking points.
She's like an index card for those who are a little older.
Well, I've got to say this.
I've got to get this point out.
And it doesn't matter what's coming in.
There was very little sort of back and forth, like when Chris Wallace was trying to get an answer out of her about corruption at the Clinton Foundation, this sort of pay-for-play stuff that was showing up in the Podesta and WikiLeaks emails.
Can you answer about these accusations from within your own party about pay-for-play scandals at the Clinton Foundation?
And she's like, I'm very proud of the Clinton Foundation.
It's done wonderful work.
And she turns into this D-list, infomercial pitch man trying to sell the tuna turner at 2 o'clock in the morning to insomniacs.
And then he did actually interrupt her and try to get her to answer the question.
She just went on.
That's kind of hard for people to miss.
And I was watching some of the online responses that were happening in real time, and her credibility just plunged with that because that was such an obvious avoidance of a very legitimate question.
I'm even surprised it was asked.
But the fact that she just did full-on squid ink to the face and darted to the bottom of the coral reef, I think was pretty clear to everyone.
Well, anyone that wants to know about the Clinton Foundation needs to look into the work of Charles Otel.
He's been on the show before, and we'll probably have him on again before the election.
But he's dug deep into the underpinnings of the Clinton Foundation, and needless to say, it's not all rosy.
And in the internal stuff that was leaked in the Podesta emails, there's her own people saying, like, oh, man, you know, we did this audit, and it kind of looks like Chelsea is skimming off the top here.
Her own people are saying that her daughter is skimming off the top potentially and where'd this money go?
I don't know.
We should ask Chelsea.
I can't believe she'd do this.
This is all leaked.
Of course, I guess we can just wish that away by waving the magical wand of Putin.
Oh, that pivot.
That pivot.
Oh, it's beautiful.
Go ahead, Steph.
Go ahead.
Whatever comes up, I'm going to pivot to Clinton.
What was it that came up right before she pivoted to Clinton?
I know I tweeted about it, but my brain is aging.
What was it that she was right before when she did her first pivot to Clinton, to Putin?
Oh, God, I don't remember off the top of my head either.
Yeah.
But, you know, immediately, whenever WikiLeaks brought up, it was, you know, Putin, Russia, Putin, Russia, and I can't believe that Donald Trump would, you know, he's best friends with Vladimir Putin and trying to influence the election.
You know, the idea of a foreign government trying to influence the election with this dark, unaccountable money.
Whenever Hillary Clinton talks about dark, unaccountable money, I can't imagine it helps her.
I really...
That's one of those, even the Democrats are like, stop with the dark, unaccountable money.
But we know the Clinton Foundation took $25 million from Saudi Arabia that she herself has admitted that they were funding terrorism.
Bill Clinton got a million-dollar check on his birthday from Qatar, and then suddenly their weapon sales to Qatar went up over 1,000% immediately after that.
Million dollar birthday check to Bill Clinton.
So if we're going to talk about foreign governments using money or using power to influence elections or influence campaigns, you have to look directly at Hillary Clinton's campaign because there's zero evidence to this Russia thing regarding their involvement in WikiLeaks.
And WikiLeaks has published plenty of things that have not been so friendly to Russia over the years.
And the idea that this is guaranteed a hack, it's a Russia hack.
No, the DNC stuff was pretty clearly a leak.
And Julian Assange all but said Seth Rich, the DNC staffer, was responsible for that.
You know, he who was killed in a quote unquote mugging.
Funny how that works.
Where nothing was stolen.
Yeah, where nothing was stolen.
You know, at least he didn't have a mysterious weightlifting accident.
But so we don't even know that these are hacks.
They could just be inside leaks.
And if you read some of the leaks, you know, some of the staffers are not talking in overly positive terms about Hillary Clinton.
Maybe it's just...
And if it is a hack, how do we know that it's Russia or a foreign government?
I mean, we're talking about the people.
John Podesta, after WikiLeaks is leaking, it was like on day three or four that they had leaked his emails.
So it's like, okay, my system's been compromised.
People are leaking my emails online.
And he knows this.
He didn't change his passwords.
He didn't change his Apple password.
He didn't change his Twitter password.
People, he actually sent, in one of the emails that was released, he sent a text version of his passwords.
People were able to get into his Twitter account.
They were able to wipe his iPhone.
Who knows what else they got into that we don't know about.
But this is the level of technical sophistication that we're dealing with.
The guy who, your system's compromised in some way.
You don't even change your password, and people are getting into stuff way after the fact.
The idea that, you know, they didn't just put it on a thumb drive, right?
And leave it somewhere is not beyond them.
So whether this was a leak, general incompetence or whatever, despite Hillary Clinton saying that there's 17 organizations that say that this is connected to Russia.
Yes, yes, we understand that you're willing to agitate war with Russia and get Joe Biden to talk about cyber attacks, covert secret cyber attacks that I'm going to talk about live in person to the media.
I understand that they want to paint that Russia as some big bad boogeyman trying to influence the election, but the evidence isn't there.
And just because maybe you have a United States agency that's saying it, well, the FBI said that Hillary Clinton, there wasn't enough there to prosecute her, and we know how that works.
Well, I was reading as well how it is only the Democrats at the head of these intelligence agencies that seem to be saying it's all about the Russian-ness.
Funny how that works.
Yeah, funny how that works.
Okay, I remember now what it was.
It was the question about open borders.
Yes, which thank goodness that got brought up.
Kudos to Chris Wallace for bringing up that question, because that was probably the first time that many Democrats had heard that point.
Yeah, they're not following James O'Keefe.
They're not following WikiLeaks.
They're not following any of these people who are coming out with these revelations.
Well, the mainstream media is certainly not helping.
Mainstream media is not helping or anything like that.
And so, yeah, the fact that she says, well, I'm for border security and so on.
And then, you know, Wallace says, well, but in your speech to the bank in Brazil, you said that you were for open borders.
And she's like, no, no, that was just electricity.
Yeah.
It's just, you know, I'm willing to grant citizenship to a fellow named Jules or Watts or something like that.
Boy, that's a pretty obscure joke.
But anyway, yeah, so she's like, no, that's just for energy.
If you read further, that's just for energy.
It's like, I don't really think that's how it reads.
And then boom, but Putin, Putin bringing his evil mojo to our servers and so on.
It's like, I don't know.
Yeah, that terrible Putin who's concerned about Syria completely destabilizing and Russia becoming the next Europe version of the migrant crisis.
I mean, the fact that Vladimir Putin is very concerned about what's happening in the Middle East and is concerned about what's happening in Syria and is getting involved in Syria given that it's on his doorstep.
I mean, no one can rationally look at that and go, what a terrible human being.
I can't believe he's getting involved in that.
that.
Yeah, he's got some very rational concerns, and he's got to protect his country, which is something that Hillary Clinton doesn't seem too optimistic and excitable about doing when if and when she becomes president.
Oh, let us not even speak of such a such a thing.
And now she was also talking about how Trump choked in his meeting with the Mexican president.
Oh, God, would you like to expand a little bit?
I know you've done some some reading on that stuff.
Yeah, this is in the untruth about Donald Trump part three, if people want the in depth look at But the finance minister of Mexico, who actually was the person that was really encouraging this meeting, Luis Vildegre-Casto, he resigned following Trump's visit to Mexico because they were just getting destroyed in the Mexican media because Trump showed up, looked like a big deal, and the Mexican president looked like he wilted.
And then it became the big word game of did Donald Trump bring up paying for the border wall in the meeting?
And the leftist media says he didn't bring it up, so therefore he choked because that's all he's been talking about.
You know, you don't bring up the contentious point in the first meeting.
When you have no authority to negotiate because you're still a candidate.
Yeah, in the first meeting, you try and find common ground.
And ruler Giuliani came out and said later that it was actually agreed upon ahead of time that they weren't going to talk about the things that they clearly disagreed on.
Because again, as you just mentioned, it's not like Trump's in a position of authority yet to actually enact any of that, so why even go that direction?
But they were talking about things they could agree on regarding border security, and...
The meeting from an optic and just an overall press standpoint in the US was clearly a massive win for Trump.
In Mexico, people were criticizing the Mexican president pretty strongly.
But somehow it's he choked because he didn't bring up every semblance, every point from his immigration policy and plan on that one meeting, you know, with the Mexican president.
Somehow he choked.
It's like, oh, God, if we're going to apply those same standards to things that Hillary Clinton has been involved with, do we want to talk about the Russian reset?
Do we want to look at that and apply choke to it?
I think there's a lot more evidence that that was a choke or a fail than Trump going to Mexico.
Well, I associate for those who know she bought a button with the Russian word reset on it, too.
And actually, as I was informed, It wasn't even the right word.
They got the word wrong.
So, yeah, I mean, that's, you know, I wish he'd choked a lot more.
Hillary, who wanted a Russian reset, thinks it's bad that Donald Trump wants to get along with Russia.
If you can explain that to me, I'd appreciate it, but I don't think anyone can.
Can I just tell you about, like, I, of course, have a huge, massive and deep contempt for the mainstream media.
I'm actually really getting that about economists, too.
Do you mind if I just mention why?
Oh, God, please.
This whole idea like, well, I found an economist that said your plan will do X. Economists are going to tell us, you see, what the national debt is going to be 10 years out.
Now, I have just a question for economists.
You know, if you can figure out the price of Apple stock five minutes in the future, you can make a fortune in day trading.
If you can figure out the price of oil, say, tomorrow morning, you can short it, you can invest in it, you can make an absolute fortune.
But the idea that economists can tell you what the tax receipts are going to be, what the expenditures are going to be, what the demographics are going to be 10 years in the future...
I mean, that is the kind of answer that a doctor in a flashlight and some sort of tube up your ass is going to tell you where it came from.
That is so ridiculous.
Anyone who tells you with a straight face, they can tell you what the economic numbers are going to be in 10 years.
I mean, that's saner than predicting the weather 100 years out.
Well, there are basic principles that you can apply that are mathematically validated.
You know, if you cut taxes, research the Laffer curve.
There is a point where if you cut taxes to a certain point, it will stimulate economic growth and people will start businesses and all that.
So, I mean, there are certain principles of economics that are applicable here, but the idea that they're going to be able to predict a complex economy and how everything is going to work is a complete fallacy on both sides because, you know, even You know, the Republican candidates did this, too.
Like, look, this group says my plan will do this.
Well, you know, we have some ideas based on the principles, but we don't know for sure.
At least Trump isn't saying, you know, I guarantee for certain I will never add another dollar to the national budget.
He's saying, like, okay, well, we have problems with entitlements.
I'd like to not cut entitlements.
But the only way to do that is to have massive growth in the economy and we're going to have massive growth in the economy by potentially doing this.
And what he's saying would create massive growth in the economy very well could create massive growth in the economy based on the economic principles we know.
So that's plausible.
That's fine.
He's not making a promise that is impossible logically to be adhered to.
And Clinton, of course, rallied against a top-down approach when it comes to fixing the economy.
Which, obviously, every single government program by their very nature is a top-down approach.
Guess that escaped her.
And also there was the beautiful point where she talked about, you know, Donald Trump is going to enact the largest tax cut Americans have ever seen!
The horror!
Really?
Tell me more about that.
I'm kind of interested in that.
You and I are coming from the productive members of society standpoint, so it doesn't make much...
See, when people say, when Hillary says, I'm going to invest in you, people are like, first of all, productive people are like, please, please get away from me.
Please get away from me with your squid snake fingers and your weird red teeth and your granny panties.
Just back off and stay out of my wallet.
I'm going to invest in you and your family.
What that means is I'm going to take money from people who make money and I'm going to give it to you.
Whereas we're like, well, no, if you're going to invest in other people, you've got to get that money from me.
I'm going to pretend I'm not in Canada just for those who are confused.
But this is like the siren song, right?
It's the constant dog whistle they put out.
You know, you can't hear it, but the dogs can, right?
So when she says, oh, there's a huge tax cut, well, you see, if you're not paying taxes, that doesn't mean anything to you.
And if you're a net beneficiary, Of government largesse, when she says there's a big tax cut coming, what she's really saying is, he's going to take away money that I will give to you and leave it with the people who actually made it.
Again, you and I, it's hard to understand what the hell any of that means, but if you hear the dog whistle of people dependent on government redistribution, I think it's pretty clear.
Yeah, you know, when she talks about standing up for families against powerful interests, I doubt that unless those families are specifically donating to the Clinton Foundation.
Unless she's talking about George Soros' family.
That I believe.
I think they'll be okay either way.
And she says this too, like when she starts talking about her personal stories.
You know, for people actually involved in trying to save Western civilization, the people who you met yesterday who had a sad story to tell, I'm sorry, that's not an argument.
It's not a principle, right?
So Hillary's like, she's always like, well, you know, just yesterday I met a woman and she's scared.
She's scared that her parents are going to be deported.
Now, of course, this is, I think...
It was Carla, Steph, a young girl named Carla.
Carla, okay.
And, of course, for you and I, that's like...
Okay, so her parents have broken the law.
They're illegally, have probably taken vastly more out of the tax system, i.e.
our wallets, than they've contributed.
So, yeah, I mean, that's the law.
And it's like, but I met a woman, Mike, and she's scared.
And therefore, all principles, all reality, all rule of law, all principles of self-interested economic evaluation, none of that matters.
Because, you see, she met a woman...
Who's scared?
And that is a call, of course, to women and feels, and, of course, to the white knights, right?
Because as soon as there's—this is when you see this all the time in the media, and when you see it, it's impossible to unsee, you know?
I'm deeply disturbed.
I'm shaken.
I'm upset.
I was crying.
I couldn't breathe.
Like, all of these female panic attacks is just designed to pull the white knight out of guys, almost against their will, you know?
Guys, sorry.
Sperm are common, eggs are rare, egg is in trouble, abandon self-interest, circle the eggs at all costs.
And this, you know, and also when she talks about, well, you know, Donald Trump, he said he would never assault those women because of their appearance or whatever, right?
And it's like, that again is, you know, women who are insecure about their appearance.
It's like, oh, that's just terrible.
You know, all these dog whistles that are going out that, you know, are hard to see, um, When you're not red-pilled, right?
But when you do see this kind of stuff, this manipulation, this like, why is she talking about some woman she met?
What's that got to do with the rule of law?
Oh, right.
You want a scared woman who's concerned about her parents and therefore that's white knighting and it appeals to the feels.
It's not an argument, but unfortunately it's chillingly effective.
Well, of course, Hillary supports a pathway to citizenship, which is a nice way of just saying amnesty.
You know, it benefits the Democrats politically, and that's what they've been angling for.
That's what all the donors want.
You know, they came out in the Podesta emails, you know, we want to keep George Soros happy.
If it keeps George Soros happy, we'll do it.
Well, George Soros actually founded the Open Border Society.
So we know what he wants.
It's Hillary's dream, you know, maybe not just for electricity.
But, yeah, this idea, you know, there's a young girl, Carla, whose parents are illegal immigrants, and she's very worried.
I mean, how would we look at this if, like, oh, I met this young girl, Carla, her parents just robbed a bank, and she's concerned that they'll go to jail.
It's like, well, if your parents break the law, then, you know, the consequences of breaking that law are going to accrue to them, unless you're Hillary Clinton.
You know, I... Chelsea probably wasn't too scared.
I just met a high-level...
I just met a high-level Democrat operative who was really advocating for voter fraud, and he's really worried that he might go to jail.
It's like, well, maybe don't advocate voter fraud.
That's just one thought.
Yeah, go ahead.
The appropriate thing to do would be, wow, how irresponsible of those parents to put their child in that situation.
where they're operating in the shadows, which is the favorite Democrat talking point.
And, okay, now the law may be enforced, and, you know, we may have a deportation force.
Oh, wait, we already have one.
It's called ICE.
And, yeah, parents are here illegally, and they may have to go back to Mexico.
Okay.
Like, the fault of that is the people that came here illegally and broke the law, not the fact that we have these laws, you know?
Without question, Carla, you know, she's an anchor baby by Hillary Clinton's admission here, guaranteed she signed up for many, many, many government services because she's a citizen, you know, taking the birthright citizenship at face value, which it's questionable, but we'll say now she's a citizen, so therefore she's eligible for all kinds of benefits, and that doesn't even show up.
On the radar when it comes to illegal immigrants and welfare usage and that type of stuff, which there's lots of great information from the Center for Immigration Studies on that.
So, yeah, she's here illegally, and she's probably getting lots and lots of benefits.
Her parents are getting lots and lots of benefits for the household based on her, but they're concerned that that gravy train might get cut off.
I'm sorry, my sympathy is running pretty dry.
Well, what if Hillary Clinton wants to enact all of these tax increases, right?
Now, what if vast sections of the population just say, nope, not paying it?
Would she go, well, you know, I met this woman and she was really scared about these tax increases and she really didn't want to pay them because it was taking food out of the mouth.
So we're just going to, let's just roll back all the tax increases.
We're going to give amnesty for everyone who hasn't paid these tax increases because there was a crying woman who was holding a puppy in one arm and a baby in the other and I just, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Because when it comes to tax increases, oh yeah, they've got to enforce those at the point of a gun.
But when it comes to amnesty for people who are going to vote Democrat, suddenly they get all dewy-eyed and are really concerned about people's liberties.
Well, you know, she keeps bringing up all this concern about families and children and stuff.
And it's like, well, you brought up a great point, Steph.
But what about these families being torn apart by her Middle East foreign policy?
What about the decision to go into Libya?
How many families were torn apart and how many children were killed?
You know, the famous photos of the children affected by the migrant crisis.
I mean, Hillary Clinton should look at those every day and should feel sad because she's directly responsible for a lot of that policy, which led to those children suffering those fates.
So the idea that she's all for children and all for families and all, it's all just a bunch of horseshit, as you said, dedicated to make you feel sentimental and tap into the field.
And as far as this peaceful transfer of power goes, just jumping back to that question about whether Donald Trump would accept whatever that means.
You know, if you want to know America's real perspective on the peaceful transfer of democratic power, look at America's foreign policy.
You know, you could just slice it down to the last 50 years, and you can just Google this, you know, American foreign policy.
Government overthrows.
You know, the number of governments where democratically elected governments have been forcibly removed or overthrown by the CIA, by the alphabet soup of evil that often operates outside of America's borders.
They're not that interested in the peaceful transfer of power.
They'll talk a good game domestically, but overseas, they really don't have any problem doing infinitely worse than anything Donald Trump can contemplate by frowning at the picture of Hillary Clinton in the White House.
Boy, It is not a principle that is applied universally when it comes to the peaceful transfer of power.
What about drone strikes, too?
We talk about children.
What about these drone strikes that, no doubt, there's people that aren't specifically targeted that are, quote-unquote, in the way?
Oh, we're concerned about children now.
She talks about wanting to institute greater gun controls to protect children.
Of course, she used the inflated number figure for the number of gun deaths that include suicides, which you can set a watch to when it comes to Democrat talking points, like maybe if you take the people that killed themselves with guns out of it.
It's a little different from the people shooting themselves on the streets.
Oh wait, no, we don't want to talk about the gun deaths in places like Chicago, which are the record levels for the foreseeable past.
No, we don't want to talk about that either, because everything in the black community is going absolutely great.
But she wants to ban guns and put more gun laws to protect children, but then went right into people's constitutional right to have an abortion.
Abortion is a complicated subject, and I don't know how much we'll get into it in the context of this conversation.
But much like with any kind of prohibition, you're not going to get rid of it completely.
Just say that.
But the fact that protect children, protect children, protect children, partial birth abortion, thumbs up.
Okay, that doesn't seem entirely consistent to me.
Well, exactly.
And of course, what about the children who face danger or maybe even get killed or shot because their parents don't have the capacity to defend themselves because they can't get hold of a weapon?
I mean, if – yeah, there's lots of – I mean, you look at Europe, right?
I mean, when they banned guns in England, the number of break-ins went in through the roof because people didn't care if you were home or not because they knew you didn't have a gun.
So, you know, you can always pick up, well, look, here's a wounded child.
Are you going to disagree with that?
I mean, that is so – that's such a girly argument.
Like, I hate to put it that bluntly, but, you know, there's always the other hand.
Okay, well, if you're going to say, well, what about these poor children here?
Okay, well, what about the kids of the people who were murdered by illegal immigrants?
Tens of thousands have been killed.
What about all of that?
What about the people who are dying because the drugs are flooding across the border because there's no war?
You can always find some damn piece of human suffering that you could hold up like it's some clincher to an argument, but intelligent people have to look at principles and big picture stuff rather than, oh, here's somebody crying.
Therefore, no more Western civilization in terms of its principles.
And that's, I mean, that's just so predictable when it comes out of the Dems.
It's just all of this emotional manipulation.
One thing I wanted to mention before I forget, of course, Trump's, the accusers came up, you know, because, boy, they've never been any false allegations of sexual impropriety from women in the past.
Never happened.
Never happened.
But there was a lot to talk about that.
And then Wallace, literally, you have to slow it down.
It's like trying to hear the reverse hidden messages in a Beatles album.
You've got to slow it down because he did mention something about Bill Clinton, something about impropriety, but man, it was just in a blur of noise.
While I said it, it's like, okay, you did say it, but you said it into your sleeve.
While Freebird was playing a top volume, it doesn't really count.
Where was the focus on Bill Clinton's alleged rape and assaults and so on?
Because, boy, you know, some woman in a club saying something 20 years ago, but there's people interviewed by NBC, Juanita Broderick, weeping her eyes out, talking about all of this stuff.
Another woman just came forward talking about Clinton assaulting her a couple of decades ago, a couple of times.
So this stuff has been floating around for decades in terms of allegations, and of course he has settled a lawsuit with Paula Jones for sexual harassment, $850,000.
You don't do that usually.
But there is all of this stuff that's been swirling around.
as opposed to a couple of women where there's lots of evidence against them.
There's no particular proof.
They never went to the cops.
They say, well, I didn't want to talk about it.
Then why talk about it three weeks before an election?
But this Bill Clinton stuff just skated right past and did not return to it.
And that seems pretty relevant.
Well, and the only immediately plausible excuse that they could throw out is, well, the stuff with Bill Clinton is old news, whereas these are new accusations that are coming forward.
So we have to focus on them.
But that gets completely thrown out the window.
Like you mentioned, it was yesterday that another accuser came forward regarding Bill Clinton.
So if it's new accusations must be treated seriously, and that's the principle that they're working with, they need to talk about that and bring it up.
And nobody brought that up.
The mainstream media has steadily avoided talking about that.
So it's just, okay, I get this.
You don't like the Republican candidate.
You don't like Donald Trump.
You want to smear him with as many accusations as possible.
You really want to write headlines and say, Donald Trump, sexual assaults.
That's really what you want to do.
But it's interesting because a lot of the polling has shown, and I'm not talking about the manipulated, let's fluctuate the Democrat sample in the polling to get the results we want so we can say, look, Donald Trump is tanking.
Yes, you're plus 20 Democrats in your polling.
Yes, shockingly, they're not all voting for Donald Trump.
at a lot of the polls like the Rasmussen poll, like this has had pretty much no effect when it comes to, you know, this campaign is collapsing, you know, all the lead up that we had going into the debate from the pundits and stuff.
There's zero evidence that that's the case.
I think people see this for what it is.
They've seen mainstream media hoax after mainstream media hoax regarding rape cases for years now.
And the idea that these flimsy cases, which there's now witnesses coming out against and lots of evidence falling apart and people that are connected in certain ways to democratic institutions that make it pretty questionable.
There's so much that has come out just since then.
I think people see right through it for what it is.
It's just another media slander game, and I don't think it's going to work.
You know, they got to keep going back to it because, heaven forbid, we'll talk about WikiLeaks or something relevant.
Or, you know, James O'Keefe's videos, which I still think are the biggest story in the election over the course of the last, certainly the last couple of months.
And he's not done yet, as far as I understand it.
There's going to be more.
And her faith in the mainstream media is fantastic because she says, just go Google Donald Trump Iraq.
And it's like, well, of course you're going to get the mainstream leftist media mouthpiece about all of this stuff.
She just knows that.
And the fact that she said Google, she didn't say search for.
Huh.
Well, it came out in the Podesta emails that Google is coordinating with the Hillary Clinton campaign to some degree.
Now it's all kind of murky and there is no smoking gun, yada, yada, yada, but there wouldn't be.
There's also stuff in there where Podesta being approached about meeting with Mark Zuckerberg.
And remember, there was the big scandal about Facebook and Facebook.
Not exactly favoring conservatives or being fair to conservatives when it comes to the trending stories and how the write-ups were kind of biased against conservatives.
And there was a lot of smoke to that fire, and they ended up changing the way they were going to do it after threats of a lawsuit.
So the idea that Google and some of these large corporate companies, which have been coordinating with the Clinton campaign, I mean, John Podesta's pretty high up there.
You don't get higher up than John Podesta when it comes to Hillary Clinton, practically.
So The idea that, yeah, they might skew the results a little bit, it's certainly not unforeseen.
It's not like she's saying, why don't you go get an unbiased view and go to the untruth about Donald Trump and hear that approach as to these allegations.
That wasn't suggested.
I didn't expect it to be.
There was not the kind of dramatic moment in this one as compared to the last one, you know, where he's like, because you'd be in jail, you know, that kind of stuff.
There was, I think, stuff where Trump...
Maybe got a little impulsive, you know, when she's saying, well, he's Putin's puppet.
You know, she was referring to Trump.
And Trump's like, you're the puppet!
And I thought that was a little bit like, okay, that was a little...
But, you know, I mean, it's easy to, you know, quarterback...
Compared to the first debate, the man was incredibly restrained.
Incredibly restrained.
I can't imagine.
I mean, I've never been in that position where I'm just sitting there and people are hurling accusations at me that are completely unfounded for 90 minutes.
I mean, I can't imagine sitting there and just being like, I'm just not going to say anything and let this go.
But again, he was incredibly restrained.
And yeah, he did.
I'm not a puppet.
He did jump out with that.
And he is going to take some flack, though.
So she was talking about...
She made a really snarky comment where she was saying, well, you know, the Social Security...
See, she can't use the word taxes...
You know, it's like she's out there ringing her bell.
It's just, you know, sitting out there with a bell saying, please give.
So she's saying social security donations, sorry, so social security contributions are going to increase unless Donald Trump can find some way to get out of paying them.
You know, okay, that's a little snarky thing.
And she said, such a nasty woman, something like kind of half under his breath.
And, of course, you know, that's going to be played.
Oh, he says he's got all this respect for women, but he says she's nasty.
It's like, I don't know, what if she's being nasty?
If a man was saying it, he's such a nasty guy, you know?
Well, again, the funny thing in trying to sell the product of Hillary Clinton, the product that nobody wants, even the people that are supporting her in polling say, like, yeah, we're concerned about her truth.
We're concerned about her honesty.
Yeah, she's kind of shrill.
Like there's all types of polls showing that even the people that support her have questions about her temperament, to put it nicely.
So I think they go, yeah, you know, even the car that we're buying, you know, it does have some problems very clearly.
Right.
So I don't think that's going to hurt him as much as possible.
But this tax stuff on the tax thing, you know, you made a very good point, stuff that, you know, Hillary Clinton at one point says, you know, Donald Trump hasn't released his tax return.
So how can we know if he's telling the truth about charity or this or that?
So how do we know he hasn't released his tax returns?
But yet she is 100% certain that he's never paid any federal income taxes.
Well, no, for the last 18 years or 20 years or whatever she said, yeah.
It's like, pick one.
You can't have both from a logical standpoint.
Either it's, we don't know what's in there because he hasn't released it, or, you know, we do know, and this is what it is.
You can't have both.
But I did think there was one kind of gotcha point in the debate that I haven't seen it picked up on too much just in my Twitter trolling before this conversation, but when Trump was very insistent about, okay, you're concerned about foreign governments influencing the election,
you're concerned about I don't know.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, no, and I think that that's the great thing because a lot of the, you know, there are, of course, people on the Dem side.
Those of us who are, have more interest in Donald Trump, we see all the mainstream media stuff.
At least Mike and I do for sure because, you know, it's part of the gig, right?
It's part of the job.
So we see all of this stuff, but I really genuinely believe that a lot of people on the left don't have any exposure to the information that's coming out that is skeptical of Hillary Clinton, to put it as nicely as possible.
And so the debate is one of the few times where the clouds can part and the moonlight can shine down and illuminate things that people didn't even know were there.
Lots of younger people didn't know anything about the Clinton scandal from the 90s.
They didn't know anything about her role in all of the things that I've complained about from the Clinton years.
They don't know anything about, you know, the fact that she was giggling to some reporter about her role in getting a child molester, a reduced sentence, and all of that.
They don't know any of these things.
And they don't know the kind of stuff that was coming up here about her ties, the Clinton Foundation problems, ties to Saudi Arabia, ties to Qatar and so on.
They don't know about her role as Secretary of State and what happened in Libya.
They don't know the fact that she and Barack Obama were partly responsible for getting the arms into Syria and into Libya that ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda and all these kinds of things.
They simply don't know because it's never really reported.
In the mainstream press.
And so in these debates, the light comes through and you can actually see something illuminated.
Now, of course, a lot of people will just wish it away or will it away.
But a few people will be like, well, that's a crazy claim.
Let me check it out.
Don't necessarily use Google.
That's up to you.
But it's a crazy claim.
Let me check it out.
And through that rabbit hole, they might come to some kind of more balanced illumination.
Well, I think Trump did a good job of bringing up the O'Keefe videos.
I would have liked to have seen them bring them up more because anyone that watches that, they're going to be very concerned and have questions about Hillary Clinton.
But I do think there's a difference between the people that are just watching the mainstream on the Democrat side, the mainstream media reading mainstream newspapers, and I think those are mostly the older people.
The younger Democrats were overwhelmingly enthusiastically around Bernie Sanders.
And I think the Bernie Sanders supporters, the former Bernie Sanders supporters, are very up on a lot of the Clinton scandals, which is why she's had a very difficult time capturing much of that base, and Donald Trump's seen a lot of support from former Bernie Sanders supporters, who, you know, talk about trade and all that stuff.
I mean, Bernie Sanders and Trump on trade are very similar.
So...
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff floating around there, but Hillary Clinton, again, is the product nobody wants.
The people that are not going online, not looking at anything other than CNN, I don't think they're going to follow up and look into this stuff anyway.
Well, I mean, the average age of CNN viewers, I think, is in their late 50s.
I think in Fox News it's early 60s.
So unless the Internet learns how to speak up a little, I should say.
But yeah, they probably aren't going to be looking much outside the plantation as far as that goes.
Well, it is interesting, too, that on mainstream media news-wise, the top-rated show is Sean Hannity's show, who has, maybe because he's had a long-standing friendship with Trump going back decades, but he is the one that has treated Trump the most fairly and reported on a lot of the important stuff.
He's one of the first people that was talking about the O'Keefe videos on mainstream media television.
His ratings are through the roof, and he's leading in just about every demo.
Whereas the people from CNN and the other groups that aren't talking about this stuff, their ratings continue to plummet.
It's just an interesting point for the people that are still watching that information.
They're still gravitating towards the person that's actually giving them some news.
Well, I mean, not to mention our channel, which is, you know, kind of...
Oh, you look at the Breitbart numbers, you look at our numbers, you look at all the people that are doing legitimate journalism, and their numbers are through the roof.
And I don't think that's unrelated to the abysmal coverage that the mainstream media has provided.
And people won't forget...
They won't forget.
You know, when you're in the trenches, you know who's running the other way and who's gearing up the ammo for you.
I mean, the people won't forget.
No matter what happens in November, this is the kind of—the positions people take at the moment will define how they are viewed, like, for the next 20 years.
I gotta say, too, Steph, I'm surprised.
Like the idea that James O'Keefe could release these videos and then they not be covered.
Like that's that's a level of like, I'm just not going to report on this news.
That is unbelievable to me.
And I mean, we were talking about all the time about how they're completely torturing their credibility, the mainstream media.
This is a level of torturing their credibility that I didn't even expect it was going to go to.
I mean, now there is there's no question whatsoever that the media is completely and totally in the tank.
We got all these Podesta emails showing, you know, dinners and stuff that Hillary's people were throwing with a bunch of media personalities that would then offer favorable coverage.
It's funny how that works out.
I mean, there's all this stuff showing media collusion, but you just know from the coverage and you can see it.
And it's gone past anything that I thought was plausible because, you know, you got to keep up the appearance at least.
Just do something short on it so you can say that we covered it and move on, much like Chris Wallace did with and the claims against Bill.
But, you know, they're not even covering it for the most part.
They're torturing their credibility in a way that I didn't think was possible.
And, yeah, I don't think people are going to forget, that's for sure.
Well, as I've, you know, it's going to get worse.
I mean, as they get closer, particularly if Trump's numbers pick up.
I mean, we haven't seen the last of the attacks.
We haven't seen the last of the stories.
We haven't seen the last of the accusations.
We haven't seen the last of the cover-ups and the avoidances.
WikiLeaks stuff.
It's going to get worse, folks.
It's going to get worse.
I mean, before the election, it's going to get worse.
There's going to be so much muck thrown from the Democratic mainstream media Clinton side without question.
God knows what they'll dig up.
But there's going to be tons of stuff thrown that's without question.
Yeah, the left never sleeps.
The left never compromises.
The left never retreats.
I mean, at least not willingly.
They are going to go full tilt boogie into this.
And of course, you know, they've had the upper hand for at least half a century, if not longer.
And that's kind of ingrained in them.
They don't, I think the elder people in the organizations, they don't really understand the power of the mainstream, of the alternative media or whatever, of the Internet, of shows like this, of Twitter and so on.
They're just so used to having final say over what the public digests that the idea that there is a buffet now rather than, you know, it's in prison.
I don't have to be a good cook.
You eat what I put in front of you.
It's like, no, no, now there's a buffet.
And if you're giving me some Michelle-O lunch mess of mystery meat, I'm going to go elsewhere.
And so let's sort of close up by saying...
Well, let me just say stuff, which is why it's so damn concerning that there was the ICANN transfer, which is ultimately going to wind up in the hands of the United Nations.
And Hillary Clinton has outright said she's mentioned Breitbart and Infowars by names as far as places that she wants to essentially shut down.
That's pretty concerning language.
If you're on the fence in this election or you're a non-voter that doesn't want to get sucked into it, that comment and that situation alone should make you go cast a vote for Donald Trump.
Because I'll tell you, as someone that's kind of involved in alternative media, it's terrifying to think of what will happen if Hillary Clinton gets in office.
And if you like this show, I really implore you to go vote for Donald Trump, because at least under a Trump administration, we'll be able to continue to do this show.
That I'm aware of.
Under Hillary Clinton, I'm not so sure.
Yeah, there's certainly no guarantees.
I mean, certainly under Trump, we're good to go.
Under a Hillary administration, sooner or later.
I mean, they are completely aware of the vulnerability that they have regarding the mainstream media.
They're not dumb people.
And they know just how much we're undermining their narrative.
And, you know, we won't forget, and neither will they.
And that's sort of important now.
You're in for a penny, in for a pound, as my mom used to say.
I do have a couple points real quick before we wrap up stuff.
Hillary Clinton's continued assault on Donald Trump for using illegal Chinese steel.
Does anyone care?
First off, it's illegal steel.
Then why isn't he being charged?
Why aren't these other businesses and companies that are using it being charged?
It's just this weird...
Illegal Chinese steel!
I can't imagine why anyone would care.
But she had to bring that up again, even making sure that the Trump Tower in Las Vegas was made out of the illegal Chinese steel.
It's very important to her.
So it's bad for him to buy steel from China as a legitimate businessman legally, but it's totally fine for her to take lots of money from Saudi Arabia because facts, reasons, don't know.
She also brought up stuff that Donald Trump's been criticizing the government for decades.
Yes, and that's why he won the nomination, and that's why people love him.
Oh, I didn't know that.
He was criticizing the government for decades.
Well, that's a deal-breaker.
I can't possibly support Donald Trump, given that he's criticized the government for decades.
Yes, that's one of the reasons people love him.
He's been talking about these trade deals for forever.
He's been writing about it in the New York Times, buying a page of the New York Times so he can run an ad talking about how bad trade deals are going back decades.
Yes, he's been very consistent on that position.
It's not a negative.
She also constantly brung up Celebrity Apprentice.
She brought it up twice in this thing.
Like, well, you know, I'm experienced.
Look what I'm doing.
While I was destabilizing the Middle East and creating the European migrant crisis, Donald Trump was on television.
It's not a favorable comparison, don't worry.
It's really not a favorable comparison.
Well, Donald Trump, maybe on the Howard Stern show, said, ah, gee, maybe, regarding the Iraq war.
I voted for it and led to the policy, which completely obliterated the Middle East.
Okay, yeah, okay, keep talking about that.
That's fine.
All he was doing was provide huge amounts of entertainment and opportunities for Americans.
I mean, God, the way that Hillary Clinton talks about, you know, I was there when, you know, we got bin Laden.
I mean, she makes it sound like she went there personally and tackled him to the ground herself, you know?
It's like, good God, woman.
Well, and given, as Trump points out, that ISIS is now in dozens of countries, and we've talked about this before, that the numbers of deaths due to terrorism has vastly increased since the beginning of the war on terror.
I mean, I hate to say it doesn't matter.
It's meaningless that they got bin Laden, but it has not solved the problem.
You know, it's like saying, well, I stomped on this ember, and now half your house is on fire.
But remember how I stomped on that ember and put that little bit of fire out?
It's like, actually, you just kind of scattered it.
So maybe we can take a new approach.
Yeah, and the other point that I want to bring up is she was very pro-instituting a no-fly zone in Syria in this debate, which she brought it up as, you know, we have to do it because of, you know, the families that are being destroyed in Syria, and, you know, we don't want this to spread further.
One of the things that came out in her speech flags in the WikiLeaks drop was how she said that instituting a Syrian no-fly zone would kill an endless amount of people.
So, you know, here she is saying that we need to institute the no-fly zone to save people, where she's off the record— This might be her private versus public position.
But she said, so we're not as good as we used to be, but we still, we can deliver.
And we should have, in my view, been trying to do that so we would have better insight.
But the idea that we would have a no-fly zone, Syria, of course, did have, when it started the fourth biggest army in the world, it had a very sophisticated air defense system.
So you're getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports.
To have a no-fly zone, you have to take out all the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas.
So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles, we're not putting our pilots at risk.
You're going to kill a lot of Syrians.
So all of a sudden, this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.
She said that in 2013 to Goldman Sachs, which she got paid a quarter of a million dollars to give.
So she's saying we need institute policy which is going to decimate civilians In Syria, because we need to save civilians in Syria.
Does that make no sense?
No, it doesn't make any sense.
But that policy is going to further agitate and lead to what can very easily be called World War III with Russia.
And I'll tell you folks, I don't want to get drafted.
I don't want to go to war with Russia.
I don't have any problems with Russia.
This isn't the 1970s.
So, this is one of the most scary things about Hillary Clinton and her candidacy.
This continued saber rattling in regards to war with Russia and cyber attacks against Russia.
I really implore everyone to go watch The Truth About World War III. It's a presentation that Steph just put out recently on the channel.
I think it's one of the best things that we've done all year.
And it may be even bigger than immigration.
An issue that people need to pay attention to in this race because you even have Jill Stein, who, needless to say, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, has no love loss when it comes to Donald Trump.
Even she says Hillary Clinton is going to lead to war with Russia.
Donald Trump is a peace candidate compared to her.
So, you know, if you don't want World War III with Russia, and God knows what that will entail and what that will mean, you don't – you want to get out there and vote for Donald Trump because if Hillary gets into the White House, all bets are off and it's going to be a total shit show.
Well, the no-fly zone is a fantasy because the only way to enforce the no-fly zone is to shoot down airplanes.
Now, the rebels don't have any airplanes.
Who has airplanes there?
Russia, for the most part, a little bit with Assad's forces.
But you're going to have to shoot down Russian airplanes in order to enforce a no-fly zone.
And this is not the U.S.-U.K.-led coalition that was doing the no-fly zone with Saddam Hussein in the 90s.
This is a different matter.
Saddam Hussein, not a nuclear paratonin.
There really weren't any weapons of mass destruction and universally disliked and no allies in the region and so on.
But if you are going to start pointing missiles at Russian airplanes and shooting them down?
As Russia is trying to defend its own border?
Well, even if they're in, you know, they were invited in by Syria, right?
The Syrian government invited Russia in to help them.
They are allies.
So even if you only shoot down a Syrian plane or two, they're allies.
America wasn't invited in, but the Russians were.
And this is very serious stuff.
When she talks about a no-fly zone, there's no magic wand that keeps the planes.
It's not like spider silk that you can shoot down at the planes to keep them on the ground.
The planes are going to try and take off.
And what are you going to do about it?
Are you going to shoot them down?
That is an act of war.
And that kind of stuff escalates enormously quickly because then they come and try and take out your missiles, and then you've got to defend your missiles, and where does it go from there?
Well, it goes to very bad places.
After all this saber-rattling, if the United States shoots down a Russian plane, I mean, we're at war.
They can't look past that.
They can't.
And, I mean, where does it go from there?
I don't even want to think about going to war with a nuclear superpower.
Well, in the Cuban Missile Crisis, I mean, the ships were coming.
There was no direct conflict.
Nobody was shooting any of those planes down, and that was a terrifying enough moment.
So, yeah, I mean, Hillary Clinton is the war candidate, in my view, and Donald Trump is the peace candidate.
If you need any more arguments than that, You need to slap yourself with a wet fish and reorient yourself because to me that's all it comes down to.
And all the non-voting people too, you know, given the seriousness of this situation with Russia and possible war with Russia, I mean, the possible idea of nuclear war with Russia, the people that won't vote for Donald Trump because of, you know, I'm a non-voter, I mean, you remind me of the pandas that won't fuck to save your own species at this point.
So, do we have any thoughts about, it's not hard to say, sort of who won or who lost?
For people that are aware of the information that we've talked about in the context of this, I mean, Trump won just based on he was far more accurate and wasn't making promises that are impossible to be delivered.
I think if you're going into this and you don't really know much about politics and you're just listening for who got the best gotcha question or points, I thought it was fairly even.
And I think this was the best moderated debate.
I think Chris Wallace was as fair as we're going to get from a mainstream media perspective.
Moderator.
But, you know, it was interesting that the second George Soros' name got brought up.
Boy!
Boy, if you want a moderator to jump in immediately!
Now we see you Google Soros, I guess even if you Google him, you go to Soros, you get to open foundations, you get to Hillary Clinton, you get to open borders, you get to Hillary Clinton, and it's really not a big, long, complicated org chart to get from Soros to the Democrats.
And so, yeah, they don't want that name out there.
Because of course, remember, it's really, really bad when people who live abroad end up influencing American elections.
It's terrible.
So you don't want to be throwing those stones and then have people trying to find out more about George Soros.
That's not what you want.
So yeah, you can see this happening quite a bit.
And there was some interview I saw where the guy started talking about WikiLeaks.
His feed got cut right away on TV. I mean, yeah, this is true panic mode.
I mean, they'll pull plugs on stuff.
It's a beautiful thing because that means that they understand that their power is being threatened.
And when power is just, it's fine.
I have no problem with it whatsoever.
But when power is unjust, it needs to be confronted.
And speaking truth to power is the honorable requirement of every decent man and woman on the planet.
And I'm glad to be doing our part.
I'm certainly glad that we have the position that we do have with regards to all of this stuff, because this is a real crossing point.
This is a real turning point, the crossroads in the West.
And I think everyone's pretty clear where we stand.
And I take that with great pride and great honor.
And I hope that we can continue to drive good information to people over the next couple of weeks.
Can you believe, what is it, only 20 days now?
Yeah, right around 20 days.
Which, you know, it's interesting because I can't wait until this election is over, but at the same time I know I'm going to look back at this time as like, what a thrilling and exciting time to be doing the kind of work that we're doing.
So I don't want it to end on one hand, but I also can't wait for it to end because 1 o'clock in the morning now.
We've got to get a bit more sleep.
But, you know, there's plenty of time for sleep when the war is over.
So thanks again, everyone, so much for watching and for listening.
We look forward to your comments and your thoughts below.
Don't feel free to tie in anything that you want.
We'll have a look at what you've got to say.
Like, subscribe, and share this video as much as possible.
Please, please, all the videos that you find that we do that are helpful, you say, well, what can I do?
Just like, subscribe, and share.
Get the information out there.
We really appreciate that.
Please help out the show, of course, freedomainradio.com slash donate to help keep us in vittles and shelter.
Thanks, Mike, for a great conversation, everyone.
▲
Export Selection